Safari Diaries has moved!

Read our regular wildlife-related blogs and other interesting topics on  the Call of Africa Safaris web site 

Just to get a bit more objective perspective about this whole Melissa Bachman hunting hysteria, have a look at this. I dont believe in lion hunting either but maybe a little more thought is required here.

In defence of a lion killer.

Article from The Daily Maverick 29th November 2013

The outrage about an American hunter, Melissa Bachman, who bragged on Twitter about bagging a splendid male lion, was terrifying to watch. Terrifying, but also deeply troubling on many levels. Emotive outrage and smug judgmentalism are no substitute for rational thought and pragmatic policy.

Every year, game hunters travel to South Africa, pockets stuffed with dollars. Most of them are men, who quietly come and go, leaving behind them R6.2 billion in industry revenue, according to Environmental Affairs minister Edna Molewa.

But when one hunter, an American television host named Melissa Bachman, dared to boast about her wonderful African hunting safari, posing with a dead lion, she got more than she bargained for. Her Facebook page and Twitter feed were over-run with vicious hatemail. She was described as the most hated woman in South Africa. Ricky Gervais was scathing, though cleverly so: “Spot the typo”, he wrote, about her boast, “What a hunt!”

I don’t know Ms Bachman, so I can’t speak for her character. I’ve seen no suggestion that she failed to obtain a legitimate hunting permit, complete with the required CITES documentation. The Maroi Conservancy which hosted her seems legitimate too, although its website has also been barged offline by angry internetters.

I can’t say I’m a big fan of hunting either. I’ve been invited on hunting trips, but declined for two reasons: one, I prefer to avoid media junkets, lest I be accused of being a shill for Big Hunt; and two, I prefer to avoid killing animals personally, even though I happily eat meat.

It is quite reasonable to dislike sport hunting. It is an emotional subject. But is it not curious that a perfectly legal hunt justifies crudely insulting a woman in sexist terms?

Writer and artist Sarah Britten wondered if it would have had as much impact if it was a male hunter with a lioness. She says she doesn’t like hunting, but likes the reaction to Bachman’s lion photo even less.

The answer seems quite obvious. Loads of men shoot loads of lions all the time. None of them make it to that interminable aggregator of dodgy viral clickbait, Buzzfeed.com: “TV Presenter Melissa Bachman Angers Entire Internet After Shooting A Lion”. None of them get called sexist names by Ricky Gervais. (If you crave a glimpse at the vile misogyny that awaits women who offend the smug left-liberal elite, read Rebecca Davis’s pieceelsewhere on Daily Maverick. I agree with her, up to where she calls the hunt “canned”, and says the outrage is justified but ought to be directed at our government.)

But let’s stipulate, for the sake of argument, that we don’t like hunting, and we don’t like Ms Bachman. Does this justify the ugly, hypocritical anger? If her hunt was legal, what did she do wrong? Should it be made illegal?

In 1960, there were only three game farms in South Africa. There were onlyhalf a million head of game. Changes in the law to permit private ownership of game and commercialise big game hunting coincided with the sea change that we see today: 10,000 game farms, supporting 20 million head of game on as many hectares. By contrast, the government formally protects only 7.5 million hectares as national parks.

The game farm industry employs 100,000 people, which is reportedly three times more than employment in ordinary livestock farms. Income from game breeding stock sold at auction rose almost 15-fold in just six years, from R60 million in 2006 to R864 million in 2012.

Is that mere correlation, or is there some causation at work here?

The knee-jerk reaction of the chattering classes is that you don’t protect animals by killing them. That seems self-evident, but, as Mark Twain said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

The notion that hunting harms the survival of species, or the environment more generally, happens to be false, and demonstrably so.

Commenting on Botswana’s recent decision to ban professional hunting in the hope that it would stop poaching, professor Melville Saayman of the North-West University observed: “...the problem is that it is going to have a reversed effect.”

Says Saayman: “Kenya followed the same path. They also banned hunting and currently have a huge game poaching problem, so much so that some of their species face total extinction. The strategy proposed by Botswana is short-sighted and is not going to work. Game numbers will decline and this will have a serious impact on the hunting and game farm industry in the country.”

In Kenya, hunting was banned in the late 1970s, but it has since lost 85% of its wildlife. Go figure.

“Case studies from South Africa,” says Saayman, “have shown that as soon as the hunting of a species is allowed, it leads to the breeding as well as conservation of the particular species. Botswana's policy is definitely going to lead to job losses.”

In the early 1990s, I was on a guided tour of the Pilanesberg Game Reserve. I looked around me at the devastated landscape, with nary a tree taller than a man. The ranger told me the park had sixty elephants too many, but that nobody wanted them, because they all had their own elephant problems, and transport was too expensive.

“So what are you doing about it?” I asked.

“We hunt them, from the north of the park, out of sight of the regular tourists, who tend to get terribly upset about it,” he replied. “The revenue helps, but we can only host one hunt a month, which isn’t enough.”

The upshot of the misinformed anti-hunting and anti-culling sentiment of the dinner party set was that an entire park ecosystem was put at risk, just to “save” a few elephants, of which there were plenty.

It is true that some lion populations in Africa are under pressure. However, a recent academic study undertaken by Peter Lindsey and others, finds that even in countries where the threat is severe, prohibiting hunting – instead of just issuing fewer permits – would prove counter-productive, by reducing habitat protection, reducing tolerance for lions among local populations, and reducing funds available to combat poaching.

Some time ago, I wrote about a story out of Texas, where hunting ranches host large herds of endangered antelope like addax and dama gazelle, which are extinct in the wild in their native Africa. The reason they’re there? They pay their keep, by supplying the hunting industry. What will happen if hunting these animals is banned? They will cease to exist. Entirely.

As it happens, that story also involved vile vitriol directed at a professional hunter, Corey Cogdell. That hunter was also female. Coincidence? I think not. It looks like Britten and Davis are right. Bachman’s big mistake was not the hunt itself, nor even bragging about it, but being female.

Let’s consider the story of the Maroi Conservancy, where the hunt in question occurred. It consists of a number of private properties along the Zimbabwean border in Limpopo Province, that have agreed to pull down the fences between them.

A profile of the conservancy is quite clear about the change that hunting has made: “In the past, parts of the conservancy were intensively farmed for citrus and other crops, and some landowners tried running cattle. None of them managed for game. Poaching was common, with people cutting the fences to trespass. Now, all the meat from animals that are hunted goes to the local community to encourage them not to poach.”

In other words, where there used to be a few crop farms with poaching problems, Maroi is now a fully-functional breeding game conservancy, supported by revenue from hunting.

Presumably, Maroi charged Bachman in the region of $30,000, which is the going rate for a full-maned lion. By comparison, most animals cost under $10,000. An elephant typically goes for $100,000, and a rhino – yes, hunting them for trophies is legal – fetches even more. And here’s one for the trivia buffs: What is the cheapest animal on a typical trophy price list? Even cheaper than an impala female, a jackal fetches just $100. Poor put-upon vermin!

In terms of their vulnerability, lions aren’t under nearly as much pressure as rhinos. What has hunting done for the rhino population? Extending full private property rights to the animals and legalising trophy hunting has arguably saved both the black and white rhino from going extinct decades ago, according to a detailed study conducted by environmental economist Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes.

As we all know, rhino are not out of the woods, and the recent spike in poaching is a grave concern. However, the solution is not to continue the ban on trading in rhino products, which is failing, but to lift it, and to let rhino farmers like John Hume breed the animals for their horn. It is gratifying to see that minister Molewa thinks along the same lines, and will apply – against all odds – to CITES to lift the ban on the trade in rhino products.

As a child, on game viewing holidays, I remember learning how rare the roan antelope, bontebok, sable antelope and black wildebeest were. Today, they are relatively common, and the Professional Hunters’ Assocation of South Africa (PHASA) names them among the species that once were on the brink of being wiped out, but are today thriving on private game farms supported by hunting revenue.

“I am of the firm belief that the hunting industry and the game farming industry are important partners, who play a key role in terms of conservation, tourism, and economic development," Molewa told a hunting indaba in 2010.

Earlier this year, she reiterated the government’s policy to promote South Africa as “a destination of choice for hunting”.

David Mabunda, the CEO of SanParks, agrees: “As a developing country, it would be suicidal to want to make trade-offs between hunting and photographic ecotourism. We don’t have the luxury of choice. We need both.”

In light of all this, does the massive outcry about Melissa Bachman make sense? No, unless you’re a misogynist or simply dislike American braggarts. Her public boasts about her kills may be tacky, and decidely ill-advised, but frankly, see appears to be someone who is passionate about the hunt, and isn’t ashamed of her prowess.

This is not about her feelings. Anyone who dresses up like Lara Croft in Tomb Raider is probably tough enough to handle the hate directed at her by Internet trolls. If she’s at all typical of professional hunters, she can comfort herself with the knowledge that she is more in tune with nature and its conservation than most of the haters.

Her detractors might brag about “shooting” animals with cameras, but if my safari-company contacts are any guide, most of them are shallow tourists who demand to be driven about in air-conditioned luxury, to see all of the big five in one day, as if that is a more informed reflection of nature than a professional hunt.

South Africa officially considers Bachman a welcome and valued visitor, and rightly so. Even if you disagree, and you arrogantly think you have the moral authority to judge her arrogance, the real story is this. Your smug superiority risks depriving South Africa of tourism revenue and employment. It risks depriving the country of much-needed funding for conservation. It risks reducing the value of our wildlife, which reduces the incentive for private farm owners to breed and protect game. Hypocritical anger is a greater threat to conservation than Bachman’s rifle will ever be.

Think about that, the next time you pen a bullying comment, safely hidden behind your screen. Moral superiority cuts both ways. DM

Rescued from a poachers snare

Written by: Kelly Landen on behalf of Elephants Without Borders
A young bull elephant was sighted with a horrible snare wrapped around his front leg. After an initial assessment, a decision had been made that he would have to be put down. However, considering it was late in the evening and dark, the bull was spared another day. One of the onlookers decided to contact Elephants Without Borders (EWB) to see if there was anything they could do to possibly help the situation…

Young elephant bull with snare.

Although rescue and rehabilitation is not the conservation research organization’s forte, they already planned to have their wildlife vet, Dr. Larry Patterson from the Kalahari Game Services, on hand for field activities that week. EWB Program Manager, Kelly Landen, made a few phone calls to ensure that if the young bull was sighted again, they would be notified. That very same day, as the team was in Chobe National Park, they received the call that the young bull was sighted at Senyanti Campsite’s artificial waterhole. They knew they could not reach the calf within the hour so EWB researcher, Tempe Adams, was called to the scene to keep tabs on the unfortunate bull until the team could get there. Luckily, the bull did not move off and was found drinking near the pan and cooling his horrific injury.
The bull was quickly darted and in 10 minutes the immobilization drug took effect and he went down.

Young elephant bull is darted.

The elephant bull starts to go down as the drug takes effect.

The team jumped in to attend to his leg. The snare was not a simple wire, but a thick wire cable and had obviously not been set to capture big game, like an elephant. A bolt-cutter had to be used to cut if off. The injury was deep, however luckily not all the way to the bone, and infection had not set in. The wound was cleaned and the bull was given an injection of strong antibiotics before he was moved into position for him to get up.

Cleaning the wound.

A crowd of eager campers only had to wait a few minutes to watch as the bull easily stood up. The crowd cheered as he slowly moved off. An elephant saved from poacher snare is free to live another day – and hopefully for many more years to come!

He’s up!

Elephant walks away on his tender leg.

The management team at the campsite has been keeping a watchful eye out for the young bull and he has been regularly sighted returning to the pan. In one week, the swelling in his leg has gone down and his wound appears to be slowly healing. Although it is surely quite painful, this one young bull has been given a second chance.

A week after the snare was removed. The young bull is recovering well.

The wound after one week.

EWB would like to thank the management team at Senyanti Campsites (and Iris for the update photos), Mike Holding, Ian McMillan, Clive Millar for the original call, Guts from Pangolin for “phone watch” and the campers who eagerly rushed in to grab buckets of fresh water to help clean the wound.
Elephants Without Borders (EWB) is a charity organisation dedicated to conserving wildlife and natural resources through innovative research, education, and information sharing with all people. They encourage mankind to live in harmony with wildlife and the natural world. Considering wildlife don’t use passports, the notion of elephants and ‘conservation without borders’ is crucial for preserving biodiversity and a healthy landscape. Using African elephants as an inspiration, EWB strives to identify wildlife migratory corridors, secure wild habitats and elevate conservation of all wildlife. The largest mammal that walks the earth is now leading the way to help save vast areas of wild lands and the biodiversity they support.