http://traveller24.news24.com/...adc-hunters-20161121



#ShockWildlifeTruths: Botswana resolute under fire from EU and SADC Hunters



2016-11-21 09:34 - Oscar Nkala


Cape Town - Tshekedi Khama,Botswana Minister of Natural Resources and Environment says his country is under unprecedented pressure from the pro-hunting lobby in the European Union and regional neighbours to allow lift the hunting ban imposed in 2014.

Addressing a press conference in the northern city of Maun lastweek, Khama said unlike its regional peers, Botswana remained ‘resolute’ in opposing trophy hunting and captive breeding as well as calling for an end to the ivory trade.

“Botswana remains resolute in supporting the ending of the ivory trade. We have stopped hunting (since 2014), but our neighbours still undertake trophy hunting and practice captive animal breeding.

“Our policy against wildlife hunting is working, that is why wildlife is relocating from neighbouring countries to Botswana. But now, the pro-hunters want to follow the wildlife here. As Botswana, we supported the ending of the ivory trade because we believe that getting rid of the trade will wipe out the markets too ,” Khama said.

He said Botswana’s opposition to hunting and captive breeding, demonstrated by its support for the upgrading of elephants and lions from Appendix 2 to Appendix 1 of the Convention on Trade In Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) protection status at the recent COP-17 Summit in Johannesburg, was premised on the country’s stance against illegal wildlife trade and poaching.



Botswana requested that it’s elephants be upgraded to Appendix 1 when the Resolution for the upgrading of all Southern African Elephants to Appendix 1 failed.

Khama said Botswana supports photographic tourism as it had realized that the policy was more beneficial to conservation than trophy hunting. During the CITES Summit, Botswana broke ranks with Southern African Development Community (SADC) members Zimbabwe and South Africa, which supported limited ivory trade and called for a total shutdown of the ivory trade.



The EU opposed Botswana and sided with pro-hunting SADC member states because, as a bloc, it supported the hunting and trade in African wildlife regardless of whether the species were endangered or not, Khama said.

Further, Khama accused neighbours Zambia and Zimbabwe of failing to fulfill their obligations in the development of the Kavango-Zambezi Trans-Frontier Park (KAZA), which is a regional initiative meant to promote the free cross-border movement and conservation of wildlife.

He attributed the influx of elephants from Zimbabwe, Zambia, Namibia and Angola to a failure by those countries to provide basic water and security infrastructure for the animals.

“We have some partners, like Zambia and Zimbabwe, who fail to pay their subscriptions and putting up requisite infrastructure for essential services, such as water, in the KAZA. That results in many elephants crossing into Botswana because we have those provisions. Our neighbours need to drill boreholes and provide water to stop their animals from coming to Botswana,” Khama said.


Source: Conservation Action Trust

Question: If Botswana is such an elephant paradise, why do elephants leave Chobe NP during low water to feed in the Caprivi. ANSWER: Because the park and Botswana on their side of the rivers is an over browsed wasteland. Great conservation.

100 %.
But Khama made an official statement that is broadcast by a large news network.
John Doe doesn't know the facts. The minister must be telling the truth then. The insensitive , trophy greedy hunters want to kill everything in Africa and luckily there are countries like Botswana that will not allow that. all is good now ( sigh of relief )
And so we ( and wildlife ) lose again.

Good luck in stopping the Ivory trade MR KHAMA, your idea of conservation is wrong. Conservation is far more than just about elephants, even the smallest microbe is part of conservation. Your massive elephant population is busy destroying the ecosystem. The small microbes are dying and they are most probably the most important part of the ecosystem.

This is what happens when political dynasties run your country.

The Ngami Times ( Local newspaper for the Okavango area ) ran an editorial in response to this and is well worth a read , it questions how the government ban can still be in place after the statutory instrument that allowed the ban by a Minister is valid for one year only 2014/2015 , it reports on the question and answer session in parliment where the Ghanzi member asked about this and the bumbling response from the Honourable Minister Mr Khama ( the Presidents brother ). It further reports about the loss of employment and how the benefits from photo based tourism are less than hunting and the boiling dissatisfaction of farmers and local people in Ngamiland / Chobe and they can add Ghanzi and Tuli .

http://www.ngamitimes.com/index.html


Hunting ban continues on false grounds


In response to a Parliamentary question on the status of the hunting ban that was unilaterally instituted by government in 2014, the Minister of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, Tshekedi Khama, was out of his depth, clutching at straws of “in accordance with the powers conferred to the minister” legalities.
The question that was poised by the Member of Parliament for Ghanzi North, Noah Salakae, was read on Khama’s behalf by trade and industry minister, Vincent Seretse. The Ghanzi legislator had wanted to know the status of the hunting ban which was introduced in 2014, whether the review was undertaken in accordance with the Wildlife and Conservation and National Parks Act (CAP 38:01) of 1992, and if so, that the Minister should provide the names of the people who carried out the review.
In his response, Khama acknowledged that the hunting ban was first instituted through the Statutory Instrument No.2 of 2014 for a period of one year and during that time Parliament was informed that the order will be reviewed on an annual basis in accordance with the powers conferred to the minister in section 45 of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act of 1992.
Hilariously, Khama attributed the non-compliance with annual reviews to the fact that a country-wide aerial animal counting was not yet complete. Peculiarly, he could not explain to Parliament why the aerial surveys were not done. The last Aerial Census of Animals in Botswana was carried out in the dry season of 2012.
This week Khama could only say: “Therefore without the number of wild animals depicted from the results of aerial surveys conducted by the ministry it was difficult to make a rationale informed decision to lift the suspension, hence the decision to revoke Statutory Instrument No 2 of 2014 and declared no hunting in 2015 through Statutory Instrument No 2 of 2015.”
However, as many conservation experts pointed out at the time, the initial ‘Prohibition of hunting, capturing and removal of animals’ order that was put out on January 1, 2014 was clearly not based on rationale informed decision. This is buttressed by the fact that the 2012 aerial survey pointed to a healthy population among the majority of the species.
As we have repeatedly argued, the hunting ban has nothing to do with conservation considerations but everything to do with the non-consumptive ideology espoused by President Ian Khama and his friends at Conservation International.
As a result Botswana is now saddled with a misinformed conservation policy, which deliberately confuses the concepts of endangered and non-endangered species. Batswana were easily convinced in the early 1980s when a ban was introduced on elephants hunting and later on lions.
However, with the ballooning elephant population that even threatens the species’ own habitat, limited trophy hunting in wildlife management areas (WMAs), which are outside national parks and reserves, does not only make economic sense to the community trusts but is also good sustainable conservation.
Least we be misunderstood, we do not support the ivory trade. Neither do we support captive animal breeding, which most often is effectively a canned hunt.
The blanket hunting ban has had an unintended effect of promoting poaching among communities that have to share their living space with wildlife. For generations, before Khama and his brigade landed, subsistent hunting has been a way of life for many Batswana. Now unfortunately the indiscriminate hunting ban has effectively criminalised Batswana’s way of life.
And as this was done through a highly scientific and regulated quota system, whose winter hunting seasons was informed by the annual aerial surveys that were conducted by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP).
Hunting for the pot or subsistence hunting not only provided the much-needed food security for the often impoverished communities that live with wildlife but was also an effective and sustainable wildlife management tool.
Instead of pandering for the whims of some fringe “conservationists” in the West, our government should be putting the interest of its people first.