Umbabaat/Ingwelala controversial lion hunt

[Richprins]

Ja!

[Lisbeth]

How do I know? Because I was a game rancher for 20 years.

That is not a proof, but an individual estimate based on one biased personal experience.

wild animals who, in all likelihood, would otherwise have ultimately died of starvation or drought as their numbers had grown beyond what the finite land could sustain.

We will never know, will we?

[okie]

See below from Mr Flack's letter :

I culled game for farmers and game ranchers in the Lowveld and Karoo and later on my own game ranch, Bankfontein, and shot hundreds of wild animals who, in all likelihood, would otherwise have ultimately died of starvation or drought as their numbers had grown beyond what the finite land could sustain....

I have seen over the last 50 years or so how literally thousands of people have bought or converted previously eroded and badly maintained domestic livestock and/or crop farms and, with much time, effort and money, turned them into model extensive commercial and life style game ranches ......,

Hmmmmm...... at first he shoots the animals otherwise they would have starved to death , and then suddenly 1000's of people changed those farms around into lifestyle game ranches .......


Did he wave a magic wand to change the climate or what ?

Just asking how did he do it , or did it just so happen

[Richprins]

The farm reaches capacity?

[Lisbeth]

A lion too far

BY DON PINNOCK - 17 JUNE 2018 - SUNDAY TIMES


ROAR PAIN It is feared that the lion killed by an American hunter last week was the dominant lion in a pride with cubs. The lion has been missing since the hunt and on Friday one of his cubs was found dead. Picture: Nadine Dreyer

The killing of a lion in the Greater Kruger National Park last week sparked outrage. The lion was shot by an American hunter on a reserve adjourning the park, even though Africa’s population of wild lions has plunged 90% in the past century.

Last week a lion was baited and then shot in Umbabat, a private reserve in the Greater Kruger National Park.

As an environmental journalist, my profession requires me to be objective, to give all sides of the story and let readers make the judgment call. But somehow that lion kill was a lion too far. I’m well aware that, on average, poachers down an elephant in Africa every 15 minutes. That South Africa is losing more than 1 000 rhinos a year. That millions of pangolins and shark fins are being turned into Chinese soup. That rain forests are being flattened to plant oil palms so we can fry our fish and chips.

But that lion just did it for me. It wasn’t just that a rich, egotistic American from Kentucky pumped a bullet into a beautiful wild creature. It was the cascade of justifications that led to its death and followed it to the taxidermist. The sort of justifications that always seem to cloak trophy hunting and the general exploitation of wild animals.

The lion was baited with the carcasses of a buffalo and elephant that had been killed on the same hunt.

Neighbours fear the lion was Skye, the dominant lion in a pride with cubs. Skye has reportedly been missing since the hunt and on Friday it was reported that one of his cubs had been found dead.

“There is a possibility you might be removing an animal that might be a pride male and then infanticide might take place, but the removal of a group of young cubs that is in the population is part of the calculation. You know there are risks,” Johan Eksteen of the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Authority told the London Times. Wow, really? Justifiable collateral damage?

I knew Kruger authorities had refused permission for the hunt to take place. But it’s the MTPA that would have issued the actual licence, so I asked Eksteen why they ignored Kruger.

He replied: “The KNP letter saying that they would not support a lion hunt was sent before Umbabat submitted
any predator population figures. We did get the information later in the month. Based on the information, the hunt of one lion was regarded as sustainable.”

Eksteen quoted section 24(b)(iii) of the Constitution: “Everyone has the right to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development [his emphasis].” Thank you, Johan; nice touch, quoting the Constitution.

Let ’s hold off “sustainable ” for a moment — I have a big problem with it, but we first need to deal with the bigger
issue. Umbabat is part of the Associated Private Nature Reserves , which consist of Timbavati, Klaserie, Umbabat
and Balule, in total an area of about 185 000 ha . Within them are among the finest wildlife lodges in the world,
many extremely expensive and exclusive. What few guests know — and would certainly not be told — is that
the reserves are hunting the animals the guests are paying considerable sums of money to see.

Each year hunting reserves within the APNR apply to Kruger to hunt animals, many of which migrate from the
national park as there are no fences between them. Each year, almost routinely, permission is granted with some
adjustments and suggestions. This permission is then ratified by the provincial authority, after which the hunting can begin.

Request denied

The reserves ritually refuse to make these quotas public; it could negatively affect their classy tourism profile. But Kruger is a state entity, so it’s possible to request the quota information through the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the park is obliged to supply it. That ’s what an animal rights group, the EMS Foundation, did. The list was startling.

This year the quota includes 53 elephants, up from 34 in 2017 — despite a decline in elephant numbers from 2 772 to 2 224 between 2015 and 2017. It includes a bull older than 50. For Umbabat it had no upper tusk limit, so could potentially be a 100lb (45kg) tusker, which many argue should never be hunted.

It also includes 36 buffaloes (despite a 68% drop in numbers to 2 327 in 2017), 44 kudus, 19 warthogs, seven hippos, a lion, a leopard, eight hyenas, five giraffes and 4 171 impalas — 4 467 animals in all. In the world renowned Sabi Sands private game reserve, which also borders Kruger, no hunting whatsoever is allowed.

The request to hunt a lion and leopard had been expressly denied by Kruger. It had gone further, noting a lack of auditing: “[We] cannot comment on the revenue income or expenditure reports received from Umbabat, since it is not clear from the report how the entities within Umbabat as a federal system manage and monitor income generated as a result of the animal off-takes.

“It is also not clear towards which conservation, management and socioeconomic activities the revenue generated is being directed. It is the mandate of MTPA as issuing authority to verify that management takes place.”

Last year Kruger authorities said Umbabat’s future hunts would only be approved “if appropriate agreements embodying these principles are in place”. This year it listed 11 problems in the reserve’s administration of hunting, some so serious it would have been reasonable to expect the application to be rejected in its entirety. But the hunt went ahead anyway.

When the APNR dropped their fences with Kruger in the 1990s, they secured the legal right to hunt wild animals within their boundaries, even if these trotted over from the main park. Several of the reserves have abattoirs on their properties. Timbavati, evidently, has a hunters’ museum so you can get a feel of what you’re about to shoot .

Tourist lodges in the APNR deny they benefit from hunting, although they generally have impala and warthog on their menu. The benefit they do gain is the funding of conservation and anti-poaching operations organised by landowners (lodges are mostly tenants). And this involves hunting.

Herein lies another conundrum. As poaching escalates, so does the cost of environmental protection and particularly anti-poaching operations. The APNR quite reasonably point out that they need to raise funds for this and that hunting is the easiest way to do it. The hunter of the Umbabat lion is said to have paid over R1-million to pull the trigger. The other income is from gate fees.

Owners may also pay a levy, but nobody seems prepared to say how much. It is probable that they pay as little as possible, preferring to support hunting as the cash cow. Why not, if it’s legal?

All of this is predicated on the notion of sustainability. Let me be frank here and say I think the way both hunters and very often conservationists use that term is hogwash. The always unasked question is: sustainable for who? It is unlikely that a lion, seeing its mate shot, would deem that sustainable. Nor an elephant, rhino, hippo or kudu.

Sustainability is a neoliberal way of saying we shouldn’t kill more than the reproductive rate of our victims. Is that any way to qualify as good citizens on this planet? But hey, it’s all perfectly legal. It’s embedded in our world-class Constitution.

I don’t know how to stop people who want to kill beautiful wild animals, or poachers from poaching, people wanting rhino horn or ivory; the APNR paying for protection without hunting, Kruger feeling OK about neighbours killing its animals without paying the park a cent for the right.

But I do know that at the root of all of this are people who profit handsomely, large amounts of money changing hands and a system shot through with corruption. It makes me ashamed to be human.

National heritage

We are so damned reasonable about why we kill this planet creature by creature, biome by biome. We are such sophisticated apes, so clever with our tongues. We make laws, frame agreements and sign off on licences by which we tell ourselves this is the right and legal thing to do. It’s all well-documented cover for a war we’re conducting on all those creatures on earth that we do not eat or keep as pets. We are essentially stealing land and life from species that have accompanied our journey for millions of years. Most people don’t seem to be aware of this — or to care.

Lions are one of Africa’s greatest natural heritages. It’s a point made by environmentalist Michele Pickover:
“Kruger Park cannot simply hand over our natural heritage to private entities and individuals motivated by profit. If cultural heritage was handled in the same way, it could mean that our national heritage institutions would be able to sell off items such as the records of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Taung skull or Sol Plaatje ’s diary to private collectors to do with what they want. In principle, there’s no difference.”

Africa ’s population of wild lions has fallen 90% in the past century. There are now only about 20 000 left. Would the US or China approve if hunters from South Africa shot their bald eagles or pandas? Don’t think so.

See full article: https://webmail7.konsoleh.co.za/?_task= ... &_extwin=1

[Lisbeth]

Each year hunting reserves within the APNR apply to Kruger to hunt animals, many of which migrate from the
national park as there are no fences between them. Each year, almost routinely, permission is granted with some
adjustments and suggestions. This permission is then ratified by the provincial authority, after which the hunting can begin.

I was not aware of this, not to talk about the numbers

[Flutterby]

[Richprins]

As an environmental journalist, my profession requires me to be objective, to give all sides of the story and let readers make the judgment call.

When they begin with a justification you know it's going to be full of conjecture...

[Lisbeth]

It is not at all full of conjectures, not this one, but it is without doubt biased

[Lisbeth]

Why use bullets instead of cameras?


Posted on June 13, 2018 by Dave Forbes

Controversy continues to escalate over last week’s hunt of a lion in a private game reserve (PNR) adjacent to Kruger National Park by a rich American hunter.


Skye (above) has not been seen since 8 June. Is he alive? Pic: Nadine Dreyer

On the one hand, respected environmental journalist Don Pinnock last week alerted the public to the hunt in the Associated PNR of Umbabat, which has drawn a vitriolic media response from local hunter Peter Flack.

Emotions are running high on social media such as facebook, where the hunting versus conservation adherents are at war. Letters are written to the editor, journalists scurry all over Mpumalanga, Limpopo and Gauteng, conservation NGOs are outraged, lawyers’ letters are written, press releases put out, and the media storm continues unabated.

Hunt details are deliberately vague and scarce: a male lion was hunted on 7 June 2018 in the Umbabat, somewhere on a conglomerate of private properties known as Group 13 which is accessible only to their landowners and the Warden or ranger and anti-poaching patrols.

Group 13 consists of properties named as Luttig Trust (2), Willson, Joubert, Nyoka, Tloupane, De Villiers, Buchner, and Nyarhi. No further details of these secretive properties or their owners is known at this stage.

The lion was baited, says the warden. It was then shot by a rich businessman from Kentucky, USA, (name known) for an conservative amount in excess of R1-million, according to press reports. The hunt was facilitated by a hunting outfit based in Nelspruit (name also known). Although the hunt was billed as an “open range, fair chase, ethical, sustainable” hunt, the fact that the lion was baited suggests otherwise.

The lion, whose identity has not yet been established, is believed by some who visit the area regularly to be nicknamed Skye, the dominant male of a lion pride in the area, that often ranges into Kruger National Park. More about this later.

There is some debate around whether Skye’s pride, known locally as the Western Pride, is a Kruger-based pride or a PNR pride. It may also be mixed. Many people are naturally outraged that one of South Africa’s natural resources and major tourist attractions is being commercially exploited by trophy hunters.

Further, if Skye was the hunted lion, the cubs and young males he sired will be killed by a new lion that takes over the pride, disrupting the pride’s social structure, so the consequences of the hunt may be much worse than expected.


A cub believed to be from the Western Pride, which may now be at risk of being killed by another lion. Pic: David Forbes

People are also upset that some PNRs adjoining Kruger allow trophy hunting. Others do not, such as Ingwelala. The UNESCO-declared KNP-to-Canyons Biosphere on which many of these PNRs are situated is a global and national heritage site. When the fences are down, animals can belong one moment to KNP and then, by crossing an invisible line where the fences used to be, suddenly be privately owned.

Conservationists are rightly saying that hunting should not be allowed in PNRs that are buffer zones to KNP where fences are down, as the identity and ownership of animals hunted in these PNRs cannot be established.

The pro-against hunting debate is reaching a new peak, with respected conservationists like Ian Michler being branded as “not caring about conservation”, and of trying to make everyone a vegan. The conservationists, on the other hand, have demanded a review of hunting licence practices by the authorities, specific information regarding this particular hunt, and have engaged lawyers to fight for the rights of wild animals.

With good reason.

Lion populations have decreased in Africa by 90% in the last 100 years, with only around 20 000 left. First it was rhino poaching (SA loses more than 1000 a year), then lion bones to replace dwindling supplies of tiger bones for trade in the Far East, and now elephants are being poached increasingly regularly.

A Chatham House report says illegal wildlife trade is rising at an “alarming rate”, and has more than doubled in the last decade, with the crime threatening the stability and security of societies and economic life at every point along the chain.

The illegal wildlife trade is the fourth largest globally after narcotics, counterfeiting, and human trafficking, and impacts far beyond the “mere” killing of wild animals.

Poaching of endangered species is estimated to be worth more than US$8-10-billion a year (excluding fisheries and timber). The wider category of the illegal wildlife trade (such as birds, reptiles and other animals such as pangolin) is estimated at a staggering US$19-billion per year.

The legal wildlife trade is estimated at a further US$300-billion a year, with annual hunting revenues in sub-Saharan Africa estimated at around US$200-million.

Both legal and illegal trade devastates biodiversity, fuels civil conflict, threatens national stability and provokes economic losses worldwide. Indirect costs are not known.

Returning to the hunt, following Pinnock’s article, Umbabat put out a media statement purporting to “put the record straight”, claiming its own members manage the 18 000ha, “according to good conservation practices as outlined and agreed upon by all the reserves and relevant provincial authorities, such as the MTPA (Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency).”


A mother and three cubs, believed to be from the Western Pride. Pic: David Forbes

None of these documents or policies are in the public domain, to my knowledge. Neither are the Management Plan or the minutes or policies of the Management Authority of the UPNR, which also claims that 65% of their budget goes to anti-poaching, which protects wildlife (but also their hunters and their potential prey).

UPNR claims 30% of its income from hunting, and “none of the funds from hunting goes to any individual. There is no personal gain from hunting for UPNR members.” Why then do the landowners support hunting if there is nothing in it for them?

With regard to the laws governing hunting, the Greater Kruger Hunting Protocol cannot be found during a quick search of the internet. Is it public? The UPNR claims that before a hunting permit is issued, “a rigorous process of assessment and adjudication takes place. Animals are counted, studies are compiled, experts are consulted, reserve management practices are scrutinised and assessed, needs are considered whether appropriate, and only thereafter, will the authorities consider issuing a permit to hunt” (sic). The questions of who compiles the studies, who the experts are, who monitors the management practices (UNPR has not been monitored for the past year by KNP) who assesses and scrutinises practices etc are not explained. No doubt hunters themselves are judge and jury.

The UNPR then accuses someone of a “leak” of a “premature document to bring discord” and to allege the UNPR was engaged in illegal hunting. They also dismiss the “luring” of a lion from KNP (although they make no mention of the baiting that occurred). While the UPNR claims the hunted lion was not Skye, they have not to date provided any evidence (photographic, examination of the skin for comparison to known photographs etc) to back up their claim. And Skye and his pride have not been seen since 8 June.

A meeting between the UPNR and Theo van Wyk, the chair of the Nkorho Reserves (a sub-reserve), adjudicated by confirming that “legal and other requirements regarding the hunting protocol was adhered to, including principles and ethics”. Nkorho also “reviewed” the photographic evidence, and concluded that the hunted lion was not the same” (as Skye).

Well then, nothing to worry about. Just a storm in a teacup.

Except that none of this “evidence”, nor the documentation requested, has been provided. I doubt it will be, unless public pressure is brought to bear on them.

The root problem appears to be the well-trodden myth that blood-lusting hunters always resort to: hunting pays for conservation and is sustainable. Evidence shows that hunting pays very little to conservation. There are also never any financial documents provided to sustain their argument. If they opened their books and the hunting fraternity was less secretive (do they have something to hide?) then perhaps we could have an even-handed debate about it.

The business model of African Parks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Parks) does not include hunting and they successfully manage 15 protected areas in nine countries in Africa, and employ more than 1000 rangers, using a budget of approximately USD35-million in 2016. It is headquartered in Johannesburg, and Prince Harry is president. That sounds much more sustainable than hunting for trophies.



Another example is this table posted on facebook (sorry, no source given) which outlines a possible scenario of how photographic safaris could outweigh hunting safaris in terms of income and sustainability. But do the landowners want to spend the cash setting up a tourist operation for longer term benefits and income? Or is the hunting myth just a smokescreen for blood lust? Boys with guns? Danger? Comraderie? Male drinking sessions around the braai or in the boma? A hangover from war? The insufferable, eternal arrogance of Americans and Europeans? Another manifestation of the racist, patriarchal, archaic inheritance from apartheid days?

The jury is out. For me, I have made my decision.

Morality and personal ethics demands that I work to help save the planet from wanton human destruction. Animals don’t have guns. They can’t shoot back. They have a limited habitat, they can’t run away. They have no money. They can’t hire security.

The animals have no voices except ours. We must use them. Let us not allow silence, or worse, indifference, to destroy our country’s future income, prosperity. We must keep one of Africa’s few wildlife wonders alive and thriving.

If we don’t, our children will see the extinction of species and the destruction of our heritage. Would any hunter really want that?