Rich hunters snap up croc safaris

[Waterrat]

and it's not only about dwarfism. The genetic material passed from big old crocs contains qualities related to robustness, aggression, longevity, predator avoidance, hunting skills, mating experience and general survival. They are the pylons of healthy populations.

 

[mmafan555]

I dont think anyone would even consider permitting trophy hunting in national parks etc
But there are plenty of bloody big crocs turning up outside those parks
They probably started off in the parks but with the increases in croc populations have moved elsewhere

When you talk to the old croc shooters who have recently been in the territory they all say the same thing
"Never seen so many crocs in my life, Not like this in the 50s and 60s, would have made a fortune"

Since croc shooting was stopped in 1973??? it hasnt taken that long really to explode their numbers
And when you consider how many thousands of wild eggs are removed from the wild each year those numbers could have been much higher

Yes no doubt they are VERY resilient animals in terms of recovering from over-hunting and reestablishing a population...But thats not what I was talking about...I was talking about dwarfnism which has little/nothing to do with population size...

What I meant was that being a slow growing reptile....it takes a long time for a croc to reach a huge size...A 17-18 ft wild croc will be a very old animal...So in comparison to other animals like Lions which are much faster growing and pretty much reach full size by age 4-8....crocodiles and other slow growing animals are much more vulnerable to dwarfism caused by hunting pressures...Trophy hunting targets the biggest, oldest, and most dominant animals...with hunters often passing up smaller/less dominant animals in search for larger beasts.

If you go out and extensively kill the largest oldest crocodiles you can find...well it wouldn't be a good thing.

 

[saratoga]

The very large crocs (5m+) are very shy - they remember the days of spotlights and hunting.

There is a new generation of crocs that have now reached a size where they are a threat to people. By all means take some of these out in the ~3-4 1/2 m range but leave the very big ones alone.

 

[Waterrat]

The big crocs should only be shot when they are no longer reproductive (we don't know when that is) or they loose their territorial rights. Many of the old crocs have no teeth or too many missing or blunt and can no longer challenge younger rivals. BUT, no trophy hunter would want a toothless croc head. Bummer!

 

[wokka]

I disagree...Many animals/humans are ultimately wasteful by nature and live solely in the moment...Putting a price on wildlife will not get people to value conservation of wildlife anymore so than people who are currently poaching rhinos and tigers into extinction for the quick buck they can make on the skins and horns...Most people do not look to the future and most either don't understand or are to greedy to care about sustainable development....

It could help but ultimately it's an issue of human nature.

Property owners and managers are more likely to encourage and maintain wildlife if there is a financial benefit at the end. That doesn't have to involve killing them it may encourage tourist to just look. human nature is such that not many humans do something for nothing. In the territory part of the idea of having guides do the killing is so that it is done in a humane and sustainable way. Hopefully the guides have a loger term view to the benefit of sustainable than some short term tourist.

 

[GeckoJosh]

Putting a price on wildlife is the best way to make them worth preserving in todays capitalistic society.

Its working in Africa on the game farms

 

[wokka]

100% agree. Unfortunately, our socialistic government (ALP) doesn't see it that way.

Isn't it the ALP Government that is allowing the croc cull in the Territory?

 

[abnrmal91]

I am sure people have seen this but I think it gives a great example of how pricing wildlife can work. Australia is limited as we only have crocodiles that would command a big price.

The Hot Seat: They Shoot Lions Don't They? - Environment - Browse - Big Ideas - ABC TV

 

[wokka]

I dont think anyone would even consider permitting trophy hunting in national parks etc
But there are plenty of bloody big crocs turning up outside those parks
They probably started off in the parks but with the increases in croc populations have moved elsewhere

When you talk to the old croc shooters who have recently been in the territory they all say the same thing
"Never seen so many crocs in my life, Not like this in the 50s and 60s, would have made a fortune"

Since croc shooting was stopped in 1973??? it hasnt taken that long really to explode their numbers
And when you consider how many thousands of wild eggs are removed from the wild each year those numbers could have been much higher

It happens, many of the best Rusa deer heads shot in Australia came from the Royal National Park, just south of Sydney. By allowing legal trophy shooting its takes presure off the illegal shoots.

 

[mmafan555]

Property owners and managers are more likely to encourage and maintain wildlife if there is a financial benefit at the end. That doesn't have to involve killing them it may encourage tourist to just look. human nature is such that not many humans do something for nothing. In the territory part of the idea of having guides do the killing is so that it is done in a humane and sustainable way. Hopefully the guides have a loger term view to the benefit of sustainable than some short term tourist.

I understand...It's the whole concept of "worth more alive than dead" which is definitely true...But it goes both ways...Rhino poaching in Africa is at an all time high now because in this scenario their is a financial benefit in killing rhinos because their horns are extremely expensive on the black market...

No one could argue with the "worth more alive than dead" part leading to people trying to conserve animals is true....

But what I don't agree with is your notion of "Putting a price on wildlife is the best way to make them worth preserving in todays capitalistic society."

I don't think that is true at all...Their is a price on tigers (meaning their skins) right now but are any poachers concerned with "sustainable" poaching of tigers?...I mean surely they must know that eventually if they keep this up....tigers will be gone for ever (meaning their source of income from selling the parts will be gone for ever) but they don't care because Humans like many other animals are wasteful by nature. They're not looking to the future...they're just poaching indiscriminately and trying to make a quick buck as quickly as they can.

 

[longqi]

Isn't it the ALP Government that is allowing the croc cull in the Territory?

As far as I know the only culling is of problem crocs that cant be removed any other way, or after a fatality if they need to find remains

Money talks with any animals
Look at sport fishing in the USA
Some awesome fishing there all from stocked fingerlings
Or else from total bans and then limited take permits

 

[mmafan555]

I understand...It's the whole concept of "worth more alive than dead" which is definitely true...But it goes both ways...Rhino poaching in Africa is at an all time high now because in this scenario their is a financial benefit in killing rhinos because their horns are extremely expensive on the black market...

No one could argue with the "worth more alive than dead" part leading to people trying to conserve animals is true....

But what I don't agree with is your notion of "Putting a price on wildlife is the best way to make them worth preserving in todays capitalistic society."

I don't think that is true at all...Their is a price on tigers (meaning their skins) right now but are any poachers concerned with "sustainable" poaching of tigers?...I mean surely they must know that eventually if they keep this up....tigers will be gone for ever (meaning their source of income from selling the parts will be gone for ever) but they don't care because Humans like many other animals are wasteful by nature. They're not looking to the future...they're just poaching indiscriminately and trying to make a quick buck as quickly as they can.

Putting a price on widllife would imo only lead to people trying to exploit more animals for a short term gain....I don't trust humans to conserve anything nor do I think it is in our nature to do so.

Its working in Africa on the game farms

Yeah, but if the overall loss of livestock outweighed the economic benefits of keeping lions alive on the reserve...You can bet your *** the lions would be killed within a month.

 

[longqi]

Africa is not a great example simply because of the poaching
But USA shows the way it can be done
Where you have vast populations you cannot include everyone in the money making
Thats the problem in Africa

We are using snake hunters as guides in Papua Java and Borneo
They are very quick to understand they can only sell a snake once
But they can take 100 tourists to see that snake
They are starting to protect 'their' snakes now and woe betide any other hunters encroaching on their areas

 

[Red-Ink]

I understand...It's the whole concept of "worth more alive than dead" which is definitely true...But it goes both ways...Rhino poaching in Africa is at an all time high now because in this scenario their is a financial benefit in killing rhinos because their horns are extremely expensive on the black market...

The difference is we aren't a third world country and poachings would be minimal as there's no real money in it due to croc farms for hides, bones, skulls or whatever the market dictates in that sense.

Land owners keeping a sustainable populations of crocs would be more beneficial for them as once it has a price it's a comodity. Whats' the best way of making money from a comodity - create a market and make sure you don't run out of what your selling.

 

[crocodile_dan]

Sustainable use of wildlife is an industry where it is far too easy for it to become a matter of "the straw that broke the camels back" a lot of science referenced in several areas on this matter were poor or dated and subsequent recent material ruled out many papers still used to support it in my studies.

I do believe the concept is valid but in practice it is less than perfect to date with many species globally.

I personally HATE the ethical stance of a "kill them to save them" attitude where the only reason to conserve a species is so that we can prolong the extraction of a resource for sole human interest/gain.

I do see it as most likely a necessary evil in todays society though, and only hope continual revision and adaption happens to ensure any harvest is truly sustainable not just on a purely numbers game (population size), there are many more factors to consider such as mmafan555 and waterrat have discussed.

 

[SteveNT]

Dwarfism isn't an issue. The crocs are as big as they ever were (c. porosus anyway), What is declining is the ease of seeing a really big one. There are many many places where there is 0 acces for humans in boats. Where they are accesible they are culled/ harvested. I have flown low over a completely inaccessible part of the Arafura Swamp and what I thought was a boat was a monster croc ploughing up a channel. Must've been close to 6 meters and broad across the back. They will always be out there.

Safari hunting should be legitimised and the silly shooters should be able to keep their trophies. Economic development is vital in the remote communities and this is a means to that end. Sustainably.

 

[mmafan555]

Africa is not a great example simply because of the poaching
But USA shows the way it can be done
Where you have vast populations you cannot include everyone in the money making
Thats the problem in Africa

We are using snake hunters as guides in Papua Java and Borneo
They are very quick to understand they can only sell a snake once
But they can take 100 tourists to see that snake
They are starting to protect 'their' snakes now and woe betide any other hunters encroaching on their areas

Africa is not a great example simply because of the poaching
But USA shows the way it can be done
Where you have vast populations you cannot include everyone in the money making
Thats the problem in Africa

The main problem with Africa is extreme poverty...Africa is the poorest continent on earth by far....no other continent even comes close and I think the 10 poorest countries on earth are in Africa.

Borneo/Papua Java are way better off than the highly impoverished African countries.

And actullay if you look at Africa and compare it to Asia...Most African animals are SIGNIFICANTLY better off than Asian animals...Virtually every Asian animal is endangered or about to become endangered...Africa still has impressive populations of Elephants, Hippos, Crocodiles, Leopards, Lion, Rhinos(compared to Asian Rhinos) Buffalo, Giraffe etc....Now alot of that has to do with the enormous human population density in Asia but still.

 

[SteveNT]

The main problem with Africa and Asia and most of the world is massive human population. There's comparitavely no-one here.
Look at Melville Island (Tiwis), same size as Bali, lush, beautiful and there are 2-3,000 people there. Compared to millions on Bali. (no offense I like Bali). There are vast areas up here that never see a single person in a year. Probably 5% of the Top End is directly accessible by road. Hunting pressure is not going to eliminate anything here.

 

[Bluetongue1]

'Dwarfism' is the incorrect term to use and what you are suggesting is not the case. I would agree that the exceptionally large individuals in many populations have been culled as trophies. Where growth continues with age, such as in reptiles, all this does is to alter the age structure of the population. The average size for age remains unchanged as does the average size at which sexual maturity occurs. If you were to calculate the change in average size of a population, you would need to include every living individual and their size. When this is done, for most populations the difference would be totally insignificant. The same is true of animals that have increased growth with age for certain structures, such as tusks and antlers.

For populations such as the saltwater crocodile, where there has been intensive harvesting of all age groups over a substantial period, there will be a significant drop in average length. Once again, this is due to a change in the age structure and not the genetic makeup of the population. If there was any genetic selection going on it might be for animals that are more secretive and wary as a result of their genetic makeup. We know that crocodiles can learn behaviours and becoming wary is one of those learned behaviours. The latter will minimise any effects of the former.

Male crocodiles grow faster than female crocodiles. An average male saltie will mature at around 3.35 m and around 16 years of age. A female will mature at around 2 to 2.3 m after about 12 years. I find this more informative than the term "slow".

 

[smeejason]

Years ago pigs and goats were worth nothing to land holders and as such shot on site and left to rot. Then oneday they were worth good money and seen as a commodity. Try and shoot a goat nowadays on a propert and most farmers will shoot you.
You are kidding yourself if you think large salties are not shot now for taking stock if they were worth more than the stock they will be left alone. . When I was hunting up the cape last time there was no shortage of them. Every pool of water had a saltie of some size in it.
I cannot see that many getting shot. The guides I was talking to we're expecting large trophy fees because of the set up cost and the effort it will take. I cannot see hundreds of rich hunters shooting out the population. Less than a dozen a year if they were lucky I would say. And the way the Aussie dollar is I would say most American hunters would be heading to Africa to shoot one rather than here.