Three weeks ago I received an invitation from the Department of Environmental Affairs to present a paper to the SECOND NATIONAL DIALOGUE WORKSHOP ON THE INTENSIVE AND SELECTIVE BREEDING OF COLOR VARIANTS. I received a copy of the agenda and program a week ago and, was due to speak at 09h30 on Wednesday morning, 2 December. In the interim, I have been hard at work preparing my presentation on the hugely negative effects of the intensive breeding of previously wild animals to produce domesticated ones with exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variations, as well as lions for various canned killing operations. Eighteen hours before I was due to catch my flight to Johannesburg – hotel accommodation and car hire booked – I received a call from the President of SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association to say that his presentation and mine had been summarily cancelled. No reasons were advanced for the cancellation and, but for him calling me, I would have flown to Johannesburg, incurred the expense, arrived at the workshop and been embarrassed to learn that my presentation was no longer required. In other words, two out of the three presentations by those representing amateur hunters were cancelled at the last minute for no reason. At any rate, in the very brief 15 minutes each presenter was allotted to make his or her presentation, this is what I proposed to say:
SPEECH: COLOUR VARIANTS AND CANNED KILLING
I would like to start by stating the obvious and, in this, I think I speak for many people here today and that is: I am passionate – my wife says obsessed – by wildlife and wildlife habitats and I therefore support whatever conserves them and oppose whatever does not.
Let me now turn to my conclusion and between stating this and the expiry of the very brief 15 minutes I have at my disposal, I hope to convince you of the truth of this conclusion, namely, that the intensive breeding and domestication of wildlife to produce animals with exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variations is, along with canned killing, causing overseas hunters to avoid South Africa. This, in turn, is having a seriously adverse effect on hunting and, consequently, on conservation in this country.
I include canned killing with the intensive breeding referred to above because they are two sides of the same coin. Firstly, because they both involve the domestication and perversion of wildlife and, secondly, because neither has anything to do with conservation.
Let me immediately make a third and unrelated point. There is a gaping chasm between extensive wildlife ranching and the intensive breeding and domestication as described above. The former deserves all the recognition and praise that is their due for creating the quiet conservation revolution that has spread across our country over the last 60 years or so and which has led to the remarkable revival and resurgence of both wildlife and wildlife habitats in South Africa and my remarks concerning intensive breeding and domestication should in no way be construed as a negative reflection on game ranching in general and of which I was a miniscule part for over 20 years.
I know that intensive breeders like to try and don the robes of extensive game ranchers and claim they are one and the same but this is clearly nonsense and the two should not be confused with one another. Although, like most things in life, there are grey areas where the two overlap at times, in their pure forms there is a vast difference between the two and extensive game ranches form by far and away the vast majority of game ranching operations in this country.
Fourthly, no-one can deny that hunting is the power behind The South African Conservation Success Story. It is the foundation upon which it has been built over the last 60 years. After six years of study, research and filming, the 1 ½ hour documentary of the same name produced by me in conjunction with the world famous, Canadian wildlife biologist, Shane Mahoney, and the then head of National Parks, Dr David Mabunda, conclusively proved the truth of the previous statement but, instead of merely rehashing the contents of the documentary, I will leave a copy of the DVD and the subsequent book that was published with the Department in the hope that someone here may watch the DVD and/or read the book. They were, incidentally awarded the Environmental Prize by the prestigious European hunting and conservation body, CIC – The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation and additional copies can be ordered online from www.peterflackproductions.co.za. In summary, therefore, anything which harms hunting in this country, harms conservation.
The question remains, however, why does the intensive breeding and canned killing harm hunting. The obvious answer is that it does so by keeping the important overseas recreational hunters away who contribute major revenue to the hunting community, much of which is used to fund wildlife and wildlife habitat? How has this happened? Well, for starters, every major hunting association in North America, Europe and Africa has come out publicly against these practices – the Boone & Crockett Club and SCI in America; The Nordic Safari Club and CIC in Europe and SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association in Africa to mention but a few examples.
Genuine and ethical hunters do not want to be tainted by hunting in South Africa and having people question whether their hunt was “canned” or their trophies domesticated animals bred to be killed or they went to shoot one of the weird, unnatural colour variations, which most people know are usually kept in small paddocks for their own safety and to facilitate the feeding and veterinary services they often require. There are enough people critical of hunting already that an overseas recreational hunter does not need to voluntarily add to the negative pressure against what he is doing by coming to South Africa, which is seen as the home of these nefarious practices.
And such a hunter does not need to come here. Apart from a few endemic species such as vaal rhebok and Cape grysbok, most of what South Africa has to offer can be hunted in other countries and certainly this applies to the more popular species such as impala, kudu, warthog, springbok, blue wildebeest, zebra and waterbuck. And this is, in fact, what is happening. Hunters are going elsewhere.
I have recently seen the 2014 figures published by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and, since 2011, the number of hunts by overseas recreational hunters visiting the country has dropped every year from 9 138, to 8 387, to 7 638 to 7 405 last year. This represents a steady and continuing drop of 1 733 hunts or 19% over the four year period.
According to research published in the December 2014 edition of Game & Hunt by North-West University, the average overseas hunter spends R138 200 per hunting trip or roughly 4,4 times the average annual spend of the South African biltong hunter of R31 471. The reduction in hunts by overseas hunters represents a loss of nearly R240 million per annum to the country. Given the 32% drop in the rand dollar rate over the last year, the loss is currently closer to R320 million today.
And the number of animals shot has also fallen by almost 3 000 animals from 2011 to 2014. Of the revenue so generated, 19% is accounted for by one species – lion. According to the DEA, lion killing contributed R194 million, or 19% of the income from trophy hunting in 2014. This was from 641 lions shot, of which approximately 99% were “captive bred” or canned lions. And the question must be asked, is there a risk that this revenue will disappear? Apart from the facts and figure referred to above let me mention the following things that have recently been brought to my attention:
Matthias Kruse, the Editor of Jäger, the leading German hunting magazine made the trip to Brussels especially to see Blood Lions. He announced after the screening that, as of next year, and I quote, “Germany’s leading hunting show held in Dortmund will no longer allow the advertising or selling of any form of canned or captive hunts. The show will also no longer allow the sales and marketing of any species bred as unnatural colour variations such as golden wildebeest.”
According to a South African outfitter specializing in marketing hunts to Scandinavians, and again I quote, “The Nordic Safari Club has already banned canned lion shooting from both the advertising and editorial sections of their Magazine “TROFÆ”, as well as removing all South African lion trophies from their record book. In Denmark the media took an intense interest in the Cecil issue a few months back and all Danish hunting agencies have removed SA lion shooting from their advertising but I do suspect that, unofficially, several of them are still selling this con. Sales have dropped as the general public and Danish hunters have become very much aware of the background, and we’ve reached a stage where anyone publicizing a story or film on lion shooting in South Africa automatically becomes the subject of public ridicule. That in itself is a step in the right direction.”
Another question that needs to be asked and answered in this context is, why do the vast majority of people come from overseas to hunt in Africa? The answer is quite simply the romance which Africa has to offer. The idea that you can wander over vast open spaces teeming with wildlife. That you can sleep under canvass to the tune of lions roaring and hyenas cackling. That you can relive the past. Go where famous past hunters went, see what they saw, meet the people they met and hunt the game they did. For the tales around the campfire, for the thrill of the chase, to test yourself against the toughest game on earth. And it is just as the famous Spanish professor of philosophy, Ortega y Gasset wrote, “They do not kill to hunt, they kill to have hunted.” People seem to forget that, for the genuine and ethical hunter, the hunt is everything that happens up until the trigger is squeezed or the arrow released. These people come to hunt game animals by fair chase means in their natural environments. In marketing terms, this is the sizzle which sells the steak. Africa is THE aspirational hunting destination. Nothing else comes close.
The exact opposite is what South Africa is degenerating into – where the offering is more and more about the instant killing of unnatural or domesticated game in small fenced enclosures. Overseas hunters do not come to hunt barnyard animals or domesticated animals in these enclosures or unnatural colour variants and, most importantly, they do not want to be tainted by accusations that they do. Their passion is under enough attack as it is that they do not want to and, just as importantly, do not need to open themselves to further accusations that this is the reason why they went to hunt in a particular place and hence they have stayed away from South Africa in their droves and the statistics demonstrate this.
How do I know this? Because I have been an avid meat and trophy hunter for some 58 years. I have hunted in 17 African countries for all the game species available in Africa and on licence, with the exception of nine animals. During this time, I have written and/or edited 12 books on hunting, filmed seven documentaries and written hundreds of articles for a variety of magazines in Africa, North America and Europe. Most importantly, I have attended major hunting shows in America and Europe for many years. I meet overseas hunters all the time. I live in that society. I speak their language. I understand their needs. I am one of them and they talk to me on a regular basis.
Other reasons have been advanced for the drop in overseas hunters coming to South Africa but they are all nonsense, especially if you take into account that hunting has been stopped in Botswana, has only recently been re-opened in Zambia and has suffered a dramatic reduction in Zimbabwe. As happened in the past when hunting was stopped in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, the hunters that previously went there, came south but this time not to South Africa. The countries that benefitted most have been Mocambique and Namibia, both of which have seen the number of overseas hunters visiting their countries climb dramatically, while here the numbers here have dropped.
For example, while the number of hunts by overseas hunters visiting this country has declined dramatically since 2007 when it hit 16 394 to the 7 405 in 2014, the corresponding number of overseas recreational hunters visiting Namibia, as supplied by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, reached 23 768 last year, including 6 985 from North America and 13 730 from Europe. So, while South Africa has been going backwards and blaming the decline on every factor other than that we are now seen as pariahs in the world hunting community, Namibia has, over the same period, seen the number of hunts by overseas recreational hunters multiply by a factor of four, from some 6 000 hunts in the early 2000s to nearly 24 000 hunts last year. As the old Nedbank advert said, “It makes you think, doesn’t it?”
Can you imagine if the additional 18 000 overseas recreational hunters had come to South Africa instead of Namibia? The coffers of our hunting community would have been swelled by R2,5 billion and much of this would have helped fund the conservation of both wildlife and wildlife habitat! In a nutshell, the country simply cannot afford these relatively few intensive breeders and their domestication and perversion of our wildlife!
But let me pause here and ask you a third simple question – do you know why wildlife is often referred to as game? The answer is a simple one – because in times gone by hunting was a game played almost exclusively by royalty. And it was called a game because, like all games, the result was in doubt. If it was not, and the result was pre-ordained or a foregone conclusion, it was no longer a game. And shooting purpose bred, domesticated wildlife – whether unnatural colour variants, with exaggerated horns or lions bred to be shot – in a paddock where they can neither feed themselves, procreate nor escape their predators naturally, can be culling, shooting, killing or slaughter but it is not and can never be a hunt.
Genuine, ethical, recreational hunters do not want this and, just as importantly, do not want to be tainted by accusations that they do. Just like justice, which must not only be done but be seen to be done, genuine and ethical hunters want to hunt ethically and be seen to do so.
So, in conclusion, let me state that I am a lawyer by training and was a partner of the law firm, Bowmans, one of the three biggest in the country, for six years before leaving to start a career in business and where I ended up as the CEO of the fifth largest gold producer in the world employing over 36 000 people. During my time as a lawyer, however, I was trained to believe that, after logic had excluded everything else, what remained had to be the truth. And the truth is that the intensive breeding and domestication of wildlife to produce exaggerated horn lengths, unnatural colour variants and canned lions, is having a seriously negative affect on hunting in this country and, consequently, the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats which, if properly conserved can continue to provide opportunities for all our people in perpetuity, particularly in the poor rural areas where such opportunities are most needed. The converse, of course, is that in order to make a few already wealthy businessmen and politicians even more wealthy than they already are, we are placing the future of our country’s renewable natural resources at serious risk which, in turn, will remove the abovementioned opportunities.
The fourth and last question that must be asked crisply is, “What does the government want and what is it going to do to achieve these goals?”
Judging by the approach of the Department of Environmental Affairs the question appears to have already been answered by them and this excuse for a workshop is mere window dressing to allow them to say that the hunting community was consulted when nothing could be further from the truth. And so nothing of consequence will be done to stop what South Africa’s foremost businessman, Johann Rupert, has labelled a Ponzi scheme and, in addition to all the other damage that has and will be done, dozens of innocent South Africans, particularly the late entrants, will in all likelihood lose their shirts and pensions.
Dear Peter,
As usual, You have extremely well articulated the sentiment of most true hunters. The question remains though: Who is going to lead the “cleaning up” of the present practices? That PHASA is concerned is a good start, but what will be done?Does your government has the will-power to require change ?
Yesterday I got the following tidbit which gave me reason to ponder. The UK Environmental Minister Stewart (pressured by ????), did the following statement: I quote……
On Tuesday, Stewart told an audience at Westminster Hall that: “Unless there is a significant improvement in the performance of the hunting industry and of those countries, this government will move to ban lion trophies,” referring to African countries which are home to remaining lion populations.
Most people may dismiss Stewart’s statement as …”another politician collecting brownie points by jumping on the band wagon… ” . It may be so, but I find the wording very interesting.He does NOT question trophy hunting per se, but HOW it is done, which is a huge step forward. If the debate could focus on the performance ,rather than the too simplistic question if you are for or against trophy hunting, we may draw the attention to what is the really important issue.
If you have time, your thoughts on what can and should be done and by whom. would be greatly appreciated. I hope you will continue to fight for what you (we) think is right .
Kindest regards
Sven-Erik
Thank you for your note, Sven. A number of serious, like-minded people are currently examining the formation of a guild that will actively promote sustainable hunting on a fair chase basis and its benefits according to a strategically driven, professional PR program but which confines its membership to those who agree in writing to conduct their hunting in an unashamedly ethical manner; and will support conservation programs and educate the youth in accordance with the above aim. The exercise is well advanced and, hopefully, will be launched in the new year. Clearly, it will oppose the unacceptable canned killings and intensive breeding and domestication of wildlife for purposes of producing exaggerated horn lengths, unnatural colour variants and lions specially bred to be killed in small enclosures, which are seen as having a massively negative effect on hunting and the conservation it so clearly supports.
Your conclusions about overseas hunters wanting to hunt in an area that does not bring into question the methods or breeding of animals is completely correct. Sadly it seems to be rearing its ugly head here in the states also. The bottom line is it’s all about making money. Unfortunately more and more of our game animals are nothing more than a cash cow. I for one do not find anything appealing about color variations or programed horn and antler growth. I want a straight forward hunt for an animal that is as genuine to his species as possible. It truly is all about the hunt. Anyway Peter, well done.
When you find out why your talk was cancelled, please let everyone know. Your paper is very perspicacious and accurate. Congratulations. I was invited to talk at a seminar held by the University of Port Elizabeth a good few years ago and I alerted people to the same problem due to the exotic species imported into the Eastern Cape. My talk was entitled “My African Dream” in which I referred to the unique experiences of hunting in African wilderness and the appeal to hunters from abroad. I argued that the exotic species were killing the authenticity of hunting in Africa. As the local impecunious farmers were making money out of offering exotic species for hunting, my talk was ignored, to put it politely. I’ll try and find a copy and send it to you.
Kind Regards. Brendan O’Keeffe.
Well Peter I must admit that the cancellation of your (and the others) presentation does not surprise me. Over the years in nature conservation I fought to not allow the purpose breeding of wild animals with different colour hues and traits. These practices was not allowed in the former Transvaal. My aim was to stop it from happening in Limpopo. In many meetings I was attacked by some wildlife ranchers. One of them even went to my MEC and told him that I stand in the way of progressive nature conservation and that I am taking the wildlife industry back to the apartheid years.
Peter, this new type of game farming is just about money. While saying this I must state that the whole matter is very complex. Things are not right. If we really would study this new tendency, we could be surprised of what the outcome will be. I am of the opinion that a few of these new ranchers may in the end be responsible for a total collapse of game farming and hunting. Peter, I can almost write a book of my struggles to stop purpose breeding and hybridization of species, the import of alien wild animals for the hunting trade etc. I really cannot see how foreign hunters will come to hunt these colour freaks for the vast amounts of money been asked for them. Why then are these breeding practices then take place?
As an avid hunter, life member of SCI and have hunted Africa several times, I totally agree with your comment. I avoid going to hunt for canned lions (in spite of having tried few times for wild lions in Tanzania/Zambia but passed since I felt was not a good trophy) and despise the chasing for mutation induced by farmers. You are correct. Hunt is a passion and the voyage and experience makes the trip, not the shooting of fenced animals bred for profit. Well done
Here, here, Marcus. I have posted your comments on the blog. I wish more of us would stand up and be counted like you.
Shooting penned lions and putting them in the SCI record book gives us as hunters a bad name and is indefensible. If someone wishes to collect one for their trophy room for display purposes or as a replacement for a ruined skin OK, but to treat them as a record book “hunted” animal, no way. I hope SCI will discontinue the practice soon for the sake of not having to defend the practice if nothing else.
Roy Langley
The ethical hunting community world wide as well as wildlife in South Africa is the poorer for this not having been presented, but then there are forces at play that will happily sacrifice Africa’s wildlife at the alter of the all mighty dollar.
Dear Peter,
I’m hunter and international hunting consultant. I hunted all around the world for myself and in Africa 24 times, many of them in your country. I totally agree with your above speech. It’s true that international hunting community must do something against those artificial practices. The only way to justify today our passion for hunting is convinced the society that is a very useful management tool to have a sustainable wildlife population. In Europe we are habituated to hunt in more or less big fenced properties, because the limited space. We have the tradition of wild game management with trophy hunting as the best argument to obtain the best management not just to get the biggest trophies. But that was the starting point and now you can choice in one brochure the red stag you want to “hunt”. Today is almost impossible to persuade non hunters young people about the positive things of the ethical and legal hunting if is not to help in the conservation of the wildlife. Canned lions hunting is not a hunt is a way of killing “non wild” animals , just to satisfied the hunters ego. Is a big mistake that we’ll pay in the close future if we don’t do something. It’s almost impossible try to explain to anybody in our modern (and green world) that kill a canned lion is hunting, and it’s impossible because this is not hunting. Breeding artificially different animals manipulated to obtain not natural colors or horns size is completely against hunting ethically. You explained very well all this and I agree with all your arguments. I insist that I’m hunter first and then also hunting agent and consultant. Or we take the leadership to stop those practices or the society will do for us and at the same time they will stop also any other type of hunting. Thanks Peter for your support to hunt with ethic and respecting the wild game. Sorry by my bad english.All the best
Juan Antonio
Thank you for your comprehensive response, Juan. I have posted it on my blog as I believe more people need to read it. I just wish my Spanish was as good as your excellent English.
Carl Nicholson
Follow the money and influence. Who is involved in breeding and has political clout and money?
Felix Marnewecke
I thought Phasa has distanced themselves from canned hunting??
Garry Kelly
What a disgrace Peter . It’s a great pity that were not able to give your presentation . What you have said is right to the point and needs to be heard .
Brilliant, concise and expertly written factual reality, very well put.
A really pity you were not allowed to present it, but no surprise in this.
Our morally and ethically bankrupt government, is applying their own
corruption daily and in evermore areas.
Thank you so much for your support and kind words, Marc. Much appreciated.
“…why do the vast majority of people come from overseas to hunt in Africa? The answer is quite simply the romance which Africa has to offer.”
This is 100% accurate. At least for myself and the people I know that have gone to Africa. It is why, after having hunted in the RSA twice, I am now considering a hunt in either Mozambique or Zimbabwe. I am looking for an adventure and a journey. Getting the animal is just a very small part of the hunt. It’s the experience both before and after that counts.
Thank you for your comments and support, Sherrill.
I agree with most you say, but one other factor in RSA is the difficulty in bringing firearms into RSA. Even if you only over night while traveling to another country, now travel agents that do a large amount of hunter travel do all they can to avoid Joberg. I enjoy RSA and have hunted there many times and probably will do so in the future. Thanks for all you do, and will you be in Dallas.
Regards,
Ed Seager
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Ed. I did not know this was still a problem.
Holger Krogsgaard Jensen
I’m speechless, but typical – probably due to pressure from PHASA who newer really liked an open discussion about ethical issues.
Dave Davenport
Totally unsubstantiated claim. PHASA has no say over the DEAT. You forget that PHASA is made up of a group of individuals that vote on certain issues . It’s not the big bad brother you think it is
Holger Krogsgaard Jensen
PHASA recently convinced the minister to publish an ode in The Sunday Times in defense of canned lion shooting (prior to the Blood Lion debacle), and I have no doubt that they also had a hand in this. On the other hand – PHASA has become totally irrelevant to European hunting organisations – and there are clear moves even in the US to start looking into hunting ethics. PHASA has long lost the plot, and it is now overseas organisations that lay down the rules for advertising and sale of South African hunting products – and they are not going to consult with our local industry before doing so.
Tinus Lindeque
Phasa have no say over hunting outfitters/ph’s in South Africa. DEAT are lying down the rules and laws about hunting in SA.
Holger Krogsgaard Jensen
The article from Sunday Times had the exact wording of the unlikely explanation for “captive-bred hunting” that PHASA has been promoting for years. The only reason that they back-tracked on their recent AGM, was the enormous international pressure building up. Had they instead put morals before money from the start, they would still have a say internationally, but I’m afraid they completely lost the plot. Not very intelligent if you ask me, and remember that more than 1/3 of the members present at the AGM still voted in favour of canned lion shooting.
An excellent write, mr Flack. I am 100% with you.
I don’t think your presentation was cancelled for no reason; there was a reason. Problem is that it is probably a sinister reason.
There are some breeders (not all) that do not care too much about conservation. They just want to farm with wildlife like they do with cattle and sheep. I have even heard some saying that conservation is a job for government in the national parks. Not surprisingly, there is also a movement to have game ranching report to the Department of Agriculture rather than Environmental Affairs.
A large part of the public is sceptical about hunting. Unless we can convince them that hunting is absolutely essential for conservation, we may well lose our hunting rights and heritage. You are right: these breeding practices do nothing for conservation and thus put my cultural heritage at risk.
Strangely, the breeders simply turn a deaf ear to the hunting industry. Very sad.
Thank you for your perceptive remarks, Willem. I have posted them on the blog because I feel more people should read them.
Peter,
As usual, you targeted the key issue here – the animals, the role they play in our “recreation” and business, and the ethics that drive us.
I have witnessed what you are seeing now in the USA. The captive breeding of whitetail deer, elk and many other animals have led “hunters/collectors” down the wrong path of “bigger is better”. When the demand for “bigger” is driving the decision by the hunter, then an animal breeder or rancher will figure out a way to deliver “bigger”. In the end, the animal is damaged, almost beyond repair by the genetic and chemical manipulation (see our professional sports teams as an example of this on humans). Further, the ethics of the hunter/sportsman are eroded as well. This erosion of ethics is the path that leads to the wanton slaughter of animals for the wrong reasons and by the wrong methods.
How dare I suggest what is right or wrong for someone else? Easily. As humans, we are driven by desires and beliefs. Ethics drive our desires and beliefs to a large extent. I offer that if we continue down the path of “bigger horns are better”, we erode our view of wildlife and then try to manipulate the resource to give us what we think we need.
A case in point – physical enhancement surgery on women who feel that larger lips, breasts, hips, whatever will attract men and the approval of men. What started out as a good idea (repair of physical damage to tissue due to disease or accident) has let to the wholesale marketing of women with larger lips, breasts, whatever in the mistaken belief men want this or the public desires it. Man made alterations for vanity or perceived sexual attractiveness is ethically and morally wrong by nearly any standard. Yet we do it because we can.
The same goes for game breeding. We do it because we can. But we shouldn’t and it will ultimately destroy the sport we love because, we, the hunting community will denigrate to a standard that sees animals horns, skulls, antlers as objects of acquisition verses what it should be.
And what should hunting be? it is easier to say what it should not be. It should be canned, contrived, the outcome manipulated to where the animal is no more than an acquisition rather than a worthy adversary or challenge.
We are our worst enemy. However, we have the ability and intelligence to avoid destruction of our sport, if we will step back and look at what we are becoming and what we are doing.
Thank you for your incisive and novel comments, Ross, as always. I have posted them on the blog because I feel more people will find them interesting and of use.
Hi Peter – a brilliantly written article – needless to say colour variants and canned lion hunting is just another money making racket !
A real shame that South Africa’s excellent conservation record is slowly being flushed down the sewer.
However maybe this is just what our conservation and hunting industry needs to give us the wake up call to clean up our act. Sometimes you only find a cure for the disease after you have caught the sickness.
Public perception and a general stay away by international hunters declining to come to our shores could just be the medicine we need to help cure this illness !
May I suggest that this article of yours be sent to a few prominent hunting magazines, so that the truth can be told.
Regards.
Mark.
Thank you for your comments, Mark. I have posted them on my blog. African Indaba, the official CIC magazine, have asked to publish the speech and I have sent it to one or two others as well. All I can say is from your lips to God’s ears.
Pieter Engelbrecht
Great stuff