Zimbabwe collared Elephant

[K-man]

And when does the ZPHGA have the power to confiscate animal parts? That may have been done by Parks, but not specified in the press release.

 

[sierraone]

And when does the ZPHGA have the power to confiscate animal parts? That may have been done by Parks, but not specified in the press release.

Whoever if anyone confiscated the tusks, then it had to be authorized by law, not a professional organization or someone's ethics policy.

 

[tarbe]

The GCT (Gonarezhou Conservation Trust) suspended the Parks Ranger that was supervising the hunt and confiscated the ivory pending an investigation.

This is what I have read.

As to what law? I didn't think a law was violated...at least not a written law of the land.

 

[BRICKBURN]

"It must be noted that this particular Professional Hunter is not a current member of ZPHGA and unfortunately due to the National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy not officially being implemented or enforced, there is no legal action that can be taken against this Professional Hunter concerned at this present time."

It appears the ZPHGA opines that the NECCP could be the basis for a confiscation and prosecution if it were "officially" being enforced.

It would be parks doing any prosecution and confiscation. As noted the ZPHGA is a voluntary organization and the action they can take is: suspension of membership or expulsion.

Apparently the Chairman's opinion is that their should be a prosecution, if I read the "unfortunately" comment correctly.

 

[tarbe]

I think you read correctly.

 

[sierraone]

The GCT (Gonarezhou Conservation Trust) suspended the Parks Ranger that was supervising the hunt and confiscated the ivory pending an investigation.

This is what I have read.

As to what law? I didn't think a law was violated...at least not a written law of the land.

Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZPWMA) is a legal entity. They signed a legal agreement with Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS) to create the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust, which manages the area where the elephant was killed. IMO that creates the legal authority for confiscation IF there is a law prohibiting hunting elephants with collars in this area. Preferably either Parks or the Trust would have obtained a court order for the confiscation since there were (apparently) no exigent circumstances leading one to believe the tusks were in danger of immediately being smuggled out of the country. The big question remains, what does the law say?

 

[John Sharp]

Not published anywhere I can find in Zimbabwe.

I received this letter from SOAZ yesterday, just for the record:


19th April, 2018

OFFICIAL ZPHGA STATEMENT ON SECOND COLLARED ELEPHANT

It is with deep regret that ZPHGA acknowledge the death of collared elephant of significance, which has recently shot by hunters in an area adjacent to Gonarezhou National Park.

Although the hunt was conducted totally legally, the Professional Hunter conducting the hunt was aware of collared elephant bulls in the region. Any ethical Professional Hunter should have first ensured 100% that such a large tusker was not in fact collared.

It must be noted that this particular Professional Hunter is not a current member of ZPHGA and unfortunately due to the National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy not officially being implemented or enforced, there is no legal action that can be taken against this Professional Hunter concerned at this present time.

The client cannot in any way be responsible for any wrong doing, as he was only following the Professional Hunter’s instructions and had purchased a legal hunt, which was accompanied by a National Parks Ranger, who should also have verified that the bull was not collared.

Once again we urge National Parks and government to officially implement and effectively enforce the National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy, as this will hopefully stamp out the unethical and unsustainable hunting practices.

At present National Parks is handling this case as the appropriate authority, pending further investigations.

In closing, we have previously warned our members to take heed of their actions and the consequences involved. They should be proactive in engaging with each other and the appropriate third parties, to avoid this unfortunate outcome in the future once again.

Yours sincerely

Mr. James Rosenfels

ZPHGA Chairman 2017/18

Email: zphgachairman@gmail.com

Attached is a Statement from Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife

 

[Aaron N]

How did Mr Rosenfels go from here:
Current finding: After interviewing the PH in charge of the safari and communications with authorities from Gonarezhou, it is unfortunate that neither the PH, Ranger or RDC representative where notified by the Authorities that the collored bull had been in the hunting area since the 20th of February,

To here:
Although the hunt was conducted totally legally, the Professional Hunter conducting the hunt was aware of collared elephant bulls in the region. Any ethical Professional Hunter should have first ensured 100% that such a large tusker was not in fact collared.

It must be summer time, because the flip flops are out in full force!

 

[billc]

Same old story. We are now going to try and use ethics on what is legal to hunt or not. This is a big mistake and keeps opening us up for more trouble.

Here is the problem ethics are not law. Each hunter has his own and is entitled to them. If a hunter wants to pass on a collared animal good for him. If he wants to take a collared animal and it is legal good for him. I can support both ideas with no problem.

The difference between ethics and law is one is a personal choice one is not. All we have to go by as a hunting group is law and then each hunter decide his ethics and how he will apply them to his hunt.

I just see so many willing to give in and blame hunters for what is a totally legal hunt. No doubt this is a tough spot to be in but trying to ride the middle road is killing us all slowly I think. We need to make it a law or not if it is ok to take a collared animal. No gray area yes or no and then defend the choice with logic and proof.

There is protected areas these elephant can live in and then areas they are ok to be hunted on. The collar should not decide if that is ok or not when they cross in between.

Time we pick as hunters what is legal or not and I mean pick what we think not want some outside group thinks. Hunters as a group do more for all animals but we like to let others decide for us for some reason. Worse still is the few hunters who like to pile on other hunters for legal hunts and divide us even more based on there ethics.

 

[tarbe]

Bill

Often times we make agreements (some written, some verbal) that go beyond the letter of the law.

What I think I am hearing in all of this is that GCT/Zim parks and the hunting industry had an understanding that collared elephants would not be shot around the park.

My fear is that these colllared elephants being shot put at risk the great working relationship that has been established between the hunting industry and parks.

We should try to protect and strengthen that relationship. We need allies, not enemies.

Tim

 

[billc]

Bill

Often times we make agreements (some written, some verbal) that go beyond the letter of the law.

What I think I am hearing in all of this is that GCT/Zim parks and the hunting industry had an understanding that collared elephants would not be shot around the park.

My fear is that these colllared elephants being shot put at risk the great working relationship that has been established between the hunting industry and parks.

We should try to protect and strengthen that relationship. We need allies, not enemies.

Tim

Tim I agree with you and I know you could do a handshake deal and stick to it. I am the same way and have never had a signed agreement (contract) for anything I did not need one for. That meaning banks and such always want one. Never had one with any customer I worked for.

The problem now a days be it a sad problem is we need it spelled out and enforced by laws. As a group we will stand or die over the problems like this. It is all about getting rid of the gray areas so there can be no other way then one way.


I am just wondering if such an agreement was made if the people on all sides got to pick what ele were collared or just one side. I just never see the hunter who do as much or more have there fair say on anything anymore. We are always fighting and loosing ground. It is very clear to me because of the many views all hunters have and because ethics vary with a large group like we are. We just may need some laws for at least park areas were deals have been made.

Trust me I hate saying we need more laws but saying something is legal in one breathe but then saying there is a problem over a collar causes nothing but problems. The message is mixed and only hurting us because once again our group is on the fence. Hunters are causing more of a stink over the collars and that is not good at all. We have given the story's more press and hurting ourselves.

 

[tarbe]

Bill

I think we are in agreement.

Humans can screw up anything and unfortunately, we like to learn things the hard way.

Why does someone always have to crap in the nest?

 

[IdaRam]

I received this letter from SOAZ yesterday, just for the record:


19th April, 2018

OFFICIAL ZPHGA STATEMENT ON SECOND COLLARED ELEPHANT

It is with deep regret that ZPHGA acknowledge the death of collared elephant of significance, which has recently shot by hunters in an area adjacent to Gonarezhou National Park.

Although the hunt was conducted totally legally, the Professional Hunter conducting the hunt was aware of collared elephant bulls in the region. Any ethical Professional Hunter should have first ensured 100% that such a large tusker was not in fact collared.

It must be noted that this particular Professional Hunter is not a current member of ZPHGA and unfortunately due to the National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy not officially being implemented or enforced, there is no legal action that can be taken against this Professional Hunter concerned at this present time.

The client cannot in any way be responsible for any wrong doing, as he was only following the Professional Hunter’s instructions and had purchased a legal hunt, which was accompanied by a National Parks Ranger, who should also have verified that the bull was not collared.

Once again we urge National Parks and government to officially implement and effectively enforce the National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy, as this will hopefully stamp out the unethical and unsustainable hunting practices.

At present National Parks is handling this case as the appropriate authority, pending further investigations.

In closing, we have previously warned our members to take heed of their actions and the consequences involved. They should be proactive in engaging with each other and the appropriate third parties, to avoid this unfortunate outcome in the future once again.

Yours sincerely

Mr. James Rosenfels

ZPHGA Chairman 2017/18

Email: zphgachairman@gmail.com

Attached is a Statement from Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife


View attachment 225530

Hello John and welcome! Looking forwad with great anticipation to the release of that new book of yours
Thank you for posting the original text of this letter.

 

[IdaRam]

I received this letter from SOAZ yesterday, just for the record:


19th April, 2018

OFFICIAL ZPHGA STATEMENT ON SECOND COLLARED ELEPHANT

It is with deep regret that ZPHGA acknowledge the death of collared elephant of significance, which has recently shot by hunters in an area adjacent to Gonarezhou National Park.

Although the hunt was conducted totally legally, the Professional Hunter conducting the hunt was aware of collared elephant bulls in the region. Any ethical Professional Hunter should have first ensured 100% that such a large tusker was not in fact collared.

It must be noted that this particular Professional Hunter is not a current member of ZPHGA and unfortunately due to the National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy not officially being implemented or enforced, there is no legal action that can be taken against this Professional Hunter concerned at this present time.

The client cannot in any way be responsible for any wrong doing, as he was only following the Professional Hunter’s instructions and had purchased a legal hunt, which was accompanied by a National Parks Ranger, who should also have verified that the bull was not collared.

Once again we urge National Parks and government to officially implement and effectively enforce the National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy, as this will hopefully stamp out the unethical and unsustainable hunting practices.

At present National Parks is handling this case as the appropriate authority, pending further investigations.

In closing, we have previously warned our members to take heed of their actions and the consequences involved. They should be proactive in engaging with each other and the appropriate third parties, to avoid this unfortunate outcome in the future once again.

Yours sincerely

Mr. James Rosenfels

ZPHGA Chairman 2017/18

Email: zphgachairman@gmail.com

Attached is a Statement from Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife


View attachment 225530

Also John, I’ve heard some of the statements below, but have not been able to determine the accuracy or validity of them. Are you willing to comment or expand upon this?

It has been the position of ZPHGA for some time now (years) that hunting of collared elephant by it’s member PH’s is prohibited.
Collared “Elephant of significance” are especially a no-no. The reasons being:
The controversy that arises when one is shot by a hunter.
The length of time it takes, and the genetics required, to actually grow large tuskers. Large elephant bulls with ivory approaching 100 pounds takes half a century or more to grow.
There are many other stakeholders who have a legitimate interest of one sort or another regarding these large tusked bulls who spend some of their time in the Parks.
There has been a claim put forward by other stakeholders that because large, iconic ele are so few, it deprives non-hunting park visitors the chance to see them if they are taken by a hunter and it is not in the Park’s interest (financially and from a PR standpoint) to have them hunted. Zim Parks is supportive of the hunting of elephant, so a bit of an agreement between stakeholders has been “reached”. ZPHGA has signed on to this philosophy and requires their membership to adhere to the position they have adopted.
Parks, ZPHGA, FZS and many other organizations work together in ways that support hunting and benefit wildlife, habitat, etc. Episodes such as this cause rifts in those relationships and make it harder for them to work together in support of sustainable use hunting.

Not very eloquently worded I know, but would love to know what you thoughts on the matter is.

 

[IdaRam]

And I feel like there will be less members in the ZPHGA in the future if they are determining what is ethical...I feel like South Africa had some type of ethical issue that caused some members to drop, but I can't remember what it was.

I believe one of the functions of pretty much all the Professional Hunting organizations is to establish and maintain ethical standards of conduct for their membership.

How did Mr Rosenfels go from here:
Current finding: After interviewing the PH in charge of the safari and communications with authorities from Gonarezhou, it is unfortunate that neither the PH, Ranger or RDC representative where notified by the Authorities that the collored bull had been in the hunting area since the 20th of February,

To here:
Although the hunt was conducted totally legally, the Professional Hunter conducting the hunt was aware of collared elephant bulls in the region. Any ethical Professional Hunter should have first ensured 100% that such a large tusker was not in fact collared.

It must be summer time, because the flip flops are out in full force!

It is a fluid situation. Investigations are conducted, facts are determined, clarity of the situation evolves.
Also, there is a difference in saying people were not notified of a specific collared bull in the area, and saying the PH was aware of collared elephant bulls in the region. It was known that collared bulls occur in the region from time to time. This was a known fact.
I find it encouraging that the immediate statement made was supportive of the hunter and PH.
I wouldn’t call it flip flopping. I would call it discretion until more facts are in.

 

[BRICKBURN]

............. National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy ...........

Thanks for the copy of the ZPHGA release John.

I am really interested to see if someone can share the "National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy" being referred to by ZPHGA.

Do you happen to have a copy?

 

[Hank2211]

There seems to be some major differences between the "Martin Peters" collared elephant and the second collared elephant:

1. In the MP case, there was apparently a lack of communication between the researchers and the hunters, and the hunters were not aware that collared elephants were in the area.

When the opportunity arose to take the shot, it is stated that it arose quickly, and in thick brush, obscuring any collar.

2. In the second case, it is clearly stated that the PH was aware that collared elephants were in the area. There is no suggestion that there was no time to properly look at the elephant to determine if there was a collar or not.

Both hunts seem to be "legal" in a "legal" sense, but it appears (though this needs to be confirmed) that registered PH's in Zimbabwe are not supposed to shoot collared elephants. There could be any number of reasons for this, many of which have appeared in earlier posts, but they would include the need to maintain a good relationship with researchers, national parks, conservation trusts and significant financial donors; the desire to avoid adverse publicity that can arise when "famous" animals are shot (Cecil, obviously, but could also include "elephants of significance"); the economic incentive to ensure national parks' visitors have impressive animals to view (thus ensuring a continual flow of visitors); and the desire to maintain large tuskers in the gene pool. All of these are legitimate concerns in my view.

It may be better for all, including especially hunters who do not want to get caught up in this kind of mess, or have their trophies caught up in this kind of mess, if these concerns were codified by the authorities, so that knowingly or negligently shooting a collared animal would be illegal. Personally, I would have no problem with that - laws regulate hunting seasons, genders, ages, etc. No reason we can't add collars to that list.

Certainty benefits everyone.

 

[AfricaHunting.com]

I am really interested to see if someone can share the "National Ethics Code of Conduct Policy" being referred to by ZPHGA.

Do you happen to have a copy?

Not what you are looking for but I'm sure you saw this on their website:

Zimbabwe Professional Hunters
Members of the Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association are obliged to follow a strict code of conduct and adhere to our constitution.

We, as members of ZPHGA, believe It is important that both the client and their Professional Hunter are proud of the way in which a hunt is conducted. That this pride stems from the manner in which any animal is targeted – preferably on a “fair chase” basis – where an emphasis is placed on a ‘spot and stalk’ or good old fashioned ‘tracking’ method of approach.

We believe that it is our duty to make the best approach possible in order to afford the hunter the best opportunity at a clean and humane harvest.

Africa is renowned for excellent animal quality, both in our National Parks and protective consumptive conservation areas, but it is the thrill of the chase that should be the motivation to go on a hunting safari in the latter. In addition to the friendly people, an African safari should be enjoyed and remembered for the unique atmosphere of the African bush and the sights, smells and sounds of all manner of animals that are encountered. Zimbabwean Professional Hunters are licensed to conduct both hunting and guiding safaris – don’t be shy to ask questions on what you see while tracking your anticipated quarry or what you hear while sitting around the camp-fire at night, gaining insight into ‘how the bush works’ can be the difference between a good safari and a safari of a lifetime.

Our Professional Hunters are required to strictly adhere to the National Wildlife Laws including the Tourist Hunting Regulations. Clients are urged to assist and respect Professional Hunters in this imperative responsibility.

Hunters should be hunting for mature male specimens only and must accept the judgement of their Professional hunter when it comes to animal quality. Not every specimen encountered will be of harvest quality and one should be prepared for this possibility. A hunting safari is intended to provide the best opportunity to harvest top quality animals in a lawful, fair and sportsman like manner.

It is our strongest recommendation that any hunter seeking to hunt in Zimbabwe, and Africa as a whole, must hunt with a paid up member of the Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association or recognised representative association. Thereby assuring they are hunting with an ethically motivated professional and has subsequent follow up channels for any issues they may encounter on safari and after. There are always rogue elements in any industry and the safari industry is no different. Please do your research and back checks to validate any operator and Guide.

IT IS ILLEGAL for a non-resident foreigner to obtain a Zimbabwean Professional Hunter’s license – and as such it is illegal for them to conduct a safari in Zimbabwe.

 

[wesheltonj]

I have read the entire thread here and another elsewhere. And here's want I have learned: 11k elephants are in the park, of which 20 are collared - .0018181 percent are by handshake are "off limits." The same operator that did the hunt that MP was the PH did the hunt on the second collared bull.

If you are going to convince the gov't to accept the import of your "trophy" you can't keep just keep on shooting animals without regard to all parties, including the NGO's. Perhaps they need a size maximum like around Kruger.

By the way, if you can't get a good view of the animal, perhaps you should pass the shot.

 

[John Sharp]

Hello John and welcome! Looking forwad with great anticipation to the release of that new book of yours
Thank you for posting the original text of this letter.

Thank you!

I will be launching the paperback version at the HuntEx exhibition in Johannesburg next week - the limited edition hard back, in a hard sleeve, numbered and signed, will only be ready sometime in May.