Trump Administration Lifts Ban on Imports of Elephant Hunting Trophies

[WAcoyotehunter]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

At $30-50k a hunt, I doubt you'll see a big rise in the number of elephant hunts.

One $30k hunt supports a lot of villagers for a long time, in addition to the meat it provides.

I wonder how much of the money actually goes back to the village?  Presumably, trackers, skinners, spotters make a living wage-which is obviously important, but how many of the PHs and ranch/outfit owners are local?  This is an honest question.  I was having the conversation with someone about this subject and they asked... I have no idea and have not been there.

[pianoman9701]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

How many people who hunt have $50K to spend on an elephant?

[jackelope]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

At $30-50k a hunt, I doubt you'll see a big rise in the number of elephant hunts.

One $30k hunt supports a lot of villagers for a long time, in addition to the meat it provides.

I won't disagree with that. I'm sure even if it makes for 1-2 more hunts, that's an improvement.

[Bob33]

SCI Asks President Trump To Lift Hold On African Elephant Import Permits

Today Safari Club International President Paul Babaz sent a letter to President Trump, asking him to direct Secretary Ryan Zinke to lift the hold that he placed on the authorization of import permits for elephants legally hunted in Zimbabwe and Zambia.


In the letter, SCI addressed multiple reasons why the hold should be lifted and corrected many of the common misconceptions about hunting, conservation and the elephant populations in Zimbabwe and Zambia. The text of that letter to President Trump stated:

 

November 20, 2017

Dear Mr. President:

 

On behalf of the 50,000 members of Safari Club International, I respectfully ask you to direct Secretary Ryan Zinke to lift the hold that he placed on the authorization of import permits for elephants legally hunted in Zimbabwe and Zambia.  By supporting Secretary's Zinke's authorization of import permits, you can reverse the senseless acts perpetrated by the Obama administration against hunting and the sustainable use conservation of African wildlife.  The Obama Administration's refusal to authorize the importation of African elephants from countries, including Zimbabwe and Zambia, deprived those countries of resources they rely on to manage their wildlife, fight poaching and encourage community participation in conservation.  It is now time to put an end to the previous administration's prejudicial and unsupported bias against hunting as a tool in wildlife management and conservation.

Secretary Zinke and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have made crucial, scientifically supported determinations about hunting and the U.S. importation of African elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Not only did the Department of the Interior's wildlife and legal experts determine that the hunting and importation from these two countries will not hurt the African elephant species, they determined that the importation of legally hunted elephants from these two countries would "enhance the survival" of African elephants.  In short, they recognized, based on data they received from the wildlife management authorities of the two countries, the results of a species wide African elephant census, and the conclusions of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora, that hunting and U.S. importation would help conserve African elephants.

Unfortunately, many people who oppose the importation of legally hunted elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia incorrectly believe that a ban on importation will actually stop the killing of African elephants.  Let me assure you that a U.S. ban on importation will not stop the killing of elephants in Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Without the removal of elephants by U.S. hunters, others will find the need or the opportunity to kill those elephants, both for illegal and legal purposes.  Whether it is by poachers seeking to gain from the commercial value of the ivory, local residents attempting to remove a problem animal or hunters from other countries around the world taking advantage of bargain hunts not booked by U.S. hunters, elephants will continue to be removed from Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Most people who oppose hunting and importation of elephants are unaware of the role that hunting plays in fighting the greatest threat to elephant conservation—poaching.  Hunting concessions use money received from their clients to hire, feed and outfit anti-poaching patrols.  For example, few people know that it was a hunting business in Zimbabwe that discovered and helped apprehend the perpetrators of one of the most egregious poaching crimes in recent history --- the poisoning of over 100 elephants in Hwange National Park.  It was a hunting business that discovered the poisoned elephants and helped finance the effort, including the use of helicopter surveillance, that resulted in the apprehension of the poachers.  In another example, a hunting business in northern Zimbabwe established the Dande Anti-Poaching Unit (DAPU) in 2014.  DAPU's anti-poaching efforts have significantly reduced the number of illegal wildlife killings in the vicinity of the Dande Safari area.  These are just two examples of the hunting businesses who have been struggling to wage the battle against poaching, without the help of money from U.S. elephant hunters.  Without the influx of U.S. dollars to help support anti-poaching efforts, poachers will have an easier time of illegally killing elephants solely to sell the ivory for commercial gain.

Not all poaching is carried out by criminals who seek to make a profit from their ivory. Sometimes poaching – the illegal killing of an animal – is an act of necessity or frustration.  Local villages often find the need to kill elephants as to protect their livelihoods from the damages caused by elephants who roam into agricultural areas and trample crops and structures.  When elephants are not harvested by international hunters, those elephants often become the victims of retaliatory killings.  However, when elephants have significant value due to the jobs and revenue they generate for the community, local residents are far more likely to tolerate and help conserve the elephants in the vicinity – rather than kill them as nuisance animals.

Many of those opposed to U.S. importation of African elephants are unaware of the differences between hunting and poaching.  They assume that U.S. hunters care only about bringing home their "trophy."  This misconception fails to recognize an important distinction between poachers and those who spend thousands of dollars to engage in legal hunts authorized by the country management authority.  A poacher generally kills the elephant, removes the ivory to sell it and leaves the carcass to rot.  A hunter, with aid from his professional guide or outfitter, will generally donate all the meat from the elephant to help feed local villages and communities.  Hunters and the business they bring to countries like Zimbabwe and Zambia help provide jobs for local residents as guides, cooks, drivers, etc.  Hunters often also make personal contributions to anti-poaching units and help provide financial support for community projects like the building of wells, schools etc.

Another misconception held by those who oppose the importation of legally hunted African elephants is that "more is better."  They mistakenly assume that larger elephant populations in these countries would benefit species survival.  The truth is that, in wildlife conservation, more is not always better.  While it is true that, in some African countries, elephant populations are not as strong as they could be, that cannot be said for Zimbabwe and Zambia.  According to the recent "Great Elephant Census," Zimbabwe's country-wide elephant population was estimated to be 82,304.  Zambia's elephant population was 21,758.  While the census documented a 6% decline in Zimbabwe's elephant population since 2007, that decline did not necessarily reveal a problem for the country's elephants.  In fact, Zimbabwe's habitat cannot properly support a population of that number of elephants.  The country's carrying capacity is only 50,000 elephants, according to a recent statement from Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority's Director-General, Mr Filton Mangwanya.  Carrying capacity is the number of animals from a particular species that a region can support without environmental degradation.  Currently, Zimbabwe has an elephant population that is about 30,000 more than can be sustained by the country's food and habitat resources.  More elephants are simply not better for elephant survival if Zimbabwe lacks the necessary resources to maintain healthy populations at that level.

Anti-hunters also believe that the U.S. alone allows individuals to import legally hunted elephants.  That simply is not the case.  Not only does the European Union and its member countries authorize importation -- as do countries in Asia and South America -- but so does the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), an international treaty between more than 180 nations. CITES affirms the importation of elephants and acknowledges export quotas of elephants from both Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Economically speaking, other world countries are now benefitting from the U.S.'s failure to authorize elephant imports.  With the absence of U.S. hunters, who are often willing to pay top dollar for African elephant hunts, hunters from other countries are negotiating "bargain" excursions from African guides and outfitters who must replace lost U.S. business.  While the U.S. bans importation based on irrational and erroneous conservation principles, the rest of the world is getting a great deal at U.S. hunters' expense.

The hunting of elephants in Zimbabwe and Zambia enhances the survival of the African elephant species.  The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have carefully researched the facts, the science and the law and have concluded that the U.S. has had the necessary evidentiary support to authorize the importation of elephants from these two countries since early in 2016.  Hunters and conservationists have waited for many years for an importation decision that reflects the correct and verifiable facts about elephant importation and species conservation.  Safari Club International respectfully asks you to end the wait and to direct Secretary Zinke to begin issuing permits for the importation of these elephants, so that U.S. citizens can once again import the elephants that they legally hunt and actively participate in elephant conservation in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Thank you.



 

Paul Babaz

President, Safari Club International

[KFhunter]

Thanks for posting that, excellent letter and I'm sold on it 100%


If someone has deep enough pockets I'm all for it

[floatinghat]

Agree w dan-o, I could never kill an elephant, they are intelligent animals.  And my grandma loved them, she’d come after me from the dead if I ever hunted one. I support all hunting and understand conservation, but just could never kill an elephant.

Please quantify at what level of intelligence, you are no longer whiling to kill an animal. Bears are very intelligent, as are coyotes, the difference between them and say Horses and Elephants is people have attached emotion to horses and elephants. Go live with elephants for a few years and I bet your opinion of them will change.

I’m not interested in killing one. That’s my level of non-interest. 100%. You keep posting asking folks to “quantify their reason”. Nobody needs to quantify anything. If they don’t want to, they don’t want to. I’ve never killed a bear either. Have little to no interest in it. Why? Just cuz. Reason enough for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So your saying you actually don't have an open mind, when it comes to this subject. In an effort to spur intelligent debate I have asked two posters in this thread to give the reasoning behind their opinions, or statements. I thought you were capable of that. I stand corrected.

Being capable of expressing the rationale for an opinion, and choosing to voluntarily do so are two differnt things. I thought most people would understand that. I stand corrected.

My mistake thinking people posting on a discussion forum would want to discuss. I stand corrected.

Sounds to me like you were one of those kids, it's my ball and I'll go home if you don't play by my rules.  People can another perspective than yours and not be wrong.     

[Britt-dog]

Great letter. I hope he learns from it, and doesn't bow to the oppositions political pressure.

[bearpaw]

SCI Asks President Trump To Lift Hold On African Elephant Import Permits

Today Safari Club International President Paul Babaz sent a letter to President Trump, asking him to direct Secretary Ryan Zinke to lift the hold that he placed on the authorization of import permits for elephants legally hunted in Zimbabwe and Zambia.


In the letter, SCI addressed multiple reasons why the hold should be lifted and corrected many of the common misconceptions about hunting, conservation and the elephant populations in Zimbabwe and Zambia. The text of that letter to President Trump stated:

 

November 20, 2017

Dear Mr. President:

 

On behalf of the 50,000 members of Safari Club International, I respectfully ask you to direct Secretary Ryan Zinke to lift the hold that he placed on the authorization of import permits for elephants legally hunted in Zimbabwe and Zambia.  By supporting Secretary's Zinke's authorization of import permits, you can reverse the senseless acts perpetrated by the Obama administration against hunting and the sustainable use conservation of African wildlife.  The Obama Administration's refusal to authorize the importation of African elephants from countries, including Zimbabwe and Zambia, deprived those countries of resources they rely on to manage their wildlife, fight poaching and encourage community participation in conservation.  It is now time to put an end to the previous administration's prejudicial and unsupported bias against hunting as a tool in wildlife management and conservation.

Secretary Zinke and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have made crucial, scientifically supported determinations about hunting and the U.S. importation of African elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Not only did the Department of the Interior's wildlife and legal experts determine that the hunting and importation from these two countries will not hurt the African elephant species, they determined that the importation of legally hunted elephants from these two countries would "enhance the survival" of African elephants.  In short, they recognized, based on data they received from the wildlife management authorities of the two countries, the results of a species wide African elephant census, and the conclusions of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora, that hunting and U.S. importation would help conserve African elephants.

Unfortunately, many people who oppose the importation of legally hunted elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia incorrectly believe that a ban on importation will actually stop the killing of African elephants.  Let me assure you that a U.S. ban on importation will not stop the killing of elephants in Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Without the removal of elephants by U.S. hunters, others will find the need or the opportunity to kill those elephants, both for illegal and legal purposes.  Whether it is by poachers seeking to gain from the commercial value of the ivory, local residents attempting to remove a problem animal or hunters from other countries around the world taking advantage of bargain hunts not booked by U.S. hunters, elephants will continue to be removed from Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Most people who oppose hunting and importation of elephants are unaware of the role that hunting plays in fighting the greatest threat to elephant conservation—poaching.  Hunting concessions use money received from their clients to hire, feed and outfit anti-poaching patrols.  For example, few people know that it was a hunting business in Zimbabwe that discovered and helped apprehend the perpetrators of one of the most egregious poaching crimes in recent history --- the poisoning of over 100 elephants in Hwange National Park.  It was a hunting business that discovered the poisoned elephants and helped finance the effort, including the use of helicopter surveillance, that resulted in the apprehension of the poachers.  In another example, a hunting business in northern Zimbabwe established the Dande Anti-Poaching Unit (DAPU) in 2014.  DAPU's anti-poaching efforts have significantly reduced the number of illegal wildlife killings in the vicinity of the Dande Safari area.  These are just two examples of the hunting businesses who have been struggling to wage the battle against poaching, without the help of money from U.S. elephant hunters.  Without the influx of U.S. dollars to help support anti-poaching efforts, poachers will have an easier time of illegally killing elephants solely to sell the ivory for commercial gain.

Not all poaching is carried out by criminals who seek to make a profit from their ivory. Sometimes poaching – the illegal killing of an animal – is an act of necessity or frustration.  Local villages often find the need to kill elephants as to protect their livelihoods from the damages caused by elephants who roam into agricultural areas and trample crops and structures.  When elephants are not harvested by international hunters, those elephants often become the victims of retaliatory killings.  However, when elephants have significant value due to the jobs and revenue they generate for the community, local residents are far more likely to tolerate and help conserve the elephants in the vicinity – rather than kill them as nuisance animals.

Many of those opposed to U.S. importation of African elephants are unaware of the differences between hunting and poaching.  They assume that U.S. hunters care only about bringing home their "trophy."  This misconception fails to recognize an important distinction between poachers and those who spend thousands of dollars to engage in legal hunts authorized by the country management authority.  A poacher generally kills the elephant, removes the ivory to sell it and leaves the carcass to rot.  A hunter, with aid from his professional guide or outfitter, will generally donate all the meat from the elephant to help feed local villages and communities.  Hunters and the business they bring to countries like Zimbabwe and Zambia help provide jobs for local residents as guides, cooks, drivers, etc.  Hunters often also make personal contributions to anti-poaching units and help provide financial support for community projects like the building of wells, schools etc.

Another misconception held by those who oppose the importation of legally hunted African elephants is that "more is better."  They mistakenly assume that larger elephant populations in these countries would benefit species survival.  The truth is that, in wildlife conservation, more is not always better.  While it is true that, in some African countries, elephant populations are not as strong as they could be, that cannot be said for Zimbabwe and Zambia.  According to the recent "Great Elephant Census," Zimbabwe's country-wide elephant population was estimated to be 82,304.  Zambia's elephant population was 21,758.  While the census documented a 6% decline in Zimbabwe's elephant population since 2007, that decline did not necessarily reveal a problem for the country's elephants.  In fact, Zimbabwe's habitat cannot properly support a population of that number of elephants.  The country's carrying capacity is only 50,000 elephants, according to a recent statement from Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority's Director-General, Mr Filton Mangwanya.  Carrying capacity is the number of animals from a particular species that a region can support without environmental degradation.  Currently, Zimbabwe has an elephant population that is about 30,000 more than can be sustained by the country's food and habitat resources.  More elephants are simply not better for elephant survival if Zimbabwe lacks the necessary resources to maintain healthy populations at that level.

Anti-hunters also believe that the U.S. alone allows individuals to import legally hunted elephants.  That simply is not the case.  Not only does the European Union and its member countries authorize importation -- as do countries in Asia and South America -- but so does the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), an international treaty between more than 180 nations. CITES affirms the importation of elephants and acknowledges export quotas of elephants from both Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Economically speaking, other world countries are now benefitting from the U.S.'s failure to authorize elephant imports.  With the absence of U.S. hunters, who are often willing to pay top dollar for African elephant hunts, hunters from other countries are negotiating "bargain" excursions from African guides and outfitters who must replace lost U.S. business.  While the U.S. bans importation based on irrational and erroneous conservation principles, the rest of the world is getting a great deal at U.S. hunters' expense.

The hunting of elephants in Zimbabwe and Zambia enhances the survival of the African elephant species.  The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have carefully researched the facts, the science and the law and have concluded that the U.S. has had the necessary evidentiary support to authorize the importation of elephants from these two countries since early in 2016.  Hunters and conservationists have waited for many years for an importation decision that reflects the correct and verifiable facts about elephant importation and species conservation.  Safari Club International respectfully asks you to end the wait and to direct Secretary Zinke to begin issuing permits for the importation of these elephants, so that U.S. citizens can once again import the elephants that they legally hunt and actively participate in elephant conservation in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Thank you.



 

Paul Babaz

President, Safari Club International

Bob33 thanks for posting the letter, that letter said much more plainly and with greater understanding what I was trying to say in my earlier post. In short hunting dollars support the management of elephants and ensure their future existence.

I'm so glad as U.S. citizens we can manage another countries wildlife smh.  How about let's work on managing our wildlife.  Let's let them manage their own.  It's the U.S. citizen that goes and spends thousands of dollars to go shoot an elephant that gives us all a bad name! Kinda like the lion guy.  Lifting this ban will increase poaching and the black market imo

I'm delighted to have the opportunity to clear up a few of your misconceptions regarding licensed trophy hunting in Africa. So, these countries are poor. Take the southern white rhino. In 1960, there were 800 left. Today, there are over 20K living in the wild. Their recovery is due almost completely to breeding programs, habitat improvement, and anti-poaching patrols paid for with trophy hunting dollars. Look it up. The Northern white rhino hasn't been legally hunted for 40 years and faces extinction within 5 years. They can't afford the anti-poaching patrols necessary to protect them. Their habitat has been ruined by poverty, farming, and war. The success of the southern rhino is true of more than a dozen species across Africa. You seriously need to learn about conservation and how licensed hunting saves species if you're going to be a representative of our hunting culture. This is the tip of the iceberg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_white_rhinoceros

Thanks pianoman, this is a perfect example of how hunting has helped support healthy populations of one specie and the lack of hunting dollars has allowed an almost identical specie to be wiped out by poaching. Everyone should read about how hunting has benefited white rhino's and the lack of hunting has resulted in the lack of management for black rhino's and their ultimate demise. 

[bearpaw]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

At $30-50k a hunt, I doubt you'll see a big rise in the number of elephant hunts.

One $30k hunt supports a lot of villagers for a long time, in addition to the meat it provides.

I wonder how much of the money actually goes back to the village?  Presumably, trackers, skinners, spotters make a living wage-which is obviously important, but how many of the PHs and ranch/outfit owners are local?  This is an honest question.  I was having the conversation with someone about this subject and they asked... I have no idea and have not been there.

No doubt PH's and government agencies pocket a good portion of the dollars spent. But the economy created by visiting hunters who spend dollars at businesses, tip trackers, the dollars spent by PH's to support their operations in local areas all has a trickle down effect into local economies, and the donation of meat goes directly to local people. To put it in context that most people should understand, if deer hunting was stopped in eastern WA that would have a significant impact on every business in small rural towns. Most businesses benefit from the hunters who spend dollars in these small towns either directly or indirectly. When salmon fishing or steelhead fishing is closed what does that do to coastal towns?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

At $30-50k a hunt, I doubt you'll see a big rise in the number of elephant hunts.

One $30k hunt supports a lot of villagers for a long time, in addition to the meat it provides.

I wonder how much of the money actually goes back to the village?  Presumably, trackers, skinners, spotters make a living wage-which is obviously important, but how many of the PHs and ranch/outfit owners are local?  This is an honest question.  I was having the conversation with someone about this subject and they asked... I have no idea and have not been there.

No doubt PH's and government agencies pocket a good portion of the dollars spent. But the economy created by visiting hunters who spend dollars at businesses, tip trackers, the dollars spent by PH's to support their operations in local areas all has a trickle down effect into local economies, and the donation of meat goes directly to local people. To put it in context that most people should understand, if deer hunting was stopped in eastern WA that would have a significant impact on every business in small rural towns. Most businesses benefit from the hunters who spend dollars in these small towns either directly or indirectly. When salmon fishing or steelhead fishing is closed what does that do to coastal towns?

Just for the sake of argument................ This could also be looked at as rich outsiders taking away from the people who live there and putting the locals on welfare.  Why should the only hunting be by rich people who don't live there? If there are surplus animals, why not let the locals hunt their own meat instead of relying on outsiders?  Why should the people who live there be reduced to beggars?  To use your example of what happens to coastal towns when fishing is shut down...... How do you think the people in those coastal towns would feel about salmon fishing being shut down and having hatcheries putting out fish to increase the run, but only rich foreigners could afford to actually fish for them? You think they'd be happy that those foreigners dropped a few fish off because the foreigners wanted nothing to do with eating them?  You think the locals would have any interest in conserving fish that they aren't allowed toi catch themselves? I can tell you, this practice goes on in Alaska with big game. It's a legal loophole trophy hunters use to get around the strict wastage laws in Alaska. But you hear lots of stories from the villages where a lot of the meat is just dumped and poorly taken care of. A lot of it goes to waste. The local villagers would rather get their own meat and who can blame them?  More and more  hunts are tuning into local residents only hunts. And hunting groups that represent trophy hunters don't like it.

[Britt-dog]

Agree w dan-o, I could never kill an elephant, they are intelligent animals.  And my grandma loved them, she’d come after me from the dead if I ever hunted one. I support all hunting and understand conservation, but just could never kill an elephant.

Please quantify at what level of intelligence, you are no longer whiling to kill an animal. Bears are very intelligent, as are coyotes, the difference between them and say Horses and Elephants is people have attached emotion to horses and elephants. Go live with elephants for a few years and I bet your opinion of them will change.

I’m not interested in killing one. That’s my level of non-interest. 100%. You keep posting asking folks to “quantify their reason”. Nobody needs to quantify anything. If they don’t want to, they don’t want to. I’ve never killed a bear either. Have little to no interest in it. Why? Just cuz. Reason enough for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So your saying you actually don't have an open mind, when it comes to this subject. In an effort to spur intelligent debate I have asked two posters in this thread to give the reasoning behind their opinions, or statements. I thought you were capable of that. I stand corrected.

Being capable of expressing the rationale for an opinion, and choosing to voluntarily do so are two differnt things. I thought most people would understand that. I stand corrected.

My mistake thinking people posting on a discussion forum would want to discuss. I stand corrected.

Sounds to me like you were one of those kids, it's my ball and I'll go home if you don't play by my rules.  People can another perspective than yours and not be wrong.   

I will ask you a question also. How is my asking a question of a poster, or requesting an explanation for the rational behind their statement, considered unreasonable?

ETA: Seems to me that coming here and making a definitive statement, then being unwilling to discuss or explain it is the definition of taking your ball and going home.

[Britt-dog]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

At $30-50k a hunt, I doubt you'll see a big rise in the number of elephant hunts.

One $30k hunt supports a lot of villagers for a long time, in addition to the meat it provides.

I wonder how much of the money actually goes back to the village?  Presumably, trackers, skinners, spotters make a living wage-which is obviously important, but how many of the PHs and ranch/outfit owners are local?  This is an honest question.  I was having the conversation with someone about this subject and they asked... I have no idea and have not been there.

No doubt PH's and government agencies pocket a good portion of the dollars spent. But the economy created by visiting hunters who spend dollars at businesses, tip trackers, the dollars spent by PH's to support their operations in local areas all has a trickle down effect into local economies, and the donation of meat goes directly to local people. To put it in context that most people should understand, if deer hunting was stopped in eastern WA that would have a significant impact on every business in small rural towns. Most businesses benefit from the hunters who spend dollars in these small towns either directly or indirectly. When salmon fishing or steelhead fishing is closed what does that do to coastal towns?

Good analogy. I am sure that the distribution of the moneys involved doesn't seem equitable to many outsiders, it is still very beneficial to the community as a whole, and ultimately the Elephants

[JimmyHoffa]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

At $30-50k a hunt, I doubt you'll see a big rise in the number of elephant hunts.

I don't know if it will or not, but then I think of all the governor's tags, auction tags and raffle tags throughout the western US....doesn't seem like there's a shortage of guys spending between $50-100K (?) for elk, mule deer, bighorns, dall sheep, etc.

[bearpaw]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

At $30-50k a hunt, I doubt you'll see a big rise in the number of elephant hunts.

I don't know if it will or not, but then I think of all the governor's tags, auction tags and raffle tags throughout the western US....doesn't seem like there's a shortage of guys spending between $50-100K (?) for elk, mule deer, bighorns, dall sheep, etc.

Here's another bit of info about elephant hunting. When there are bad elephants that habitually destroy croplands the government allows them to be killed, just like ranchers are allowed to kill a wolf that kills cattle or the farmer who kills wildlife that destroy his crops in this country. You can have your name added to a list of hunters willing to come on a moments notice to dispatch a marauding elephant, sometimes its cows, sometimes young bulls, but it's relatively affordable. I always figured that might be one way I could afford to shoot an elephant, yes I want to hunt an elephant. Instead of the animal just being killed by local enforcement with no benefit to wildlife management, a hunter will put dollars into wildlife management via the license needed, and money into the local economy. With a ban in place American hunters are probably not participating in this program anymore.

[jackelope]

If Americans could bring back real trophies wouldn't you think there would be more hunting them?  I think nothing but a picture and cheap replica of a real trophy keeps would be hunters away.  I didn't mean that it's illegal.

At $30-50k a hunt, I doubt you'll see a big rise in the number of elephant hunts.

I don't know if it will or not, but then I think of all the governor's tags, auction tags and raffle tags throughout the western US....doesn't seem like there's a shortage of guys spending between $50-100K (?) for elk, mule deer, bighorns, dall sheep, etc.

I think deer and elk are different here in the US. There’s a wider appeal. And there are a few of these hunts that sell in the $250-400k range every year. Crazy talk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk