AFRICAN INDABA

1     A Letter from the Editor

Dear Reader

A few weeks ago, during a dinner on occasion of the visit of CIC President Bernard Lozé and CIC Director General Tamás Marghescu to South Africa, Peter Flack presented the guests with the fresh-from-the-press companion book to his DVD “The South African Conservation Success Story”. The impressive visual presentation of the DVD was matched, and in some instances even surpassed by the book. I am particularly impressed with David Mabunda’s article “The Future of Wildlife and Conservation”. David, the CEO of South African National Parks, made some extremely important observations. Right in his first sentence he says that “despite the benefits hunting and wildl ife ranching have brought to South Africa, the future of wildlife and its conservation in this country may well be at crossroads” and he paints two possible scenarios which could emerge from the status quo.

The status quo being that South Africa does not have “a land and wildlife conservation model that [enfranchises] large numbers of previously disenfranchised people”, that new entrants to South African game ranching have brought with them methods from the domestic livestock industry, and that a significant rise in “canned” and “put & take” killings has tarnished the image of hunting in South Africa. Breeding methods have raised concern and controversy resulting in David’s words that “game ranching has been accused of doing nothing to biodiversity conservation while at the same time demeaning the lives of [wild] animals and recreational hunting itself,” and he asks the questions “were the lines are to be drawn between a hunter and a shooter, and a game rancher and a farmer”.

Pointedly, David then questions “is South Africa’s quiet conservation revolution still on track? Is it a business model with conservation as a by-product or is it a conservation model which also provides economic benefits to the stakeholders? He concludes that “important choices have to be made for the future!”

Two different scenarios emerge from David’s observations: a worst case, where cause and effect will drastically reduce the land under wildlife and reverse all the successes of the past 5 or 6 decades. The more optimistic scenario is likened to a three-legged stool where the public and private sectors, and the dynamism of the market combine as the driving forces for conservation; wildlife and habitat will flourish.

Glancing through the recent issues of a particular South African specialist magazine and looking into some specific South African game breeding websites shows a possible third scenario, apparently economically viable, but possibly with less than desirable conservation outcomes.

It appears that the proliferation of intensive breeding operations and the total focus on economic gain creates a precarious similarity to the intensive lion breeding and the canned shooting of lion, which led to the conservation and hunting world frowning upon South Africa. There are advertisements with photographs of African buffalo, as well as photos of “pure line cows in calf” by denominated sires, which could just as well come out of a cattle breed studbook. That some of these sires are apparently “residing” overseas points towards an international trade in semen straws.

New “antelope subspecies” are “discovered” and named – golden wildebeest are now in good company with golden gemsbok, copper springbok, black impala, king wildebeest and whatever else. Sable antelope are sold on auction and the price depends very much on the bloodline – with western Zambian sable stud bulls and breeding herds and so-called “masked sable resembling Giant Sable” sending prices sky-high. In many cases, animals are mixed and matched irrespective of origin, to achieve an ever increasing “trophy quality”.

If you ask why, some of the websites and articles provide quick answers: “Because the hunting market demands quality trophies” or “we want to restore animals to a trophy quality which has been lost because of indiscriminate hunting”. I beg the readers’ pardon, but haven’t we heard that already from the lion breeders as an apology for excesses in lion breeding and canned lion shooting?

If you look closely into the matter, we can probably say – especially in the case of buffalo – that the required genetics are still there and about in the wild spaces of Africa. You can read in Ronnie Rowland’s and Kai-Uwe Denker’s articles in this issue that the hunting harvest selected and selects often immature bulls due to inadequate trophy scoring methods. The solution is that professional hunters and clients alike embark on a paradigm shift towards selecting as far as possible post-prime bulls. Selective harvesting will eventually lead to restoring trophy quality. I assume furthermore that the vast majority of hunters who come to Africa are looking for a genuine hunt, which the diligent tracking and selection of old mature bulls will provide. Or would you rather shoot a 50 incher on a paddock? It would be interesting to have our readers express their opinion!

I am certainly not against controlled ex-situ and in-situ breeding of wild animals to eventually restore them into wild systems where they can again proliferate and be subject to sustainable harvesting. But can you imagine that buffalo, acquired at the cost of several million Rand each or their off-spring, will ever be released into an eco-system with lions present? The same applies to the mentioned antelope color phases.

Some South African game breeders are now using practically all methods of artificial manipulation, including artificial insemination, and embryo transfer, but also hormone treatments, specially formulated booster diets, etc. Some also source breeding material on the international market to achieve the desired objectives. These methods from domestic livestock production not only exponentially speed up the selection processes, but also fertility, growth rate, food conversion efficiency, even behavior. Therefore the danger is great that the hitherto largely uncontrolled activities may eventually lead to polluting or even losing wild local phenotypes or regionally significant wild strains. I am very much in favor of free market systems, but we are in dire need of compartmentalization and some sensible regulation. The purely agricultural livestock breeding models of animals which were formerly wild may have a place in providing food security for some African regions. Philippe Chardonnet, director of IGF and co-chair of the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group pointedly says “we must [adopt] different approaches for the different animal production systems (farming, ranching, enclosed and free ranging hunting systems) to encourage compartmentalization. Many countries have already such legal schemes in place. The problem for biodiversity integrity comes from the loose compartments between industries and from the proactive creation of freaks by some of the stakeholders for business only, [with a negative] impact on conservation when the genetically modified organisms escape, are released or spread into wild native populations.” The movement of wild animals between countries and natural distribution areas may also contravene IUCN guidelines on re-introductions and on invasive species and may even impact on Convention on Biological Diversity issues via National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans.

Fact is that one should not try to sell or mix concepts under the guise of conservation or hunting! In this context. Atle Mysterud’s paper comes to mind (see page 22 of this issue) – the Norwegian professor pointedly asks the question “[Are] we still walking on the wild side?” describing “Management actions as steps towards the semi-domestication of hunted ungulates”. You can download Mysterud’s paper at http://folk.uio.no/atlemy/pdf/2010/Mysterud_2010_JApplEcol_Still%20walking%20on%20the%20wild%20side.pdf and draw your own conclusions.

The game industry has done a lot of good for the South African conservation revolution – early pioneers such as the Meintjies brothers, the Bester brothers, Norman Dean and Peter Herbert, together with the old guard of safari outfitters, amongst them Coenraad Vermaak, Basie Maartens, Chappy Sparks, Mike Cawood, Garry Kelly and Robin Halse – were on the forefront and laid the foundation stones. Game ranching has many proven advantages – and these advantages are resting on economical, ecological and socio-cultural pillars. Just like the three-legged stool on which South African Conservation rest, the sensible interaction of these three pillars makes out the conservation revolution of South Africa. There is enough space for economic growth without having to resort to artificially manipulating the wild heritage of Southern Africa.

Peter Flack’s “The South African Conservation Success Story” gives you the full story and David Mabunda’s essay about “The Future of Wildlife and Conservation” makes it very clear that important choices have to be made for the future! Let us choose the right way!

I am looking forward to a lively debate.

Yours sincerely

Gerhard Damm

Editor & Publisher