When I read Bryan Havemann’s articles on hunting as a conservation tool, I expected to see a strong response from animal-rights activists, so the long letter from Adam Cruise come as no surprise. However, unlike many other publications, SA4x4 clearly acknowledges that there are two sides to every argument, and is not afraid to publish both.
I do not write as an expert; I have not published books on conservation and the university qualifications that I have are totally unrelated to conservation. I do not seek to change Adam Cruise’s opinion or any other animal-rightist opinion about hunting. My experience is that positions on hunting are polarised, and that there is very little reach between the two positions.
I do, however, want to speak about my experiences − both personally, as a hunter and a father, and through my involvement as an attorney in the game-ranch industry.
I am also not going to quote statistics or science, because I believe that (much like firearm ownership) statistics and science in relation to hunting have become distorted, subjective and abused, in order to further specific agendas.
Personally, I would not know what I know about the animals, their behaviour, and their habitats and flora if it were not for hunting. The older I get and the more hunting I do, the more I appreciate the animals that I hunt. (I am both a meat hunter, and on occasion, a trophy hunter). One game farmer who is a hunting buddy of mine has embarked on programmes to distribute the benefits of our hunting to specific communities. I am again not going to give the details, because they would not change anyone’s perspective on hunting.
The fact is that I do not eat a fraction of the meat that I hunt, but I do donate a substantial portion of it to a church; and my fellow syndicate of hunters and I spend disproportionate amounts of money annually at an auction on his game farm, of which the proceeds go to keep a local, neglected government school open for children in the district. We have electrified the school, given it internet, toilets, playground equipment and so on, all out of our own pockets.
I passed my love of nature (not only of hunting) onto my son, and I know that he would be first in line to stop habitat destruction and wanton destruction of wildlife. That brings me back to the age-old question of hunting versus conservation by other means.
The reality is that animal rights organisations are very vocal and very powerful because of donor funding. They manage to distort public perceptions of hunting and wildlife in general to suit their own particular agendas, which ultimately put wildlife on the same level as human beings: that we are not supposed to utilise them or any other forms of life such as fish. No non-hunting or anti-hunting organisation has put as much money into the environment as South African game farmers have. Yes, it is done for profit − but profit is what drives the world whether we like it or not, and whether we are capitalist or not. There are massive inequalities in South Africa and indeed the world, and those inequalities existed long before game farms or even commercial hunting or trophy hunting came into existence, and they will always exist. That is not to excuse inequality or justify it, it is a simple fact. In this context, a call to redistribute wealth is an opportunistic populist stance, aimed at advancing the animalrightist agenda.
Trophy hunting, and even consumptive hunting on a commercial basis (and I stress a commercial basis where money changes hands), is responsible for only some of the animals that are killed every year. What goes virtually unrecognised is the powerful factor of human encroachment upon natural habitats which results in the destruction and elimination of wildlife.
Consumptive hunting on a non-commercial basis (that is, where no money changes hands and where it is done for the purposes of survival or cultural or other reasons) is what is destroying African wildlife. The two exceptions to this are the poaching of elephant and rhino, which are criminal syndicate activities and have nothing to do with normal hunters. You cannot lay the blame for those activities at the door of the ordinary hunter. The reality is that consumptive hunting (or poaching, as most people call it) is the scourge of African wildlife, because human populations are growing, and free or open spaces are getting smaller. The result is an inevitable decline in wildlife numbers. To my mind, the only way to reverse this trend is to fence off, or to demarcate, conservation areas, and to give local populations an incentive to preserve wildlife. One of the ways (not the only one) is to allow hunting.
Namibia has recognised this with its communal hunting areas. I have sat around a table with representatives of the Department of Environmental Affairs who have specifically asked hunting associations to encourage more black hunters, so that areas that have been land-claimed and which have been laid barren through noncommercial consumptive hunting can be rehabilitated through the promotion of black hunters who will pay to hunt and create value on unutilised land.
I note that Cruise does not mention Kenya in his discourse, and rightfully so. Kenya banned commercial hunting in 1977. Its wildlife has declined by more than 70% in the past 20 years. My source is one of the liberal sources that Cruise would jump at quoting: the Huffington Post. Finally, Cruise’s article is inherently contradictory. He says that hunting is an outdated and ineffective relic from a colonial past, and bemoans the fact that many (if not most) South Africans do not have access to the resources that land provides. Yet, in the same voice, he promotes foreign tourists, who make up a minute fraction of the world’s population that are financially able to travel to South Africa. His solutions emanate from a financially-privileged minority, too. All Cruise proves at the end of the day is that he has a viewpoint, but not necessarily the right or the only one.