Sunday, April 17, 2016

Help Spread the Truth About Saving Lions

Photo from the Independent - (
The truth about hunting and sustainable use of lions is often on the wrong side of public opinion. It is difficult for people to grasp the connection between hunting and conservation of species. The reality is that lion populations are increasing or stable in countries where lion hunting occurs. Habitat loss and loss of prey – primarily in western and central Africa where hunting typically does not occur – are the main sources of population declines for African lions, not hunting. 

The more the public knows about the benefits of hunting programs, the less likely it is that governments will be influenced by the misinformed (or ill-intentioned) public. For the truth about lion hunting and the benefits of sustainable-use conservation visit

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

IUCN Releases Briefing Paper on the Benefits of Trophy Hunting

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) released a briefing paper this month that serves to educate European decision makers and the public on the benefits of trophy hunting. The Dallas Safari Club (DSC) has commended the IUCN for their brief on trophy hunting and stated:

DSC applauds the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on a report that educates European decision makers and the public on the benefits of trophy hunting.

An IUCN briefing published this month discusses in great detail how legal, well-regulated trophy hunting can and does generate critically needed incentives and revenue in order for government, private and community landowners to maintain and restore wildlife as a land use and to carry out conservation actions, including much-needed anti-poaching interventions.

Recently, a few cases of poorly regulated and poorly conducted hunts have brought about increased concern for trophy hunting. Confusion and misinformation have led to knee-jerk reactions and, in some cases, blanket bans on hunting and transportation of hunting trophies.

A group of members of the European Parliament have called for the signing of a declaration to ban imports of trophies. IUCN urges that their findings be incorporated into any discussions calling for partial or full bans on trophy importations. IUCN’s findings show the widespread benefits resulting from trophy hunting and provide scientific research as a basis for policy decisions.

“As a member of IUCN since 2015, DSC is pleased to see the IUCN’s findings align with our mission to better inform those in charge of making decisions and implementing policies that can forever affect our natural resources,” said DSC Executive Director Ben Carter. “We support science-based decision making − not emotion-based − and the IUCN’s findings demonstrate how trophy hunting not only improves wildlife populations and habitat but also the surrounding communities.”

The facts listed in the brief vividly illustrate the increased wildlife populations, the increased habitat and the improved livelihoods of surrounding communities brought about by trophy hunting revenues. Restrictions on importation of trophies can make trophy hunting programs economically unviable at local levels. This loss of local and national revenue may remove incentives for entities to properly manage and protect wildlife and would likely cause serious declines in populations of a number of threatened or iconic species.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Another Fine Example of Conservation through Sustainable and Ethical Hunting

Spreading the word about how poaching is damaging to wildlife conservation is an important topic. This article contains content about commercial poaching and displays pictures that some viewers may find disturbing or offensive. If you are under the age of 18, if such material offends you or if it is illegal to view such material in your community please do not read this article. Please use discretion.

Prior to 2002, Coutada 9, like all other wilderness areas in Mozambique, had been through over 25 years of civil war and rampant poaching. This massive area (4333 square kilometers) was left virtually devoid of wildlife. Furthermore, the area suffered serious habitat destruction, being subjected to annual late season bushfires and the indiscriminate cutting of trees through “slash and burn” agricultural practices. In 2002, Rio Save Safaris (made up of Mokore Safaris, Western Safaris and Gajogo Safaris), took over the concession and set out to rehabilitate the area to its former glory. First, they needed to take control of the massive poaching epidemic and provide surface water for the very limited remaining wildlife.

Over the past 13 years RSS has drilled 22 boreholes and constructed 12 large dams, these provide permanent surface water for the wildlife in Coutada 9. This water is essential for life and all species benefit, including birds, smaller mammals as well as insects. The construction of these dams has been a lengthy and expensive exercise.

Some of the completed dams on Coutada 9 creating permanent surface water for the wildlife.

Since 2003 RSS anti-poaching teams have consistently removed over 1000 gin traps per year, caught on average 150 poacher per year and confiscated numerous homemade muzzle loader rifles as well as a few modern assault weapons like AK 47’s from poachers. For EVERY weapon confiscated, poacher apprehended or trap removed RSS have paid an incentive bonus to the anti-poaching units. Due to these continuous efforts, the wildlife has thrived and flourished, to the stage where most populations have reached sustainable population densities.

A year’s haul of traps and guns with some of RSS anti-poaching game scouts.

Elephants are poisoned by villagers where nothing from the animal was utilized. Most poaching is done for commercial use and totally unsustainable.

Some species populations, however were so low that RSS set out to re-introduce these species. Not a small feat in itself considering no importation of wildlife or inter-area game transfers had ever taken place in Mozambique. After 18 months of tireless negotiations, RSS imported 10 lions in September 2009 from Phinda Game Reserve in South Africa. They were transported and successfully released into Coutada 9 over 1600 km away. 
The lions were only put in quarantine boma for 3 weeks to settle before being released into Coutada 9. They have settled and are breeding well in the Coutada.

Waterbuck numbers, a species that once thrived in Coutada 9, were down to a mere handful after the civil war. RSS made a deal with Gorongosa National Park to swap 20 Zebra and 40 eland for 146 waterbuck. GNP got to increase their eland and zebra populations and C9 received 146 waterbuck in September 2013. Waterbuck are now seen daily and breeding well.

Eland from Coutada 9 being released into Gorongosa National Park and
the replacement of 146 Waterbuck into C9.
The capture team at work. 
A key priority from the outset, was to boost the local remnant buffalo population and after more than 10 years of trying to source buffalo from surrounding countries as well as within Mozambique RSS was FINALLY granted permission from the Mozambique government to capture 50 buffalo as a trial from the Zambesi Delta reserve. This was finally achieved in 2015. The 50 buffalo were put in quarantine boma initially and are safe and sound in Coutada 9 with plans now to capture a further 250 next year. The 50 buffalo we introduced last year cost RSS over US$75,000.00 not to mention the many frustrating years trying to get permits to do this project.

The first 50 buffalo in their quarantine bomas, November 2015.
These projects and all other developments such as building of road networks, Safari Camps and staff accommodation to date have been funded through trophy hunting. RSS operates on a strict sustainable off-take quota where a small percentage, normally 2-5% of a population, is harvested. These animals are usually males past their prime and their removal has little impact on the overall species population.

All funds raised through trophy hunting to date, have gone back into the conservation and development of this magnificent area as well as to support the local communities. 

RSS employ 50 game scouts for anti-poaching alone as well as another 60 plus people for all other development work required. This in turn provides over 100 families with a reliable source of income and food annually.

Of the animals harvested 25 % of the trophy fee received from foreign hunters goes directly to the local communities. RSS also supplies most meat to the community either directly through delivering it to the local villages or indirectly through issuing it to the staff working within the Coutada. The meat from ALL animals harvested is FULLY utilized, including lions, baboons and especially elephant.

RSS has also built a school, clinic and drilled boreholes for the surrounding communities. Many of our hunting clients have made donations to the school personally or in the form of delivering SCI Blue Bags.

Poaching, as opposed to legal trophy hunting, is indiscriminate, without regard to age, sex or species of animals killed. There is no respect for boundaries or numbers of animals harvested and if not constantly policed there WILL be no wildlife left. The general modus operandi of the poachers in this region is hunting with homemade gin traps or snares which is very cruel. When RSS initially arrived in Coutada 9 almost every animal harvested by hunters was missing a foot from these traps.

Basically, the animal once trapped will drag the trap around for 3 -4 days until the poachers catch up to it and kill it with an axe or spear. Some species such as lion, buffalo, leopard and elephant that they cannot kill due to the danger aspect with their axes are left to drag these traps around for weeks until the animal dies either from starvation or from infection. Sometimes the animal’s foot rots, breaks or is bitten off. These survivors are then crippled for life, or slowly lose condition and die.

One male lion had three of its four limbs injured from traps. Thanks to hunter supported anti-poaching efforts there are far fewer cases of injured animals but still a massive and continual problem.

An eland with a trap on that escaped the poachers with two axes embedded in it and a baby elephant that had to be put down after dragging this trap for over a week and another that eventually died from infection and starvation.

A buffalo cow that was caught in a trap that was put down after a week, as was the kudu, one of several elephant poached annually for their ivory and a buffalo bull shot with a trap on it.

A mature lioness and a sub-adult lioness that both died from these traps.

A young male lion that was caught with a trap, after a week its foot rotted off and is now walking around with only 3 feet.

The illegal cutting of hardwoods for planking is another massive problem and the RSS anti-poaching team is heavily involved in trying to protect all the beautiful hardwoods on Coutada 9.

The only donations received to date have been from the hunting organizations, Dallas Safari Club and Safari Club International. RSS would like to thank them both for helping us save the animals and habitat on Coutada 9.

A massive THANK YOU to all the hunters who in following their passion for adventure in wild Africa have saved thousands of animals in Coutada 9, provided employment and income for many families as well as fed thousands of local villagers over the past 13 years. None of the animals pictured here have names but hunters are the ONLY ones fighting to save these remote and wonderful areas and their wildlife. Your continued support of sustainable hunting is greatly appreciated. D
ue to its location and topography many areas are totally unsuitable to photographic type tourism and thus would not generate the necessary funds to rejuvenate and protect these wild areas.

Pictured above is 1306 gin traps, 68 cable snares, 9 can rat traps and 25 homemade muzzle loaders that were collected by our RSS anti-poaching team in 2015 alone. This anti-poaching effort alone costs RSS over US$100,000.00 annually, all of this comes from sustainable hunting.

After 13 years of hard work Coutada 9 boasts one of the best game population densities in wild unfenced Africa today and will only improve since the addition of more waterbuck, lion and buffalo to the Coutada.

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Cecil's Law and EU Declarations - What Is the Risk, Where Is the Truth?

(Photo-Vince O’Sullivan/Flickr)
Cecil's Law and EU Declarations - What Is the Risk, Where Is the Truth?
Written By John J. Jackson III, Conservation Force Chairman & President
(posted April 2016)

By Regina Lennox

How much of a threat are two recent efforts to ban hunting trophies in Connecticut and the EU? Here, we evaluate the attacks, describe their proponents, and refute the lies on which they are based. To clarify the conflation of legal hunting and poaching, we offer 25 reasons why hunting is not like poaching. (A citated version of this list is available on our website,

No attack on hunting can safely be ignored. There has been too much negative press and unsubstantiated criticism. But from a legal perspective, these attacks are low risk and do not threaten to close hunting. Do they carry weight in the court of public opinion? It is harder to say. Therefore, we must take every chance to explain the benefits of regulated, sustainable hunting and not to allow any attack, even a weak one, to spread misinformation.

Cecil's Law
The first attack seeks to ban the import, possession, sale, and transport of hunting trophies and products of African elephant, lion, leopard, and black and white rhino in the state of Connecticut.

The bill, named "Cecil's Law," was introduced in February and is pending in the Legislature's Environment Committee. It was drafted by animal rights group Friends of Animals (FoA). Although this bill has a limited potential impact, any law that prohibits the import or possession of legal trophies is a threat.

FoA's press release claims Cecil's Law only targets hunting trophies. That is false. The bill prohibits import, possession, sale, or transport of "big five African species." It defines "big five African Species" broadly, as "any specimen" of African elephant, lion, leopard, and rhino including any live or dead parts or products.  The only exceptions are grandfathered specimens for which the owner obtains a certificate of possession, distribution of grandfathered specimens to a legal beneficiary or heir; nonprofit museum collections; and specimens passing through the state with a permit from another state, which do not exist.

Cecil's Law is illegal. It is "preempted" (overridden) by the ESA, which does not allow states to substitute their judgments in place of those by Congress or the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). When FWS issues a permit, a state must respect it.  Courts have voided state laws that banned commercial trade in elephant products authorized by FWS regulations.  We would expect a similar outcome here.

FoA is an animal rights group opposed to hunting and wildlife management. FoA opposes the "concept of animals as resources for human beings" and international trade in wildlife. Its website defines hunting as "a deceitful and unnecessary act … for purely gratuitous reasons … unethical, socially unjustifiable and ecologically disruptive."

Conservation Force is litigating against FoA to defend two permits for black rhino trophies from Namibia: imports FWS found enhanced the survival of the rhino. The hunts contributed $550,000 exclusively for black rhino conservation and protection. Yet FoA sued to rescind the permits and stop FWS from using the ESA's enhancement provision as a positive tool for conservation.

FoA also sued the State and Interior Departments over the sale of 22 live elephant from Zimbabwe to China. Although FoA's complaint frequently referred to "baby elephant," photos and Zimbabwe's wildlife authority confirmed that they were sub-adults, not "babies." In July 2015, the Secretariat confirmed the sale was permitted under CITES. Conservation Force represented Zimbabwe and was to intervene when the case was voluntarily dismissed.

FoA admits it is trying to "end the importation into the US of trophy hunted animals by 2020."

Anti-Hunting Declaration in the European Parliament
In January, a proposed Written Declaration on trophy hunting was filed in the European Parliament calling on the European Council and Commission "to examine the possibility of restricting all trophy imports."  The Declaration does not pose a legal threat, but its anti-hunting emotion should be of concern to those who support sustainable use.

The Declaration cannot stop hunting or imports. It is not a law. It is not binding. It is only a request, in this case for an "examination" of hunting. If the Declaration receives signatures from half the Members of the European Parliament, it will be sent to the Council and Commission. But it seems unlikely to succeed: it has only 78 out of 376 signatures so far and will lapse on April 18 if it does not get the rest.

The Declaration should not be adopted as it makes an end-run around the EU Scientific Review Group (SRG). Like the FWS, the SRG makes findings on the sustainability and benefits of hunting programs which guide EU members in issuing import permits. The SRG imposes high standards on range nations, and those standards must be respected by EU members.

The Declaration is legally without teeth; however, challenges or criticisms of hunting at this level should worry all. FACE and other pro-hunting groups in Europe are monitoring and opposing the Declaration. So is Conservation Force.

Born Free
The Declaration is masterminded by Born Free Foundation, a British animal welfare group.  Born Free was founded by the stars of the movie Born Free. It has grown incredibly, raising £3.8 million income in 2015. Born Free's President is President of the Species Survival Network, a coalition of about 80 animal rights groups, including HSUS.

Born Free uses its substantial assets to fund scientific research, including research by the lead author of the 2015 IUCN Red List assessment for African lion. Born Free is a formidable foe due to its resources and reach. Its website states it will "never forget the individual" animal, and also states Born Free's position against sport hunting.

The List of Lies
The following list summarizes the inaccuracies in Cecil's Law and the Declaration, and explains the reality below each lie. A list of references is available on our website:

1.       "Trophy hunting is a cruel and cynical business" and "brutality."
Safari hunting is not a "cruel business." Death by bullet is much quicker and less brutal than death in the wild.

Good operators are stewards of their areas. For example, Bubye Valley Conservancy reinvests the revenue from hunting in conservation, and its efforts have paid off in the largest population of black rhino in Zimbabwe (the third largest in the world), and important populations of cheetah, wild dog, and 500-plus lion. Hunting is the conservancy's only source of revenue. It pays for those black rhino, lion and other species. That is not cruel or cynical - it is conservation.

2.       EU members do not follow rules that require a demonstrable positive conservation benefit for import of game species.
The SRG is responsible for evaluating whether the hunting of protected wildlife (including elephant, rhino, and lion) is sustainable and benefits the species. The SRG meets often. It dialogues with range nations. In 2015, it closed the import of elephant trophies from Tanzania, but opened imports from Zambia because Zambia showed it had a stable elephant population, updated management plan, and community benefits program. In other words, the SRG did its job. Most EU members do their jobs and follow the SRG's opinions. Criticism of this stringent process is unwarranted.

3.       Trophy hunting puts the world's "wonderful wildlife" at risk.
The greatest threat to wildlife in Africa is loss of habitat due to human population growth. Hunting areas provide at least 1.3 million km2 of habitat, countering the threat and transferring the cost of combatting encroachment to the private sector. That alone is a significant benefit to "wonderful wildlife."

4.       US hunters kill too many animals. "Trophy hunters rob the rest of us of our shared wildlife heritage."
Hunting has restored game and protects it. Hunting areas offer extensive habitat and serve as buffers for national parks, creating conditions for wildlife growth. Much hunting occurs on private land where wildlife is owned by individuals and cannot be "stolen" from the public. In South Africa, privately owned game far exceeds that in national parks. Private ranches are responsible for recovering species like the white rhino and bontebok.

Hunting offtakes are sustainable. Most game taken is abundant and not at-risk; e.g., 96% of game hunted in South Africa is common or abundant.  Offtakes of listed species are low. South Africa's elephant quota is 150 bulls. Namibia's is 90. Tanzania's is 100 in a population exceeding 40,000. And utilization is almost always lower than that. In Tanzania in 2014, only seven bulls out of 100 were taken. The same for lion: in 2015 in Tanzania, only 39 were harvested, and the utilization in Zimbabwe in 2015 was 39/85.

These low numbers do not threaten populations - as the CITES Parties recognized when they authorized limited offtakes/exports of black rhino and markhor. The reality is not robbery but more like investment. Hunting operators protect and grow wildlife and take a small dividend from the population to offset expenses. This is a workable model that focuses on and is successful in protecting the species as a whole.

5.       Legal hunting enables illegal poaching.
The press release on Cecil's Law claims "there is growing scientific evidence that the legal trade of trophy hunted species enables illegal poaching by providing poachers a legal market to launder their contraband. One example is South Africa. The country has seen a marked rise in illegal rhino poaching since it began selling permits for trophy hunted rhinos in 2004. Illegal trophy hunting has increased 5,000 percent since 2007." But FoA cites no evidence of these studies. The facts undercut this claim.

The opening of regulated hunting in South Africa led to recovery of the white rhino, from ~100 to 20,000+ today. Although hunting of black rhino in South Africa took place before, export of five black rhino trophies was authorized by a 2004 CITES Resolution. According to FoA, poaching, primarily of white rhino, did not increase for more than three years. That is a weak connection. In fact, hunting has nothing to do with increased poaching; regulated, sustainable hunting is the antithesis of unlawful, unsustainable poaching.

6.       Trophy hunting is nefarious and wasteful.
Antis love the term "trophy" hunting and use it like a curse. But trophy hunting is the same safari hunting that has existed since Teddy Roosevelt. It is nothing more than selective hunting - waiting for a high-quality specimen.

Antis like to imply that trophy hunters cut the heads off animals and walk away. That is false. Hunting ethics prohibit waste, and trophy animals are not wasted. In most cases they provide protein for entire villages. In Zambia, a study found game meat distributions to communities from a small amount of hunting exceeded 6,000kg per year. In Bubye Valley, 45 tons of game meat is distributed annually. Trophy hunters are selective in their harvest but they are certainly not wasteful.

7.       Trophy hunting does not benefit range nation conservation programs. And FWS cannot ensure trophy imports are from well-managed programs. For example, it closed elephant imports from Tanzania and Zimbabwe because it did not have enough information on those programs.
Of course, if FWS closed imports from two countries because it could not find their programs enhanced the survival of the species, FWS was doing its job. Putting aside the inconsistency of FoA's criticism, what do range nation governments say about the value of regulated hunting?

South Africa's Environmental Minister expressed disappointment when the airlines embargoed transport of Big Five hunting trophies. She said: "The legal, well-regulated hunting industry in South Africa is … a source of much needed foreign exchange, job creation, community development and social upliftment." Similarly, in opposing the listing of African lion, Tanzania documented significant benefits from licensed, regulated hunting including: underwriting management and anti-poaching programs; shifting costs to the private sector; community benefits-sharing; and justifying and funding most wildlife habitat. Tanzania confirmed that 80% of its anti-poaching funds come from hunting revenue.

And recently, Namibia's Cabinet directed the ministry to campaign against any proposed bans on hunting and trophy exports. Among other things, the Cabinet pointed to income hunting generates for communal conservancies, private farms, anti-poaching, and wildlife conservation. Thus, according to range nations, legal, sustainable hunting is a key component of their conservation programs and is critical to maintaining wildlife populations. Western organizations who try to stop hunting ignore the range nations, and blind themselves to the fact that conservation costs money. Hunters have paid the bills for years. That truth is confirmed by the source. And it must be broadcast to quiet down groups like FoA and Born Free and shut down initiatives like these.

25 Reasons Licensed, Regulated, Sustainable Hunting (Hunting) Is Not Poaching

1.       Hunting is licensed. It requires a permit and fee. By definition, poaching is illegal.
2.       Hunting is regulated by species, area, season, number, quota, sex, age, etc. Poaching is indiscriminate. Snares do not distinguish species, sex or age.
3.       Hunting restricts methods used, such as prohibiting some weapons or motorized transport. A poacher uses whatever means are available, including poison, without concern for any collateral damage.
4.       Hunting only occurs at certain times. In Namibia and Zambia, for instance, no lion are hunted at night. Hunting has off seasons to avoid disrupting reproductive cycles. Poachers usually hunt during off times and do not care about animal cycles.
5.       Hunting is selective. Poachers do not care and will shoot whatever passes by. Snares do not discriminate.
6.       There are size and age limits for legal trophies. E.g., in Tanzania, elephant tusks must be at least 20kg or 1.6m. Lion must be above a certain age. Similar limits are imposed in other countries. Poachers do not follow any such rules.
7.       Hunting is sustainable because it is quota-based.
8.       Hunting is adaptive. If over-hunting (legal or not) occurs, legal hunting is halted. For example, lion hunting was suspended in 2005 outside Hwange NP due to concerns about the cumulative effects of hunting and problem animal control (PAC). The population recovered rapidly, and regulated hunting was re-opened.
9.       Hunting can be a bio-management tool. E.g., in Namibia, only "surplus" or "problem" black rhino are hunted. Removal of the rhino allows younger bulls to assume dominant positions and may increase reproductivity, or removes an animal that killed other rhino. Poaching undercuts management goals by taking any animal, including females and young.
10.   Hunting preserves habitat - the most habitat. In southern and eastern Africa, ~23% more habitat exists in hunting areas than national parks. That level is far higher in countries where hunting is legal, with five times more habitat in Tanzania and ~three times more in Zambia and South Africa. Hunters protect and police this habitat against the poachers who invade it.
11.   Hunting puts anti-poaching boots on the ground. Hundreds of game scouts are directly employed by hunting operators. In South Africa and Zimbabwe many rhino are privately owned. The high protection costs are paid by private operators.
12.   Hunting underwrites most anti-poaching by governments and communities. It provides the lion's share of funds for government wildlife authorities; for instance, it pays 80% of Tanzania's anti-poaching bills. Returns from hunting operations also pay for community scouts. How can anyone credibly compare it to poaching when legal hunting is the largest source of anti-poaching?
13.   Sharing of hunting fees and revenues, and contributions of supplies and services by hunting operators, creates conservation incentives for the communities most affected by wildlife. They receive significant revenues, e.g., 75% of trophy and permit fees in Tanzania, and 55% of fees directly into village bank accounts and 41% of fees through district councils in CAMPFIRE areas. Clinics and schools are built, boreholes drilled, and infrastructure is developed.
14.   By generating financial incentives, hunting reduces human-wildlife conflict. Human wildlife conflict (HWC) increases if hunting is banned, as in Kenya and recently Botswana. Poaching does not offset HWC because it steals benefits from communities and transfers them to individual poachers.
15.   Hunting provides meat to protein-poor communities. E.g., in Zambia, 50% of game meat must be shared with communities. Bubye Valley donates 45+ tons of meat from hunting. Commercial poachers usually leave the meat of poached animals to rot.
16.   Hunting dis-incentivizes poaching. In Tajikistan, former poachers created a conservancy that generates revenue from markhor hunts. They recognized the hunting offered sustainable benefits compared to short-term gains. The protection from this conservancy and others has increased the number of markhor and at-risk predators like snow leopard.
17.   Hunting recovers wildlife. Witness the white rhino population explosion once private ranchers began to financially benefit from hunting. The same is true in Tajikistan with markhor. Populations recover because legal hunting is controlled and sustainable, and offers a reason to increase numbers despite associated costs. Poaching can decimate wildlife.
18.   Hunters pay the big money that funds habitat protection, anti-poaching, employment, management and surveys, etc. Poachers do not pay the government, property owners, or anyone else.
19.   Hunting generates employment and tax revenue. In some areas it is the only source of employment. In Namibia, which faces 28% unemployment, a ban on legal hunting would cost ~3,500 jobs, mainly on community conservancies. Hunting also spurs jobs in service and tourist industries. These wages translate to spending and tax revenue to support under-resourced governments. Poaching generates no income or taxes and threatens jobs by reducing wildlife populations.
20.   Hunting revenues are the foundation of wildlife authority budgets. Hunters bankroll conservation in range nations throughout Africa. Poachers cost governments by necessitating higher enforcement expenditures.
21.   Hunting is ethical. It is generally based on a fair-chase code. Hunters make every effort to be humane. Poaching is unethical, brutal, and inhumane.
22.   Hunting is not commercial. Trophies are for personal use. Poaching can be commercialized and driven by syndicates and black-market cartels.
23.   Hunting is self-regulating. Clubs and professional hunters/operators' associations have strict codes of conduct. Poachers follow no codes. They are law-breakers by definition.
24.   Hunting is government-monitored. Range nations require the return of forms describing the hunt and harvest. Many require a government scout observe hunts. Poaching is neither monitored nor sanctioned by range nations. 
25.   There is no correlation between hunting and increased poaching. In South Africa, white (and black) rhino hunting took place well before an increase in poaching. Namibia kept poaching in check since black rhino exports began by using the revenue from these hunts. Elephant hunting occurred for years before the current poaching "crisis." As shown here, hunters are the counter to poachers, not the cause.

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Diizche Safari Adventures Offering the LUX-PRO LP 600C-Extreme TAC 600 (Laser Engraved Logo Flashlight)

As requested, we are now selling the LUX-PRO brand of LED flashlight (LUX-PRO LP 600C-Extreme TAC 600). We teamed up with LUX-PRO to bring our laser engraved logo branded torch to our domestic and international clients. This is a great light at a competitive price.

The beauty of LED flashlight technology is that it provides a light source that is virtually immune to failure. We partnered with LUX-PRO to bring you an LED flashlight in a high strength aluminum body with a rubber grip for a secure hold in all conditions. This light comes with our internationally sought-after company logo laser engraved on the flashlight head.

This light is now available and ready to ship! If you would like to learn more just follow this link to our website. Free shipping is not available on this item. International orders will also incur an additional shipping charge that will be calculated prior to shipping.