Category: Uncategorized

‘n Video van Amerikaanse jagters wat halfmak leeus op ‘n plaas in Noordwes op ‘n kort afstand skiet, het gister op die COP17beraad skokgolwe deur die bewaringsgemeenskap gestuur.

Volgens die fotograaf Derek Gobbett, wat die video gemaak het, het die jagters binne sewe dae tien leeus op die plaas De Klerk Safari’s doodgeskiet.

Hy het die jag aanvanklik meegemaak om ‘n video as aandenking vir die jagters te skiet, maar het die video later aan die BBC gegee wat dit vertoon het onder die opskrif: “Skiet leeujagters mak diere in SuidAfrika?”

Van die jagters skiet leeus uit hul voertuie dood.

Op een van die snitte kan duidelik gesien word hoe ‘n leeu van die jagters probeer wegkom en in ‘n boom klim. Die jagters loop onder die boom deur, draai om en skiet twee skote op die leeu.

‘n Ander snit wys hoe ‘n leeuwyfie in ‘n vlakvarkgat kruip en probeer wegkom van die jagters.

Hulle skiet haar binnein die gat dood, lag en wens mekaar geluk met die “goeie jag”.

Bob Vitro, ‘n jagter en taksidermis van New York, skiet by een geleentheid ‘n leeumannetjie dood en stap opgewonde nader terwyl hy vir die karkas vertel hoe graag hy hom wou skiet, maar hy se ook hy is jammer daaroor.

Will Travers, direkteur van Born Free, het gister gese die video het hom tot in sy siel geskok.

“Ek het gedink ek het alles gesien, maar hierdie is die ergste. Die SuidAfrikaanse regering sal daadwerklik iets aan hierdie onetiese bedryf moet doen.”

Karen Trendler van Four Paws het gese hierdie video wys net “die oortjies van die seekoei” van hierdie verskriklike bedryf.

“Dit is waarom ons hier by COP17 so hard werk om die bedryf te smoor en leeus op Bylae 1 gelys te kry,” het sy gese.

Ian Michler, vervaardiger van die dokumentere rolprent Blood Lions, het die departement van omgewingsake uitgedaag om die bedryf te sluit en ‘n behoorlike definisie te gee van die gonswoord “volhoubare benutting”.

Verskeie nieregeringsorganisasies Skok oor video van blikleeujag in SA Elise Tempelhoff het daarop gewys dat die Wereldbewaringsunie (IUCN) SuidAfrika onlangs in Hawaii versoek het om die teel van leeus in gevangenisskap te staak en die bedryf te sluit.

Edna Molewa, minister van omgewingsake, het gister gese die teel van wild in aanhouding is nie onwettig in SuidAfrika nie.

“Wie is die IUCN? Ons is ‘n soewereine staat. Die IUCN is nie bewus van die wetenskap van die bewaringsaspekte in SuidAfrika nie.”

Sy het gese die welsyn van die diere is vir haar ‘n groot bron van kommer, maar dat die departement besig is om standaarde daarvoor op te stel.

Volgens Molewa was die jag vier jaar gelede en sal die regering nou niemand daarvoor kan vervolg nie.

Carla van der Vyfer, uitvoerende hoof van die SuidAfrikaanse Roofdiertelersvereniging, het gese die feite in die video is nie korrek nie.

James Quin, die professionele jagter wat die jagtog gereel het, het gese die jag was wettig en alle permitte was reg. Hy het hierna die telefoon neergesit.

Die video is deur die nieregeringsorganisasie Blood Lions en Captured in Africa in sosiale media versprei.

Imagine you live in the UK. You’ve just finished your studies, and are eager to have your first adult adventure – somewhere exotic. But this isn’t just a case of itchy feet. Raised in the ‘woke’ era, you also have a social conscience. More than simply satisfying your curiosity about the world, your trip will be a chance to ‘give something back’.

So what do you do? Hop on a website and find the most interesting voluntourist package available, of course. Maybe you spend two weeks helping out in an orphanage in the Transkei: you go there every day, feed the kids and cuddle them. Your feel a twinge in your heart every time you look into their big-eyed faces, and when the time comes to leave, you can’t stop yourself from crying. But you know that you have made their world just a little brighter, a memory that warms your heart all the way back to Heathrow.

Now picture what’s going on in the lives of those orphans. For two weeks, you’ve been a part of their every day. At first, they were reluctant to open up to you – they’ve already been let down so many times. But because you showed up consistently, they let their guard down a little. They came to look forward to your visits, and valued your time together just as much as you did. But then you were gone – suddenly and inexplicably. How would you feel if you were in those children’s shoes: comforted and loved, or let down and betrayed?

No one wants to think that their attempt to help causes more harm in the long run, but often, this is precisely what ‘voluntourists’ unwittingly end up doing. And, while packages targeting orphans and vulnerable people have sparked a type of ‘poverty tourism’, the impact of voluntourism on conservation has also raised grave concerns.

This might seem hard to believe. After all, how could an institution established specifically to boost conservation be working against it?

Lions, legislation – and bullets

The documentary Blood Lions, which investigates South Africa’s canned lion-hunting industry, provides some disturbing answers to that question. In fact, the film uncovered realities so harsh that Fair Trade Tourism, an organisation which promotes fair and responsible tourism practices by tourism players, saw fit to review its stance regarding voluntourism.

Sharon Gilbert-Rivett, marketing manager at Fair Trade Tourism, explains the film’s harrowing revelations: “Essentially, lions used by certain voluntourist organisations are exploited at every stage of their lives,” she says. The industry isn’t dissimilar to puppy farming: a new litter of cubs is born every three months, and the female goes back into oestrus just a few days later, ready for the next litter. The cubs are taken away from their mothers, but tourists are told that their mothers rejected them and that they’re being readied to be released back into the wild. “What they don’t know is that there has yet to be a successful case study where lions are reintroduced to the wild,” Gilbert-Rivett says.

The tourists, meanwhile, are so moved by the cubs’ plight that they can’t wait to hand over their dollars to have a cuddle, believing that they’re helping to nurture the juvenile cubs. And, when the cubs get a little bit bigger, they’ll be just as eager to have a ‘walk with lions’ experience. But what happens when the lion is about four years old, and no longer able to participate in this kind of activity? Well, then it’s off to a hunting farm, where it will be shot by another tourist seeking a ‘typically South African’ experience. The sad journey doesn’t end there. Lion carcasses are then sold on to the Far East (at an average of R20 000-R30 000 per carcass) for use in ‘tiger bone’, an ancient Chinese remedy. “The reality is that these animals are being expressly raised to be killed,” Gilbert-Rivett states.

Viewed in this light, it’s perfectly understandable why Fair Trade Tourism has decided to clamp down on organisations purporting to offer wildlife interaction activities.

Look, don’t touch

Gilbert-Rivett explains that the crux of the new criteria, which came into effect from 1 June, is that any establishment wishing to be certified by Fair Trade Tourism may not allow any physical interaction between tourists or volunteers and captive animals. Similarly, no interaction is allowed between orphans and other vulnerable people unless under the supervision of a qualified adult.

Fair Trade Tourism development manager Manuel Bollmann explains the thinking behind these criteria: “So-called ‘poverty or orphanage tourism’ has been a topic of hot debate in Europe for some time. People have been concerned about the impact of tourists, who have no qualifications or credentials in childcare, looking after children in orphanages. This first sparked our awareness of the need to tighten our credentials.”

Then came Blood Lions. Gilbert-Rivett explains that the organisation’s peripheral involvement in the making of the film brought matters to a head. “It was a pivotal moment for the voluntourism industry, raising awareness of unscrupulous players whose operations have little to do with conservation. Given concerns of the voyeuristic element of orphanage tourism, we saw the time was right to take action.”

Fair Trade Tourism’s concerns aren’t only for the animals and children being exploited by dodgy players; tourists, too, are being duped. “Voluntours pay huge amounts of money for activities they believe are helpful but which actually perpetuate circumstances,” she points out.

A potential loss?

True enough – but isn’t there the possibility that we’re creating another casualty here: the tourism industry? After all, if the interactive element is removed from voluntourism, what’s the point to it? Make no mistake: this segment is a lucrative one. Gilbert-Rivett reveals that tourists, usually aged between 18 and 35 and hailing from markets like the UK, USA, Brazil and Norway, are willing to drop around £2 500 on a two-week stint. She admits that, already, some businesses have had to make tough decisions in the wake of the Blood Lions release. One lodge known to be heavily involved in lion breeding programmes has been put up for sale, while the Johannesburg Lion Park put an end to cub interaction. Given this sort of pressure, can the industry afford to adopt the new criteria? And if it does, is our tourism industry at risk of facing major losses as would-be voluntourists flock to countries with less rigorous regulation?

The Department of Tourism’s stance is that Fair Trade Tourism’s revised criteria are in line with various pieces of legislation, including the Animal Protection Act South Africa, the Children’s Act, the Wildlife Act, and the Code of Conduct for the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation. Looking at the tourism industry specifically, it supports the objectives of the National Minimum Standard for Responsible Tourism. All told, says NDT spokesperson Trevor Bloem, it’s a shield to protect all involved in the programmes – volunteers, children and wildlife – from exploitation and abuse.

Bloem says that in spite of the acknowledgment that voluntourism is a significantly growing sector, and that Africa – and South Africa specifically – is emerging as a focus for the industry, there hasn’t been much research into the phenomenon beyond looking at the motivations of voluntourists and the impact of their actions. “That stated, tourism is regarded as a modern-day engine of growth and contributes positively to the GDP as well as to direct and indirect employment. It creates opportunities for skills development and encourages entrepreneurship, which voluntourism certainly contributes to.” Apart from the financial boost – one travel agent said that between 10-15% of the total of a package ultimately flows to the project or community – participants may also benefit from the transfer of skills and knowledge.

In spite of these benefits – and the massive growth the industry is expected to experience within the next few years – the Department of Tourism hasn’t implemented specific policy around the segment; something which may add impetus to Fair Trade Tourism’s criteria. “We are considered one of the leading responsible tourism destinations globally,” Bloem says. “Similarly, responsible voluntourism is now also underpinned by standards that aim to ensure valuable input from volunteers and deliver tangible benefits for the communities involved.” Although there is no standalone policy for voluntourism, the Minimum Standard for Responsible Tourism applies; this aims to establish a baseline standard for operators to aspire to and encourages the involvement of local communities in planning and decision-making, among other activities.

Against this backdrop, the new criteria are a welcome addition to the regulation surrounding the industry. As for Bloem’s concerns that they may deter voluntourists, causing us to lose out on those appealing voluntourism dollars – they simply don’t exist. “Consumers around the world are increasingly aware of the potential impact of tourism,” he points out – and, after all, isn’t that what’s driving the interest in voluntourism? Look at the popularity of socially responsible and environmentally sustainable tourism, now leading market segments globally, if you need further confirmation. Added to this, volunteers are generally ethical people who care about conservation and the protection of children. “If anything, the new criteria supports legislation and should enhance the country’s positioning as a leading responsible tourism destination. It is in our interest to promote ethical and authentic volunteer experiences.”

What the stakeholders say

Interestingly, some of the most vocal supporters of the criteria are groups offering voluntourism themselves.

Bollmann reveals that their involvement was instrumental in the establishment of the criteria, with key players invited to play a part in an extensively consultative process. It’s perhaps not surprising, then, when Bollmann says that the only backlash has come from those operators of dubious repute.

All other stakeholders have given the criteria a firm thumbs-up – African Impact, one of the largest voluntourism operators in South Africa, included. Andrew Procter, the organisation’s director, reports that he’s been in dialogue with Fair Trade Tourism for three years, as the lack of standards and complete absence of industry regulation was – in his view – a major bugbear. “We need to make sure that we’re meeting clients’ expectations while contributing to long-term positive change, and too many operators don’t tick either of these boxes,” he says.

Procter notes that the creation of standards has been something of a tricky exercise. Voluntourists may be soft-hearted and socially aware, but they also want to have a good time, and it’s critical that operators are able to get this balance right. Nor does he think that implementation of the criteria will be without its challenges. Using his own organisation as an example, he points out that large operators may struggle to achieve certification according to the new criteria, especially if they have businesses active in different provinces, and even different countries, which may operate at varying levels.

He adds that it’s not only in South Africa that the industry’s reputation has taken a beating; globally, travellers are becoming suspicious of operators that don’t live up to their promises.

That’s why David Youldon, director of the African Lion and Environmental Research Trust (Alert), says he’s also in favour of stricter regulation. “There are many captive animal facilities that claim a conservation or animal-welfare benefit to justify maintaining and breeding those animals in captivity but, sadly, not all of those claims stand up to scrutiny.” He points out that there are many times when interaction with an animal is not only unavoidable, but necessary (for example, when the animal is in need of veterinary care); similarly, there are entirely valid reasons for keeping and breeding an animal in captivity. “We support guidance that enables tourists to recognise legitimate organisations with which they might choose to become involved, and to ensure that animal interactions are in the best interests of the animals. The criteria presented are not perfect, but are a good start in providing that guidance and in protecting wild animals in captivity,” Youldon says. His view is that if the criteria do indeed deflate the industry’s growth somewhat, it’s probably a good thing because those entities most likely to be affected are the ones with questionable ethics.

The final word

But what about the voluntourists themselves? How do they feel about having an abridged adventure? Eulogi Rheeder, a journalist who volunteered at a marine research organisation in Plettenberg Bay, has a thought-provoking answer: “When I signed up, I thought my days would be spent swimming with dolphins. As it was, one of the first things I had to do was cut up a beached whale so that its parts could be used for research. It was harrowing.” It was also one of the only times Eulogi came close to a sea animal; on each other occasion that she or any other volunteer spotted, for instance, a seal, the programme managers made it clear that there was to be no touching. “The experience wasn’t how I imagined it would be, but it was better. It taught me so much; actively participating in research was more meaningful than diving with dolphins could ever have been.”

Gilbert-Rivett says that with the new standards in place, Fair Trade Tourism’s goal is to help people find experiences that are memorable in the same way – and to avoid those that are part of the problem, rather than the solution. But, she says, it’s important to remember that there are other ways to help. “Rather than paying for a costly voluntourism package, you could contact an NGO active in the area you wish to visit, and see if they could use your services in any way,” she points out.

Bollmann has the last word to offer: “We must remember that the people we are targeting through voluntourism are affluent, future decision-makers. Is this really the image we want them to have of South Africa – or would we rather they experience our country as it truly is?”

 

The 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP17) is currently taking place in Johannesburg, September 24 to October 5, 2016 at the Sandton Convention Centre.

CITES #CoP17,  attended by approximately 2 500 delegates, which includes representatives of 180 countries, is busy considering 62 proposals to change CITES trade controls affecting close to 500 species put forward by 64 countries from every region.

Its secretary-general, John E. Scanlon, has described the conference as ‘one of the most critical meetings in the 43-year history of the Convention’.
Changes to trade controls for the African elephant, white rhinoceros, lion, pumas, pangolins, silky and thresher sharks, devil rays, nautilus, peregrine falcons, African grey parrot, crocodiles, flapshell turtles, the Titicaca water frog and psychedelic rock gecko, as well as the Grandidier’s baobab tree and many species of rosewood, and other animals and plants are some of the conservation issues being discussed.

Some of the other challenges to be tackled are:

A review of the implementation of the Convention relating to captive bred and ranched species;
Tackling corruption as it affects illegal wildlife trade;
Scaling-up efforts to counter cybercrime in relation to illegal wildlife trade;
Strategies to reduce demand for illegally traded wildlife animals and plants;
Improving controls on the international trade in hunting trophies;

Rhinos
The 12 African rhino range states and ex-range states have agreed on an overall strategy to tackle poaching and increase the population of the animals in the coming five years. And after two years of discussions the African Rhino Range States’ African Rhino Conservation Plan was launched on the sidelines of the conference on September 25, by Edna Molewa, minister of Water and Environmental Affairs.

The African rhino range states and ex-range states are Angola, Botswana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. This plan will not supersede each country’s national plans and it ‘focuses on general principles of conservation on which all states could agree’, according to CITES’ website.
“[It] seeks to complement [national plans] by providing an overarching higher-level umbrella plan under which all the national plans can fit,” Molewa adds. “The continental plan also seeks to identify and focus on areas where collectively and co-operatively there may be opportunities for range states to work together to enhance rhino conservation.”

Some of the plan’s key points are:
1.Protection, law enforcement, investigations and intelligence: to implement legislation and strengthen law enforcement actions between both countries and different departments of government; improving investigation and collectively sharing knowledge, skill and state of the art technology;
2. Biological management: to achieve the envisioned growth rate to sustain, and manage the rhino population and to conserve genetic diversity through standardised monitoring;
Co-ordination: to improve co-ordination between range states by active involvement on an international scale;
3. Socio-economic: creating support for conservation by tapping into the local population through empowerment of people;
4. Political support: to boost collective continental political support for rhino conservation;
Communication and public support: to garner understanding and support from the public and all stakeholders involved in rhino conservation through targeted communication;
5. Capacity: to make certain there are enough human resources used wisely, and make sure they are appropriately trained and equipped; and,
6. Adequate financing: to explore and develop financing mechanisms and structures to make sure efforts are sustainable.

Ivory and Elephants
These are some of the ongoing issues to be discussed regarding ivory and elephants:
1.The interrelationship between illegal trade in elephant ivory and legal trade in mammoth ivory;
2. A decision making mechanism for a process of future international trade in elephant ivory, or draw the process to an end;
3. Restricting the legal trade in live elephants;
4. Managing the destruction of government-held ivory stockpiles;
5. Closing domestic markets for commercial trade in raw or worked ivory;
6. Parties will soon be able to freely access the world’s largest ivory database compiled using state of the art forensic techniques developed by Germany.

A new positive development is the IvoryID database, which German minister for the environment, Barbara Hendricks, symbolically handed over  to CITES Secretary-General John Scanlon, who said: “The use of modern forensics is a game changer in the fight against illegal wildlife trade. We are deeply grateful to Germany for developing a forensic technique that can determine the age and origin of ivory. Criminals illegally trading in ivory can no longer hide behind false claims of where and when they got their ivory”.

Accoding to the Cites website, the database – which can be accessed through a dedicated website – contains more than 700 reference samples from 30 African countries using data obtained from elephant ivory, with proven origin, provided by countries of origin, museum, hunters and others.

The African Grey Parrot
The African grey parrot has practically disappeared from many African countries. In Benin, Burundi, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Togo, populations of the species have declined 90% to 99%. In many more countries, the populations have declined more than 50% in the last three generations (46.5 years). In other nations, the bird is essentially extinct in the wild. If the capture for the pet trade is not stopped, we will see the African gray parrot succumb to extinction in most of the countries in West and Central Africa. Eventually, population declines became so severe that the majority of the countries in the African grey parrot’s range stopped all legal exports of the bird, except for Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2007, CITES recommended a two-year export ban from Cameroon for noncompliance with the regulations. And in January of this year, they recommended that all CITES Parties suspend all trade of African grey parrots from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
But now, several African countries have come together to present a proposal to save the Grey parrot from extinction.
The countries of Angola, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, European Union and United States of America presented a proposal to move the African grey parrot from Appendix II to Appendix I of CITES. Where species listed under Appendix II have their trade carefully regulated, for those listed under Appendix I, all international trade of wild-caught specimens is forbidden. Another nine African countries have joined in support of this proposal: Burundi, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo and Rwanda. It is extremely encouraging to see such a wide show of support for these much stronger measures to protect this native African bird says www.defendersblog.org

Sharks and Manta Rays
South Africa, home to one quarter of the world’s 400+ shark species, will this month host the triennial meeting of the World Wildlife Conference where strengthened protection for sharks and rays will again be high on the agenda.

Delegates from over 180 countries attending the meeting – also known as CITES #CoP17 – will receive updates on actions taken following CoP16 in Bangkok, where five shark species, namely the oceanic white tip, porbeagle and three species of hammerhead, and all manta rays were given protection under CITES Appendix II, with trade in these species now being regulated to prevent over-exploitation. software has been developed for port inspectors, custom agents and fish traders to recognize shark species from a picture of the fin. iSHarkFin was the result of a collaboration between the FAO the University of Vigo and CITES, with financial support from the Government of Japan and the European Union (through the CITES project).

There are currently ten species of sharks and rays listed under CITES Appendix II, including the Basking shark, Great White Shark and Whale Shark, as well as the five shark and two manta species added to CITES Appendix II at CoP16.

Seven species of Sawfishes fall under Appendix I, which includes species threatened with extinction. Commercial trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. At CITES #CoP17 Parties will be asked to consider three more proposals to bring sharks and rays under CITES trade controls, namely to include:

Lions -another species marked for attention.

Although South Africa’s lion population is stable, its captive lion breeding industry remains a serious concern. A motion was recently approved at the World Conservation Congress calls for South Africa to review legislation and terminate the practice of ‘canned’ hunting and captive lion breeding.

“From a South African perspective, one of the most relevant issues to be discussed at CoP 17 is uplifting lion to Appendix I,” says Andrew Venter CEO of wildlands and executive producer of the documentary about canned lion trade – Blood Lions. “But moving lion to Appendix I may not stop the captive predator breeding trade. In practise, it may strengthen the industry as CITES encourages captive breeding of Appendix I species as a conservation tool, arguing that this takes the pressure off wild populations.”
The re-listing of the African lion form CITES II to CITES I, meaning a downscale in the species’ protection, will also be considered, while the global call to place a ban on canned lion hunting will also be addressed.
Although South Africa has 7 000 lions in captivity, leading global conservation groups do not attribute any conservation value to these.

Pangolins
While many people don’t even know what a pangolin is and have never seen one, it is now the most poached animal on our planet, with millions being killed in the last 10 years. Now the pangolin range states have agreed to transfer all eight species to an Appendix I listing.
“There are rigorous measures up for debate that would enhance the international response to the trafficking of pangolins and are essential to ensuring the proper implementation the new listings. We strongly support these additional measures and hope that they will also be overwhelmingly endorsed,” says a WWF statement.

The Convention
‘CITES is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. States that have agreed to be bound by the Convention are known as Parties. Although CITES is legally binding on the Parties – in other words they have to implement the Convention – it does not take the place of national laws.
Annually, international wildlife trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars and to include hundreds of millions of plant and animal specimens. The trade is diverse, ranging from live animals and plants to a vast array of wildlife products derived from them, including food products, exotic leather goods, wooden musical instruments, timber, tourist curios and medicines. Wildlife and forest crime is not limited to certain countries or regions, but is a truly global phenomenon.’

There can be very few hunters around the world who have not heard about ‘Cecil the Lion,’ a collared animal from Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, that was shot and wounded outside the park by an American bowhunter, and subsequently tracked and killed on 1 July 2015.

A number of other newsworthy events around Lions happened concurrently or subsequent to this event, resulting in a frenzy of social media activity which was amplified by the mainstream print, radio and television media.

All this unwelcome negative publicity was not at all good for the authentic hunting community where high standards of ethical behaviour are upheld. The ongoing practice of ((canned lion hunting”, while it is not illegal in South Africa, continues to drive a large amount of public condemnation that keeps adding more fuel to the general anti-hunting sentiment which spreads around the world like wildfire, thanks to the Internet and social media. There is now a detailed reference in Wikipedia on the subject of Cecil the Lion.

This story had received worldwide coverage in the period just before the launch of a film called Blood Lions, a documentary about canned lion hunting in South Africa. The film’s sponsors could not have wished for better publicity for their movie, which was released at the Durban International Film Festival on 22 July.

“The film follows long-time wildlife campaigner Ian Michler on his quest to uncover the truth behind these breeding facilities and the canned hunting industry. Opponents to predator breeding and canned hunting have been calling for an end to these practices for almost 20 years, but with little lasting success, as both practices continue to grow.

“The Blood Lions team believes the film will provide the campaign with a significant boost,” says Michler. “Powerful footage and a compelling narrative from a number of world-renowned conservationists and welfare experts will leave viewers in little doubt as to what is taking place on many private farms across South Africa. Other than greed and ego, there are no reasons to be breeding lions in captivity to be killed in captivity. We believe the film can be a global tool for meaningful change.”

Michler is a tireless anti-hunting campaigner, and the canned lion industry provides a convenient scapegoat for the hunting fraternity in general. The film has been touring the world, and has its own website at www.localhost/blog-post-data. So another anti-hunting body comes into existence, gathering more opposition to hunting — and not only canned lion hunting. The website reports as follows (6 September 2015) on the success of the campaign in Australia:

Tomorrow is the last public screening in Australia. We have had a great response in both cities including a standing ovation in Sydney. Ian Michler had this to say: “A huge thanks to Sydney for the great support they gave Blood Lions. A special evening for me with family and great friends in the audience. Special thanks to Matt Collis from IFAW, Hon Mark Pearson MLC, Animal Justice Party and Jerone Van Kernebeek from Four-Paws for the support and their contributions to the panel discussion. It’s Melbourne next and I am looking forward to meeting all the film’s supporters there, including Bruce Poon, Convenor of the Animal Justice Party and Nichola Donovan, President of Lawyers for Animals. Thanks to the UMAPS Student Club and Human Rights and Animal Ethics Network of Melbourne University for hosting us. For those that have not booked tickets, please come and support Blood Lions. While lions are the main characters in the film, we are also dealing with global issues about humanity and our approach to the planet.”

 Among the many thousands of comments about Cecil, a couple stood out for their objectivity, like the one from the Chair of the IUCN’s Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP)/Species Survival Commission (SSC) Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (see http://www.iied.org/rip-cecil-lion-whatwill-be-his-legacy-who-should-decide).

Another valuable commentary may be found at http://thinkinglikeahuman.com/2015/08/26/on-the-conservation-oftrolls/#more-244

While the Internet storm over Cecil the lion is highly relevant to the wildlife policy in Zimbabwe, and elsewhere in Africa, it also has broader implications for conservation. These relate to the impact of social media. Conservation organisations are heavily committed to social media as a way of getting their message out and recruiting supporters. This means that what social media says about conservation strategies has real bite. Hunting-based conservation strategies are suddenly embarrassing.

Live by the sword, die by the sword: if conservation is prosecuted through social media, it will be forced to abide by the norms of those who dominate that community. Science is hard to explain, and evidence-based decisions may be hard to explain or to justify. Subtle arguments do not work very well in 140 characters. Those who are most connected get listened to first and most. Celebrity and connectivity determine influence.

Hence, the conservation of trolls: In the world of the Internet, it is the views of the connected that matter, meaning trolls as well as the many others who use social media to express their views in less extreme ways. And the case opens The Wildlife Game up conservation policy in Africa to a vast passing audience whose views are strongly held and fiercely expressed.

In the end, whose values should drive conservation strategies in countries like Zimbabwe? Those of local people in rural areas where lions hunt and are hunted? Those of national government officials, balancing an industry against their international responsibilities for conservation? Those of media managers in international conservation NG0s, desperate to fted the insatiable demands of Facebook updates and Twitter streams? Or those who only think about conservation when they tune to the shifting emotional storm fronts of social media?

The TRAFFIC organisation had been researching the trade in lion bones for some time, and at the height of the Cecil pandemonium a letter was published in a widely-read journal, titled “Traditional medicines: Tiger-bone trade could threaten lions” (Vivienne L. Williams, Nature 523, p 290, published online 15 July 2015). Shortly thereafter the full TRAFFIC report was published (see Williams, V.L., Newton, D.J., Loveridge, A.J. and Macdonald, D.W. (2015). Bones of Contention: An Assessment of the South African Trade in African Lion Panthera leo Bones and Other Body Parts. TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK & WildCRU, Oxford, UK.) Since a clamp-down on the use of tiger bones for traditional Chinese remedies, lion bones are in demand as substitutes.

Ironically, and coincidentally, this TRAFFIC report features a full-page portrait of Cecil!

The fuller picture of the “lion industry” in South Africa has now been unraveled, and a sordid one it is, and one that does little for the proud conservation reputation of this country. There are an estimated 6 000 or more lions in captivity, mainly in the Free State and North West Provinces. Many of the lion-breeding farms host paying volunteers from overseas, who are duped into thinking they are helping to breed lions for “release into the wild”. Many cubs are placed in “lion-petting” facilities, where children can pet the cubs and have their photographs taken (for a fee). They are also fed the “breeding for release in the wild” line, when, in fact, the animals end up being shot by paying visitors. The bones are then cleaned and sold to China as a further revenue stream. It is a lucrative business, and it is mostly not illegal.

But it is not a business that does any good for the genuine hunting industry, and may end up damaging it severely. In the Internet era, the social media have powerful political influence, and perhaps thanks to Disney’s Lion King, lions share with elephants a special place in Western affections (Mufasa joining the Dumbo club). We can expect every incident involving any perceived downside of hunting to hit the headlines in future.

JOHANNESBURG. – Die beraad van die departement van omgewingsake met trofeejagters is skielik nie meer geslote nie.

Die departement het gister teruggekrabbel en gese die media is welkom om die beraad met die Safari Club International Foundation (SCI) by ‘n luukse vakansieoord in Limpopo by te woon.

“Die vergadering is oop vir die media,” het Albi Modise, woordvoerder van die departement, gese. Vroeer het ‘n kollega van hom gese die beraad is nie oop vir die algemene publiek nie omdat dit ‘n vergadering tussen regerings (Suid-Afrika en Amerika) is.

Die media is ook nie van die beraad in kennis gestel of daarheen genooi nie. Die sakelys van die beraad het egter Saterdagaand aan bewaringsorganisasies uitgelek.

Die bewaringsorganisasie Conservation Action Trust het gister gese die doel met die beraad is duidelik om ‘n veldtog te voer ten gunste van trofeejag in Suid-Afrika. Trofeejag is veral sedert die jagtog op Cecil die Zimbabwiese leeu in Julie wereldwyd omstrede.

Ian Michler, vervaardiger van die dokumentere rolprent Blood Lions, het gese hy vind dit baie vreemd dat ‘n oorsese jagklub so ‘n groot rol speel op ‘n beraad oor die volhoubaarheid van wild in Afrika.

Modise het erken die SCI betaal vir die beraad en dat die departement van omgewingsake die gasheer is. Hy het ontken dat die departement die SCI as sy vennoot beskou en het beklemtoon geen beleidsbesluite sal op die beraad geneem word nie. Volgens Modise is SuidAfrikaanse jagverenigings ook na die beraad genooi.

Hunters from the United States and South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) are meeting behind closed doors at a resort near Polokwane this week, to plan the future use of Africa’s wildlife. Journalists have been told they are not welcome at a meeting hosted by the South African government, in collaboration with pro-hunting groups from the United States.

A four-day conference of The African Wildlife Consultative Forum (8-12 November) is being run jointly by the DEA, and the Safari Club International, the US’s biggest and most influential hunting fraternity. From a leaked agenda it is clear that the gathering is aimed at building an African pro-hunting lobby at the forthcoming meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), scheduled for Johannesburg next year.

The African Wildlife Consultative Forum is an offshoot of Safari Club International. However, environmental non-governmental organisations requesting access to the conference were blocked by DEA deputy director, Mpho Tjiane, who emailed them claiming “this is a Government meeting and is not open to the general public.”

Journalists requesting accreditation have been told that attendance is by invitation only, and they are not invited. There is no indication that deliberations will be made public.

“It is of grave concern that issues of this nature and importance are discussed at closed meetings, with what appears to be predominantly pro-hunting representation,” said Karen Trendler of the NGO, Working Wild. “Many conservation and response organisations will be affected by the various issues being discussed, as will broader South Africa, and it would be preferable to have wider representation.”

Ian Michler, who produced the film Blood Lions, questioned why a foreign hunting club was playing such a significant role in deliberations about the sustainability of wildlife in Africa. “The agenda is clearly not only pro-hunting, but also seeks to raise doubts about the value of photo-tourism against hunting. It also appears to support those wishing to overturn the CITES ban on trade in rhino horn.

“Given the non-transparent nature of the conference, it’s hard not to infer a conspiracy between hunters and governments in proposals that will be presented to CITES in the public’s name.”

The first session kicked off with an address by professional hunting associations, and presentations include issues around the trade of ivory and rhino horn, the role of sport hunting, the Vietnamese demand for rhino horn, import/export permits, the breeding of colour morphs for hunting, and the value of hunting as opposed to photo-tourism.

Moderators from the DEA are being assisted in every session by George Pangeti, an official of Safari Club International, who was head of administration in the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management of Zimbabwe.

His online biography makes it clear that the African Wildlife Consultative Forum was created by Safari Club International to “discuss issues of sustainable wildlife management, sport hunting and benefit flow” in Africa. It was, also, tasked to lobby CITES “in support of sustainable use, especially sport hunting, and trade in wildlife products.”

Following the recent death of Cecil the lion, and a huge tusker in Zimbabwe, trophy hunting has come under considerable pressure from governments and conservation organisations. Questions have been raised about whether trophy hunters are protectors of biodiversity, as they claim, providing funds, and a reason to protect wild areas, or whether they are simply killers of wild animals?

Safari Club International has a large and wealthy membership keen to counter negative publicity about trophy hunting. The agenda at the Polokwane meeting makes it clear that they aim to convince African delegates to support trophy hunting, and act as a bulwark against growing distaste among members of CITES. Scientific studies shows that little money from hunting goes to communities, and that killing the biggest, and fittest animals, is detrimental to species. The South African Government’s enthusiastic support for this line of thinking is of concern to many involved in genuine conservation.

The trophy-hunting industry is making many farmers rich – but the process of domesticating the king of the jungle is destroying the species for the amusement of thrill-seeking tourists .

THE LIONS ARE PACKED SO CLOSELY that they’re touching each other. In their enclosure they “move like snakes”, says environmental journalist and safari operator Ian Michler, his voice strained with the affront. Territorial by nature and requiring vast open spaces to survive, these big cats have been tamed, habituated to humans and many hand-reared by international paying volunteers who are led to believe they’re doing a service for conservation in Africa by raising orphaned cubs.

Somewhere overseas, a thrill-seeking man with some spare cash goes online to pick out the creature he’d like to kill; the darker the mane, the better, because the more powerful-looking the lion, the more thrilling to vanquish. He’s got limited time (and he’s cheap) so he doesn’t want to spend weeks – or too many thousands of dollars. (A real lion-hunt in the wild can take up to 21 days of tracking and stalking.)

He wants a guaranteed kill, needs to do the shoot quickly and take home his trophy to mount on the wall. His lion, bred in captivity for the express purpose of being shot, will have clean good looks. These animals have no bush history, so there are none of the scars of animals in the wild.

He comes to South Africa, where there are 6,000 to 7,000 predator lions born in captivity on about 200 farms and breeding facilities. (There were fewer than 1,000 in 1990, and about 3,000 in 2005, indicative of the growth of the industry.) Here he meets his lion and is shown exactly where to aim to be most effective. Every day, in South Africa, two or three male lions die this way, shot from perhaps 20 or 30 metres away, unable to escape. After a speeded up and intensive reproduction cycle, the females, whose offspring are taken away when still cubs, are usually sold in the “bone trade” for Traditional Chinese Medicine.

He’s warned by the farmer, a hunting operator, to be careful but this is part of the game, part of making it feel like real hunting – unpredictable, a challenge, and as though he is pitting himself against a genuine foe, the king of the animal world.

He feels ethically quite good about what he does, harbouring the idea that the US dollar (50% of hunters are American) or other foreign currency he’s paying translates into many, many South African rands which will go toward the conservation effort for this magnificent endangered species.

Michler says: “They have no consideration or appreciation of the irony that they are domesticating lions. If you look at the marketing of the entire trophy hunting industry, it’s based on the notion that these are wild, noble dangerous creatures and that they are pitting their skills in a fair contest against this noble beast. That he who downs or slays the beast is a brave man and made his contribution to saving the species. The absurdity is that every aspect of that marketing line has been completely shattered. They’ve tamed and human-imprinted the lions and there’s nothing noble or fair about the chase and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with conservation whatsoever.”

Michler, protagonist of and special consultant for an eye-opening documentary on the canned lion industry, Blood Lions: Bred for The Bullet, says their gene pool is useless because they are inbred, and they’re too habituated to humans to be used for breeding in the wild. Only animals bred under the auspices of an authentic team of scientists and conservationists can be used for conservation.

Nor does he buy the argument that the captive lions take pressure off those in the wild; it’s a different market and in fact, wild lions, whose number continues to decline, are taken to support dwindling gene pools in the captive market. And their very existence is detrimental to the conservation effort, artificially bumping up numbers.

It is only in South Africa that this occurs, says Michler, who is often asked why there are no black people interviewed in the documentary. He says he has never met a black person who owns one of the breeding facilities or hunts predators. His theory is that the mentality driving the industry is an extension of the brutality of South Africa’s apartheid past. Running the show are “mostly people out of the apartheid era which had no regard for human rights either – it is an offshoot of that period in our history.”

Blood Lions, locally produced by Regulus Vision in collaboration with the Wildlands Conservation Trust, and directed by Bruce Young and well known filmmaker Nick Chevallier, was launched at the Durban International Film Festival in July. It has since been aired by MSNBC in the US, will be screened at the European Parliament, at the Royal Geographic Society in London, and is doing the rounds of international film festivals. Its production was funded by philanthropists. For now, the campaign plan involves a release to schools and other educational institutions, carefully selected television stations and film festival They’ve tamed and human-imprinted the lions and there’s nothing noble or fair about the chase screenings so that the film’s message is controlled and funds for the campaign are generated from ticket sales and donations. Eventually, says Michler, it will be free to air on YouTube.

The film’s serendipitous launch was just two days before the shooting of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe hit headlines, sparking outrage worldwide. The two fed into each other, says Michler. The response should put breeders and hunt organisers on notice: “[l’m saying] forget about defending your positions, just look at what happened and understand that there’s a significant proportion of the global population who do not agree with what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. The response to Cecil is for me representative of an outrage toward this continued abuse of our fellow species and the planet.”

Noseweek watched a screening of Blood Lions at Bishops School in Rondebosch (where Michler, who grew up on a farm in the southern Cape, boarded in high school). The front rows were occupied by junior boys, warned beforehand that what they were to see was “grossly unfair” and would be shocking. And shocking it is.

With great pride, Michler is described by the Chairman of the Old Diocesan Union, Brian Robertson, as someone who’d gone “from a life of success to a life of significance. He is, other speakers say, a keystone person, someone who gives a damn… N go to war with him.” He’s definitely more alternative than most of the audience, and was welcomed with something like adulation by other old boys, along with many jokes about his good looks and how they tagged along behind him because he was popular with girls.

In a previous incarnation, Michler was a successful stockbroker, running the Cape Town office of Ferguson Brothers, which later became Investec. Then, when he was 30, or 31, in 1989, he had some sort of epiphany and went to live in the Okavango Delta in Botswana and re-invented himself, buying a lodge (since sold) and immersing himself in wildlife photography and environmental journalism.

“Broking was fantastic. My leaving was both a push and a pull: the pull was my love of being in wilderness, and the push was this notion that your relationships in your work environment were based purely on financial equations. If the market was up, everyone was your friend and if the market was down, everyone was grumpy… it was a little disturbing that you could chart that on a daily basis.”

In Botswana, he soon realised that “living in paradise” was not enough, and that he “needed to make a meaningful contribution”. Back then, Botswana was still a big hunting destination. “We used to ride horses for photography tourists, but we shared that concession with hunters. We’d stop and then they would come in… there were too many shots, and outside the season we would hear shots and light aircraft. It didn’t add up and that very quickly took me to those hunting farms and breeding facilities in South Africa.” He’s visited scores of them and has been following the story since 1999.

Today, he’s based in Plettenberg Bay and his main income is from high-end wildlife safaris in 15 countries, including Zimbabwe, Namibia and Madagascar, where he sees lions living a natural life in the wild, and deals with conservationists and ecologists. The juxtaposition with the canned hunt when he comes home to South Africa is almost intolerable. “You’re dealing with real conservation challenges, with animals in the vast open landscape in very intricately evolved ecosystems, then you come back and see them broken down in cages. It’s this complete perversion…

“Most shocking to me, more than individual cases, is the notion that there’s a group of people who have collectively come up with an economic or social justification for taking an apex predator like a lion, which requires in its natural world large amounts of space, and confining it to small enclosures.”

Lions, he says, not only command a very powerful presence in our spiritual beings, in our poetry, in our mythology, but in an ecological sense are a charismatic species at the apex of our ecosystems. “If we can’t look after them responsibly, then what hope is there for anything? Here in South Africa, we are completely denigrating that standing and justifying it on an economic basis.”

South Africa’s tourism industry is worth about R95 billion annually. Of that, about 1.5% is generated by hunting – of which only a fraction comes from canned or captive hunting. Of the nine million international visitors to South Africa every year, only about 9,000 go on a hunt. It is, he says, illogical to claim that it is significantly good for the economy. “They’ve overplayed their hand and everyone has bought into it. We are saying to the government: Why are you pandering to a few hundred people who are contributing a fraction of 1% of the tourist dollar and damaging Brand SA?

“One of the main reasons is that it’s a sport for wealthy and influential people – businessmen, politicians, military men from all over the world come here.” In fact, a section of the film that was cut after legal threats were issued was that of a “very well Everyone’s survival, rich or poor, is based on conservation and healthy ecosystems Ian Michler known” person shooting a lion.

Making the documentary wasn’t easy. The lion trade is a murky world, with shadowy agents as go-betweens to disguise the path from farm to target. While the documentary does feature trophy hunters, breeders, ecologists and conservationists and welfare experts, trying to get evidence sometimes involved deception, including getting a sympathetic American – Rick Swazey from Hawaii – to pose as a hunter. But always they were discovered and in some cases, threatened.

Other than captive hunting, there are some newer revenue streams for the lion-breeding industry. Last year about 1,000 carcasses were used for the bone trade for Traditional Chinese Medicine. China banned the trade of tiger parts in 1993. Welfare standards for these lions are worse still, says Michler, because they don’t even have to look good.

Another revenue stream that fits in nicely is volunteering, which sees young people from all over the world paying significant sums to farmers, lion park owners or so-called sanctuary owners (in one case, there’s a farmer making more than $100,000 in a month in the season) who are taking advantage of their naivety The volunteers are told they are raising orphaned or abandoned cubs, when in fact the cubs have been taken from their mothers at about a week old and will later be sold into the hunting or bone trade. “It’s a double betrayal, betraying the kids and animals and making money from both.”

Michler has a response for every potentially tricky question: Is it not hypocritical to focus on the glamorous lions? What about factory farming, what about the packaged meat we all eat from the supermarket shelf?

The difference, he says, is that hunting is done for fun, for pleasure. With food, there’s at least some logic to it. But anyway, focusing on one issue does not mean others don’t matter, or you don’t understand the rest. It’s a question of being pragmatic and narrowing down to get traction, not always addressing man’s “entire relationship with fellow species”.

Instead, he and his team have taken a position in the middle ground, where the decision-makers and politicians are based. “I explained this to the vegan community in Australia. They take an absolute line and I said I’m in complete sympathy/empathy with what you’re saying but by taking an extremist line, you’re not going to have any impact. Being pragmatic you will. That we take a more defined line in the film doesn’t mean we don’t care, we completely care on [the issue of] domestic animals.”

Finally, how do you justify focussing on animals in a country where people have so much need too? For Michler and his team on the documentary, the answer is simple. Everyone’s survival, rich or poor, is based on conservation and healthy ecosystems, and for that, wilderness needs as much attention as education, health, and policing. “We need clean air, clean water, healthy forest topsoil and carbon sequestration systems… If we don’t have those, we’re all gone, okay? In the sixties, we had an excuse that we didn’t know; now we do, we are in the age of awareness. We know about the ozone hole, climate change, how the oceans have been depleted, about acid rain. We can no longer be ignorant about the way forward. Blood Lions is symbolic on a small scale of a more sensitive, a more ecologically aware approach to the planet and the way we live.

“We talk about sustainability, it’s the catchphrase of the world today, but in South Africa particularly, it’s become definition which focuses on the human sustainability component. Everyone understands that we need to take care of people, but it’s how and why we develop now, after 250/300 years NOSEWEEK November 2015 of unconsidered development.”

Conservationists tread a fine line, and have to be wary of targeting the extremely wealthy or alienating big corporates, because wealthy philanthropists are some of the biggest contributors to the cause. “I want them to understand that they’ve been part of the problem, as have we all, but they need to be part of the solution… It’s not about them, it’s about understanding the impact that 300 years of rapacious greed has had on the planet.”

The eradication of poverty and the way we treat the environment are inextricably linked, says Michler. One of the main reasons for poverty in Africa is that the management of natural resources has been so skewed in favour of the wealthy. Nothing will change until the short-term goals and mandates of industrial conglomerates and politicians/decision-makers are uncoupled and conservation’s long-term goals become the paradigm. And, although they might present it as an either/or jobs or conservation, it’s not as though politicians are taking care of poverty anyway, he points out. Playing one off against the other doesn’t make sense.

Still, there is room for optimism. International pressure is building, he says and, as with sanctions on apartheid South Africa, the international revenue stream will dwindle as the world realises what’s going on. There’s growing pressure inside South Africa too. Recently, the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa, PHASA, after viewing Blood Lions, called the current situation “no longer tenable”. Legislative change, hopefully, will see the closure of predator facilities and stop all breeding. There is no other solution. Breeding of lions in captivity should only be done by a legitimate conservation agency, well-funded and peer-reviewed. Not one of South Africa’s predator-breeding facilities is working with any recognised conservation agencies or lion ecologists. At present, there are no legal requirements on farmers with regards to understanding biology, animal husbandry, lion ecology, or conservation in general. It is legal to breed as long as farmers comply with provincial legislation that focuses on minimum standards for fencing and enclosure sizes.

Captive predator breeding falls into a grey area, legislatively. Typically, says Michler, environmental departments internationally look after biodiversity and conservation involving wild animals in wilderness areas, while agriculture departments deal with animals in agricultural conditions. “It’s a classic distinction… but with these lions, you have a wild animal kept under agricultural conditions, so they are constantly passing the buck between the two departments, avoiding responsibility.”

On-side is the Minister for Tourism, Derek Hanekom, who says the canned lion trade is damaging “Brand South Africa”. But ultimately it will not be his decision. “Can you imagine,” says Michler longingly, “all the goodwill that would be generated internationally if she [Minister for Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa] were to listen to her cabinet colleague and end it? Everyone is saying something needs to happen here…”

Ian McCallum has a diverse range of skills and talents – medical doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, wilderness guide, author and poet. Scott Ramsay spent a few hours in his company

Ian McCallum’s love for the African wilderness and wildlife is clear to see. He has travelled to most parts of the continent from his base in Cape Town.

He is an eloquent and effective advocate of the protection of the wilderness and the restoration of relationships between humans and animals, and with the planet itself.

Ian’s Ecological Intelligence is a highly readable book that will challenge and inspire readers who are concerned about the state of the Earth. His poems in the anthologies Wild Gifts and Untamed are clarion calls for a renewed reverence for wildlife and wild places.

The wildlife and wilderness areas of Africa are under immense pressure, despite the best intentions of some concerned governments and citizen groups. What needs to be done to ensure they are sustained and nurtured?

The critical level will be the number of people who are genuinely concerned about the future of wild animals. The greatest danger is the indifference that so many people have for wildlife and wild areas – the attitude that “it’s got nothing to do with me”.

For example, why should somebody in New York City or Beijing worry about the rhino? Rhinos may go extinct, but so did the dodo. Isn’t this just part of the cycle of life? There’s a terrible sense that there’s nothing that any of us can do as individuals.

This is the biggest challenge. It comes down to the question: what are we – the privileged ones – going to do about it?

We are the ones who are privileged to have had contact with elephants and rhino and lions in a way that most people will never have. We are the ones who must speak up for the wild places and animals.

It depends on an acknowledgement of what I call “web-of-life” thinking. Everything is connected. Wild creatures are part of our identity.

What about the so-called “sustainable utilisation” model, including trophy hunting, as a way to create jobs and increase revenue flows to wildlife areas?

This is quite contentious. We have to be very careful of the sustainable utilisation model, which turns all living things, other than human beings, into objects: Objects for our use, objects which have a monetary value and that therefore are exchangeable on economic terms.

There is another school of thought,that some things – surely – are just simply not for sale. And what is it going to take for us to reach that level of ethics and say, “I’m sorry, this is not for sale. This is priceless.”

Is your mother for sale? Is your daughter for sale? Are you going to put an economic value on child trafficking? Oh, no, we’re talking human beings here. Some will argue this is a different issue. I’m saying no, it’s not a different issue. It’s part of the same continuum.

Do you really give a stuff about your fellow man? Then show me that you actually give a stuff about the animals and the natural state of the planet.

Does your mother have an economic value? No. Would you die for her or your sister? Surely. There are some things worth dying for.

There are different kinds of hunting, of course. Hunting a gemsbok or kudu to feed your family and friends is one thing, but trophy hunting of elephants, rhinos, lions or leopards is a continued act of dominance where the hunter stands on top of his or her prize with a high-powered rifle, where the animal didn’t have a snowball’s hope in hell, and pretending that you have shot it in self-defence or that this is some statement of your personal prowess. This is a mind-set that is heavily cushioned and fed by the sheer amount of money that comes pouring into this industry.

The economics of trophy hunting don’t always match up to what the hunters claim. I’m afraid the reality and some of the statistics don’t always match. The amount of money that goes back into conservation or communities is not as much as hunters say.

What do you say to the trophy hunting operator, who is adamant that trophy hunting is a valuable part of the conservation matrix?

Sometimes you have to kill wild animals, yes, because the highly managed game reserves of today mostly have fences, and can only sustain certain numbers of animals. Why not give those same trophy hunters a quota, and then they can come in to hunt, and get a replica on their way out? Give them the best fibreglass replica of the animal they are allowed to shoot.

But that dead animal stays here in Africa. Nothing leaves here, okay? You can take a photograph of your animal, but there will not be a photograph of you standing in triumph over this animal. You’ve come for the hunt and for the chase.

We need to encourage a new breed of hunters. The message needs to be: “You are welcome to come and track that animal, but you must identify the track first, and then you have to follow it on foot, and find the animal by yourself.”

There will be no use of vehicles, or shooting from the back of vehicles. Let’s regenerate an honourable hunting ethos. Let’s go back to how it all began.

The issue of sustainable utilisation is highlighted by the current crisis surrounding rhino poaching, and the potential legalising of the sale of horn into Asia. What’s your view?

How can you justify the selling of rhino horn for a use which is nothing but sheer superstition? Isn’t this intrinsically wrong? Don’t you think education is the key here?

Why underestimate the intelligence of Chinese and Vietnamese people, where the so-called market is? We’ve got to be very careful about turning the Chinese people into the enemy. Our enemy is right here in SA and, Trailists on the Imfolozi Wilderness Trail in KwaZulu-Natal watching a white rhino. sadly, it is fed by the economic model that follows the money.

The proposed trade in rhino horn is madness, because we haven’t got a clue about who the market is. Who are you going to sell it to? Secondly, we don’t know whether such trade is going to work. It is filled with uncertainty.

The argument against that will be, “Yes, but nothing else has worked in the past”, and we’re saying, “Rubbish”. We haven’t even begun to give it the best chance in terms of global awareness and demand reduction, to educate and stop people from using rhino horn.

There’s a third factor – ethics. For me, rhino horn is surely something which is not for sale. That, personally, is an important one. I’d like to know that I’m prepared to go and fight for this. Let’s show a little bit of backbone here.

What is the solution to the crisis in conservation?

You’ve got to get the government in SA, for example, to be totally committed to protecting what I’m going to call “national treasures”. They have to declare a state of emergency right now. We need to have world leaders say, “This is not right”. Citizens and governments around the world have got to assist the governments of Africa to solve the problem. It’s a global crisis, and we need global help and co-operation.

Let’s talk about something more personal. Which are your favourite wild regions in Africa?

I have three. Two are in Botswana and one in Namibia.

The Linyanti region in northern Botswana, on the Linyanti River overlooking the Caprivi Strip, is one of them. I’ve spent a lot of time there. Equal to that would be the Okavango Delta. There is a tremendous sense of space.

In both the Delta and Linyanti, you’re looking at a vast expanse of wilderness where there are no human beings and where natural processes have been going on for thousands of years. You are taken back in time, and when I go there I feel as though I’m part of the life cycle.

The other place would be the northwestern part of Namibia, towards Skeleton Coast. It’s phenomenal. What really strikes me is that there are no fences. Even places in Botswana, such as the Moremi Reserve, are defined by a buffalo fence that separates humans from wildlife.

But in Namibia’s northwest there are no fences. There is this unique demonstration of how humans coexist with wild animals, and that is precious. There’s a sense of continuity there.

A lot of the Himba people are continuing a way of life that’s hundreds and hundreds of years old. If I couldn’t die in Botswana, I’d be quite happy to spend the last years of my life there. That desert speaks!

Sadly, there are very few South African wildlife areas that would leap at me in the same way, beautiful as some of them are. I think of Pafuri in northern Kruger Park. It really is wonderful but sadly, for me, there’s a sense of claustrophobia because it’s so highly managed.

And who are some of the people in conservation who have inspired you?

I think the first person is Ian Player. I did my first Wilderness Leadership School trail in 1981 in Imfolozi. I found my spiritual home changed my life, that wilderness experience.

Prior to that I had lots of experience of watching animals from inside a motor car, behind the safety of a windscreen. But when you are walking and living in the bush as a guest, walking in silence, sitting around a fire through the night and listening to the sounds… It was profound, so I owe Ian Player and his friend, Magqubu Ntombela, a huge debt on that score.

Magqubu gave me a branch of the Ziziphus mucronata (buffalo thorn), saying this would tell me how to live my life. The forward-pointing thorn on the branch reminds us to think of future generations, and the one that points backwards reminds us not to forget where we’ve come from. I don’t know of a more simple yet profound philosophy. That’s my philosophy: never forget where you’ve come from. Learn how to say thank you, not just to your parents or grandparents. Where have you actually come from? Once you start getting into the whole field of evolutionary biology, you understand how much we need to be thankful for.

Another person who has inspired me is Ian Michler, a wilderness guide and conservation photojournalist and activist. We have worked very closely together. He is incredibly knowledgeable and a brilliant ornithologist. He’s extremely alert to animal behaviour, and is a great teacher.

Recently he’s been instrumental in exposing canned lion hunting in SA, in his new documentary, Blood Lions. Ian has immense courage and integrity.

There are other people I’m drawn to simply because of their dedication to what they are doing and their love of the wild. I think of characters like Chris Bakkes, Garth Owen-Smith and Margaret Jacobsohn in Namibia, working with communities and wildlife. These are giants of conservation.

Some of the Wilderness Leadership School guides, especially Mandla Buthelezi, also inspire me. Mandla has been around for a long time and he knows how to handle a wild animal. He is like Superman and Clark Kent. When he goes into the wilderness, the transformation is immense and his levels of awareness and knowledge are incredible.

Then there’s Karel “Pokkie” Benade, who is one of the finest trackers I’ve met. Yet he’s one of the most humble human beings. The pleasure I had while working with him at The Tracker Academy cannot be measured. I recently spent a week with him and his wife, Jeanette, who is the principal of the academy. He’s the main tracking mentor.

I’ll never forget the first time I met Pokkie, in 2010. It was in January, the height of summer. We went tracking in the veld. We picked up springbok spoor, and he said, “Ja, maar hierdie dier kom nie van die Karoo af nie”. And he was right. These springbok had been brought in from the Kalahari. Their tracks were just that little bit wider than those of the Karoo springbok. Amazing.

What do you admire most about the wilderness, and what do you miss about it when you’re away from it?

It’s very simple. Wilderness is part of the geography of my identity as a human being. That wildness is crucial for human sanity. Please note, I’m not talking about savagery, that which is raw and crude; I’m talking about that which is spontaneous, which is authentic.

Wildness on a psychological level is something that is untamable in us, thank God. But you can’t civilise it because it is civilised already in its own way. It is civil. I feel it. It’s in my blood. It’s part of my identity as a human being and without it I would die of a loneliness of spirit. I couldn’t put it any other way.

And spending time in wild places of Africa is a sort of homecoming. They are places of homecoming.

The internationally acclaimed film Blood Lions™ – Bred for the Bullet, has partnered with the Born Free Foundation to bring you the London premiere of the documentary.

The controversial feature will be screened on the 27th November at 19h00 at the Royal Geographical Society in London. For a small contribution of only £20 you can witness this groundbreaking film.

“Blood Lions joins other films, such as Gorillas in the Mist, Echo of the Elephants, The Cove, and Blackfish, which have truly influenced the way we interact with wild animals,” says Born Free Foundation president, Will Travers.

Lions bred for slaughter in South Africa is big business. The Blood Lions™ story is a compelling call to action to have these practices stopped. The documentary follows presenter, researcher and safari operator Ian Michler, and American hunter, Rick Swazey, on their journey to uncover the realities about the multimillion dollar predator breeding and canned lion hunting industries in South Africa.

“Being able to screen Blood Lions™ at the Royal Geographical Society with the Born Free Foundation as a partner is a great honour,” said Ian Michler. “The film and its messages continue to receive global attention, and this opportunity allows us to extend the discussion on a personal basis to include the British people and media.”

The Blood Lions™ team are implementing campaigns of awareness and action aimed at the general public, both local and international government and provincial decision-makers, the scientific and conservation community, the tourism industry, the professional hunting bodies, and the volunteer agencies. The team are also establishing two projects to feed funding into support for a Wild Lion Range Expansion Project and the NSPCA in South Africa.

“We are proud to partner with the Born Free Foundation for the UK premiere of our feature documentary in London later this month,” said Pippa Hankinson, the producer and driving force behind Blood Lions™. “The support that the film has received from across the United Kingdom has been phenomenal, and it is already playing a significant part in our campaign to create global awareness around the captive lion breeding industry in South Africa and to end the terrible exploitation of these lions.”

Andrew Venter, CEO of Wildlands and executive producer said:  “Blood Lions™ exposes the cons of lion breeding and hunting in South Africa. Over 900 lions are hunted each year, with 99% bred for the bullet. They are hand-reared by paying volunteers that believe they are saving ‘Africa’s lions’. Four days after their release from a life in captivity, they are considered wild and can then be shot by hunters looking for a guaranteed kill; or slaughtered for the lion bone trade to China. We have to stop this barbaric and fraudulent practise, and we believe that Blood Lions™ will help us do this. Creating awareness through this film across the world is an absolute honour, and Wildlands is very proud to be a part of this movement.”

Will Travers concludes by saying: “South Africa’s failure to address the canned hunting industry has emboldened those who make a living out of the death of lions bred, raised and slaughtered on a ‘no kill, no fee’ basis. The canned hunting industry is unnatural, unethical and unacceptable. It delivers compromised animal welfare and zero education. It undermines conservation and creates a moral vacuum now inhabited by the greed and grotesque self-importance of those who derive pleasure in the taking of life.Blood Lions™ lays bare the truth behind the canned hunting industry that, far from contributing to the future survival of the species, may in fact accelerate its extinction in the wild, leaving behind a trail littered with the rotting corpses of its helpless victims.”

To reserve your seats to view this groundbreaking film, please visit www.bornfree.org.uk/bloodlions. The screening at the Royal Geographical Society is located at: 1 Kensington Gore, London SW7 2AR (Exhibition Road entrance).

American hunters and SA’s Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) are meeting behind closed doors at a resort near Polokwane today to plan the future use of SA’s wildlife. The four day conference of The African Wildlife Consultative Forum, is being run jointly by DEA and Safari Club International, America’s biggest and most influential hunting fraternity .

From the agenda, African Wildlife Consultative Forum – 8 -12 Nov 2015 the gathering is clearly aimed at building an African pro-hunting lobby at the forthcoming meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) scheduled for Johannesburg next year.

There seems to be doubt, if not quiet deception, about who exactly is invited to the conference. The African Wildlife Consultative Forum is an offshoot of Safari Club International. But NGOs requesting access were emailed by DEA deputy director Mpho Tjiane saying ‘this is a Government meeting and is not open to the general public.’

Journalists requesting accreditation have been told that attendance is by invitation only and they’re not invited. There is no indication that deliberations will be made public.
‘It is of grave concern that issues of this nature and importance are discussed at closed meetings with what appears to be predominantly pro-hunting representation,’ said Karen Trendler of the NGO Working Wild. ‘Many conservation and response organisations will be affected by the various issues being discussed, as will broader South Africa, and it would be preferable to have wider representation.’

Ian Michler, who produced the film Blood Lions, questioned why a foreign a hunting club was playing such a significant role in deliberations about the sustainability of wildlife in Africa. ‘The agenda is clearly not only pro-hunting, but also seeks to raise doubts about the value of photo-tourism against hunting. It also appears to support those wishing to overturn the CITES ban on trade in rhino horn.

‘Given the non-transparent nature of the conference, it’s hard not to infer a conspiracy between hunters and governments in proposals that will be presented to CITES in the public’s name.’
The first session kicked off with an address by professional hunting associations and presentations include issues around the trade of ivory and rhino horn, the role of sport hunting, the Vietnamese demand for rhino horn, import/export permits, the breeding of colour morphs for hunting and the value of hunting as opposed to photo-tourism.
DEA moderators are being assisted in every session by George Pangeti, an official of Safari Club International who was head of administration in the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management in Zimbabwe.

His online biography makes it clear that the African Wildlife Consultative Forum was created by Safari Club International to ‘discuss issues of sustainable wildlife management, sport hunting and benefit flow’ in Africa. It was also tasked to lobby CITES ‘in support of sustainable use, especially sport hunting, and trade in wildlife products.’

Following the recent death of Cecil the lion and a huge tusker in Zimbabwe, One Of Africa’s Biggest Elephants Was Just Killed By Trophy Hunters, trophy hunting has come under considerable pressure from governments and conservation organisations. Questions have been raised about whether trophy hunters are protectors of biodiversity, as they claim, providing funds and a reason to protect wild areas, or whether they are simply killers of wild animals?

Safari Club International has a large and wealthy membership keen to counter negative publicity about trophy hunting. The agenda at the Polokwane meeting makes it clear that they aim to convince African delegates to support trophy hunting and act as a bulwark against growing distaste among members of CITES.

The South African Governments enthusiastic support for this line of thinking, despite scientific studies, Big game hunting in West Africa, What is its contribution to conservation? which show that little money from hunting goes to communities and that killing the biggest and fittest animals, Why Killing a Bull Elephant With Big Tusks Hurts the Herd is detrimental to species, is of concern to many involved in genuine conservation.