From the African Indaba

Hunting Statistics of South Africa 2006-2007
Peter Flack

In 2007 the first edition of Safari Guide was published. It covered the eleven most popular hunting countries in Africa, namely, Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Mocambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Each chapter contained two sections. The first section dealt with factual information such as geography, climate, languages, money and banking, visas, firearms importation, areas and animals to hunt, quotas, the hunting regulations, harvest results and so on. The second section was subjective in nature and was usually written either by myself or Craig Boddington on what to expect when hunting in the particular country.

The book is the most complete guide to hunting in Africa on the market and, as a result, has not only sold well but a decision has been taken by the publisher, Safari Press, to produce an updated version. Insofar as the South African chapter is concerned, I have recently received the South African Trophy Hunting Statistics for the period 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007 from the ever friendly and efficient Magdel Boshoff from the Department of Environment and Tourism (DEAT). These are the latest statistics available as, from 2008, they have been compiled for the calendar year and, as yet, not all of the provinces have submitted their statistics. In addition, the current statistics have been compiled for the first time by the University of Free State under the leadership of Mr. Pieter Taljaard and not by government although they have been checked and verified by DEAT.

Up until receipt of these statistics, I have relied on similar information provided to me over the years by the Professional Hunting Association of South Africa (PHASA). Over the last five years or so, the numbers which they provided of overseas hunters visiting South Africa peaked at the 9,000 mark, then dropped to a little over 6,000, before climbing again to around about the 8,000 mark over the last two years.

The drop was ascribed to the introduction of the new Fire Arms Control Act and the chaos and confusion that reigned at ports of entry to South Africa which caused huge delays and major disruptions to the travel plans of visiting hunters. The bad publicity which resulted was compounded by further bad publicity relating to crime and the fraudulent and unethical conduct of a number of South African professional hunters both inside and outside the country.

Namibia seemed to be the beneficiary and recipient of large numbers of overseas hunters who might ordinarily have visited South Africa and reports indicated that, during the selfsame period, the number of overseas hunters visiting this country climbed from some 3,000 to over 6,000. Access to Namibia was quick and easy and the government actively marketed the country as a safe and secure hunting destination in conjunction with the Namibian Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA). This was diametrically opposite to the South African approach where cabinet ministers have made numerous disparaging remarks about the local hunting industry, likening it to golf and referring to it as the exclusive preserve of rich, white men which did nothing for job creation or the economy.

In this regard, the last officially produced statistics which I saw on the effect of overseas trophy hunters on the local economy were produced by the Eastern Cape government well over six years ago. At that time, they showed that 1,128 overseas hunters had spent some R128 million via daily rates and trophy fees in the province that year.

The current statistics show a much more complete, detailed and, in many instances, quite surprising picture. For example, for the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, 16,394 overseas hunters hunted in the country for an average of 4 days each. They spent $64,951,675 (nearly R520 million at rate) on trophy fees in respect of 45,764 indigenous species and 963 alien or exotic species. They spent $26,261,200.00 (slightly over R210 million) on 65,653 days of hunting (which equates to an average of $400 a day).

In total, overseas trophy hunters contributed some R730 million to the economy for the twelve months to end September, 2007 and this did not take into account additional and inevitable expenditure on items such as hotels, car hire, taxidermy, curios, gratuities and so on. Nevertheless, it amounted to an expenditure of over R44,500 per hunter or nearly twenty times the expenditure of the average tourist to South Africa most of whom come from neighboring countries.

A number of interesting details were highlighted by the statistics. For example, 98 hunters came from Afghanistan and 119 from Saudi Arabia. Scandinavia accounted for 1,720 (over 300 more than Germany (650), France (560) and Italy (188) combined), while the runaway leader was still the U.S.A. with 6904 visitors compared to Spain at number two with 1,297 and Denmark third with 1,015. Nevertheless, Europe as a whole provided 7658 overseas hunters of which 591 came from Eastern European or previously communist countries with Russia (224) and the Ukraine (89) leading the way. I could not help wondering if South African outfitters spent as much time, effort and money marketing in Europe as they did in America how many more hunters they might attract from this continent.

The most popular game animals were impala (6,088), springbok (5,236) and warthog (4,404) which just beat common blesbuck by a short head of some 207 animals. From a monetary perspective, however, lions generated by far and away the most money at R13,689,837 and comfortably beat kudu at R6,689,900 into second place with nyala (R3,569,550) surprisingly coming in before buffalo (R3,560,000).

Clearly the canned lion hunting market has grown in leaps and bounds and raises a whole series of questions. Who is shooting them? Who is conducting the hunts? Where are they going? Which record books are entering them? When is the government going to stop this form of agriculture because hunting it certainly isn’t?

Ms. Boshoff advised me that the statistics had been compiled from the registers that professional hunters were now obliged by law to keep and she felt satisfied, after interrogating the statistics, that they were accurate. Later, she did advise me that there may have been a small measure of a double counting in arriving at the number of 16 394 overseas hunters as, if the same person hunted in more than one province during the course of the same safari, that would count as two overseas hunters. In my opinion, as this does not happen all that frequently, I do not think it will materially affect any of the conclusions that can be drawn from this data. A full set of these statistics can be found in the new addition of Safari Guide, published by Safari Press and due out at the end of the year.

Seloushunter

quote:

Clearly the canned lion hunting market has grown in leaps and bounds and raises a whole series of questions. Who is shooting them? Who is conducting the hunts? Where are they going? Which record books are entering them? When is the government going to stop this form of agriculture because hunting it certainly isn’t?

Very interesting IMO


Seloushunter

I really like the reference to canned lion shooting as a "....form of agriculture...."

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

quote:

Originally posted by Andrew McLaren:
I really like the reference to canned lion shooting as a "....form of agriculture...."

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren

This will fit just right with those who "harvest" animals rather than shoot them