Sabrina-Corgatelli_3395602b

Hunting in Africa is big business. The African countries depend on hunters, willing to pay extravagant tag fees to the government and spend many thousands of dollars in the local economy, to fund their conservation efforts that preserve and protect these beautiful animals from poachers and extinction. Earlier this week Delta, United, and American Airlines all announced that they will no longer allow the shipment of hunting trophies on their flights. While the reaction from Americans was one of support, the African governments who actually understand the situation are saying that this PR stunt might be single-handedly responsible for eliminating any remaining conservation efforts for these animals.

From the AP:

“The decision by Delta Air Lines to enforce a blanket ban fails to distinguish between the trade in and transportation of legally acquired wildlife specimens, and the illegal exploitation and trade in wildlife specimens,” the ministry said in a statement.

South Africa has been struggling to contain a record surge in rhino poaching, and poachers have slaughtered tens of thousands of elephants annually for their ivory around Africa in recent years.

Neighboring Namibia also warned that a ban by airlines on trophy transportation will hurt its economy and conservation efforts that rely on revenue from hunters.

“This will be the end of conservation in Namibia,” the Namibia Press Agency quoted Pohamba Shifeta, the environment and tourism minister, as saying.

In South Africa alone, the government is estimating that there will be a loss of $500 million from this decision which would have been used to fund conservation efforts and aided in preserving the various endangered animals. Namibia says that there are 80 wildlife conservatories in the country that depend entirely on the revenue generated from hunters to survive, and without that income they will be forced to close.

This is just one more example of a knee-jerk anti-hunting PR stunt that makes the anti-hunting crowd feel all warm and fuzzy, but actually means disaster for the animals they are ostensibly trying to protect.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

106 COMMENTS

  1. Couple of pesky questions:

    How do we know that the money spent by trophy hunters actually goes to conservation efforts in these countries, which are notorious for corruption and incoming revenue being diverted to offshore accounts by the rulers?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this boil down to poachers AND trophy hunters killing all these animals? Can we accept at face value what the countries’ spokespeople say concerning the revenues and what will happen if they stop?

    Lastly, a GIRAFFE? Seriously??? I can see man-eating tigers, water buffaloes, and those animals suffering from overpopulation, but giraffes and elephants?

      • Sounds like the young giraffe isn’t fit to mate with the ladies. Isn’t that how nature works?

        • Except in many cases, The old male is physically incapable of succesfully mating with the females (though still intimidating enough to scare away younger suitors), or even if so, has been entrenched as the alpha in that herd for so long that the genetic diversity of the herd is dangerously low. Thats what conservation is all about. If there were no humans, and these animals were in such abundant numbers with unfettered ability to mix and intermingle across their entire range, then this would not be an issue. But unless youre suggesting all of humanity pack up and leave africa, that is not the case. As such we sometimes need to step in for the health of the herd and the species as a whole.

    • #1 – Someone’s paying people to guard those sanctuaries armed with AK-47s. If it’s not the hunters, then who?

      #2 – The hunters only take what the governments say they can take, the poachers take whatever they can get away with. If the poachers are too successful than the legal hunters have to be restricted, and then the cash cow goes away.

      #3 – A giraffe has enough power in it’s hind legs to literally kick the head clean off a lion, and as you can see from the photo, she probably weighs less than just the giraffe’s neck. Also, giraffes are classified on the endangered scale as LC (least concern), so they probably do need their herds thinned out periodically.

    • If it’s a privately owned reserve, most of that money goes to the landowner, and that’s how he makes his living–by keeping the ranch in wildlife habitat instead of agriculture or other use. No hunting=no habitat.

    • I don’t know if it’s always the case, but when the guy who paid to hunt the endangered white Rhino (it was going to be culled anyway) the US Fish and Wildlife were involved specifically to ensure the $300k+ the guy spent was going where it was supposed to.

      Here is a good documentary on the subject of trophy hunting in Africa:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvWxyfipCOc

      • good documentary. when the animal breeder gets frustrated with the host and pulls him aside and says “stop asking the same question, without these people coming in and paying to hunt, all the game animals would be extinct, killed for food and all the trees chopped down for firewood.”

        I tend to agree. Like it or not, Africa’s most precious and renewable resource is its diverse game, and the best way to monetize it is trophy hunting. that money pays for all the conservation, local jobs and infrastructure. without it you would have dozens of species on the extinct list and populations starving in a desert wasteland.

        I did notice that some if the land owners/animal ranchers tended to insist on bow hunting only, as the gunshots stress the animals. smart thinking IMO, a good crossbow should be able to take a large majority of African game with a well placed bolt.

      • The $300K+ was for a black rhino not a white rhino. White rhinos are raised and privately owned in South Africa so it is possible to hunt them if you are willing to pay. That isn’t the case with black rhinos, a much more aggressive species.

    • I posit that it makes not one whit of difference.

      Assume that most of the money is indeed spent in that country, ie, not in the hunter’s home country to to the airline.

      In the “ideal” case, all that money goes to the conservation efforts.

      In the worst case, all that money goes to corrupt government officials, villagers, etc, and none goes to the conservation efforts.

      Incentives are vastly underrated and even ignored. Let me put it this way: how long do you think it would take for unfunded conservation efforts to cease in said worst case, and how quickly do you think all those corrupt officials would see the light and funnel enough of their bribes to the conservation efforts to maintain the revenue stream?

      • If the hunter can’t take his trophy home why would he pay the government to the animal.

        No money coming in means Africans see large animals as nuisances and poachers have free reign

      • I meant my comment in response to this question about corruption:

        “How do we know that the money spent by trophy hunters actually goes to conservation efforts in these countries, which are notorious for corruption and incoming revenue being diverted to offshore accounts by the rulers?”

      • In 1942, North African Tiger hunts were organized and executed. In 1944, Normandy Tiger hunts were organized and executed.

    • Forget the politics, without the hunters the game will simply be slaughtered. Oh, yeah. And, for reference, PITA and the ASPCA are pushing circuses to get rid of their elephants.
      There is no place for the elephants to go, so they’ll be killed. SeaWorld just suffered an 84% decline in revenue. When it closes there will be no place for the Orcas to go so they will also be killed. The militant vegans that run PITA and the ASPCA don’t much like farmers and ranchers, either.

    • Clearly, DavidX, you lack relevant facts and have just spouted the most ignorant claptrap I’ve seen on TTAG comments for a long time. Namibia, South Africa and Kenya (where the bulk of these hunts happen) are 3 of the most effectively run states in Africa. While there are still harrowing social problems and widespread corruption that does not mean that no important business of these states ever gets done, or done well. They have well developed bureaucracies which are each year improving dramatically in digesting the tasks of the state. Further, the hunter money is distributed largely locally to where the hunt is happening, and doesn’t make it to government coffers to be pissed away. Some small bits get handed out to grease local palms but that’s just how business is done in Africa and it’s really pretty trivial in the grand scheme. All this money being doled out locally helps build schools, roads, hospitals, telecommunications infrastructure and provides very well paying jobs for a good number of locals. The meat is given to the locals which helps treat the most serious problem in Africa, food insecurity. These things provided to the locals, they no longer have the need to poach and come to see the animals as a resource that needs to be conserved. That solves the native poaching problem very well. That’s where the conservation happens, locally. Large percentages of hunter money are of course kept by the guide and distributed from him to land owners, employees, vehicle maintenance and other services they consume large amounts of. The permit fees that go to government are trivial by comparison. These countries don’t care much about the money from hunting so much as the fact that hunting pays to conserve the visually amazing biosphere which is then oogled by 100’s of times the number of cash dripping tourists who want to take photos instead of trophies.

      About the giraffe, that’s a double standard and indicative of someone who has a tenuous grasp on logic and reason and I would suggest you fix the rectal cranial inversion so you can start thinking clearly. Life, all life, is prolific. It will always produce more offspring than the environment can support. That’s how you get the survival of the fittest as an axiom to work. There will always be more deer mice, giraffes, impala, dik-dik, muntjack, hartebeest and other pretty and harmless critters than the environment will support. The surplus will be taken by predators, human hunters, starvation and disease. Hunters are the least painful of those so people with their head up their butt like you should keep that in mind when you go off about a _insert_pretty_critter_here getting killed by a hunter for a trophy. Nothing was wasted except the schooling provided to davidx. That was very clearly a waste.

      • OK dude; all I did was ask the questions, clearly indicating my relative ignorance of the issues involved. You seem to have a grasp of it all but also saw fit to dump all over me for some reason. Have a nice day.

        • Uh, Kenya outlawed hunting decades ago and the animal population plummeted to almost nothing outside the parks.

    • You’re obviously not a hunter because you show absolutely no understanding of the issue and don’t even know the names of the animals. They are called cape buffalo no water buffalo and there are no tigers in Africa man eating or otherwise.

        • Well David, you didn’t phrase it as a question that was seeking information but rather as an accusation. If you really want to know there are plenty of sources. If you can’t understand why people want to hunt, no one can explain that to you since people either want to or they don’t. It is innate. I can’t understand why my GF likes to shop and never will. I just accept it.

          Since this thread is about Africa take a look at the conservation effort in Africa. One species in South Africa, the blesbok was down to around 2000 animals. They now number almost a quarter million. This was due to trophy hunting. Ranchers found that people were willing to pay good money to hunt these animals thus they protected them and transferred them to place where they had been extirpated and even to areas where they were not endemic.

          This process has been repeated with many animals all over South Africa. Now there is a thriving wildlife population albeit mostly fenced in and privately owned. As much as I don’t like that it is reality. I would rather have the animals running free but that is not the way it is. The land there is mostly settled. We should remember we no longer have huge herds of bison running free. How would the vegans get their soy beans and corn if the plains were full of buffalo?

          It is better that there are animals even though they are confined. Many of these ranches are very big, 30,000 acres or more so it is not shooting animals in a pen.

          Now contrast with Kenya where hunting was outlawed decades ago. The animals outside the parks have all but disappeared. Why? There is no economic value to them. The people see them as either a nuisance or food and sometimes money for poached ivory and such.

          The ARs would like to turn all of Africa into Kenya. They don’t care about wildlife as whole, only about the so called suffering of individual animals which they anthropomorphize. This is very evident in Cecil.

          I could go on but I am still not sure you really want to understand or whether your question was a legitimate question or just rhetorical.

          • Guys! Gun ownership is not exclusive to just hunting. Some of us just don’t like to kill defenseless animals but we still believe in the Second Admendment and enjoy target shooting. Move on.

  4. I was under the impression that all this poached ivory and exotic organs were being ground into viagra for asian businessmen. I haven’t heard of a wealthy American who paid extra for fresh ivory to make piano keys or old fashioned jewelry, and science has given them the best aphrodisiac possible soooo… we are not the problem, here.

  5. the African governments who actually understand the situation are saying that this PR stunt might be single-handedly responsible for eliminating any remaining conservation efforts for these animals.
    The same theory applies to groups such as Ducks Unlimited and other hunting conservation groups in the USA. Without hunting-conservation groups, many North American animals would either be extinct or endangered.

  6. It appears that these animals are doomed to extinction due to the bulk population of humans that mean well but will destroy them by doing the obvious “right” thing that is in actuality the the wrong thing.

  7. You must remember that the ‘Tree Huggers’ of the ’60s are in charge now. They lied themselves into power and will lie some more to blame the problems on the hunters, who like it or not, are the real Conservationists.

    Their ‘feel good’ agenda is what matters most. They think humans should be living in caves and dragging their women around by the hair…..ok…the first half is correct…

  8. Can’t a hunter just ship his trophies home via UPS or FedEx? It’ll cost a bit more, and be less convenient, but if you’re going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to kill it, a few hundred more to ship it isn’t going to be the deal-breaker, is it?

  12. Recently read an article in “The Smithsonian”, which leans fairly predictably left, quoting such sources as the head of The Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and other prominent conservation groups. Do not have the article in front of me, but they all stated words to the effect of, “We can’t imagine trying to conduct our mission without the cooperation and involvement of hunters.” And they were speaking domestically and internationally.

    Habitat for game animals is also land free from development, land for recreation, watersheds for cleaning our water, and land for preservation of native flora and fauna both.

    Was pleasantly surprised to find such an honest take on the role of hunters – 1. in that mag – 2. by those sources. The entire article was on the symbiosis between hunters and conservationists.

    Seems the ones who actually dirty their hands with the real world application of conservation know who their friends are.

    • Hunters and fishermen fund more conservation activities than all the greenies combined. Every gun, box of ammo, bow, arrow and fishing rod is subject to the Pittman-Robinson tax. Hunters need land and game to pursue their sport. Fisherman need water and fish. Self defense is not the only thing gun grabbers get wrong.

    • The Audubon Society says much the same thing, at least they used to. In their book on African animals they point out the disaster the Kenya ban on trophy hunting became. All the animals disappeared outside the parks because the people no longer saw value to them and no one protected them from poachers. They just became a nuisance or meat for the pot.

      Maybe that isn’t the way it should be but it is reality. It’s a shame too because Kenya was the best hunting Africa. This ban was the brain child of Richard Leakey who should be ashamed of himself but of course isn’t. ARs never will admit hunting is good for animals.

  13. When large African game become extinct on the veldt, the wild animal huggers can always look back wistfully and claim they did it for the children – er- cubs and calves.

    • What will actually happen is that they will say “it was the hunters who slaughtered all of the animals … that’s why they’re now extinct.” The “animal huggers” will have caused the problem, but we who hunt will get blamed.

      • Yep. To them, every gun owner is a criminal and every hunter is a poacher. And they’re doing their level best to make the world conform to their wrongheaded assumptions.

        • Not true. I am a gun owner and yet I don’t hunt or care to hunt. It’s just easier to go to the supermarket to get my meat. I don’t see the relationship with anti hunting means anti guns. It’s not all black and white, there are shades of grey. As a matter of fact I enjoy shooting just not at helpless and defenseless animals.

      • What will actually happen is that they will say “it was the hunters who slaughtered all of the animals … and the coal fired power plants along the Ohio River. It was White Privilege that killed all of those animals.”

  14. Everything a liberal/progressive does to protect life and encourage tolerance actually destroys life and creates intolerance.

    Liberal/progressives, destroying species, both animal and human. A cult of death, hatred, intolerance and the mass murder of unborn babies.

  15. No doubt that the airline statements are ridiculous, but if the local governments wanted to run damage control, they would be trying to set up shipping options through other channels, like climate controlled cargo containers on ships or something. Advertise that this service would be paid for by the government to make up for the inconvenience of waiting longer.

    • That’s a good point. If it really is a half-billion-dollar per year industry at risk, maybe South Africa could use a few million of that to set up some shipping contracts to ensure there’s a way to transport trophies out of the country. I find it difficult to believe that a handful of passenger airlines are the only possible way to transport taxidermied animals from Africa.

  16. This response fro. African countries is not surprising at all. If instead of a knee jerk reaction to the killing of s single lion, these airlines had taken the time to truly understand they would not have stopped transporting big game trophies. Trophy fees for big and dangerous game in Africa are in the thousands of dollars and are a vital element of their poor economies. These fees also support efforts to control poaching of African big game which takes a far greater toll than hunting.

  17. As readers here on TTAG are aware, knee-jerk reactions solve nothing and almost always add to or create more problems.

  18. I’m pro-rhino, elephant, buffalo, and dangerous game hunting. Trophy hunting, too. Not only are such activities refreshingly politically incorrect (I don’t mind giving ulcers to liberals), but those activities help fund responsible conservation efforts and local economies. There are bumps in the road, but I’m not turning my life upside down for Cecil the lion.

    And for that, ignorant people can hate me. I don’t live my life to please them. If I sell my condo for a decent price, I’m going on a buffalo hunt. In America. However, I’d love to accompany Tom in Oregon on a African Safari.

    • I’m going back next summer. I’d love to have you along.
      We’ll do a week in the Limpopo area and a week in Mozambique.
      I can promise you a fantastic trip. And you will see every animal South Africa has. Except maybe leopard…

  19. Sorry I don’t buy it. No one knows for sure where this money is going. And I find it absolutely disgusting that someone would pay that kind of money to kill these beautiful animals. There is plenty of big game hunting right here in North America where you can still enjoy the meat you kill, but African game, give me a break. A better use of that wasted money is donate it for a cause and get a right off. Or better hire mercenaries who hunt poachers and hunters, video the adventure post it on YouTube and watch the hits.

    • Who’s going to pay the mercenaries that hunt the poachers? Who’s going to make a donation for a “right off” (I think you meant “write off” — damn that autocorrect). Who do you think pays all the bills for conservation in the US? Learn about the Pittman–Robertson Act. Hunters pay all the bills here, and $500 million to Africa.

      What do you do?

      • Nature has its own check and balance to take care of itself and it has been doing it a lot longer than man. As a matter of fact some animals don’t even have predators to worry about except man the trophy hunter with high powered rifle and scope, what a coward way to take an animal down and claim you are making a difference for the good. That’s just complete denial.

    • So how much are you going to donate to save African wildlife? How much of the 500 million bucks quoted in the article can you cover?

      Or is it your wish to see most African big game extinct?

      • Hunting is for eating not gaming or both. If you are going to spend that kind of money just for a trophy and believe you are going to make a difference in preservation you are a complete idiot. I just hope to see more Darwin Awards with poetic justice in that field of what you call wildlife preservation. Lol

        • Those hunters are doing far more for wildlife conservation than you ever will, and that’s just a fact, even if you find it distasteful.

        • “I just hope to see more Darwin Awards with poetic justice in that field of what you call wildlife preservation. Lol”

          Are you hoping we get killed, or did I misunderstand you?

        • Yes, Juliesa. Phil is one of those deranged individuals that believes hunters should die instead of the animal.

          The internet brings out the sickos. And Phil is one of them.

          • I do enjoy watching the Darwin Award individuals who in the process of hurting or torturing an animal end up as food chain as a result of poetic justice from nature. Lol

        • And the question remains unanswered, Phil. How much money you going to put up for the cause?

          I’m going hunting in the am. Nothing dramatic like an African safari. Just hunting bunnies in the central valley of CA. But that contributes funds to the animals benefits. License, taxes on guns and ammo. Buying gas and goodies in the local town.

        • “Hunting is for eating not gaming or both.”

          What a completely asinine statement.

          With this and some of your other comments (I actually started to reply to this above, but this gem caught my eye), you demonstrate that you’ve never hunted, don’t know any hunters and know exactly zero about hunting, yet you come here to lecture everyone on how it should be done.

          • Never hunted, don’t care to hunt, don’t need to hunt to eat and I cannot possibly kill a helpless and defenseless creature for fun and games. There are so many other activities that are more fun for me to do.

        • I’m guessing Phillipe has never actually been to Africa to see how wildlife is managed and preserved.

          I’m also guessing he’s not overly familiar with how state Fish and Game agencies manage populations either and why they do the things they do.

          • There were not any fish and game agencies thousands of years ago and nature seem to dictate his fate just fine without it. But of course we are so arrogant to think everything we do is for the better when in fact is for the worst. Nature has its own check and balance and it’s doing fine without us interfering.

        • Phil needs to feel superior to other humans, because he cant admit his shortcomings. His sick pleasure in imagining the death of another human belies his faux concern for animals. Borderline personality seems to be common in leftists.

          • As a matter of fact I do have two dogs and two cats and I do love animals. And you are a complete moron for associating anti hunting sentiments with being a lefty as you called me. As a matter of fact I can’t stand liberals but you sound like one with your one sided brain. Lol

    • Sorry I don’t buy it. No one knows for sure where this money is going. And I find it absolutely disgusting that someone would pay that kind of money to kill these beautiful animals. There is plenty of big game hunting right here in North America where you can still enjoy the meat you kill, but African game, give me a break. A better use of that wasted money is donate it for a cause and get a right off. Or better hire mercenaries who hunt poachers and hunters, video the adventure post it on YouTube and watch the hits.

      Philippe,

      Those animals are going to die one way or another and they will die from poachers or hunters. What determines whether they die from poachers or hunters depends on how much money the hunt brings in. A poacher who sneaks in, slaughters a lion, and then runs away brings the locals no money whatsoever. A hunter who pays tens of thousands of dollars for a tag, money to the hunting guides, money to hotels, restaurants, and the meat going to the locals does a lot more to help those lions than trying to “ban” the activity. If they die from hunters, the locals have incentive to protect the lions due to the amount of money the hunt brings in. With $35-55k for a hunt, the lions have value. Real monetary value and this is an incentive for the locals, the government, and those benefiting from the hunt to protect the lions, and breed as many as they can.

  20. These anti-hunting people are idiots.

    If a lion hunt sells for 35-55 thousand dollars, then the local populace recognizes they have a valuable asset which should be protected. Why slaughter a lion and take it’s head and paws and sell for a measly profit, when you can sell one for 35-55 thousand dollars?!? Sounds lucrative to have that animal population grow and breed to a healthy sustainable level and protect it as a very expensive and renewable resource. Not supporting this leaves the locals seeing this resource as not valuable to them and allowing poachers to slaughter them into extinction to sell their heads and paws to the highest bidder.

    There is absolutely not a damn thing that soccer mom weirdo animal rights activists can do to stop the hunting in Africa. Either way, in any case, animals will be killed. The difference is whether the local population has an incentive to maintain a healthy population and protect that population as a monetary asset.

    • I have no desire to stop anything. Whatever rocks your boat is fine with me. My take on all that is that the wildlife doesn’t need man to thin out the herd, nature has its own check and balance to take care of itself. It has been doing it a lot longer then us. But to actually believe like many do that hunting these animals actually help is downright insane, maybe it helps your ego and who knows where the money goes.

      • Philippe. Where do you get your information? It’s been proven that hunting is beneficial to wildlife. Are you arguing with experts in the field of wildlife conservation? It’s not only “thinning the heard” that hunting provides; as many have tried to get you to see, hunters provide money that is used to fund conservation efforts. The overwhelming evidence says you’re ignorant of the topic.

        Look here:

        http://www.nwf.org/sportsmen.aspx

        • Then how do you explain wildlife’s survival after thousands of years before modern day hunting??

            • Bows and arrows don’t have the same magnitude of efficiency as modern day hunting therefore not near the effect of killing spree, plus ancient man used everything from the animal as a form of survival. Modern day hunting is just for fun and game. There is no need for it unless you enjoy killing helpless and defenseless animals.

        • Then how do you explain wildlife’s survival after thousands of years before modern day hunting??

          Wildlife’s survival is dynamic. Over aeons through time wildlife has changed slowly from one form to another with the vast majority taking specialized roads and going extinct. Wildlife was going extinct long before “modern day hunting” by humans. The animals which have gone extinct are not all specifically and directly attributable to mankind’s existence and their affinity to trophy hunt. I weigh present day conditions (i.e. endangered species) not on the effectiveness of “modern day hunting” – but more on the presence of 7.125 billion human beings who have been copulating endlessly without any prudence whatsoever to the consequences. We are an extreme alpha creature ruling over all others and have spread into every habitable space possible. Even the lion’s. If you want to help endangered species – support conservation programs (even those that result in the granting of hunting tags for old/elderly non-reproducing endangered species) and keep your britches zipped up.

          • That’s my point, let nature not man dictate the fate of wildlife like it has for thousands of years.

        • “Bows and arrows don’t have the same magnitude of efficiency as modern day hunting…”

          Cecil the lion was hunted with…Bow and Arrow, moron.

      • Nature has its own check and balance to take care of itself and it has been doing it a lot longer than man.

        We are part of nature. We are not some alien race or something that doesn’t belong. We too are a product of nature. With this in mind – nature isn’t supportive of the lions, as man is killing them out. Throughout the history of existence, millions of critters have died out as they specialized to survive, conditions changed, and their lives ended (evolutionary explanation). I know you are thinking that it is within our power to save them, but it’s not, unless you are willing to pack your things and move to Africa to protect lions from the local poachers.

        As a matter of fact some animals don’t even have predators to worry about except man the trophy hunter with high powered rifle and scope, what a coward way to take an animal down and claim you are making a difference for the good. That’s just complete denial.

        Ok… so.. you went full PETA there. Never go full PETA.

        Please read more here:
        http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/25ReasonsWhyHuntingIsConservation.aspx

        http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html

  21. So, these African officials are going to blame the potential lack of funding from Amercan hunters for the possible distinction of a valuable and wonderful resource at the hands of greedy criminals within their own borders? How about getting your own house/population in order to save endangered species within your own borders, or maybe just relinquish control to a government that can manage your problems (Dutch, English or Germans perhaps).

  22. Let the stupid airlines ban end conservation. Let them be responsible for the economic and environmental fall out. Let them learn what happens when you let your PR department or internet slactivism dictate policies that have complex real world consequences. Let them be bitten by the Cobra Effect.

    -D

  23. The writing is on the wall with this one. If those nations conservation are no longer needed to maintain there herds for the money that hunting and Safari bring in we will see these nations and people finally see that there lives and safety out weigh these animals worth. It’s a sad truth but the money a lion or elephant brought in in there governments eyes did and does out weigh the worth of the indigenous people lives. Take that money away and they now will use those animals as a good resource and also will now eliminate the predatation on humans by wiping them out. It’s a good thing for the people’s living there!! Food and Safety it’s a win/win for the right people for the right reason. As for those Airlines none will see a dime of my money again. America in these things needs to one day find some common sense!!!

  25. Wow. Just wow. Some people actually think that if the westerners with their $$$ leave Africa and their wildlife alone, then the whole place will find a Bambi-esque equilibrium with the animals living happily ever after. As if the WHOLE of Africa would have nothing better to do without the westerners. As if poachers, urban encroachment, poverty, habitat destruction and climate disruptions would somehow leave the vast herds and wildlife alone because, after all, only the outsiders have a capacity to destructively intervene in the lands.
    So much incredible willful ignorance and conceit on the part of the anti-hunting people. Perhaps the giraffe above is not the only one capable of shoving its head up its ass.

  26. Me thinks this won’t last very long. There will be a quiet announcement that shipments have resumed.
    Personally, I already lodged a complaint with Delta. Telling them that my current taxidermy will come to me by sea. It’s half the cost.
    Sure, it takes a month instead of a couple of days. But since the taxidermy takes several months anyway, what’s another month?

    I chuckled at the instantaneous ban Zimbabwe placed on hunting over this, knowing it wouldn’t last. There is too much money not going into Mugabe’s pocket from hunts. Too many government employees instantly unemployed.

    And the quiet announcement happened yesterday…

    http://huntforever.org/2015/08/07/zimbabwe-lifts-temporary-ban-on-lion-leopard-and-elephant-hunting/

  27. Well now is the best time in history for these conservation parks to ask the airlines for a handout if they’re going to start a trophy shipping ban. I can’t believe the airlines would turn down revenue they would generate transporting a trophy out of africa. In some places around the world freight generates more revenue then passengers.

  28. Of course, if the airline industry were not so ridiculously regulated, this wouldn’t make a lick of difference, since Dead Rhino Air would be up and operating as of one day post “announcement.” Allowing passengers to carry all manners of big game rifles, ammo, animals and whatever else they may fancy, on board with them. And making a few bucks in the process.

  30. Some really stupid white people will help cause the extinction of animals on the African continent. They are like invading aliens telling black people how to run their country.

    It seems there are many whites who are uncomfortable with blacks making a good living, for African standards, in the conservation business.

Comments are closed.