Terry Wieland On Ammo

Jul 19, 2019 | News

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]FATHER OF THEM ALL

Thanks to Zulu, the classic 1964 movie starring Michael Caine, the Martini-Henry rifle enjoys a celebrity among citizens at large that is rare among military weapons. Tens of millions of people have seen that movie and, if nothing else, learned about rifle drill in the British Army in 1879.

For anyone who might have missed it, Zulu depicts, with quite admirable accuracy, the battle of Rorke’s Drift, in Natal in 1879. The army awarded 11 Victoria Crosses; in my opinion, there could have been a twelfth, for the Martini-Henry certainly played a heroic role.

The old Martini is one of the lesser-sung military rifles in history. It was not used for long — about 15 years — and was really a transitional weapon between the muzzleloader and the repeating cartridge rifle. Still, it had an enormous impact in several different ways. After it was officially retired in favor of the bolt-action Lee-Metford in 1888, stocks of Martini-Henrys were distributed to colonial troops, militia battalions, hunters, and target shooters throughout the Empire — and that meant, literally, throughout the world. For a century afterwards, you could walk into a farmhouse in Kenya, Rhodesia, Natal, Saskatchewan, New Zealand, or New South Wales and find a Martini-Henry behind the door, ready for action.

Over the long term, its cartridge, the .577/.450, was even more influential than the rifle itself. For one thing, its 480-grain bullet set the standard for .45-caliber dangerous-game cartridges that lasts to this day. Subsequent nitro-express cartridges, starting with the .450 NE in 1898, used 480-grain bullets. When .450s were banned in India and the Sudan around 1905, to keep ammunition out of the hands of insurgents, it was because there were so many old Martini-Henrys in the hands of the would-be rebels. Substitutes for the .450 NE included the .470 Nitro Express, .475 No. 2 NE, and Holland & Holland’s .500/.465. More often than not, the standard bullet weight was 480 grains.

The Martini-Henry proved to be so durable, reliable, and adaptable that many were rebarreled to .303 British after 1888, and thousands of new Martinis were also made in .303. Many of these continue in service to this day. With .303 British ammunition one of the most common calibers to be found from Cairo to the Cape, it was natural to arm everything from game scouts and park rangers to camp guards and farm workers with them.

The flip side of that coin is that untold numbers of African animals have been either poached, or wounded, by a Martini-Henry, whether chambered in .577/.450 or .303 British, but that is hardly the rifle’s fault.

A lesser known negative of the old Martini is its horrid recoil. Viewers of Zulu might contest that statement, since every shot fired in the movie appeared to have no recoil at all, nor was there much in the way of black-powder smoke. Of course not – they were using blanks. The real-life Martini was noted for brutal recoil, mainly because of the shape of the stock. For its time, however, it was extremely fast to operate — tests showed trained infantrymen capable of maintaining a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute. The roughly 140 defenders of Rorke’s Drift fired more than 20,000 rounds during the battle. Considering there were 4,000 Zulu attackers, the Martini’s rate of fire evened the odds somewhat.

The rifle is also enormously strong. Tests at the Providence Tool Company in Rhode Island, at the time they were fulfilling a contract to supply 600,000 Martini-Henrys to the Ottoman Empire, proved the action to be a beast. At one point, they put five (5) 480-grain bullets in the barrel ahead of a double charge of gunpowder. The rifle took it without a whimper.

It’s no wonder, then, that the Martini-Henry is still relatively common to find in use, 140 years after it was retired from the British service as obsolete. A 480-grain, hard-cast bullet, in the right place, will still stop virtually anything, and there is little in the way of plains game that can’t be taken with the .303.

To the best of my knowledge, Kynamco in England is the only company that now manufactures .577/.450 Martini-Henry ammunition. Finding some would be the difficulty. If you want to shoot one, handloading is about the only real option. Fortunately, with a little work, brass can be fashioned from .577 cases, which will take Boxer primers; the Martini can handle smokeless-powder pressures with no problem, and cast bullets are common as dirt.

In fact, loading some ammunition and trying to match the 20 rounds a minute record of a Victorian infantrymen would be an interesting challenge. Let me know how you make out.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_btn title=”View article in eZine ” color=”chino” align=”center” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fafricanhuntinggazette.com%2Fjuly-aug-sep-2019%2F%23africanhuntinggazette-ezine-july%2F118-119||target:%20_blank|”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1563523850145-0baa5d22-f926-1″ include=”22651,22652″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

One for the Road

Jul 17, 2019 | News

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

“Hurry, Hurry! Shoot! SHOOT!

(And other helpful comments.)

Towards the end of his career in Africa, Robert Ruark had one particular tracker named Metheke without whom, he wrote, “I feel naked in the bush.” He does not make it clear exactly who Metheke worked for when Ruark was not around. Presumably, it was one of the Ker & Downey professional hunters, but Metheke always seemed able to detach himself to accompany Ruark, no matter who he was hunting with at the time. Or so Ruark would have us believe. He was Man Friday to Ruark’s Robinson Crusoe.

Ruark was very adept at creating ideal situations that embed themselves in your mind, making you seek out such perfection on every hunting trip henceforth. Alas, perfection in hunting — and especially in hunting companions — is a very scarce commodity. On rare occasions I have met trackers in Africa who compare favorably with the sainted Metheke. Lekina Sandeti, a Masai who works for Robin Hurt in Tanzania, is one. Cuno, who worked for Chris Dandridge in Botswana, is another; I never did know Cuno’s surname. Nor did I know Charles’s surname, who was Clive Eaton’s tracker and always dressed in a shirt and hat more in keeping with a beach in Hawaii than on the track of a Cape buffalo. His attire belied his ability, however, which was second to none when it came to finding game and tracking it.

Books and stories from old Africa often depicted trackers and gun bearers in less than flattering terms. Some were outright racist to a point which, in this day and age, causes even the most non-politically-correct to cringe. Even those who purported to like and respect the safari staff were often condescending in their treatment of native people and their foibles. Most wrote about their trackers the way a wingshooter writes about a particularly gifted bird dog. Ruark, I hasten to add, did like and respect them. At times he was critical, but never condescending.

I don’t claim to be any less inherently racist — or at least, race-conscious — than other men of my age and background, but I have always tried to write about Lekina, Cuno, Charles, and the others in the same terms I wrote about the white professionals who headed up safaris. Perhaps this is because, 20 years before I ever went on safari in Africa, I went there as a freelance foreign correspondent and spent long periods living in grass huts, mud huts, and, on occasion, refugee and guerrilla camps. (Grass huts, by the way, are the most comfortable, and you become fond of the lizards that scurry around.)

In the course of that and later such expeditions, I learned enough Swahili to get by, or at least enough to show the trackers I was making the attempt, and this always seemed to put them on my side. Earning the respect of your trackers is, of course, the best case. Failing that, not incurring their enmity is something to be desired. One time, I was told about a client in Botswana, hunting with some Bushmen, who made the mistake of treating them badly, constantly denigrating them and generally being a boor. It has been my experience that people respond in kind, and that a little politeness goes a long way. At any rate, the Bushmen determined on some revenge. Knowing they could go long periods without water, while the fat American needed a drink every fifteen minutes, they took him out one morning and did a long, looping circle under the hot sun, with no water. Hours later, dehydrated, hallucinatory, and almost dead with fatigue, they delivered him back to camp. I don’t know whether he changed his ways, but the guides certainly got a bit of their own back.

Sometimes it’s not a matter of respect, mutual or otherwise, but simply competence. For every superb Lekina or Cuno, I have met trackers and other staff that seem to have been hired at short notice out of the local saloon, and have no more idea about hunting than if they’d been hired to teach quantum physics. One time, I was trying to locate a wounded wildebeest in the thick bush of Natal. With no tracks or blood trail, going back the next day to search for it was like looking for the proverbial needle, but we had to try.

We split up, with the PH and one tracker going one way, and a tracker and me going the other. By some miracle, a lone wildebeest bull appeared on an open slope about 200 yards distant. We had no shooting sticks, and no convenient tree. I was studying the bull in my binoculars while the tracker gesticulated wildly, insisting it was the wounded animal. My only chance was an offhand shot.

“Hurry!” he shouted. “Shoot! Shoot!”

Already out of breath, nervous, I tried to place the dancing crosshairs somewhere near the shoulder, and yanked the trigger with predictable results. The bull melted into the undergrowth. My guide looked at me, practically in tears. “Why you not shoot?” he asked, obviously thinking that killing an animal with a rifle required nothing more than pointing it in more or less the right direction and pulling the trigger. The wounded bull — if it was our bull — was gone, then and for all time. I should add that it was a hell of a head.

Guides like that make you even more nervous and likely to miss. Others, like Lekina, know that their own chances of survival go up considerably if they keep you calm in a tight situation, and try to make things easier rather than harder. Shouting “Shoot, shoot!” when the client is either not ready, or not in a good position to do so, accomplishes all the wrong things.

I’ve heard of, although I’ve never experienced, the extreme case of a guide running on ahead to try to spot a wounded animal, and then turning around and shouting to the hunter to “Shoot!” when he can’t even see it from where he is. And, naturally, the shout then spooks the beast to make tracks.

On my first safari in Botswana, my professional hunter was a Tswana by the name of Patrick Mmalane, a Sandhurst graduate and captain in the Botswana Defence Force. He had signed on as a professional hunter with Safari South. Naturally, he being black as the ace of spades, I insisted on referring to him as my “white hunter,” which caused great mirth among the trackers. Since Patrick and I both held the Queen’s Commission, we declared our end of the dining table to be the officers’ mess. We became quite good friends, and I went back the following year for a four-week odyssey wherein we drove around Botswana, wingshooting, seeing the sights, and setting a number of local beer-drinking records.

Patrick eventually left hunting and rejoined the BDF, and the last I heard he was a lieutenant-colonel. I mention all this because it was interesting to see his relationship with our trackers. They were Bushmen, in whole or in part, and as at home in the bush as Patrick and I were on a drill square. While Patrick was good with a rifle, and held command in an easy grip, he was not a tracker, and game spotting was not his long suit. The trackers treated him with the same somewhat bemused respect that an experienced sergeant-major accords to a newly appointed young officer.

In the end, we all proved ourselves to each other — and earned whatever respect we had — through our own abilities, and by the end of the week, one Cape buffalo bull and several lesser species later, we all got along with a kind of easy familiarity. Everyone did his job, no one screwed up, and we had a pretty happy ship.

It would be nice to be able to say that eventually I ended up with one tracker who did for me what Metheke did for Ruark, but those were other days. A tracker/gun bearer/factotum of the Metheke stamp is either a distant memory or, more likely, an ideal that never really existed — certainly not for visiting client-hunters like Ruark, or me.

One of my most treasured memories of hunting in Africa, however, is when, on my second safari with him, Lekina Sandeti invited me to be a guest in his hut, and to drink a cup of the buttermilk-like concoction that is a staple of Masai life. This was, I was told by my PH, a great honor. Whether Metheke ever did the same for Robert Ruark, I don’t know. As I say, those were different times[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_btn title=”View article in Ezine” color=”chino” align=”center” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fafricanhuntinggazette.com%2Fjuly-aug-sep-2019%2F%23africanhuntinggazette-ezine-july%2F146-147|||”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Loxodonta Africana

May 27, 2019 | News

Loxodonta Africana

What a powerful name for the world’s greatest land animal.

Today, the landlocked, small southern African country of Botswana, with a little over a million people took arguably the biggest decision in living memory (or mine anyway) regarding how it manages its own wildlife.

This is an arid country, with an average rainfall of 440mm, less than half the world’s average. It is dependent on exporting some of the world’s best diamonds, hugely reliant on beef exports and in particular, exporting its ecotourism experience as it showcases the world’s greatest wetland – the Okavango Delta. But the cross it has to bear is the unenviable task of managing a natural behemoth. A monster that consumes 26 000 (twenty-six thousand) tons, or 58 000 000 (fifty-eight million) pounds of foliage a day!

This is the herd of Botswana’s African elephants and Africa’s largest by miles. Conservatively speaking at 130 000 animals – number many questions being too low, they consume 200kg of leaves and grass, each …a day!

Some of the variables and factors this country has had to grapple with include:

1. Listening to, consulting with, empathizing, working out how to compensate the rural communities who have the ongoing challenge of the human-wildlife conflict to deal with. These beasts raid and destroy their crops and livelihoods and when working with and for the safari operators in the remote rural areas – they stood to benefit from this challenging dilemma. They are at the centre of where this is all happening.
2. Pleasing photo tourists who want to experience these beasts up close and personal on foot, on a boat or on the back of a land cruiser and seldom understand the concept of sustainable utilization or the challenges of human-wildlife conflict.
3. Keeping ivory poachers away as they’ll do anything to satisfy the demand for illegal ivory markets, particularly when they have no resistance.
4. Hunters who are prepared to pay handsomely for a limited number of trophy bull elephants each year through operators that manage the more remote areas not utilized by tourists.
5. A lucrative side industry from the management of elephant numbers, call it culling. This benefits thousands of local inhabitants with arguably one of the purest forms of a renewable, sustainable utilization of resources, that after all is theirs.
6. Animal rightists who want zero hunting anywhere – let alone in Botswana. They start petitions and campaign for eco-tourists to boycott Botswana should they opt to lift its ban on hunting.
7. Photographic safari operators, who are disguised animal rightists, working with National Geographic of all companies, who want everything on their terms and even went into business with the ex-President as a tactic to close down hunting and are still today, very powerful eco-tourism players.
8. You have ‘editors’ and journalists bringing out books, one most recently called the Last Elephant – (as if these animals are on the verge of extinction) that conveniently sideline Namibia’s elephant success story who coincidently work with communities in an even drier country with way less elephant to manage and it is prospering.

All this is happening while there is a tsunami of international pressure, from ‘Conservation bodies,’ interested groups, countries, politicians, celebrities, all seeking their moment in the sun – around a topic they know nothing, at worse, or very little at best, about.

This is a Botswana problem – not a global, African, or a southern African problem.

And so, as the press conference starts at 1400 on the 23^rd of May 2019, explaining why they have lifted the ban on hunting elephant, I salute this great country.

What a bold decision, taken for the right reasons, in the face of such adversity. What a lesson for us all.

Click here to view the letter of The Botswana Lifting of Ban

Politics and Hunting in Botswana

May 7, 2019 | News

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Politics and Hunting in Botswana

By Dr John Ledger

In 2014 the then President of Botswana, Ian Khama, unexpectedly announced the banning of all hunting in his country. This caused consternation in the hunting community and brought confusion and distress to local rural communities around hunting areas who had benefited materially and financially from the hunting industry. They were simply cut off from an important source of money, protein and other wildlife products and work opportunities. It has been said that former President Khama was strongly influenced by animal rights and anti-hunting activists. Whichever way you look at it, the lack of consultation and proper planning of the hunting ban was shameful.

But as they say, what goes around comes around. Just over four years down the line, Botswana has a new President, and one with a different style to his predecessor, in that he is apparently more willing to listen to the people. And the people tell him that they are suffering damage to their homes, crops, and even loss of life resulting from the impacts of wild animals which, since the hunting ban, are of no value to them. President Masisi appointed a committee (‘The Hunting Ban SubCommittee of Cabinet’) to consult the people through tribal meetings known as ‘kgotlas’, where everyone has an opportunity to be heard. In its formal report back (in the form of ‘Handover Notes’) to the President, the subcommittee made the following key points:

“From the submissions made by the communities and other stakeholders, the Committee as assigned by Your Excellency, found it necessary to propose the following recommendations, stated here in summary form.

Hunting ban be lifted;
Develop a legal framework that will create an enabling environment for growth of safari hunting industry;
Manage Botswana elephant population within its historic range;
Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) should undertake an effective community outreach program within the elephant range for Human Elephant Conflict mitigation;
Strategically placed human wildlife conflict fences be constructed in key hotspot areas;
Game ranches be demarcated to serve as buffers between communal and wildlife areas;
Compensation for damage caused by wildlife, ex gratia amounts and the list of species that attract compensation be reviewed. In addition, other models that alleviate compensation burden on Government be considered;
All wildlife migratory routes that are not beneficial to the country’s conservation efforts be closed;
The Kgalagadi southwesterly antelope migratory route into South Africa should be closed by demarcating game ranches between the communal areas and Kgalagadi Wildlife Management Areas;
Regular but limited elephant culling be introduced and establishment of elephant meat canning, including production of pet food and processing into other by-products.”

Some of these submissions made by rural communities are rather bizarre, and unlikely to be implemented by government, but it should be remembered that these are people who are so angry and frustrated by the impacts of wild animals, especially elephants, that their emotions have boiled over to the extent that they have come up with the idea of culling them and turning them into pet food! These thoughts have certainly caused a furore among the animal-rightists, but I doubt any of them have had family members killed by elephants. It also seems improbable that the government would sanction such activities, or unrealistic ideas for fences, but the realities of elephant management in the long run are that someone has to have the courage to take the ‘tough love’ road, as difficult as that may seem.

The important point is that the debate on the role of wildlife in Botswana has been re-opened and government has an opportunity to come up with some innovative policies regarding the relationship between people and wildlife outside the formally protected areas of the country. There is little doubt that the people of Botswana have been looking with interest at the wildlife policies of their neighbour, Namibia, where community conservation programmes have resulted in a high level of tolerance by people for wildlife, because they benefit from its presence. These benefits range from tourism and hospitality, from subsistence and trophy hunting that can be conducted in areas that are not suitable for photographic safaris, and from the breeding, sale and relocation of sought-after species.

There is no good reason why Botswana cannot implement a sound national wildlife management policy that will see rural communities benefitting from the wild animals living on their land. Benefits from the wildlife sharing space with humans results in tolerance. There are limits to tolerance, however, and predators will always require management and control when they exceed the bounds of tolerance. Namibia has learned how to do this, and reach a balance between the rights of stock farmers and the tourism benefits of seeing predators in adjacent areas. Custodianship must benefit the custodians, and wildlife must be able to make a financial contribution to the well-being of the human occupants of the land. Hunting has a major role to play in rural economies, and can be implemented with proper checks and balances and quotas based on sound management principles.

There is little doubt that the government of Botswana will be at the centre of a huge debate about how it should be managing its wildlife in future. Hunters should give their firm support to government for the re-opening of hunting in areas that are best suited for these activities, and where local people can benefit from regulated, well-managed and high value hunting operations.

The animal-rightists and anti-hunting lobby will of course do their best to dissuade Botswana from implementing wildlife management policies similar to those that are working in Namibia. Indeed, I have noticed a recent trend that looks like a deliberate campaign to ignore or sideline the Namibian success story, because it does not sit well with the animal-rights and anti-hunting lobby.

For example, I recently read and reviewed a new book on elephants (Pinnock, Don & Colin Bell (Compilers) (2019). The Last Elephants. Struik Nature, an imprint of Penguin Random House South Africa (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town). It is largely a propaganda piece aimed at the forthcoming CITES meeting. Under the country heading Namibia, there is a single article about ‘social structure’, ‘male and female society’, ‘genetic links’, ‘feeding activities and more in the ‘Desert-dwelling elephants of north-west Namibia’.

But nowhere is there any mention of Namibia’s success in community-based conservation, of its massive community conservation areas, of its government’s unwavering support for both trophy hunting and subsistence hunting, of the benefits that have flowed to rural communities through a balanced approach towards sustainable consumptive wildlife utilisation, alongside eco-tourism opportunities. How does Namibia manage conflicts between rural communities, elephants and lions, for example? Why does this book choose to ignore the success story of conservation in Namibia, and make no mention of one of the most significant books on the region, An Arid Eden, by Garth Owen-Smith?

Let us hope that Botswana will soon join Namibia by introducing a new wildlife policy that suits its country and its people, and not the prohibitionists who apparently cannot stand the thought of Africans benefiting from the wild animals on their land.

Dr John Ledger is an independent consultant and writer on energy and environmental issues, based in Johannesburg, South Africa. John.Ledger@wol.co.za

[/vc_column_text][vc_btn title=”View article in EZINE” color=”chino” align=”center” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fafricanhuntinggazette.com%2Fapr-may-june-2019%2F%23africa-hunting-gazette%2F18-19||target:%20_blank|”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1557216074953-7d552e3f-7e5a-1″ include=”21712,21713″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

A Matter of Trust…

May 2, 2019 | News

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

A Matter of Trust…

Trust – firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something

When you’re buying something – particularly the higher it is in value – this underlying element of trust is becoming all too important. The world is offering more of everything. Promises are spouted, choices abound. Everyone and anyone is being told everything and anything. Decisions become difficult. Once great bastions of truth – like BBC, CNN – distort the facts for the sake of agendas, viewers and stakeholders.

With international travel to Africa, when your precious time and personal cash is spent on a classic safari – the last thing you want is to be sold is some story. How do you tell who has got what concession, or the exclusive right to hunt where they say they have? Or have even got their license from that country’s association? Forums exist, but many use pseudonyms, and right of reply is seldom offered before there is trial by media. Associations exist, but don’t have enough clout. Ethics committees abound – but with well over ten thousand hunters to Africa each year – how many rotten apples are removed?

With offering peace of mind, we launched the Visited & Verified Program. There’s no grading system for now – it was merely a means to independently confirm, via our platforms, what the Outfitter said they offered. Our reputation was on the line.

While there’s space for all types of hunting operations and areas, just like any restaurant, hotel, tourist attraction or motor vehicle for that matter, simply state what it is that you offer. Don’t say with a straight face you are a Mercedes, when you’re a Toyota and have stuck a star badge on the hood. We know it happens, and thankfully the V&V program has gone some way to alleviate the problem. Our goal is to move this forward.

While everyone is a publisher, or a journalist, and there is too much keyboard courage and cyber ranting, we want to offer a refuge for those serious about hunting in Africa. As we expand the program, we will do what we can to build on that age-old quality that is all too quickly eroding in today’s world. Billy Joel sang about it in his 1986 hit, A Matter of Trust. And for us – promoting safaris to this great continent is what we do, so we take this seriously, and it is a matter of trust.

The Story of Two Shoe Salesmen in Africa – Once upon a time, a shoe company sent two salesmen to Africa to determine the market potential for their products. One salesman was sent to the east coast of Africa, while the other was sent to the west coast. Both the salesmen completed a basic survey of the target market and called back to the office. The salesman sent to the east coast of Africa reported, “No one here wears any shoes, there is no market for us here!” The other salesman sent a message, “No one here wears any shoes, there is a huge market for us, send inventory fast!” And so, the story went. Different perceptions of potential with the same scenario.

For those sitting in the northern hemisphere and reading this – there has never been a better time to visit Africa. I keep saying this, and each time there are more reasons: The currency exchange rate, the declining cost of game, (essentially an economic factor of constant demand and rising supply), the increasing number and frequency of airlines to Africa, and then the low barriers to entry for PHs and Outfitters to ‘get into’ this industry. Game farm owners are becoming hunting outfitters, wealthy businessmen are becoming game farmers – you name it, the reasons are many. Yet, the outfitters tend to bemoan the fact that competitors respond to the economic reality of rising supply and discount their hunts.

I flew to the USA from South Africa, via UK in May 1993 to start a summer internship at 3M, Minnesota. At an exchange rate of 3.18 SA Rand to the US$, it was $943. I have googled the cheapest flight right now, and it is SAR 11 073 to get to the USA, and at today’s exchange of 14.41 to the US$ – that would mean my flight would be $768. More than 20% cheaper than it was 26 years ago!

This continent offers so much, as each area opens up – be it wilderness areas in Zambia, Botswana lifting its ban, Mozambique’s Zambeze Delta team managing the greatest relocation of lions, ever – or South Africa’s Karoo, of all places, offering a wonderland of big open skies. The potential abounds. Wildlife is hardy and survives in extreme areas, Namibia’s desert game being the best example. And so, hunters, if you know of friends that have dreamt of hunting our great continent – there really is no better time. We challenge you – in fact politely beg you to tell your buddies, share this magazine, or electronically send it from our website to your contacts – just spread the word.

Outfitters and professional hunters. If the fish are not biting, or they appear smaller than before – it is time to explore new waters. There are hunters from across the globe that are nuts about Africa. We see them at Afton Guest House, from Slovakia to Sweden, Argentina to Australia. When you are presenting the diversity and wealth of our wildlife, our scenery, people and weather, the odds are stacked in your favour. Period.

Our mission and my job is to promote hunting in Africa, and 2019 will be a telling time. We will be unveiling a plan to promote this continent and outfitters, not only to our primary markets – but to establish larger secondary markets and, equally important, to new and potential markets. We started it in Canada 10 years back, so we know there is potential. We can’t do it alone and we will be working with the industry we are a part of and so committed to. So, as you read through the next hundred and something pages – please bear in mind that this is the turning point. We are on a mission. And like the shoe salesman who noted nobody wore shoes in Africa – “bring more inventory!”[/vc_column_text][vc_btn title=”View article in E-ZINE” color=”chino” align=”center” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fafricanhuntinggazette.com%2Fapr-may-june-2019%2F%23africa-hunting-gazette%2F8-9||target:%20_blank|”][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Of Demons and Dragons

May 2, 2019 | News

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Of Demons and Dragons.

The preservationist, anti-sustainable use doctrine is a formidable global force. Selling the creed to the Western world is both simple and lucrative. A 24/7 stream of cuddly Disney movies, TV documentaries, news reports and newspaper articles that portray Africa as some kind of idyllic Eden that needs no human management has laid the platform to cast safari hunters as the evil villains.

Kenya is the preservationists’ posterchild in Africa where the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have had a stranglehold on government environmental policies since the mid-1970s when safari hunting was banned. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Born Free and the African Wildlife Foundation lead the NGO pack. Under their watchful eye, it has been estimated that since 1963, Kenya has lost 90% of its wildlife and 80% of its forest land. Thirty to forty per cent of the rangelands have turned to desert. This damning evidence shows that these institutions are more concerned with the raising of funds than the wildlife they purport to protect. They realize all of the benefits of their unique position through the ability to raise awareness and money for their assorted campaigns with the added bonus of not being accountable for their actions. The day-to-day consequences resulting from their shenanigans are left to the people who live with the wildlife to deal with.

In stark contrast is South Africa’s wildlife success story, probably the greatest the world has seen. Pioneers of this program were Dr. Ian Player and his colleagues in the Natal Parks Board. Faced with an overpopulation of white rhino in the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi game park in the 1970s, a decision was made to sell excess animals to private ranchers. A key aspect was that the rhino owner could do whatever he liked with his rhino. Profit could be made from his investment through photographic and hunting safaris as well as through the selling of excess animals onto other game ranchers. This radical concept was the engine that drove the establishment of game ranching in South Africa. From a countrywide population of around 500 000 in 1964, South Africa’s wildlife numbers now stand at around 22 million head.

Botswana followed a similar progression, centered around consumptive sustainable use, until Ian Khama became president of Botswana in 2008. He was hell-bent on changing tack and emulating the Kenyan model. He reportedly once said that the only endangered animal in Botswana would be the professional hunter. With the support of animal rights activists such as Dereck Joubert (National Geographic’s “Explorer in Residence”), Colin Bell and many others, the country’s safari hunting industry was systematically dismantled.

The closure of safari hunting in Botswana (except for plains game species on private land) had devastating consequences for both people and wildlife. “The effects of the safari hunting tourism ban on rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation in Northern Botswana” was written by Prof. Joseph E. Mbaiwa from the Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana.

He states that between 2006 and 2009, safari hunting generated US $ 3 120 000 for rural communities, while photographic tourism generated only US $ 415 000. 49.5% of revenue from the safari hunting industry was used in the local district, 25.7% at the national level, and only 24.8% was being paid overseas, mainly in the form of agents’ commissions and profits. Over 600 jobs were lost, and 4 800 livelihoods affected. Photographic operations have not picked up the slack in marginal areas because these areas are not suited to photo-tourism. Community projects such as the construction of houses for the needy, funeral insurance, scholarships and household dividends have dried up.

The loss of protein in the form of meat from the hunted animals was substantial. In the last five years prior to the hunting ban, each community was allocated a total of 22 elephants or 154 tonnes of meat per annum. This was in addition to the meat from other animals hunted such as buffalo. The communities were permitted to sell any excess meat, and in one area alone, Sankoyo, $600,000 was realized from meat sales in 2010.

With these losses, human-wildlife conflict has increased appreciably and the nationwide reports rose from 4 361 in 2012 to 6 770 in 2014. Poaching is on the rise and is having a significant impact on wildlife populations. Fortunately for Botswana’s people and wildlife, the current president Mokgweetsi Masisi realizes the importance of sustainable use of natural resources, and, hopefully, safari hunting will once again be an integral part of the country’s community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) program.

In South Africa it seems that the preservationists are gaining some traction. When “Skye the lion” was supposedly shot on the border of Kruger in June 2018, the anti-hunters were hoping for another “Cecil the lion” story. But, unsurprisingly, the international outcry was muted. That fairy tale has lost its mojo. The lion in question may or may not have been “Skye”. It’s irrelevant. Kruger lion are not endangered, there is a healthy, growing population of around 1 800. A male lion was on quota as set by the appropriate authorities, and all of the various hunting protocols had been followed. There was an upshot to this saga however.

An enquiry into the Kruger and Private Reserves Benefit Sharing Agreement by the parliamentary Environmental Committee for Environmental Affairs was initiated. At least five anti-hunting presenters were invited to the enquiry, and not one pro-hunting representative. Any subsequent committee findings could therefore hardly be described as unbiased. The chairperson of the committee, a certain Phillemon Mapulane, was livid when he found out that the cooperative agreement between the Kruger National Park and the Association of Private Nature Reserves was signed despite the directives of his committee not to. As Stephen Palos the CEO of the Confederation of Hunting Associations of South Africa (CHASA) pointed out to Mapulane, while committees hold an oversight role and a responsibility to report and make recommendations, they have absolutely no mandate to directly interfere at the operational level. It is untenable to expect any functionary to try serve or appease two different masters. SANParks is governed by a Board, duly appointed and empowered in terms of legislation, to oversee the operational activities of its executive and staff. To drag that same executive and staff to answer and act at the operational level to the Portfolio Committee is not just illegitimate in terms of law, but also highly immoral. It must prove very disheartening to the capable, dedicated and passionate people who try run our parks. They will surely prove the legitimacy and correctness of the processes they have followed towards the benefit sharing and expansion of area on Kruger’s western border.

Palos goes on to question whether the Portfolio Committee has not somehow been captured by the doctrine of animal-rightism, which has a coordinated and devious agenda to replace conservation with preservation, at huge potential cost to human needs.

And so like some warped “Game of Thrones” melodrama the battle continues with dragons to be slayed and villains to be vanquished and all the while we are left to ponder when common sense, if ever, will prevail.[/vc_column_text][vc_btn title=”View article in E-ZINE” color=”chino” align=”center” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fafricanhuntinggazette.com%2Fapr-may-june-2019%2F%23africa-hunting-gazette%2F12-13||target:%20_blank|”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_masonry_media_grid grid_id=”vc_gid:1556795175771-ce7d4f5e-7d24-5″ include=”21455,21456,21457″][/vc_column][/vc_row]