In January this year I was contacted by Robyn Maclarty, a feature writer from Fairlady magazine, one of, if not the, most popular and well established woman’s magazines in South Africa. She asked me to reply, in writing, to an extensive series of questions on hunting, which were to be put to a pro and anti-hunter alike to allow their readers to judge the debate for themselves. (We’ll be asking someone (I haven’t finalised who yet) in conservation who is anti-hunting the very same questions – basically the point is to illustrate to our readers both sides of the debate. Of course I’ll send through the final copy to you for approval before we go to print.) The article appeared in the April issue of the magazine and I was the designated pro.

It was clear to me from a cursory reading of the questions that they had been designed by an animal rightist who knew little about hunting and even less about conservation. I therefore arranged to get a copy of the documentary, The South African Conservation Success Story, to Robyn. The documentary, produced by me in 2011 and awarded the Environmental Prize by the prestigious European body, CIC, the following year, deals with the objective reasons behind the decline and subsequent recovery of wildlife and wildlife habitat in South Africa. I soon noticed a change in her attitude and the questions to which she wanted replies.

Set out below is the final list of questions to which she wanted answers and my replies.

What is the appeal of hunting? What is it that you/hunters get out of hunting and shooting wild animals? There must be something enjoyable about it, since such a huge industry has arisen around it.

Archeologists estimate that man has been around more or less in his present form for about 200 000 years. Agriculture was only invented 10 000 years ago and refrigeration less than 300 years ago. In other words, men have been providing for and protecting their families from wildlife for 95% of the time we have been on earth. As a result, I believe hunting is ingrained in men and only absent in those who have lived for so long in an urban culture that it has dissipated along with other attributes.

While there are a whole lot of rational reasons why hunting is good and important, the bottom line is that, for people like me, hunting satisfies something deep inside us. It is embedded in our culture and part of our very being. To call it “enjoyable” is to belittle hunting and reduce it to the level of a hobby or sport. It is not. It is an essential part of who and what we are.

Hunting gets me out of bed each morning to exercise so that I can remain fit enough to hunt on foot the way I always have. It dictates the art I admire, the books I read, the places I go and take my family to, the people I meet and the friends I make. It is a passion, a way of life. It allows me to spend time in nature away from the stresses and strains of modern life. It is my church and renews and refreshes me physically and spiritually in a way no other experience does.

There is no “enjoyment” in killing. Only a psychopath would say such a thing. Hunting is not about killing. Hunting is everything that takes place up until the trigger is squeezed or the arrow released. But in order to have hunted it is necessary, more often than not but not always, to kill the animal, particularly for all of us who want to eat the lean, cholesterol, sodium and anti-biotic free, healthy protein our bodies have been designed to consume and which venison provides.

And then there is the rollercoaster of emotions I have experienced while hunting. The satisfaction in outwitting a clever and challenging animal; the despondency after a muffed track, stalk or shot; the wonder at the beauty of a big, old bull in the last year of his life; the deep sadness, sometimes giving way to tears, at his death; and your every sense at its peak when you are really close to dangerous game on foot with adrenalin suffusing your body, are all feelings which words can only inadequately express.

The rational reasons are just as important. Professor Jane Carruthers of UNISA in her book, Wilding the Farm or Farming the Wild, quotes a survey done in 1964 in South Africa, which showed there were a mere 557 000 game animals left in the country. The blue buck and the quagga were already extinct and four other species – the black wildebeest, bontebok, Cape mountain zebra and white rhinoceros – were following hard on their heels as there were less than 50 of each left. In 2005 the same survey showed that there were now some 18,6 million game animals in the country and none of the above four species were endangered although those that had been hunted most assiduously, namely the black wildebeest and white rhino, had recovered best.

In the documentary produced by me, The South African Conservation Success Story, the question – What caused the decline and resuscitation in these game numbers? – was answered by empirically established evidence. Droughts, diseases, World Wars, the Anglo/Boer Wars, the depression, Government authorized killing to destroy the tsetse fly (thought mistakenly to be hosted by wildlife), commercial killing for hides and ivory and the most important reason, the killing by domestic livestock farmers to make way for their animals, were responsible for the decline.

The main reason for the recovery was the increase in hunting in South Africa when the 1977 ban on hunting in Kenya and the subsequent bans (which have since been reversed) in Tanzania and Uganda forced hunters south. Soon farmers here were being paid more for a kudu than a cow and, from a mere three game ranches in the 1970s, the number grew to about 10 000 today according to Drs. Dry and Oberem and land under game rose to nearly three times all land encompassed by the national reserves and provincial parks put together, namely 21 million hectares and hence the somewhat crass truism that, when it comes to wildlife, if it pays it stays. And this is my point of departure on this matter. I believe with all my heart, education, experience and soul that it is vital for our well-being as humans to keep wildlife habitats and wildlife with us and the only thing that has proven to do this in Africa has been hunting! These are the reasons I hunt.

What are your thoughts on Melissa Bachman?

Not much if I can be blunt. I understand that, shortly after she turned up, Ms. Bachman shot a captive bred lion released into an enclosure not long before her arrival. Now this may be legal but it is no more hunting than flying to the moon. Hunting at its core is about the fair chase – the pursuit of a wild animal in its natural environment, where this space is of sufficient size that it can feed itself, procreate and escape its predators. Shooting an animal (bred solely to be killed) in a paddock, does not remotely comply with this definition. Plain and simple, Ms. Bachman is not a hunter’s behind and it irritates me that people, when referring to this kind of conduct, call it hunting. Whatever it is – killing, shooting, culling or something else – it is not hunting and never can be!

There seem to be various kinds/levels of hunting. For example, the commercial “canned” kind where animals (lions) are bred for the sole purpose of being hunted, and then the kind where game reserves allow hunters to pay to kill animals as population control, and/or raise funds for conservation. There seems so many incarnations of hunting, and I think these often get confused in the minds of the public. Could you talk a little about the different kinds and, in your view, the pros and cons, in your opinion? (I realize this subject could take up an entire book, but if you could just give a basic overview that would be ideal.)

There is only one kind of hunting as I have described above. However, different cultures have developed different methods of hunting and different laws and ethics governing its conduct for different wild animals in different parts of the world at different times. I think here of how the Inuit peoples hunt whales in their kayaks with harpoons, how Bushmen hunt antelopes by stalking with the small bows and flightless, poisoned arrows, how Plains Indians hunted bison from horse back with spears, how Royalty in Europe hunted driven red deer over dogs with firearms and so on.
There are two systems governing hunting, the law of the country where the hunt occurs and ethics. The latter, like conservation itself, has only been around for about 150 years and is in a state of constant evolution that differs from region to region and time to time. It is a little like beauty – in the eye of the beholder – and is where most discussion and debate takes place in the hunting world today and, like most issues of morality, will continue to evolve.

Anti-hunting activists claim that the money raised from hunting only goes back into the hunting industry, not conservation…Though perhaps these are one and the same (do hunting and conservation go hand in hand)? What are your thoughts?

Of course the money spent on daily hunting rates and trophy fees goes directly to the game rancher but it is this very money that has caused him to change from livestock to wildlife and has financed the purchase and maintenance of 21 million hectares covered by wildlife on the some 10 000 game ranches in our country. So yes, hunting and conservation are two sides of the same coin, a matter recognized as such in a number of statements made by IUCN (The International Union for the Conservation of Nature), the top UN conservation body and the Convention on Biodiversity to which this country is a signatory.

Is ecotourism a viable alternative source of revenue to replace that raised by hunting?

No but why look for an alternative as opposed to an additional source. All funds which, directly or indirectly, assist the conservation of wildlife habitats and wildlife are important. It should not be one or the other but both. Ecotourism can provide good revenue in scenically beautiful areas where there is a wide variety (particularly the Big Five) and lots of game, little or no disease and developed infrastructure in the form of airports, lodges, tarred roads, trained staff etc., to satisfy the needs this kind of tourist usually demands. Most game ranches are in the semi-arid plateau region of the country where, although malaria is not an issue, most of the other requirements are not present and it is unsuitable for ecotourism or conventional crop or livestock farming.

Account should also be taken of the costs these ecotourists generate in the form of capital required and pollution created – for example, soap powders from all their washing flowing into streams, heavy metals in the sewerage, innumerable vehicle tracks destroying ground vegetation and so on. In the 20 years I owned and managed a commercial game ranch, the best financial returns were from trophy hunting; then from culling edible game and exporting the venison; thirdly, capturing and selling the inedible game live and, a distant fourth, ecotourism, as the costs of infrastructure and staffing was prohibitive. This view is supported by the Financial Mail survey on the game industry published last year, which showed that average all occupancy of ecotourism game lodges running at less than 25% and many were for sale.

Does legalization of hunting cause a loss of revenue from tourism boycotts by anti-hunting tourists that you know of? (I only ask because the claim has been made.)

There are no government statistics to support or deny such a claim. If it is true, however, then these people must have very few potential tourist destinations because hunting is widespread throughout North America – where it is enjoyed by some 13 million people, which number increased by over 9% over the last three years according to research by Southwick Associates – South America, Europe, the Far East and Asia. They would probably be confined to Kenya where, since the hunting ban in 1977 they have lost some 80% of their wildlife according to Professor Michael Norton-Griffiths.

Secondly, tourist numbers have been rising steadily over the past 20 years and last year exceeded 11 million. The Minister of Environmental Affairs claimed in 2013 that, of these, overseas recreational or trophy hunters generated over R1, 5 billion. Given that tourists who arrive by air spend less than R9 000 per visit according to SATOUR, over 166 000 tourists would have to refuse to visit to dent such amount. And this is not to mention the R6, 5 billion generated by the some 300 000 local hunters (according to Free State University). Bottom line? There is no evidence whatsoever to support this spurious claim.

What do you say to those who claim that hunting is cruel or immoral?

The statistics from my game ranch over a period of 20 years showed that game increased by 26,4 % per annum on average and, in good years, by close to 35%. Given that my land was finite, I had to either kill or capture and sell the game live. Killing is an every day fact of life for all wildlife whether by man or beast and, judging by the reaction of game after culling or hunting, on the one hand, and game capture, on the other hand (which also results in deaths usually from stress or exhaustion), the animals were far less bothered by the former. If done properly it is not cruel as death is instantaneous and, even if done badly, is far less cruel than having an animal driven to and killed for you at an abattoir.

Morality is a personal matter and I hesitate to comment on this question. What I will say is that I am a Christian and the Bible specifically grants man “dominion” over all animals but dominion, of course, also necessarily implies care.

In conclusion, I have hunted in 17 countries in Africa over more than 30 years and seen how wildlife and wildlife habitats have been damaged and/or destroyed by accident and/or on purpose in virtually every one of these countries despite the fact that, if conserved, they could provide opportunity for all in perpetuity. I am absolutely convinced that the only thing that has and will prevent this in Africa over the long term, is the sustainable use (including consumptive use such as hunting) of these renewable resources in a manner which gives local people, who live cheek by jowl with them, control over the revenue generated by such use. Namibia is a classic example where, within less than 20 years of giving local peoples the right to form conservancies and benefit from the sustainable use of the natural resources therein, wildlife such as the once highly endangered desert elephant have recovered from about 150 to nearly 1 000 and Hartmann’s mountain zebra from about 2 000 to over 26 000, to name but two species.

The questions and answers amounted to 2 362 words. The original request on 17 January asked, would you be able to answer a few questions via email? I understand you’re only back in SA next Friday, but my deadline is Wednesday. On 7 February I received the final copy for approval. Clearly there had been a major rethink at Fairlady regarding the article and what I received bore little or no relationship to the debate that was originally envisaged. Nevertheless, I approved what had been submitted to me and yet even this was shortened further. Set out below is a copy of what was submitted to me with the passages in red having been deleted subsequently. In other words, what eventually appeared in the magazine, all 877 words of what was to have been a “debate”, was what appears in black.

COPY: Peter Flack is a hunter and former game ranch owner, as well as a trustee of WWF Southern Africa.

Hunting has been proven to preserve our wildlife

My thoughts on Melissa Bachman? Not much, to be blunt. I understand that, shortly after she arrived on site, Ms Bachman shot a captive-bred lion released into an enclosure not long before her arrival. Now this may be legal but it is no more hunting than flying to the moon. Hunting at its core is about ‘fair chase’ – the pursuit of a wild animal in its natural environment (a space that is of sufficient size that it can feed itself, procreate and escape its predators). Shooting an animal (bred solely to be killed) in a paddock, does not remotely comply with this definition. Plain and simple, Ms Bachman is not a hunter, and it irritates me that people, when referring to this kind of conduct, call it hunting. Whatever it is – killing, shooting, culling or something else – it is not hunting and never can be.

Why hunt? What’s the appeal? These are questions asked by many for whom the attraction of hunting is completely alien.

Archaeologists estimate that man has been around more or less in his present form for about 200 000 years. Agriculture was only invented 10 000 years ago, and refrigeration less than 300 years ago. In other words, men have been providing for their families, and protecting them from, wildlife for 95% of the time we have been on earth. While there are many reasons why hunting is good and important, the bottom line is that, for people like me, hunting satisfies something deep inside us. It is embedded in our culture and part of our very being. To call it ‘enjoyable’ is to belittle hunting and reduce it to the level of a hobby or sport. It is not. It is an essential part of who and what we are. It is a passion, a way of life.

There is no ‘enjoyment’ in killing. Only a psychopath would say such a thing. Hunting is not about killing, it’s about everything that takes place up until the trigger is squeezed or the arrow released. The rollercoaster of emotions, the satisfaction in outwitting a clever animal; the despondency after a muffed track, stalk or shot; the wonder at the beauty of a big, old bull in the last year of his life; the deep sadness, sometimes giving way to tears, at his death; and your every sense at its peak when you are really close to dangerous game on foot with adrenalin suffusing your body … These are all feelings which words can only inadequately express.

In her book, Wilding the Farm or Farming the Wild, Professor Jane Carruthers of UNISA quotes a survey done in 1964 in South Africa, which showed there were a mere 557 000 game animals left in the country. The blue buck and the quagga were already extinct and four other species – the black wildebeest, bontebok, Cape mountain zebra and white rhinoceros – were following hard on their heels as there were less than 50 of each left.

In 2005 the same survey showed that there were now some 18,6 million game animals in the country and none of the above four species was endangered; those that had been hunted most assiduously, namely the black wildebeest and white rhino, had recovered best.

In the <2011?> documentary I produced, The South African Conservation Success Story, the question ‘What caused the decline and resuscitation in these game numbers?’ was answered by empirically established evidence. Droughts, diseases, World Wars, the Anglo-Boer Wars, the depression, government-authorised killing to destroy the tsetse fly (thought, mistakenly, to be hosted by wildlife), commercial killing for hides and ivory and the most important reason, the killing by domestic livestock farmers to make way for their animals, were responsible for the decline.

The main reason for the recovery was the increase in hunting in South Africa when the 1977 hunting ban in Kenya and the subsequent bans (which have since been reversed) in Tanzania and Uganda forced hunters south. Soon farmers here were being paid more for a kudu than a cow and, from a mere three game ranches in the 1970s, the number grew to about 10 000 today, and private game land rose to nearly three times all land encompassed by the national reserves and provincial parks put together – 21 million hectares. Hence the somewhat crass truism that, when it comes to wildlife, if it pays it stays.

I believe with all my heart, education, experience and soul that it is vital for our wellbeing as humans to keep wildlife habitats and wildlife with us and the only thing that has proven to do this in Africa has been hunting.

The money spent on daily hunting rates and trophy fees goes directly to the game rancher, but it is this very money that has encouraged ranchers to change from livestock to wildlife. Hunting and conservation are two sides of the same coin, a matter recognised as such in a number of statements made by IUCN (The International Union for the Conservation of Nature), the top UN conservation body and the Convention on Biodiversity to which this country is a signatory.

Why the original concept was changed so drastically and dramatically, I have no idea. Could it be that the animal rightists who, I suspect, came up with the original idea for the article, did not like the answers supplied to some or all of their pointed and often one-sided, rhetorical questions, or the fact that Robyn Maclarty eliminated a number of them and changed others? At any rate, as one woman reader said to me, “I turned over the page of your article expecting to find more and there was nothing. It made no sense to have such a brief, two column article on such an important topic.