The article below, written by Mr Barry York, an intensive breeder of golden wildebeest, was sent to me for reply by Andre Degeorges, an American who has worked extensively in Southern African as an administrator and university lecturer in the conservation field.
Our wildlife industry continues to grow and expand, despite the economic downturn in the general South African economy. We see game values rising and new record prices being paid for select animals, at almost all of the major game auctions.
There are certain hunters and arm chair conservationists, who view this growth in a negative manner. They criticize the breeding of trophy quality animals as well as colour variants such as Black Impala and Golden Wildebeest, as having major conservation risk. The use of camps or semi extensive systems to facilitate the rotational grazing of wild herbivores, such as wildebeest, for sound veld management and disease control purposes, is condemned as being artificial (not natural) resulting in genetically inferior animals that are a risk to wild populations? Only trophies from animals hunted on those South African game ranches, where animals exist naturally, (without the hand of man) are considered by certain individuals to be authentic?
It is time to put the record straight.
Natural areas, that have not been modified by man, DO NOT exist in S. Africa. Kruger National Park, for example, is an extensive wildlife management area but is not natural. Game ranchers that enclose their properties with high game proof fences, may obtain a certificate of adequate enclosure , that allows the capture or hunting of listed animals at their discretion. Listed animals on fenced game ranchers do not occur in their original or natural state. They cannot exist naturally, no matter how far you stretch your imagination.
An ever expanding human population places increased pressure on natural resources and appropriate management strategies will need to be implemented in order for wildlife to survive.
The management objectives of a full time, game rancher, who’s livelihood depends on the sustainable use of natural resources are very different from those of our state funded parks as well as wealthy land lords who are not financially dependent on what they produce off the land.
South Africa and Namibia are the only countries in Africa, where private ownership of wildlife and the trade in many species is permitted , hence the expansion of game ranches in these countries. Wildlife is decreasing in the rest of Africa. This creates an increase in demand for wildlife in S Africa and Namibia, causing the ever increasing game prices that we are currently experiencing.
The vital role that ethical hunters play in the the conservation of our wildlife heritage because they add financial value to the industry, cannot be over emphasized. Have hunters however, always behaved in a manner that benefits the sustainable, long term health, viability and trophy quality of our wildlife? Can hunters all be trusted to shoot only the smallest, weakest or oldest bulls, leaving the finest and best to pass on their superior genetics before they are selectively killed and taken out of the system? Those who condemn selective breeding as a form of genetic manipulation must also condemn the selective killing of animals, as this is negative genetic manipulation.
The high, free market, price currently being paid for top quality, breeding animals tells us that the wildlife industry is in a growth phase. There is a shortage of quality breeding animals, to stock more land and thus an increase in their value, following normal supply and demand principals. All hunters and conservationists who have an interest in the long term growth in the wildlife industry should welcome this development. For every pregnant female that is not killed but allowed to breed, means that there will be more surplus males to hunt or harvest in the future.
The most important, underlying or intrinsic value of the finest animals within a species, is not in their meat or trophy hunting price but in their breeding value. Genetic scientists believe that the herd bull may contribute up to 80% of the genetic improvement within that population. Leading game ranchers understand the value of using the very best animals to breed and thus are no longer allowing hunters unrestricted access to shoot breeding animals.
The positive effect of breeding with superior bulls is illustrated below.
(Positive Bell shaped curve)
I am proud to be a part of the generation of hunters that have returned wildlife to the land. I am also proud to be one of the original people involved in the conservation of this magnificent, adapted, valuable, gift from nature, known as Golden Wildebeest. The conservation of these beautiful , tough, fertile, disease resistant, highly productive animals with unrivaled mothering ability and calf survival rate has resulted in the following benefits on our properties:
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION BENEFITS FROM BREEDING GOLDEN WILDEBEEST
The breeding of golden wildebeest has resulted in the massive increase in the conservation of the more common variant of this species known as blue wildebeest and other wildlife that is now to be found on what was often degraded, marginal agricultural land.
Previously blue wildebeest were of little commercial value to farmers. They were seen as a threat to the cattle farming industry and were persecuted, shot or destroyed as unwanted vermin. Prior to 1990 the movement of Wildebeest was extremely restricted, with only a few game farms having the required permission to keep them. There was little or no demand for wildebeest and their numbers outside of protected areas were extremely limited and diminishing. Veterinary fences were erected to restrict their movement and wildebeest could not be introduced to new game farms without the written permission of often uncooperative neighboring cattle farmers. Today the boot is on the other foot as beef production is less profitable and wildebeest breeding stock have experienced a significant increase in value because of the demand for breeding golden wildebeest. Blue Wildebeest are now regarded as a most important, valuable, game ranch animal, their numbers are increasing as they are replacing domestic livestock and crop farming as a more viable land use option. The breeding of high value golden wildebeest are in no way a threat to the more common, colour variant of the species but has resulted in a major conservation boost for blue wildebeest in general.
The conservation of genetic diversity , within the blue wildebeest species (as prescribed in the Biodiversity Act) has been achieved by game farmers, despite the prohibitive regulations, double standards and negative attitude of some, so called conservationists.
Large areas of over exploited , eroded and leached, infertile crop land has returned to well managed native pasture, resulting in a :
- Significant decrease in the use of potentially dangerous and harmful chemicals.
- Huge reduction in soil erosion or leaching, with increased soil fertility, water holing capacity, humus content and soil biodiversity.
- Improvement in effective rainfall, water conservation and provision of clean, clear, un polluted surface as well as underground water.
- Vast improvement in the diversity as well as, numbers of, plants, microorganisms, insects, birds, reptiles and mammals to be found in the area.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Increased economic returns from the sale of high value Golden Wildebeest and more efficient and effective production of blue wildebeest has resulted in :
- The creation of more sustainable jobs , in the poor rural areas, with better pay and benefits.
- The development of more value-ad business in the area ie vets, auction companies and facilities, game transport, helicopters capture teams, insurance companies, abattoirs , meat processing, fencing, and feed manufacturing, to name but a few.
- A positive contribution to food security, both in quantity and quality of healthy meat, through optimal wildlife production.
- Alternative and diverse income to farmers and increased farm prices.
- Additional tourism and hunting opportunities that are affordable to both the trophy and biltong hunter.
- The investment in and support of more extensive, conservation and hunting areas.
- The conservation and covering the cost of protecting our Rhino.
- Funding of meaningful research within our industry including ” snot- siekta vaccine.”
- The education of young South Africans re wildlife management.
- A positive contribution to Transformation and Land Reform in SA.
- A positive benefit to the rural green economy of our region and alleviation of poverty.
- The development of rotational grazing systems for both wildlife and cattle farmers to prevent the spread of disease resulting in reduced conflict between cattle and game farmers.
- Shown how Biodiversity is Good for Business and Business is Good for Biodiversity.
CONCLUSION
The efficient production of healthy, natural protein, from wildlife that is well managed, will also have an ever increasing benefit to the food security of our country. Poverty is the greatest threat to conservation and wildlife will only survive and be conserved , outside protected areas, if their value to rural people is greater than other land use options. The breeding of high value game has made a significant impact on poverty relief in these rural areas.
The vibrant game industry that attracts both local and international hunters and investors is a major boost to the green economy and the reason why more and more marginal agricultural land is being converted to game ranching each year. High game prices that are paid for animals of exceptional quality including including unique colour variants,that exist mainly in South Africa, are certainly not a risk but a major boost to the conservation of our wildlife heritage , our biodiversity and the rural green economy.
Best Regards,
Barry York
Tok Mostert
Tell a lie long enough and you will believe it.
You may fool some of the people,all of the time,you may fool all of the people some of the time,but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Hi Peter,
I read through the whole article with keen interest and in particular the yo-yo replies going on.
I may have retired from the hunting/shooting arena but wildlife consevation and management has always been a strong interest of mine.
I find it disturbing that York et al propogate what they are doing in the form of selective breeding of a particular colour variant and those deliberately selecting the longest horn genes to propogate long horned offspring to realise the best financial return for their selective breeding efforts, passing these freak animals off as very rare and or the trophy of a lifetime etc.
In my opinion this activity is not natural selection but selection tampered with by man and should be discouraged at every opotunity!
I used to work with Andre Degeorges at the SCI offices in Centurion and to be honest, and between you and me, he should rather have followed a career with Greenpeace such are his divergent and conflicting opinions on matters he really does not have the experience to comment proficiently on. Say no more!
This article reminds me of the falconers here in the UK and abroad, who when they were declined permits for their favourite falcon species (Perigrine Falcon) by DEFRA, brought in hibredised (cross bred) birds from abroad to get around the DEFRA restrictions (loopholes in the act) as these birds were not considered indigenous to any country, thus exempt from being kept as a falconry bird. The breeding of hibrid falcons is now big business here and in Europe and even in South Africa.
I would rather see these bird and wildlife breeding efforts conducted on truly rare and or threatened species to replenish wildlife populations.
My pinch of salt!
Regards
John
As a nature conservator working for government for 34 years, I find this topic as very controversial. In my line of work I have many times been in the firing line of the members practicing these intensive breeding (I refer to this as purpose breeding) operations.
I kindly would like to highlight the following:
1. The rise in the value of the blue wildebeest ( in its natural state) was definitely not due to the breeding of the different colour morphs. As a conservation official we were advised by the veterinary department at the time (in the late 1980’s) to limit the distribution of blue wildebeest due to the fact that they may cause snot siekte in cattle. Later, when new evidence showed that it may not necessarily be that to be the case, we as conservation authority issued permits for the distribution of blue wildebeest (and black wildebeest). It was not long before we were issuing hundreds of permits for the distribution of blue wildebeest. It was then when the value (at auctions and Hunting) increased.
2. During discussions with some members from the intensive breeding fraternity I was many times informed that these colour morphs were “God” made. Yes, as a Christian I believe that all life are created by God, but these colour morphs are manipulated and modified by man to suit mans goal (in this case economic growth. It, in my opinion has nothing to do with nature conservation).
3. Many times I was informed that the intensive breeders only change the colour hue of a given wild animal. If so, why does the SCI and Rowland Ward record books have different minimum horn lengths for natural coloured blesbok and that of a white blesbok. Could it be that the genes responsible for horn growth in this species are also altered during the line breeding process.
4. The guest ion of when real economic growth began in the game farming and hunting industry can also be debated. I am of the opinion that it was not during the placing on the market of these wild animal freaks. Transvaal Nature Conservation (I worked for them at the time, hence using them as an example) has allready started in the 1970’s to allow game farmers more freedom to trade in wild animals, enclosed on such land owners land. Actually “Green Economy” allready started here.
5. Lastly. I would commend game farmers for the efforts they took to increase the status of many wild animals. In some cases even assisting in increasing the numbers of some of our endangered species through game farming. It need to be stated that this growth was realized with indigenous wild animals (not purpose bred). The question remains if this new intensive breeding tendencies, will later proof to be detriment of all the game farmers efforts over the years.
Peter,
I am writing in response to the various essays, blogs and responses to the “logic” that captive breeding of specific genetic colorations, horn sizes, or whatever is “good” for the wildlife in Africa.
I have extensive African hunting experience as well as extensive hunting experience on free range (natural breeding) and high fence (controlled breeding) of wild animals in the US and Mexico. Believe, I understand the reasons for doing it.
As I see it – 1) meets the need of man to play God in trying to create something that has not been created before by manipulating breeding, genes and diets to get a desired cosmetic affect, 2) the pressure of shooters to obtain by quasi-legal/ethical means the largest horns or prettiest color that is achievable on a “wild” animal, 3) the most important being that breeders of the “biggest or best” can make as much money as possible.
I see the need for high fences in many areas due to close proximity to people or agriculture. I see the need for high fences to somewhat control movements of animals to a desired range.
I see the need for commercial hunting operations to control the off take and the numbers of animals in a restricted habitat.
What I do not see the need for is breeding, for example, a whitetail deer to have chemically induced antlers growing to 5x any semblance of normal antler growth. The same goes for captive elk, red deer, and a most of other antlered species. To spread this practice to Africa, where the terrain and areas can support plenty of “trophy” animals that meet the “need” to have bigger and better” is ridiculous. This type of breeding does not enhance, protect or prolong a species. I suspect that when we are all done with this experiment in the next 20 years or so, we will have breed inferior genetics into wild herds creating consequences we do not fully understand. We are seeing this in the US and Canada with chronic wasting disease and other abnormalities.
To claim the great good of the species to justify this practice in Africa should be clear for everyone to see – this is about money and greed in a highly competitive business where the loser will be the ethical hunter and the animals themselves.
I am a professional wildlife manager of some 42 years and Professional Hunter /Outfitter of 26 years . I have observed with interest and alarm the increasing auction prices of colour morphs , excessively huge buffalo and so called rare game animals .
As these prices reached unbelievable levels , a deep seated alarm bell resonated with in me ; this is s generated Ponzi scheme set up by a few to feather their own nests at huge expense to others . I was gratified to hear Johann Rupert verbalise my feeling .
This scheme was “found out by a friend ” who was threatened by those few behind the scheme , with dire consequences if he blew the whistle.
It is interesting to note that African Professional Hunters Association have distanced themselves from the hunting of colour morph and genetic manipulated game animals. It is also interesting to note that some of the major hunting clubs in the USA have said they will not enter these animals in their record books.
More and more hunters are scorning the hunting of these animals.
The unrealistic prices being paid for game animals at auctions, is resulting in game farmers asking unrealistic prices for their huntable animals , both to the domestic and foreign market. These prices will see and even greater decline , and not an increase in the sale of hunts to local and foreign hunters . Who for an example is going to pay R120 000 for an Inyala bull.
I stand under correction , but I believe that RSA is 40% down in foreign safaris this year.
We are treading where angels fear to tread . The motivation is greed and little else.
I have followed this ongoing debate for some time now… as a born Namibian who has hunted since the age of 10, anything aside from ethical hunting is/will be of absolutely no interest to me.
In a competitive business environment, decisions are made daily by individuals who persue profit. Some make money, some don’t.
No-one will ever “win” this debate as the underlying reasons/arguments differ vastly.
As an ethical biltong and selected trophy hunter, I tend to side with the likes of Messrs Flack and Kennedy and for that matter, Mr Rupert.
The “bubble” will burst…
I’m sure the golden wildebeest will also make good biltong…!
Pieter Meiring.
It is really not possible to expand on what Mr. Flacks has said so elequently. However just to add a bit we have for years brought folks to Africa hunting. Now with the canned hunting and and all the weird and wonderful colorful pets to shoot we no longer bring or can find any clients to come to SA. They all want to head to other destinations which still offers real hunting. Thus I guess we are part of the 16%.
The thought of shooting a beautiful lion in a pen is truly disgusting. We recently had an acquaintance make the trip to SA for the pet lion. He openly bragged that he arrived in SA on Sunday drove to the killing area. He went out on his dangerous game hunt on Monday, got the lion by noon and was on his way home on Tuesday plus he was quite proud of his achievement. Sorry but to me this was completely repulsive.
Dear Mr York
I too live in Cape Town ,I’d like to consider myself as both a hunter and conservationist and unfortunately not a land owner ,so I take umbrage to been referred to us a “urban dwelling killer”
I’m an avid reader of a few hunting forums which have hundreds of hunting reports and as yet have not seen one where the trophy was a golden wildebeest ,on the contrary most remarks when color variations are discussed have been”another South African scam” So who in fact hunts these animals? Not local hunters ,they just ” urban dwelling killers.
I respect your right to farm and create wealth,but to suggest you do it for conservation,is as the same as the fire pool at our presidents place of residence.
As a hunting outfitter I don`t think we should concern ourselves too much by what game farmers and plot owners choose to farm. Our concern as hunters, is how the wild animals are hunted!
Unfortunately it is becoming increasingly difficult to market SA as a destination to many overseas hunters as we are perceived to be hunting “farmed” or “semi domesticated” animals behind high fences. With the increase in intensive breeding this perception is growing which is detrimental to the countries image as a trophy hunting destination.
Regarding my thoughts on intensive farming or stud breeding, I think there is some merit in preserving and expanding exceptional genes through these means. However, in nature, horn size is an arbitrary trait and is not an indication of superior genes when it comes to adaptability, virility and strength. Seldom have I seen the animal with the largest horns being the herd sire in nature, its usually the toughest bull that manages to take over the cows. Also, when the superior stud bull is released into the wild, he will most likely be beaten off by the tougher wild bulls, unless they are all removed too!
My concerns are that by mixing certain subspecies and species from different areas in order to grow bigger horns, we may be weakening the natural adaptability of a species in its original location. eg crossing Zambian sable with Matetsi sable, bringing greater kudu from up north to the East Cape. Dr Anthony Hall Martin warned me years ago not to go this route as the “imported” animals are not adapted to the local pathogens and may thus weaken the local species in stress times. There is no proof of this as far as I know but until proven otherwise I would take the precautionary approach.
On the color variants I believe the golden wildebeest and black impala are established and here to stay, but will come down substantially in prices in the near future. There will be a demand for them from some collectors. As for the rest of the color variants I see no future, the hunters generally despise them and regard them as freaks. Therefore I share Johan Ruperts sentiments that their prices will crash when new entrants stop coming into the market, there is no end user so it is similar to a Ponzi scheme….but wise investors should be aware of that.
I take my hat off to you Peter for raising both the ethical and conservation issues in connection with artificial breeding. One interesting point is that these animals are of very little interest to overseas hunters – I have never had a single request for the hunting of a golden wildebeest, and doubt whether it will ever happen. Definitely not at the price level presented at various auctions. Our taxidermist, although receiving some 3.500 trophies each season, has never seen one single golden wildebeest trophy at his workshop! The moment of truth will arrive once there are no more takers to the pyramid scheme – when no one wants to start new populations, and the only income will be derived from venison and trophy fees – I would take a safe guess, that the latter will be at a fraction of the present price tags for live animals.
I hunt at farms where there is some intensive breeding of sable and nyala, and just the fact that these animals are fed artificially and appear to be very tame, puts off my overseas clients, who would otherwise have hunted those 2 species during their visit. European hunters do simply not want to hunt anything artificial – they want to harvest a good specimen, but not necessarily a record, from a thriving population of game that feed and breed naturally without human interference.
The breeding of freaks is basically on par with the canned lion industry – doing untold damage to our reputation in many overseas markets. There is a reason for the declining number of hunters coming our way, and those two issues could well be the main factors.
Kind regards,
Holger
Dear Andre,
At the risk of sounding as if I want to have the last word, please allow me to reply to your emails as follows:
At the risk of boring you to tears, let me repeat what I have said before: my point of departure is my passion for wildlife and wildlife habitats. I support whatever conserves them and oppose whatever does not. If I am wrong as regards intensive breeding I will happily change my approach but, to date, I have seen no evidence to the contrary. And when intensive breeders advance as the main defence for their business practices that they need to and are entitled to make money in this way, I understand that my opposition to what they do is well-founded.
That is more than enough from me on this issue for the time being and I will give it a rest for now.
Kindest regards,
Peter
Andre Degeorges
Peter – look I tend to see colour variants, canned lion, put n’ take hunting in general as nothing to do with hunting. It will likely be “collecting” based upon the Hunting Code I emailed earlier.
However, trying to remain neutral – you have to admit that you and the two critiques of Barry’s comments made your living from anything but hunting. Your involvement in game ranching and/or the safari industry was after you made your millions. Your ability to look after yourselves and your families was/is independent of your game ranching, love of hunting and the out-of-doors. Most of us sport/trophy/biltong hunters don’t rely on wildlife to earn a living, or as the Germans in Namibia scolded me one day when I used the term “sport hunting” – they said – “ ‘Sport – do not call ‘hunting’ a ‘sport’. For us it is a “way of life’ ” – in other words a part of our culture, psyche, our being! So, yes we hunters can become very emotional over how we hunt and what we call hunting!
I’d like to see some scientific evidence rather than emotions on the pros and cons of various activities that we as hunters be not care for and don’t have to partake in or accept – but for which there may be a market and unless shown to be detrimental to the game – we may have to live with.
As I stated in the follow-up to the Hunting Code I sent – it is easy for us hunters who make our living in other ways (business, academia, doctors, lawyers, etc.) to be critical of what people like Barry are doing. But suppose tomorrow, all your money was taken away, suppose you didn’t have a large extensive game ranch, but maybe a 1000 ha plot that you had to raise a family on. Who knows – maybe you would also look at doing what we hunters consider unethical and not hunting. There is a market out there of collectors who did not grow up in a tradition of hunting and fair chase – who don’t care about it and they have the money to pay to “collect”. It’s like poaching – easy to condemn poachers, but let me drop you off in the middle of nowhere with only a gun and canteen – within days if not hours & you’d be poaching. And let’s admit it – if tomorrow hunting was banned in the USA or South Africa – hunting is so much a part of our tradition and many of us live of what we hunt and fish – poaching would be out of control.
So I suggest, before we condemn others – we need to place ourselves in their shoes and think – well suppose we were placed under that scenario – how would we react. Thus, I say – the hunting/game ranching/conservation community needs to sit around the table – deal with facts and not emotions and find ways forward acceptable to all parties. Otherwise, by being divided we will fall prey to those vultures called the animal rights movement that will try and make wildlife inaccessible to all of us other than to photograph them in a park – and given the poverty and population growths in Africa UNLESS there are major changes – those parks won’t be around for long. Pay a visit to Northern Cameroon (See attached) and many other places in West Africa.
If Africa’s biodiversity and mega-fauna are to survive the 21st century – we hunter conservationists must find a way to work together and not fight amongst ourselves. When I was a boy all my 3 brothers and I did was eat and fight from dawn to dusk over anything and everything – like wild chimps or baboons. Now we are grown up, we may argue and debate, but don’t fight. We hunters, game ranchers, safari operators/PHs, rural communities, govt. Game departments, conservation NGOs and academics need to sit down and debate, talk it out, and find the way forward. Yes, there will be compromise and maybe some minority opinions will lose out – but if there is such a thing as Democracy – don’t see much of that today – that’s what it’s all about!!
I guess we can call Peter, Barry and John’s emails as the beginning of such a debate. I suspect it is intense in South Africa and one can only hope all stakeholders are prepared to sit around the table rather than fight like us boys!
Regards Andre
Andre Degeorges
Putting aside whether going after these color variants is hunting or not, does anyone have any scientific studies as to harm to any of these species from such breeding programs. To me that is the real issue.
Personally, I would not be purposely interested in hunting color variants, not any put n’take animals dumped on game ranches – though I am not sure if I haven’t. There are plenty of collectors out there, even if it is not “hunting”!
With regards to the decline in game being harvested – have to think that has to do with the global economy. Peter, as we discussed – it is critical that the local hunters not be priced out of the market, as they are critical to assuring that game ranches continue to be economically viable in the next economic downturn, and with urbanization in South Africa – if a father can’t afford to expose his children to hunting – you could lose many of the local hunters within a generation or less! Right now, stats (See attached – would be interesting to see latest data) show there are more local hunters than overseas hunters in South Africa:
Regards
Andre
Dear Andre
My message to the two Peters is vey simple. I am a life long, full time, farmer who hunted in order to manage my land and its animals for the last 35 years and am still in the business of sustainable natural resource management or in simple terms it is called farming. I am not accountable to any urban dwelling killer who claims to be a conservationist.
. I have made a living and created wealth by breeding animals including wildebeest, that were shot by cattle farmers as vermin because they are carriers of malignant cathedral fever or snot siekte. At the time 1986 they sold for less than R 60 or traded at the rate of 7 mature wildebeests for 1 eland Weaner. The naturally occurring colour variants that Mr Flack refers to as Frankenstine Freaks were further persecuted by nature conservation officials and had to be destroyed on any property where they occurred naturally. It was nature conservation who were upset that Golden Wildebeest were in demand by trophy hunters and threatened to arrest game farmers who did not comply with killing them.The local bok skitters we very happy as they could shoot wildebeests for the same price as an impala on the few game farms that existed at the time or for free on many cattle farms,
We are now blessed that wildebeest now sell for good money and understand prices can fall as is normal in any business cycle of supply and demand. We have no problem with this as we have optimized our farming operation and have increased the production of game meat by 10 times more per ha of land than an extensive system.
35 years ago it was I who said the bubble will burst when the price of Rhino and Buffalo jumped from R 10 ‘000 toR 30 000.in a matter of weeks, so we wait in anticipation for this to happen. Prices will fall not because there’ is no demand for rare and valuable animals but because of Governments unmanageable land reform policies. As Southern African farmers we have lost it all more than once before through corrupt politicians and even more corrupt hunters who call themselves conservationists and have asked Gov to introduce regulations, that if implemented, will force game farmers into bankruptcy, so they can enjoy short term cheap killing. Successful farmers have learned to adapt to changing circumstances .One thing is for certain there is not one game farmer or extensive game rancher that I know of, that can make a financial success from the local hunter.
The clever people, who shout the odds and know it all are welcome to prove me wrong, put your Money where your mouth is and show me how you can do better?
Best Regards
Barry York
Barry York’s claim that golden wildebeest have contributed to the survival and value of the blue wildebeest is probably similar to a dog urinating on a lamp post and thinking he invented the light which shines out the top. No logic.
In truth though, York has to maintain that position as, realistically, having invested as much as he has in golden wildebeest, if the scheme were to fail, it would in all likelihood have very dire financial consequences for him. It is against this reference that all his claims must be measured if they are to be truly understood in context. Even if he himself were to secretly harbour doubts, it would be tantamount to financial suicide for him to admit so. Therefore, be wary when the preacher steps up to the pulpit to preach – not to save you, but to save himself.
Ultimately, we are born alone and will die alone. In between, we will make decisions. If those decisions are good, then the chances are that our life experience will mirror that. If they are bad, the same holds true.
Key to making good decisions is good council (and then you need to listen to it). As a prospective investor do you choose to heed the council of Johann Rupert, this country’s most successful businessman or a golden wildebeest breeder who Rupert could easily buy six million times before breakfast and sell 17 million times before lunch? Both offer completely different views on the same investment prospect. One has stated it is nothing more than a crudely constructed Ponzi scheme, the other, that it is a wonderful investment.
Before deciding where to place your hard earned money, remember the quote “A fool and his money are soon parted.” Choose carefully.
I have been asked to reply to the recent article by Mr. Barry York entitled, High Game Prices – Major Conservation Reward. The article makes essentially two main points, namely, that the recent trend of intensive breeding, domestication and manipulation of wildlife to produce exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variations is both good for business and conservation. To avoid boring the reader, I will concentrate on these two main issues and ignore many of the subsidiary points, almost all of which I disagree with.
At the outset, and to establish my bona fides and the weight and validity which you, the reader, may want to attach to my subsequent comments, let me state the following:
I am a corporate lawyer by training and practiced as such as a partner at Bowmans, one of the three largest law firms in Africa, for six years. I resigned to join a virtually bankrupt client and, for nearly 10 years, served as the CEO of what became the largest mining contracting and waste handling company in Africa, with over 150 offices in Africa, Australia and South America. In my last year as CEO, the company was placed in the top ten of the Sunday Times top 100 companies. During this time, I also served as an executive director of the Rembrandt Group, reporting to Mr. Johann Rupert, where I looked after a portfolio of mining investments, including Fralex, Transhex and Gold Fields of South Africa. I was then recruited as the CEO of Randgold, the fifth largest gold mining company in the world, employing over 25,000 people. During this time we formed and then listed Randgold Resources on the London Stock Exchange which, to date, has a market capitalization in excess of $8 billion. Finally, after a two year sabbatical, during which I focussed on managing our extensive game ranch in the Karoo and my shareholding and chairmanship of the first EU rated game and ostrich abattoir in the country, I formed FRM Strategies with two friends, which became the leading turnaround consultancy in the country. Today, although 67 years of age, I still teach part of a course to MBA students at Stellenbosch University’s business school.
I confess I do not know what businesses Mr. York has established, operated or managed nor their size and profitability, however, without wishing to be rude in any way, all of his statements on the business benefits of intensive breeding are subject to question and few make any sense.
For example, Mr. York argues that due to the decrease of wildlife in the rest of Africa there has been, “an increase in demand for wildlife in S Africa and Namibia, causing the increasing game prices that we are currently experiencing.” Well, you might expect so but this is not born out by the latest statistics issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs. Just as the numbers of hunts by overseas recreational hunters declined by 16% or 1 500 in number from 2011 to 2013 to a mere 7 638 (a far cry from 2007 when the number was 16 398), so did the actual numbers of animals shot, by some 4 577. In addition, if the prices of conventional game not involved in intensive breeding are examined, it will be noted that, if inflation is excluded, there has been little if any real growth in the prices of these animals and, in some cases, an actual decline.
Mr. York states that the high prices paid for top quality breeding animals are an indication that, “the wildlife industry is in a growth phase”. Well, if this was the case, there would never be a stock market or property crash. In fact, it is precisely when prices rise to a level which bears no relation to the underlying asset value that a crash is most likely to occur.
As I wrote recently in reply to an email from a board member of the Wildlife Ranching Association of South Africa on this point:
“I confess, however, I have a second reason for my opposition to these practices. If one person has come to discuss this with me and my game rancher friends, there must have been over two dozen. People who have sold their businesses – plumbers, electricians, panel beaters, other small businessmen – and borrowed money from family, friends and banks, bought a small plot of land (40 to 60 hectares) and stocked it with expensive game. Two cases I remember well. The one man had bought a nyala bull for an astronomical price and had done his business plan on selling the male offspring at R500 000 each. The other had bought Livingstone’s eland but did not know what they were. “It’s right Mr Flack,” he said to me, “Livingstone’s eland must have 12 white side stripes, isn’t it?” When the bubble bursts, as it most definitely will – they always do – these people are going to lose all their money if they have not done so already given the latest auction prices realised at the recent Sidbury game sales in the Eastern Cape where they could not give away some of the colour variants. And yet you have senior members of WRSA continuing to puff up prices and argue that they will continue rising at these rates for a long time to come. I think this is so wrong!”
No less a person than Mr. Johann Rupert, the most successful South African businessman of his and succeeding generations, has written: “I have consistently warned against these practices, it is NOT conservation, but a crudely constructed Ponzi scheme. As such the innocent will lose their savings, and South African conservation we’ll get a very bad reputation. How many times must one repeat the warnings before the bubble bursts?”
On the issue of the supposed contribution of intensive breeding businesses to conservation, let me again try to establish my bona fides. I have been a trustee of WWF Southern Africa for over 20 years. I am a life member of the Endangered Wildlife Trust and a founder member of the Peace Parks Foundation and the SA Wildlife College. I am also a life member of six hunting and conservation associations here and abroad. I have raised money directly for conservation research programs and donated my own. After five years of research, I produced the documentary, The South African Conservation Success Story, which was awarded the Environmental Prize by the prestigious European hunting and conservation body, CIC – The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation.
Again, I do not know what Mr. York’s qualifications are in this regard but, talking about the prices being paid for select animals at auctions, he stated, “There are certain hunters and arm chair conservationists, who view this growth in a negative manner.” This is true but he forgets to mention all the other organisations who are also directly opposed to the intensive breeding, domestication and manipulation of wildlife to produce exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variation such as CIC, the Boone & Crockett Club, S.A. Hunters and Game Conservation Association – with 38 700 members, the largest and best funded hunting and conservation association in Africa – and the South African National Biodiversity Institute, to name but four.
To then go on to argue, as he does, that animals (and I assume by this he means wildlife), cannot exist naturally in Kruger National Park or on many of the some 10 000 extensive game ranches that exist across the country is simply silly and I am afraid there is no other word for it. Of course, it begs the question what is natural and, for us hunters, it basically means the ability of the animal to feed itself, procreate and escape its predators. And even if it were true that, in some cases, the animals concerned might not be able to wander freely across the length and breadth of Africa as they were able to do centuries ago, it is a far, far cry from the small, electrically fenced paddocks where intensive breeders keep, feed, supplement, inoculate and manipulate their animals and, incidentally, kill any possible predator. To try and equate the two involves a leap across a chasm of logic and fact which it is impossible to make.
Equally silly and devoid of truth are his statements that, prior to the breeding of a few golden wildebeest, blue wildebeest, the prime game meat animal in the country for many years, were of “little commercial value to farmers,” “were persecuted, shot or destroyed as unwanted vermin,” and “There was little demand for wildebeest.” This may have had a semblance of truth some 50 years ago but has not been the case for decades and, by no stretch of the imagination can anyone argue that the breeding of a few peculiarly coloured wildebeest, which few if any genuine hunters want to hunt, have been the saviour of blue wildebeest. In 2013 overseas recreational hunters alone shot 2 694 blue wildebeest at a cost of R26 082 877 and the number shot by local meat hunters would have been a multiple of this number.
In brief, what the rest of Mr. York’s article attempts to do, is hijack the many major and material benefits and advantages that the thousands of extensive game ranches have brought to the country over the last 50 years or so. To argue that the relatively small number of equally small operations involved in intensive breeding, which have come into being over the last five years or so, are responsible for these things is simply not true. I would hazard an educated guess that, of the some 21 million hectares covered by extensive game ranches, less than one per cent, if that, belongs to intensive breeders.
I can go on and on contradicting almost every generalized and unsubstantiated point that Mr. York makes in his article and back it up with empirically and scientifically established facts. Suffice it to say that I have no axe to grind in this matter. Although I have been an extensive commercial game rancher for 20 years, I am no longer one. Similarly, although I was a partner in an outfitting business for 12 years, I am no longer. My passion, however, remains wildlife and wildlife habitats and I support initiatives and organisations which conserve them and oppose those that do not. In a nutshell, I am sorry to say that, in my humble opinion, intensive breeders clearly fall into the latter category.