Trophy Hunting

[Richprins]

The article mentions 15000.

[Lisbeth]

I did not remember.

[Lisbeth]

Animal protection NGO stops trophy hunt quotas – for now


Lions are among the top five species exported as trophies from South Africa (Photo: Nel Botha / Pixabay)

By Don Pinnock | 26 Apr 2022

The decision by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to issue quotas to trophy-hunt leopards, black rhinos and elephants has been suspended by court order.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Western Cape High Court has blocked the issuing of quotas to hunt 10 leopards, 10 black rhinos and 150 elephants following an application by the Humane Society International/Africa, provisionally agreeing that they were invalid and unlawful.

Final judgment will be determined in a second part of the case, which is to follow. But for now, no quotas may be issued by Environment Minister Barbara Creecy.

The court concurred with HSI/Africa that Creecy’s department was not permitted to defer the 2021 quotas to 2022, as it had attempted to, because this was not authorised under regulations on international trade of these species and also violated the common law principle of legitimate expectation. It also found that:

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment failed to comply with the required public participation conditions;
The quota announcement was not published in the Government Gazette; and
The minister was not permitted to issue a quota for trophy hunting when there was no scientific proof that such hunts would not be detrimental to the species.
In his findings, Judge Patrick Gamble pointed out that if the interdict was granted, the lives of 170 wild animals would be spared pending the final hearing of the review. If the review was successful but the interdict was not granted, the protected animals would have been killed, their rights violated and their populations irreversibly affected.

If the review fails, he said, the quota will still stand. Then “the desire of the fortunate few who can afford to hunt protected animals exclusively for the purpose of transporting their trophies for display overseas will not have been lost, only delayed”.

The executive director for HSI/Africa, Tony Gerrans, welcomed the high court’s ruling. It enabled the terms by which the quota allocations were determined to be fully reviewed. “We are thankful that the high court recognises that the killing of our threatened, vulnerable and critically endangered wildlife cannot continue while this matter is heard.”

What the decision means is that, until the review is undertaken by the court, the department may not issue any quotas to hunt the three species, may not publish quotas in the Government Gazette and may not permit the export of their trophies.

It’s a considerable victory for conservation NGOs fighting for the welfare of animals in South Africa and an end to trophy hunting. They point out that leopards are categorised as vulnerable on the Red List of Threatened Species, black rhinos are critically endangered and elephant numbers across Africa have plummeted. Issuing licences to hunt them is bizarre.

South Africa is the world’s second-largest exporter of hunting trophies, accounting for 16% of the global total – an average of 4,204 a year. This is 50% more than Africa’s second-largest exporter, Namibia, and more than three times that of Africa’s third-largest exporter, Zimbabwe.

Between 2014 and 2018 South Africa exported 574 leopard trophies (98% of them wild-sourced), 1,337 elephant trophies (virtually all wild-sourced) and 21 black rhino trophies (all wild-sourced).

The top five species exported as trophies from South Africa are lions (mostly captive), chacma baboons, southern lechwes (captive, non-native), caracals and vervet monkeys. Most foreign hunters come from the US, and the rest from Russia, Denmark, Canada, Mexico, Germany, Hungary, Sweden and France.

According to the 2022 Good Governance Report dealing with trophy hunting, the South African government’s apparent commitment to trophy hunting “neither considers the opportunity costs associated with the practice nor its negative externalities”.

It adds that while trophy hunting may generate some economic benefit, this is hardly enough to substantiate the overall harm that it does, or to promote it as a conservation mechanism. DM/OBP

[Richprins]

[Lisbeth]

I hope that at least the black rhinos and also the leopards will be safe

[graham]

Me too.

Why do we even dignify it by calling it "Trophy Hunting"? It is no more than killing for pleasure and belongs in the same category as dog fighting, fox hunting, cock fighting and little boys who get pleasure from pulling the wings off flies.

[Lisbeth]

Trophy hunting incentivises killing of endangered animals, warns Zambian environmentalist



BY TRACY KEELING - 15TH MAY 2022 - THE CANARY

Germany has become the latest European country to announce a potential ban on the import of hunting trophies. The move comes as those who support the practice have increased pressure on European politicians to continue with the status quo. And they argue that ‘Africa isn’t being heard’on the issue.

The Canary spoke with the co-founder of environmental NGO Mizu Eco-Care in Zambia to hear his thoughts on the subject. Timothy Kamuzu Phiri said he belongs to the school of thought that values wild animals while they’re alive, not dead, especially when it comes to endangered species. He argued that giving value to them after death is like putting “a ransom on their heads”.

Incentivising killing

A 2021 report from Humane Society International (HSI) showed that the EU is the second largest importer of body parts from wild animals killed for sport. The US, meanwhile, is the largest importer. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, it brought in more than 700,000 trophies between 2016 and 2020.

Now, Germany has announced its intent to limit trophy hunting imports, as some other Europeancountries have also done. The announcement follows the government receiving a letter on the issue from the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) World Commission on Environmental Law Ethics Specialist Group (WCEL ESG). The group wrote a report in 2017 that concluded trophy hunting was inconsistent with the IUCN’s “general objectives”. And its conclusions flew in the face of staunch support for “well-managed” trophy hunting by the IUCN’s Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Group (SULi).

Professor Klaus Bosselmann, who was chair of the WCEL ESG at the time of the report, welcomed Germany’s announcement. He said:

• Trophy hunting unnecessarily threatens the survival and genetic integrity of protected species in the midst of the current crisis of the sixth mass species extinction.

Phiri shares this sentiment. He told The Canary that placing a financial value on endangered species after death “puts them at risk, as it adds an incentive to have them killed”. As such, he doesn’t support trophy hunting or attempts by officials to sell off trophies, such as ivory, seized from poachers.

Not a threat

An event in Brussels on 26 April discussed the impact that hunting has on animals from a different angle. The pro-hunting European Parliament Intergroup on “Biodiversity Hunting Countryside” organised that session. It was titled “Is Africa being heard? Hunting, Conservation and Livelihoods“. Speakers included Namibia’s minister of environment, secretary-general of the global wildlife trade body, and IUCN SULi’s chair.

Trophy hunting plays a big part in Namibia’s model of conservation. Namibian minister Pohamba Shifeta said the model has “produced excellent results”. He argued that there’s more wildlife in the country now than “at any time in the last hundred years”. Others have asserted that wildlife populations have seen significant declines in parts of the country. Moreover, the government’s methodology for counting elephants in particular has faced scrutiny.

Meanwhile, IUCN SULi chair Dilys Roe said that “trophy hunting is not listed as a major threat to any species on the Red List”. The IUCN produces this Red List, which documents the status of threatened species. In its letter to the German government, however, WCEL ESG highlighted a 2019 report that listed direct exploitation of organisms – e.g. hunting – as the second largest driver of biodiversity loss. This global report was published by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Community benefits

Speakers at the Brussels-based event argued that trophy hunting provides benefits to communities where it occurs in the form of income and meat. This is a core tenet of the ‘trophy hunting is conservation’ logic. As proponents say that such benefits incentivise people to conserve wildlife.

But Phiri suggested otherwise. Because engaging with local communities is a key part of Mizu Eco-Care‘s work. It aims to “be a leading platform for mindset change and a paradigm shift towards environmental sustainability”. Phiri founded the initiative in 2019 with his younger brother Innocent Kondwani Phiri after years working in science education and environmental education in a secondary school and the University of Zambia.

According to Phiri, based on what he knows “to be true on the ground”, trophy hunting benefits those in positions of privilege more than it does local communities. He highlighted that there’s a difference between the amount of money on paper that communities appear to receive from hunting and what happens in practice, saying:

• We have to look at where that money goes. A percentage has to go to the chief. A percentage has to go to the community scouts. They are not paid by government, they are paid by the money that comes in through trophy hunting. After that’s put aside, how much of the money actually ends up with the people?

Where the money goes

These comments echo findings from a 2021 undercover investigation. It spotlighted Namibia’s Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) model. In this model, communities manage nature – including its exploitation – within their designated areas. The investigation presented the picture of a system whereby income from trophy hunting, and other uses of wildlife, benefits community officials and staff like wildlife guards. But in terms of providing meaningful income and support to the wider community, the investigation suggested the system was lacking.

As conservation scientist Frown Becker pointed out in Mongabay, meanwhile, trophy hunting revenue in Namibia overwhelmingly flows to freehold farmersrather than CBNRMs. Becker highlighted a study that attributed 92% of revenue to freehold land in 2016, rather than community-run areas. According to a 2018 report, white people own over 70% of freehold land in the country.

Moreover, trophy hunting is a business. So part of the fees paid go to individuals and companies involved in the transaction. These include professional hunting guides and trophy hunting companies. A recent investigation by Botswana’s Sunday Standard, for example, alleged that the company Old Man’s Pan Propriety Limited “bullied” a community trust in the Okavango Delta to sell its elephant quota to it at a dramatically reduced rate. This means that the community will only receive around a third of what is the “going rate” for the targeted elephants.

An enduring colonialist structure

Phiri also spoke about the history of colonialism in Africa. During this time the colonisers – who engaged in excessive trophy hunting – excluded people from accessing land through the creation of national parks. He suggested that contemporary trophy hunting is part of an enduring colonialist structure. And many communities are still unable to hunt or have access themselves. They are “meant to be content” with a low percentage of income from fees paid and “some meat”, he said.

At the Brussels event, Roe said that the meatcommunities get from wild animals killed for trophies is a “really understated and underplayed benefit”. Phiri said that he personally finds this element of the pro-hunting argument “very insulting”. He commented:

• What are people in a vulnerable position meant to do? People that are starving, people that don’t have the right to hunt anymore?

Phiri further stated that though communities may appear content with this setup, this is a “mentality that’s been inculcated [instilled]in them through the years”. He argued that when policies have been in place for decades, that influences how people feel and think. Moreover, he said many people may not be in a position to provide a fully-informed view on whether what’s happening is fair. That’s because they’re not “empowered enough about their rights” in relation to their country’s natural resources.

That’s not justice

Phiri himself believes that trophy hunting is not a fair conservation tool. He accepts that it’s part of Zambia’s landscape currently, as the country’s tourism sector is lagging behind neighbouring countries. But if tourism sector can ‘up its game’, he said, the country would no longer “have the excuse of having to depend on trophy hunting”.

He also insisted that the government could – and should – spend more on environmental protection. The Zambian government allocates less than one per cent of its budget to that end, Phiri asserted. This is “convenient” for private stakeholders, like trophy hunting enterprises, who can subsequently claim to be the only avenue for conservation funding. For them, it’s big business – a money-generating venture – he said. The Mizu Eco-Care co-founder stated:

• Let’s realise how unfair this ‘conservation tool’ is, it’s skewed against communities in favour of those with money and connections. For me that’s not justice

Justice for Elle

Phiri’s concerns about justice aren’t exclusive to humans. In response to a highly controversial trophy hunt of a big tusker elephant in Botswana, he wrote a letter of apology to the elephant. To be a big tusker, elephants have to have at least one tusk weighing 100 pounds. Currently, there are only a few dozen left in the world. But in the space of a few weeks, people paid to kill two of them in Botswana, Africa Geographic reported. According to the Sunday Standard, the professional hunter involved in one of those killings, Leon Kachelhoffer, is a shareholder in Old Man’s Pan Propriety Limited.

Phiri’s letter apologised to “Elle”. It pointed to the disconnect between people’s “fond bond” with Elle in youth, when he brought in a “handsome penny” through tourism, and old age. Once older, we “forgot you are a sentient being,” the letter said, and “sold you to the highest bidder”. “Forgive us”, Phiri wrote, for ‘betraying you like this’.

Justice for all

This speaks to the “mindset change” that Mizu Eco-Care wants to facilitate. Phiri told The Canary that there’s currently a “disconnected” relationship between people and the rest of the living world. This is because many people are facing extreme poverty and are “desperate for survival”. People have also embraced a new idea of success that’s largely based on attaining “unsustainable” material wealth, such as bigger houses and cars, he said.

Phiri believes that people “need to get back to being more connected to nature through embracing healthy aspects of their traditions”. He argued that we need “wisdom from the past” to move forward sustainably and “take care of nature”. Focusing on mindset change is an essential part of this. Phiri explained that empowering people with knowledge on why – not just what – things need to change makes a shift in mindset possible. He said:

• If we truly renew the way people perceive themselves, their connection to nature, what is truly important, what is the true definition of success in life, as a people… not the superficial definition of success… if we go that path then we can reconnect with nature.

Clearly, for Mizu Eco-Care, that path forward doesn’t include trophy hunting. It is actively seeking a future where there’s justice for all.

original article: https://www.thecanary.co/feature/2022/0 ... mentalist/

[Lisbeth]

TROPHY HUNTING DEBATE

Hunting and wildlife trade will save our wildlands, not CITES trade bans – experts argue


A taxidermist brushes the mane of a stuffed lion at a taxidermist workshop near Johannesburg, South Africa, on 23 August 2007. (Photo: Naashon Zalk / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

By Rio Button, Dominic Naidoo and Fred Kockott | 16 Jun 2022

Trophy hunting and the wildlife trade are emotive subjects that divide many rooms. Over time, Our Burning Planet will publish various views on the subject. In this piece, several economists posit that Africa’s wildlife economy is vast and largely untapped, but if the continent’s people are to benefit while natural systems are preserved, we must face up to some tough truths.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-______
While the rest of the world has lost 82% of its wildlife in the past 50 years, southern Africa’s wildlife populations, including rhino and elephant, are increasing rapidly.

This is no thanks to poorly-managed and under-funded national parks, says wildlife scholar, Professor Brian Child.

Child said private game reserves and ranches have more success with rewilding and conservation than their national counterparts, while generating considerable revenue for conservation and livelihoods.

But sanctions on wildlife trade, including rhino horn and ivory, were imposing “opportunity costs” of about $1-billion a year – “enough to manage all the protected parts in Africa”, said Child.

Relations

Child was among the guest speakers on a Tipping Points webinar recently hosted by Oppenheimer Generations Research and Conservation – a not-for-profit organisation that fosters research and dialogue on human-nature relationships.

The webinar looked at how wildlife economies could be developed in Africa to improve the lot of communities while conserving wildlife and protecting the natural environment.

Indigenous communities, the webinar heard, got a raw deal in the past when it came to conservation efforts organised by, and for the benefit and enjoyment of, the well-to-do.

Speakers focused on how things might be done more fairly in the future and addressed the question, “Paying the price: Is a conservation economy worth it?”

Case for hunting

Child, an associate professor at the Centre for African Studies at the University of Florida and an expert on conservation, park management and economics with years of hands-on experience, made the case for hunting and wildlife trade.

His presentation lashed out at CITES, the multilateral treaty to protect endangered plants and animals, for “continuing to reward failure and punish success in African conservation since 1975”.

And he explained why he believed tourism alone was insufficient to conserve Africa’s wildlife and why we shouldn’t look to agriculture either.

Besides no longer being profitable – neither for traditional commercial farmers or small growers – agriculture would not help solve major issues of climate change, soil degradation and deforestation in Africa.

Hungry farmers

Farmers were getting hungrier, said Child. “And it’s going to get worse… Many of our grandparents were farmers. They are not now because it’s not viable.”

He said intensive livestock and crop farming had also wiped out wildlife populations on vast swathes of land, causing massive biodiversity loss.

More recently, he said, wildlife experts in Namibia challenged southern African colonial policies and the ownership of wildlife was returned to landowners and farmers. The result today was that some wildlife numbers, including rhino, were increasing rapidly in southern Africa, and in ways that could benefit growing numbers of people, including many previously excluded from the conservation economy.

Land use

Referring to a map of Africa, Child said: “Just look at all this space – this green unproductive land – we have got to develop this economy.”

As things stand, people in these communities were earning less than a dollar a hectare, said Child, while by comparison, Namibian game ranches were making between $40 and $50 a hectare. “One ranch that has hunting and tourism on the same land, makes $200 per hectare.”

Child said Africa’s national parks could work well as an engine for economic growth, but out of a total 85 national parks, only 10 were working effectively. “The other 75 are really struggling.”

The Kruger National Park created more than 36,000 jobs and added $807-million to South Africa’s GDP each year, but these tourism activities were closely clustered around a small area near the park.

Kruger

“Tourism is really good at making a lot of money and creating a lot of jobs in really small areas. It won’t conserve Africa’s wildlife. That is why we need hunting and wildlife trade.”

In addition to sanctions placed on wildlife trade, in particular rhino horn and ivory, moves to ban trophy hunting were also a concern, he said, as trophy hunting in southern Africa was worth half a billion dollars, and $200-million to local farmers. “It’s paying for and conserving about 60% to 80% of the wildlands in the region,” said Child.

“But there is a target on its back. Important markets are being closed down by international people, with a huge amount of resentment from the very people who are looking after wildlife. Here in Namibia, people are calling them sanctions,” said Child.

Precious asset

Dr Sue Snyman, an economist by training and the director of research for the School of Wildlife Conservation at African Leadership University, said institutional failure, mismanagement, skewed priorities and a lack of imagination had stymied efforts to develop inclusive and sustainable wildlife economies.

And judging by the way the world has been working over the past few decades, it seemed many people had forgotten that economies, livelihoods and wellbeing ultimately depend on the world’s precious asset: nature.

She shared graphs showing that capital – machinery, tools and buildings used to produce goods and services – had increased more than 100% over 22 years; human capital – skills, knowledge, and experience – had risen by nearly 20% over the same period; but natural capital – the world’s stock of natural resources – had fallen by nearly 40%.

It need not be this way, said Snyman. Conservation and development could work together for the benefit of current and future generations.

Value

“It is a key growth opportunity for Africa,” said Snyman. “Unlike other continents that have virtually depleted their natural capital and are now rewilding, Africa still has spectacular fauna and flora.”

Looking at the key enterprises which make up Africa’s wildlife economy, she noted that ecotourism was traditionally the biggest, with the wildlife safari industry valued at between $12.4-billion (direct) and $42.9-billion (total).

Then there were hunting; ranching; wildlife estates (which was relatively new); film and photography (huge potential, but not currently utilised); non-forestry timber products; and the largely untapped carbon offset market (which lets companies or individuals invest in environmental projects to balance their carbon footprints from other activities).

Snyman stressed that most wildlife hunting in southern Africa was not for trophies but for venison – game meat for the pot. In South Africa alone in 2019, local hunters contributed $875-million (85%) and international hunters $158-million (15%) to the economy. Game meat sales in South Africa generate about $56-million a year.

Snyman saw great potential in tourism. She noted that in 2018, Africa received only 5% of worldwide tourism arrivals. Stakeholders simply needed to illustrate the value of this unrealised potential in ways that would result in investment and ultimately growth in natural capital.

Ownership

In his presentation, conservation economist Michael ’t Sas-Rolfes stressed the need to promote collaboration in developing the wildlife economy. Here, ownership was a key factor. People with “skin in the game” not only care for the land and conserve its wildlife, but also find ways to generate revenue from it, he said.

’T Sas-Rolfes referred to a case study which showed that wherever rhino conservation and anti-poaching efforts were left in the hands of the state, these had failed. The Kruger National Park was, for example, losing the battle to protect its rhino populations, whereas private game reserves were winning.

He said the trade in rhino horns and other body parts had generated as much as $350-million a year over the past decade, “but almost exclusively by people we would regard as criminals. It has not gone back into conservation”.

This leads to the question as to who benefits from the rhino horn trade ban: those conserving rhinos or those killing them? And who would benefit if the trophy hunting ban, now lobbied for internationally and in South Africa, was approved? asked ’T Sas-Rolfes.

Above all, whose values and priorities count when making such decisions? Answering those questions, said ’T Sas-Rolfes, was not just about economics, but moral and ethical considerations too.

He concluded that an effective wildlife economy needed to be diverse, sustainable, and adapt to different and diverse approaches arising from decentralised (bottom-up) governance, not a top-down approach if it is to be resilient in a changing world.

Cappuccino critics

Elaborating further in the webinar’s Q&A session, Child said: “If I am a hungry person and I need to intensify my land use to feed my children, is that a wrong thing? The whole question of what’s domestic and what is wild, and what is good and what is bad, needs a lot more nuance. We trash trophy hunting where people are killing animals that live as wildlife and also eat them, but we are quite fine eating chickens.”

“This is something we need to debate in a way in which the ordinary people living with the wildlife have a voice,” said Child. “At the moment it is being debated by the liberal Westerners who are drinking cappuccinos in the capital cities of the world without the input of local people. That is not going to result in sustainable solutions. Local people are quite aware of issues of cruelty and the beauty of the environment. If we simply trust the local people (to conserve rhino for example), I think a lot of these problems would go away.” DM/OBP

Rio Button is a marine biologist, commercial diver, and surfer and regular correspondent for Roving Reporters. Dominic Naidoo is a freelance environmental journalist. Fred Kockott is director at Roving Reporters.

[Richprins]

Child said private game reserves and ranches have more success with rewilding and conservation than their national counterparts, while generating considerable revenue for conservation and livelihoods.

[Lisbeth]

Rather logical that the private enterprises have more success than the SOEs