ForWildlife

Members
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About ForWildlife

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Category 1
    Tourist (first-time visitor)
  • Category 2
    Researcher

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

24 profile views
  1. We're a few days further now and I've had some time to digest all this and new information. Clearly there is a difference between the statement of ZPHGA and WildCRU. There probably isn't any digital record of the communication they have different viewpoints about so it will come down to he-said-she-said. Which makes you think who can win or lose most from that. I think it's pretty clear who is trying to do damage control, and who can lose a lot, which is probably a good indication who is telling the truth. I've seen comments from organisations who seem to believe the ZPHGA version of the story. Organisations who previously accused hunters of being dishonest and rotten to the core. It's beyond me why now, especially now, they suddenly seem to believe hunters. But one thing I haven't really seen yet. A few years back a definition of a huntable male lion was developed. This was developed by several lion researchers and hunters together. This definition was later endorsed by DSC. It can be found HERE. The definition is as follows: The law in Zimbabwe is is that the lion must be a male and at least 6 years old. So the hunting of Xanda was legal (assuming he was hunted in an area where there was a quota for a lion) as he was a male and apparently 6.2 years old. But Xanda was heading a pride of 3 females with 7 cubs. So according to the definition developed by researchers AND HUNTERS he should not have been hunted. This definition was endorsed by DSC. I haven't seen any hunters, nor DSC, pointing this out and stating that indeed this lions should not have been hunted as he doesn't meet the definition developed or endorsed by them. ZPHGA states on their website 'ethics are everything'. Yes, this shooting was legal, but given he headed a pride with 7 cubs under 18 months it clearly wasn't ethical. Yet, they 'everything' seems to be a flexible term for them. They rather chose to create confusion and claim their member was told it was OK to shoot him. Why would researchers, who typically have a great passion for the animals they study tell a hunter to shoot a male when they know this will compromise the survival of the cubs? I've met many wildlife researchers in my life, and only in the US I've heard about a few researchers who would happily hunt the carnivores they study. I've never met a lion researcher who had a passion for killing lions. I understand ZPHGA needs to back up their members, and probably the 'best' they could do in this case was come up with he-said-she-said scenario as they have a lot less to lose than the researchers, however unlikely the he-said-she-said scenario they could come up with. Sadly even this unlikely scenario seems to confuse otherwise very hunter-critical organisations. If they were ethical real gentlemen they would state something along the lines of: Our member might have been misinformed or a mis-communication between him and the researchers led to an unfortunate result, as, in hindsight, the taking of this animal, although legal, wasn't ethical. We should work on collaborating with other parties involved in wildlife management that this type of unethical harvesting in the future will be avoided. Just my 2 cents
  2. Those are some well balanced posts @inyathi According to the latest it seems ZPHGA wasn't accurate in their statement: https://africageographic.com/blog/trophy-hunters-lied-xanda-says-oxford-researcher/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/oxford-university-researchers-accuse-game-hunters-of-lying-about-how-they-shot-son-of-cecil-the-lion-rjfghqhs2
  3. Well, Karijini National Park has a spur intruding into it which is an open cut iron mine and the railway to it. They excluded it from the park. Australia has the highest number of animals which have gone extinct and lots of issues with invasive species (cats, foxes, toads, rabbits, rats, mice), the great barrier reef has recently been declared dead, etc.
  4. That's horrible. "The fire was under control but they ran out of water"...yet I see that the pool is still full in the picture.
  5. The last cheetah sighting in the Luangwa Valley has been almost 20 years ago, and was between North and South Luangwa. No cheetahs have been seen in Lower Zambezi for over 20 years, and those had been reintroduced (and quickly moved out of the area). It could have swum across from Mana Pools, however the Zimbabwe cheetah project couldn't match the photo with any of the known cheetahs from the Mana Pools area. As far as I know there haven't been subsequent sightings of the cheetahs in Lower Zambezi.
  6. Apparently even someone who depends directly on tourism views his cows as more important than his income. I hope conservation organisations working in the area take this as a lesson. How come that a tourist guide is happy with the loss of a lion? I don't think we should judge him, but rather try to understand as to why he's happy, where, in the view of most people here, he shouldn't be happy at all. Flip Stander does great work, I don't think there is someone more dedicated to Namibia's lions (or even lions anywhere). However, the number of lions, the size of the area, the multitude of issues are far too much to be dealt with by just one man. He doesn't want to expand his project, and he doesn't need to. But other projects should be allowed to work in the area, focusing on HWC for example. I know there are people/projects trying to do this, but it seems hard to get the relevant permits, and it seems hard to get them to work together (give all projects access to real time location data to mitigate HWC before it happens).
  7. DRC was Belgian, Gambia was an English colony.
  8. Let's hope the EU doesn't screw with this.
  9. Thanks for posting the links @@jeremie 2 articles about Parsa from Panthera and ZSL, and one about Bardia from WWF. Reading the links about Parsa some things struck me, they don't mention actual numbers only percentages, and the percentages between the articles didn't match. I wondered why, and since I love numbers I looked a bit deeped into it. Panthera: ZSL: Let's just ignore that grammatically the quote from ZSL doesn't make sense, as if Parsa alone would have 90% more tigers now than the whole of Nepal in 2013. A 45% annual increase over 2-3 years doesn't equal a 90% total increase, odd. But how many tigers are we talking about in Parsa? Here is an article which mentions the number of tigers in Parsa: . Three(!) tigers! Is that really reason for big news? And these are estimates and estimates come with uncertainty. So I looked into the 2013 report (found here) to see what numbers were estimated and what the uncertainty in those estimates were. In that report they use two different software programs to estimate the number of tigers (CAPTURE and DENSITY), these are the reported estimates: CAPTURE: 5, ranging from 5 to 11 (95% confidence interval) DENSITY: 4, ranging from 4 to 9 (95% confidence interval) In other words, in 2013 they were 95% certain that there were between 5 and 11 tigers in Parsa (or between 4 and 9, depending on the software program used). Now, they estimate 7 tigers. So can they claim with certainty that this is an increase from 2013? I don't think so...there could just as well have been 11 in 2013. Looking at the article about Bardia from WWF. Bardia has more tigers and the article states: Again, only the best estimate is given, no indication of the uncertainty in the estimate. But the numbers can be found in the same report again. CAPTURE: 45-64 DENSITY: 46-63 The current reported number of 56 is lies well within the confidence limits of the estimate in 2013, so you can't make any claims of an increasing population. So based on this data there is not really any evidence of growing tiger populations between 2013 and 2016 in those areas. Are claims like this valid: Panthera: ZSL: As there is not really any evidence of a growing tiger population in Parsa, and as it only concerns a handful of tigers anyway, I don't think such claims can be made. In fact, both Panthera and ZSL have good scientists, who know what estimates are, and what confidence intervals around estimates mean. But with tiger day in mind, it seemed that the need to publish a success story was bigger than to publish truth. What would be more truthful? The populations of tigers in Parsa and Bardia seem to be stable and are possibly increasing (but the latter depends on the confidence intervals, which aren't published yet, around the published estimates).

© 2006 - 2017 www.safaritalk.net - Talking Safaris and African Wildlife Conservation since 2006. Passionate about Africa.