Jul 15, 2015 | News
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.
Oct 14, 2014 | News
For those who watch Come Dine With Me, you’d know that serving pangolin foetus soup as your starter probably wouldn’t score many points. However, this dish is considered a delicacy throughout south-east Asia and China, and has partially led to the decline of all four Asian pangolin species.
Apparently not sated, evidence is amassing that industrial-scale shipments of African pangolins are being ferried across the Indian Ocean to continue feeding those with extravagant tastes. Although China has recently outlawed the eating of 420 threatened species, which includes all eight pangolin species worldwide, the rise of the middle-class predilection for status symbols and prestige will probably ensure a flourishing black market trade in pangolins, much like wealthy consumers in Vietnam are now thought to be driving the rhino poaching epidemic.
Unlike rhinos, however, pangolins are estimated to be the most trafficked mammal in the world, with between 10 000 and 100 000 sold in black markets every year. Unfortunately for Temminck’s Ground Pangolin Smutsia temminckii – the only pangolin species found in South Africa – this is a war being fought on two fronts. While not quite the same twee presentation of a soup starter, pangolin blood, intestines, feet, and scales are consumed in South Africa for their assumed medical properties.
Pangolins, known locally as inkhakha (isiNdebele), kgaga (Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana), haka (Shona) or khwara (Tshivenda), are caught, bought and traded by traditional healers and punted as curing anything from nosebleeds to cancer. Ongoing research from Tshwane Technical University and the African Pangolin Working Group suggests that all indigenous South African cultures use the pangolin in some form of traditional medicine. The parts are most often burnt and ground to a fine powder; the patients then cut themselves and apply the powder over the cuts for magical protection.
Always on offer at the Mai Mai bushmeat market, which is tucked inside Johannesburg’s inner city, vendors (who grind up the intestines and hang them in the shop to lure customers) sell individual scales for R80-100 each, and advertise that they will confer invincibility, strength and treat low blood pressure. So powerful is this belief in the pangolin’s magical properties, that sangomas will drive any distance back home if they’ve forgotten their pangolin scale, and thieves think they are bulletproof if they have a scale in their breast-pocket.
Bemused, a judge asked an arrested poacher why he thought the pangolin’s scales made him invincible if the poacher had so easily killed the pangolin for its scales. Nonplussed, the poacher replied, “The pangolin did not believe its scales would protect him.”
Therein lies the heart of the problem. Although there is no scientific evidence to support the 
healing properties of pangolins, and their scales are certainly made of the same non-magical keratin as rhino horn or finger nails, traditions are stubborn and have inertia that can take generations to dispel. Pangolins are now so rare in KwaZulu-Natal that vendors must import them from Mozambique.
Throughout the bushveld regions, where game fence electrification is rapidly increasing as farmers convert from livestock to game ranching, over 1 000 pangolins might be electrocuted annually, as pangolins roll around the strand when convulsed by electrical shocks, and die of exposure or are collected by locals looking to sell them to healers. These threats, coupled with an intensifying illegal international trade, do not paint a pretty picture for our pangolins.
There is a legend that pangolins create thunder by racing across the heavens rattling their scales. Unless future generations can be convinced that these scales do not cure cancer or deflect bullets, and that vegetable soup is preferable to pangolin foetus soup, Africa is set to become a far drier and less interesting place to live.
Highlights
- Up to 100 000 pangolins may be sold in black markets worldwide every year.
- Only one species is found in South Africa – Temminck’s Ground Pangolin Smutsia temmincki.
- Apparently all indigenous South African cultures use the pangolin in some form of traditional medicine.
- Individual pangolin scales may sell for R80-100 each, and are believed to confer invincibility, strength and treat low blood pressure.
- Thieves and rioters think they are bulletproof if they have a pangolin scale in their breast-pocket.
- More than 1 000 pangolins might be electrocuted annually on electrified game fences in South Africa.
- These harmless, insect-feeding mammals face a dire future at the hand of man.
Oct 14, 2014 | News
Management techniques vary widely, with one end of the spectrum being intensive single species production systems, and the other end being extensive, free-roaming systems. Intensive systems fall under the game farming category, and generally involve high-value species such as Sable, held in small fenced camps, where they are protected from predators and provided with all their food, water and veterinary requirements.
The purpose of these systems is to produce superior animals for live game sales or trophy hunting, and breeding may be manipulated to select animals for desirable traits, such as long horns.
Extensive systems fall under the wildlife ranching category, where wildlife is given very little assistance from the landowner other than protection against poachers.
Between these management extremes are a number of intermediate management practices that fall along a continuum, including semi-intensive systems where animals are supported by regular management interventions to maintain habitat integrity and supplement the food and water supply, and lightly managed systems where properties are large enough to accommodate most ecological requirements of the wildlife, but populations may need occasional help in years of bad drought. In some instances, different landowners may join forces to form a conservancy, whereby adjacent properties remove the fences that separate them, allow wildlife to roam freely and adopt a common management plan.
In South Africa, landowners have been allowed to commercially exploit their wildlife since the 1970s, a fact that is widely credited with the huge growth of wildlife ranching in the country over the last 40 years. Starting from a handful of game farmers in those early years, wildlife ranching has grown exponentially and now incorporates>200 000 km2 of private land representing as much as 17% of South Africa’s surface area. The precise number of wildlife ranches is not known, but is thought to be between 10 000 and 15 000, while the number of wild animals living on these properties may be as high as 20 million.
There are, however, potential downsides to wildlife ranching, and there are questions about whether the industry has a positive effect on the conservation goals of South Africa and whether the land could be put to better use for the long-term benefit of the country.
The private ownership of White Rhinoceros in South Africa illustrates many of the pros and cons of wildlife ranching described above. In the late 1960s, the then Natal Parks Board started selling rhinos to private landowners, and this process has been continued by SANParks selling rhinos from Kruger National Park and other state land.
These sales have helped keep state-owned rhino populations at sustainable levels, which helps prevent over-utilisation of food resources and maintains high birth rates. The number of rhinos on private land has subsequently reached about 5 000 individuals, or one-quarter of the national herd, while the range of the species outside formally protected areas has expanded considerably.
Given the current high rate of rhino poaching in South Africa, the contribution of wildlife ranching to rhino protection may turn out to be important to the future survival of the species. On the down-side, many private populations of White Rhinos are small and isolated because they occur on small fenced properties and therefore are making negligible contributions to the conservation of wild rhinos. Others are held in intensive breeding conditions where their breeding may be manipulated, and this might disqualify them from possible future reintroduction into the wild.
Although wildlife ranching is a large and growing industry in South Africa, there is still much that we do not know about it, and this lack of knowledge puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to government support. We do not know how many wildlife ranchers there are, how much area they use, how many animals they have, how much money they contribute to the national economy, how many people they employ, and how much they could potentially contribute towards food security.
Questions about the true impacts of fencing, the potential implications of intensive breeding and the overall contribution to biodiversity conservation also need to be answered. In an attempt to deal with some of these issues, the Endangered Wildlife Trust is conducting a study investigating the contribution that wildlife ranching makes to the green economy of South Africa. To achieve this, we are trying to interview 1 000 private wildlife ranchers using a structured survey questionnaire. Wildlife ranchers of any type could make a valuable contribution to the study and to the future success of their industry, and are encouraged to participate. Please contact the author for further details.
The positive contributions made by wildlife ranching include the following:
- Large areas of land that were once used for livestock or crops now form natural or semi-natural habitat that is generally better suited to the conservation of biodiversity. This land also conserves indigenous vegetation, protects watersheds and allows degraded land to recover;
- There are now many more wild animals in South Africa than there were 40 years ago. This is in contrast to the situation in Kenya, which banned the consumptive use of wildlife on private land in the 1970s, and has subsequently experienced a 60% decline in wildlife numbers outside state protected areas;
- These animals are distributed over a much wider area than would be the case if only state-protected areas were allowed to benefit from wildlife, and this spreads the risk from ecological catastrophes and increases the chances of long-term survival of species. Wildlife ranching also provides a buffer against possible future losses of species from state-protected areas if national land policies become less favourable to conservation;
- Numbers of some threatened species have increased as a result of their inclusion on private land, including the White Rhinoceros, Black Wildebeest, Cape Mountain Zebra and Bontebok;
- There are substantial financial benefits to be gained by wildlife ranchers, with knock-on effects to other industries and the national economy;
- The large and growing industry creates > 65 000 jobs.
The potential negative aspects of wildlife ranching include the following:
- Most private wildlife ranches have game fences that prevent the free movement of animals across their natural ranges, which is problematic for the dispersal of many species, for migratory species and for species with large natural ranges, including many large predators;
- Electric fences with trip wires present lethal barriers to some species, such as pangolins and tortoises, and result in the deaths of many animals;
- Many wildlife ranchers are intolerant of predators and use lethal control measures to keep numbers down, and this has detrimental impacts on the natural functioning of ecosystems;
- Intensive breeding systems that select for traits favoured by humans, such as large horns or unusual colour morphs, may promote the breeding success of weaker individuals and thus reduce the fitness of the overall population;
- Even though wildlife numbers are high on many private wildlife ranches, the intensive breeding practices and impenetrable fencing used on some properties mean that they cannot be considered ‘wild’. This is important because it can affect the conservation status of a species (i.e. whether it is threatened with extinction), and this in turn impacts on the level of protection that the species receives from the government;
- There is a perception that wildlife ranching is a playground for the rich and does not provide many social, economic or food security benefits to South Africa. This is not conducive to a positive attitude from government.
