SA Jagters KWES die jag mark!!

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 18^th 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:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8Vl03j8JsU

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