I don’t think I have ever been this saddened and disheartened about hunting and conservation in South Africa. Last week someone WhatsApped me from Israel and asked, “Did you see the new legislation in SA turning 33 wildlife species into farm animals? What does that mean? It sounds crazy!” My reply was short and to the point, “It sounds crazy because it is crazy. Almost the final nail in the conservation coffin in RSA.”
That this legislation has been driven by roughly the same wonderful people who brought you wildlife manipulated to produce domesticated animals with exaggerated horn lengths or with artificial colours (as well as canned killings), which have decimated the hunting community in South Africa, should come as no surprise because they do not care a fig about wildlife and wildlife habitat, merely the filling of their bank accounts.
It seems incredible to me that, despite all the previous clear predictions of what the effects of the above machinations would produce, followed by the reality of those predictions coming to pass i.e. overseas hunting numbers falling from over 16 000 to barely above 8 000 and the loss of billions of Rands to the economy, they have worked behind the South scenes to influence politicians, obviously including the president, himself an intensive game breeder as well as a breeder of Ankole cattle, which have also been included in the new legislation, to create the wherewithal to hammer the final nail into hunting in Africa with its concomitant damage to conservation in the country.
Hullo out there! Is anyone listening? Has the penny still not dropped? No hunter wants to hunt domesticated animals! No hunter wants to hunt domesticated animals in small paddocks! No hunter wants to hunt domesticated animals let alone those whose breeding has been tampered with! Have they learnt nothing from the disastrous effects of past manipulated breeding, domestication of wildlife and canned killing?
Overseas hunters (who have been the engine pulling the conservation train in South Africa), have stayed away in their droves refusing to be tainted by these machinations and/or having their hunting reputations damaged or destroyed by inadvertently being conned into “hunting” one of these freaks and, I would hazard an educated guess having spoken to many of them, as an indication of their intense dislike for these horrible practices. Now the government has given free rein to all and sundry to apply domestic livestock breeding and inter-breeding practices on 33 species of wildlife. Really? Yes, really! What is next? The cloning of once wild animals?
The capacity of government to almost instinctively choose the wrong path forward has again been ably demonstrated by this latest legislative move. That they have done so without consultation with those most directly affected; that it conflicts with the intent of other legislation already on the statute books; that it is being heavily criticised around the world in conservation and hunting circles; that agricultural legislation is clearly being manipulated and used for purposes for which it was not intended; all tends to fly in the face of logic, especially where the only beneficiaries are a small handful of wealthy individuals. And when logic has excluded all other reasons, what is left must be the truth. Given the above, is it wrong to think that this is yet another case of state capture?
I mean, has an independent cost benefit analysis of the legislation been done? Has there been an independent audit of the Department of Agriculture to establish whether they have the capacity to implement it? And if so, which I very much doubt, who did the studies, when and what did the reports show?
It is not often that I have found myself in agreement with any aspect of the usual drivel by the animal extremist, Pinnok, but his piece in Daily Maverick dated 16 October 2019, was spot on. Where I differ from him, however, is in the inevitable consequences of the legislation in the long run.
If we can agree that hunting has been the major force behind, firstly, the recovery of game numbers in this country over the last sixty years or so – from some 557 000 head of game to nearly 19 million – and the huge growth in land under game – from a negligible amount to some 21 million hectares – then, surely, we must accept that the contraction of hunting, for whatever reason, is going to have the reverse effect. And already the effects of this can be seen on the ground. Scores of game ranches for sale at rock bottom prices. Game ranches reverting to domestic livestock farming. Professional hunters, taxidermists and others who depend on hunting, directly and indirectly, for their livelihoods, battling to stay afloat.
I am glad that I have reached the age I am and will not live to see the full effects of this disastrous and damaging piece of legislation on the once proud, hunting led, quiet South African conservation revolution, which gave rise to the South African Conservation Success Story.
Hello Peter. And Thank you for your articles and Newsletters. Your informations and voice is very important. I am a hunter myself and is was very hard to find free range hunting in South Africa. When you speak of etics and hunting you do not discuss the question of fencing contra free range? Or is it impossible to imagine larger areas without fencing of wildlife in a developed country like South Africa? I am living in Denmark where the conditions are very different. Best regards Poul Bæk Pedersen
Afternoon, Poul. Thank you for your email and questions. Some people do not like hunting behind a fence fullstop and others do not mind so long as the hunt is fair chase i.e. if the animal in question can live a natural life on the property – feed itself, procreate naturally and have room to escape from the clutches of its predators. And there are many large game ranches in South Africa which offer the fairest of fair chase hunting. The Agtersneeuberg Game Reserve, which I helped to create and which covers over 55 000 acres, is one of many such examples.
But yes, in a fairly developed country like South Africa, the game is going to run into a fence, power line, road, town or other infrastructure somewhere. But does this mean the hunt is not or cannot be fair chase? I think the answer to that must be a categorical no.
Then you have to take into account, for example, the kind of animal you are hunting. Many have ranges of only a few acres and here I think of game like bushbuck and other small game like duikers, steinbuck and suni. Other game might wander further but are effectively held prisoner by the kind of food they eat. So, in short, the answer to me does not depend on whether there is a fence or not but whether the hunt is a fair chase one.
Just because there is no fence is no assurance that an animal shot there has been hunted by fair chase means and think about those horrible accounts which we have all read about – animals killed from helicopters, shot at night with a light, chased by a vehicle until exhausted. Whatever you might call that – killing, execution, shooting – it is not hunting regardless of how big the area was.
I hope this helps. Kind regards, Peter Flack
How can we stop this?
How did this even happen ..
Not to worry – the review application has already been served.
Peter is spot on yet again a greed by those very wealthy is wrecking conservation and hunting . The government legislators have exhibited yet again their total lack of understanding on what drives conservation or is it the rewards that the wealthy have criminally offered them
Thank you for your comment, Paul.