Question: I noticed on Iziko Museums’ facebook page a few people were protesting against an apparent exhibition of your hunting trophies. So I googled your name and discovered that you’re a conservationist as well as a hunter, which I completely understand – after all, controlling animal population is part of maintaining sustainability. But the way these people are commenting it’s like they imply that you kill endangered species. So I guess what I’m asking is, what animals do you hunt? And would you say that you hunt in a sustainable way? Thanks in advance ~ LH
My response: Thank you for your email. Countries which offer hunting are meant to evaluate and count their game on a regular basis, which determines the numbers of surplus animals they make available on quota to be hunted. Whether they all do this or not I cannot be sure but CITES, the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species, classifies animals they believe are endangered. To export the skins, horns and feet/hooves (the trophies) of hunted animals from the countries where they have been hunted to South Africa requires that the country of origin issues a veterinary export permit and a CITES export permit – this latter permit will not be issued by the country of origin in respect of endangered animals but, in the unlikely event it is, the South African authorities will not accept it. These are then sent to South Africa and a CITES and veterinary import permit are applied for. If and when these are granted, the import permits plus the export permits are sent back to the country of origin and they must accompany the trophies on their journey to South Africa. If the trophies arrive in South Africa without these permits, they will be confiscated and destroyed. Quite simply, it is impossible to hunt endangered animals legally and equally impossible to import the trophies into South Africa. In addition, all ethical hunting can only be done on a sustainable basis. I have never poached but only hunted game which was on licence and in respect of which I held a valid hunting licence. What is the point of poaching? It is illegal, morally wrong and to do so puts at risk the very animals hunters love and want to conserve for future generations. Only a short sighted, stupid criminal would hunt endangered game.
All the animals I have hunted were inspected by the committee who presented the Musgrave Award to me in 2006. This is an award for the lifetime achievements of a hunter both on and off the hunting fields. It is strictly evaluated, cannot be applied for and is not made every year. The Iziko Museum of South Africa also had to be sure before accepting the collection that the animals were legally hunted.
Both the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the UN’s top conservation body and the Convention on Biodiversity, to which South Africa is a signatory, recognize the value of trophy hunting and its vital role in conservation. If you have a serious interest in this matter, I would urge you to buy a copy of The South African Conservation Success Story from www.rowlandward.com – the proceeds go towards funding the donation of this DVD to those who want it but cannot afford it.
I have devoted most of my discretionary time and money to the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats in Africa. It is my firm belief, based on years of practical experience of conservation on the African continent or the lack thereof, that legal hunting is the foundation upon which all conservation is built here. Without legal and ethical hunting, one day there will be no wild animals left in Africa.
Thank you once again for your enquiry. Should you need answers to any further questions on this topic, please do not hesitate to ask. The full text of my brief introductory remarks in the Museum debate on this subject entitled, The Elephant in the Room, can be read on my website. This is obviously a wide and contentious subject and I have only touched the surface of the issues raised by you but I hope I have pointed you in the right direction.
Thank you so much for your thorough and thought-provoking reply. It’s clear that you care deeply about animals as well as their conservation! Kind Regards ~ LH
John William Salevurakis
It is obviously very common for people to become irate about hunting “endangered” animals simply because some government entity or international body has classified them as such and often in a very general way. For example, if CITES classifies an animal as CITES II, some people would probably argue that the animal should not be hunted because CITES II implies “threatened” status and the ‘E’ in CITES stands for ‘Endangered’ after all so…if CITES has taken notice of the animal… it should be left alone! Similarly I think some governments respond to (and create!) the same general sort of thing. The U.S. Endangered Species Act for years prohibited the import of Wood Bison (CITES II) even though a CITES export permit would have been granted from Canada and most other CITES II animals don’t even require an import permit from the US (eg. Elephant from most places). That escapade probably hurt Wood Bison recovery more than it helped! There are also of course CITES I animals (Cheetah for example) that are on the ESA in the US even though CITES export permits are available (eg. from Namibia)! Again, legislation is hurting the flow of revenue toward species conservation because the species is “endangered” according to ONE government body. There is no reason a Cheetah trophy fee should be $2500 so ranchers feel the need to shoot them on sight to protect cattle! As another example, I don’t even think Brown Hyena are CITES listed but are still unimportable to the US due to what I believe was ESA listing decades ago! Are they still ‘Endangered’ really? Were they ever? Probably not and if they were, I doubt ESA listing helped them recover. I think there are probably dozens of conflicting opinions like this between the ESA, CITES, and IUCN. Given that, I guess my question to people who pose the query that you answered so well would be, “Endangered according to whom and with what biological evidence?”
Thank you for your comment, John. I agree with you. We know as an empirically established fact that preservation has never worked as a method to save wildlife in South Africa. If the logic of the South African Conservation Success Story is anything to go by, it makes sense that the more endangered the animal, the sooner a small but sustainable quota should be set aside for hunting, the hunts auctioned off to raise the biggest amount of money possible and the funds dedicated to conserving these animals. This is the rationale behind the recovery of white rhino, Cape mountain zebra, bontebok and black wildebeest numbers in this country to name but four once highly endangered species.
Governments who stymie the ability of others to conserve their wildlife by preventing them from raising the funds to do so by, for example, unilaterally blocking the import of the trophies, do huge damage to conservation of these species exactly as is the case for cheetah as you have pointed out. What makes this particularly egregious is that the cheetah population in Namibia is the best studied and evaluated cheetah population in the world. CITES and the Namibian government have approved cheetah quotas but the USA, by refusing to allow the import of these trophies, has drastically reduced the revenue that can be generated from this species and which is therefore available for its conservation.