Zimbabwe collared Elephant

[John Sharp]

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?

Hello BRICKBURN,
Jerome has already covered this.
Best,
John

 

[LivingTheDream]

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.

But if members resign due to the "ethical" stance taken by the board does it benefit the organization and community as a whole?

 

[John Sharp]

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,
As far as I am aware there is no actual law preventing anyone from shooting a collared animal. As has been stated a few times, this is a question of ethics. Ethics are like morals - everyone has a different interpretation.
I can only say that I personally would do my best not shoot any collared animal, unless I had been instructed to do so, but this is just me - old school.
I must add though that mistakes do happen. Who can judge whether the mistake was genuine or intentional?
Please don't ever ask me to be a judge...

 

[John Sharp]

But if members resign due to the "ethical" stance taken by the board does it benefit the organization and community as a whole?

No, this is not good for the organisation or the community.
I would like to believe this was a knee-jerk reaction from MP at the time, and I actually discussed this with him this evening when I saw him and his family in a restaurant. I'd like to hope he will reconsider.
I have known him since he was a youngster, and would be deeply saddened if he joined the ranks of the 'untouchables' that so many of us have tried so hard to police for so may years.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

IdaRam,
As far as I am aware there is no actual law preventing anyone from shooting a collared animal. As has been stated a few times, this is a question of ethics. Ethics are like morals - everyone has a different interpretation.
I can only say that I personally would do my best not shoot any collared animal, unless I had been instructed to do so, but this is just me - old school.
I must add though that mistakes do happen. Who can judge whether the mistake was genuine or intentional?
Please don't ever ask me to be a judge...

Appreciate your thoughts on this issue John. When the issue with Martin Pieters I mentioned on another forum that perhaps it is time to make it illegal to shoot collared elephants.

But I don't do so lightly. There would need to be a lot of language around this including where elephant were collared, how far outside of national parks they can roam before becoming legal for hunting as well as responsibility put on the research organization that collared the animal to communicate with outfitters and PHs where the animals are. And I'm sure other details I've not thought of.

I say this because the issue for whatever reason seems to be reaching a point where a law needs to be written to put the issue at rest. Whether I agree or not with the ethical reasons for not taking a collared elephant even if legal is irrelevant to me. If it was legal, it was legal. I'm not going to demonize anyone if they're within the law. So if the issue has reached such a high level of concern, then make it illegal.

At some point before I came along and became interested in African hunting, someone decided that taking female leopards was not acceptable. And as such it became illegal to do so. So any PH conducting a leopard hunt makes damn sure to identify the testicles on the cat before giving the green light to the hunter to shoot. This is done at roughly 50 yards and sometimes in very low light conditions.

So it would seem to me that if it were made illegal to take a collared elephant with a significant penalty for doing so, the PHs will work very hard to ensure no collar.

Again I'm not inclined to write a law for every issue that comes up in life. But sometimes there's a call to do that, and it feels like that to me in this situation.

 

[John Sharp]

Given that the anti hunters are currently winning this battle, we have to do something - I agree. But what?
Making it illegal to shoot collared animals might be a bit harsh, as in some cases, some researchers (and there are many different ones depending on the area), try to collar every mature animal they can (lions in particular), just to prevent them from being shot. And when one is shot, the information is immediately sent to the anti hunting organisations and the 'Cecil' effect happens on social media. Not good for the country concerned.
This is not as easy as it sounds.

 

[IdaRam]

John, thanks for the replies.

"This is not as easy as it sounds"
Amen brother!

 

[Wheels]

Given that the anti hunters are currently winning this battle, we have to do something - I agree. But what?
Making it illegal to shoot collared animals might be a bit harsh, as in some cases, some researchers (and there are many different ones depending on the area), try to collar every mature animal they can (lions in particular), just to prevent them from being shot. And when one is shot, the information is immediately sent to the anti hunting organisations and the 'Cecil' effect happens on social media. Not good for the country concerned.
This is not as easy as it sounds.

Welcome to AH John. Your knowledge and experience are appreciated.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Given that the anti hunters are currently winning this battle, we have to do something - I agree. But what?
Making it illegal to shoot collared animals might be a bit harsh, as in some cases, some researchers (and there are many different ones depending on the area), try to collar every mature animal they can (lions in particular), just to prevent them from being shot. And when one is shot, the information is immediately sent to the anti hunting organisations and the 'Cecil' effect happens on social media. Not good for the country concerned.
This is not as easy as it sounds.

No, I'm certain it's not easy. A limit on the number of collared animals that have strayed outside parks before becoming legal for hunting would be necessary. I have no doubt the anti's would collar every single animal if it were feasible.

 

[IdaRam]

But if members resign due to the "ethical" stance taken by the board does it benefit the organization and community as a whole?

I bet we agree on this, it probably does not. Whether it be ZPHGA or PHASA, it most likely does not HELP the organization when members resign. However, just like individuals, these organizations must make a conscious decision where they stand and what they stand for. Ideally this is a well considered position taking into consideration all of the relevant facts and supported by the majority of members, with constant attention to achieving a desired outcome - the health and sustainability of the industry that is their livelihood to name but one.
I believe we have just scratched the surface on this collared elephant discussion. There are a number of different points of view that ALL have merit. Are any of these points of view entirely correct or incorrect? Absolutely not! I don't believe so anyway.
Whether it be here on AH or within a Professional Hunting organization, failure to at least consider the legitimacy of a different point of view often times is the source of these divides I believe you were referring to.
Part of their reason for being (ZPHGA, PHASA, etc) is establishing and maintaining a set of ethical standards. Not all members will agree on every aspect. The old saying about pleasing all the people all the time.

A wise man once said, "seek to understand before being understood."
Good advice for every one of us.

 

[K-man]

It is a difficult position to understand. If it is simply "unethical" from ZPHGA standpoint, then suspensions and seizure of trophy is a backdoor way of making it illegal. Make a clear stand, publish the rules and then we choose who and where we hunt with our dollars. The client can then decide whether his personal ethics align with the rules. I have hunted elephant at night in Zim. No way on earth even with a full moon to determine if it was collared. No mention EVER about what to do if a collared animal came by. I would be in court within moments if my trophy was seized by this "rule".

 

[John Sharp]

I bet we agree on this, it probably does not. Whether it be ZPHGA or PHASA, it most likely does not HELP the organization when members resign. However, just like individuals, these organizations must make a conscious decision where they stand and what they stand for. Ideally this is a well considered position taking into consideration all of the relevant facts and supported by the majority of members, with constant attention to achieving a desired outcome - the health and sustainability of the industry that is their livelihood to name but one.
I believe we have just scratched the surface on this collared elephant discussion. There are a number of different points of view that ALL have merit. Are any of these points of view entirely correct or incorrect? Absolutely not! I don't believe so anyway.
Whether it be here on AH or within a Professional Hunting organization, failure to at least consider the legitimacy of a different point of view often times is the source of these divides I believe you were referring to.
Part of their reason for being (ZPHGA, PHASA, etc) is establishing and maintaining a set of ethical standards. Not all members will agree on every aspect. The old saying about pleasing all the people all the time.

A wise man once said, "seek to understand before being understood."
Good advice for every one of us.

We never ever had problems like this before the advent of social media. This whole topic has now become rather grey...

 

[LivingTheDream]

Here is my concern, if we say that shooting a collared animal is illegal. More animals will be collared than we can count. This is one more way to chip away at us.

I feel that there should be a strong statement made regarding how the campfire program works, the efforts of outfitters towards conservation, and that hunting worked as desired that an old bull was removed from the population. To try to push new laws will be nothing but a win for anti's. Ones personal ethics or the PHs should be discussed and confirmed before the start of the hunt.

 

[tarbe]

There have been a lot of good arguments made in this thread.

Being I am in the chemical industry, I cannot help but draw a few parallels with our industry's challenges to maintaining our "license to operate" from the greater society.

But we need to always remember this; there is no inherent, God-given, unalienable right to hunt. The greater society can shut us down if we stray into areas that a preponderance of people do not appreciate and they make enough noise.

The Marine in me says "to hell with them, I will hunt"!

The realist in me says this is a battle we must win with our heads and hearts, not our fists.

As we will always have disagreements amongst ourselves on these points, let's remain allies in the same foxhole!

 

[Royal27]

Here is my concern, if we say that shooting a collared animal is illegal. More animals will be collared than we can count. This is one more way to chip away at us.

I think this is a baseless fear that is brought up quite often. Here me out as to why.

I'm not sure what an elephant collar costs to put on, but it isn't cheap. I'm going to guess $1k for the collar. Then, you don't exactly call the elephant like your dog and slide the collar on. You have to find the elephant, dart the elephant, put the collar on and have an entire team of trained people to do this. Let's call this another $1k per day minimum. So let's call it $2k per elephant in order to "protect" an elephant for 2-3 years.

Does anyone really and truly believe that antis are going to PAY $2k per elephant and perhaps much more in order to actually save elephants????? LOL! If you do, then please explain to me why they aren't using that money today in order to fund anti-poaching and other boots on the ground efforts already.

Anti organizations are in this for the money and want to put money in their pockets, not into wildlife. Collaring elephants would cut into their profit margin and serve no purpose. Remember, their entire business model is based on making people donate money by creating an emotional reaction based on public fear around a dwindling resource, not saving animals. A stable population actually hurts their business model.

Plus the Government of the resident country would have to permit organizations to dart every animal and not just research animals. And let's even argue that the governments allow it. How long do you think it would be until poachers cracked code and no longer even had to track elephants, but used GPS data to find the general areas elephants were in more quickly?

To be sure, we have plenty of things to worry about including hunter supported import bans, the ignorance and opinion of the general populace against elephant conservation, and and even a ban of elephant hunting in general. A fear of half a million collared elephants in Africa shouldn't be what keeps us awake at night.

 

[billc]

I think this is a baseless fear that is brought up quite often. Here me out as to why.

I'm not sure what an elephant collar costs to put on, but it isn't cheap. I'm going to guess $1k for the collar. Then, you don't exactly call the elephant like your dog and slide the collar on. You have to find the elephant, dart the elephant, put the collar on and have an entire team of trained people to do this. Let's call this another $1k per day minimum. So let's call it $2k per elephant in order to "protect" an elephant for 2-3 years.

Does anyone really and truly believe that antis are going to PAY $2k per elephant and perhaps much more in order to actually save elephants????? LOL! If you do, then please explain to me why they aren't using that money today in order to fund anti-poaching and other boots on the ground efforts already.

Anti organizations are in this for the money and want to put money in their pockets, not into wildlife. Collaring elephants would cut into their profit margin and serve no purpose. Remember, their entire business model is based on making people donate money by creating an emotional reaction based on public fear around a dwindling resource, not saving animals. A stable population actually hurts their business model.

Plus the Government of the resident country would have to permit organizations to dart every animal and not just research animals. And let's even argue that the governments allow it. How long do you think it would be until poachers cracked code and no longer even had to track elephants, but used GPS data to find the general areas elephants were in more quickly?

To be sure, we have plenty of things to worry about including hunter supported import bans, the ignorance and opinion of the general populace against elephant conservation, and and even a ban of elephant hunting in general. A fear of half a million collared elephants in Africa shouldn't be what keeps us awake at night.

Your right they are in for the money and to stop hunting. They could give rats ass about poaching because that does not get on the news when it happens. What gets on the news is when some hunter does something they don't like they can push the bs to fill there pockets. I am dam sure there would be more then a few who would spend the money to collar them if it stopped hunting.

I get what some are saying that being nice seems the better way. That has been done and failed over the last few years and we keep loosing. Then we think well lets just do a little more and they will see we are nice guys. They we get another kick in the ass by the whole play nice theme.

If we believe in what we are doing is right then back it up and fight for it and all hunters. Short of animals living in the areas that are set aside for them to live with no hunting. There is plenty of those areas to. All animals should be fair game based on what we as hunter believe in. No group or person collaring or naming it should stop an animal from being hunted.

Hard to believe some just do not get it is time to make a stand for hunting. Not based on what one may like or not but based on facts that hunting helps and is needed. Instead of fighting with ourselves over raised or wild or now named or collared animal. Fight for all hunting rights and then use your ethics to decide how you hunt.

Also a new law does not only need to be done to stop hunting of collared animals it could be done to say it is legal under the law also. Either way it would be then spelled out for all.

 

[John Sharp]

There have been a lot of good arguments made in this thread.

Being I am in the chemical industry, I cannot help but draw a few parallels with our industry's challenges to maintaining our "license to operate" from the greater society.

But we need to always remember this; there is no inherent, God-given, unalienable right to hunt. The greater society can shut us down if we stray into areas that a preponderance of people do not appreciate and they make enough noise.

The Marine in me says "to hell with them, I will hunt"!

The realist in me says this is a battle we must win with our heads and hearts, not our fists.

As we will always have disagreements amongst ourselves on these points, let's remain allies in the same foxhole!

You are absolutely right Tarbe - it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness...

 

[John Sharp]

I think this is a baseless fear that is brought up quite often. Here me out as to why.

I'm not sure what an elephant collar costs to put on, but it isn't cheap. I'm going to guess $1k for the collar. Then, you don't exactly call the elephant like your dog and slide the collar on. You have to find the elephant, dart the elephant, put the collar on and have an entire team of trained people to do this. Let's call this another $1k per day minimum. So let's call it $2k per elephant in order to "protect" an elephant for 2-3 years.

Does anyone really and truly believe that antis are going to PAY $2k per elephant and perhaps much more in order to actually save elephants????? LOL! If you do, then please explain to me why they aren't using that money today in order to fund anti-poaching and other boots on the ground efforts already.

Anti organizations are in this for the money and want to put money in their pockets, not into wildlife. Collaring elephants would cut into their profit margin and serve no purpose. Remember, their entire business model is based on making people donate money by creating an emotional reaction based on public fear around a dwindling resource, not saving animals. A stable population actually hurts their business model.

Plus the Government of the resident country would have to permit organizations to dart every animal and not just research animals. And let's even argue that the governments allow it. How long do you think it would be until poachers cracked code and no longer even had to track elephants, but used GPS data to find the general areas elephants were in more quickly?

To be sure, we have plenty of things to worry about including hunter supported import bans, the ignorance and opinion of the general populace against elephant conservation, and and even a ban of elephant hunting in general. A fear of half a million collared elephants in Africa shouldn't be what keeps us awake at night.

You are correct Royal - the anti's will never pay for any of this. Incidentally, a satellite tracking collar is around $2.5K and that's just the mechanism - everything else is extra. Add in the helicopter and crews plus the M99 sedative, you're looking at way more than you thought...

 

[billc]

The problem is sometimes you light the candle and people are still in the dark. I wish there was a way to kill them with kindness and we could all be happy. In the end the ones who want hunting stopped don't care how nice we are unless we say we will not kill another animal.

And John welcome to the site I know tim (tarbe ) is really looking forward to his hunt with you. I really hope all this bs does not ruin your lively hood and helping the wildlife like you do.

 

[Royal27]

You are correct Royal - the anti's will never pay for any of this. Incidentally, a satellite tracking collar is around $2.5K and that's just the mechanism - everything else is extra. Add in the helicopter and crews plus the M99 sedative, you're looking at way more than you thought...

I figured I was being conservative, but that is more than I thought.

And you mean that people don't just donate their helicopters for free???