In the March/April issue of African Outfitter (AO), arguably the best hunting magazine currently published in Africa, the half page advert set out below by Take Aim Safaris (TAS) was included on page 73, poking fun at those intensively breeding, domesticating and manipulating wildlife to produce animals with exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variations.
The first shot was fired by Mr van der Linde, deputy president of the Wildlife Ranching Association of South Africa (WRSA). He emailed the editor, summarily cancelled his advertising in the magazine and sent copies of his email to all and sundry. The exchange of correspondence with him, the editor and Carl Knight of TAS was published in the May/June issue of AO.
I was surprised at the intemperate and emotional language used by Mr. Van der Linde, a man I have never met, but there were echoes of previous statements by the president of WRSA published on my blog. Like him, Mr. Van der Linde was concerned that, “We are busy harming an industry by fighting our differences in the media and you, the publishers are allowing it.” In other words, us ordinary, amateur hunters should not be allowed to decide for ourselves what the truth is, based on a full and open public debate of the issues surrounding canned and put-and-take killing and the intensive breeding, domestication and manipulation of wildlife to produce exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variants. Why? Does Mr Van der Linde think we are incapable of making informed decisions? That he should be able to decide for us in some small, smoke-filled private room out of the public eye?
Secondly, to refer to the advert as a “degrading and insulting text, directed at ALL RSA breeders, outfitters & professional hunters” is clearly either disingenuous or deliberately misleading. Most reasonable people would say that the advert was directed ONLY at intensive breeders who represent a tiny minority – probably less than five per cent – of game ranchers, most of whom conduct extensive game ranching operations and are the basis upon which this country’s amazing wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation success story has been based over the last 60 years or so. This seems an attempt by intensive breeders to gain by mere association some of the praiseworthy reputation of extensive game ranchers and thereby camouflage what they are doing. This is like the black sheep of a family trying to restore his reputation by claiming membership of the decent, hard working family that disowned him.
Not content with this, Mr. Van der Linde then accused AO of “derogatory statements & mudslinging,” “Degrading someone else in the hope of elevating oneself” and found the advert “unprofessional, distasteful and completely unnecessary”. Wow! Quite a mouthful to protest against a half page, amusing advert and the first thought that occurred to me was the Shakespearean quote, “Methinks milady protesteth too much!”
And then the irony. Mr.Van der Linde goes on to add:
“Our neighbouring countries are laughing at us and I dread to think how potentially damaging this could be to our whole industry if you take into consideration the clients who may read this garbage! We are losing our market share every day and that is because we allow stuff like this to happen and you are encouraging it.”
Of course, it seems to have eluded Mr. Van der Linde that it is precisely he and others like him who are putting people off from coming to hunt in South Africa, on the one hand, and making it too expensive for locals to hunt, on the other hand.
Nevertheless, a few days later another intensive breeder, Mr. Thormahlen, jumped on the Van der Linde wagon using, if anything, even greater hyperbole and more emotive language than before, accusing AO of “a smear campaign in your magazine to put us in discredit” – one advert a smear campaign? While lots of people here and abroad intensely dislike what intensive breeders do because they believe it puts hunting in the country at risk and thereby one of the main pillars of conservation, Mr Thormahlen now argues that their fight to intensively breed, domesticate and manipulate wildlife to produce exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variants is the same as those who fought apartheid for the right to marry across the colour lines or for gay rights. Really? Are you serious Mr. Thormahlen?
As I replied to the editor of AO after he sent me copies of the correspondence with Messrs Van der Linde and Thormahlen:
“Thank you for including me in the exchange of correspondence … According to the figures provided by the Department of Environmental Affairs, the numbers of overseas hunts fell between 2011 to 2013 (the latest available figures) by some 1 500 or over 16%. This has absolutely nothing to do with AO, Carl Knight or one small and humorous advert which appeared a few weeks ago but began after people here started killing domesticated animals in small paddocks, on the one hand, and domesticating and manipulating wildlife to produce big horns and weird colours, on the other hand.
The extent of the hysteria expressed by Messrs. Van der Linde and Thormahlen and the intemperate language they used over TAS’s advert indicates that they either have no sense of humour or, as they say in Germany, “hit dogs bark loudly” i.e. the humour in the advert hit home. In addition, I have also found that, when people overreact like Messrs. Van der Linde and Thormahlen, it is because they are unable to win their argument by normal, factual, logical and verbal means.
I am also tired of these selfsame people using the hoary old argument of black and white springbok to justify the current artificial genetic manipulation of wildlife on an industrial scale to produce the scores of different, weird and unnatural colour phases which can be seen in the hundreds of full page colour adverts in various magazines – I have been told there are now 20 different springbok colour variants. There is solid, scientific evidence that black springbok have been around for thousands of years and date back to the time when the Karoo was an inland sea and which may account for the fact, for example, that they have longer hooves than the normal springbok. Secondly, nearly 40 years ago when I shot a white springbok for the first time, Mr Bowker, the landowner, explained that his grandfather had found two white springbok on his farm after the trekbokke had moved through. He chased them across the river into a separate camp with some sheep and normal springbok and, over many years, they gradually created a small herd of white springbok – some more white than others – but there was no concerted attempt to artificially manipulate animals to produce things never seen before in the wild or anywhere else for that matter.
At the end of the day, the Van der Lindes and Thormahlens of this world can stand on their heads and sing God Save the Queen but it is us hunters who will decide this argument and the writing is already on the wall as can be seen in my opening paragraph. Overseas hunters are already voting with their feet. They do not want to be tainted by inadvertently becoming involved in canned and/or put-and-take killings, on the one hand, nor of being accused of coming to South Africa to hunt these Frankenbuck, on the other hand.
The end is in sight, however, for all those engaged in these reprehensible practices, which I and my many hunting friends despise and the sooner this happens the better. The only pity is that so many innocent people who have been encouraged to invest money in these schemes are going to lose their life savings.
I expect that the attacks on you and all the others opposed to these practices who stick their heads out above the parapets, will be subject to ever more vicious and nasty attacks by these increasingly desperate bully boys. But so be it. I forget who it was that said words to the effect that, for evil to triumph, all that needed to happen was for men to keep quiet. Keep up the good fight, I and my friends support you and, if necessary, will raise a fund to replace the revenue lost by these bullies.
Below are four cartoons drawn for me by Fred Mouton for your edification and delight. In his own brilliant way, they encapsulate much of the discussions referred to above.
Whilst a degree of blood-letting may on occasion be beneficial, I really do wonder at the point of such vociferous and public, debate.
My personal view, though unsupported by practical experience, is that the artificial (farmed) production of game, with the only remit being bigger and better (sic) trophies, has nothing to do with sport in the true sense, and everything to do with money. I wonder what the thoughts would have been from those who earned their livings from hunting, and of 50 years ago.
It also occurs to me that the captive manipulation of genetics and feeding programmes, can only be detrimental to the game itself.
Most Brits, and this includes me, refuse to hunt an animal which has no realistic chance of escape, or exacting revenge in the event that it’s given the opportunity.
Thank you for your comment, Alec.
As an individual with no hat branding any body or institution as such, I throw a penny into the hat: breeding these “PhotoShop” animals is nothing else than domestication wildlife. As a hunter-conservationist I find it appalling to drive around the Karoo and searching for a springbok; all I see is a collection of animals that beat Nun cattle with their funny colours. As hunters we hunt wild animals in their natural state in their natural habitat in fair chase fashion.
Got a call from a game breeder with colour variants in very small camps that refuse to feed from troughs, wanting to know what add to the feed to get them feeding! Another call from breeder with black impala in small camps dying from coccidiosis, wanting to know what to do. Another call from breeder with black impala fearing for the presence of aardwolf in his camps. If this isn’t a symptom of serious malpractices with wildlife, seriously animal welfare issues and serious ethical issues then what is? To tell the world they this for hunters is not even a lie, it is fraud. The can slaughter their camp reared animals and sell the meat at $30,000a kilo because we don’t hunt Bambi and co!
Question asked by someone where government is in all of this? Wish we knew!!
Regards to all hunter-conservationists.
Gerhard Verdoorn
I couldn’t agree with you more, Gerhard. Thank you for this. Coming from someone of your stature, I hope the authorities take note.
Brendan Ryan
Nice one Peter!!! – I love it!!!! In journalism “sense of humour failure” indicates you are getting really close to the bone. The final confirmation stage is when they threaten to sue you……….that’s when you know you are really on the money. Worrying aspect for me is the breeders are only half the problem here. Surely the hunters themselves should be able to see just how contrived this artificial breeding story is? Yet, from the look of it, they go along with it.
Evening, Brendan. Thanks for your note. That’s a good question and the same one both the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Europe Talk Radio asked me last month. It is a common perception that it is us hunters who are behind this in that the intensive breeders are simply meeting and satisfying our demand. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the professional hunters (PHASA) and the biggest amateur body in South Africa (SAHGCA – SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association) have formally come out with press releases condemning the intensive breeding, domestication and manipulation of wildlife to produce exaggerated horn length and unnatural colour variances and, personally, I know of only the smallest handful of cases – literally three or four – where these animals have been killed and often by the intensive breeders themselves to create the impression that these animals are in demand by “hunters”. Of course, whatever it may be – shopping and shooting, canned killing, put-and-take-killing, culling – it is not hunting because there is no hunting involved. These animals are expensive, kept in small paddocks (usually electrically fenced to keep out predators) and hand fed.
Overseas a number of major hunting and conservation associations – led by CIC (Europe), Nordic Safari Club (Scandinavia) and the Boone & Crockett Club (USA) – have come out with similar formal opposition to the intensive breeding fad which, in my humble opinion, is very similar to the tulip bubble in the Netherlands all those years ago when people were paying small fortunes for black tulip bulbs and other unnatural colour variances.
Brendan Ryan
Regarding my comment, keep in mind I have no in-depth knowledge of this subject and I am not implying that hunters – and in particular ethical hunters as opposed to those prepared to indulge in “canned hunting” – are “behind this” as you put it. My comment is based on a common-sense assessment that the breeders would not be doing this just for the hell of it……..there must be a market there. If the opposition from the organised hunting fraternity is as comprehensive as you are indicating it is then I am surprised the breeders can keep up with this pretence. What about the scientific wildlife biological experts?…………surely they must have strong views on such genetic manipulation? Have the hunting organisations tried to enlist their support against such breeding practices?
Regards
Brendan
Again your comments are very perceptive, Brendan. And yes again, the hunting organisations have done so and quite successfully of late. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), in a recent fax to the Department of Environmental Affairs, recommended that:
1. Selectively breeding for rare colour morphs should be discouraged or disincentivized as an undesirable practice and game farmers who wish to manage their farms and animals using sound ecological principals should be incentivized.
2. Conservation authorities should be aware of the potential threat that could result from this type of practice and the risk should be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis.”
Then, in the last week or so, The Antelope Specialist Group, part of the IUCN (The International Union for the Conservation of Nature) the UN’s highest conservation authority, released the following draft position statement:
Antelope Specialist Group
Groupe de Spécialistes des Antilopes
Draft IUCN SSC ASG Position Statement on the Intentional Genetic Manipulation of Antelopes
Ver. 1.0 (30 April 2015)
1. Introduction
The IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group (ASG) is concerned by the use of intentional genetic manipulation (IGM) of antelopes to create modified phenotypes such as novel coat patterns or enlarged horns, conducted for amenity, ecotourism, live trade and/or hunting purposes.
ASG fully supports the principle of sustainable use of wildlife and other natural resources, including appropriately managed game ranching and hunting, in accordance with:
2. Definitions of IGM
IGM may comprise:
– Hybridizing two different species, either indigenous or exotic;
– Crossing two different subspecies or strains, either indigenous or exotic.
– Selective inbreeding to exaggerate the prevalence of some characters;
– Cloning;
3. Purpose and extent of IGM
– Growing in magnitude with a continuously increasing number of (i) facilities involved, (ii) number of antelope species and individuals subject to IGM & (iii) private and public sales;
– Increasing diversity with a continuously growing number of newly created morphs.
– Most modified antelopes are translocated to other wildlife facilities in or out their original range country or range;
– IGM antelopes are mostly held behind fences which cannot be regarded as 100% wildlife proof, with a risk of escapes to neighbouring areas including into the wild.
4. Impacts of IGM
The actual and potential impacts of IGM of antelopes comprise:
5. ASG Statement
The IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group:
Philippe Chardonnet and David Mallon, Co-Chairs
IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group (2015). IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group Position Statement on the Intentional Genetic Manipulation of Antelopes. Ver. 1.0.
In brief, Brendan, please remember it is only a very small minority – some say less than five per cent of the some 10 000 game ranchers in the country who are engaged in intensive breeding, although they receive a lot of publicity and, given the prices they have received, spend a lot of it on advertising. But, apart from what I have written above, it seems as if the days of these comparatively recent money making schemes may be numbered. At the most recent game auction held at Sidbury in the Eastern Cape, for example, a number of black impala as well as female ewes crossed with black impala rams were not sold and, those colour variants that were, went for prices way below what has been achieved in the past. Maybe we are on the cusp of seeing the bubble burst. Time will tell but, if not now, it will surely happen later for the very reason you point out. Hunters are opposed to this kind of thing and, currently, the business that has grown up around intensive breeding involves sales from one breeder to another and on new entrants to the intensive breeding market. I hope this helps.
Peter hits were it hurts – and we need more SA hunters to do the same; too many sit by the touchline and watch. Stand up and be counted! We are THE VAST majority. This messy breeding and canned shooting business goes against anything I ever learned about hunting the the traditions and values I cherish; and jeopardizes the South African hunting future of our kids. I have fought this battle in AFRICAN INDABA for years, and I will continue the struggle!
Hear hear!!! Well said Peter!!!
Hi Peter. I’ve just started reading your articles – the first of which was “Ready to hunt in Africa?” – I then moved to this site and I congratulate you on your comments and point of view. I enjoy your humour and support your views. I hope to see more of your articles – even if I have to check here now and again! One question – a photo of you on page 41 of the Ready to Hunt In Africa shows you walking with a leaf tucked in your belt – what on earth does this do??? Best wishes and I look forward to your next article.
Dear Mr Flack! Thanks for your effort; I cannot but agree and admire your incisiveness in comment and diligence in effort. You may remember me, I asked you for Mr Peter Kennedys mail address in order to find myself a safari for hunting, not shooting. Mr Kennedy brought me on to outfitter Christiaan Gunther, by whom I have just finished a wonderfully unfenced free-range hunt in Natal. Thanks again.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke
Or more simply put … play God at your peril !
Leon Kachelhoffer
Very sad case “over success” and greed and ego..
Bryan Webber
Yes keep making rules and regulating an industry to suite your needs. One gang vs another gang it seems.
Tok Mostert
Really hope they can put a stop to all of this. More and more clients refuse to hunt SA because of the breeding.
Mark Oberem
Ridiculous…fucking hate it…”yes your 60″ kudu will be waiting for you in camp number 10 next to a bale of lucerne…probably a little ‘sleepy’ but don’t worry about that…and don’t forget to bring $12000″
Holger Krogsgaard Jensen
One of the consequences is that landowners are presently being offered ridiculous money for blue wildebeest cows and impala eves, all in order to do cross-breeding with golden wildebeest and black impalas. It’s driving up general game prices to a level, where it does not belong, and makes life difficult for SA hunting outfitters, not to mention the ethical aspects of this whole scam. Once again PHASA is dismally failing the industry by accepting both canned lion shooting and now the manipulation of trophy game.
An accusation only stings when there is at least some truth to it. We have the same problem in the U.S. with whitetail deer breeders. When the trophy becomes more important than the hunt, it becomes time to stand back and look at the industry and the sport.
Don Ming, Tuttle Oklahoma, USA
I think we should recognise that there are two clearly distinct groups of wildlife ranchers in South Africa. The vast majority are conservation minded and has played a key role in the wildlife success story of South Africa and Namibia – something mr Flack has already outlined very eloquently and effectively in his DVD and writings. Then there is a small minority group that is into intensive breeding of wildlife purely for financial gain. They wish to domesticate and breed with wildlife like they do with cattle and sheep. To some of them conservation is something that belongs in the government’s national parks and reserves. Some try to put an argument forward that intensive breeding for desired morphological features is good for conservation, but these arguments are utterly unconvincing.
Whether reconciliation between these two groups of game ranchers is achievable, is questionable. The most probable solution is the implosion of the intensive breeding industry.
South Africa has the potential to be the hunting capital of Africa, but the current breeding controversy is clearly putting this potential at risk. We as hunters should take note that for our industry to survive, we will have to convince the non-hunting world that we are first and foremost conservationists. We should be seen to care about wildlife and wild places not only for hunting purposes, but as something of value in its own right. If we fail to do this, we may well lose our hunting heritage. The world is not convinced that the current intensive breeding projects contribute anything to conservation, and we must thus conclude that it is putting our hunting industry at risk.
I can only hope and pray that South Africa as a country can resolve this unfolding debacle before we destroy our hunting industry. It seems this is a time for strong visionary leadership.
The hunting of canned lions, the shooting of animals in small paddocks, the manipulation of species characteristics, and deliberate hybridization are all abhorrent practices and totally unethical. Not to be confused with the breeding of endangered species. I have no problem with the importation of new blood into a herd as it is often the case that because of fences and human settlement there is no natural migration. This adds vigor to a herd and often produces better trophies as a result. I am also against the hunting of leopards with a pack of dogs. Somehow using bait is a matter of using your skills as a hunter to outsmart a leopard whereas hunting with dogs becomes a battle between the cat and a pack of dogs the hunter then comes up to dispatch it. I remember one rather pompous wildlife official saying to me “What hunting leopard using bait unsporting my boy track them down on foot.” Well of course he was right this would be the preferred way to do it but then not many people would ever get a leopard
Hi Peter,
I can totally agree with your statements above.
We have to understand all intensive breeders and the associations representatives- they see their Sense of life being attacked- but: only hunting gave a value to most endangered species- with this new kind of breeding intentions(non typical colors and non typical horn sizes)- Breeders them self seriously harm the bases of the SA hunting industry.
One of my hunting clients from Lithuania last year stated clear his discusted thought about some SA hunting magazines and their advertisements-
“this Has nothing to Do with Hunting- its just farming”
If we loose foreign clients as a base of all game conservation in South Africa- we will not only destroy the hunting industry- we again endanger game itself-
Thanks & Cheers
Malte Glunz
I can only comment with a quote:
“Next to power without honor, the most dangerous thing in the world is power without humor.” – Eric Sevareid
Regards,