What do Pyramid Schemes and the latest trend of intensively breeding and manipulating new colour variants and other unnatural freakish animals have in common with one another? Pyramid Schemes are defined by Wikipedia as, “an unsustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public.”
They go on to add, “A successful pyramid scheme combines a fake yet seemingly credible business with a simple-to-understand yet sophisticated-sounding money-making formula which is used for profit … The flaw is that there is no end benefit. The money simply travels up the chain. Only the originator (sometimes called the “pharaoh”) and a very few at the top levels of the pyramid make significant amounts of money. The amounts dwindle steeply down the pyramid slopes. Individuals at the bottom of the pyramid (those who subscribed to the plan, but were not able to recruit any followers themselves) end up with a deficit.”
Does this ring a bell? Does this sound similar to what is going on in this abnormal market?
The Federal Trade Commission warns, “It’s best not to get involved in plans where the money you make is based primarily on the number of distributors you recruit and your sales to them, rather than on your sales to people outside the plan who intend to use the products.”
If you accept that the only way for these breeders and manipulators to make money over the long term is to persuade hunters to pay to “hunt” these weird beasts then, to date, they have been very unsuccessful and it would seem that most, if not all, of the sales have been from one breeder to another at ever increasing prices. In other words, the sales are not “to people outside the plan who intend to use the products.”
Well, is it not a valid point that this is a new “industry” and, in time, hunters will come round to “hunting” these never-before-seen-in-the-wild animals? In other words, is this not similar to the philosophy, “If we build it, the people will come”? Not if CIC – The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation is concerned. This body, arguably the most prestigious hunting and conservation association in Europe, which counts 38 countries as members along with major conservation bodies like IUCN, CITES, TRAFFIC and FAO, passed the Wildlife and Commercially-Bred and Formerly Wild Animal Recommendation in 2011 in which it opposed “artificial and unnatural manipulations of wildlife including the enhancement or alteration of a species’ genetic characteristics (e.g. pelage colour, body size, horn or antler size)”.
Another member of this august body is The Boone and Crockett Club, the most influential and admired hunting and conservation body in North America who obviously echo these sentiments so it can be seen that the potential hunter market for these unnatural colour variants and freaks is shrinking as none of the members of these powerful bodies, nor those they influence, will be interested in “hunting” these animals.
We know that the vast majority of the 300 000 South African hunters are meat hunters. We also know that most trophy hunters – those that could potentially be the most interested in hunting difficult or unusual animals – are from overseas. We further know that trophy hunters, particularly overseas recreational trophy hunters, like to enter the animals they hunt and which qualify into one of the two major international record books – Rowland Ward’s Records of Big Game (established in 1892 and the oldest) and SCI’s Record Book of Big Game Animals.
In conversation with the owners of Rowland Ward, they stated categorically that they will neither create separate categories nor allow the entry of these animals into their record book. In response to my written query, Chris Emery, the Chief Master Measurer of SCI wrote, “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.”
This would seem to be another major factor restricting the potential market for these manipulated and unnatural freaks. This, in turn, would seem to explain why so much effort is being put into opening the Namibian market to the sale of these animals. New entrants are required at the base of the pyramid to channel the money up to the “pharaoh” at the top because there are little or no sales “to people outside the plan who intend to use the products.”
This also would tend to explain why so much time, effort and money is being used to advertise and persuade people to enter the intensive breeding and game manipulating market. Why it is being portrayed as the next best new investment opportunity.
Unfortunately, the old adage, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” is as true today as it was at the time of the Kubus pyramid scheme. Remember that? Those who are already involved in this dubious and controversial business should take note and those who are not but are considering entering into it, should think very, very carefully before proceeding further.
Peter , wonder what Renier Bouwer has to say today ???
Thank you for your question, Emil. Please remind me who Renier Bouwer is and what do you think he would have to say? Kind regards, Peter
Well said Peter Flack !!
Thanks for the kind words, Emil.
Kind regards,
Peter
@ Renier Bouwer, I enjoyed the dual and you have to admit, you have been schooled!
Peter, keep up the pressure, the bubble is about to burst. The enormity of the fallout is unfathomable and sadly there will be some people who will loose everything, our country and hunters tarnished in front of the world and even worse, the destruction of animals that God intended. If you look at it this way, how can you not stand up and be counted?
I’m in.
Well, there’s poverty in Africa and then there’s nonsensical luxury it seems (there’s “sensical” luxury, though I don’t like to indulge in it – but an expensive watch is a watch that often serves later generations and may even be a value hedge). As for “… most, if not all, of the sales have been from one breeder to another at ever increasing prices …” – the moment I read that I remembered the book “popular delusions” and the description of the Dutch tulip mania in the seventeenth century. Exactly the same pattern “from one breeder to another at ever increasing prices” until the price became so enormous that the scheme collapsed under its own weight. Now all that needs to enter the market is “breeding freaks on credit” to create the “last leg” of the bubble curve.
Holger Krogsgaard Jensen
You’re spot on – I can accept the black variations, that occur naturally in many populations of various species, but these weird and artificial animals are just freaks and unnatural. Exactly as for the canned lions, our local hunting industry should all take a stand against such practices, if we want to protect our reputation, or what may be left of it!
Dave Nettle
The colour variants should be culled off as they would be in the wild, as they would attract the predators.
Dear Mr. Flack and Barnard,
I refer to the article by my Flack in the July edition of SA Hunt. I further refer to the comments of the editor, mr. Barnard, in his editor’s note to the magazine.
Firstly with regards to the article of Mr. Flack:
I must confess that I was rather taken aback by the statements made in the article. I actually had to read it twice to make sure that what I was reading was actually what was written. The reason for the astonishment in the content of the article is however not only due to one or two statements made, but rather on a host of claims made. Allow me to explain.
I believe that the statement made by Mr. Flack in that the current trade in “color variants” in game is comparable to a pyramid scheme is flawed. Firstly, I find it disappointing (and surprising) that Mr. Flack uses the definition of a pyramid scheme as contained in Wikipedia, as the definition of any aspect or subject can be changed by users to the site. Why does he not use an acknowledged source to stipulate the definition clearly? The purpose of this letter is however not to get entwined in semantics, but rather address the issue.
Even if the Wikipedia definition is used however, it stipulates according to Mr. Flack that the existence of the scheme is dependent on new entrants to the market. Even if that is so, I would ask the following questions:
• Has any research been done on the subject of how many animals of color variants are sold
• To whom are they sold and how many new entrants are there to the market
• What are the actual price trends
• What proportion of the total population do these animals represent
It is my opinion, through attending various auctions and looking at price trends, that very little of color variants are actually sold in the market. The advertisement of these animals are proportionately much more visible than the actual sales but this is due to the higher value of the animals and is justifiable. Strangely enough, I have not come across a myriad of Namibian farmers at any auction queuing up to buy these animals. Even more strangely, I have seen the same buyers at all the auctions in the past few years buy the animals in questions. Although these are my own personal views and experiences, I have actually gone further than the magazine did in trying to place all the relevant facts in play. Why did the magazine not deem it fit to get these relevant factors under the attention of the reader? These are surely relevant and pertinent factors to give a weighted view?
With regards to the value of the animals, I can state it unequivocally that you will never be able to recoup the initial investment in buying an animal for genetic purposes through hunting. When you buy (for instance) a R5000 0000 buffalo breeding bul, you will eventually hunt the animal for say R200 000 when it has reached the end of its breeding potential. In the time period you have the animal, the value is transferred through genes to its offspring. It is that simple. Now, if this is what is happening (and has been happening for a substantial amount of time) in the cattle industry, why is it not also seen as a pyramid scheme? A good Boran bull will cost you R700 000 and when it is eventually slaughtered, the owner will probably get R10 000 for the animal. The point remains however that the investment in the animal is not recouped through hunting it.
Furthermore, color variants have been in existence for years and years and years. Why was it not depicted as a pyramid scheme 10 years or 15 years ago? These animals have always had a higher value because it is less common than other animals. Should Mr. Flack not possibly have investigated the subject properly about why the prices have increased so dramatically instead of making broad stroke statements that is defamatory to game breeders and could (and probably will) cause them irreparable financial harm? There is a material difference between an inflated price (which may be for various reasons) and a pyramid scheme dependent on new entrants.
A final comment regarding the value: The value of an animal if hunted does not solely depend on whether it is recorded in some or other record book. I recall a picture of 5 stuffed kudu bulls (taken on Bankfontein if I am not mistaken) of various color variants. If these animals did not have any value, why were they then hunted? The hunter surely deemed the animals to be of value otherwise he surely would not hunted these animals and displayed them?
Secondly, with regards to the editor’s note by Mr Barnard the following:
Mr Barnard’s statement of “narpakbokke” is very disappointing. What is however even further disturbing, is his apparent comparison between the breeding of game with colour variants to canned lion hunting, put and take practices and other represhensable practices. I would have expected Media 24 through the editor of the magazine to firstly vet the article of mr Flack and secondly should it decide to publish the article, give proper, researched and relevant comment. Instead we find a simple statement that it “seems like” there is an pyramid scheme in play.
Mr Barnard, I see you are very vocal about these so called “narpakbokke”. I presume your advertisers that paid money to place an advertisement in the magazine were properly advised of your and Media24’s view on these animals before you placed the advertisements for the sale of these animals? Further, it is notable that even though you apparently do not agree with the breeding of “narpakbokke” you still find it just to place pictures of hunters with these very animals in the magazine. This actually flies in the face of the argument of Mr Flack that these animals will not have much commercial value when hunted because it would not be able to be entered into various record books. Well then, if the demand for these animals are so low, why is do hunters still hunt them and why are they “of value enough” to be taken a picture of and published in the magazine? My question remain, does the advertisers like Mike Englezakis and Vleissentraal (page 73) know your view on the sale and trade on his “narpakbokke”? On the one hand you compare the trade of these animals to canned lion hunting (as mentioned) and a pyramid scheme, but still his money is good enough for an advertisement in the magazine. Astonishing.
Mr Barnard apparently quotes a “bekende persoon in die wildsbedryf” with a rather disappointing quote. Why does Mr. Barnard not state the detail of the person. In actual fact, why did Mr Barnard not deem it prudent to engage with other game farmers or breeders to get a balanced view of the subject? Specifically with regards to the very serious allegations made by Mr Flack?
In summary, I am not saying that the matter should not be addressed. I am however saying that the statements made by Mr Flack and supported by Media 24 through the editor of the magazine, has not been properly researched, is one sided and does not respresent the status quo in this market segment of the game industry. I further believe that the article has crossed the line as it would imply that anyone that deals in game where there are color variants, forms part of a fraudulent criminal activity in the form of a pyramid scheme – that is defamatory. It must be borne in mind that no qualifications were made in the article. If I had one color variant on my property and was to sell it, I would by definition of Mr Flack’s article and supported by Mr. Barnard have made myself guilty of trade in a pyramid scheme. Further to that, the good Mr Barnard would then also make my actions out to be comparable to canned lion hunting and the like.
I look forward to your urgent response to this matter in order for me to determine the appropriate route forward.
Regards
Renier Bouwer
Dear Mr Bouwer,
I refer to your email addressed to Messrs. Barnard and Burger on 26 June 2014 and advise as follows:
1. The email is almost twice as long as the article it is commenting on.
2. Wikipedia is a widely accepted research tool used by millions every day but, to the extent you do not approve of their definition of pyramid schemes, you do not provide an alternate. In addition, nowhere is a statement made in the article that, “the current trade in “color (sic) variants” in game is comparable to a pyramid scheme”. Those are your words.
3. I do not see how the number of intensively bred and artificially manipulated colour variants and other unnatural freaks sold, their proportion to the total game population, their price trends or who buys them, is relevant to the points made in the article. Your statement, however, that “I have seen the same buyers at all the auctions in the past few years buy the animals in question,” tends to support the very point made to this effect in the article, namely, that there are not “sale(s) of products or services to the public”. Thank you for providing additional support for this key point.
4. The anecdotal views expressed by you and based on your attendance at some game auctions at which these intensively bred, artificially manipulated colour variants and other unnatural freaks are sold do not constitute “all the relevant facts in play”. But, even if they did, they would not affect the article at all as it consists of my personal views on these matters and is not, nor does it purport to be, a scientific treatise on all aspects of the game industry involving such animals.
5. While I am not so naïve as to believe that someone would pay R50 million to hunt a buffalo and I further accept that the return is made from the sale of such an animal’s offspring or semen as well as meat, ultimately, the revenue required to generate a return on such an investment would have to come from either the sale of the meat of such an animal and its oiffspring/or what a hunter would pay to hunt them.
6. To say that the “new colour variants” I wrote about have been around for “years and years and years” is not true but, even were, it is disingenuous to pretend that what the article is about are animals like black and white springbok and white blesbok, for example, which have been around for a long time, are recognized by some record books and are hunted regularly. In addition, although more expensive than the common varieties, the price disparity is not that great and, for the most part, they are not bred intensively and/or artificially manipulated. Everyone reading the article will know that it is directed at the comparatively recent trend of intensive breeding and artificial manipulation, which has deliberately created unnatural colour variants and other freaks that have certainly not been around for “years and years and years” such as top deck blesbok, king wildebeest and golden hartebeest to name but a few as new varieties seem to be created every month.
7. No-one has been named in the article and, therefore, no-one has been defamed. But, even if people were named, it is a defence to such a claim that the article was either true, constituted fair comment or was in the public interest, all of which defences apply to the article. In addition, one of the essential elements of defamation is to establish malice i.e. that the defamer intended to harm the individual(s) named in the defamatory comments and this is clearly not the case.
8. The mounted kudu bulls in the museum on Bankfontein represent the different subspecies of greater kudu recognized for decades by both Rowland Ward and SCI, namely, southern greater kudu, Eastern Cape greater kudu, East African greater kudu, Abyssinian greater kudu and western greater kudu. None of them were intensively bred, artificially manipulated, unnatural colour variants or freaks.
9. The practice of intensive breeding, artificial manipulation and creating unnatural colour variants and other freaks, as well as the practice of canned and put-and-take killings, seem to have originated at roughly the same time and both, in the eyes of most amateur and professional hunters, are reprehensible, give South African game ranching, conservation and hunting a bad name and put people off coming to hunt here so it is natural, therefore, to refer to them in the same article let alone the same magazine, which is against these practices for the reasons mentioned.
10. There is an implication in your email that advertisers should be consulted or advised prior to articles being published. No reputable publication would do such a thing. Editorial independence is the hallmark of every good publication and is distinct from its business aspects, each of which is managed separately and differently. Every now and then people and/or organisations that own publications forget this but not for long because, when they do, the publication does not last long either. Having said that, I am not aware that the magazine has published photographs of any hunter with any intensively bred, artificially manipulated, unnatural colour variation or other freak of the kind the article was directed at but, even if it did, I am not sure why it would detract from the article. To imply the reverse would be to suggest that every article and advert in a magazine would have to be in accord with one another – a hopeless and unnecessary task. One of the goals of any publication is to stir debate.
11. Having said the above, I am sure that the editor of the magazine would happily consider publishing a well written, factual article setting out an opposing view to the one expressed in the article you have complained about.
12. If something is bad or wrong per se, it is bad or wrong. The article clearly is of the view that the practice of intensively breeding and artificially manipulating unnatural colour variants and other freaks is both bad and wrong. To accuse Mr. Barnard of not engaging “with other game farmers or breeders to get a balanced view” is, firstly, to assume that he has not done so, which is unfounded. Secondly, it further assumes that the majority of game ranchers are in favour of these reprehensible practices, which I believe is incorrect. Thirdly, it is like suggesting a murderer should be allowed to tell his side of the story in a publication dealing with his conviction.
13. I disagree with the statement that the article, “has not been properly researched, is one sided and does not represent the status quo in this market segment of the game industry”. To agree with this statement would necessarily imply that CIC, IUCN, CITES, TRAFFIC, the Boone and Crockett Club, SCI and Rowland Ward are also guilty of the same offence and I think this is highly unlikely.
14. I believe you are correct when you warn that game breeders could suffer irreparable financial harm. In Charles MacKay’s book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, he describes how many investors in tulip bulbs were ruined by the precipitous fall in prices and how Dutch commerce suffered a severe shock as a result. He defined the term, “tulip mania” as any large economic bubble when asset prices deviate from intrinsic value. During the tulip boom one bulb was exchanged for five hectares of land and the prices of others reached 10 times the annual income of a skilled craftsmen or $300,000 in today’s money. While this is a far cry from the nearly $4 million paid for a buffalo bull last year, if you compare the relative sizes of the items in question, then the comparison becomes more understandable.
15. To the extent that I have not dealt with each and every point raised by you, it should not be construed as agreement with any such point and I reserve the right to add further to my comments on your email.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Flack