http://www.upsidedistribution.com/spip.php?article135

The link above shows Kevin romping with his lions.

Do you understand this video?  Or, is your first question: “how come he can pet and play with lions and others can't”?

Let us compare Kevin's interaction with that of a cub petting facility.

Every month, hundreds of fee-paying visitors will touch, play with and have their photograph taken, with a cute lion cub.  Either at a lion farm posing as a sanctuary, or at a tourist resort that rents cubs from lion farmers.

How does this affect that cub?

1.    It suffers extreme stress.

2.    Because of the oils in human hands the cub can lose hair.

3.    Stress brings on vomiting.

4.    The cub gets diarrhea from the constant handling

5.    The cub is beaten into submission so that it does not scratch or bite.

6.    The cub then goes back to the breeder who will in due course sell it to a hunter who will shoot it with arrows or bullets.

7.    The sad end result for the cub will be a very painful death.

None of this applies to Kevin Richardson.

His love for lions has altered his life and he has built a sanctuary for the lions he has rescued.  He now spends his life educating people about the atrocities of canned lion hunting.

So how come he can pet and play with lions?

1.    He rescued these lions, and it is their choice whether they want to interact with him or not.

2.    He bought land on which to build a quality of life for these animals.

3.    He will give these animals life long care.  They can never be released into the wild.

4.    These animals will never be sold.

5.    These animals will never be shot.

6.    These animals will live their lives in comfort and safety.

Kevin does not pretend that caring for his small pride has anything to do with conservation.  He has rescued these lions from the canned hunting industry and he has taken responsibility for their contentment and lifetime care.  In short he is a ‘giver’.

Volunteers who work at lion farms and cub petting tourists take no responsibilty for the fate of the lion cubs.  They take a short, stressful interaction with the cub for their own selfish purposes and then they leave, abandoning the cub to a miserable life and a cruel death.  In short they are NOT ‘givers’ they are ‘takers’.

As a self-taught animal behaviorist, Kevin has broken every safety rule known to humans when working with these wild animals.   Flouting common misconceptions that breaking an animal’s spirit with sticks and chains is the best way to subdue them, he uses love, understanding and trust to develop personal bonds with them.  His unique method of getting to know their individual personalities, what makes each of them angry, happy, upset, or irritated – just like a mother understands a child – has caused them to accept him like one of their own into their fold.

The many lion documentaries that Kevin has featured in have made him famous.  For more information visit his website : http://www.lionwhisperer.co.za/

Does the hunting industry target conservation structures in South Africa - and indeed all hunting range states - with a calculated strategy to invade and occupy conservation space?


Big Business routinely occupies and controls its regulatory structures, after all.

Think of the Big Banks and the revolving door between them and banking regulators.

Think of the Tobacco industry, which occupied and controlled the regulatory body that concerned it, ie the Surgeon General's Office, until Robert Koop was appointed. Read his autobiography - he arrived to find that there was an office rule forbidding anyone from alleging that smoking was harmful to health.


The hunting industry has in my view adopted the same strategy - to invade and occupy conservation structures, thereby displacing real conservationists, who might pose a threat to their gruesome sport.

How do we know?  Let’s examine the evidence:


First, the doctrine of Sustainable Use, adopted by South Africa via the Convention on Biodiversity. Who is responsible for an internationally accepted Policy that treats elephants as if they were bacteria - a mere resource to be ‘harvested sustainably?’  The IUCN, of course.  Using their obscene wealth and disproportionate political power, the hunting fraternity successfully introduced and/or promoted the adoption by the IUCN of the doctrine of Sustainable Use, thereby displacing real conservation - the preservation of natural functioning ecosystems - with a policy which is just a licence to kill animals.


Just see how effective this strategy is; take one example. Currently, the EU Commission is considering whether to require hunters to apply for an import permit to bring their trophies in to the EU.  Not a ban, just a permit.  And the might of the IUCN - the World Conservation Union - has rallied to protect the hunters.  Read Rosie Cooney’s input on behalf of the IUCN:

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/sustainable_use_and_livelihoods_specialist_group/sulinews/issue_6/sn6_trophyhunting/

When her abstract language is stripped down to bare essentials, all her complaints at the proposed permit requirement come down to this:- it would inconvenience the hunting industry.


Second, the TOPS regulations. Unbelievably, hunting organisations are granted self-government. They can themselves: –

    ‘define criteria for the hunting of listed threatened or protected species in accordance with the fair chase principle;’



What does this legal verbiage mean?


It means that the hunting industry is allowed to regulate itself, to decide for itself what is ethical. And its decision has the force of law. The very industry which has so ill-treated wild animals has been given the power to decide how the animals should be treated. Like giving paedophiles the right to decide what they can do to children.


Thus, the Norms and Standards for Hunting Methods, published in 2011, allow hunters to shoot Cape buffalo with a bow and arrow, so long as:

i. the kinetic energy of the bow should be at least 80 ft/lbs; and

ii. the arrow weight should not be less than 750 grains.


Third, why are so many conservation officials themselves professional hunters?  How can a PH who has a financial interest in the very industry he is supposed to control, possibly avoid a conflict of interest?


And how do we know that hunters are given carte blanche to kill? Let’s look at the annual provincial Hunting Proclamations - which are supposed to limit the numbers of birds and animals hunted.


Hunting Proclamations.

The annual hunting proclamations are a death list prepared by SA provincial officials and published every year, ostensibly to regulate sport hunting.   There is no science- backed knowledge of the numbers of species who cling precariously to survival, so by law, officials ought to write ‘data deficient’ opposite every listed wildlife species, and then use the cautionary rule to impose a moratorium on all hunting in the province, until the numbers of wildlife populations have been accurately determined.

Instead, conservation officials pander to the hunting fraternity, irresponsibly setting grotesquely excessive daily bag limits.


A daily bag limit of 40 pigeons over a Cape hunting season allows each individual hunter an annual bag of 14,600 pigeons. 40 pigeons a day!  And that is just one example. Most species are not even protected during the breeding season. Animals such as Caracals, Vervets and Baboons, who should by law be protected, may be hunted without limit all year round.


The departments’ excuse for proposing excessive daily bag limits for all species, is that they should “not legislate for the ruthless animal exploiters and swindlers, but rather for the responsible majority of landowners” who will naturally exercise restraint and therefore do not need to be controlled.  Carte Blanche for animal abusers is therefore the philosophy that underlies the Hunting Notice.


This philosophy is patently absurd. Think about it for a minute. It is like arguing that we should legalise bank robberies, because the responsible majority will not rob banks anyway. If we advanced such an insane reason for legalising bank robberies, intelligent people would conclude either that we were mentally defective, or, if not, then we must surely be bank robbers trying to advance our commercial interests. We do not think that Conservation officials are mentally defective. We draw the alternative conclusion: that  Nature Conservation in SA is owned or controlled by, the hunting industry.


Finally, there are statements made to me personally over the years by some conservationists who are acutely unhappy about the extent of control over all conservation issues by the vocal, wealthy hunting minority.


So there it is: enough evidence for me to form the opinion that Big Hunting has invaded and occupied our conservation structures.


SA desperately needs a major shake-up of staff and policies in Conservation departments,  bringing in competent people  who are dedicated to protecting our wildlife heritage, and breaking the stranglehold of the hunting fraternity.


Why is the taxpayer funding Conservation services which serve no useful conservation purpose but, rather, choose instead to facilitate hunting?  Most taxpayers are trusting - they expect their taxes to go into wildlife protection, not in to a protection racket for the hunting industry.

Why is the hunting industry so successful?  Because it pours big money in to the hunting infrastructure.


Why is the real conservation community so helpless? Because it lacks money - the billions of dollars needed to buy the land and infrastructure needed to preserve natural functioning ecosystems.


Look at the money that hunters throw around. Foreign and local hunters directly and indirectly generated R6,2bn in revenue in 2010, environmental affairs minister Edna Molewa noted in her 2013/2014 budget vote speech.


Setting record prices has become the norm for SA's wildlife industry in its quest for the ultimate trophy animal i.e. the one with the biggest horns. These high prices account for a large part of the sales at wildlife auctions in SA rising from R60m in 2006 to R864m in 2012, a trend game-breeding players predict will continue.


At the forefront of soaring prices are what Wildlife Ranching SA (WRSA) terms "rare species". These include buffalo, sable antelope, roan antelope and Livingstone eland, which accounted for a combined R689m (80%) of sales in 2012. Average price rises since 2006 ranged from 270% for roan to 670% for buffalo.


Prices for cross-bred mutant antelope are impressive. Topping the list is a king wildebeest sold for R5,1m, the fourth-highest price achieved at a game auction. In sixth position is a gold wildebeest, sold for more than R1,8m. It does nothing for game conservation.


How to counter Big Money?

Answer: Get some Big Money of your own.


I engage with all sorts of people on social media.  Here is a typical rant from a post by a hunter:


The hunting industry puts it to you , if phototourism is the best land use and most viable use of the Botswana natural resource, then why are you afraid to open the tender process to multiple use, why not level the playing fields if you are not scared and are so sure photo tourism will out perform hunting ??.


In the Kalahari you successfully closed lion hunting and subsequently all hunting and the concessions there lost an annual income of over P500 000-00 per annum plus 75 jobs per concession, the land is about to be rezoned and all the wildlife will be in serious danger, there has been three photo tourism sites put out on tender and not a single photo tourism company has stepped forward. What about you just keep your previous word and replace what was lost when you closed hunting in those areas before the grandeur of Northern Botswana.


This may be an ungrammatical rant, but it does make an important point: if you stop hunting in Wilderness areas, who is going to fund the preservation of that wilderness?  From other posts on LinkedIn etc we know that there are vast tracts of land, in Northern Mozambique, Botswana, Namibia etc, available for non-hunting concession.  Yet these concessions are never taken up because they are not suitable for ecotourism; too remote, too undeveloped; too flat and too many pests such as Tsetse fly.  See this thoughtful article in Africa Geographic to see what we real conservationists are up against.

http://blog.africageographic.com/africa-geographic-blog/hunting/trophy-hunting-in-the-context-of-community-conservation/#!


But with a few hundred million dollars, we could take up these concessions, not for 5-star tourism, but to protect them for their own sakes.  On-going upkeep would need teams of rangers for anti-poaching and that would provide an income for locals.  Adventure tourism could flourish, and scientific research could contribute.


But where are the philanthropists? (other than heroes like Phil Wollen)

Without serious money flowing in to support such non-hunting initiatives, the wildlife will continue to be hunted and poached to regional extinction.


It is a Schindlers List situation: we buy their lives or they perish.


Come on, philanthropists.

Avaaz today welcomed the news that South Africa’s High Court has ruled that Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) and Primedia Limited (Primedia) acted unconstitutionally when they censored Avaaz’s advertising campaign at OR Tambo International Airport which called on President Zuma to stop the trade in lion bones.


Emma Ruby-Sachs, Campaign Director at Avaaz said:

“The judge today has ripped off the gag on 700,000 people, and protected the right to free speech across South Africa. This decision is a victory for citizens everywhere who now can begin, again, calling on President Zuma to end the brutal lion bone trade, before lions are wiped out for good.”


The adverts were removed as ACSA was concerned that the inclusion of the President in the ads could cause a “public relations nightmare” and ordered them to be blanked over “a.s.a.p.” after just nine days.


The adverts were displayed across the International Arrivals Hall and depict a lioness looking down the barrel of a gun, with a picture of President Zuma in the background with the caption saying; “Our lions are being slaughtered to make bogus sex potions for Asia. Will President Zuma save them? Urge him to stop the deadly lion bone trade now.”


At Avaaz’s request, Primedia - who manage advertisements in the airports for ACSA - had pre-approved the advertisements which were due to run for one month. But following a request from a journalist to photograph the ads, ACSA denied the journalist access and ordered the ads to be taken down immediately with no reason provided to Avaaz or time for Avaaz to respond. One Primedia staff member told Avaaz the company had come under immense pressure to blank out the advertising.


Represented by the law firm Rosin Wright Rosengarten, Avaaz filed a legal challenge arguing that ACSA and Primedia violated the South African Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of expression when it censored the Avaaz ads, as well as the Constitution’s guarantee of fair process.


More than 700,000 people around the world have signed Avaaz’s petition to President Zuma to stop the trade in lion bones at www.avaaz.org/lions and more than 300,000 saw the Google Ads which targeted potential tourists to South Africa in at least six key markets.


South Africa is the largest exporter of lion bones and the latest government figures show a 250% increase in these exports between 2009 and 2010. Yet in May, the Government decided against taking action on this issue. In part as a result of this trade, reports estimate that the lion population in Africa has dropped from roughly 200,000 in the late 1970s to approximately 20,000 today with only 2,200 of those remaining in South Africa.


Avaaz has 240,000 members in South Africa and over 27 million members from all over the world.