SA
Jagters KWES die jag mark!!
“An open letter to the leadership of
SAHGCA/SAJWV”
Dear fellow SAHGCA/SAJWV members
My name is Richard York (SAHGCA
membership # 078566).
As a member of SAHGCA (SA Hunters
and Game Conservation Association) I would like to respond to the recent media
release from SAHGCA “hunting body calls for regulation of intensive commercial
game breeding practices”
Wednesday the 18th of
February 2015 was an exceptionally sad day for our organisation as well as our cherished
hunting and conservation heritage. What right do we have as SAHGCA to call for
government intervention in the wildlife ranching sector? Not only does this
request fringe on violating the constitutional rights of game ranchers, it
could also have devastating long-term consequences on the wildlife industry. Do we as hunters wish to destroy the very
industry that we depend on?
In my capacity as a hunter and a
game rancher I have, on numerous occasions, invited members of SAHGCA including
former president, Chris Niehaus, conservation manager, Lizanne Nel, editor of
SA Hunters magazine, Koos Barnard, and indeed any one of the associations
36 000 members to visit my game farm. In this way they were able to make
first hand observations on the practices we follow and perhaps advise us as to
where improvements could be made. To date not a single executive member of
SAHGCA has accepted my invitation.
It would seem that SAHGCA is not
interested in any serious attempt to observe, interact or communicate with the game
ranching industry. SAHGCA’s media release will only lead to unnecessary
conflict between the different sectors of our industry, and solely benefit the
animal rightists who wish to destroy hunting.
Due to the phenomenal risks this
media release has placed on the future of the wildlife industry, the question
needs to be asked – does the leadership of SAHGCA have a solid mandate from their
members in this approach and was collective input received from the majority of
our 36000 members? As a paid up member of SAHGCA I certainly do not support
this statement from our leaders.
The request made for government
intervention may well lead to a decline in wildlife in South Africa. Prior to
1991, wildlife was recognised as res
nullius or unowned property under the law. Landowners could only benefit
from game populations through killing or capturing the animals.
The implementation of the Game Theft
Act of 1991 changed the landscape for wildlife conservation. Landowners who
prescribed to the set requirements of enclosed areas could now legally own the
wildlife that was confined on their land. In effect, landowners were more
inclined to conserve rather than persecute wildlife that drifted across their
lands. In his book the South African
Conservation Success Story author Peter Flack says the South African
conservation model has three important legs; public sector, private sector and
the free market economy. Government intervention in the manner as requested by
SAHGCA may cut off the legs of the private sector and the free market economy. Once
game loses its financial value, there is a high risk that it will once again be
subject to unsustainable pressure from farmers who may revert back to cattle
and sheep farming.
Is the maintenance of ‘cheap’
hunting at the core of this campaign by SAHGCA? If so, it would appear rather
short sighted to pin the price of hunting at the expense of a free market
economy, which would allow game farmers to choose how to market game animals. In
effect, this impinges on the constitutional rights of game ranchers to operate
in the economy.
It is puzzling that SAHGCA selects
to interact in this way, since this is clearly an area for meaningful, robust
dialogue between stakeholders.
The game farming industry is already
over-regulated and under-administered by official bodies. An example of this is
the continuous struggle and delay in issuing permits for rhino, a delay which
constitutes a direct threat to a population facing extinction. To call for
further regulation will impede on the rights of hunters and game farmers and
will negatively impact wildlife in SA.
According to the media release
SAHGCA took a policy position on “Intensive and selective breeding to enhance
or alter genetic characteristics of indigenous game species for commercial
purposes” in November 2014, and called for other hunting bodies to
adopt the same policy. This kind of
policy statement needs to be backed up by scientific research, practical work
in the field, and peer review of the scientific papers. As a member of SAHGCA I would like to request
copies or references of the research that supports this policy.
What is even more disturbing is that
SAHGCA as consumptive hunters could be found guilty of violating the same 13
concerns they list about selective breeding. AS HUNTERS WE HAVE BEEN SELECTIVELY KILLING ANIMALS FOR
CENTURIES WHICH ALTERS ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, GENETIC MAKEUP, SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND
HABITATS.
Can we as SAHGCA lead by example with
regards to the 13 concerns for which we wish to hold others accountable? These
are some of my concerns…
SAHGCA 13 concerns
1.
Uncontrollable
impacts on natural evolutionary processes including changes in behaviour,
breeding patterns and reproductive cycles;
The statement made by our president, Dr Gerhard Verdoorn that he only
hunts wild animals existing in their original or natural state, can only be
described as fiction. Natural areas, with wild animals existing in their
original or natural state (without the hand of man) no longer exist in Southern
Africa. Hunted populations cannot be classified as natural or original
populations.
As hunters when we make the cognitive decision to pursue or track an
animal, even in the most ethical of hunting practices, we have an impact on the
natural evolutionary process of the entire herd. Our pursuit changes the
behaviour and breeding pattern of these animals and hunting and killing
breeding animals affects the groups reproductive status.
2.
Loss
of rare alleles and decreased genetic integrity of naturally occurring wildlife
populations;
Hunters are not required to submit a genetic assessment of target
animals before the hunt and could therefore be held responsible (knowingly or
unknowingly) for the loss of diversity in a population. One example of this is
the Addo elephant population; only 2% of free roaming elephant populations are
tuskless, but Addo elephants have a greater than 80% occurrence of tuskless
elephants. This is a direct result of hunters selecting for animals with tusks.
SANParks is correcting the trait by introducing tusked males into the
population. Is this action then to be perceived by SAHGCA as scientifically
flawed?
3.
Decreased
genetic fitness and adaptability to environmental conditions, including
environmental changes associated with climate change;
Consumptive hunters shoot only animals deemed to be healthy and in peak
condition. Could this not be seen as contributing to the decline in genetic
fitness in wildlife populations?
Furthermore how can we sight the ability for animals to adapt to climate
change as a concern and simultaneously condemn all colour variants? Could
certain variants not be more adapted to the environmental changes associated
with climate change?
4.
Negative
impacts on individual animals’ welfare;
There can be nothing more negative on the welfare of an individual
animal than to find itself in the crosshairs of a rifle sight. Perhaps SAHGCA’s
selection of the game ranching industry, compromising the welfare of individual
animals, could be seen as somewhat hypocritical in this light. Game ranchers
must attend to the welfare of individual animals to optimise wildlife
production.
5.
Uncontainable
expansion of exotic and extralimital wildlife species outside their historical
natural habitats;
Despite the fact that the white rhino flourished in certain areas of the
Eastern Cape, they have been forcefully removed from the province’s parks as
they were not endemic to the area. SAHGCA supports rhino conservation but is
calling for government intervention which will impeach on many rhino sanctuaries
as they fall outside historical habitats. Such sanctuaries would also face
further scrutiny as they could be deemed as either selective or intensive
breeding areas.
6.
Elevated
risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks and epidemics;
Game ranchers could be seen as a frontline in fighting disease
outbreaks. In unfenced, extensive systems infected animals have a greater
chance of passing disease on. Game ranchers with semi-extensive systems create
the potential for valuable quarantine zones in which outbreaks can be dealt
with more easily.
Game farmers constantly engage in putting up funding for genetic
research and perform post-mortems on animals where the cause of mortality is
not known so as to prevent zoonotic disease outbreaks and in fact, any form of
disease outbreak.
At this stage, I could ask what assessments are in place for consumptive
hunters who transport animal carcasses into urban and rural areas?
7.
Unpredictable
impacts on habitats and ecosystems;
Impact on habitats and ecosystems is known to be directly related to the
efficiency of management, whether the managed area be large or small. Most of
the privately owned semi-extensive game farms in South Africa are on land
previously used for agriculture and not on areas dedicated to conservation. In
many cases there has been an improvement in land use and conservation when
conventionally farmed land is turned over to game farming, with a massive
positive effect on biodiversity conservation. Habitats developed by game
ranchers for their wildlife, now provide ecosystems, which benefit a far wider
spectrum of biodiversity, than was previously possible.
8.
Increased
risk of persecution of predators, of which some species are already under
significant threat;
The risk game farmers pose to threatened species of predators is far
less than that of livestock farmers. The persecution of predators will stop
when their value to a rancher (through sustainable use) is greater than the
cost of having a population of predators on the land. Wildlife will continue to
be introduced or conserved outside protected areas when their sustainable use
has a greater socio-economic value to rural people than any other land use
option.
9.
Reputational
damage on the hunting industry associated with hunting of captive bred animals;
Chris Niehaus former president of SAHGCA spoke out on national
television in support of lion breeding and lion breeders. “Many of our members
are lion breeders and they have a code of conduct, just as we have a code of
conduct. Lion hunting is an extremely emotional thing, I understand that. I think we have to be very careful that you
don’t underestimate the conservation benefits of shooting the captive bred
lion, versus a wild lion.” And again in the same interview: “A lot of lions
have been released, they have been released all over Africa, even in South
Africa where game reserves that start up look for captive bred lions, they are
cats and they go feral very quickly just like house cats,” said Niehaus.
To view the full video please click on the following link:
Why in less than a year is SAHGCA now contradicting the former president
of SAHGCA statements and condemning captive bred animals?
10.
Questionable
integrity of South African wildlife trophies internationally;
Despite the presence of game fences, South Africa attracts more trophy
hunters than the rest of Africa combined. South Africa has excelled in the
trophy hunting industry, according to the Department of Environmental Affairs, trophy
hunting generated an estimated R1.072 billion in 2013, an increase of over 32%
from the previous year’s R811 million.
If selective breeding is tarnishing the hunting industry, why has this industry
shown growth of 32%?
11.
Unpredictable
increase in prices of indigenous wild animals, affecting local consumptive
hunters, extensive wildlife ranchers and activities along the entire value
chain;
SAGCHA sees the high prices obtained by game farmers for wild animals as
negatively affecting local consumptive hunters, extensive wildlife ranchers and
other activities along the value chain. It is vital to understand that there
are different markets for different animals. Every sensible conservationist
knows that breeding animals, commercially hunted game (biltong) and trophy
hunted game are differently priced.
In 1998, our biltong-hunting price (York Safaris) for Wildebeest was
R2250 per non-trophy bull. Our hunting price for wildebeest in 2015 is now
R3500. This is an increase of less than 2.75% per annum. Similarly our non-trophy
price for impala was R595 and is now R1100, an increase of 3.75% per annum.
This is drastically less than inflation.
12.
Increased
risk of disinvestment in extensive wildlife ranching and associated reduction
in the contribution of associated sectors on the biodiversity economy and
national conservation targets and objectives;
Self-sustaining commercial game ranchers must generate sufficient income
to cover the high cost of land, animals, development and production in order to
survive. They are also required to make a sustainable, positive contribution to
transformation, community upliftment, food security, job creation, the rural
green economy and biodiversity conservation. Given the costs, the creation of
wealth and business operations run on sound economic principles, must take
precedence.
Should members of SAHGCA wish to hunt in extensive areas, game ranchers
who run these systems must be appropriately paid for this hunting privilege and
the bill will certainly be higher.
In terms of the contribution made to the biodiversity economy and
national conservation targets and objects, I’d like to once again refer to
former president of SAHGCA Mr Chris Niehaus who states; “we should not underestimate the conservation benefit of captive bred
animals.”
13.
The
ability of eco-tourism and the hunting industry to contribute sustainably to
the economy and the wellbeing of the broader public.
The Kruger National Park (KNP) is a large, extensively managed area,
while the Joburg Zoo is a highly intensively managed, small area. Between these
two extremes are state run national and provincial parks, private reserves,
syndicated game reserves and game farms. All have different objectives,
ideologies and management plans, depending on circumstances and funding. This
diversity contributes to the growth and success of the industry including
eco-tourism, hunting and conservation.
In conclusion
SAHGCA should celebrate the strength
of diversity within our industry and not create weakness in division by trying
to force all to manage according to preconceived objectives of certain
conservationists or preservationists.
It would be interesting and
informative to be presented with the research and discussion that led to this
policy statement by the executive leadership of SAHGCA. I, for one, would like
to see this evidence. Until such time as a member of SAHGCA I oppose this media
release and the policy document. Both these documents are flawed and will only
damage the stature and name of not only SAHGCA but also the entire hunting
fraternity. I’d also like to encourage our leadership to engage other sectors
in meaningful debate. Not a single SAHGCA member will benefit from this media
driven antagonistic attack on the wildlife industry.
I look forward to a written response
from our leadership addressing these issues.
Your fellow member, whose livelyhood
depends on conservation.
Richard York
