From the Editor
A
recent announcement from the Professional Hunters’
Association of South Africa says that “canned
hunting is illegal in South Africa and people should
immediately report suspected incidences to the police or
wildlife authorities”. And, of course, whether it is illegal or
not, it is unethical. PHASA goes on to caution that “canned
hunting should, however, not be confused with legal,
responsible and sustainable forms of hunting, which have
had a demonstrably positive impact on conservation in South
Africa as well as other countries where it is practiced”. So in
Africa, you have not only the question of the law - because
what is illegal in one country is not necessarily so in another
- and also of definitions. What is “canned hunting”?
PHASA has noticed a deliberate attempt to confuse
canned hunting and legitimate forms of hunting and that
this was part of a larger campaign to undermine hunting as
an effective conservation tool. The animal rights and animal
welfare organisations behind the various campaigns are not
recognised authorities in the field of conservation. “The
real authorities are the Convention for the International
Trade in Endangered Species, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature, the World Wildlife Fund and in
South Africa the Department of Environmental Affairs,
all of which recognise sustainable hunting as a valuable
contributor to conservation practices as well as to rural
community development and anti-poaching initiatives.”
PHASA says, correctly.
One of the problems in South Africa is that European
colonists arrived so early on - some 362 years ago, in 1652
- that there is much less “wilderness” than on most of the
rest of the continent. Even the Pilanesberg National Park,
at some 60,000 hectares, South Africa’s second-largest
contiguous park, is completely fenced off. But a fence does
not a canned hunt make. And that’s where it all comes down
to the ethics, for at the end of the day it is the hunter who
determines what is right and wrong and what he or she will
and will not accept.
If there is credibility in a recent news report, a selfish
lack of professionalism directly caused the deaths of over
a hundred elephant from cyanide poisoning in Hwange
National Park last year. According to a report in Southern
Eye, elephant poisoning was first detected in May of 2013
and Zimbabwe National Parks had all the details and
specifics of the people involved.
However, action was not taken until between August and
October after it had become a catastrophe. Reports said the
middle managers sat on the information because of a feeling
that top management was reluctant to act on resolutions of
a board meeting on salary increments to middle managers.
Any sensible person would have to conclude that if
true, the middle management bear the same culpability for
the elephant deaths as the poachers, and should receive the
same prison sentences.
Meanwhile, National Parks has released its new schedule
of fees for 2014. Most of the charges seem reasonable, and
do not put the country’s natural history heritage beyond
the reach of the average Zimbabwean - still, as with the
economy across the board, there seems to be a total lack
of understanding of the real value of a United States dollar.
While it will undoubtedly prove to be detrimental to
Botswana’s wildlife, that country’s hunting ban has caused
Zimbabwean operators to predict a twenty to thirty percent
increase in hunting revenue this year; in 2013 the hunting
industry generated some forty five million dollars for
Zimbabwe, and operators are predicting that it could garner
some sixty million this year.
One obstacle that the safari industry was concerned
about was the ludicrous fifteen percent increase across the
board that hunters would have had to pay if the Minister of
Finance had been successful in his move to remove tourism
from its value added tax exemption. Fortunately, clearer
heads in government prevailed, and the initiative was struck
down. If you sit down to a roast goose dinner in Africa,
the main course will all too often be the one that laid the
golden egg. Had a further fifteen percent been added on to
sport hunters’ potential outlay in coming to Zimbabwe, the
country would not have even matched the previous year’s
revenue and the countries to benefit would have been South
Africa, Mozambique and Tanzania.
That’s kind of the good news, but elsewhere land
invaders are compromising Zimbabwe’s participation in
the envisaged Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park alongside
South Africa and Mozambique because