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.

[Fred Camphor]

Fred Camphor on 3rd August 2017 at 12:08 pm

I refer to the letter by Adam Cruise, in the may issue of SA4x4. While I understand that Mr Cruise, in essence, refers to trophy hunting, I must present my credentials and interest in this matter right at the start. I am a consumptive hunter and I am also the CEO of the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association, which has approximately 41 500 paid-up members throughout South Africa. most of these members are also consumptive hunters who use the protein (meat) collected by means of hunting.

It saddens us to see that a person’s bias against hunting can lead him to totally disregard the benefi ts that can be derived from the responsible and sustainable consumptive use of natural resources. It is important to note that there are numerous organisations which support this notion; these include the IuCN whose defi nition includes “wise use”. Also amongst them are organisations representing hunters who recognise continued improvement of all practices and the eradication of malpractices in the hunting industry.

Responsible and sustainable consumptive use of natural resources has, in the past, contributed signifi cantly to the increase in protected areas, as well as in the wildlife population in southern Africa and in indirect conservation of many species on private land. The recovery in the number of game animals, estimated to be as low as 500 000 animals in the 1940s, to an estimate of more than 20 000 000 head of game today, bears testament to this, with only 6 000 000 head of game found in offi cial government-protected areas and the rest found on private land where hunting is the primary driver.

At the moment, approximately eight million hectares of the national estate is under formal protection by government, with private and communal property contributing a further 17 million hectares to the extensive wildlife system. Without income streams generated by hunting, it is unlikely that the majority of these private wildlife-based undertakings will survive. mr Cruise is highly critical of the “If it pays, it stays” mantra. This is merely a reality. If wildlife habitats, and wildlife itself, cannot be self-supportive, they will lose out in the long run to other land-uses such as mining, plantations and intensive agricultural use.

Hunting as a whole, inclusive of trophy hunting, is an integral part of ecotourism and (in many cases) has less impact on the environment than busloads of non-consumptive tourists. In South Africa specifi cally, hunting contributes at the local level to direct job creation on the farms – for guides, trackers, skinners, cooks, and cleaning and maintenance personnel. further upstream and downstream, it also contributes to employment in associated industries, such as in the manufacture of apparel and accessories, fi rearms and ammunition and fencing material, as well as in industries like tanneries, taxidermists, curio manufacturers and shops, shooting ranges and game-meat processing plants, to name but a few. recent studies done by NWu and ABSA, for instance, estimate the total value of the annual contribution made by consumptive hunting to the RSA economy to be as high as R8 billion.

It is also important to note, and to be honest about the fact, that if a species with no commercial value (or individuals from a population of that species) is in direct confl ict with the day-to-day activities of private or communal property, the species will be removed or destroyed.

It is also important to recognise that in the hunting fraternity there may be nefarious and unethical activities. The majority of ethical hunters recognise this, and are constantly endeavouring to change these practices.

Calling for all hunting to be stopped will remove hunting as both a management tool and as a crucially important income-generator that contributes materially to the sustainability of extensive wildlife systems.

In the statement, “…many iconic species, especially those favoured by trophy hunters, are in a sharp decline mainly through widespread poaching and habitat loss,” mr Cruise hits the nail squarely on the head. At this point, it is necessary to make sure that the reader understands that poaching has about as much resemblance to hunting as an armed home invasion and robbery has to shopping.

It is also very important to realise that the only way to ensure that we stop the habitat loss, or at least curb it, is by creating incentives for landowners to conserve these extensive wildlife systems, and thus prevent intensification, or land-use change.

The fact is that not all areas are suitable for high-end high volume, or, may I add, highenvironmental- impact tourism. (Consider issues of water and sanitation). Trophy hunting is one of the arrows that, together with consumptive hunting, ecotourism, adventure tourism and live game sales, make up the quiver of successful extensive wildlife system managers.

It would seem that Mr Cruise takes exception to the hunting of leopard. Although leopard is indeed an iconic and charismatic species, and we understand the emotion attached to this species, it should always be remembered that in conservation, concern should never be focused on a single species or (even worse), individual animals. The conservation approach should always be focused on the greater good of the ecosystem and its functioning as a whole.

In my view, responsible and sustainable hunting, and especially consumptive hunting, is a great potential contributor to the future of conservation. If you want to see mass decimation and destruction of wildlife in South Africa, then stop all hunting, terminate any value game may have, and then try to argue the case for why it is good not to hunt at all.