The Times October 26, 2005

Law has 'canned hunting' in its sights
By Jonathan Clayton
South Africa considers banning the easy killing of wildlife by wealthy tourists



FOR years it has been the dark side of the South African wildlife industry: the practice of wealthy “hunters†being allowed to corner lions and other wild animals in large fenced-in enclosures and then to shoot them.
The gunmen, mainly from the United States, Japan and Western Europe, then pose with their trophies as if they were big game hunters from another age. The modern form, however, involves no tracking and little danger. The “hunters†arrive in large 4x4 vehicles and, to spare any blushes, their prey can be quickly located thanks to transmitters on collars.



Yesterday a panel of experts set up to report on the hugely controversial business, which has infuriated environmentalists and wildlife experts, called for a complete ban on all forms of “canned huntingâ€, as the practice is called.

Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the South African Environment Minister, said that the Government would introduce legislation based on the panel’s findings next year to salvage South Africa’s reputation as an international haven for wildlife. “We want to stop the approach of ‘anything goes’ in terms of hunting and crossbreeding,†said Mr van Schalkwyk, himself an avid hunter.

“Some practices which have been developed over years and decades are distasteful and despicable.â€

South Africa is renowned for its teeming animals and brilliant birds. The Kruger National Park draws millions of camera-toting visitors each year.

Hunting is outlawed in the park itself, but around its perimeter dozens of smaller parks have sprung up, aimed at the visitors who shoot to kill. Last year an estimated 6,700 tourists killed nearly 54,000 animals, or “trophiesâ€. Some of the animals were even bred in captivity. Faced with mounting public concern, Mr van Schalkwyk convened the panel of environmental conservation and management experts in April to look into the industry and suggest ways of regulating it.

The Traffic wildlife monitoring network, which provided details to the panel on the extent of the “trophy†hunting business, said that 190 lions were hunted last year by foreign tourists. That alone was worth an estimated £1.7 million. The list of slain animals included baboons, giraffes, elephants, hippos, mongooses, porcupines, warthogs and zebras.

Prices paid ranged from about £15 for the humble pigeon or quail to £15,000 for the mighty white rhinoceros, an endangered species.

Some hunters were offered the chance to shoot large mammals, including rhinos, with bows and arrows, condemning them to a long and painful death, the panel disclosed. “This is something that no civilised country can continue to tolerate,†Mr van Schalkwyk said.

Supporters of such trophy hunting argue that the money made from killing the animals can be ploughed back into conservation projects.

THE TROPHY BAG

Tourists in South Africa last year killed


190 lions worth $3.3 million, $17,500 each


5,500 kudus worth $5.3 million


45 leopards worth $250,000

They also killed baboons, giraffes, elephants, hippos and zebras

...well it was about time ...tho it will be interesting how things will actually develope...

quote:

Originally posted by mouse93:
...well it was about time ...tho it will be interesting how things will actually develope...

I am afraid this is not what they are after.

Notice kudus and leopards are mentioned.

It won't be long before they attempt to ban ALL hunting in South Africa. As most of it is done on fenced farms anyway.

As usual, the politicians are trying to enact laws that makes good publicity, nothing more.

If they are REALLY want to stop canned hunting, it is a much simpler idea to find out who is doing it, and throw the book at them.

quote:

5,500 kudus worth $5.3 million

that is a vast amount indeed if one considers these to be mainly males. I wonder if this figure includes resident meat hunters and culling who also shoot females (allowed by law) despite the article refering to "tourist hunters" figures?

Legislation on hunting in RSA are outdated in various ways. One big problems is that every province has its own legislation and it differs a lot from the one province to the other. A Outfitter or Ph must hold a licence in every province that he wants to hunt in. This is one of the reasons game farmers stock animals on their farms out of the animals natural habitat, like Blesbok in the Limpopo province.

High fenced farms are not the reason for canned hunting. A animal that was born on a high fenced farm knows that farm, and I can gaurentee everybody that it is just as hard work to hunt a animal ethically on such a farm that it is to hunt a animal in Tanzania on a large area that was burnt before the hunting season. The canned part comes in when animals are bought on an auction and delivered on the farm a week or two before a hunter arrives. That animal or animals does not know the farm and is totally disorientated, they will stay in one place for quite a period before they will start roaming the farm. To shoot an animal like that is as easy as getting out of bed, note I did not call it hunting, because that is not what hunting is all about. The same happens with captive bred lions, they are also kept in a small encloure.

I am totally opposed to this kind of hunting. We all know that there are Ph's that allow this type of hunting, the problem is catching them and prosecuting them.

To have a national nature conservation act will help a lot in streamlining the hunting industry in RSA. The SAHGA and PHASA are both giving their inputs and a Forum have been established to discuss hunting related topics.

The goverment knows how much hunting is contributing to the econoomy of the country, they cannot really go without it, it also provide a lot of jobs in the rural areas where poverty is at it's highest. I believe that there will be a future for hunting in RSA as long as it is done in a ethical way.

.

Ignore these kind of sensationalistic press reports by journos who don't what its all about.

We have actively participated in the submissions referred and are in the loop so to speak.

The original reports reports are available in the public domain, these are what will be taken into account when making any policy / regulations etc on hunting can be found on http://www.environment.gov.za/ . Click on "Panel of Experts on Hunting" on the right hand side bar.

Alf is onto something here...

I will add; somebody high up in the govt is not about to lose-out on those revenues previously posted...

...I'll bet that nothing at all will happen...too much $$ going into somebody's pockets.

What a croc! Several things about this article got my attention..one, they blame this on the wealthy sportsman when its the greedy bloody Safari companies that do the canned hunts, not the hunter, the hunter is merely a pawn of sorts with bulging pockets, most don't even know better or much less care, they are buying a product thats offered and legal....

I would really hate to see them stop canned Lion hunting as there is already enough hunting pressure on wild lions, to the point they cannot take anymore, and the canned hunts take up some of the slack there..sad but true...

Anyway like I said its an anti hunting POS article, politics and political correctness at the highest level to shut down our sport completely...I can think of a lot of better places to spend time and money in Africa to help keep the numbers of wild animals huntable, starting with opening the parks like Kruger to controled safaris before the animals eat themselves out of house and home and all die of starvation and desease would be a good start both in Africa and the USA.

The pricing that was published, $5.3 mil for 5500 kudus works out to $963.63, which is more or less the average price for a male kudu. This gives you an idea of the money flowing in to RSA due to hunting.

The important thing that did happen in RSA are that a forum have been established between the game farmers the amateur hunters and the proffesional hunters through their different organisations. They are discussing problems and try to find solutions on various subjects, that is a good thing. One got to realise that all the parties do have a intrest in the hunting arena, either as "consumers" or as "producers". Each got a role to play to ensure the future of hunting in RSA. I am very pleased that all the organisations or most of them are talking to each other to resolve problems.

As if that is not enough, the organisation Gun Free South Africa (GFSA) reported the following today, 26 October 2005 in an Afrikaans newspaper:

quote:

Up to 66 guns per day reported as stolen -

About 17 000 police (SAPS) firearms were reported as lost or stolen during the period 1990 to 2003 - roughly 1300 p.a. or 108 per month.

Over and above that were about 1 759 firearms lost or stolen in the South African Defence Force (SADF) during the period 1994 to 2003.

(Above a direct translation out of report.)

What is worrying about the above is that the SA Police Services (SAPS) are the ones who are supposed to implement and control the new and strict Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 (FCA) in South Africa and yet they can't even exercise any control over their own firearms!!!

The above type of report is probably one of the reasons why authorities are looking at other ways and means to have some sort of control somewhere in the firearm and/or hunting businesses.

Like the saying goes: "Charity begins at home" one can almost say to these authorities: "Security and control also begins at home!"

I agree with Ray about the canned lion hunting. Although I am not in favor of it, he is right, it does relieve some of the pressure on wild lions. But who is to say that all lion hunting in South Africa won't be stopped, including the hunting of free ranging lions near KNP? And, when all of this happens, watch what will happen to prices and availability of lion hunting everywhere. Most of you will not have enough money to book and take a lion, if you can even do so. In addition, there is already international CITE meetings and forums on lion hunting and further regulation of the same-that has been going on for a number of years and they have recently tried to stop lion hunting by moving the lion up a classification on CITES. The banning will only add fuel to the anti-hunting fire and add further justification to place the lion on a higher CITES classification, and perhaps out of reach of hunting altogether. And then what about Bontebok, Black Wildebeest, White Rhino, Scimitar Horned Oryx, Barbary Sheep etc.? Changes made in South Africa will only result in significantly higher prices, which will be passed on to the "deep pockets" of those American hunters that chose to continue to hunt there.

quote:

I would really hate to see them stop canned Lion hunting as there is already enough hunting pressure on wild lions, to the point they cannot take anymore, and the canned hunts take up some of the slack there..sad but true...

I'm with Ray.Why do hunters get so upset with canned hunts?Is the animal killed in a canned hunt worse off than the animal taken in a regular hunt?Do they suffer more?Are they more noble than a truck full of cattle on their way to the slaughterhouse and therefore deserve a different end?

Don't get me wrong, I won't shoot 'penned' game.
Am I missing something?

If I merely enjoyed killing ducks I suppose I could buy a bunch of farm raised ducks, set them loose in a small enclosure and gun them down.

It would be cheap and easy. It would save me all the trouble and expense of setting decoys, learning to call, keeping a dog, keeping a boat and outboard, keeping up my membership via cash and labor to me club, buy camo and waders, getting up before dawn on cold winter mornings, etc. etc.

But since I enjoy hunting them and not merely killing them I put in all the time, money, and effort to be able to do so.

I suppose canned hunting allows gun owners to legally shoot a lion somewhere and call themselves hunters. Maybe it does do some good in that it takes pressure of free-ranging lions. But the people doing it aren't any more than the slaughterer of beef is a hunter. At least the slaughterman is doing to feed his family and makes no pretense about engaging in a fair chase activity. That's exactly what the lion-shooter, as opposed to lion-hunter, is doing.

All the animals are just as noble, but all the people involved in the various scenarios aren't.

I had a similar converstation with the then president of PHASA wherein I told him that it was his organization's job to rid itself of the outfits that conduct canned lion hunts. My point was the outfitter knows all, while the client may not have a clue as to the true conditions.

He told me he didn't know of any PHASA mwembers doing them, so I whipped out a brochure from one of their members advertising on their website. The brochure guaranteed success. He told me they would be looking into it; however, conditions are the same three years later. I didn't bother to renew my PHASA membership.

These ARFs intend to get a canned hunt ban put in place, and then have the definition gradually widened until all hunting is gone.

jim

Alf...the current president of PHASA, Mr. Stewart Dorrington, is a game farm owner. Check out Melorani Safaris and you will discover that Stewart runs one of the premier BOW hunting operations in South Africa.

stewart Dorrington

melorani safaris

If any of you guys have a personal complaint or (want to express your own opinion) on the article to The SA environment & Tourism Minister Mr. Van Schalkwyk, then this is one of his media liason officers;

Riaan Aucamp email-contact: raucamp@deat.gov.za

Just remember that is the upside or downside depending on your perspective of freedom & democracy, that reporters ministers and you and I can express an opinion, it does not say we are all correct, but we can say what we think (-:

Good luck, Peter

Experts Panel on hunting in RSA - See this link directly to their report.
Lochi.

http://www.africanindaba.co.za/Discussion/hunting.htm

.

Alf,

Hunting pays for conservation in more ways than simply generating funds for conservation.

How about land owners who have to make money from their land? There are far more of them than those with such deep pockets. By charging fees to hunt they have a financial incentive to maintain land in a natural state and protect the resource. And how about land that may be owned by people who wish to hunt and pool their money to do so. They may kill a few animals, but the rest of the year the land functions as a private nature preserve.

You can see this very clearly in waterfowling areas in the U.S., which is much more densely populated than Canada and (if I'm not mistaken)the RSA. A lot of waterfowl habitat is near major urban development, such as the Sacramento river delta on the San Francisco Bay or the Missouri/Missippi confluence near St. Louis.

Without the lands owned by hunters, and the lands maintained to be hunter friendly by farmers with because of the income produced, it's sold to the developer and lost forever. At my club near Fairfield, CA, almost all the land around it is developed. It's the same in the Mid-west where I live now. There is intense pressure on strapped land-owners to sell and without the money pumped into the economy by hunter they do.

Much of this development is encouraged by government greedy to have a larger tax base.

Then the birds are confined to small refuges one-tenth the size of their former habitat. With nothing around to eat unless they learn to shop at Walmart.

There is a ripple effect by the money spent by hunters and conservation is not aided merely by fees paid into government coffers. It is aided by all the money spent in the private sector, which is far greater and more effective. What about the non-landowners whose only job opportunity in a rural area is to work in the hunting industry or industries that serve the hunting industry. They also have an incentive to protect the resource. Otherwise they would have an incentive to exploit it via poaching or to encourage development. They've got to put food on the table, too.

A selfish motive is much more dependable than an altruistic one.

.

Neither I nor Lochi said hunting equates to conservation. Lochi said "Hunters pay for conservation. Without funds from hunting the African game cannot survive."

Let's break this down. "Hunters pay for conservation."

Is it or is it not true that funds from hunting, both those spent in the private sector and those in the public sector, encourage conservation activities?

Second part: "Without funds from hunting the African game cannot survive."

Is it or is it not true that revenue generated from hunting is a critical "leg" that props up conservation throughout Africa. Not that there would be no conservation, but would there be enough to allow African game populations to survive at present numbers?

To illustrate my point, I'll excerpt this from a post by T. Carr in the thread "Black Rhino anyone."

T. Carr quotes the following: "The South African hunting community already knows that revenue from the hunt of this first black rhino, and the four subsequent ones, must demonstrably contribute to rhino conservation before the US Fish & Wildlife Service will allow imports.?"

Note that nobody has to demonstrate that the hunting of Black Rhino equates to the conservation of Black Rhino. The South African hunting community just has to produce evidence that revenue from the hunt of Black Rhino contributes to rhino conservation. If they can, then the first part of Lochi's statement is true: "Hunter's pay for conservation."

What remains to be proven is the second of Lochi's statement: "Without funds from hunting the African game cannot survive."

So the question becomes, are the hunting revenues which demonstrably contribute to conservation so insignificant wildlife can do without it?

This is an anti-hunting concept, pure and simple. I don't believe it'll come to pass, simply because there's too much money at stake, and I don't think the govt. of RSA wants to lose that foreign revenue.

One thing I'd love to see, though, is a ban on canned lion hunting in RSA. That practice makes me sick, and a ban would force some of the SCI 'Level of Achievement' bozos to go get a legitimate wild lion, rather than one of those farm-raise, drugged, and planted MGA poster lions that they are so privilaged to get to "hunt". The trouble is, many of the hunters who buy into that canned lion program have absolutely no idea that they're being duped. They think that one of the PHs just happen to spot the lion (that's just been planted), or else they think they're part of a special task force that's being sent out to rid the concession of a "problem" lion. It's time for that bit of fakery to stop, I'd say.......

AD

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ALF:
Lochi:

You state:

" Hunters pay for conservation"

Does that imply that if there is no hunting there can be no conservation?

The short answer is :YES and it goes for in spades in Africa. It is a FACT that in those countries were hunting is/was banned, animal populations plummeted. Sport hunting is the only viable strategy to sustain healthy viable animal populations. There are myriad examples of this. To think otherwise is foolish. jorge

.

But facts are facts Alf and the single, incontrovertible fact that in those countries were hunting is banned, game populations have plumetted and in those were hunting thrives, so does the game. jorge

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Jorge:

As I have said before it is fact that we do conserve without hunting. if you or anyone wishes to challnage that just look at the traditional big 5 reserves in South Africa which constitute the largest single land area of all game farms in the Country and they do so without the benefit of hunting.

Point well taken as is the succes of the Serengeti in Kenya, but the key to those respective park's survivability, was ARMED FORCE and not the foresight of the population to not ross into the national Parks. We'll have to agree to disagree, bit stand on my premise. jorge