Kruger National Park is home to a growing population of 1 800 lions amongst a large array of other wildlife according to parks spokes people. In an article published last year by Clara Wiggins, a park employee, Danie Pienaar, is quoted as saying:
“With a 1,800 km boundary, Kruger’s fencing is never going to be foolproof (it can be broken and lions can slip through small holes), and there’s never going to be 24/7 surveillance, so animals will regularly wander. Sometimes they return of their own accord; sometimes they’re darted, captured and unceremoniously put back. Unfortunately, there are also habitual offenders who are eventually put down … but in most cases, no-one is any wiser that the big cats ever strayed from their normal habitat.”
Later he added, “This probably happens at least 10 or 20 times a year” although he believed the number was probably higher as not every incident was reported.
As an example, last year three male lions escaped from the park, killed and ate a cow. The farmer killed one lion and wounded another while park employees killed the wounded lion and the remaining one. According to the report, the spokesperson for the park when questioned, replied:
“… the reason they had put down the third unharmed lion is because once they had eaten cattle they can develop a taste for this and their behaviour changes. The remaining lion will constantly try to get out of the park and come in contact with more and more humans… Additionally, if they put only the uninjured lion back in the park it is likely he will be attacked by the pride of lions or driven out by the dominant lions that are believed to have driven the three out in the first place. The lion population has increased and so there is pressure on lions.”
So, what can be deduced from these facts:
- The lion population in the park is healthy and growing.
- So much so that young male lions in particular are being forced out of prides and the park as they begin to show more than a passing interest in the pride male’s harem and some come into contact with local farmers bordering the park who, incidentally, are among the poorest in the country.
- These males are often hungry, not being able to share in the pride’s kills any longer and can, therefore, be dangerous
- They are looking for a pride to take over and, if they are successful in killing or chasing away the pride male, they will kill the cubs to bring the females into oestrous to propagate their own line.
Turning to the highly emotional article, Outrage after Kruger lion baited and shot by trophy hunter in neighbouring reserve by Don Pinnock on 11 June 2018, which appears to be nothing more than an attempt based on few, if any, facts to create another Cecil incident, let me make the following points:
- The language used in the article is not only highly emotional and designed to stir outrage but also vague. The lion “may have been … named Skye”. Well, it equally may not have been but, even if it was, how does this affect the reality of the death of a single male lion out of 1 800 Kruger park lions – less than .001% of the total population – which appear to be too many for the park anyway?
- “It is probable the lion was lured out of Kruger Park”. Based on what information? As we have seen, lions regularly leave the park and, in this particular case, the land – the Umbabat Private Nature Reserve of 18 000 hectares – on which it was found is effectively part of the park being incorporated in Associated Private Nature Reserve (APNR) land – 180 000 hectares in total. The APNR, including the Umbabat, has contractual links to Kruger and has always had its own complement of lions.
- The hunter is “believed to be an American. Good guess as about 65% of all overseas hunters who visit this country and contribute nearly R2 billion annually to the economy, come from the States.
- The hunter is “estimated to have paid over R1 million to pull the trigger”. That amounts to some $80 000 which, all things being considered, is not that high. A legal, ethical, free range, fair chase lion hunt in Africa is the most expensive one on offer on the continent and has been known to set a hunter back almost double that amount and, as has been proven time and time again, hunting fees are the backbone of conservation in this and many other countries. The more people are prepared to pay to hunt an animal, the more land will be set aside to conserve them.
- Pinnock indignantly goes on to question why the APNR reserves on the unfenced western boundary of Kruger are permitted to hunt animals from one of Africa’s premier state owned game reserves. I am sure he knows the answer just as well as many readers – the lions may well be the APNR’s “own” lions because the properties that make up the APNR were all well stocked with game, including the Big Five, long before they contractually became part of Kruger. Game flows freely between the APNR and Kruger.
- And oh my, oh my! Two little known animal rights organisations with probably less than 50 paid up members each, sent a “Cease and Desist warning” threatening legal action if the hunt went ahead. I am sure APNR were quaking in their boots when they received it especially as it arrived after the hunt was been concluded.
- The entire article is speculative, not fact based and designed by the use of emotive language to try and provoke the kind of reaction that gave rise to the Cecil incident which, after careful investigation under the spotlight of the international media, was ultimately shown to be a perfectly legal hunt by the Zimbabwe government. The APNR is a highly respected body, most members of which fully understand the vital and irreplaceable role of hunting in conservation. Apart from anything else, in any given fenced area, no matter how large, the time will come when game numbers exceed the carrying capacity of the land and animals will have to be culled. Hunting saves Kruger and APNR from having to pay people to cull and, in fact, they are paid and keep the meat from the hunters who do it for them.
- The Umbabat Private Nature Reserve, where the hunt took place, issued a detailed, factual, three page statement on 12 June, which proved that every baseless accusation made by Pinnock and his fellow travellers was untrue. In addition, it stated that 65% of its revenue, nearly half of which was generated by hunting, goes to pay security costs necessary to counter the poaching epidemic from Mocambique, which has led to thousands of rhino and now elephant being poached.
It is abundantly clear from their consistently emotional writings, usually devoid of any scientifically established fact or anything approaching an alternative conservation solution to hunting, that Pinnock and his fellow travellers like Michler and co do not give a fig for conservation in our country or anywhere else for that matter. They want to stop the use of any animal, whether wild or tame, anywhere. They have just chosen wild ones because they are more emotive. But, if and when they stop hunting, which is seen as low hanging fruit by them, fishing will be next, then domestic livestock and so on. If you support such claptrap, be careful what you wish for. One day you may get it and then I hope you will enjoy being a vegan. It will be compulsory!
Dear Peter
I have an interest rather than a vested interest in the topic of discussion. (I suppose it depends how one defines ‘vested’; I should have said ‘financial’ maybe). That said, I appreciate a well-written /researched argument; yours being one of them. We might not agree on some of the topical issues but at least you air your points of view in public; whereas others, who should, don’t; at least not lucidly.
In that context then, this – I commend you for your stance on CBL [& colour-variant / intensive breeding] which is, in my opinion, destructive for ‘brand South Africa’, irrespective of whether potential visitors are hunters or otherwise. Perhaps the authorities might be encouraged to reconsider current policy based on the economic impact of the scourge which, prima facie, seems fairly obvious to anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of mathematics. ‘Morality’ is more difficult to define; an emotive point of departure at best.
As for the ‘M&G’s’ article, the basic premise, as far as I can ascertain, was the deliberate (& by definition callous?) targeting of an identifiable individual well-known to non-hunting guests. You say that isn’t the case. If that’s true, I would imagine the author has some explaining to do. Notwithstanding, & parking the point for a second, you might conclude that the ensuing outcry would render this particular hunt economically ‘defunct’, certainly in the longer term, given the opportunity costs associated with the loss in revenue from potential non-hunting guests; the same groups who might find the Sabi Sands, by way of example, less destructive, to their own sensibilities, that is, if nothing else. The competition for safari beds is almost as fierce as it is for hunting clients… The Sabi, as you know, followed a similar ‘off-take’ model in its infancy but reviewed their long-term policy as trends changed & for what that’s worth, have seemingly made a success of their efforts. That does not resolve the immediate financial gap the UPNR & other participants in the GKNP, might encounter, obviously, if hunting was banned entirely & on this, I’m yet to read an effective / alternative short-term solution. That said, I would guess long-term plans for the APNR exclude hunting as a source of revenue. As you’ve said elsewhere, ‘non-hunting safari visitors’ to this country spend exponentially more than does the very small hunting minority; and yet the impact of one on the other is compelling & disproportionate, economically that is. Travel requests for ‘anywhere excluding properties offering even limited hunting’ is becoming more prevalent in Africa [SA certainly] & yes, Cecil has had that effect, legal or otherwise. ‘Legality’, in the context of hunting, is a concession / variable that hardly ever (never?) features in these pre-travel enquiries. Again, and I stress the point, this is a subjective observation based on my own experience with executives / landowners in the ‘non-consumptive’ [whatever the definition & that’s moot btw.] travel industry.
As an aside & for interest only, per one of your remarks above, some might argue that a six year old lion is neither ‘old’ nor even in its prime; & unless ‘stood over a bait’ or in an enclosure, probably some way away from its last year of life.
In this world where dogma has replaced thoughtful discussion between people of differing views, it’s true what they say – ‘My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.’
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your long email and kind words. Let me make some random comments, namely:
Kind regards,
Peter Flack
Interesting article on 2Oceansvibe today, nice photo of trophy room!
This is Clark’s second attempt to score points and no more successful than his first. It seems the new demon phrase amongst animal rightists and anti-hunters is “trophy hunting” and in this regard, I would like to make the following points:
1. Trophy hunting is no different from, say, meat hunting, which appears to be far more acceptable to them although in both cases the animal is dead, the meat is eaten, other parts of the animal used and sometimes kept as a memento. Nothing goes to waste. The only major difference is that trophy hunters are usually more selective, shoot almost exclusively old, male animals and far fewer in number than meat hunters.
2. I think the distinction they try and make is, firstly, because they are afraid to criticise meat hunting as it is still conducted by indigenous people such as Pygmies, Bushmen and Inuits and, secondly, this practice is seen as acceptable by most objective and/or undecided people, at least for the moment.
3. Trophy hunters are seen as legitimate targets because it plays into their repetitive propaganda that hunters kill purely for thrills and pleasure and to hang trophies on a wall for bragging rights. As if repeating it endlessly will make it true. If this were even vaguely true, why would hunters travel to far off, expensive-to-reach, inconvenient, if not dangerous, places for one or two animals, often returning empty handed, when they could book a cheap springbok hunt in the Karoo, for example and shoot a dozen or so animals in a day or three?
4. What do they think happens to the meat made available by trophy hunting? That it is left in the veld to rot. This is illegal in the USA, for example and I know of no example of this happening in the meat hungry and protein starved Africa.
Oh, and by the way, Clark, the photo of my trophy room you refer to is over 15 years old and all the animals there, as well as those in the other rooms, are now in the Iziko Museum of South Africa in Cape Town where some 60 are currently on display. The staff tell me they are a big attraction for all the school children who visit.
Peter Flack, interesting article in Daily Maverick about you bating lions and your warden confirming it!!!!
I always know when I am irritating the animal rightists and anti-hunters as I start to receive provocative emails like this as well as others threatening to kill me and hoping I will contract cancer and die a lingering and painful death. This one is mild by comparison but typically untruthful and with poor spelling. So, no, it was not me doing the baiting, Clark, but in any event and by way of information:
1 Shooting a lion over bait is perfectly legal in most African countries and probably over 90% of lions are shot this way although sometimes hunters follow their calls and, in West Africa, hunters attract lions by mimicking their calls.
2 Lions can only be tracked if the ground and terrain allows it i.e. soft, sandy, open ground and expert and experienced trackers are available. When they are, this is the preferred method of hunting lions but this is the exception and not the rule in Africa.
3 Baiting lions is a skilful job and not just a case of hanging some meat in a tree. It involves in depth knowledge of lion behaviour and an accurate assessment of local conditions amongst other things.
4 By bringing the lion to a bait it increases the chances of the lion being humanely killed with one shot because the lion is close – usually 30 to 50 metres – and allows the lion to be assessed before the shot to ensure it is an old, male lion over six years old and, therefore, probably in the last year of its life.
Peter Flack, you are biased. You support the hunters and will not engage with any other view. In my view you are a conservationist fascist. Don’t contact me. I just want you to know that we are coming for people like you. We are going to close hunting down in any park that is adjacent to any national park. The lion was baited, it belonged to KNP, not to Umbabat. We know who the hunter, outfitter and taxidermist is. Legal action is coming. Pray it is not for you.
Aah, now that is more like it, Forbes. Coming for me are you? What are you going to do? Shoot me? So a human life is worth less than an animal’s life? Really?
And legal action is also coming. So you want to amend the constitution, deny free speech and stop anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your prejudices. I am quaking in my boots. You are pathetic like so many of your fellow travellers.
But at least I see you are consistent. Your comment is typically emotional and devoid of fact based arguments. For example:
1. I have debated with animal rightists and anti-hunters on TV, radio, in public forums and in print over many years based on empirically established, scientifically determined facts. They have usually not replied in kind but, like you, used emotion and outrage instead, have not listened to anything I have said but, when their turn came, in the few cases they waited and did not try to talk over me, for the most part, they merely repeated their tired prejudices and propaganda, only louder the second time.
2. So, despite the 18 000 hectare Umbabat Private Nature Reserve (which is part of the 180 000 hectare Associated Private Nature Reserves), having counted three separate lion groups on their property in only two nights prior to their being granted a quota to hunt one lion out of the over 1 800 lions in the park and reserve, you know that this lion “belonged” to Kruger Park. How?
3. And why confine yourselves – not sure who your animal rightists are – to closing down hunting adjacent to national parks? Why aim so low? I note that the biggest and wealthiest animal rights group in the world, with net assets of over R2,5 billion and annual revenue of over R1,7 billion, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), whose senior office bearers are mainly vegans, aims to completely end the use of animals by humans. Wayne Pacelle, the previous CEO before he resigned after facing an accusation of alleged sexual harassment, is quoted as saying, “(I)f we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” And HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with offices in 33 states and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media’s coverage of animal rights issues.
4. For more about their attempts to stop domestic livestock farming and their deceitful, deceptive, the-end-justifies-the-means-tactics, as well as the $26 million they “invested” in the Cayman Islands and the racketeering and bribery case in which they were involved and which was settled by the payment of a $15,7 million fine, see http://www.activistfacts.com and search for the Humane Society of the United States.