Anti-Hunting Escalates in Africa

By Chris Chaffin Published: 10/14/2009 Updated: 10/20/2009

ACraig2.jpg

From half-way around the world, the e-mail said, “I’m in Botswana right now and they have just closed down hunting in the Okavango Delta—truly unbelievable.”

It can’t be! This was the storied Okavango Delta, the destination of dreams, home of African safaris, the very soul of man’s predator-prey connection to nature.

The date was Sept. 4, 2009.

Could African governments be eliminating or seriously reducing hunting opportunities? Was it possible the very industry which created sustainable-use conservation, jobs, a viable economy, and a regular source of protein for so many was being closed?

The answer is yes.

However, as is typical in wildlife management and conservation matters, it’s not a simple “yes.”  Understanding why the anti-hunting movement is gaining ground in Africa is far from one-dimensional. It’s a multi-faceted scenario, replete with foreign influence, international rule-making, evolving government leadership and programs, targeted propaganda campaigns, and a healthy dose of apathy.

In the early 1990s, notable African figures Peter Capstick and Peter Hitchins lamented the growing American influence there. Hitchins had “very sharp words” for Americans who were trying to run South Africa’s wildlife management—encouraging anti-hunting sentiment.

The anti-hunting agenda is being pushed in Africa. And, it has reached high enough levels that many who make their living directly through hunting now hesitate to speak openly. My requests for interviews were regularly met with responses like, “I can’t talk about that right now.” Other requests to noted authorities went unanswered.

In Botswana, a well-established Professional Hunter recently revealed all hunting concessions and permits were being “re-tendered” for non-consumptive use only…“after 40 years of sustainable government hunting quota allocation.” (Note: Some concessions will continue hunting until current licenses expire.) And sources who would rather remain nameless, for obvious reasons, point to the October 2009 presidential elections as at least partial reason for the intense politics involved in the overhaul, noting the involvement of anti-hunting groups and their influence—backed with funds—largely from America and Europe. 

ACraig1.jpgCraig Boddington, thought by many to be America’s pre-eminent African hunter, has been on more than 80 safaris. He pointedly says the closure of lion hunting in Botswana, for instance, is the result of anti-hunting influence from the large photo-tourism industry in that country.

News and rumors from Namibia circulated earlier this year that leopard and cheetah hunting opportunities were dwindling due to increasing pressure and influence from groups such as the Humane Society of United States (HSUS) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).

And, in fact, leopard and cheetah hunting were closed. The Namibian Government’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism established a moratorium on issuing cheetah and leopard permits in April and June 2009, respectively.

In fairness, Boddington noted, “Namibia’s moratorium on leopard hunting was due to the simple fact they have been exceeding their CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) quota of 250 sport-hunted leopards annually, thus dipping into the next year’s quota. The leopard closure was enacted so they could catch up.” The Namibian Professional Hunting Association’s Executive Committee agreed to support that decision.

As anti-hunting discussions tend to be passionate, it’s important to note there are also good wildlife management efforts taking place in Africa. Not all closures or reductions are the result of anti-hunting sentiment.

“The cheetah closure in Namibia, however,” Boddington elaborated, “was definitely caused by anti-hunting influence, and it’s a tragedy for the cheetah because they no longer have value [and] won’t be tolerated when they take livestock and privately owned game.”

As Boddington noted, there is a growing list of attacks from Africa’s nature photographers. In a separate response where the author asked for their identity to be withheld, a well-known African wildlife photographer, who is pushing hard against hunting, was identified as a close adviser to the country’s president. Clearly, the battle between hunting and photo safaris is significant.

In a recent conversation, Tony Makris, host of the television show “Under Wild Skies,” said, “…lots of money from anti-hunting groups outside of Africa is going to people and organizations that want hunting to end. The anti-hunting effort in Africa is broad, but they target species they can impact most readily—the big cats, elephants and rhino—species around which they can most easily build their emotional appeal and propaganda campaigns.” Makris categorized Africa’s photo-safari contingent as “rabid anti-hunters.”

Familiar anti-hunting and animal welfare organizations are readily named as active participants in the anti-hunting movement in Africa—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Animal Liberation Front (ALF), HSUS, IFAW, etc.  And, according to some industry insiders, they appear to be infiltrating conservation Non-Governmental Organizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and CITES.

Don MacLauchlan, International Resources Director for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, has attended CITES meetings for almost two decades. He observes that the anti-hunting groups are becoming more active, while the pro-hunting groups are sending fewer representatives to these important meetings where international agreements and policies on wildlife management are made. 

“The anti-hunting groups are taking a much more active role in these meetings to influence decisions and inject their philosophy onto the world platform,” MacLauchlan said. “There are fewer pro-hunting groups in attendance.”

The result is less science-based management information and more emotion-based arguments being heard in the committees. The critical reality is that the anti-hunters are raising and spending money to spread their views and influence and the hunting community isn’t keeping up.  MacLauchlan implores, “We must stay vigilant!”

Potential Impacts

Without exception, the experts interviewed for this article emphasized the world is interconnected—what happens in Africa will have a decided impact in America and elsewhere. And they agreed hunting plays a key role in maintaining the balance between animals and their habitat.

“If hunters don’t contribute to keeping the balance, governments initiate culling programs to reduce over-population, the local people receive nothing from the trophy fees, and the animals are usually left on the ground,” Makris said.

He points out that when hunters take African game, the outfitters earn money, employ and feed local people and patrol their concession areas to help stop poaching.

AMakris.jpgMakris notes that hunters typically spend thousands of dollars per day. “Photographers,” he said, “spend hundreds. If the anti-hunters are successful in destroying the existing equation, they will be doing it at the peril of the local people and wildlife.”

The reason: Wildlife competes with local people for resources and destroys crops and livestock. The current hunting system works because hunters' dollars give value to wildlife, so local people are tolerant, affording them some protection. Without that income, the animals lose their value and become pests rather than resources.

One African PH said there really isn’t much of a pro-hunting movement from within Africa as most Africans don’t really care about wildlife, except as a food source.

So, who is standing up for hunting in Africa? Clearly, African professional hunter organizations and some sportsmen’s groups are working to countermand the anti-hunters, as are groups like Safari Club International (SCI), the Dallas and Houston Safari Clubs, NRA, Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), The Conservation Force, and the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. 

Hunters and conservationists who care about Africa’s wildlife, and who want future generations to enjoy the vast and majestic animals of that mystical and inspiring place, must focus on this festering issue and become better organized—and better funded—to counter the growing anti-hunting movement. There are indeed global ramifications.


The author is President of Chaffin Communications, Board Chairman of the Professional Outdoor Media Association, and has spent more than 30 years combined in wildlife management and the hunting, fishing and shooting industries.

Related Articles
Comments
Well, I am an avid hunter in the United States...mostly waterfowl. I am also a huge DU supporter and a member of the NRA. I believe hunting endangered species is wrong. I also agree that hunting in Africa helps their economy and helps feed their citizens...but, I don't believe they are managing the populations correctly, if at all, and it will eventually lead to extinction if the hunting continues. I have been reading on this and plan to do more research...I also don't agree with (personally) killing for the joy of killing...we don't trophy hunt in our home so I see no reason to travel to Africa to kill an animal when I can't eat it. I also believe we should support our own economy and hunt here. If you're interested in a trophy you can kill big game animals here and eat them, too. I am conflicted about one thing tho...I support all hunting in the United States because we can't allow anti-hunting activists to get a foothold or we may lose our rights...this way of thinking could be applied in Africa as well...but, in order for me to feel okay with killing their trophy animals they would have to manage and maintain their populations. We have a responsibility to the animals we hunt and to future generations of hunters.

From Sarah McIntyre on Friday, April 01, 2011 11:33 PM
Economics is the right basis for this situation to be resolved, not emotion. There is no future for endangered wildlife in Southern Africa unless the hunting industry is managed and structured properly. The American hunting sector is an excellent example of what can be achieved in terms of species recovery when hunting is legislated and managed properly. All the urban anti-hunting crowd can do is criticize something they don't understand and give money to organizations that are not doing a thing with the proceeds except more marketing.

From Jonathan Setter on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:47 AM
I can't help but think that the anti-hunting mandate in Africa is because if we have a one world order the White House will have their way. No matter what. And BTW Al Gore is out for the cash no matter what and so are all the politicians. Thus mandates, taxes, taxes on taxes. Two EPA lawyers Laurie Williams and her husband on You Tube. She makes the claim that Cap and Trade will not work and there is no need for the administration's climate policy. The agency citing Federal policies told her she could only mention climate change once. They are from San Francisco.

From chris bolmeier on Friday, November 13, 2009 10:10 AM
First of all, if you don't support hunting, why are you at a hunters rights web site "Dave Knothe"? Or is it only types of hunting you approve of that you support? What do you support gun rights for? Because it's a cultural right? Like hunting? Like legal gun ownership, there is real, scientific evidence and real world experience behind the "claims of benefits" hunting provides - it's not alleged, it's fact and if you care to read it it's available without much effort. Professionals managing wildlife need hunters to help with population control and to be eyes and ears on the ground to discourage poachers. The NRA is supporting the continued existence of these animals. What happens when hunting for game is prohibited? We don't have to guess. By about 1977, Kenya had effectively closed all hunting. At that time herd animals were relatively abundant, though some larger animals were endangered. So what are the results of 40 years of non-hunting policy? Nearly all Kenyan game is endangered, including those larger animals, still. In contrast, South Africa has more game than when Europeans first arrived! Why? They have nurtured a business environment for the game animals - they have an economic value to the population. Animals that raid garden plots aren't killed and eaten as vermin - they are worth far more than the garden contents in trophy fees and safari dollars. The locals are employed in lodging and housekeeping, food service, transportation, guiding, tracking, trophy preparation, taxidermy, meat processing and every business that supplies those industries. Even flights to and from South Africa by THOUSANDS of hunters annually contribute major dollars to the locals at the ports of entry. Shipping the trophys back to the hunters employs locals. Lodges have to be built, fences maintained. Property owners also nurture the game with little things like reliable water sources and planted food plots in some areas. Do you have any idea what the trophy fee for an elephant is? $10,000? Too low. $20,000? Getting warmer, but good luck finding one at that price. And that's for ONE. In Kenya the locals killed elephants for raiding garden plots worth much much less. A Lion trophy will cost you $15,000 or more now. Lions were poisoned by farmers in the past to protect livestock when hunting was not a viable alternative to control them (because nine out of 10 lions preferred beef to antelope for dinner!). The hunting industry has provided a much more predator friendly world. By giving lions and leopards a value, they are not treated as vermin and exterminated. Elephants and lions and leopards are not endangered everywhere in Africa. Some areas have too many of one species or another. In Namibia the giraffe population is out of control - hunting for them is not as popular as it once was. So many populate the Western edges of the Kalahari that they are destroying the very trees that provide them food, and all the life that depends on the tree and it's shade and root structure as well. Will you go and exterminate some of them for their species preservation? Hunters will do it if the price is right, and return something of value to the economy in exchange. The meat from a single giraffe will feed dozens for months. And these are people that have so little that they lack the means of obtaining the meat otherwise. Before you wipe out one culture - like hunting - be sure you can replace it with "Something of Value." Ignorance of the facts is the greatest danger all animals face on this planet. As for photographic safari's, there ARE many more people engaged in them. More people who disturb the animals more, who produce more pollution with vehicles and sewage and the demands of a non-hunting tourist environment. No, photo safaris are not in any way a replacement for hunting safaris, they are far more damaging to Africa than all the hunters could ever be. Have a nice day.

From Steven Haynie on Monday, November 09, 2009 5:22 PM
The hunting industry is able to support conservation financially. Can the photographers do the same?

From Mac on Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:20 PM
Am a lifelong hunter and not a trophy hunter, however the financial realities noted in the article are correct - big game hunting in Africa seems the best bet to preserve wildlife - don't forget game laws and preservation began in this country as an effort to stem loss of wildlife from market hunters not environmentalists - more money is contributed to game preservation by sportsmen than any other source. WAKE UP PEOPLE - SUPPORT SPORT HUNTING IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ANY ANIMANLS LEFT TO TAKE PICTURES OF.

From Ben Fields on Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:09 PM
The funds generated by the hunting activities & meat provided by the hunters to local villages will be a great loss to Africa. By not having the funds generated by hunting, the poaching will increase again & the herd populations will dwindle. What the environmental groups are doing will have just the opposite effect. SCI's & NRA's support is needed to stop the anti hunters & actually improve the wildlife population. Hunting is a vital part of game management.

From Scott Borg on Saturday, November 07, 2009 11:24 AM
I'm a hunter, sporadically, I hunt for meat.. I've never hunted for trophy..and I've hunted, all of my life,(I'm 65).I love the outdoors, and being out in it, but if I'm not going to eat it, I'm not going to kill it.. Trophy hunters, and all the hype, annoy me.. the only thing those lions are good for, for all intent and purposes, is Pictures and a high dollar wall hanging... And it takes more money, than I'd care to spend, to get all the way over there, just for a wall decoration.. Now I've opened a can of worms, and there will be tons of "Trophy Hunters", that will disagree... But, then, I really don't care...

From Craig Smiley on Saturday, November 07, 2009 7:27 AM
Leave Africa to the Wild and hunting to those who know the score. No hunter exceeds the game take to wipe out a species, in fact they pay tribute to support the stronger growth of those species they hunt. This is two fold; one-It maintains a healthy poplulation for those who photo ops, two-It maintains and ensures quality hunting for those who hunt. Africa in general without big game hunting will more than likely start hunting humans again. Sick Government interference

From Scott Williams on Friday, November 06, 2009 5:24 PM
Mr. Knothe--NRA does not support hunting of endandered species, and none of the species photographed in this article were endangered.

From The Editors on Friday, November 06, 2009 1:28 PM
Having been to Africa and spent time visiting locals, outfitters and guides, and the ways of South Africa, I have to totaly agree with this article. If those animals have no more value, they are no longer protected. A hungry, empty stomach beats out conservation when those animals no longer have any value to the poorest of the poor. They don't care about the economy or the conservation, the photographers or the hunters. They care about eating and feeding their families.

From Wendy White on Friday, November 06, 2009 12:59 PM
It must be a sad sick mind that would rather see any wild beast laid out for a photo op. than roaming its natural habitat. As far as gun dollars vs. photo dollars is concerned, I'm sure there are many hundreds times more visitors would pay for the opportunity to snap these beautiful animals roaming free than would pay a few thousand dollars for the dubious "pleasure" of seeing them stretched out under their bloodied heel!

From d.heard on Friday, November 06, 2009 9:25 AM
I agree with Dave's comments completely. I did not enjoy looking at the "trophy hunters" pix. Don Zeilstra Pinehurst, NC

From Don Zeilstra on Friday, November 06, 2009 7:52 AM
I strongly support the U.S. constitution and the second amendment. However I do not support, in any way the killing of large endangered species, such as the cats in your article regardless of the alleged, management or economic benefits. The NRA's support of such activities and the boastful presentation of photographs just undermine the entire efforts of the organization. The NRA needs to take a much more serious look at its position regarding such activities and develop a realistic environmental policy that has a basis in science and reasonableness. The current attitudes and presentation reflect poorly upon the organization and will inevitable destroy our rights to own guns.

From Dave Knothe on Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:48 PM
Name:*
Email:
Comments:*
Enter the above code here:
(Code is case insensitive. You can put lower or upper case.)
Can't read? Try different words.
 
 
Become an Instructor