Good day al hunters

today is a sad day and I would like to ask for your assistance as it affects you as much as it affects me.

I am a proud South African and I am embarrassed at the state of our wildlife. by saying that I am not talking about al the initiatives to save species like rhino, sable and many more that was almost extinct.

I am talking of the major effort to change the total demographic of the game we have and what we have known for the past 200 years. The game we have hunted is not good enough anymore and needs to be bred to different colours and need to be tame and be protected to the detriment of other species. They are bred in small enclosures and all natural competition is eliminated so that the freaks of nature can prosper.

yes I am talking about black impalas, white kudus, golden wildebeest and any freak that is showing its face.

the argument in SA is that they breed it for you as overseas hunter because that is what will satisfy the overseas market and that a 53" kudu is not enough anymore instead a white kudu that was raised in a 20ha camp is more valuable.

the fact of the matter is they want you as overseas hunter to believe that as well because they can now make more money out of you by letting you hunt an animal that was almost hand raised and protected from any natural competition, by eliminating that competition if one of these freak males ( I call them freaks because they will be the first animal a predator takes out of the herd)are introduced into a camp all other males are eliminated so that more freaks can be bred.

The sad thing is that they use normal females to start the breeding and the offspring is known as splits that will produce the colour variant by putting them with the colour male the breeder prefers.

the effect of that is that females are selling for astronomical amounts on auctions and prices have soured thru the roof and it has become un affordable for the hunter. Yes it will affect you as well because it will more than double prices for you.

my worry is what will be left to hunt in 15 years time , freaks that can not look after themselves and that is marketed as game but in fact they are almost domesticated , they are fed daily and dipped to kill all natural enemies like ticks etc.

Therefore I am on my knees and asking that you help us by helping us you will keep hunting affordable for you as there is a selected few that profits from these practises and a lot of people that is going to lose their money in the process.

If these people succeed there will not be impalas to hunt for 300$ any more as there will be very little left and they will be more expensive than the 3000$ black impala.

THE MONEY IS NOT THE ISSUE BUT WHAT ANIMALS WILL BE IN YOUR GRAND CHILDRENS TROPHY ROOMS AND WILL THEY HAVE HAD THE SAME EXPERIENCE AS YOU

Therefore I ask that you help us to stop that unnatural process and stick to the ethics of a hunter by conserving wild life as it was created and protecting them and utilising them in their natural form.

By not supporting this you will conserve the heritage for all the generations to come, a impala is not black a kudu is not white and wildebeest is not gold.

I am asking put your money where your morals is and not where some profit driven people tells you to put it we have an obligation to conserve as it was created and not bred that way .

animals adapt to the environment but if this was the case with these freaks it wouldn't have been necessary to eradicate everything around them for them to survive they would have survived on their own.

in nature the predators will catch these freaks first because they have no natural camouflage

I would like to hear what you think of this as this is a matter close to my heart

IT MIGHT NOT BE OF IMPORTANCE FOR SOME NOW BUT IT WILL MOST DEFENITELY EFFECT EVERYBODY IN THE LONG RUN

PLEASE HELP BY PUTTING YOUR NAME WITH MINE SO THAT WE CAN CHANGE THINGS NOW WHILE IT IS STILL POSIBLE

1. Rudi van Niekerk 375 Fanatic

Agreed
Sad state of affairs.
Question, who would shoot, stuff and put white lion in their living room and brag about how they " almost died hunting the mighty beast "?

Unfortunately the disease is spreading everywhere..

The most expensive whitetail deer that can be hunted in the US look like some poor diseased freaks with tumors growing out their heads rather than antlers in a typical configuration.

I agree with you, I have zero interest in any of the captive bred color variants of any species.

Breeding for recessive genes only increases the chances of breeding in weaknesses and diseases.

Rudi, you really surprised me [pleasantly ] with the thought-provoking plea to fellow hunters to stop being involved in the paying to hunt freaks, as you quite correctly refer to the color variants.

I regard it as most unfortunate that that "marketing" has created a demand for these freaks, with record book classes for them alone. It is even more unfortunate that the record-book keepers will not be persuaded to start regarding white, black, golden and others as freaks, that should not even qualify for inclusion into any records - let alone have a special category for them. But what is really extremely unfortunate is that there is very little that I as an individual can do to assist with the reducing the market-created demand. But, as I quite agree that they are freaks, I will do what little I can to change to unfortunate state of affairs.

What little I can do may never in a million years contribute meaningfully to "undoing" the creation of a market demand for the color variant freaks, but by doing what I can, at least I will experience a warm and good feeling of having done whatever I can to help protect our natural game. Before anyone points out that the genes for such color variants are indeed part of the NATURAL make up of the whole population's gene pool of the species, I'll admit that! However I will attempt to in no way "glorify" any one of these freaks!

Andrew McLaren Safaris has never specifically marketed the hunting any color variants, but from this day on wards will NOT OFFER any color variant of any species for hunting. However, a few years ago a client [incidentally, one who is active from time to time here on AR] selected to shoot a white springbok ram that was seen in the herd. The details of this particular hunt is irrelevant to the argument here, but everyone must know that "marketing" has created a situation where a hunting outfitter whose client shoots a color variant, may have to pay the land owner a premium price for such a freak.

Now, all will hopefully agree that a good PH will: (i) Ensure that his client only shoots at one specific and selected animal from any population? (ii) Take his client's expressed trophy wishes into consideration on selecting an animal? (iii) Discuss and determine his client's trophy wishes before the onset of the hunt? (iv) Inform his client about any financial implication of a specific trophy selection before the hunt?

But, given all this, even the very best of PH's can not take responsibility for a client's final "pulling the trigger", and a client may shoot a freak, color variant, pregnant female, record or whatever, despite all the aforementioned actions being taken and the PH pointing out a "correct" animal. Any PH will want to protect himself from the consequences of a client doing something that will cause trouble. In South Africa this protection is best accomplished by stipulating such "what if's" in the "Remuneration Agreement".

A clause will be included into my "Remuneration Agreement" to the effect that if a client chooses to select and shoot a naturally occurring color variant seen a herd a "penalty" trophy fee will apply. I will have to do some thinking about how to determine such a "penalty" trophy fee! A "golden" blue wildebeest may sell for $ 95 000, which is about 100 times more than a typical blue wildebeest trophy fee! Similarly a "black" impala may command a trophy fee of $ 35 000, also about 100 times the trophy fee for a normal impala!

Point is that as a PH guiding clients on properties other than my own, the "accidental" shooting of a naturally occurring color variant may completely upset all my financial planning for the hunt! OTOH, if one lists such prices anywhere it may be construed as "marketing", something that I, wishing to support Rudi's plea for help, really do NOT want to do!

But, then OTOH, it is also true that if one never shoots the naturally occurring color variants from a hunted herd, then you are artificially selecting to let these freaks live! Talk about finding yourself between a rock and a hard place!

Please give me, and others (?), some guidance on this difficult one!

Naturally occurring colour variations are an acceptable offtake, and can't be confused or categorised as a "freak". I think the point being made by Rudi is in reference to artificially bred colour variants.

Rudi, a good discussion point and one I feel needs to be addressed. Forget about the monetary aspect, we live in a capitalistic world anyway, but I believe we as PH's, hunters, conservationists etc, in other words people who are forever being targeted in terms of morals and ethics, need to sit back and look at ourselves and where we stand with just such ethics. Never before have we as a collective group faced such scrutiny from the outside world.

Andrew has clearly stated that as an outfitter neither he nor his PH's will actively hunt a known "freak". That's a great initiative, and hopefully others will follow.

The challenge comes with putting an end to the breeding technique, and that could only really transpire through Government intervention with the assistance of large conservation bodies, like PHASA for example. Forget about engaging SCI, for they have their own motives behind increased species; however a petition handed over to SCI signed by a majority of members surely couldn't go un-noticed?

Fines etc may sound like a deterrent and could initially prevent a PH from allowing a client to harvest such animal, but let's be realistic, corruption is not something pertaining to African Governments only !!

De-listing of them as trophies and international banning of the practise. That's my 2c worth.

I agree....this is an abomination.

Agree, I have no interest in these un natural color variations.
I won't spend a dime hunting them.

Yes, an abomination.

But does this mean no more pink elephants?

As long as there are idiots who want it, there will be idiots who supply it. The real problem is any organization who recognizes the idiots.

21 February 2015

To: Wildlife Ranching SA members and stakeholders
To: All media owners and editors

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SA HUNTERS: A RESPONSE FROM WRSA PRESIDENT: DR PETER OBEREM
There has of late been a lot of noise in the press about certain wildlife ranching practices that are perceived by some as having a negative impact on conservation. This noise comes from individuals with strange self-aggrandising motivation who are clearly ill-informed about the wildlife ranching industry in southern Africa.

WRSA will in order to avoid further mudslinging refrain from focusing on the few elements in the hunting fraternity who, through their bad behaviour, give both hunting and game ranching a poor image. It is a pity that the individuals mentioned in paragraph 1, who are responsible for the unnecessary noise, do not show wildlife ranchers the same courtesy.

I will try to avoid using unscientific, emotional and meaningless words such as ‘intensive manipulation’; ‘artificial wildlife’; ‘aberrant-coloured’ and ‘compromised animals’, as used in documentation and on the radio by the authors under discussion. I always say ‘the lion never worries about the yapping of the jackals at his heels when he has his eyes focussed on his goal’ and I have always tried to live by that code. This time, however, due to the unprecedented, intensive, sustained attack on our industry by a few ill-informed individuals, I find it necessary to waste time and energy to respond.

First, there are a few basic perceptions that must be corrected:
1.Wildlife ranching does not take place on formerly conserved land. In fact, by far the greatest majority of game ranches are on formerly marginal, often badly overgrazed, denuded and eroded agricultural land, which has been converted into an economically sustainable form of agriculture with huge conservation and biodiversity spin-offs.
2.On the great majority of game ranches, internal agricultural fences that were there at inception have been removed to provide as much space as possible for wildlife movement. On only a small percentage of farms has only a small portion of the whole farm been allocated for ‘small’ breeding camps, usually between 25ha and 100ha in size, leaving the remaining camp significantly larger than the camps that were initially there to fence and manage domestic stock and/or crops.
3.Today, there are approximately 20 million head of game in South Africa, with private wildlife ranchers conserving roughly three times as many animals as the State does in all its parks. There are more game animals today in South Africa than there have been in the country since 1850, or over the past 165 years.
4.Apart from the sheer number of game animals and apart from the massive area (20 million hectares) that has been converted from monocultures of domestic stock or crops, a number of game species have been saved from near extinction by private wildlife ranching, e.g. the rhino, sable antelope, roan antelope, black wildebeest, Lichtenstein’s hartebeest, the bontebok, Cape mountain zebra, cheetah, lion and even the African buffalo (buffalo in the Kruger National Park, our biggest publically owned herd, are infected with tuberculosis), to name a few. These have been saved from extinction, unlike the bluebuck and the quagga, which were hunted to extinction before the advent of private wildlife ranching. All this success hinges on private ownership of wildlife, which was introduced in South Africa as late as 1991. Nowhere in the rest of the world has such an amazing conservation turnaround taken place (because ownership is denied the citizens of the rest of the world). The dire conservation situation in Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana – as well as most of the rest of the world, in fact – serves as clear proof of the huge benefits of our government’s sustainable utilisation policy.
5.A very basic concept that seems to have eluded the detractors of wildlife ranching is that of ‘herd building’. They do not seem to understand that, in order to provide animals for conservation, hunting or meat, the rancher needs to build his herd. With so many new entrants to wildlife ranching, it is to be expected that demand would be high for some of the rare species and the rare colour morphs. Of course, as their numbers increase (which is something we all wish to see), the prices will adjust. All sensible investors understand this. But then, more of these rarer animals will become available at lower prices for hunting.
6.Dealing with specific statements made to the press about:

a. the cost of animals for hunting (and thus for cheap meat!): there are today far more animals available for hunting than ever before. As far as the price of commonly hunted game is concerned, taking inflation into account, hunting prices are lower than they were in 1991. The complainants have never said a word in the press about the inflationary increase in their other hunting costs, such as vehicles, fuel, rifles, ammunition and their favourite tipple. It is strange how a price of R1 450 for a blesbuck or an impala is said to be out of reach of the local hunter. Pricing cycles are a fact of business life. There are, however, many more game ranches for hunting today than there were, say, five years ago – with many, many more animals available for hunting or meat.

b. The unfounded, libellous accusations that wildlife ranchers are using growth promotants: the accusers must back this statement up with facts! I have never seen nor heard of this unethical practice (which is condemned by WRSA’s code of conduct) occurring on wildlife ranches. Making unfounded, broad possibility-statements is typical of this style of communication.

c. Much of the vitriol in the campaign against wildlife ranching is aimed at:
i. breeding animals for longer horns. There are ranchers that do this, but they do it scientifically, using the most modern genetic monitoring tests, as part of a broader health and production selection process to rectify the negative selection against these traits by hunters of the past. The record African buffalo horn length today in SA would qualify only in position 18 in the Rowland Ward record books. Most of the records placed above it are from many, many years back, further strengthening this point.
ii. breeding of colour variants. Clearly, the authors of the campaign against wildlife ranching understand neither genetics, evolution nor the possible effects of climate change on the biomes found in South Africa (in particular when discussing the so-called ‘natural range’). This is too complex a matter to discuss in a short press release, but one merely needs to walk down the street and see the results (many, many natural colour and other variations) in insects, birds, mammals, plants and even human populations around us. We value and praise these in many ways, viz. naming the beautiful colour variants of our indigenous and other plants after our heroes and paying more for them. Similarly, thousands of tourists spend money, time and effort to flock to SA to see the Timbavati white lion, the king cheetah bred by the heroine Ann van Dyk, or the yellow crimson-breasted shrike at Nylsvley. Why, then, the exaggerated negativity about differently coloured antelope?

The attack on this country’s wildlife ranchers – and thus one of its major unique agricultural activities, wildlife ranching – by a few ill-informed and angry individuals purporting to represent the hunters of South Africa – is born from some other yet-to-be-determined motivation. This spreading of disinformation must stop! One does not punch a hole in the life raft one shares with others.

For more information, contact Dr Peter Oberem: peter.oberem@afrivet.co.za
Alternatively, contact: publisher@wildliferanchingmag.com

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE NEWS RELEASE IN PDF FORMAT




Share





Tweet





+1





Share





Forward











For advertising rates and to book an e-auction alert, please e-mail: marketing@wildliferanchingmag.com

Copyright © 2015 Wildlife Ranching SA, All rights reserved.


unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences

quote:

breeding of colour variants. Clearly, the authors of the campaign against wildlife ranching understand neither genetics, evolution nor the possible effects of climate change on the biomes found in South Africa (in particular when discussing the so-called ‘natural range’). This is too complex a matter to discuss in a short press release, but one merely needs to walk down the street and see the results (many, many natural colour and other variations) in insects, birds, mammals, plants and even human populations around us. We value and praise these in many ways, viz. naming the beautiful colour variants of our indigenous and other plants after our heroes and paying more for them. Similarly, thousands of tourists spend money, time and effort to flock to SA to see the Timbavati white lion, the king cheetah bred by the heroine Ann van Dyk, or the yellow crimson-breasted shrike at Nylsvley. Why, then, the exaggerated negativity about differently coloured antelope?

For an article published to argue in its defence I consider this a poor response; it is neither informative nor argumentative.

Genetics......what is there to understand other than the understanding that it does play a part in variants being born. These variants don't wander off and create their own herds of "Genetically Modified Offspring". They will either be integrated within the herd and possibly not used as breeding stock or they could be ousted from the herd.

Evolution........we can only hypothesise on colour variants being a result of evolution. Certainly at the rate mankind is involved in aiding this process, it can't be labelled as 'evolution'?

Possible effects of climate change........to argue about a "possible" effect is not worthy of an argument.

Really a poor article. Exaggerated negativity towards differently coloured antelope? I don't think so.

I think this is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Who cares what people want. If there is demand then supply it until the next fad takes over.

If you really think a few breeders can alter the face of game across Africa then you have no concept of the number of animals there are.

Nature always wins, the weak die and the strong survive. No matter what you do, Nature will restore the balance.

The bubble will burst, it is just a matter of time

Ultimately the value of game is governed by 3 things

1) What people are prepared to pay to look at it i.e. photographic tourism
2) What people are prepared to pay to trophy hunt it i.e. Safaris
3) What people are prepared to pay per kilogram as a source of protein i.e. Subsistence/recreational hunting

There are very few lodges that will on a sustainable basis attract people to merely view these "freak" mutations. Yes a couple of trophy hunters will pay an exorbitant amount of money to shoot them, but it is a fad and will not be sustainable in the long term. The regular safari hunter who wants a good hunt and representative trophy, and the recreational local hunters are really what supports the bulk of the game ranching industry - this is the only group that make it a sustainable long term model for conservation.

In a few years time nobody is going to pay top dollar for a golden wildebeest like they are now. Some people have certainly made a lot of money but many are going to lose so much more!

In my opinion what will remain are the super trophies bred along the lines of the fenced White Tail in the US and the large stag in New Zealand. For a hefty trophy fee you will be able to shoot a xyz inch Kudu/Nyala/Sable or Buffalo. Sad but a reality where ever there is large amounts of money to be made