Last night my attention was drawn to a speech by Namibia’s Minister of the Environment and Tourism at the NAPHA AGM last week and I thought it so important that I have taken the unusual step (for me) of blogging about it the day after my previous blog was produced. Please read it and you will understand why hunting in Namibia has massively surpassed South Africa by using the very three-legged stool – of a partnership between government, the private sector and the free market economy – which was at the very heart of South Africa’s conservation success story and which has been abandoned by this country for the shortest of short term goals, benefitting a few greedy and wealthy businessmen and politicians, who know little about and care even less for hunting and conservation in this country.
In an article carried in the Namibian Sun, it was reported that the Minister of Environment and Tourism, Pohamba Shifeta, in his official speech at the 42nd Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA) in Namibia on Tuesday, said that hunting outfitters and professional hunters who bred domesticated wildlife and put wildlife that was manipulated and bred intensively in captivity up for sale, were putting hunting and conservation at risk.
Captive breeding, mostly for financial purposes, however had its downside, such as behavioural problems in animals that were eventually released as they were unable to hunt or forage, and loss of habitat, amongst others.
He said although these practises have become common in other countries, they will not be allowed to get out of control in Namibia as they threaten to destroy what the Namibian hunting and conservation community has worked hard to establish over the past 60 years.
“No one who cares for the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats and all they have to offer should allow this to happen so that a few greedy people can make a short-term profit, which benefits only them at such a high cost to the country.
“It should be clear that anything which damages or abuses hunting will have a negative effect on conservation in Namibia,” said Shifeta.
He added that the huge prices paid for these animals by game ranchers and breeders could ultimately only be supported by what a hunter would pay to hunt them.
Recent reports showed that the breeders were a few rich business people with no track-record in conservation and hunting.
“How long can the current sky high game prices be self-sustaining?” the minister asked.
Shifeta further urged all professional hunters and trophy hunting outfitters not to give in to the pressure and short-term lure of the dollar to develop illegal or unethical practices such as canned hunting, where animals are confined in a cage or fenced area, as well as selective breeding of genetic mutations and colour variants.
This speech has two lessons for South Africa, firstly, that the minister considered it important enough to attend the AGM of a body such a NAPHA and, secondly, that the Namibian government has already taken a decision on the negative consequences of the intensive breeding and domestication of wildlife to create exaggerated horn lengths, unnatural colour variants and lions for canned killing and recognised the need to state this unequivocally, in public, in front of an international audience including Dallas Safari Club, PHASA and SCI. In South Africa, the Department of Environmental Affairs continues to fiddle while Rome burns and dithers around in what has come to be seen as its usual grossly incompetent and unprofessional manner, its latest fiasco being an attempt to host yet another workshop on colour variants where speakers were selected by them, then cancelled less than 48 hours before the event and then reinstated at the last minute but limited to ten minute speeches on this important topic.
Is this pathetic response really the best South Africa can do to protect its precious renewable natural resources? Or is the government’s mismanagement of the Post Office, SAA, the SABC, Tourism and so many other government departments going to be the norm in this country for the foreseeable future with the destruction of all the opportunities for all its people coming ever closer day by sorry day?
The hunting fair “Jagd und Hund” in Dortmund, Germany, is no longer accepting outfitter with canned hunting and artifical breedings in their portfolio. This decision is supported by the local huntig association “Landesjagdverband Nordrhein-Westfalen”.
you for bringing this to my attention, Reiner. I wonder what more has to happen before the government does something to stop the rot?
Peter,
I enjoyed reading your comments on canned hunting and the article on Namibia. I have hunted in both South Africa and Namibia. Unfortunately, many “hunters” today appear to just want the trophy for their trophy rooms, have little time to truely enjoy the hunting experience and are willinging to spend rather obscene amounts of money to get their desired trophies. Today, one can go to Texas to one of the many exotic ranches and shoot many of the African game animals for their “collection” I have noticed over the last several years a growing dis-interest in a true hunt. Several of my friends have virtually lost all interest in African hu nting–been there, done that. Sold or given away their trophies an d have taken up other interests. South Africa does have a certain advantage over Namibia–nore tourist attractions, beautiful cities such as Cape Town, fantastic scenery etc. More and more people are taking family trips. As one goes through various stages of their hunting career such as first of all when they are youner obtaining all the eqjuipment rading about the exotic trips etc then going on the trips they can afford and finally, because of age health issues and time to give back to conservation, support women and youth just starting out etc, we as older folks have decided that we want to give back. We, perhaps, have no more room in the house for “stuff”, don’t have the physical capabilities that we used to and have set other priorities for our remaining years. We do not need “pink Zebras”, genetically altered species etc. We need people to enjoy the experience, support conservation and pass on our legacy of concerned sportsmen.
See you in Dallas
Peter, thank-you for you sustained contributions in getting the message how responsible hunting benefits wildlife in general. This article is also thought provoking and I have been following this debate with interest on many platforms recently, although I have discussed these things in many Cruiser and campfire discussions with my hunting clients over two decades of professional hunting.
I fully agree with John Sholes in that the tastes of hunters, who are customers like any other, vary and the market should always make its best attempt to cater for demand as with any other business.
Looking at the bigger picture, I have no desire to shoot a side striped impala or pink zebra for that matter, but I don’t believe it’s my business to tell others (and I know there are very few of them anyway) that they shouldn’t. If there is a willing buyer and a willing seller let them be. Afterall, isn’t this the narrative we are trying to promote wrt to expropriation of our land by populists in the political arena?
By now everybody knows that a lion in South Africa is captive bred , yet there is still a sustained demand? (800+ where shot last year) Once again we are confronted with willing buyer-willing seller scenario. It sounds harsh yes, but we promote it for trade other scarce natural resources don’t we?
As for ‘public opinion’ in the the hunting industry, how can consumptive practices such as domesticated livestock farming ever be morally superior to wildlife ranching of any sort? I have seen many livestock farms devastate natural habitat in the Eastern Cape, yet we all know wildlife die long before the grazing is denuded.
It is none of my business to say what farmers (who should all be businessmen) should do with their profits, but I can tell you the smart ones will re-invest these profits into their businesses, which will most likely be more property/land which should translate into more habitat for all wildlife, not just the ‘valuable’ ones. And here yet again, we are faced with the dilemma in the political arena where populists are dertermined to restrict onwership of land in South Africa! The free market is being severely threatened in South Africa and we need to look at how our perspectives and government policies / threats with regard to private property affect this entire narrative.
In a nutshell, we should be careful when flaunting with the notion of ‘moral superioty’, it cuts both ways.
Thanks for your comments, Eardley. I have been taught that liberty is the freedom to do whatever it is that I want provided I do not interfere with the freedom of someone else to do what he wants. The intensive breeding of wildlife to produce domesticated animals with exaggerated horn lengths, unnatural colour variants and lions for canned killing purposes is interfering with the ability of hunters to practice their pursuits – think countries banning trophy imports and airlines refusing to carry trophies – the ability of others to conserve wildlife and wildlife habitats because their revenue streams are being negatively affected as overseas hunters stay away. Sorry, Eardley but, in my opinion, now is not the time to hide your light under the laissez faire bushel of live and let live. Now is the time to nail your colours to the mast while you still can. How many more hunters that previously hunted in South Africa do you want to move their safaris to Namibia and elsewhere before you feel the need to do so?
Thanks, John.
Peter,
Again, the voice of reason and common sense is speaking out. I hope our dear friends in South Africa are listening. The cause of the issue is greed and a lack of insight into how to protect the resource for the long term. I use the term “greed” but it is really the creativeness of people in the hunting/breeding business trying to get an “edge” or advantage over another of the 4000 safari operation in South Africa by offering “bigger” horns and odd colors.
As the folks in Namibia have learned by watching South Africa, the answer is to offer quality hunts on wild animals and in an ethical manner. I will give you an example –
I hunted Namibia last May for eland and kudu. The area was good, the operator was the owner of the land. I “bought” the opportunity to hunt 4 of each species – 2 each for myself and 2 for my son. We were hunting kudu and spotted a nice one from the truck. We stalked about 100 yards and I was sitting for the shot. The young PH said to not shoot. I asked why and he said, “That kudu is a very good one, we have not really hunted him, we spotted him and are taking advantage of an easy shot, that is not ethical in my way of thinking”. Here I am, paying for this hunt, and this 22 year old is telling me about my ethics. I thought about it for 30 seconds and concluded he was correct , so we passed on the shot and hunted on.
I like that and I value that. I will hunt there again and again because they care about the resource and the hunter.
We need that mentality in our sport and in our business.
South Africa is a respected leader in the hunting industry for her efforts to save many of the species we now hunt regularly. She should stand up and continue that leadership by stopping the excesses in the captive breeding business and the canned lion business.
Ross
Thanks so much, Ross.
Adrian Kretzschmar
Exactly right as usual he African story, the few benefit and a whole section of the economy collapses thus un employment and all the other difficulties associated with poor governance. Blady appauling that you were told by the SA hunters chairman that your presentation had been canceled. Lack of respect for other peoples time as well as just lazy negligent and plain miss managed government office. AND IAM REFERRING TO DEPT OF ENVIROMENT AFFAIRS. Countries across our border are outstripping SA in economical growth . So as the post suggest the three legged stool is what our government needs to look at..
It is as if South Africa is not hearing the messages from all over the world the latest being from Namibia – clearly the world is opposed to the intensive breeding of game animals not only because of the ethical dilemmas around it but also because of the harm inflicted to the natural environment in the course of intensive breeding. The Scandinavians have come out strongly against canned and intensive breeding; the Australians have bared their fangs at it; IUCN Antelope Specialist Group have expressed their grave concerns; the CIC have slated it and local South African hunters and conservationists are against it. Yet, the South African government and the Department of Environmental Affairs are at this very moment mute about these unethical practices. The Department arranged a workshop for today 2 Dec 2015 to discuss the issues but it was such a dismal arrangement that I eventually refused to attend. It is time to take the government and the Department to task and there are groups the conservation sector gearing themselves up for litigation. The Department of Environmental Affairs are not fulfilling their mandate to conserve the biodiversity of South Africa. I fear for the day that activists starts boycotting tourism to South Africa as a result of our country’s dismal conservation record. it has been openly stated that we have the best legislation in the world but the worst implementation and enforcement.
Dr Verdoorn, Ek het n tydjie terug n artikel deur u gelees oor die kleurvariante. Gedink dit was uitstekend. Ek sal dit graag weer onder oë wil neem, maar nou het ek egter vergeet waar ek dit gelees het. Kan u my dalk help?
Well said , Gerhard. I think everyone who is serious about conservation in this country will agree with you.