Nov 6, 2020 | Archive, News
Daybreak finds us sitting close to the camel thorn fire, for the morning air is chilly. Soon the kettle boils and coffee is brewed. Another day on the arid hunting grounds awaits. My hunting friend Lance and I have pursued many animals with some success, but it is the gemsbok, Namibia’s most formidable swordsman, which Lance so dearly longs to track, test his skills against, and hunt…
This particular gemsbok has grazed throughout the night to escape the heat of the desert’s scorched lands. It now stands in the direct sun, with burning sand under its hoofs, shifting its weight now and again. It hasn’t had water on its blackened tongue for weeks. It has maintained its diet by scenting out roots and bulbs, and digging them out of the sand with its strong, sharp, heavy hoofs, quenching its thirst by lucky finds of moisture. When Africa is conjured up in the mind, many see lush savannahs and jungles. But the Kalahari and Namib deserts are regions defined by drought, and they test survival on a daily basis, of both man and beast.
Lance and I have left camp early, grateful for the blessed coolness of morning with its refreshing dew. From years of a semi-sedentary life, he has been unable to cope with discomfort and irritation. We walk in a landscape that consists of vast level plains, haunted by mirages, sand dunes, with arid mountain ranges – usually mere piles of bare rock. Soon the sun sucks the last drop of moisture from the air and sands.
We push on. We see some bustards and snakes, and groups of springbok in the distance. We climb to the top of a small dune, lie down and carefully scan the plains from east to west. A faint breeze swirls over our perspiring bodies. While we lie there, a jackal shambles up the steep slope of loose sand and meets us, face to face. It regards us with bewilderment for a second and then dashes back with a yelp. Lance and I exchange glances as we wordlessly share this moment. The heat has now reached full force with temperatures must be around the 40s.
“Let’s push on and forget about the heat,” I try to motivate my friend. The sun beats down fiercely, and the sand over which we trudge burns through the soles of our shoes. On the right, a small thicket of black sticks becomes visible, standing at various angles. The rest of the gemsbok is out of sight, nothing visible but the long and straight horns. But as we near them, the thicket of “black sticks” becomes agitated. It breaks up, scatters and regroups in smaller thickets. Then the herd of gemsbok swings away at a gallop and speeds upwind, leaving a long trail of dust to mark its course and finally melting into the mirage.
Far off, ahead of the herd, the aristocrat of the desert, a lone bull is resting in the mid-day haze under the scant shade of a tree, surrounded by miniature pyramids of dry gemsbok droppings, where he has marked this area as his territory. He left the herd months ago, leaving the females to their fate. They have their own lethal set of horns to defend themselves and their young. He is old and tired, and the natural instinct to pass on his genes for future herds is long lost. He faces the slight breeze, pants, inhales and exhales rapidly through his nose, a nose lined with a network of small blood vessels that are cooled by the air pulled into the nose to ensure that blood enters his brain at a lower temperature.
Lance and I don’t escape our share of hardship. We carry our own water, but that previously cool refreshment has now warmed to a hot tea temperature. Even so, we drink it gratefully. The heat reflecting off the ground and stones is almost unbearable, but we are able to endure it while moving. But the stillness of the desert and the glare from the surroundings is weighing Lance down.
“Shade – coolness – where is it,” he asks. “Even darkness would be a relief.” I realize that something approaching desperation seizes him, and I feel close to calling it a day and turning back. But then I spot a tree in the distance towards the west. As Lance turns to face a slight breeze, he regains some enthusiasm and puts my thought into words: “Wind in your face, sun at your back.” With renewed hope we turn westward and head for the shady tree. Suddenly, and with our sights set on tree in the distance, three gemsbok calves rise at about sixty meters and stare at us.
About three to four months old, they are a most extraordinary sight. Their necks, chests and flanks are covered with long vivid red hair. They have shaggy red manes and big, black, muzzles; their ears are enormous. Lance mistakes them for lion and becomes terrified, until I tell him what they are. Once his adrenaline rush subsides, we are able to continue. The gemsbok calves gallop off in confusion, sweeping left and right, and finally speeding towards the direction where we last saw the big herd disappear. I admire their agile movements in the rocky terrain, which poses no obstacle for gemsbok – the divisions of their hooves, connected by a strong membrane of muscle, expand widely and stretch apart when they tread on a stone, the membrane serving as a supporting spring.
And then, as we look back to the lone tree with its inviting coolness, I spot the slight movement of a white underbelly beneath it, and whisper excitedly to Lance to look at it though his binoculars. Finally, with sweaty fingers slipping and sliding over the warm binoculars, Lance lays eyes on the striking beast. We gaze at the black and white patterns around its legs and underbelly, the iconic facial markings that deflect the heat and make the gemsbok so stunningly beautiful. It is the result of a long period of evolution to make him attractive in the eyes of the females of his species. He is a mere 200 meters away, still facing away from us.
Lance and I swiftly move closer, he crouched low, my head bent downwards, hoping that the gemsbok will not sense us closing in on him. But when, at 120 meters away from the gemsbok I raise my head to take a quick look, it is as if he had read my mind – the famous sixth sense of the gemsbok has already kicked in. He is facing us now. He stands statue-like, defying his enemy, his muscular shoulders and flanks, tense, his wiry hair erect and quivering. His trumpet-shaped red nostrils seem to exude defiance.
I look at his deadly weapon, the long, slim, pitch-black horns shimmering in the sun, and a quick thought plays with my sub-conscience… that the gemsbok, without breaking his stride, can sweep his formidable horns as quick as lightning and impale anything within a meter on either side of him. And suddenly, at this moment I am not eager for Lance to shoot. It is enough to simply gaze at the impassive face. I, the hunter, who with my friend, so much longed to take this formidable swordsman, now just want to revere him.
The hunter’s instinct is one which is most deeply rooted in the mind of man. As Lance slowly lifts his rifle to his shoulder – a second too late, a deliberate moment too long spent scrutinizing the beast before us. The gemsbok turns and trots off, as if challenging us to follow. Lance follows him only through his scope, lowering his the rifle as the gemsbok pauses on top of a dune It catches the evening breeze, and gazes down on us one last time. I realize that Lance had had the same fleeting emotion pass through him.
Day faded, and the dome of stars seemed to be drawn around us. How intensely still it was, how utterly peaceful, where Lance and I seemed to have reached Nirvana.
——————————
The gemsbok has several interesting peculiarities. Namibians think so highly of the gemsbok Oryx gazella, that the national coat of arms depicts two of these magnificent animals representing courage, elegance and pride, on either side of a shield covered with the national flag. If you see these antelope in their desert surroundings you will immediately understand their prominent place in the hearts of Namibians.
Nov 6, 2020 | Archive, News
A legal market in rhino horn continues to be stubbornly opposed by the South African Government, CITES, the animal rights movement and well-meaning but misguided people all around the world. But demand for rhino horns continues unabated, and the people who want this product have plenty of money. In the absence of a legal market, the horns are simply obtained illegally. And because money is involved, those tasked with protecting the rhino are sometimes themselves sufficiently corrupted to get involved in the illegal trade.
Such betrayal of trust by those who are employed to protect these magnificent creatures is the most nauseating behaviour imaginable on the part of the perpetrators. In September 2020 three SANParks employees were apprehended for rhino poaching in the Kruger National Park (KNP) on the eve of World Rhino Day. Two were caught in the act of dehorning the animal they had just killed. The third suspect is none other than the section ranger of Lower Sabie, who allegedly supplied his two accomplices with the rifle they had used to slaughter the animal. This was reported by Nicolene Smalman in The Lowvelder newspaper.
These fortuitous arrests happened because police and SANParks officials were in the right place at the right time. They were busy with routine operations in the park – visiting old poaching scenes in the Lower Sabie area – collecting DNA and other evidence, when they heard two shots being fired. They immediately went to investigate and made a gruesome discovery. A field guide and the gardener of the section ranger were allegedly busy dehorning a white rhino when the officials stumbled upon them.
They were immediately arrested and a hunting rifle, ammunition, vehicle and poaching equipment were seized. It later emerged that the rifle (a .458 calibre) apparently belonged to the section ranger, who was also arrested. The men were detained in the holding cells at Skukuza Police Station.
Mr Abe Sibiya, acting CEO of SANParks, congratulated the officials who effected the arrests “These send a strong message that officials alleged to be involved in poaching will be arrested and face the full might of the law,” he said. “It is unfortunate that those trusted with the well-being of these animals are alleged to have become the destroyers of the same heritage they have a mandate to protect.”
Even more concerning is that this betrayal of trust seems to extend to members of the South African Police Service (SAPS). Legal Brief Environmental of 4 November 2020 published the following report:
“A Mpumalanga police constable with links to a syndicate allegedly behind ‘massive trafficking’ of poached rhino horns was arrested last week. A News24 report notes that six other suspects, mostly current and former police officers, were arrested in Mpumalanga two days previously. Phenias Lubisi, a former station commander in Skukuza now working at Calcutta; Xolani Lubisi, a former officer at Calcutta; Constable Thembisile Mhlanga, from Skukuza SAPS; Clyde Mnisi, the alleged ‘right hand man’; Petrus Mabuza Mshengu, and former White River SAPS officer Joe Nyalunga, appeared in the White River Magistrate’s Court on charges of theft, conspiracy, illegal buying and selling of rhino horns, corruption and money laundering. The case was postponed.
“The officer arrested last, who works at the Acornhoek Stock Theft Unit, was expected to appear in the Hazyview Magistrate’s Court later in the day. She will face similar charges as her co-accused, Hawks spokesperson Brigadier Hangwani Mulaudzi said. Luxury vehicles, motorbikes, trucks, trailers, generators and equipment worth millions of Rands were seized during the multi-agency swoop. It is alleged that the syndicate operated with almost military precision around the Kruger National Park (KNP), as well as in private and state-owned reserves in KZN and Gauteng. Mulaudzi alleged: ‘These are the guys who organised the snipers. These are the guys who were making millions.’”
When park officials and police officers are themselves involved in the illegal trade in rhino horns, it seems clear that the efforts to prevent the extinction of these beleaguered animals are being completely undermined from within. When will we realise that this war is being lost, and that we need to implement a different strategy? When all the rhinos have been killed? Surely there must be another way to prevent this from happening!
Dr John Ledger is a past Director of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, now a consultant, writer and teacher on the environment, energy and wildlife; he is a columnist for the African Hunting Gazette. He lives in Johannesburg, South Africa.
John.Ledger@wol.co.za
Nov 15, 2019 | Archive, News
By John Ledger
The triennial World Wildlife Conference, known formally as CoP18 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), concluded in Geneva, Switzerland on 28 August 2019. In a press release the organizers claimed to have adopted an impressive list of decisions advancing the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife across the globe. Southern African states were once again disappointed by the outcome of CITES, and certainly not at all impressed by its achievements.
Some excerpts from the CITES Press Release include the following:
“The Conference revised the trade rules for dozens of wildlife species that are threatened by unstainable trade linked to overharvesting, overfishing or overhunting. These ranged from commercially valuable fish and trees to charismatic mammals such as giraffes, to amphibians and reptiles sold as exotic pets.
Noting that giraffes have declined by 36-40% over the past three decades due to habitat loss and other pressures, the conference added the world’s tallest animal to Appendix II.
The Parties established the CITES Big Cat Task Force with a mandate to improve enforcement, tackle illegal trade and promote collaboration on conserving tigers, lions, cheetahs, jaguars and leopards.
In addition, the critical role of local and indigenous communities that live on the frontlines of wildlife conservation and sustainable management, and their need for adequate incomes and livelihoods, was widely recognized. Overcoming a wide range of differing views, the conference asked Parties to begin considering how to best engage indigenous peoples and local communities in CITES decision-making and implementation. The aim is to better achieve the objectives of the Convention while recognizing those people whose use of CITES-listed species contributes significantly to their livelihoods.
The Conference also:
- increased quotas for trophy hunting of adult male black rhinos, almost doubling the current quota of five, subject to strict controls; however, proposed trade in southern white rhino horns from eSwatini (Swaziland) and live animals and hunting trophies from Namibia were not accepted.
- reviewed the measures for the export of live African elephants to ‘appropriate and acceptable destinations’, whereby exports outside their natural range will be permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ only, in consultation with relevant CITES and IUCN bodies, and only if they provide in ‘situ conservation benefits’
- did not accept proposals to permit some limited trade in ivory from African elephants, which means that the existing trade ban remains in place.
- held a meeting on the African Elephant Action Plan to encourage cooperation among the African elephant range states.
CoP18 was attended by 169 member governments (plus the EU) and some 1,700 delegates, observers and journalists. CoP19 will be held in 2022 in Costa Rica.”
Prior to CoP 18, an African Wildlife Economy Summit was held at Victoria Falls, June 23-25, 2019. Attended by heads of state, business leaders, technical experts and community representatives, the meeting aimed to radically change the way the continent’s nature-based economy is managed. Convened by UNEP and the African Union and hosted by the president of Zimbabwe, the summit was an African-led vision of conservation that linked the private sector with national authorities and local communities to design and finance conservation-compatible investments that deliver sustainable economic and ecological benefits to countries, people and the environment. Over 40 community representatives of 12 countries across Africa met prior to Africa’s Wildlife Economy Summit, to share their experiences of living with and among Africa’s wildlife. They sought a ‘New Deal’ that would recognise the rights of ownership, management and use of wildlife resources.
How pathetic then was it for the CITES conference to have “asked Parties to begin considering how to best engage indigenous peoples and local communities in CITES decision-making and implementation. The aim is to better achieve the objectives of the Convention while recognizing those people whose use of CITES-listed species contributes significantly to their livelihoods.”
They want to “begin considering” something that Namibia has already practiced for some 30 years – empowering indigenous people and local communities in decision-making and implementation of wildlife policies on their land!
The southern African countries that have the best success in conserving elephants and rhinos on the continent were again denied the opportunity to market wildlife products to enhance the value of wildlife resources for those who live with large and dangerous animals.
Clearly angered and once again frustrated by the outcome of CITES, the Tanzanian delegation took the floor on behalf of the following Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries: Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Here is the text of their submission:
This Declaration is made to express the grave concern that the SADC Parties mentioned here have with regards to the implementation of this Convention.
As members of the global multilateral system and democratic, representative governments, we are obliged to ensure that we meet our commitments to all those international agreements and declarations to which we are signatories, as well as responsibilities to our citizens.
Recognizing that CITES is one of the oldest wildlife and trade agreements, we are obliged to give it due consideration but within the context of subsequent and contemporary agreements and declarations to which it bears relevance and to which we are also signatories.
CITES in its Preamble accepted the principle of: “Recognizing that peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora” and the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 in Article 3 provides that: “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”
We contend that CITES, in form, substance and implementation, is not aligned with other international agreements of equal weight and arguably greater relevance to the challenges of today. These agreements emphasize the following principles: – sovereignty over the use of national resources; – inclusive, equitable development through the sustainable use of natural resources; – recognizing that rural communities living with wildlife have inalienable rights over the use of their resources; and – recognizing that in today’s world of rapid changes in climate and land use and the accelerating pace of transformation of wildlife habitat, the survival of wildlife depends on the perceptions and development needs of people living with wildlife. The way CITES is currently operation is contrary to its founding principles.
Today CITES discards proven, working conservation models in favour of ideologically driven anti-use and anti-trade models. Such models are dictated by largely western non-State actors who have no experience with, responsibility for, or ownership over wildlife resources. The result has been failure to adopt progressive, equitable, inclusive and science-based conservation strategies. We believe this failure has arisen from the domination of protectionist ideology over science decision in making within CITES.
This anti-sustainable use and anti-trade ideology now dominates decisions made by many States who are party to CITES. States are increasingly influenced by the dominance both at meetings of the decision-making structures of CITES and in their run up by protectionist NGOs whose ideological position has no basis in science or experience and is not shared in any way by the Member States of SADC and their people.
This conservation model is based on entrenched and emotive rhetoric and discourse, backed up by intense lobbying, as opposed to science. Foremost amongst these motifs now dominating CITES is the unfounded belief that all trade fuels illegal, unsustainable trade, ignoring clear evidence to the contrary.
Examples of this are the attempts by others to impose new trade restrictions for species that are effectively conserved – and utilized – in our States, such as lions and giraffe, while the real threats in those States where such species are in decline due to habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict continue to go unattended.
The Southern African countries have observed, with great discomfort the polarised discussions on African charismatic large mammals at this CoP 18. It is very disturbing to see the North South divide across the African continent rearing its head again.
We are further concerned that positions of some Parties appear to be based on national political considerations aimed at catering to the interests of national, intensively lobbied constituencies, as opposed to proven, science-based conservation strategies. This undermines the SADC States, on whom the responsibility to manage species falls, and our ability to do so effectively.
As it is currently implemented, CITES undermines the rights of people living in rural areas of SADC States to have access to and use in a sustainable manner the natural resources present in their communities that are required to enjoy adequate living conditions and the right to participate in the management of these resources. The consensus expressed through CITES by the majority of States undermines our region in our efforts to secure social and environment justice through the sustainable use of our natural resources. In doing so it is compromising our ability to meet obligations and responsibilities to other multilateral agreements and to our peoples.
The populations of iconic African wildlife species in our region illustrates the effectiveness of our conservation models. Similar examples of successful conservation outcomes have not been forthcoming under ideologically driven approaches to conservation. Yet, at previous meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, efforts made by us to advance and strengthen the same conservation strategies that have worked so well have been rejected.
Those who bear no cost of protecting our wildlife, nor bear any consequence for decisions of CITES on our species, vote without any accountability against working conservation models in southern Africa. To this end, we have had to invoke measures such as announcing a dispute, the first time ever in CITES. As members of the global community we fully appreciate the importance of multilateral negotiations, such as those that take place within CITES, in identifying and collectively working towards solutions for the greater good of humanity.
We have been committed Parties to CITES since its inception or our accession to it and would wish to remain so. But we can no longer ignore these glaring shortcomings and threats to our national interests and to our commitments to the broader multilateral context. Mr Chairman, the time has come to seriously reconsider whether there are any meaningful benefits from our membership to CITES. I thank you.
This constitutes a real threat to the future of CITES, and many would agree that it is time for bold action to leave an organisation that has lost its way and is today dominated by politics, animal-rights, anti-use and anti-hunting lobbyists.
What has happened to the World Conservation Strategy of 1980 which defined the principles of ‘living resource conservation’ as
- To maintain essential ecological and life support systems;
- To preserve genetic diversity; and
- To ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems for the benefit of mankind.
If the SADC countries leave CITES, how would the rest of the world react? There would certainly be pressure on all remaining CITES countries not to deal with SADC in wildlife products, but how long would that last in those powerful and rich countries where demand for wildlife products may be temporarily suppressed but never eliminated?
In the declaration by the SADC countries, mention is made of the divisive impacts of CITES in Africa:
“The Southern African countries have observed, with great discomfort the polarised discussions on African charismatic large mammals at this CoP 18. It is very disturbing to see the North South divide across the African continent rearing its head again.”
The big divisive example here was the group of ten countries proposing that the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe be moved from Appendix II to Appendix I. These countries are Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic and Togo.
For goodness’ sake, what are these countries up to? The four countries they targeted have been the most successful elephant conservationists on the continent, with burgeoning populations now decimating habitat and biodiversity in places like South Africa’s Kruger National Park. Kenya’s schizophrenic policies on wildlife have seen its rich heritage start to crumble because of its ambivalence towards the principles of the World Conservation Strategy.
If the SADC countries are bold enough to leave CITES, a key role will be that played by South Africa. This country has an excellent record of wildlife management and conservation, but also hosts the continent’s biggest concentration of animal rightists, and anti-hunting lobbyists, many with ties to rich overseas partners. South Africa also has a new Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries who will be subjected to intensive lobbying by the animal rights activists. South Africa will need very strong leadership to throw its weight behind its African neighbors and raise a unified voice against an organisation that seems to be hell-bent on frustrating those countries that look after their wildlife better than others.
To those who think that the SADC countries will not have the resolve to leave CITES for fear of international excommunication, remember how Japan walked away from the International Whaling Commission in 2018, totally frustrated by the intransigence of the IWC? Has Japan since been ostracised by the world? Hardly – the Rugby World Cup tournament is taking place there right now!
Dr John Ledger is an independent consultant and writer on energy and environmental issues, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. John.Ledger@wol.co.za
Some excerpts from the CITES Press Release include the following:
“The Conference revised the trade rules for dozens of wildlife species that are threatened by unstainable trade linked to overharvesting, overfishing or overhunting. These ranged from commercially valuable fish and trees to charismatic mammals such as giraffes, to amphibians and reptiles sold as exotic pets.
Noting that giraffes have declined by 36-40% over the past three decades due to habitat loss and other pressures, the conference added the world’s tallest animal to Appendix II.
The Parties established the CITES Big Cat Task Force with a mandate to improve enforcement, tackle illegal trade and promote collaboration on conserving tigers, lions, cheetahs, jaguars and leopards.
In addition, the critical role of local and indigenous communities that live on the frontlines of wildlife conservation and sustainable management, and their need for adequate incomes and livelihoods, was widely recognized. Overcoming a wide range of differing views, the conference asked Parties to begin considering how to best engage indigenous peoples and local communities in CITES decision-making and implementation. The aim is to better achieve the objectives of the Convention while recognizing those people whose use of CITES-listed species contributes significantly to their livelihoods.
The Conference also:
- increased quotas for trophy hunting of adult male black rhinos, almost doubling the current quota of five, subject to strict controls; however, proposed trade in southern white rhino horns from eSwatini (Swaziland) and live animals and hunting trophies from Namibia were not accepted.
- reviewed the measures for the export of live African elephants to ‘appropriate and acceptable destinations’, whereby exports outside their natural range will be permitted in ‘exceptional circumstances’ only, in consultation with relevant CITES and IUCN bodies, and only if they provide in ‘situ conservation benefits’
- did not accept proposals to permit some limited trade in ivory from African elephants, which means that the existing trade ban remains in place.
- held a meeting on the African Elephant Action Plan to encourage cooperation among the African elephant range states.
CoP18 was attended by 169 member governments (plus the EU) and some 1,700 delegates, observers and journalists. CoP19 will be held in 2022 in Costa Rica.”
Prior to CoP 18, an African Wildlife Economy Summit was held at Victoria Falls, June 23-25, 2019. Attended by heads of state, business leaders, technical experts and community representatives, the meeting aimed to radically change the way the continent’s nature-based economy is managed. Convened by UNEP and the African Union and hosted by the president of Zimbabwe, the summit was an African-led vision of conservation that linked the private sector with national authorities and local communities to design and finance conservation-compatible investments that deliver sustainable economic and ecological benefits to countries, people and the environment. Over 40 community representatives of 12 countries across Africa met prior to Africa’s Wildlife Economy Summit, to share their experiences of living with and among Africa’s wildlife. They sought a ‘New Deal’ that would recognise the rights of ownership, management and use of wildlife resources.
How pathetic then was it for the CITES conference to have “asked Parties to begin considering how to best engage indigenous peoples and local communities in CITES decision-making and implementation. The aim is to better achieve the objectives of the Convention while recognizing those people whose use of CITES-listed species contributes significantly to their livelihoods.”
They want to “begin considering” something that Namibia has already practiced for some 30 years – empowering indigenous people and local communities in decision-making and implementation of wildlife policies on their land!
The southern African countries that have the best success in conserving elephants and rhinos on the continent were again denied the opportunity to market wildlife products to enhance the value of wildlife resources for those who live with large and dangerous animals.
Clearly angered and once again frustrated by the outcome of CITES, the Tanzanian delegation took the floor on behalf of the following Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries: Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Here is the text of their submission:
This Declaration is made to express the grave concern that the SADC Parties mentioned here have with regards to the implementation of this Convention.
As members of the global multilateral system and democratic, representative governments, we are obliged to ensure that we meet our commitments to all those international agreements and declarations to which we are signatories, as well as responsibilities to our citizens.
Recognizing that CITES is one of the oldest wildlife and trade agreements, we are obliged to give it due consideration but within the context of subsequent and contemporary agreements and declarations to which it bears relevance and to which we are also signatories.
CITES in its Preamble accepted the principle of: “Recognizing that peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora” and the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 in Article 3 provides that: “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”
We contend that CITES, in form, substance and implementation, is not aligned with other international agreements of equal weight and arguably greater relevance to the challenges of today. These agreements emphasize the following principles: – sovereignty over the use of national resources; – inclusive, equitable development through the sustainable use of natural resources; – recognizing that rural communities living with wildlife have inalienable rights over the use of their resources; and – recognizing that in today’s world of rapid changes in climate and land use and the accelerating pace of transformation of wildlife habitat, the survival of wildlife depends on the perceptions and development needs of people living with wildlife. The way CITES is currently operation is contrary to its founding principles.
Today CITES discards proven, working conservation models in favour of ideologically driven anti-use and anti-trade models. Such models are dictated by largely western non-State actors who have no experience with, responsibility for, or ownership over wildlife resources. The result has been failure to adopt progressive, equitable, inclusive and science-based conservation strategies. We believe this failure has arisen from the domination of protectionist ideology over science decision in making within CITES.
This anti-sustainable use and anti-trade ideology now dominates decisions made by many States who are party to CITES. States are increasingly influenced by the dominance both at meetings of the decision-making structures of CITES and in their run up by protectionist NGOs whose ideological position has no basis in science or experience and is not shared in any way by the Member States of SADC and their people.
This conservation model is based on entrenched and emotive rhetoric and discourse, backed up by intense lobbying, as opposed to science. Foremost amongst these motifs now dominating CITES is the unfounded belief that all trade fuels illegal, unsustainable trade, ignoring clear evidence to the contrary.
Examples of this are the attempts by others to impose new trade restrictions for species that are effectively conserved – and utilized – in our States, such as lions and giraffe, while the real threats in those States where such species are in decline due to habitat loss and human-wildlife conflict continue to go unattended.
The Southern African countries have observed, with great discomfort the polarised discussions on African charismatic large mammals at this CoP 18. It is very disturbing to see the North South divide across the African continent rearing its head again.
We are further concerned that positions of some Parties appear to be based on national political considerations aimed at catering to the interests of national, intensively lobbied constituencies, as opposed to proven, science-based conservation strategies. This undermines the SADC States, on whom the responsibility to manage species falls, and our ability to do so effectively.
As it is currently implemented, CITES undermines the rights of people living in rural areas of SADC States to have access to and use in a sustainable manner the natural resources present in their communities that are required to enjoy adequate living conditions and the right to participate in the management of these resources. The consensus expressed through CITES by the majority of States undermines our region in our efforts to secure social and environment justice through the sustainable use of our natural resources. In doing so it is compromising our ability to meet obligations and responsibilities to other multilateral agreements and to our peoples.
The populations of iconic African wildlife species in our region illustrates the effectiveness of our conservation models. Similar examples of successful conservation outcomes have not been forthcoming under ideologically driven approaches to conservation. Yet, at previous meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, efforts made by us to advance and strengthen the same conservation strategies that have worked so well have been rejected.
Those who bear no cost of protecting our wildlife, nor bear any consequence for decisions of CITES on our species, vote without any accountability against working conservation models in southern Africa. To this end, we have had to invoke measures such as announcing a dispute, the first time ever in CITES. As members of the global community we fully appreciate the importance of multilateral negotiations, such as those that take place within CITES, in identifying and collectively working towards solutions for the greater good of humanity.
We have been committed Parties to CITES since its inception or our accession to it and would wish to remain so. But we can no longer ignore these glaring shortcomings and threats to our national interests and to our commitments to the broader multilateral context. Mr Chairman, the time has come to seriously reconsider whether there are any meaningful benefits from our membership to CITES. I thank you.
This constitutes a real threat to the future of CITES, and many would agree that it is time for bold action to leave an organisation that has lost its way and is today dominated by politics, animal-rights, anti-use and anti-hunting lobbyists.
What has happened to the World Conservation Strategy of 1980 which defined the principles of ‘living resource conservation’ as
- To maintain essential ecological and life support systems;
- To preserve genetic diversity; and
- To ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems for the benefit of mankind.
If the SADC countries leave CITES, how would the rest of the world react? There would certainly be pressure on all remaining CITES countries not to deal with SADC in wildlife products, but how long would that last in those powerful and rich countries where demand for wildlife products may be temporarily suppressed but never eliminated?
In the declaration by the SADC countries, mention is made of the divisive impacts of CITES in Africa:
“The Southern African countries have observed, with great discomfort the polarised discussions on African charismatic large mammals at this CoP 18. It is very disturbing to see the North South divide across the African continent rearing its head again.”
The big divisive example here was the group of ten countries proposing that the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe be moved from Appendix II to Appendix I. These countries are Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic and Togo.
For goodness’ sake, what are these countries up to? The four countries they targeted have been the most successful elephant conservationists on the continent, with burgeoning populations now decimating habitat and biodiversity in places like South Africa’s Kruger National Park. Kenya’s schizophrenic policies on wildlife have seen its rich heritage start to crumble because of its ambivalence towards the principles of the World Conservation Strategy.
If the SADC countries are bold enough to leave CITES, a key role will be that played by South Africa. This country has an excellent record of wildlife management and conservation, but also hosts the continent’s biggest concentration of animal rightists, and anti-hunting lobbyists, many with ties to rich overseas partners. South Africa also has a new Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries who will be subjected to intensive lobbying by the animal rights activists. South Africa will need very strong leadership to throw its weight behind its African neighbors and raise a unified voice against an organisation that seems to be hell-bent on frustrating those countries that look after their wildlife better than others.
To those who think that the SADC countries will not have the resolve to leave CITES for fear of international excommunication, remember how Japan walked away from the International Whaling Commission in 2018, totally frustrated by the intransigence of the IWC? Has Japan since been ostracised by the world? Hardly – the Rugby World Cup tournament is taking place there right now!
Dr John Ledger is an independent consultant and writer on energy and environmental issues, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. John.Ledger@wol.co.za
Nov 7, 2019 | Archive, News
By Kyle Ball
M.D. Robin Hurt. Coenrard Vermaack. Gary Kelly. Gordon Mace. Paul Ferreira. Carl Stormanns – professional hunters all, and well-known operators in their respective countries. In any gathering of safari hunters, many men will have either hunted with one or more of these men, or know someone who has.
Nicholas. Dhouglass. Kunze. Joseph. These names may mean little as they are read off the page, but many hunters – and their employers for certain – know that they are the most indispensable and critical members of a safari team. For these men are the trackers.
Raised from an early age in what is rapidly becoming a bygone era, these men, with their uncanny and almost mystical – some would say magical – abilities, have a following among safari hunters that borders on the cult-like.
On safaris in which the client shoots well and kills quickly, the tracker’s job appears minimal to the uninformed, but when the quarry is not hit well and escapes into the surrounding bush, then the tracker’s skill is put to the utmost challenge. For the overwhelming majority of today’s top trackers, their livelihood is guaranteed by their employer on a year around basis, not just during the five to six month safari season each year. These men are full-time employees of the safari company, often times living on their professional’s farm or homestead on a full-time basis, thus ensuring full-time employment and thus full-time access to their professional hunter. This is a win-win situation for all concerned and, ultimately, is a supreme form of recognition of their position as their professional’s “Number One.”
Evaluating the scene of the shot, the tracker takes stock of the clues that have been left – any traces of blood, hair or bone. But, more importantly than those signs, are the tracks of the departing animal.
The ability to track an animal over any terrain is what makes these “magicians of the bushveld” such a pleasure and privilege to watch. To be able to examine a track and deduce whether the animal is running or walking; favoring one side over the other; gaining elevation (indicating strength), or heading for lower ground (indicating weakness). If blood is present, what type of blood (arterial or venous)? All this ultimately points to the actual location of the bullet strike.
Tracking is not only about obvious signs such as tracks on the ground, sun angle, shadows, moisture, and a blood spoor. It is more about becoming totally attuned to the surroundings, especially when tracking dangerous game, and more especially when these animals are wounded. “Reading the bush” when tracking is as vital as obvious signs, and with dangerous game can mean the difference between living and dying. Walking straight into an animal’s personal zone is extremely dangerous, especially with elephant and buffalo, and the ability to read all of the signs to prevent this event from occurring is what sorts out the true trackers as against the mere “spoor followers”. Patience is a vital requirement in these circumstances and is an attribute that these men possess in abundance.
As with tracking, the understanding between the professional hunter and his tracker takes years to develop. In extreme situations such as tracking a wounded dangerous game animal in thick bush, the understanding has to be complete and wordless. Each man has his own function to perform, and each is totally dependent on the other for their very lives. The tracker is completely focused on reading the signs; the professional hunter takes a broader overview of the bush, assessing second by second from every sight, sound, and smell, the proximity of the animal being pursued. The trust between the two is implicit; the tracker is not normally armed; his life depends totally on the skills and courage of his professional hunter. In those follow-up situations, being accompanied by the client (unless he is highly skilled and experienced} often complicates proceedings, as invariably he or she is traumatized and nervous and armed; all-in-all a potentially lethal trifecta. The fewer people in this situation, the better – ideally no more than two.
These are a few of the assessments that a tracker makes as he follows a wounded animal. For these men, it is second nature, a nature that has been with them all of their lives. It is only after a long and arduous tracking job, when the trophy has been secured that their full measure can be fully appreciated.
For Dhouglass Kondile (pronounced Kondelee) – Gordon Mace’s number-one tracker – life began on a farm outside Alicedale in South Africa’s Eastern Cape on 8 August, 1958. He was a member of the Xhosa nation (one of the nine tribes of South Africa). His parents separated and divorced when he was still a baby, and his grandfather Zicina “Jim” Kondile then became responsible for his upbringing. According to African tribal custom, Dhouglass’s grandfather thus became his father.
Jim Kondile was born in the same region in 1889 and died there in 1976 at the age of 87. For his entire working life, Jim lived there and worked for cattle ranchers and sheep farmers. In those days, specialist game ranches were virtually unknown as there was very little value attached to game. Problem game, however, abounded in the area. Bushpigs, caracal, jackals and leopard were the primary offenders and these animals wreaked untold havoc on the farmers in terms of bushpigs damaging fences and the predators destroying calves and lambs. All the farmers employed men to control these animals, and the most successful among them was Jim Kondile.
While Dhouglass was still a boy, he would accompany his grandfather into the bush on the Problem Animal Control (PAC) expeditions which could last for weeks at a time. They were paid a bonus for each problem animal killed. Life in those days was tough, unforgiving and relentless, and thus the earning of these bonuses was vital for the family’s upkeep. Dhouglass was fortunate to have come under the tutelage and watchful eye of Jim Kondile whose entire livelihood was dependent on his skills as a tracker, and for the next ten years the vanishing art of tracking was deeply implanted into the very core of Dhouglass’s soul and psyche.
The upbringing and training of the majority of today’s top trackers parallels that of Dhouglass Kondile. The skills that these men possess are lifelong skills, instilled and reinforced from an early age, and that is why today’s top professional hunters know that tracking cannot be taught in the short term. It is a skill that can only be acquired over the long term, and requires years in the bush to develop into full potential.
Describing the characteristics of their valued trackers, professionals that I have hunted with use words such as “quiet…reserved…respectful… pleasant… possessing a keen sense of humor”. All consider their trackers consummate professionals themselves, and use these attributes to judge all other professionals, both professional hunters and trackers, by the standards they set. Few, if any, attain their lofty status. They are the ultimate “walk the walk” men as against the more normal “talk the talk” men.
And so, to have the opportunity to hunt with these men and witness first hand their incredible abilities is a rare and highly valued privilege.
Two stories come immediately to mind regarding the prowess of these African trackers, Douglass and Joseph: The first one involves Carl Stormann’s tracker – Joseph Manome – a descendant of the famed Zulu tribe.
Early one morning, while hunting kudu in the Limpopo Province of South Africa, an American client wounded a large bull kudu in the front leg – a superficial wound but one that drew blood. As the hunting party began the long and arduous follow up, the client began whining about the “wasted hunting time” that would be expended on this search and the likelihood of it being an unsuccessful event. The professional quickly reminded the client that they had both a professional and a moral imperative to locate and dispatch this wounded trophy animal,. regardless of what was required to accomplish that goal.
The client nonetheless continued whining about “lost” hunting time and finally directly challenged the tracker’s ability to find this slightly wounded animal.
“I’ll bet you $1000 U.S. that you cannot find that kudu,” was his boastful challenge. The professional hunter immediately translated the challenge to Joseph, who upon hearing this, proceeded to make the client comfortable near the safari vehicle, providing food and water from the chop box.
Then Joseph and Carl set off on the spoor. Initially, there were occasional droplets of blood to be found, but the blood soon petered out. The tracking took them over ridges and down valleys; over sand, rocks, and through thickets. This quest continued even through the hottest hours of the midday sun, and still they went on relentlessly. Finally, after seven and a half hours of this dedicated pursuit, Joseph slowly crept over the top of a small ridge and there – partially obscured in the valley brush below – stood the bull kudu. Taking deliberate aim, Carl sent a .300 H&H Magnum softpoint through both shoulders, effectively ending the saga that had consumed the entire hunting day.
Joe, after assessing the bull, immediately oriented himself and then took off with a confident air, walking as directly as the terrain would allow – straight back to where he had left the client nearly eight hours before. As he approached, the client stood up and immediately could see the blood on Joe’s hands, and he knew. He knew that Joseph had taken the scenario from hopeless to joyful as he had accepted the challenge, and through his abilities had successfully achieved a victory from the jaws of defeat. But much more importantly for Joe, he had made the client “put his money where his mouth was” and had vindicated his abilities to track in even the most difficult of scenarios.
The second story revolves around Dhouglass and a buffalo hunt in the jesse bush of Zimbabwe’s famed Zambezi Valley. The hunting team had found fresh buffalo tracks as they had left a waterhole early one July morning. The lone Dagga Boy was returning to thick bush after drinking at a nearby waterhole. As the hunting team entered the thickets, the wind was constant and in their faces.
After approximately two hours of following the spoor, Dhouglass pointed to the ground and glanced at Gordon. They both realized that they had just crossed their own walking track. This meant that the buffalo had circled in an attempt to get downwind of them and determine their exact location.
They continued very slowly on the track. After another ten minutes, they again crossed their own tracks. Silently, the team moved to the safety of a nearby tree to review the situation that they now found themselves in.
By circling, the Dagga Boy knew it was being followed and was preparing an ambush somewhere ahead. If that attack was allowed to be initiated, it would occur suddenly, without warning, and from extremely close quarters. The hunting party had now crossed over the line of safety and had ceded the advantage to the buffalo. To continue further courted disaster. Knowing when to “back off” in a dangerous game situation is what separates the men from the boys.
Do not lose the opportunity to see for yourself, because with each passing year, more and more of these professional trackers are retiring from active safari work, and fewer and fewer younger men are being raised to replace them. Unfortunately, with urbanisation and the lure of a modern lifestyle and job opportunities, there are fewer small villages that in the past have produced the young men who wanted to develop the skills that their fathers and grandfathers possessed. This is the pressing problem for professional hunters.
Meanwhile, these exceptional trackers continue their daily work – quietly; patiently; and professionally as they assist their professional hunters to ensure the safety and success of their clients’ safari adventures.
Despite the evolution of today’s “modern” safaris, they will always remain THE one indispensable part of every safari… for they are the trackers.
Dr. Kyle Ball is a practicing OB-GYN physician in Jackson, Mississippi, who has hunted extensively throughout the US/Canada/Mexico as well as five continents. He is an avid writer, recording his adventures with more than 50 published articles. He is a Life member of SCI; NRA; Alaskan Professional Hunters Association, with Memberships in PHASA; IPHA and DSC.
Lance and I don’t escape our share of hardship. We carry our own water, but that previously cool refreshment has now warmed to a hot tea temperature. Even so, we drink it gratefully. The heat reflecting off the ground and stones is almost unbearable, but we are able to endure it while moving. But the stillness of the desert and the glare from the surroundings is weighing Lance down.
The gemsbok has several interesting peculiarities. Namibians think so highly of the gemsbok Oryx gazella, that the national coat of arms depicts two of these magnificent animals representing courage, elegance and pride, on either side of a shield covered with the national flag. If you see these antelope in their desert surroundings you will immediately understand their prominent place in the hearts of Namibians.