HEROES AND VILLAINS

THE HUNTERS DESTROYING AFRICAN WILDLIFE – AND THE WOMEN OUT TO STOP THEM.


The grim photo opposite of canned lions in transport, which was taken on the N1 highway near Bloemfontein, betrays the ugly reality behind the doctrine of sustainable use, and we ask the question: who is doing anything to stop this routine abuse of captive wildlife?

The Villains

We know who the villains are: trophy hunters who have been accurately described as ‘monsters of death and destruction’. Corporate power in USA is awesome. The US hunting fraternity commands disproportionate political power through social connections and economic interests such as the N.R.A.(National Rifle Association.)
How does this affect African Wildlife?
Hunters use their power to conceive, promote and then impose hunter friendly policies on international conservation bodies such as IUCN and CITES. Those policies are then rammed into Africa by pro-hunting NGOs like WWF, and finally adopted by African conservation authorities as ‘official.’

Take the Policy of Sustainable Use, a hunter-friendly policy which is a substitute for real conservation, and slyly excludes considerations of animal welfare and cruelty from the conservation agenda. Licenced by the official policy of ‘wise use’ trophy hunters are free to asset-strip African wildlife.
Paralysed by the doctrine of sustainable use, and indoctrinated by a constant stream of hunting propaganda from full time in-house public relations companies, vulnerable third world conservation structures are overwhelmed.

The consequences are catastrophic. Take the effect on elephants. The second largest elephant herd in the world in the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania has been reduced by two-thirds in the space of 4 short years. This has happened on land ‘protected’ by hunting concessions, and the predictable reaction of US hunters to this plunge towards regional extinction has been to continue killing elephants, thus contributing to the mayhem.

The plight of the African lion is even worse than that of elephant and Rhino. Canned lion hunting in South Africa is one cause of a catastrophic decline of wild lion populations. All explained in our 2014 Presentation video:
http://youtu.be/q1a9Czm 

The African lion is heading for extinction.

The Heroes.

So what stands between African wild animals and extinction? Most people labour under the misapprehension that it is the big established NGOs like WWF. 

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth: WWF and other big conservation NGOs are owned and controlled by the hunting industry. No, the surprising answer is: only the animal welfare movement, comprising mainly women. These are the real heroes (heroines?)

It is the international group of volunteer women activists who are the real strength of the animal welfare movement. Take the Global March for Lions. 

On March 15th 2014, an unprecedented 62 marches took place in 62 cities around the world. This was a grass roots initiative inspired by, and organised almost entirely by, women. CACH directors Chris Mercer and Beverley Pervan provided education on the complex issues around hunting, but virtually all the organising and hard work was done by the women. 

Many of the main organisers are highly astute career women. (Now guys, you are doing a great job, but we are sadly outnumbered.)

On another note, a popular woman's fashion magazine in SA, Fairlady, featured the canned hunting issue for the very first time in an article in the April issue.  The article 'The great Hunting Debate' was a two page editorial featuring Bev Pervan of CACH and a hunter, Peter Flack.  Mr. Flack managed to sum it up very nicely for us.  He writes "There is no 'enjoyment' in killing.  Only a psychopath would say such a thing."  So in short we have a whole bunch of psychopaths running around with guns killing innocent wildlife.  Our feelings entirely.  

So here is a salute to the unsung heroes of the animal welfare community – the wonderful, courageous, dedicated women who sacrifice so much in order to protect animals. 

Outdoor Expo and the Lion Park controversy.

Shirley Shearer, Director of Outdoor Expo, kindly donated an exhibit stand to CACH for the Show. Meanwhile, someone found out that the Lion Park was also an exhibitor - and would be bringing 5 lion cubs to display at the show. 

This information was posted - not by us - to social media, and Shirley began to receive emails of complaint. These included one from the NSPCA that read:

We are completely opposed to this type of exploitation of wild animals for human entertainment. Unfortunately however it is legal and allowed by our national and provincial government.
We will be contacting the event organisers to ask them to refuse to use live animals as entertainment props.

The Lion Park weighed in to the debate with a lengthy email from Shandor, claiming that Lion Park is anti-hunting, that it is a member of PAAZAB the zoo association which it says is ethical and has strict criteria, and that the petted cubs were all orphans.  To which we responded as follows:

Hi Shandor

I refer to your email below which was forwarded to me. May I draw your attention to the the following:

1.             You say Lion Park is anti-hunting.

This is a puzzling statement from a lion breeder. Lion breeding is a commercial operation aimed at making money. That is why you breed.

Now why would you keep ‘surplus’ or ageing lions for years to live in lion retirement utopia when lions are so expensive to keep?

We believe that the Lion Park has sold lions in the past. Because of the numbers of cubs that you are breeding for cub petting purposes, we are curious as to where they end up. You say that you are not involved in the canned hunting business. So where are all these lions? They do not live at the Lion Park. We enquire if you would be prepared to open your records to us to prove that none of the lions you have sold have been hunted. 

2.    You say Lion Park is a member of PAAZAB and that PAAZAB is ethical, anti-hunting and has strict criteria. 

South African Zoos, which are all members of PAAZAB, have a long and inglorious history of dealings with the canned lion hunting industry.

The sale of ‘surplus’ or ‘aged’ lions by zoos to the lion breeders for either hunting or for breeding for hunting has been routine for many years.

About a decade ago, I personally drove from the Kalahari to Bloemfontein to try to stop Bloemfontein Zoo from selling ‘surplus’ lions to lion breeders. By public auction, for Heaven’s sake! Where are these strict criteria? I hired lawyers to make an application to the High Court to stop the auction. My case was thrown out by the High Court, and the auction of lions went ahead. Guess who bought them? Right – the lion breeders who supply the canned hunting industry.

Johannesburg Zoo, another PAAZAB member, was leasing and selling lions to captive lion breeders. For example, the Zoo traded lions with notorious canned lion breeder Marius Prinsloo for years. This cosy relationship between a leading PAAZAB member and a leading canned lion breeder ended in acrimony and litigation when Prinsloo refused to return the lion Zeus at the end of the lease.

PAAZAB might well intend to be ethical. But let us not confuse the intention with the reality. 

3.    Your lion cubs for petting are all orphaned etc. 

Since speed-bred lion cubs are routinely removed from their mother shortly after birth, it is misleading to say that they are all ‘orphaned’. All of those captive bred lion cubs are routinely ‘orphaned’ – but not by their mothers.
Breeding large numbers of cubs as you do will inevitably lead to large numbers of surplus adult lions in time. The Lion Park has been breeding vigorously for many years. Where are all these hundreds of lions? They are not at the Lion Park? So where are they? You must have sold them. You say you do not sell your lions to be hunted. Prove it.

So let us settle this issue once and for all.

Are you prepared to show us your records going back when the Lion Park started, showing what lions were sold to whom and when.

If as you say, you have nothing to hide, you should have no objections to giving us this information.

Yours

Chris.

Chris Mercer and Bev Pervan
Campaign Against Canned Hunting, Sec 21 NGO
www.cannedlion.org

 Finally, Shirley asked us for advice on how to defuse the situation, and we responded thus:

Hi Shirl 
Thanks for forwarding these complaints about Lion Park’s cubs at your Outdoor Expo.
Bev and I have talked about what we can do to be constructive in this situation. We understand that you want to avoid any unpleasantness at your show. 

The success of the Global March for Lions has raised awareness of the fate of lion cubs in SA like never before. Live animal displays are coming under pressure internationally, including animals performing in circuses.

The presence of lion cubs at your Outdoor Expo might not have been an issue before. But times have changed. Now that these emails have started to come in to you, you can assume that, social media being what it is, the ‘cat is out of the bag’ (sorry) and there may well be some kind of protest if those cubs are on display. There were 3000 people at the Jo'burg March for lions in March, and we expect about 10,000 in the forthcoming October march.

Think about those lion cubs for a moment. We know that you do not believe, any more than we do, that a busy Expo is an appropriate environment for lion cubs. You may even find that you get blamed, or receive bad publicity, for permitting Lion Park to exploit lion cubs like this.

Our suggestion to you would be to take control of the situation now, and ask the Lion Park not to exhibit lion cubs at your Show. 

Kind regards

Chris and Bev.



A couple of days later, Shirley replied to advise that Lion Park would still attend the Show, but would not be bringing any cubs.

IS CACH A THREAT TO CONSERVATION? – You decide!

Three large NGO’s dominate the SA conservation landscape.  WWF, EWT, and WESSA (Wildlife and Environmental Society of SA.)  All three are pro-hunting, and support the hunting industry. All three do some useful conservation work – but never in any area that will impact adversely on hunting.

My blogpost giving the links to our CACH educational videos was referred by WESSA to their ‘technical expert,’ who wrote a withering criticism, as follows (in italics)

 (I post my answers below in black.) 

a)     “The 2007 video is heavily biased, unfactual, slanderous and emotionally charged. I caution the use of this 2007 video for any kind of educational purposes. (In fact this is exactly the kind of thing that damages the cause of conservation and the reputations of conservation organisations and conservationists!)”

You can watch the 2007 video – only 11 minutes - here and make up your own mind:

http://youtu.be/rtuXPVsh_zQ

b)     “Most importantly this video equates all hunting to canned hunting and there is a massive difference between the two.  I am of course 100% against canned hunting!”

1.       Check out this 5-min video of typical wild animal hunts and see if you agree that there is a ‘massive difference’ between this and canned hunting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcuDILOo6x4

2.       I wonder if this technical expert realizes what she is saying when she is “100% against hunting tame lions” - but approves of hunting wild lions.  Canned hunting is both cruel and abusive but it does not directly affect pride dynamics.  We all know by now how damaging trophy hunting is to wild lion prides; how the loss of the pride male leads to chaos, infanticide and supremacy battles.  Research by Panthera and others shows that it can take as long as 7 years for the lion pride to recover, and that as many as 20 lions and cubs can die in the upheaval.  And this is defended as good conservation by this WESSA ‘technical expert?’ 

c)     "WWF would not openly be supporting the sustainable use of wildlife for the hunting industry as a method for conservation if it did not work."  

Hmnn…let’s analyse this extraordinary sweeping statement.  I think the ‘technical expert’ is saying that:

1.                Hunting is good conservation, the implication being that hunters will protect their hunting concessions from poachers.

2.                If hunting was not good conservation, it would not be supported by WWF.

Taking the first point, let’s look at the catastrophic decline in elephant numbers in Selous Game Reserve, where most of the reserve is under hunting concession.  More than two thirds of the second largest elephant population on the planet have been poached in the last four years. And what have the brave hunters done to protect their concessions? Why, instead of turning their guns on the poachers, the brave hunters continue to shoot at the shattered remnants of the declining herds. But don’t believe the inconvenient numbers – just trust the WWF that hunting is good.

Look at the crooked reasoning employed in her second point: that if WWF approves of hunting it can't be bad.  How unscientific!  So now conservation is a matter of faith. Just ignore all the facts, the horrendous cruelty, the rapid plunge towards extinction of African wildlife, and just kneel with her at the altar of the WWF, to worship.  Does she not know that WWF is primarily a hunting organisation?  That it was established by wealthy hunters in order to preserve hunting privileges on a continent which was undergoing de-colonisation? That it will say anything to prevent citizens from exercising their constitutional right to participate in wildlife conservation? 
(See WWF - Scaremongers in Conservation in the blog post below.)

See more generally:
http://www.wickedwildlifefund.com/abuse.html

Who is the greater threat to real conservation, CACH or WWF and its acolytes like this ‘technical expert’? 

d)    “I did not see the updated version of the canned hunting video …however, it would have to have undergone a massive mind shift in its presentation to have become factual, truly thought provoking and educationally valuable.” 

Check out the updated 2014 version – only 7 minutes - and decide for yourself if our short video is damaging to conservation or whether you think it is ‘factual, thought-provoking and educationally valuable.’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2evbxUVX84I&feature=youtu.be

Conclusion.

No wonder SA conservation is such an ugly mess, when anyone who questions the value or acceptability of hunting is treated with arrogant condescension by self-important ‘technical experts.’

No wonder SA conservation services have become a protection racket for the hunting industry.  No wonder conservation policies and models are all wrong.

 The root of this problem lies with corporate South Africa.  Corporate donations lead the way in conservation. Most corporate sponsorship and funding in SA goes to the big three pro-hunting NGO’s, WWF, EWT and WESSA.

Until corporate South Africa stops funding the wrong NGO’s, we shall continue to lose our wildlife to wrong conservation policies.

Chris Mercer.

May 2014.

WWF-SA – SCAREMONGERS IN CONSERVATION

By Chris Mercer – Tuesday, April 06, 2004

On 20-Nov-03, the WWF (World Wide fund for Nature) in South Africa published the following article.
 
Unfortunately, it is written in Ecobabble, a language designed by the High Priests of Conservation to confuse the uninitiated, and so we have provided a translation below.





"WWF-SA Position on Animal Rights" Dr. Rob Little of WWF-SA

ANIMAL RIGHTS AS A THREAT TO CONSERVATION
1. As the population of the wealthy "developed" nations move ever further from their daily interactions with Nature, they move into a realm where simplistic "animal rights" approaches/solutions to mankind's interaction with wildlife become ever more appealing to "the man in the street".
2. WWF-SA believes that the conservation community completely underestimates how devastating this trend could be, if allowed to proceed unchecked.
3. This attitude can lead to mismanaged or unmanaged systems; for example (A) the lack of control of introduced invasive alien species which can threaten the future viability and biodiversity of the invaded ecosystems, (B) the lack of control of overabundant large native herbivores in protected areas where their uncontrolled population growth similarly reduces the viability and biodiversity of the protected ecosystems, and (C) the issue of opposition to the sustainable consumptive use of native wildlife populations – where allowing this use might be of fundamental importance in ensuring that native species and untransformed ecosystems survive in areas where human needs will otherwise drive these areas into alternative land usage under which ecosystems are transformed (e.g. cultivated) and/or native wildlife is replaced with domesticated livestock.
4. By failing to recognize, and then face head-on, the enormous strategic challenge posed by the growth of the animal rights movement, the conservation community could seriously impair its ability to influence for the better the fate of the natural world in the decades to come.
5. WWF-SA is continually on guard to ensure that our own conservation policies continue to be driven by genuine conservation imperatives and not by animal rights agendas.

TRANSLATION IN TO PLAIN ENGLISH.
1. As human populations become urbanized, people become more sophisticated and therefore more concerned with the ethical treatment of animals.
 
2. WWF-SA believes that this process is subversive, and if unchecked, might even result in hunters having to sell their guns.
 
3. An ethical attitude to the treatment of sentient beings will result in chaos:
A. Invasive aliens will run wild, destroying nature. The Tahrs will graze crop circles in the fynbos, and then declare Table Mountain a Tahr Republic. The WWF alien Panda logo will have to go to an animal experimentation laboratory to be sustainably utilized. It will be replaced by a Cape Molerat with Certificates from the Alien Classification Board that its ancestors are all pure South African going back as far as carbon dating allows.
B. Elephants and Buffalo will form up into ranks and trample game parks into deserts.
C. Hunting will become unpopular, so natives will plough up the land. Wildlife will be killed by poor blacks (poaching, bad) instead of by rich whites (conservation, good).

4. Unless the High Priests of Conservation form a tight scrum to exclude the urbanized, ethically – literate invaders, we will lose the power to decide what animals to kill and when.

5. The Tuli elephant traffickers may rest assured that we will be ready to issue another Press Release rubbishing the animal rightists who, for their own wicked agendas, spread malicious rumours that the Tuli elephant babies were being beaten and tortured. WWF-SA, upon whom the Almighty has bestowed a monopoly of all knowledge relating to environmental governance, will never allow ordinary, concerned citizens to participate in wildlife management, regardless of the laws and the Constitution.

Letter to US Fish and Wildlife
By
Chris Mercer, Campaign Against Canned Hunting.

I refer to the hysterical letter of protest by hunting fanatic Ron Thomson to US Fish and Wildlife, complaining angrily about the decision to temporarily suspend imports of elephant trophies taken in Zimbabwe and Tanzania for the rest of 2014.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ron-Thomson-Publications/154457934661580

First we’d like to apologise to USFW for the tone of this 20-page rant. Not all South Africans are so abusive and discourteous.

In this letter, he attacks your culture, motives and competence because of the suspension, likening the desire of USFW to protect elephants in Africa as the same as “trying to enforce Christianity on to an Islamic state”.
Africans, he claims, have no culture of protecting wildlife, only in its commercial exploitation.

He challenges the reason given by USFW that “there has been a significant decline in the elephant population” on the basis that it conflicts with his “belief” (unsupported by any research) that there are far too many elephants in Africa.

Finally he laments the failure of African governments to continue regular elephant culls after the trade ban on ivory in 1989, claiming that “the sale of ivory paid for the culling exercise.”
In other words, he argues that the only way elephant populations can be properly managed is if African governments are allowed to sell the ivory of the slain elephants in order to pay for the cost of killing them.

So what is he asking USFW to do?
He wants you to get out of the way and let the hunters kill as many elephant as they want. His main reason is his belief that there are “tens of thousands of elephants who should be killed.”
But this reason, even if true, does not logically support his plea. Sport hunters play no useful role in reducing elephant populations, because “hunters selectively shoot only elephant bulls.” Hunting certainly harms social cohesion and herd dynamics, but it leaves the breeding cows alone.

What he is really calling for is a massive culling exercise. Culling is the exact opposite of sport hunting. The goals of the two are mutually exclusive. Culling is a para-military operation where whole herds are rounded up and liquidated. The aim is to drastically reduce overall populations.
Expressing his argument as a syllogism, he is contending:
1. There are too many elephants in Africa, and they should be killed.
2. Hunters kill elephants.
3. Therefore, hunting is good.

But why is someone, who wants to see tens of thousands of elephants killed, promoting the sport hunting of elephants? It makes no sense at all.

Thomson is really arguing that massive indiscriminate slaughter, either by government killing or by elephant poachers, benefits the ecology far better than hunters.
Does he realize that the implication of his arguments? Is he actually calling for more elephant poaching?

Let’s deal with some of his other extraordinary claims:-
1. A poaching frenzy.
He claims that because of the one year suspension of import of elephant trophies, poachers will invade all the hunting concessions in Tanzania, causing mayhem. This claim wrongly assumes:
1. that this temporary suspension amounts to a total ban on all hunting.
2. that all hunters will immediately abandon their concessions.
3. that hunters are the only force for protecting wilderness.

2. Starvation!
He claims melodramatically that the African staff employed by the hunters will not only be put out of work by this temporary suspension, but that they will “starve.” Thomson’s tender concern for the digestion of the natives again ignores the fact that the temporary suspension only affects elephant trophies. The hunting fraternity will continue to kill all other species freely.

3. Philanthropy:
He alleges that “hunting is the best way to take wealth from the rich people of the first world and give it to the poor people of Africa”.
What a sweeping statement! The money from hunting goes mainly to the hunting operators. The “poor people of Africa” get only the crumbs from the hunting industry’s table.

I’m sure that USFW is perfectly able to see through this monument to crooked thinking and muddled reasoning.

I leave you with this piece of self-congratulation in his letter:
He boasts: “I hunted and killed several thousand elephant over a five year period in the Zambezi Valley.
In 1971 – 2, I was lead hunter in reducing the elephant population in Gona-re-Zhou game reserve by 2,500 animals...
I have had a very distinguished career. ”