Jun 15, 2016 | News
I hunt. I do this because deep in my makeup – call it my DNA – nature intended me to be a hunter just like my ancestors, and there is a basic drive inside me to do just that. I am a law-abiding citizen. I obey all the hunting regulations in the areas where I hunt and, in addition, I have my own strict code of ethics which I set for myself and which take the parameters within which I hunt one step further than the regulations. In the areas where I hunt, the game is carefully managed by the authorities and I have never, nor would I ever, hunt an endangered species. All Canadian hunters, including myself, have to write an exam in order to procure a hunting licence, and we have to conform to all the regulations pertaining to the game management areas wherever we legally hunt. Notwithstanding this, we are under attack from anti-hunting organizations with little or no understanding of wildlife and conservation or the way in which sustainable hunting is regulated. This has just been exemplified by the forced last-minute cancellation of two hunting expositions to be showcases for African hunting safari companies in Canada due to pressure from one such group. We are being portrayed as something akin to murderers of wildlife. The venue of the one cancellation was the Toronto Airport Holiday Inn, and in Saskatchewan, the Saskatoon Inn. Alternative venues were found and prospective clients had to run the gauntlet of protesters screaming at them and carrying signs such as “Psychopaths” and “Killers”. As an ethical hunter, I feel compelled to respond to the above attack on something that is special to me. The anti-hunting groups are extremely selective in their “outrage”. The so-called “Cecil” incident, the facts of which are still unclear and which occurred in a hunting block adjacent to the Hwange game reserve in Zimbabwe, was followed one week later within the borders of the same game reserve in Zimbabwe, by the killing of a photographic walking tour guide by a male lion. There was not a murmur from any of the anti-hunting groups. A week later, yet again in the same reserve, poachers poisoned a waterhole, resulting in the indiscriminate death of thousands of life forms if one counts all the living creatures right down the ecological chain – again not one protest, although over thirty elephants, bulls, cows and calves, targeted for their ivory, were among the dead. One can only deduce that in initiating their attacks against legitimate law-abiding recreational hunters, these anti-hunting groups display a blatant double standard. These groups appeal to the public at large for their support, using emotion and misinformation as their tools. To counteract these attacks from the anti-hunters, we hunters as a group, have to formulate clear and logical arguments in our defense that the non-hunting public can understand. In the current context as part of the argument, hunters have to clarify two terms – the one is “conservation” and the other “hunter” .They are, in fact, connected. “Conservation” and “Preservation” are words that cause confusion. The difference is that conservation implies utilization of whatever is being conserved. Preservation is a word that simply implies preserving something and nothing more. In this context I will be discussing conservation using Africa as my model. Conservation begins in the soil – in good old mother earth – and what grows out of it. The human population in this impoverished continent is exploding exponentially. The indigenous populations who live in rural Africa count their wealth in domestic livestock, generally cattle. In this exploding population with their attendant livestock, the need for grazing brings man and his livestock into direct confrontation with “nature’s livestock” – the indigenous antelope and bovines of Africa and the predators that feed on them. The predators are one of nature’s way of balancing the African ecosystem. Mother Nature is not benign. Nature is what it is – it can be magnificent, but also it is not only cruel at times in human terms, but utterly ruthless. To the African villager – often poor and living at a barely subsistence level – his livestock is his wealth and just about everything else that occurs naturally and threatens his very existence, is an unwanted nuisance. The antelope and wild pigs compete for feed and trample his meagre crops – his food. The elephant can destroy those crops and the economy of a community overnight, and in addition pose mortal danger to any puny humans that attempt to interfere with their feeding depredations. The predators sometimes view the human population and their livestock as food, and as a result are hunted (at best) or simply poisoned by the native peoples. The wild animals that we Westerners glowingly describe as magnificent, majestic, etc., are seen somewhat differently by the rural African. I have heard many times that they would simply like to see them disappear. To the rural African, the Westerner’s view of conservation is a somewhat vague notion – something we Westerners can afford – and which they cannot. Out of all this there is one obvious solution which is all-important to understand and that is, put an economic value on the wild animal. A value where the indigenous populations share in that value and can see a return and a benefit to themselves and their communities in the form of protein, cash and employment. Once the value of a wild animal exceeds the value of a cow to the owner of that cow, human nature being what it is, that wild animal will be protected by that owner . Protected in the conservationist sense, in that at the end of the day this protection does return a visible economic benefit. Recreational hunting safaris referred to as “consumptive” and photographic safaris referred to as “non-consumptive ” are two forms of utilizing wildlife, and they are not mutually exclusive. There are also several different types of hunting, so let’s look at some of them. For example there are still subsistence hunters living all over the planet who rely on their efforts to garner food in the form of protein, hides for clothing and shelter and material for tools utilised in their everyday lives. Their lives depend on the hunt. One example is the Inuit of Northern Canada. Then there are the aforementioned recreational hunters of which I am one. Individuals who do not have to hunt in order to survive but still have that stray atavistic gene in their makeup and have that age-old hunting imperative etched into their DNA – an “imperative” that drives them to want to hunt. Sustainable, regulated hunting, whether for food or for a trophy provides an outlet for that imperative and, as a result, cash, meat and employment to the local people. Then there are the poachers. There are many different levels of poaching, some involving different forms of hunting. These people operate outside the laws and regulations. Some poachers are so poor that any form of food be it fish, animals, birds, insects (such as locusts – a delicacy) are killed in order to sustain life. Sometimes their prey is shot or speared, but generally their prey is snared – often dying agonizing deaths, the meat left to waste away and to rot in the bush. Operating outside the law, often in game reserves, these people cannot run the risk of constantly inspecting their snares for fear of being caught. This form of hunting is non-selective and can have a hugely adverse effect on the wildlife of a region. One step below this “subsistence poaching” is the poaching for bushmeat – to be sold for profit. A cruel, destructive and indiscriminate way of making a living. The worst form of poaching is carried out by those who operate in conjunction with sophisticated international criminal organizations who make enormous profits on such items as rhino horn, ivory, bear gall bladders and animal parts such as the floating bones of lions which are passed off for tiger bones now that just about all the tigers have been wiped out. Hand in hand with this is the corruption of officialdom and government functionaries because there are enormous amounts of money to be made. Poisoning waterholes has become the preferred modus operandi for these criminals Banning licensed regulated sustainable hunting is NOT the solution. In the 70s Kenya banned all safari hunting. Supposedly this was to “protect” their wildlife which was utter nonsense. The real reason for the ban was so corrupt government officials who were working in conjunction with poaching organizations could get a free hand with their lucrative poaching activities. The result is that Kenya has lost approximately 70% of its wildlife – particularly its elephants – the big tuskers for which the country was famous. The reason for the ban was to get the safari companies out of the way because they could see and report poaching activities. On top of that, all licensed professional hunters were honorary game rangers empowered to make arrests. On the Internet check out “Kenya’s hunting ban in the 1970s” to find out the shocking truth from pieces written by internationally respected conservationists, wildlife biologists and wildlife experts. The numbers say it all. I reiterate, after the hunting ban in 1977 Kenya lost 70% of its wildlife, and recreational hunting cannot be held accountable for that indisputable fact. In contrast, the southern part of Africa where licensed, regulated and sustainable hunting is flourishing, so is the game. The fees from hunters, the meat from the animals harvested and the jobs provided by this industry have been a boon to all. To attack hunting as some misguided and ill-informed groups are doing, is working towards hastening the end of the game rather than the conservation of the game, and the public at large should be made aware of this. The hunting industry and the photographic industry are not mutually exclusive. On a per capita basis the hunting industry earns more revenue. This is exceeded overall though by the photographic industry, which, being far more affordable, attracts a far larger client base. The photographic safari client generally expects to experience a more luxurious safari camp than the hunter does. A camp with all the attendant creature comforts requires a more elaborate infrastructure, and because these camps are more numerous, they have a greater impact on the natural environment. Generally the client expects to see animals – lots of them – and so the prime big-game viewing safari companies operate where there are larger concentrations of game. The positive benefit to the indigenous people in terms of jobs is obvious, but most of those employed have a higher degree of education, skillsets and familiarity with client expectations than those employed in remote hunting camps, and are often brought in from elsewhere. The hunting safari can operate effectively in areas in which the game densities are far less. One has to hunt to find the quarry. Because the numbers of hunters are less than the number of photographers there are fewer clients and fewer camps. The environmental impact is negligible. All hunting is totally regulated by the game departments, taking in such factors such as sustainability and setting hunting quotas and seasons. The hunting is carried out only by licensed hunters guided by licensed professionals. The local is at no disadvantage here, being more attuned to the environment than someone brought in from elsewhere and, as a result, is a valued contributor to the operation. The often overlooked benefit the hunting safari offers is that it provides protein, tons of meat to the local people and that those wonderful trackers, who are usually from the community, get an outlet for that hunters imperative in their own DNA by being legitimately employed in an industry that lets them do what they love. Having a free and legitimate supply of meat also curtails the business and the need for poaching In conclusion I can only ask that consideration be given to the above points rather than the emotionally charged rhetoric of the anti-hunting groups who call themselves “animal lovers”, who seem to only want to promote their own point of view and are doing their best to have all hunting banned. Groups who drown out the voice of the ethical hunter to have a respectful discussion. I would go so far as to say that by doing so, the anti-hunters are sounding the death knell of the very animals they purport to protect. Tony Marsh. Jan. 2016
Sep 4, 2015 | News
After years of competing, Birgit Johnstone (host of the African Events) and Richard Lendrum (host of African Hunting Gazette’s African Hunting Expos) will be joining forces once again, hosting and organizing African Shows & Exhibitions. Initially in Canada and the USA, but ultimately launching in other regions of the world, the stage is set.
Reaching this decision was made in the best interests of the hunting industry, in particular the African hunting outfitters who invest time and money travelling internationally to promote their safaris. We believe this is a microcosm of what the entire industry should be doing – putting aside petty differences for the greater good of the industry’s survival.
Both parties are in full agreement, that working together they can represent the industry better, promote the events better and offer the potential hunting client an exceptionally better and more comprehensive insight into the wonders an African safari has to offer.
No more confusion of multiple and competing shows in Alberta, capitalizing on the magazine supporting and promoting the shows and using the skills of both parties to ensure a more successful outcome.
Birgit Johnstone says “I am delighted with this significantly positive step forward. Richard and I have always worked well together and joining forces again, I truly believe is in the best interests of our industry. Together we plan to grow and improve our current shows plus explore and expand into new markets.”
Richard Lendrum says “My objective has always been to promote hunting in Africa. This is undoubtedly the best thing to do. Birgit is a really talented event organiser and we have a really well liked magazine with a huge following. Our relationships with all stakeholders are really strong, so the combination is something I am tremendously excited about reviving.”
The united shows will go forward in January 2016, with some changes to dates and venues. Booths will be limited to 30 outfitters per show.
United and stronger the Canadian based African Shows will proceed.
Toronto – 16 & 17 January 2015
Saskatoon – 23 & 24 January 2016
Calgary – 30 & 31 January 2016
For further information contact:
Jul 15, 2015 | News
Alex Thompson (far right) with wife Tamryn, kids, brother,and extended family.
African Hunting Gazette: Great to talk to you, Alex. Our readers are always keen to meet the PHs. Tell us about yourself and your family.
Alex Thomson: I was born in Pietersburg (now Polokwane) on 8 March 1980. I grew up in Polokwane, and the holidays were when my brother and I spent our time on the family farm with my parents and grandparents. I got married in October 2008 to my beautiful wife, Tamryn. Luckily, she loves the outdoors and farm life as much as I do! We have two very busy children, Alex Jnr who is turning five this year and Lexi who is two (going on five!).
AHG: How did you become a PH? Did anybody in your family hunt?
AT: Our love for hunting started on the family farm where my mother grew up, spending time with our grandparents during the school holidays and weekends. My father hunted, although he wasn’t a big-game hunter, and both my brother and I went out at every hunting opportunity we could. So we were always outdoors, or helping with farm chores, and always exposed to the wildlife. Now we are both qualified PHs and owners of Eland Safaris. I did my PH course with Kobus Schoeman Hunting Academy, becoming a PH in 2002.
AHG: Which countries have you hunted, and where are you hunting these days?
AT: Apart from hunting in South Africa in Limpopo Province, I have previously hunted in Zimbabwe. But for now, all our hunts are mostly done in the Limpopo Province at Eland Safaris.
AHG: If you could return to any time or place in Africa, where would it be?
AT: It would definitely be Kenya in the early 1960s. I think it was great hunting in those days – I have heard so many interesting stories about the hunting there. I also had the privilege to have had a client who hunted there with his father in 1968, and the stories he has to tell are amazing… so interesting.
AHG: Which guns and ammo are you using to back-up on dangerous or wounded game?
AT: We use a .458 Winchester and a .470 Nitro Express, though I personally prefer my Merkel .470 NE.
AHG: What are your recommendations to your hunting clients on guns and ammo for dangerous game and for plains game?
AT: In our area, the bigger the better, so we recommend a .30-06 with 180 grains, or a .338 with 225-grain rounds for the plains game. For dangerous game we prefer at least a .375 and bigger.
AHG: What was your closest brush with death?
AT: Touch wood, but so far have been very lucky – no close encounters. I do not take any chances.
AHG: Looking back: Anything you should have done differently?
AT: Looking back, there is nothing I would have done differently!
I am happy for what we have and how far we have come!
AHG: Do you think the hunting industry has changed over the years, or even the hunting clients themselves?
AT: Yes, there have been some of changes over the last couple of years. The prices, more competition from PHs and outfitters, and the permits process! Regarding the hunting clients – well with the clients we have had – I will say no change. For them it’s a dream come true to come and hunt in Africa. You only live once!
AHG: Which qualities go into making a successful PH, and a successful hunting company?
AT: Number one: Honesty, and treat your client with respect! Then you have a successful and trustworthy PH and outfitter, and that goes a long way with clients. Give a client a hunt of a life time – it is his safari.
AHG: Which qualities go into making a good safari client?
AT: Trust… between the PH and client. And then it’s not always about how big the trophy is, but on how great the hunt was – the whole experience!
AHG: Based on your recent experience in the field, do you think that any species should be upgraded to Appendix I or downgraded to Appendix II or closed all together?
AT: Brown Hyena can be downgraded. There are so many of them, and there is no need to get a permit for baboon and vervet monkeys.
AHG: What can the hunting industry do to contribute to the long-term conservation of Africa’s wildlife?
AT: Hunting has been around for a long time and will still be here for a long time, as long as we do it in an ethical and sustainable way.
AHG: Ask your wife, if she could do it all over again, would she still…?
Tamryn: Any day!
AHG: And Tamryn’s advice to future wives of PHs?
Tamryn: To be a PH’s wife, you have to be supportive and understanding to your hubby. It is his job and how he brings income in (although they enjoy it thoroughly!) You are not alone!
AHG: Are any of your children following in your footsteps?
AT: Yes. Alex is still young, but he is already into hunting, wants to shoot everything. Lexi is not sure yet…but I am sure she will be interested in some hunting aspect.
AHG: Anyone you want to say thanks to?
AT: Yes, a huge thanks to my wife and children for their support over the last nine years. Many thanks as well to my brother and his wife who are with me in the business, and also to my father and mother, for believing in us. If it weren’t for their help we would not have had this great life!
AHG: Any Last Words of Wisdom?
AT: Always respect the animal and the bush, and enjoy life
AHG: Do you promise to write a good hunting story for our readers soon?
AT: Not any time soon!
Jan 2, 2015 | News
 |
|
Q: What have these professional hunters got in common?
A: More than thirty years of professional hunting experience in Africa. |
|
| Now you can read all about them! |
From the home of big-game hunting and, undoubtedly, the home of the original
safari, Africa’s Legendary Professional Hunters has a story to tell. With
contributions from this elite group of professionals, each with 30-plus years
amounting to more than 120 000 hunting days in the African veld, there has never
been a book quite like this. Twenty-six professional hunting careers, 312 full-color
pages, and with the quality that you have come to expect when brought to
you by the publishers of Africa’s finest hunting magazine, the
African Hunting Gazette |
 |
| To order your copy e-mail: nicole@africanhuntinggazette.com |
|
Oct 14, 2014 | News
The World Health Organisation (WHO) said it had recorded 4 293 cases of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in five West African countries as of 6 September 2014. The death toll from the worst Ebola outbreak in history had reached at least 2 296, the WHO said three days later, adding that this figure was likely to climb considerably when more information was available from Liberia.
Why ‘Ebola’?
- Ebola first appeared in 1976 in two simultaneous outbreaks, in Nzara, Sudan (151 deaths), and in Yambuku, Democratic Republic of Congo (280 deaths).
- The latter was in a village situated near the Ebola River, from which the disease takes its name.
- Genus Ebolavirus is one of three members of the Filoviridae family (filovirus), along with Marburgvirus and Cuevavirus.
- Ebolavirus comprises five distinct species, of which three have caused large EVD outbreaks in Africa
Various species of African fruit bats are believed to be the natural reservoirs for the Ebola virus, and they pass on the infection to a number of different mammal species, many of which are hunted and butchered for ‘bushmeat’.
People across Central and West Africa consume vast amounts of a wide variety of wild animals every year, including fruit bats. When the virus infects humans, it is rapidly transmitted among members of a community through body fluids. Although there have been a number of outbreaks of EVD since it was first recognised in 1976, the current epidemic is by far the most serious.
The ‘bushmeat crisis’ had exercised the minds of conservationists for a number of years, particularly where over-exploitation is of concern. Of course, wild animals have been an important source of protein for Africans for thousands of years; but the rapid increase in human numbers, the demand for bushmeat in urban areas, and the improved access to vast areas of the continent through various forms of development, particularly logging in remote areas, has greatly increased the pressure on wild animals for human consumption. When it comes to primates, there is growing concern that human consumption of these species is a real threat to their future existence.
Although infected primates and other species can pass the virus on to humans who make contact with their tissues and body fluids, they are believed to be accidental hosts of the bat virus, just as humans are.
A recent survey of bushmeat in Angola revealed a wide variety of species being exploited, including duiker and other antelopes, several kinds of monkeys, hyrax, squirrels, civet, genet, cane rat, pangolin, crocodile and monitor lizard. Emerging from a debilitating civil war, Angola is currently ‘booming’ as its oil and other natural assets attract would-be buyers, eager to make friends to secure resources. The Chinese have demonstrated their friendship by building roads, which are helping to open up more remote areas and therefore more access to bushmeat. Most larger bushmeat species in Angola are hunted with shotguns, while smaller species are snared.
Across Africa, bushmeat is used both for food as well as a source of cash income for rural dwellers and hunters. Most animals are offered for sale as fresh meat, and if they are carrying the Ebola virus, they are a source of infection for both the hunters and anyone else who comes into contact with their flesh or body fluids. Without access to refrigeration, fresh carcasses not sold the same day are smoked and dried, and in this form they are durable goods that can be transported to the point of sale. Smoking and drying destroys the Ebola virus and there is no threat to human health from bushmeat processed in this way – which is a good thing, because preserved bushmeat is regularly smuggled into European countries and North America by Africans who want something to remind them of home!
With a mortality rate of 50-60%, no vaccine and only experimental drugs for treatment, Ebola is a fearsome disease, particularly in Africa where outbreaks often occur in remote areas without proper heath care services, let alone the availability of isolation facilities for infected patients and protective equipment for their care-givers.
Traditional practices around religion, death and burial add further complications because they frequently involve close physical contact. The ritual preparation of bodies for burial may involve washing, touching and kissing the deceased. If that person has died from Ebola, their body will have a very high viral load. Bleeding is a typical symptom of the disease prior to death. Those who handle the body and come into contact with the blood or other body fluids are at greatest risk of catching the disease. It is very difficult to educate people that practising these traditional rituals can pose a deadly threat to themselves.
People working as doctors and nurses in rural African hospitals are also at grave risk, and a number of them have died after contracting the Ebola virus. In the early stages of the disease the symptoms are not unlike those of influenza, with fever, muscle pain and a sore throat, so special precautions are often not taken when dealing with such a patient. Once an EVD outbreak is confirmed, health-care workers require gloves, masks and protective clothing to prevent contact with body fluids.
Ivory Coast, Ghana, Liberia and Guinea have banned the sale of bushmeat in an effort to prevent the spread of EVD. This is unpopular with locals and unlikely to be effective. There are no ready alternatives to bushmeat as a source of protein to millions of Africans – and the scale of consumption is enormous. Robert Nasi, Deputy Director General of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), recently said (http://allafrica.com/stories/201409031432.html) that people living in Africa’s Congo Basin annually eat about 5 million tons of bushmeat – from caterpillars to elephants. “That’s about the equivalent of the cattle production of Brazil or the European Union. Bushmeat is the cheapest protein available beside caterpillars.”
However, unless bushmeat utilisation is managed on a sustainable basis, supplies are rapidly going to run out, and in the process a number of African species will be brought to extinction. Not even the deadly Ebola virus will act as a deterrent, and African governments will have to take responsibility for the conservation of their biodiversity.
Oct 14, 2014 | News
Lights, camera…conservation? That’s right – often, behind their glitz and glamour, Hollywood movies have a strong environmental message. And, if you think about it, what better way to get a lot of people to take note of an issue than by making it the star of the show?
There’s no denying Hollywood’s tastemaking power. Consider, for instance, how many girls were named Bella in honour of the Twilight heroine, or the generation of young men who, following the release of Trainspotting in the ‘90s, bleached their hair to look like Sickboy.
In the same way, films that carry a strong message are often taken to heart – and Hollywood’s moguls have a long history of using their clout to get audiences thinking and acting. In the 1970s, for example, Jack Nicholson took the starring role in Chinatown, a film which pitted his character against those who wished to corrupt the water supply. The result – a new awareness of the importance of a clean water supply!
Jaws, a story about a giant Great White Shark that terrorises a seaside community, had 
moviegoers paralysed by fear in 1975, when it tapped into one of the most primal of human fears. To the dismay of many environmentalists, Jaws cemented a perception that sharks are human-culling machines, a perception that remains largely entrenched nearly four decades after the film’s release, in spite of the fact that shark attacks – relatively speaking – are pretty rare, and the fact that humans are not, in fact, part of sharks’ normal prey.
The film had a dual impact: it initiated a precipitous decline in shark populations due to a spike in the number of shark ‘kill tournaments’ as fishermen aspired to catch a trophy shark. On the other hand, it also encouraged new studies of sharks. Prior to the release of Jaws, very little was known about these marine predators but, with renewed interest in the species, increased funding for shark research became available. In the final analysis, says Robert Huerter of the Centre for Shark Research in Florida, US, Jaws was a positive thing for the science of sharks because it elevated the public’s interest in these animals.
Silkwood, a 1983 drama starring Meryl Streep and Cher, was inspired by the life of Karen Silkwood, a nuclear power whistleblower and labour union activist who died in a suspicious car accident while investigating alleged wrongdoing at the plutonium plant where she worked. This line was continued with the release of Erin Brokovich, starring Julia Roberts in the lead role; the story of a single mother who discovers that a local water supplier has been knowingly supplying water which is contaminated with a carcinogenic substance.
Happy Feet highlighted the impact that fishing has on animal wellbeing, in particular the plight of penguin populations from commercial overfishing in the seas around Antarctica. The film took some creative licence – while some penguin species such as the Galapagos Penguin are endangered, not all species are threatened, and penguins generally pay little attention to human visitors. But it successfully highlighted the dangers of depleting fish stocks, something more people are now aware of. What’s more, it directed its message at children, who are bound to use their nagging power to encourage their parents to adopt more environmentally friendly behaviours.
Finding Nemo was another film which focused on marine environmental awareness. The animated film showed the impact of human intervention on wildlife in the ocean and the negative effect this has, including the fact that Nemo, a small clownfish, was taken by a diver out of his natural habitat, the practice of explosive mines being placed underwater creating danger for marine wildlife, and the capture of thousands of fish from oceans.
Director James Cameron’s movie Avatar was intended as a lesson to humankind to stop damaging the environment and what the consequences would be of abusing the planet’s resources. At the time of its release it was the most expensive movie ever made and went on to surpass Titanic in terms of gross revenue and, certainly, it raised public awareness of the impact of human ravages on our planet.
More recently, The Promised Land, starring Matt Damon, centres on the controversial dangers of fracking. Damon, an outspoken critic of fracking, came under fire for having a transparent agenda. The film was further panned when it was revealed that it was financed by charter members of the OPEC cartel. To add insult to injury, the film was not particularly well received by either critics or movie-goers!
Next time you dismiss movies as just a bit of mental candyfloss, think again – could there be a link between Nemo and your new recycling habit?
Hollywood celebs making a difference
It’s the trendy thing to pay lip service to environmental issues, but few Hollywood stars manage to live up to high environmental standards – with a few notable exceptions; a handful of A-listers really do walk the talk and make a difference.
Actress Natalie Portman – in addition to her work with the One Voice Movement and Global Green USA – has taken a personal interest in the plight of Rwanda’s mountain gorillas. In 2007 she hosted a documentary called Gorillas on the Brink which focused on how environmental changes have threatened the lives of these highly endangered animals. Portman practises what she preaches in her own life too: even her engagement ring is apparently eco-friendly, and made from recycled platinum and conflict-free diamonds!
Australian actress Cate Blanchett is another celeb who has actively taken the plight of the environment to heart: not only is her home eco-friendly, running as it does on solar power and reusing rainwater, but together with her husband (both are co-artistic directors of the Sydney Theatre Company) she is intent on making the Sydney Theatre the first off-the-grid theatre in the world. Blanchett is also the face of the Australian Conservation Foundation’s ‘Who on Earth Cares?’ initiative, which encourages people to fight the effects of global climate change.
Actress Darryl Hannah has long been at the forefront of the green movement in the US, vociferously protesting actions counter to her beliefs. She also hosts a weekly web series, DH Loves Life, where she talks about sustainable solutions.
Tired of seeing her fellow Hollywood stars pretending a concern for the environment while stepping out of environmentally unfriendly limos and SUVs, actress Penelope Cruz set about changing the way Hollywood travels with the establishment of the Red Carpet/Green Cars campaign, which encourages celebs to travel to red carpet functions in environmentally-conscious hybrid cars and sustainable fuel vehicles. A number of high-profile celebs have supported her campaign including George Clooney and Brad Pitt with the ‘green car line’ at the Oscars reputedly growing larger each year.
After having a baby, actress Jessica Alba launched The Honest Company, which produces organic, non-toxic, eco-friendly products for mothers and babies, after discovering that so many baby products contain toxic substances and chemicals that can hinder development.
There is no doubt that people are influenced by these so-called opinion leaders and that celebrity support of the environmental issues raises the profile of the challenges facing our planet.
