​
              How lions are helpless against money and influence
By
Chris Mercer
Campaign Against Canned hunting (CACH)

On 10th of March 2018 animal lovers in Cape Town got together for a March to protest the ill-treatment of animals, including wildlife, in South Africa. An estimated 400 to 500 people participated.
http://www.cannedlion.org/south-africa.html

At the outset I should like to stress how important it is for activists to raise public awareness of animal cruelty issues. Posting on social media and protest marches are useful tools for this purpose. They are also useful for building up networks of supportive groups. The Global March for Lions in 2014, which involved co-ordinated protest marches in 62 cities around the world, was particularly effective in that respect.

Whilst we are strong on social media, we activists fall down when it comes to working at a political and policy level with lawmakers.
To illustrate this with two examples, let us examine what the hunting industry was doing around the time that placard-carrying animal lovers were parading around the streets of Cape Town.

                                               Policy capture in Europe
In Europe, the European Federation of associations for hunting and conservation (FACE) were holding a conference at the European Parliament in Brussels. No expense was spared. High-level officials from African rangeland states were flown into Brussels to attend the meeting, where hunting fanatics mingled with European lawmakers.

It is worth reading this brief summary on the FACE website to see just how successful hunting public relations can be when employed at a political and policy level:
http://www.face.eu/about-us/resources/news/africa-leading-at-the-european-parliament

The theme of the conference was that European lawmakers should ignore the calls for bans on the import of trophies from iconic animals such as lions and elephants and let African nations decide for themselves how wonderful hunting was for money and jobs.

Naturally there were no voices representing dissenting views which could muddy the waters of hunting PR by pointing out all the flaws.

                                             What about the USA?
While hunting privileges for Europeans were being sewn up nice and tight in Brussels, over the pond in the United States the hunting industry was celebrating the lifting of the ban on the import of lion and elephant trophies by Secretary Zinke, the Trump appointee to head the Department of the Interior. Zinke, a hunting fanatic himself, has appointed an advisory Council that would effectively influence if not control conservation policy at US Fish and Wildlife (USFW).

To see how ‘insanely biased’ in favour of hunting this council is, read the excellent Associated Press report on this subject:
https://apnews.com/07c11b7884174e68b75d6fdd52e9da91

And there is a useful summary by Elly Pepper on the new Council:
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/elly-pepper/everything-you-need-know-about-trumps-new-trophy-hunting

As Elly sums up:
Yup, that means the administration now has a council dedicated exclusively to promoting the killing of more imperilled species, like elephants and lions, for sport. The council’s mandate includes counselling Trump on the economic, conservation, and anti-poaching benefits of trophy hunting, of which there are very few. Sadly, Trump doesn’t want advice on the many drawbacks of trophy hunting.

When you see how effectively the hunting industry invades and occupies conservation space by working at a political and policy level, you will not be surprised to see why we are losing the fight to save our wildlife from brutal exploitation and from ending up as living targets being bred for hunting on game farms.

We at CACH (Campaign Against Canned Hunting) are often approached by passionate animal lovers who want to assist us in our efforts to obtain a ban on canned lion hunting in South Africa.

Whilst we welcome such passion, we find that there is a dire need for keen activists to qualify themselves in our issue. Each activist needs to be trained and to get some personal experience of the issue. Even manning a stand at some event  ought to be done by a trained volunteer because, as sure as eggs, some hunting protagonist will want to debate the issue and the volunteers must be able to hold their own in debate.

They must know the pro-hunting arguments and the counter-arguments. They should if necessary be able to debate the issue convincingly on radio or TV with well-prepared hunting experts. Does hunting provide jobs and rural income as they claim, or is it a wasteful use of land? What are the facts? What are the statistics?  Advocates must know the arguments on both sides.

Looking at hunting as if it were a company with a proper Balance Sheet, the hunting industry is clever at publishing only alleged profit items from the profit and loss account, ignoring the losses. And claiming assets while ignoring the liabilities. The animal advocate should be able to force the hunter to account for the whole balance sheet of the hunting industry - not only a few selected items from the profit account.

All this is very well explained by Julie Lewin in her admirable work at National Institute for Animal Advocacy:   
                                      http://www.nifaa.org/
                            
       So what is the political policy on conservation in South Africa?
“Biodiversity is an economic sector in South Africa that can be tapped into to contribute to radical socio-economic transformation in South Africa. 
One of the major contributors to wildlife tourism and the South African economy is the hunting industry.  Besides contributing to the growth in GDP and creating job opportunities, this sector remains largely untransformed.” -  Edna Molewa, Minister for Environmental Affairs, in South Africa.

One can see at a glance that animal welfare concerns about cruelty are excluded by policy. Wildlife is merely an economic resource that must be used to transfer wealth from white people to Blacks. That is SA government policy in a nutshell.

In fact, former president Jacob Zuma was (in)famously quoted as stating at a public meeting that: “compassion for animals is un-African.”

In order to feed into this ideology, the animal advocate has to put aside all sentiment and focus on the money; to be able to convince African governments that hunting is a wasteful use of land and that the rural economy will benefit far more from non-consumptive ecotourism. ie protecting wildlife.
                                                         Conclusions
Until animal activists learn to compete effectively against the hunting fraternity at a political and policy level, hunting propaganda will continue to be the mainstream narrative in conservation services.

We are not winning this battle, people. I have been campaigning for twenty years against a cruel and senseless canned lion industry, only to see it mushroom from about fifteen hundred lions in captivity at the turn of the millennium, to more than 8000 currently.

Terms of trade are moving against us. At the moment, hunting fits into African politics in a marriage made in hell for the animals. The seething, discontented underclass of an exploding human population will force political imperatives to push out all other considerations, such as conservation. Animal welfare is not even in the game. An increasingly desperate human population will regard animal welfare concerns as not only irrelevant, but positively subversive - if not racist.
​
So although time is against us, two questions are raised:

1. How to fund and organise professional training for animal advocates.
2. Commissioning academic studies that show the fallacy of hunting as a beneficial land-use for all but a tiny elite.

 
 
 
 
 
 

​          Canned lion hunting – SA Govt  ‘Scientific Authority’ says everything is awesome.

But even Safari Club International has thrown PHASA and canned lion hunting under the bus – making this insane Non-Detriment Finding ( NDF) largely irrelevant..
​
http://www.traveller24.com/Explore/Green/shockwildlifetruths-largest-safari-club-in-the-us-slams-the-door-shut-on-south-africas-canned-lion-industry-20180203
 
In government Gazette No. 41393 published  23rd January 2018, the South African government Department of Environmental  Affairs (DEA) set out its non-detriment findings (NDF) for the African lion.

https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/African-lion.pdf

This is of extreme importance to the hunting industry since without an NDF, no lion hunts would be allowed and no lion trophies could be exported.

Let us unpack some of the gems contained in this 21 page government document which basically gives the green light for lion trophy hunting to continue.  And the starting point for the NDF is its confident assertion that:  ‘The national and provincial permitting systems are effective.’
We shall see….

False reporting.

Statement 1:  ‘Currently wild lion hunts are less than 10 per year.’

Statement 2: ‘According to the CITES trade database that is administered by UNEP -WCMC, just over half (53 %) of the lion (3508) exported from South Africa between 2000 and 2009 are wild sourced, but this is due to a reporting error. Lions bred in captivity, then released in extensive systems for a period of time before being hunted have in the past been incorrectly reported as source code "W' (i.e. wild). Delegated provincial management authorities have subsequently been requested to ensure the correct use of source codes so that the CITES trade records correctly reflect the trade in wild specimens. There is also a major discrepancy between reported exports and reported imports, with reported exports of captive sourced specimens greater than reported imports and conversely the reported exports of wild sourced specimens less than the reported imports. This would have contributed to inflated export figures overall and of wild sourced specimens in particular.’

So even though less than 10 lions who are truly wild are shot every year by hunters in SA, more than half the Lions exported which number about 1000 a year, are classified as wild. So which is it? Is it 10 wild lions or 500 wild lions shot every year in SA?

What is the cause of this false reporting?
Are the provincial nature conservation officials so incompetent that they do not know the difference between a wild lion and a tame captive bred one? Or is there another, more sinister, interpretation?

Most foreign hunters are gifted to us from the land of Stars & Stripes. And because of restrictions imposed upon the imports of trophies of captive bred lions by US Fish and Wildlife, together with the ban by the trophy record books of accepting trophies of captive bred lions, it is very much in the interests of the US trophy hunter to um.. persuade the government conservation official to classify his dead lion as ‘wild.’

This false reporting is then carried forward to the CITES database and makes a nonsense of the statistics there.

Canned lions - the buffer between wild lions and …what?

Statement 1:  The Scientific Authority does not consider the export of captive -bred lion trophies or captive -bred live lion for zoological or breeding purposes to be detrimental to the wild lion population in South Africa. At present there is no evidence to suggest that the lion bone trade between South Africa and East - Southeast Asia is detrimental to South Africa's wild lion population.

Statement 2:  Although captive bred lions are not considered to be of any conservation value to the wild lion population (Hunter et al. 2013), it is thought that they may serve as a buffer to potential threats to the wild population by being the primary source of hunting trophies and derived products (Lindsey et al. 2012a) (e.g. bones).

A buffer against what? The NDF has already told us in statement 1 above that there is no threat from the lion bone trade to wild lions.  So why is a buffer needed for a non-existent threat?

And why would hunting trophies be such a threat to wild lions when the NDF has already told us that:  ‘The national and provincial permitting systems are effective.’ 

If hunters are so well regulated by the permitting system, then why would you need a buffer for a non-existent threat from trophy hunters?  Are the wild lions not adequately protected by ‘national and provincial permitting systems?’

This NDF is full of contradictory statements.

Saving wild lions by preserving habitat for them to be hunted.

Statement  1:   The economic benefits to the private sector of keeping and trading in wild lion may provide some incentive for conserving the species and its habitat.

Statement 2:  Hunting of wild lion on private property is limited, with less than 5% of lion hunts conducted over the 2008 to 2010 reporting period having targeted wild lions.

I wonder if the DEA can even see the contradiction between these two statements in the NDF?

Why on earth would a landowner want to preserve large swathes of land to keep a pride of lions in a wild state when less than 5% of lion hunts inside Africa involved wild victims.  Where is the economic advantage of allocating so much land to so few hunts?

Surely the correct answer for the NDF to the question of how much conservation benefit to wild  lions and their habitat accrues from hunting is either:  ‘None’ or  ‘Uncertain.’

One could go on ad nauseam pointing out the logical flaws and false assumptions that characterise this non-detriment finding which means in effect that lion trophy hunters can continue their cruel bloody addiction with the ardent support of SA conservation structures.

Why do I call this NDF ‘insane?’

Because it compresses the whole complexity of preserving the natural functioning ecosystems into mere numbers.  So long as the numbers go up or stay stable, then the ‘Scientific Authority’ will issue an NDF for the species.

But numbers alone are a wholly inadequate measure of the health of the environment. It is like looking at a football match through a half closed door where you can only see a small sliver of the pitch, and deciding from that narrow view who is playing, what is being played, and who is winning.

Take Rape as an analogy.  What if Rape were de-criminalised because the suffering  of the victim were regarded as irrelevant?  What if Government issued an NDF for rape on the ground that it did not cause a decline in the number of women and therefore represented no threat to the survival of the female human species. 

President Trump for all his faults made a far more scientific conservation statement than this insane NDF when he summed up trophy hunting as ‘a horror show.’
                                         
                                    *****************

Hunting’s Threat to Conservation

​21 December 2017

By Steve Wiggins and Chris Mercer

Peter Flack’s (“South African lawyer, business man and hunter”) recent piece in the Daily Maverick, titled “It is canned killing, not hunting, that hampers conservation efforts” (17 December 2017) offers a hunter’s perceived threats to conservation in South Africa (and beyond):
1.       canned hunting;
2.       hybrid breeding of target species; and
3.       the animal rights movement.

Dealing with those claims seriatim:
Canned Hunting
How can ‘canned’ possibly be a major threat to conservation on the basis advanced by Flack; namely, the absence of fair chase - where in theory, the hunter’s quarry has a (limited) chance to evade its own unnatural death? What on earth does fair chase have to do with conservation?
Whether a target is fairly chased or not, it still bleeds and dies and is removed from the environment.  On the contrary, there is an argument that the canned hunting of captive bred lions causes less damage to lion conservation in one respect than hunting wild lions, with all the damage the latter causes to pride dynamics.

No, the real objection that Flack has to canned hunting is that it is a reputational threat to the existence, ‘good reputation’(sic) and profitability of the whole hunting industry. He fears that the increasing public disgust ‘canned’ is causing is pulling down the whole trophy hunting industry with it.

We should not forget the negative conservation implications of ‘canned’ (the hunting and lion bone trade) due to its lack of any credible proven positive conservation contribution or conservation need.

There are no proven conservation benefits of 'canned' (‘captive’, ‘ranch’) - but quite the opposite, with the potential detrimental impact still to be adequately acknowledged and addressed by the Republic of South Africa's Department: Environmental Affairs (DEA);
In their 29 November 2017 “Open letter to Secretary Zinke: The African Lion Conservation Community’s Response,” the need for any conservation (rewilding potential) from South Africa’s ‘canned’ industry was rejected.  
Hybrid Breeding
Indeed the cross-breeding of species to produce mutant freaks for the hunting industry merely underlines the threat that hunting poses to wildlife. If the breeders will do anything to grasp at the almighty dollar then this supports our view that hunting is not about conservation at all, but is driven by commercial profiteering.
Animal Rights
It is popular in hunting circles to blame ‘animal rightists’ for hunting’s shortcomings and to throw epithets like ‘radical, extremist, and a threat to conservation.’ But these labels assume that hunting is conservation. The animal welfare movement certainly damages the hunting industry, but whether it damages conservation depends on the proven truth of hunting’s animal welfare claims, and the falsity of hunting propaganda. The truth is always subversive of an entity built upon lies.

Accordingly we would contend that the three major threats to conservation in Africa are:
1.       the unrelenting growth of the human population which is devouring the wilderness and causing massive habitat loss for wildlife.
2.       the lamentable failure of African governments to devote available resources to protecting wilderness and existing wildlife populations.
3.       The hunting industry. Not only does the hunting industry inflict massive damage upon wildlife populations in Africa, but by expanding its profitable business model of breeding wildlife species as alternative livestock, the industry is effectively changing the land-use from the serious business of producing food for the nation, to mere entertainment.
Is it really in the national interest that vast tracts of land which represent food security are being converted into providing hunting entertainment for a wealthy elite?

Compare the three items above that Flack contends are the major threats to conservation with our own.  We doubt if there is a single conservation scientist in the world who would agree that the Flack list is defensible.

The assertion is made by Flack that the “1977” trophy hunting ban implementation in Kenya and Botswana’s move to ban trophy hunting in 2014 have been “manifest disasters” for wildlife because of the loss of trophy hunting’s claimed ‘benefits’ – an oft repeated pro-hunting mantra. 
Scientists conducting a 2009 study (“Effects of human – livestock – wildlife interactions on habitat in an eastern Kenyan rangeland”) believe the surge in domestic livestock is predominantly accountable for the drop in Kenya’s wildlife population – the three main causes cited for the drop in wildlife numbers are illegal poaching, larger numbers and ranges of domestic livestock, plus changing land use patterns on the ranches. There is no mention of trophy hunting’s absence as a cause/effect for the decline in Kenya’s wildlife since the ban was implemented in 1979.

Is Kenya an example of what will happen if trophy hunting is banned in a country? No, it is not. Kenya would seem to be an example of poor land management, poaching and wanton over-grazing, based on a culture where a man’s wealth and social status is directly linked to owning large herds of cattle, which dominate the grazing available to the detriment of wildlife.

Botswana's tourism figures surpassed 2 million in 2016, so clearly there is demand within Botswana for non-consumptive tourism (and long may it continue).

In support of his ‘hunting is a saviour’ arguments, Flack states “some simple, scientifically established facts” including the statement at point 5 of his article “…..those [endangered species] that had been hunted most assiduously had recovered best, for example….rhinoceroses.…” So, the claim is hunting saved the rhinoceros (referring to ‘Operation Rhino’ in the 1960s no doubt) and by logical extension of this claim, “assiduously” hunting and killing endangered species is a guaranteed saviour.

However, it is also a ‘fact’ that unregulated and excessive hunting pre-‘Operation Rhino’ overwhelmingly contributed to the decimation and plight of rhinoceros in the first place:
"South African populations of black and white rhinos (subspecies C. s. simum), both of which had been nearly extinct in the year 1900 due to uncontrolled hunting….”-  ”Sustainable rhino horn production at the pointy end of the rhino horn trade debate,” Taylor et al., Biological Conservation (Vol. 216, page 60 - 68), December 2017.

So, any claims that hunting was the saviour of the rhinoceros as a ‘fact’ are somewhat disingenuous. Hence, any claims that “assiduously” hunting therefore must be endured as the saviour of all endangered species should be treated with incredulity.

​Is PHASA staring down the barrel of its own demise?
Simon Bloch
Correspondent
 
Durban - South Africa’s professional hunting association, PHASA, found itself in the firing line this week over the body’s reversal of its 2015 policy around hunting captive bred lions.
 
Several board members, founding fathers and past presidents resigned in protest and the Operators and Professional Hunters’ Associations of Africa (OPHAA) withdrew and suspended PHASA’s membership indefinitely.
 
International sponsors and affiliate organizations attending PHASA’s 40th AGM at the Champagne Sports Resort were left stunned when PHASA members voted on a new resolution to allow the hunting of captive bred lions by members and clients.  
 
The Wild Sheep Foundation and hunting agency BookYourHunt.com immediately withdrew all future support to PHASA, and a coalition group calling itself CONCERNED PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS, condemned PHASA in a mass-mailed e-mail, as well as on social media.
 
“In the light of the recent acceptance of the shooting of captive bred lions as a legitimate form of hunting by PHASA, we, as a concerned group of professional hunters, distance ourselves completely from such acceptance and no longer view PHASA as the legitimate mouthpiece for professional hunting in South Africa.
 
“A new association will be formed in the very near future and will once again reflect the traditions of responsible, ethical and conservation based hunting in South Africa”.
 
PHASA’s new policy back-tracks on its 2015 resolution, whereby members voted to “distance themselves and PHASA from all captive bred lion breeding and hunting until such time that the South African Predator Association SAPA is able to convince PHASA and the IUCN that captive bred lion hunting is beneficial to lion conservation” (enhancement of the species in the wild). 
 
OPHAA‘s media release said: 

“The Operators and Professional Hunters’ Associations of Africa are deeply troubled by the decision made by PHASA at their AGM on November 22, 2017 to adopt a new constitution that accepts the practice of captive bred lion hunting. The practice of captive bred lion hunting inevitably brings the entire African hunting industry, in every African nation where hunting is permitted, into ill repute.
 
“Phasa’s actions completely disregard one of the fundamental concepts of hunting, namely fair chase, and will, without doubt, jeopardize not only conservation efforts, but also the livelihoods of those who rely on well-managed and ethical hunting practices, far beyond the borders of South Africa. As a result, the majority of OPHAA members have decided to indefinitely suspend PHASA’s membership in OPHAA until further review”.
 
PHASA President Dries Van Coller acknowledged that while captive bred lion hunting had damaged Brand South Africa, he was under immense pressure from all sides in the hunting industry, but bound by the constitution to remain neutral.
 
“The matter was on the agenda, we took a vote by members who participated in the meeting, and as in any democracy, the majority won.
 
“The resolution as such enables PHASA to engage with SAPA (the South African Predator Association) to further enhance and create an environment where we can find the platform to address all these concerns.
 
“We know that it will never be accepted by everybody. I have already received letters from some of the lion people that a thirty day release period for lions before hunting, which we stipulated, is too long for them.”
 
“I think that this is probably the best thing that could happen to the industry, with the divide that will take place once and for all. We need to expose all the rotten eggs and all the issues that we have in the industry, and address it from there in a constructive manner” he said.
 
NAPHA (Namibian Professional Hunters Association) disassociated itself from PHASA.
CEO Tanja Dahl said “The approval of this motion flies in the face of all that is deemed to be ethical hunting by the overwhelming majority of hunting associations in Africa and around the world.
 
“This is in direct conflict with the aims and objectives of NAPHA, and NAPHA distances itself from the short sighted and immoral decision taken by PHASA and as such, can no longer afford or wish to associate itself with PHASA”.
 
Linda Park, a director at CACH (Campaign Against Canned Hunting) called PHASA’s new policy “morally reprehensible. 
“This comes from an industry that is ethically bankrupt and driven solely by financial greed.  The damage to Brand South Africa is huge. Even some of PHASA’s own members and sponsors have broken away in outrage, and when sponsors withdraw financial support, it clearly spells out their displeasure” she said.
  
And BookYourHunt.com officially announced the termination of its sponsorship agreement with Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa on Wednesday before PHASA’s gala ball.
 
“The reason is PHASA’s resolution allowing its members to organize and participate in hunting captive-bred lions, reversing PHASA’s previous position on the issue. For a number of years, BookYourHunt.com has been proudly sponsoring PHASA.
 
“However, the practice of captive bred lion hunts is incompatible with BookYourHunt.com’s standards of fair chase and hunting ethics, and is something we cannot possibly tolerate or endorse in any form.”
 
 

 
This blog criticises a letter sent to the Chinese government by well-known hunting apologist Eugene Lapointe.  
 
After wrapping himself in a cloak of assumed credibility arising from previous association with international organisations such as CITES, he writes to the Chinese government asking it to resist calls for it to ban the trade in ivory. The self- important homily then proceeds to expound upon the alleged efficacy of the doctrine of 'wise use'.
 
Nonetheless, he finds support for his view that elephants are merely a resource to be exploited from some African media:
http://www.herald.co.zw/china-must-not-ban-ivory-trade/
 
All his tired old arguments are half-truths that can be reduced to the following syllogism:

1.        all cats have four legs
2.        my dog has four legs
3.        therefore my dog is a cat.

In his philosophy, hunters are wonderful conservationists and the plight of wildlife can be laid solely at the door of shrill animal rightists in the developed world.

Quoting himself: “As I stated in 2007, the beneficiaries of a complete ban on all legal ivory trade are the poachers, criminal gangs and corrupt officials who drive the illegal trade — and who the campaigners suppose they are opposing,” said Mr Lapointe. “Of course, the animal rights groups themselves raise billions of dollars through their campaigns in the United States and Europe, so a ban also satisfies their financial needs”.

Lapointe’s argument is: there was a ban; there was also a surge in poaching; ergo, the ban must have caused it.  This is a perfect example of the ‘my dog is a cat’ syllogism. How simplistic. How childish. If only it were that simple.  No doubt he would argue that the only way to save whales is by whaling, and that any ban would merely ‘satisfy the financial needs’ of Sea Shepherd.
 
Actually there were many causes for the upsurge in poaching, including the rise of affluence in China and the rest of Asia, as well as the CITES –approved ivory stockpile releases in 1997, 2000 and 2008.
 
The truth is that saving Africa’s wildlife is a hideously complex and deep issue involving environmental, political, socio-economic, cultural and geopolitical considerations.
The root of the problem lies in the reckless and irresponsible human population explosion in Africa. Unless the human population can be brought under control there is no hope for the wildlife. 
 
The uncontrolled breeding of the human population is presently overwhelming all social services such as health and education, the economy and ultimately the ecology. Poverty and unemployment are the inevitable consequence, and so is the migrant crisis in Europe. 

Animal rights campaigners are not responsible for poverty and unemployment in Africa. 
 
Here is another truth.  African governments and administrations are notoriously corrupt.   Some years ago, I was travelling through a ‘protected’ wilderness area near the Zambesi river.  Such marvellous wilderness - and yet there was no wildlife to be seen.  We could not understand why.  Then we came across the game ranger’s camp and right there, strung up on wires all around the camp, was the reason for the absence of wildlife: hundreds of pieces of meat drying in the sun to be turned into biltong and sold.  Give a man like that a government vehicle, a government rifle and salary and all you are doing is equipping him to run his own private game butchery business.
 
The dwindling wildlife areas in Africa are precious resources which ought to be ferociously protected by governments.  Alas, trees and animals do not vote and therefore get no money from patronage-dependent political structures.  And into this vacuum where governance and protection should exist comes the hunting industry, trumpeting (sorry!) its conservation credentials.
 
Game farmers point at the infrastructure they have built and the control that they exercise over their fenced- off ranches and claim righteously that they are the only defence standing between the wildlife and the rapacious poachers who would kill all the animals, whereas the hunters will only kill some of the animals.  What on earth does this have to do with conservation? Domesticating wild animals and then rearing them like sheep to be slaughtered by hunters is not conservation, it is farming with alternative livestock.  Farming for commercial purposes should never be confused with conservation, which is the preservation of natural functioning ecosystems for their own sakes.
 
Yet this totally irrelevant argument for hunting is seized upon by many role players in the conservation spectrum.  Like large organisations such as WWF.  And politicians and bureaucrats in the United States, who are terrified of offending the hunting/NRA block vote of 4 million votes that can easily swing an election.
 
Hunting is an ugly, dirty, bloody business, but the proponents make it sound almost acceptable with the use of euphemisms such as: ‘well-regulated hunting can serve as a tool of conservation’. This is Africa, for goodness sake. Name anything which is ‘well-regulated’.
 
And now, following the flawed hunting narrative, comes the lamestream media, desperate to infuse cultural Marxism into the conservation space.  Well-known publications like Newsweek publish articles by journalists like Nina Burleigh, who attacks and seeks to discredit hard-working anti-poaching organisations like Damien Mander’s IAPF. In her philosophy, Damien is white and therefore evil, whereas the poachers that he is tackling are black and therefore innocent victims.  Again, how simplistic.  How childish.  If only it were that simple.
 
Not to be outdone by the other threats to the survival of wildlife, here come the ivory tower academics in the UK, infusing their brand of liberal fascism into the debate.  Any academic who has spent a little time in Africa doing research on this, that or the other species is suddenly an expert on conservation and Africa.  In their philosophy, the use of para-military force against poachers is morally unacceptable and repressive.  Rural African communities should be proactively courted and persuaded to participate in saving wildlife.  Liberal philosophy demands that it should be all carrot, and no stick.
 
How naive.  No doubt they would be much happier if Damien Mander’s game rangers were carrying flowers instead of weapons and handing them out to poachers, along with an audio-visual presentation of how important it is to preserve wildlife.  Africa does not work that way and their naive liberal views merely show how little they understand Africa.
 
Why are so many African governments ruled or controlled by dictators? The answer is that Africans understand the concept of chieftainship.  In tribal culture, the Chief is king and everything belongs to him - including your wife if he wants her.   Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe repressed political dissent in Matabeleland by throwing whole villages down abandoned mineshafts. That makes him a genocidal monster - but it also helps to explain how he stayed in power for 37 years. There is a lesson there, reinforced by the fact that the African Union elected him Chairman – knowing full well his murderous history. Liberal attitudes do not fare well in Africa.
 
None of the existing role players in conservation understand what is required to save Africa’s vanishing wilderness.  The issue is just too broad and deep - and politically charged.  Until there is a human population crash, which is the only thing at the end of the day that will save the wilderness, I would suggest the following stopgap measures:

1.        all aid from the developed world to African countries should be rigidly tied to environmental compliance.
2.        the hunting fraternity should transition to turning their guns on to poachers, and to protecting the animals.  The hunting fraternity is a well- armed, wealthy militia, and can serve a useful purpose if properly directed.
3.        no expense should be spared to protect remaining wilderness areas.  The money is there.  If an old da Vinci painting can fetch half a billion dollars on auction, and trillions can be created out of thin air to be thrown at zombie banks to rescue them from their own greed, do not tell me that there is no money to save the environment and the wilderness.

 
After that it is up to Nature.  Perhaps the microbes will mutate in time to save this wonderful planet from the cruel, polluting excesses of industrial man. In the meantime let us at least have an honest debate about conservation issues without sustainable use propagandists like Eugene Lapointe hurling blame and pejorative epithets at the animal welfare community, simply because we can see that the theory always collapses in Africa to become sustained abuse.
 

                                               Lions and Treaties
                     Why we need a bold new conservation paradigm if lions are to avoid extinction.
 

I refer to the article on lions published in the Nature Conservation website here:
https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/article/13690/
International law and lions (Panthera leo): understanding and improving the contribution of wildlife treaties to the conservation and sustainable use of an iconic carnivore
Arie Trouwborst, Melissa Lewis, Dawn Burnham, Amy Dickman, Amy Hinks, Timothy Hodgetts, Ewan A. Macdonald, David W. Macdonald
 
This is a useful overview of international treaties and conventions which are supposed to protect lions.
There are treaties like RAMSAR and World Heritage that designate areas where wildlife, including lions ought to be protected. There are also species specific treaties like CITES that seek to protect listed species, including lions.
 
The authors, lawyers and academics, try valiantly to make a case for these international laws and treaties. Admitting the shortfalls and failures, they nevertheless claim that there is some benefit to lions from this hideous bureaucracy of legal drafting.
As one would expect from lawyers, for whom the magnificent complexity of life on earth can be reduced to written rules, their solution is:
a.     better enforcement of existing rules, and
b.     more rules.
“International law is the pre-eminent mechanism for realizing these, and despite the inherent limitations of international treaties and the various challenges to their effective implementation, many species would have been (even) worse off without international wildlife law.” 
 
 It is tragic that such intelligent and well-meaning academics and lawyers can miss the point so badly. The point is that there are very good reasons why the existing rules are not being implemented in Africa. Those reasons are cultural, political and social and, until those are resolved, African governments will continue to ignore rules relating to environmental governance. I’m speaking generally; Botswana, for example, is far better governed than any other countries that I have lived in.
 
The problem facing African lions is that they compete for survival with a human population whose reckless breeding habits are out of control. That creates massive social problems, which lead inexorably to political issues; African governments are notoriously corrupt, incompetent and dysfunctional. The authors correctly lament the ‘lack of capacity’ in African governments, but that bland, misleading euphemism does not come close to describing quite how useless government structures are in Africa. There is no lack of capacity when it comes to buying presidential jets or building palaces. Here is how the authors refer to this issue:
It seems safe to assume that the future of lions would be much more secure if all range states fully lived up to the international obligations identified in the above analysis. However, the implementation of these obligations is affected by pervasive compliance deficiencies due to problems of capacity, governance and enforcement in many range states.
Wow! You think?  
 
The environmentally ruinous effects of a rapidly expanding, poorly educated  human population are at least twofold:
1.     there is no political will to protect the environment and it is getting worse, not better. Why would a local politician spend funds on protecting wildlife when he can rather build his personal wealth and survive the next election by funnelling the money through to friends, relatives and party faithful in the form of patronage? People vote. Trees and animals do not.
2.    an exploding human population is already overwhelming government services such as health, welfare and education, leaving a seething, discontented underclass; unemployed - and often unemployable, poorly educated and desperate. This tsunami of desperate humanity will overwhelm and destroy the ecology of the continent and then become Europe’s problem in the form of illegal migrants.
 
In the context of this catastrophic descent into chaos and anarchy, the authors’ solution of more ‘soft’ laws and international treaties to save Africa’s lions is a superficial distraction from the real issues.
Indeed it is an exercise in futility.
Look at this passage:
Ramsar-listing for 26 African sites has been instrumental in providing increased support for protection and management of the sites, scientific studies, funding opportunities, tourism, and poverty alleviation.
Evidently, the listing of a site on the World Heritage List or the Danger List does not as such guarantee conservation success. For example, despite its status as a World Heritage site since 1981 and its Danger-listing in 2007, Senegal’s Niokolo-Koba National Park has experienced calamitous declines in prey populations, and concomitant declines in lion numbers (Henschel et al. 2014). The IUCN estimates the lion population has declined by 92%, from over 200 animals to only 16, between 1993 and 2014 (Bauer et al. 2016). Even so, the situation might have been even worse without the site’s World Heritage status, and that status would also appear to increase the possibilities for promoting recovery. (My emphasis)
 
WTF???  Lion numbers down by 92%, but thanks to this treaty, the situation ‘might have been worse”??  Listen to yourselves, authors. This terrifying statistic actually proves how illusory is the protection of the written word  – in Africa.
 
And here is their take on CITES:
Category
Range state(s)

Category 1
Believed generally to meet all requirements for effective CITES-implementation
Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Zimbabwe
 
This after admitting that most of the 29 African Lion range states are incapable of even submitting returns to CITES.  If conservation regimes as delinquent and dysfunctional as South Africa and Zimbabwe are regarded as paragons of virtue in ‘effective CITES implementation’ then one must know how futile CITES is.
 
What about the Convention on Biodiversity?
Whereas the above provisions are just as binding as other treaty obligations, they are phrased in such a broad and qualified manner that it is difficult in practice to identify the boundary between compliance and violation. 
Translation in to plain words: this Convention is so vague as to be meaningless.
 
When listing the well-known threats to lions, the authors have this to say about trophy hunting:
Trophy hunting can have positive or negative impacts, depending on how well it is regulated
CITES Entebbe Communique of 2016:
Notably, the Communiqué contains the following statement on the controversial issue of lion trophy hunting, wherein the 28 range states that attended the meeting:
‘Highlight the benefits that trophy hunting, where it is based on scientifically established quotas, taking into account the social position, age and sex of an animal, have, in some countries, contributed to the conservation of lion populations and highlight the potentially hampering effects that import bans on trophies could have for currently stable lion populations.’
Here is my question to the authors for parroting hunting propaganda: what, if anything, in Africa is ‘well regulated? Health services are appalling. Education is a disaster. No one with any knowledge of Africa could possibly believe for one second that hunting can ever be ‘well regulated.’  This is not Europe.
 
In my humble opinion, the authors have failed to grasp the fact that to save Africa’s lions we need a whole new conservation paradigm. Despite the whole raft of international laws and conventions, well summarised by the authors, and which ought to be protecting lions, we can all agree that the present conservation regime is not working.  As the authors put it:
Yet, all of them are subject to limitations. The Ramsar Convention is limited to wetlands; the WHC is limited to sites of outstanding universal value; CITES is limited to international trade; the CBD is very general and lacks a species-specific focus; the African Convention is institutionally dormant and several important range states are not parties; the Bern Convention is of marginal significance; the SADC Protocol has a limited geographic scope and lacks a species-specific focus; and the various TFCA treaties have geographically limited and fragmented scopes, and remain conceptual in some of the most significant habitats for lions.
 
Wild lion populations are plummeting - except where rigidly protected by military means in enclosed areas. There lies the lesson – and the answer. If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, than the present conservation regime in Africa is insane. As the authors themselves point out:
According to Lindsey et al. (2017), given adequate management, Africa’s protected areas could theoretically support over 80,000 lions – up to four times the total wild lion population remaining in Africa today.
Let that sink in… What better proof of the abject failure of African governments to protect their wildlife heritage?
 
For the reasons described above, the drive to save Africa’s wildlife heritage will not come from Africans. It will have to come from the developed world.
 
Funding should not be a problem. If trillions of dollars can be created out of thin air to rescue zombie banks in the first world, why should anti-poaching units in Africa have to be subsidised by private donations and managed by private persons. Why are so many game rangers in Africa unpaid and even unable to afford to buy boots for their feet when billions are spent in wasteful and frivolous activities and projects.
 
All aid to African countries ought to be made subject to compliance with environmental protection obligations and that compliance should be monitored by an international police force.
 
Protected areas should be what the name implies, wilderness areas rigidly and aggressively protected by military means if necessary.
 
Nothing short of these measures will prevent the African lion from becoming extinct in the wild, and end up being farmed as alternative livestock in small cages, like the canned lions in the infamous South African ‘conservation’ model.
 

​











Workers prepare animal skins in front of animal trophies at the taxidermy studio in Pretoria,February 12, 2015. Photo by Siphiwe Sibeko/Reuters.  Taken from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trophy-hunting-explained/
                                                                                                                                       The full PDF of the document can be obtained by emailing cachjozi@gmail.com
​    
In September 2016, Linda Park, Director of the Campaign Against Canned Hunting (CACH) highlighted the health issue of TB in lion bones in her blog “SA Exporting TB in lion bones?”  http://www.cannedlion.org/blog/archives/09-2016. 

The blog includes further opinion from Professor Paul van Helden, Stellenbosch University stating that “It should be noted that the organism that most commonly causes lion TB is Mycobacterium bovis (which causes bovine TB). This differs very slightly from that species most often causing human TB.  Unfortunately, this organism has the propensity to cause TB in humans often in organs other than the lung, making it very difficult to diagnose.
Furthermore, it is inherently resistant to one of the four most important drugs (antibiotics) used to treat primary human TB. Treatment of humans with this form of TB is therefore compromised. This therefore poses a potential risk to humans which is arguably greater than the most common form of TB in humans. 

I am therefore of the opinion that uncontrolled exposure of humans to bones from animals, in particular lion bones, poses a risk for development of the form of TB known as bovine TB in particular, although not necessarily being limited to this form of TB only.” (In July 2009, Professor Paul van Helden was featured in an article on Thompson Reuters’ Sciencewatch - http://archive.sciencewatch.com/ana/st/tub/09julSTTubvanHel/ -  citing him as the 4th highest ranked scientist in the World in the field of tuberculosis)
 
At the beginning of this year the South African Government announced plans to permit the annual export of 800 lion skeletons from captive bred lions.  http://www.traveller24.com/Explore/Green/sas-export-of-800-lion-skeletons-misguided-and-shameful-20170123. 

The majority of these would most likely be sent to manufacturers of fake tiger wine.  Lion bones have been used as a substitute for tiger bones since around 2008.  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/16/south-africa-lion-bones-trade. 

Further highlighted in the paper Williams VL, Loveridge AJ, Newton DJ, Macdonald DW (2015) ‘Skullduggery’: Lions Align and Their Mandibles Rock! PLoS ONE 10(11): e0135144.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135144 and the report Bones of Contention report by Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCru), TRAFFIC and the University of Witwatersrand https://www.wildcru.org/news/bones-of-contention-lion-bone-trade-report-released/
 
We are deeply concerned that there could be substantial health risks to people when handling/consuming lion parts from a lion infected with TB.    http://www.health24.com/Medical/Tuberculosis/TB-in-south-africa/Can-you-get-TB-from-animals-20150324.  http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/31/health/veterinarian-contracts-tuberculosis-from-wildebeest/ 

The OIE – World Organisation for Animal Health list diseases transmissible to humans in their October 2016 press release
http://www.oie.int/for-the-media/press-releases/detail/article/update-on-wildlife-diseases/.  Zoonotic infection including M. tuberculosis is highlighted by Bruno B. Chomel et al in “Wildlife, Exotic Pets, and Emerging Zoonoses” https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/1/06-0480_article
 
We believe there is an urgent need for further research from all parties to prevent a major health issue. The most significant health risk applies to those that handle lion carcasses and bones in the first instance i.e. farm labourers who prepare a carcass immediately after it has been hunted, euthanised or died and prepared for the lion bone trade.  

It may also affect other participants in the industry (i.e. taxidermists  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3178868/Inside-Namibian-taxidermy-factory-stuffs-6-000-animals-year-trophy-hunters.html, customs officers, muti users http://www.penton.co.za/strong-muti-harm-ye-none-two-worlds-apart/  and the TCM end-users http://www.bloodlions.org/tiger-bone-wine/ , to a degree, depending upon how long the infection remains viable within the bones/organs.  It should also be noted that South Africa has a burgeoning TCM industry of its own http://globalriskinsights.com/2017/04/radar-traditional-chinese-medicine-became-one-africas-fastest-growing-industries/
 
Possibility of infection becomes a major risk factor for anyone who is on medication that is immunosuppressant or has an inherited or acquired immunodeficiency disorder e.g. HIV infection or other factors (but not limited to) those with low socioeconomic status, crowded living conditions etc.   

There is also the issue that once a person catches TB it can lie latent for a number of years whilst it multiplies in the body.  Once the disease is activated during this time they are likely to infect other members of their whole family as well as friends or anyone they may be in contact with since the disease is normally passed from human to human via the respiratory systems. 
 
Immunodeficiency disorders
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000818.htm
 
Tuberculosis overview
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/tuberculosis/article_em.htm
 
HIV Infection Disrupts the Sympatric Host–Pathogen Relationship in Human Tuberculosis http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003318
 
Humans can get deadly TB from animals
http://bhekisisa.org/article/2016-03-11-00-humans-can-get-deadly-tb-from-animals
  
TB in lions
TB affects humans and many animal species including wild and captive-bred lions.  Both the human and animal form of TB may be the causative agent. The Wildlife Disease Association Africa & Middle East April 2017 Quarterly Newsletter (page 5) contains an article entitled Tuberculosis as an Emerging (Re-Emerging) Disease in South African Wildlife by Professor Michelle A Miller, DVM, MS, MPH, PhD NRF South African Research Chair in Animal TB, Stellenbosch University and highlights the fact that “although a Bovine TB Eradication Scheme was introduced in 1969 to address the issue in cattle, changes in national and provincial veterinary structures, lack of funding and trained personnel, and disease prioritization have resulted in failure to control the disease in South Africa.” http://wildlifedisease.org/wda/Portals/0/Sections/AME/WDA%20AME%20April%202017%20Newsletter.pdf
 
In 2009, South African National Parks, Endangered Wildlife Trust and the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group Southern Africa convened a workshop entitled “Lion (Panthera Leo) Bovine Tuberculosis Disease Risk Assessment”.  A large group of specialists met to evaluate the then status of lions in the Kruger National Park and the issue of TB.  The final report can be found here https://www.wcs-ahead.org/gltfca_grants/pdfs/lion_tb_risk_report_final.pdf
 
 
At this workshop, Dewald Keet the Chief State Veterinarian KNP stated the clinical signs and pathology of TB.  “Clinical signs are typically non-specific and consist of varying degrees of emaciation with deterioration of skin quality. Focal areas of partial alopecia of varying size are seen in most cases. Visible, palpable and marked enlargement of superficial lymph nodes as seen in various other species does not occur. Hygromas of the elbow are found to be a reliable indicator of M. bovis infection. They are more frequently seen in females than in males. Undetermined or non-specific lameness due to swollen, inflexible stifle and hock joints associated with muscular atrophy of affected appendices occur in older lions. Dermal wounding with an apparent inability to heal is seen in a number of cases. Older males often develop large swellings above or below the hip joint. Large ulcers subsequently develop on the surface of these swellings. This is often bilateral but varying in size. Varying degrees of mane loss and deterioration are seen in most males necropsied. Testis atrophy is consistently present in these cases. None of 86 females were pregnant at the time of necropsy. Tachypnoea and dyspnoea was seen in cases with advanced pulmonary lesions. Ocular lesions are seen in a small number of cases and central nervous system impairment in only one. Hair covering the ventral aspects of the neck, thorax and abdomen appears to be longer and white in inactive females.
 
Gross lesions in the carcass of a lion are not typically caseous-necrotic. They are rather fibrous and proliferative and seldom associated with abscess formation. The sarcomatous appearance of mycobacterial lesions in domestic cats frequently leads to misdiagnosis in cats and lesions in lions have a similar sarcomatous appearance. Lymph nodes are only slightly enlarged but mostly rather severely atrophied. These lymph nodes reveal sinus ectasia associated with cortical and paracortical lymphoid hyperplasia. Pulmonary lesions are the only category identifiable with a certain degree of accuracy. However, they also appear distinctly different from lung lesions seen in ruminant, primate, rodent, swine and lagomorph species.
 
Microscopic lesion patterns observed in various organs were of a granulomatous nature consisting of macrophages, epithelioid cells, lymphoplasma cells and numerous neutrophils, suggestive of mycobacterial infection. Severe generalized lymphoid atrophy was sometimes seen in association with granulomatous lesions. Pulmonary lesions comprised of granulomatous interstitial pneumonitis or granulomatous bronchopneumonia often associated with bronchiectasis. Intestinal lesions showed mononuclear macrophage predominance suggestive of mycobacterial mural enteritis. Granulomatous osteitis, periosteitis and osteosis were found in most of the well-developed cases frequently associated with myositis.”
  
https://www.journeyman.tv/film/1271 In 2002 reporter Sally Sara and Journeyman.tv made a report on TB in lions in the Kruger Park highlighting the issues, clinical signs and prognosis going forward with the spread of TB and the knee jerk reaction of bringing in hunters to kill neighbouring reserve lions that had been infected.   If all lions that become infected with TB are culled like this there will certainly be one place that their bones could potentially end up and that will be in the lion bone trade!
 
TB & Captive-bred lions
 
With the numbers of lions held together in a breeding farm, the likelihood of disease spread is raised to a high level.  Plus the issues of inbreeding that occur in captive lion breeding cause major immune issues and therefore another high-level risk for disease spread. A recent study by the Animal TB Research Group of Stellenbosch University also suggests that lions may be able to transmit bacteria between themselves through respiratory secretions (droplets transmitted through sneezing or coughing). http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.7589/2014-07-170
 
As noted above by Dr Dewald Keet and Professor Nick Kriek of Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Faculty (in our first blog on this issue) - hygromas of the elbow have been found to be a reliable indicator for TB in lions.  Kirberger RM, Keet DF and Wagner WM (2006) highlight “Radiologic abnormalities of the appendicular skeleton of the lion (Panthera leo): incidental finds and Mycrobacterium bovis-induced changes”. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16553146
 
In Viljoen et al (2015) Mycobacterium bovis infection in the lion (Panthera leo): Current knowledge, conundrums and research challenges it was also shown that the first cases of lions contracting TB came from two zoos.  The onset of the disease was relatively sudden after the felids experienced high stress situations such as after repeated periods of pregnancy and lactation.
 
This situation is replicated within lion breeding farms and it is well known that lion breeding farms keep their lionesses in a tight circle of pregnancy (by removing cubs as early as possible to bring them back into estrus) to maximise the number of cubs that are born each year.  
 
Keel et al (2010) also highlight the fact that progress of TB in lions is apparently slow, with the majority of infected lions appearing healthy while being sub-clinically infected.
 
Conclusion
We believe that there is a substantial risk to humans from TB carried in lion bones/organs and that this requires immediate attention and further research.  An industry that puts the health of its workers/end-users at risk is an industry that is likely to find lawsuits against them in the future.  They have now been warned about this issue and need to act on it immediately.
 
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge the following people for their assistance in the preparation of this document.  
Professor Paul van Helden, Stellenbosch University
Professor Nick Kriek, Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Faculty
Dr Kobus du Toit, Rhino expert, wildlife veterinarian and biologist
 
This document has been sent to the following organisations for their concern with a request to immediately look at the serious health implications:-
 
Hospitality, Catering and Farm Workers Union (HOCAFAWU)
National Domestic Security Agriculture and Allied Workers Union (NDOSAWU)
South African Forestry, Farming, Catering and Allied Workers Union (SAFFCAWU) http://www.saffcawu.com/427086635
Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA) http://www.hurisa.org.za/
Centre for Human Rights/University of Pretoria www.up.ac.za/centre-for-human-rights
The South African Human Rights Commission http://www.sahrc.org.za/
The Black Sash http://www.blacksash.org.za/
The Food and Allied Workers Union http://www.fawu.org.za/
Lawyers for Human Rights http://www.lhr.org.za/programme
Foundation for Human Rights http://www.fhr.org.za/
African National Healers Association https://www.africannationalhealersassociation.org/
World Health Organisation, Africa Region http://www.afro.who.int/
Wildlife Disease Association http://www.wildlifedisease.org/wda/
Human Sciences Research Council http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/
OiE World Organisation for Animal Health http://www.oie.int/
 
 

​Bev Pervan:  Wildlife champion
                     Founder of Kalahari Raptor Centre 1998
                     Co-founder of Campaign Against Canned Hunting circa 2000
                     Co-founder of Karoo Wildlife Centre 2015
            Co-author of book Kalahari Dream   -  www.kalahari-dream.com
 
Tribute to Bev on the anniversary of her death.
 
Bev died from cancer on 30th April last year (2016). We remember her today because of the impact she made on animal welfare in South Africa. 
 
Most people go through life making acquaintances. Bev went through life making friends who would die for her. This was because she cared so much for her friends, both human and animal. Watching Bev work with wild animals and birds was a privilege. There is nothing glamorous about wildlife rehab work. It is all about getting bitten, kicked and scratched on a daily basis. Love of animals by itself is not enough. The rehabber needs toughness. And Bev had toughness in spades.
 
Once, for example, when holding down a struggling vulture for the vet, she suffered a serious laceration to her hand. “That needs some stitches,” commented the vet. Bev had not let go of the struggling bird. “Well put them in,” she replied. So he did put in half a dozen stitches while she continued to hold the bird down and then the vet resumed his work with the vulture.
 
On another occasion, she became impatient with me while I battled to subdue a martial eagle and she tried to catch the powerful bird on her own. This was a mistake and working with wildlife, one pays the price. Those fearsome talons closed around her forearm and penetrated right through. It took me some time to prise open the talons and release her bloodied arm. She then, typically, refused any offer of help and drove off by herself to the doctor in Kuruman to get an anti-tetanus shot.
 
I wonder if the arrogant, intransigent Northern Cape conservation officials would have dared to invade our sanctuary and illegally confiscate the three Caracals, had they known what sort of a woman they were up against. They must so many times have regretted the day they decided to “teach these greenies a lesson” in the years that followed the unlawful seizure, as we dragged them through the South African legal system all the way to the Constitutional Court, not once but twice. They learnt the hard way that Bev would stop at nothing to protect the animals in her care.
 
She was a remarkable woman, even more so because she was so tiny. Not even 5 feet tall. I always used to say about her “she is about the same size as Napoleon and look how much trouble he caused!”
Chris Mercer.
 

Bryan Havemann, the game Warden at Timbavati Nature Reserve, which is adjacent to Kruger National Park, and a member of the APNR (Association of Private Nature Reserves) justified trophy hunting a super tusker elephant in an article in SA Tourism Update.
For example:
Havemann explained that the hunt would benefit conservation. “When an elephant gets beyond 50 years of age, they don’t have the ability to chew their food properly any longer.” He argued that if it was inevitable that the elephant were to die of natural causes, the money from a hunt would be better used to fuel conservation efforts.

Let us examine the claims a little more closely:
1.       That there are too many elephants, causing ecological damage, and therefore, taking out a tusker aids the environment.
2.       An elephant over the age of 50 is going to die soon from natural causes and so it is better to hunt him and make money for conservation.
3.       Conservation purposes include anti-poaching expenses.

Dealing with the points seriatim:

1.       This argument confuses hunting with culling. When there are too many animals for the available vegetation, then the brutal remedy of culling is the only answer. Whole herds are liquidated. Killing one tusker will not have any effect whatsoever on the breeding of an elephant population. Other males will service the females in oestrus and all that the hunter achieves is to pervert the process of natural selection and select for the smaller tusk gene. Soon, if the hunters have their way, elephants will be born without any tusks at all.

2.       Using the age of the elephant as an excuse to justify the hunting of a tusker is transparently flawed public relations. It has no substance in elephant behaviour or herd dynamics. The landowners and shareholders of Timbavati include some of the richest people in South Africa. The proper way to raise money for reserve expenses is by imposing a levy upon members. Why are some of the richest people in the country so reluctant to put their hands into their deep pockets, and so keen to rather raise money by shooting animals that do not even belong to them.

3.       Who are the real poachers here, if not the Timbavati hunters themselves? These elephants stray in from the adjacent Kruger Park. They belong to the people of South Africa and should not be hunted for private gain on adjacent land. So if a poor black man goes into Kruger Park and hunts the same elephant, he is a wicked poacher. But the rich white man who kills the same animal for fun when it wanders onto Timbavati, is hailed as a conservationist. Since when did money substitute itself for true conservation - which is the preservation of natural functioning ecosystems?

How can any intelligent person confuse hunting with culling and believe that shooting an elephant in the face can possibly be anything other tha environmental terrorism? 

I believe that trophy hunting takes place on all the reserves which are part of the APNR. Timbavati is not the only culprit. If I am wrong, I hope someone reading this will correct me. 

I could never visit any reserve where hunting takes place, because I take responsible tourism far more seriously. Perhaps when a sufficient number of tourists boycott APNR reserves, management will have an epiphany and suddenly find the financial inducement to see the difference between true conservation and sickening brutality.

Chris Mercer.
​Karoo Wildlife Centre.
 

                                      ​DANGEROUS ILLUSIONS
 
                                                               by
 
                                                      Richard Peirce
          Author, wildlife campaigner      Website www.peirceshark.com
 
                                                               and
 
                                                       Chris Mercer
                  Director, Campaign Against Canned Hunting (CACH)
 
In AD 1028 when the Anglo Nordic King Canute decided to sit on the beach and command an incoming sea to recede he was conducting an exercise in futility, and he knew it.  To what extent are today’s conservation activists, naturalists, environmentalists and others conducting similarly futile exercises trying to conserve wildlife, and campaigning for humans to live sustainably on our planet? 7.48 billion people, ineffective national governments, giant profit driven corporations, and the lack of effective joined up global governance are a deadly combination.  Against this onslaught of irresponsibility are the world’s conservation and environmental organisations emulating King Canute?  If so they are unwittingly, and certainly not deliberately, contributing towards producing dangerous illusions.
 
The Paris climate summit, CITES meetings and others all generate reassuring headlines for the world’s public, and the illusion that effective action is being taken. What chance has the world’s public got of understanding the gravity of the global environmental situation when President Trump, the most powerful leader in the free world, peddles the illusion that climate change is all a Chinese invention?
 
A terrifying example of reality, as opposed to illusion, comes from the WWF/ZSL Living Planet report. In the 46 years between 1970 and 2016 global wildlife declined by 58%. On present trends that figure will be 67% by 2020.  By 2012 1.6 earths were needed to provide the natural resources and services we humans were consuming each year. These figures are the reality, the illusion is that we are taking effective actions to halt our headlong rush to decimate wildlife, combat climate change, and live sustainably.
 
Global problems need global solutions, and until national governments either act effectively in concert, or cede powers to a global governance entity, efforts to save wildlife, halt climate change and live sustainably are doomed to failure.  Only a radical re-think of the way we live will enable us to live sustainably and in harmony with nature.  I do not believe this will happen until the human race feels so threatened that survival becomes the prime consideration.
 
In the Second World War the people of Great Britain cheerfully accepted consumer austerity measures they would never have been accepted in peacetime, because they believed their survival was at stake.  When climate change starts to manifest itself by causing worldwide large scale human death and misery, then the world’s population will demand from their leaders the changes needed for survival.
 
In future decades, I believe that today’s pathetic climate change and wildlife conservation measures will be recognised as having been inadequate and illusory. It would be a suicidal NGO that stood up and said “We are not winning and we cannot win”, and this is one of the reasons illusions will persist.
 
                                                            ______________
 
One thing is clear which is that current conservation paradigms, in which traditional conservation (preservation) has been superceded by policies of regulated exploitation (sustainable use), are not working. Wildlife numbers in Africa and elsewhere continue to decline dramatically. Some scientists have proposed combatting the incompetence and corruption of African governments by privatising wildlife conservation, but the unintended consequences of this are potentially disastrous.
 
The privatisation of wildlife has already been implemented in South Africa. More than 10,000 farms have abandoned agriculture in favour of game farming in which the ‘wild’ has been taken out of wildlife, and rural employment has declined.
 
The South African example shows that privatising wildlife management is no substitute for real conservation and so is another dangerous illusion.
Treating captive lions bred for canned lion hunting as ‘wildlife’ is not conservation. It is farming for profit and to call it conservation is illusory.
 
The doctrine of sustainable wildlife use has largely failed. Everywhere we look we find that in practice, sustainable use has become sustained abuse. Sustainable use has become mostly just a licence to exploit and kill. 

In Africa, whether it is the senseless destruction by rich white men (hunting), or by poor blacks (bushmeat and poaching), or by Asian syndicates (poaching) the result is the same – devastation of biological diversity and dreadful animal suffering.

We have forgotten that conservation means “the preservation of natural functioning eco-systems”. Nowadays hunters style themselves as conservationists because they are only killing some animals - not all of them.

We need an environmental philosophy that gets back to true conservation. However idealistic and aspirational it may be, it is better than adopting licences to kill as an overarching policy.

To preserve biodiversity, we need discipline and rigid protection. One example of this is the island of Santo Domingo. A clear line can be seen running down the border that divides Haiti from the Dominican Republic. On the Haiti side, no trees, no life, just environmental ruin. On the Dominican side, rich natural forests still survive, because right from the start, the Dominicans adopted a zero-tolerance approach to Haitian poachers and woodcutters. The army was deployed to shoot trespassers on sight.

This hard line did not result in substantial loss of human life. Once a dozen or so Haitians had been killed, the message got home, and they stopped coming over the border to poach. Africa is now heading steadily in the direction of becoming a continental Haiti – a continent failing to stem the tide of poverty, misery and environmental degradation. What is needed is for Africa to aim at becoming a continental version of the Dominican Republic.

Involving local tribesmen is important. Every effort must be made to ensure that a good proportion of funds derived from eco-tourism reaches local communities so that they feel that they have a stake in the preservation of biodiversity. But along with the carrot must come the stick. Experience has shown that benefits alone are inadequate. Nature reserves need also to be rigidly protected with the most effective modern technology and with ruthless military efficiency. 

Rigid protection of biodiversity also requires African governments to pursue unpopular policies that will inevitably alienate some sections of their voting constituencies. Sadly, based on experience to date, this is most unlikely to happen, at least in the short to medium term.

There are examples where indigenous people have organised resistance to exploitation of natural resources, such as is currently happening in Amazonia, but this pits them against their own governments, and their own national armies.

There is apparently no such grassroots resistance among indigenous tribes of Southern Africa. Until indigenous Africans reclaim and remember at least part of the culture and heritage that was so disastrously dismantled by white colonial governments, continent wide conservation successes will be few and far between.  Without a widespread reawakening of the value of the natural world, conservation successes are potentially dangerous illusions if we allow them to distract us from the general decline so evident all around us.