See Peter Flack’s response below.
Kicker: It is unfair to target game farming as an “economic bubble”. This industry creates jobs and makes a very healthy contribution to the economy.
As a game rancher and breeder of scarce game I would like to respond to the articles written by Chris Niehaus (Runaway game prices an economic bubble?) and Peter Flack (Pyramid schemes and unnatural freaks) that were published in the March and July editions of SA Jagter/Hunter.
Allow me to start with an anecdote. Gatiep was walking along the dock with a bucket full of crayfish when he bumped into his good friend Jan. Looking worriedly at the bucket which had no lid, Jan asked Gatiep whether he was not concerned about the crayfish escaping. Gatiep, however, reassured Jan that the crayfish definitely would not escape, because they were South African. “You see,” Gatiep said, “sodra een amper bo is, trek die ander hom af”.
As South Africans we have a horrible habit of doing just that; instead of mutually supporting each other and benefiting from success, we seem bent on trying to pull one another down.
As fellow custodians of our wildlife heritage we urge you to consider the consequences of your actions before you alienate game farmers who contribute significantly to the rural economy and serve members of various hunting associations, including those of SA Hunters.
The recent articles I mentioned above have tarnished the wildlife industry. Sir Isaac Newton said: “Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy.” Hopefully some common understanding surrounding the driving forces behind the wildlife industry can be reached. It would appear that the colour variant sector is not about to collapse any time soon, and while colour variants (in the expression of the recessive gene), may not possess hides of the same colour as the standard species, cannot be described as freaks.
GAME INDUSTRY DOES NOT GEAR
Niehaus provided readers with examples of previous economic bubbles and described the various models that cause bubbles to develop. The extrapolation model in which past performance is used to justify future performance was highlighted to rationalise Niehaus’ perspective on the economic factors at play in our industry. He goes on to say, “bubbles develop when no in-depth analysis of the intrinsic or fundamental value of the asset is done”. This analysis seems to be precisely what the two authors have failed to do before publishing.
Niehaus refers to the sub-prime crisis in the US with which we are all familiar, but he challenges the intelligence of his readers when he attempts to link the wildlife industry to the sub-prime collapse, in which loans were granted to people with poor credit rating and credit was geared to such a degree that three to five properties could be bought based on the collateral of the first purchase. The game industry is debt-free with minimal lending, and gearing is by no means a factor as farmers cannot bond an individual animal through their bank to buy another animal. It’s important to remember that animals provide an annual dividend in the form of a lamb or a calf to their owners.
VALUE OF THE WILDLIFE INDUSTRY
From a one-sided biltong hunting perspective one would probably agree with the authors that current game prices are high. However, there are many market segments in the game industry that supply various types of consumers and produce a wide spectrum of products.
As game ranchers and conservationists it is our responsibility to sustainably produce a product from the natural resources at our disposal. Game ranching, the venison market and the tourism industry are all independent sectors, but where they overlap, tangible and intangible services can be provided to supply a multitude of secondary markets with a variety of demands and prices to match those demands. There is no sound rationale behind the comparison of an animal’s breeding value and its hunting value.
In 2013, Arthur de Villiers sold a Bonsmara bull for more than R400 000, while at the same time commercial beef farmers were getting less than R24/kg. Is the beef cattle industry also involved is some kind of pyramid scheme? If we are willing to accept that there are different prince ranges in the beef industry for breeding and commercial stock, why would this concept seem to strange in the game industry? Game Ranchers are willing to pay higher prices for sought after genetics, because of the breeding potential of the animal rather than its hunting or slaughter value.
In his book The South African Conservation Success Story Peter Flack said the South African conservation model has three legs; the public sector, the private sector and the free market economy. No one could argue with Flack here, as all wildlife prices are underpinned by market fluctuation and driven by supply and demand forces which form the backbone of a free market economy. Year-old roan, sable and buffalo bulls can be purchased for about R25 000 at live auctions, primarily because the market understands that not all bulls will become breeding bulls. Each species has value, determined by demand from primary or secondary industries.
Animals that don’t display the desired traits and the ordinary or common plains game species have not shown any marked price increase in the past five years which makes sense as these species don’t have value added market benefits. They have instead maintained their hunting value. What is apparent is that as breeders are forced to produce more sought after animals with specific qualities, there is a related price increase because of the relative scarcity of these animals. Once again this is subject to market fluctuation as the market rises or falls depending on the demand.
MEANINGFUL COMPARISONS
Flack seems to want to undermine the game ranching industry by focusing on anecdotes and using emotive language, a strategy often employed when there is a lack of hard evidence, and perhaps a useful way of creating a smoke screen.
It may be a fairly vivid imagination that portrays the game ranching industry as a pyramid scheme, because this implies the end user or hunter has no intention of utilising the products game farmers are producing. Dr Herman Els who served on the Executive Committee of SA Hunters released the following statistics about the South African hunting industry for 2011; this industry generated R7.7 billion that year – 0.25% of South Africa’s GDP. R3.1 billion was generated by an estimated 250 000 local biltong hunters and R2.1 billion came from an estimated 15 000 foreign trophy hunters, while the remaining R2.5 billion was generated by add-on services such as food and accommodation.
How did the game ranching industry compare? Vleissentraal is probably responsible for most of the big annual sales where the majority of record sales take place. In 2011 the total turnover of Vleissentraal auctions was R434 million, less than 5.63% of the value of the South African hunting industry. It is puzzling therefore to understand how Niehaus and Flack came to the conclusion that a major economic bubble and even stranger, a pyramid scheme conspiracy can be generated from these figures. The hunting industry has a far greater economic reach than the wildlife auctions of the game ranching industry.
COLOUR VARIANTS
I think we need clarity on what exactly a colour variant is. At the most recent Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA) AGM the following definition for a colour variant was accepted: “A colour variant is a functionally efficient wild animal occurring naturally in the wild or an extensive wildlife system. It has a distinct phenotypic difference (colour and/or pattern) and is genetically similar to the original species with just a few genes that cause a difference from the common colour. The colour/variant trait must be heritable and maintain this difference for the duration of its lifespan.”
This definition is somewhat different to Flack’s description. No wonder there was a negative perception from SCI in response to Peter Flack’s written query about “unnatural crosses” and “unnatural species”. Flack appears to have been discussing cross-species hybridisation rather than colour variants, information he could have accessed by visiting numerous websites including that of SCI.
According to SCI’s hunting records they have registered 802 white blesbuck and six black impala. SCI have also registered 921 black springbok, 168 copper springbok and 699 white springbok, a combined total of virtually the same number of standard coloured springbok that have been registered. They also provide space for the golden Kalahari gemsbok (Namibia) regardless that none have yet been registered.
The picture above is of the number one ranked black impala on SCI’s website 55⅛”
Clearly there is a demand or potential demand to hunt colour variants and SCI is willing to create new categories for these animals. Springbok are hunted on a greater scale than other colour variants, because of supply and demand drivers. The current demand for breeding is exceptionally high for black impala, thus a game rancher generates a higher income from the breeding potential of his black rams then he would from hunting them. Trends will change as breeding supply reaches saturation, individual prices of less desirable animals will fall and they will become more affordable to hunt.
We have an exceptional marketing opportunity – it would seem foolish for us not to create market awareness about colour variants. The income benefit in a scenario where a foreign hunter takes four antelope instead of one needs no laboured explanation; four times the money from a single hunt.
POPULATION DECLINES AND GROWTH
“(The) SA wildlife industry was on the brink of disaster 50 years ago, when there were just over 550 000 head of game, including those in national and provincial parks,” said Flack. Recent counts estimate 18 million head of game on 12 000 game farms. What, one wonders, was the concealed genetic destruction to our wildlife population during this period? With wildlife numbers dwindling to almost half a million how much genetic diversity within each species was subsequently lost?
According to Niehaus, who represents SA Hunters, the organisation has a fundamental problem with the fact that breeding projects are established by game farmers who intend to rectify the destruction caused to wildlife. One can only hope that not all the members of SA Hunters think like this as it has the potential to plunge the industry into an economic catastrophe.
It is because of the efforts made by private game ranchers and research institutions that we are starting to realise what implications this had on the greater populations. Colour variants exist throughout the world among many species. The Siberian white tiger and Siberian golden tiger are colour variants of the Bengal tiger; the spirit bear (white), cinnamon bear (reddish brown) and the glacier bear (silver flanks) are colour variants of the black bear. Scientists have established that the spirit bear has a higher success rate than the other bears when catching salmon during the day. In the Kruger National Park adult colour variants have been seen and photographed.
A picture of a white waterbuck male was taken on the S41 near Satara by Bruce Botha (2012-07-19) and appears on the SANParks website.
Ian MacDonell took a picture of a white impala ram near the Shingwedzi camp in the Kruger. “Since it has reached adulthood in an area with many predators, its mostly white coat seems not to be a great disadvantage,” said MacDonell.
The white lions of the Timbavati are well known and have been used as a tourist attraction. What about the quagga and king cheetah breeding projects? In a similar way, game ranchers use selective breeding practices, but do not engineer the DNA to alter genetic structure. A statement that says game ranchers are guilty of genetic manipulation is similar to a member of the anti-hunting fraternity calling SA Hunters a bunch of marauding poachers.
SOLUTIONS THROUGH DISCUSSION
As the hunting and wildlife industry continues to face hostility from animal rights activists and the anti-hunting fraternity, it would surely be more constructive for us to seek common ground rather than to squabble amongst each other and publish damaging articles that tarnish reputations and fuel public misconception. Let’s resolve our differences the South African way.
I’d like to extend an open invitation to the board of SA Hunters and its members. Should any one of you want to learn more about the breeding standards game farmers use, please visit me on my game farm. I’ll gladly show you our systems and our animals, explain why we implement various projects. Let’s sit around a fire and talk about the pros and cons of breeding. We don’t need to attack one another’s integrity.
I’m a proud member of PHASA, WRSA and a full-time farmer who conserves the most majestic colour variant of them all, the golden wildebeest.
Dear Mr Flack
Can I ask, do Golden Wildebeest, Yellow Blesbok, Copper and Coffee coloured Springbok, Black Impala and White Impala (to name a few) occur in the wild and, if so, how do you propose to conserve these sub-species, or colour variants, protecting them from ardent hunters who presumably like killing them and nailing them up on their walls?
Regards – Jim
Dear Jim,
Thank you for your question. As far as I am aware, extremely isolated cases have been observed of golden wildebeest, copper springbok and white impala (normally albinos) in the wild but none of them have survived to breed and establish herds in their natural habitats. I know of no case of yellow blesbok, coffee springbok or black impala occurring in the wild.
Secondly, although I have seen individual cases of a person shooting a black impala, a golden wildebeest and a golden gemsbok, these, like the animals themselves, are rare and unusual events. The reasons are simple to understand. Currently, huge prices seem to paid for these intensively bred, domesticated and manipulated colour variants. To preserve their expensive investments, the breeders typically keep these animals in small, electrically fenced enclosures. The killing of any such an animal cannot be construed as hunting in any shape or form. Shopping and shooting, yes. Hunting, no.
I am passionate about wildlife and wildlife habitats and support whatever conserves these two things and oppose whatever does not. The breeding of these unnatural colour variants has everything to do with making money and nothing to do with conservation and I would draw you attention to the web sites of such organisations as SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association, CIC – The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation and the Boone & Crocket Club to name but three hunting organisations to view their published attitudes to these animals. I will also post a new entry on my blog, which is a follow up to the one you have just read, in the next day or two which may also help shed further light on this situation.
Suffice it to say that I do not know of any “ardent hunters” who like to kill these animals and nail them up on their walls because there is no hunting involved. To kill one of these animals would be like culling/killing/shooting a purple pig or a green chicken in a farm yard. But, if they were to do so, it is the one sure way of ensuring the survival of the “species”. After six years of research, we produce the award winning documentary, The South African Conservation Success Story. In producing the film we learnt that, according to a survey conducted in 1964 and referred to in the book, Wilding the Farm or Farming the Wild by Professor Jane Carruthers, there were only 557,000 head of game in South Africa. By this stage, two species, the quagga and blue buck were already extinct, and four others were about to join them. According to Dr. Ian Player, there were less than 50 white rhinoceroses left in the country and it was also empirically established that there were only 17 bontebok, 34 black wildebeest and 11 Cape mountain zebra left. When the survey was repeated in 2005 this number had increased to 18,7 million game animals and those animals that had been hunted most assiduously in the interim had recovered best. The obvious question was what brought about the change?
Hunting was banned in Kenya in 1977 and, in the ensuing years, in Tanzania and Uganda although these latter two countries reinstated hunting later. The demand for hunting did not disappear, however, but came south and soon farmers here were being offered more for a kudu than a cow. From the 1970s, when there were only three game ranches in South Africa, by 2005 this number had grown to over 5,000 before reaching its current level of over 10,000 today. Land under game in private hands now amounts to over 21,000,000 hectares, which is more than three times all the land encompassed by SA national and provincial parks and reserves. What has funded this has been hunting and nothing but hunting. On the other hand, in Kenya, game populations have been reduced by over 80%, according to Professor Michael Norton Griffiths, since hunting was banned there.
In brief, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the United Nation’s conservation organization, has for many years maintained that consumptive use on a sustainable basis through ethical recreational hunting is one of the key pillars of conservation in Africa and, based on my experience in travelling, working, hunting and conserving through some 17 Sub Saharan countries over more than 30 years, I must respectfully and humbly agree with them. Should you wish to pursue this matter further, I would like to recommend that you acquire a copy of the documentary, the South African Conservation Success Story from the online shopping site – http://www.peterflackproductions.com. This will equip you with the empirically established facts that were able to ascertain in our researches and we can then debate the matter further should you so wish.
Kind regards,
Peter Flack
Sir,
I have been sent a copy of the article, “Game ranchers are the wrong target” by Richard York and asked to respond at short notice.
Let me say at the outset that I have only one interest in this regard – the conservation of our wildlife habitats and wildlife. I have no hidden agenda, no turf to protect and no axe to grind. I am no longer a game rancher, although I was one for 20 years. I am no longer a safari outfitter, although I was one for 12 years. I am no longer a shareholder in and board member of a venison exporting abattoir, although I was for half a dozen years or so. But I am a passionate and committed hunter, have been for close to 57 years and it is my sincere belief and conviction, based on empirical research, that hunting underpins, supports and funds much of the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat in our country and elsewhere.
As such, I am opposed to whatever threatens hunting and, by this, I mean the fair chase of a sustainable number of wild animals in their natural habitats. I have written on this topic for many years, including producing a documentary and book, The South African Conservation Success Story, which was supported by the Confederation of Hunting Associations of South Africa (CHASA), the Professional Hunting Association of South Africa (PHASA), South African Hunting and Game Conservation Association (SA Hunters) and Wildlife Ranching Association of South Africa (WRSA). This showed the success achieved by the efforts of the public and private sectors in a free market economy over the last 60 years or so and the vital role played by hunting in this regard.
This conservation success is now under threat by a small number of people who use intensive breeding tools to manipulate and domesticate wildlife to produce unnatural colour variants, excessive horn growth and other freaks like kulans (a cross between kudu and eland) and kudalas (a cross between kudu and nyala), all of which I have heard called Frankenstein animals.
These “Frankenstein” breeders are tainting the image of South African hunting and conservation at home and abroad and, if they are allowed to continue, will ultimately have a seriously negative effect on the number of overseas hunters visiting this country which, in turn, will be to the detriment of hunting and conservation here. In fact, I think the process has already begun as 1 500 fewer overseas hunts or some 15% of the number that were conducted in South Africa in 2011, took place in 2013, the last year for which statistics are available.
CIC, probably the most influential hunting and conservation body in Europe, whose members include 38 countries as well as bodies like IUCN, CITES, TRAFFIC, FAO, Dallas Safari Club and the Boone & Crockett Club, has condemned the intensive breeding and manipulation of wild animals to produce unnatural colour variations, excessive horn growth and the domestication of wildlife.
The Nordic Safari Club, which represents Scandinavian hunters (at over 2 000, the second largest number of overseas hunters to visit South Africa), is also opposed to these recent developments and, for example, will not allow South Africans to market lion hunts at their conventions through Scandinavia.
SCI represents the largest number of American hunters to visit South Africa. Their response to my questions left no room for doubt as to their views on the matter. Mr. Chris Emery, the Chief Master Measurer of SCI, stated in his email to me dated 9 May 2014, “SCI’s Record Book Committee has no intention of accepting any color variations or unnatural crosses of species into the SCI Record Book and will not be creating any categories for these unnatural species.” To imply that I influenced their response in any way is not only to belittle their stature and intelligence but to imply that I had a dishonest motive.
Our own S.A. Hunters, which represents over 38 000 hunters, the largest such body in the country, is similarly opposed to this practice and have adopted formal resolutions opposing these types of practice and I would urge you to visit their website and read their response yourself.
However, I will make the following specific points about Mr. York’s article, namely:
1. Anybody who has read my articles and thinks that what I have been objecting to were animals like black or white springbok or white blesbok (which have been around for scores of years and, in the case of black springbok, for possibly thousands of years) does not understand what my concerns are. Nowhere in his article does Mr. York refer to the intensive breeding and manipulation of such unnatural colour variants and freaks as top deck blesbok, saddleback springbok or king wildebeest to name but three of these “Frankenstein” animals, which have never been seen anywhere in the wild by anyone. Mr. York, by his own admission, is a breeder of golden wildebeest, which fall four square into the “Frankenstein” category. He is not therefore a breeder of “scarce game” as he claims but of animals that never existed in the wild or, if they did, only in extremely rare cases and his article is about promoting and protecting his recent investment.
2. I would hazard an educated guess that, although their precise numbers are unknown, intensive breeders equal less than ten per cent of the number of game ranchers in the country.
3. While I value any jobs that they or others may create, in my opinion, their businesses are putting tens of thousands of jobs in the game industry as a whole at risk.
4. To claim that he and people with similar operations are “fellow custodians of our wildlife heritage” is questionable at the very least. In a recent editorial in the influential German magazine, Jagen Weltweit, they wrote that PHASA has put money before morals in its support of canned lion killing and I think the same sentiments can be applied to Mr. York.
5. Mr York is correct to draw an analogy between the beef industry and what the “Frankenstein” breeders are doing. Like domestic livestock farmers have done over past generations, they are beginning to breed the “wild” out of wildlife and, if they are allowed to succeed and convert wildlife to domestic livestock, no genuine hunter will want to hunt these barnyard animals, regardless of their colours, any more than they would want to hunt coloured pigs and goats in farm paddocks.
6. The WRSA definition of a colour variant is fatally flawed, firstly, because the requirement that these animals be “functionally efficient” is open to such wide and differing interpretations and, secondly, by the addition of the words, “or an extensive wildlife system”. In other words, once you release one of these “Frankenstein” animals into a large area and it is “functionally efficient” – whatever that may mean – everything is hunky dory. What nonsense! Just ask yourself one question. What will happen to the offspring of these animals when they functionally and efficiently breed with normal game?
7. Lastly, to try and justify their actions by equating their results to the extremely rare examples of melanistic (black) or leuchoristic (white) animals in the wild and drawing comparisons between the two, is an indication of how bereft of any merit the arguments of Mr York are.
For so long as these doubtful practices continue to put South African hunting (and thereby biodiversity conservation in this country) at risk, I have no interest in trying to put aside our differences.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Flack