Download - African Indaba Vol 13 Issue 2

African Indaba e-Newsletter Volume 13, Number 2

For hunter-conservationists and all people who are interested in the conservation,

management and sustainable use of Africa’s wild natural resources. African Indaba is the official CIC Newsletter on African affairs, with editorial independence. For more information about the

International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation CIC go to www.cic-wildlife.org

Volume 13, Issue No 2 African Indaba eNewsletter April 2015

Guest Editorial: Wildlife Crime In Africa: What Can Hunters Do? Dr. John Hanks Editor’s Note: Dr. John Hanks is a zoologist with a degree from Magdalene College, Cambridge, and a PhD on the reproductive physiology, growth, and population dynamics of the African elephant. He has over 45 years of experience in a wide variety of applied conservation management and research projects and worked in Angola, Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Major postings: Natal Parks Board CPO; Head of the Department of Biological Sciences and Director of the Institute of Natural Resources at the University of Natal; Director of the WWF- International Africa Program; CEO of WWF-South Africa; Executive Director of Peace Parks Foundation; Director of Conservation International’s TFCA Initiatives and Wilderness Program in Southern Africa. More recently he worked on management plans for protected areas, and in environmental education as Chairman of the Lapalala Wilderness School and Senior Fellow of GreenMatter. John published over 150 scientific papers.

If anyone had even suggested in 1965 when

I first started working in Africa in Zambia’s Kafue National Park that terrorist organizations would one day be driving, encouraging and benefiting from the killing of elephants and rhinos I would have dismissed them as living in the world of pulp fiction. Yet the reality is that the militias of North Sudan, complicit in Khartoum’s genocidal campaign in Darfur, have for decades been financed by ivory proceeds. By 2013 Islamic extremists were increasingly turning to the illegal wildlife trade to bankroll their operations, and there is now firm evidence that ivory and rhino horn account for a

African Indaba Volume 13 Issue 2 Contents

Guest Editorial: Wildlife Crime In Africa: What Can Hunters Do?...............................................................1 African Elephant Summit – Kasane, Botswana………….4 2014 Elephant Poaching Rates Virtually Unchanged…6 Community-Led Solutions: A Key Force In Tackling Wildlife Crime………………………………………………………….7 Africa: Can Indigenous And Wildlife Conservationists Work Together?.........................................................8 Kidnapped In Mozambique: In The Clutches Of Rhino Poachers………………………………………………………………….9 Botswana Hunting Ban Causes Job Losses In 2014….10 US Authorities Approve Import Of Namibian Black Rhino Trophies ………….………………………………………….10 New Paper: Identification Of Policies For A Sustainable Legal Trade In Rhinoceros Horn Based On Population Projection And Socioeconomic Models..11 News From And About Africa…………………………………12 The Debate On Hunting And Game Breeding in South Africa…………………………………………………………………….15 SAHGCA Calls For Regulation Of Intensive Commercial Game Breeding Practices……………………………………….16 PHASA Position Paper On Intensive Breeding And The Breeding Of Color Variants In The Wildlife Industry.17 South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) on Color Morphs………………………………………………………………….19 Response From Wildlife Ranching SA President Dr Peter Oberem to SA Hunters………………………………….20 Eulogy Of Opportunities Missed…………………………….22 Honor And Respect………………………………………………..24 AMOS Association of Mozambique Hunting Safari Operators………………………………………………………………25

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/





significant share of the budget of the Al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda affiliate that carried out the attacks in Nairobi’s Westgate Mall, and much more recent appalling slaughter of 148 people at Kenya’s Garissa University. In fact, some 40 per cent of al-Shabaab’s revenue comes from illicit ivory sales, a growing part of the global illegal wildlife trade that is worth a staggering $23 billion a year1.

The link between the threat of terrorism and the fate of endangered species can no longer be ignored – the cost of allowing poachers free rein to traffic in what we can call ‘blood rhino horn’ and ‘blood ivory’ is far too high. But not all of this highly organized criminal network and illegal wildlife trade is linked to terrorism, and elsewhere the trade in animals (and plants) is just one more resource that can be obtained all too easily in Africa and sold on for massive profits.

Of equal concern is that although the continent’s National Parks, Game Reserves and Game Management Areas should be at the forefront in efforts to guarantee the long-term security of species and landscapes, their ability to do so is being seriously compromised by a major shortfall in financial support for virtually all of those designated and listed by IUCN. This highly unsatisfactory situation is compounded by inadequate law enforcement linked to widespread corruption, a lack of a political commitment to biodiversity conservation2, and the continued alienation of adjacent rural communities by punitive measures to protect wildlife, which in too many cases make little or no attempt to help these people develop alternative sustainable livelihoods3.

Furthermore, far too many of these designated conservation areas are becoming isolated from one another through an unprecedented rate of deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, agricultural expansion and urbanization, condemning to extinction thousands of species far less charismatic than rhino and elephants, and impacting directly and indirectly on the security of the protected areas.

How can hunters respond to these threats to the security of designated GMAs and the species that live there and elsewhere on the continent? In short, there is no single solution, but there are a number of options that can and should be more actively pursued to reduce wildlife crime.

Increased field protection of valuable species must be top of the list, with every effort being made to ensure the survival of as many individuals as possible in those areas that are most likely to be successful. Unfortunately the GMAs and private land-owners get little or no assistance from the plethora of NGOs funding anti-poaching programs, in spite of 25% of South Africa’s rhinos alone being on private land, areas which today hold more rhinos than the combined population in the rest of Africa. Even the Kruger National Park, which receives over a million visitors each year, cannot manage to stop wildlife crimes in spite of massive external aid from many NGOs, and the $24 million from US philanthropist Howard Buffett for protecting rhinos, with further assistance from 180 military personnel deployed in the park.

The Professional Hunters Association of South Africa is already donating generously to a variety of anti-poaching activities, including helping with the training of over 900 conservation staff from other African countries at the Southern African Wildlife College with a significant emphasis on anti-poaching. Enhanced field security means more, better-trained, better-motivated and led and better-equipped staff, and there is no doubt that the presence of professional hunting teams in GMAs is providing this much-needed expertise with their visible presence during the hunting season being a significant deterrent to poaching, which should ideally be continued during the off-season, and welcomed by the countries that still have viable GMAs.

The professional hunting associations all over Africa, as well as the amateur hunting associations in Southern Africa and their international counterparts around the globe could also help with the funding, training, equipping and mentoring of independent rapid deployment teams with trackers and dogs which should be on-call in high-risk areas for wildlife crimes. The capacity of most






state organizations to respond effectively and timeously is regrettably declining, and an independent initiative of this nature has the potential to be a significant deterrent. Hunters provide already the “Boots on the Ground” in most, if not all African countries with hunting tourism programs.

Identify and prosecute the middle-men - the “drivers” of wildlife crime: The criminal enterprises involved in the illegal wildlife trade are far better organized today than they were when rhino poaching started to increase significantly in South Africa in 2011. International NGOs and their donors need to understand that apprehending poachers in the field will not stop rhino poaching unless there is a simultaneous effort to strike at, disrupt and eventually destroy the central nervous system of the criminal networks that supply the weapons and ammunition, bribe the police, customs officials and wildlife authorities, and then transport and sell rhino horns to end-users. Conventional approaches to intelligence gathering are likely to fail when corrupt government officials learn that their complicity will be exposed. Options for unconventional methods of disrupting the criminal networks, which avoid government departments and their parastatals, need to be developed and implemented. With the extent of corruption in the majority of countries that still have rhino populations, there is no alternative.

Unfortunately, corruption has become an entrenched way of life for many of the political elite on the continent, and increasingly in other sectors of society. This scourge ranges from high-level graft at ministerial level involving millions of dollars to low-level bribes to customs officials and members of the police. While political graft imposes the largest direct financial cost on a country, widespread smaller bribes have had a corrosive effect on basic institutions and undermine public trust in the government. The sobering reality is that, according to Transparency International, a leading global watchdog on corruption, of the 10 countries considered most corrupt in the world, six are in sub-Saharan Africa and in countries where wildlife crime is well-established.

Tackling corruption on such a massive scale is obviously way beyond the remit or capacity of any single hunting organization, and even calling attention to corruption would also certainly be a threat to their ability to continue working in the country concerned. However, many hunters have well-established networks of contacts, and through these information is and can be obtained on individuals involved in criminal activities, although what to do with this information has always been a concern.

A recent potentially encouraging development has been the launch in February 2014 of WildLeaks, a sort of WikiLeaks for the environment, the first secure, online whistleblowing platform dedicated to wildlife and forest crime (see https://wildleaks.org/). Founded by Andrea Costa, a former security consultant and long-time conservationist, it received its first tip within 24 hours, and has attracted a great deal of interest and support. ”We got, for example, a very interesting leak on a very powerful individual in Kenya, linked to the government, who is behind the ivory trade“, said Costa, “unlike others operating in the field, we are not after small-time poachers or traffickers, but the people above them, including corrupt government officials“. With the terrorism links I mentioned earlier, hunters and counter-terrorism officials must start working together to tackle this growing threat, and the sooner the better.

Give active support for a legal trade in rhino horn: Although the rhino is just one species of the growing list of plants and animals that are killed or gathered for highly profitable illegal sales, it surely must be recognized and accepted that in spite of the massive effort that has gone into closing down the trade and discouraging rhino horn use, these efforts have failed and there is no reason to believe that this will change in short-term. No matter what punitive of prohibitive measures we introduce, rhinos and many other wildlife species will continue to dwindle unless we have a fundamental rethink on the way forward. I am firmly convinced that a legal trade in rhino horn deserves serious consideration as a new approach. South Africa can and should present a very strong


https://wildleaks.org/





case to CITES for a legal trade that will benefit agencies responsible for protected areas, the private land-owners with rhinos and the communities living adjacent to areas with rhinos, but can expect serious opposition from animal rights bodies and NGOs who have a plethora of (emotional) opinions but no accountable responsibility for wildlife management.

Keeping a species on CITES Appendix 1 in the belief that it will guarantee its long-term survival ignores the realities of African conditions, allowing the criminals to continue to profit from and control the market until no more rhinos are left. In contrast a controlled legal trade should have a significant impact on helping to increase rhino numbers, an approach strongly advocated by the late Ian Player, who has done more than any other individual to ensure rhinos have a realistic and sustainable future in Africa4. Much will depend on how the legal trade would be established, and it would have to be accompanied by enhanced field security, a much bigger commitment to working with and bringing sustainable benefits to communities living adjacent to areas with valuable wildlife species, improved law enforcement, prosecutions and gathering of forensic evidence, and the identification and prosecution of the “drivers” of the illegal trade.

In this short editorial I can do no more than touch on some of the options open for professional hunter involvement. For more details and a comprehensive bibliography, please see Hanks, J. (2015). Operation Lock and the war on rhino poaching. Cape Town: Zebra Press. Endnotes: 1Vira, V., Ewing, T. & Miller, J. (2014). Out of Africa. Mapping the Global Trade in Illicit Elephant Ivory.

Washington D.C.: Born Free & C4ADS. 2 Watson, J.E.M., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B. & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected

areas. Nature 515: 67–73. 3 IUCN (2015) Community-led solutions: a key force in tackling wildlife crime.

http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/all_news_by_theme/species_news/?18968/Community-led-solutions-key-force-in-tackling-wildlife-crime 4 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=636523493097586&story_fbid=763542550395679

African Elephant Summit – Kasane, Botswana Dr. Ali Kaka Editor’s Note: Dr. Ali Kaka attended the 23rd March African Elephant Summit in Kasane, Botswana as official representative of the CIC International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation. The CIC was the only invited hunting organization. The Summit was followed by a closed meeting of Ministers and a couple of Presidents on “International Wildlife Trade”.

The African Elephant Summit – a follow up of the first Elephant Summit in 2013 in Gaborone, Botswana to discuss the emerging “Elephant Crisis”, co-hosted by IUCN – was organized in March by the Government of Botswana with financial support from a few donors. This meeting was attended government delegates up to the level of permanent secretaries (except for Angola whose Minister attended) and by NGO and IGO representatives.

The objectives of the Summit was to review updated data on the status of the elephant in all range states, actions taken and their results since the 2013 meeting along the lines of the 15 “urgent measures” agreed to by several countries (not all) at that meeting.

Each participating country presented an update on the status of their elephants ranging from population figures, poaching figures, ivory seizures, prosecution cases and new initiatives


http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/all_news_by_theme/species_news/?18968/Community-led-solutions-key-force-in-tackling-wildlife-crime

http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/all_news_by_theme/species_news/?18968/Community-led-solutions-key-force-in-tackling-wildlife-crime

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=636523493097586&story_fbid=763542550395679





taking place. Against the trend went the reports from two countries. Botswana reported an overall elephant population increase with low poaching, if any, but with human-wildlife conflict on the rise. The country’s position on ivory trade is confusing. One the one hand Botswana vehemently opposes any trade and closed legal elephant trophy hunting; on the other hand, they object to ivory destruction. Namibia reported increasing elephant populations and elephant poaching as practically non-existent. Revenues accrued by both Namibian Government and communities from sustainable use are also improving. The Namibian report in particular back goes against “the grain” of most other reports and in all respects!

Presentations were also made by CITES, MIKE/TRAFFIC and IUCN/AESG. The IUCN presentation focused on the African elephant database data created just over a year ago, which is storing all elephants census data and is updated annually. It was evident that data has been slow in coming in and there are still many inaccuracies in the submissions. Most countries showed overall small increases in comparison to natural population dynamics, with declines in specific locations but not nationally. There are still gaps in some main range states like Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Zambia. The continent-wide elephant census is not completed yet (said to be well under way”) and no figures were released.

The MIKE/ETIS presentation focused on recorded figures of illegally killed elephants and reported poaching trends. In summation, the popular phrase used for number of illegally killed elephants so far into 2015 was “same status as 2014. CITES and TRAFFIC reported on recorded seizures, which have been on the increase. Theories on the higher seizures cited considerable improvement in customs and intelligence surveillance, but also that there is more ivory being transported from past poaching and that cartels in the Far East are hoarding huge quantities for speculation. There is also talk about ivory stocks in Government hands being leaked out. Botswana was especially vocal about corruption and poor security of stocks in other countries.

Generally, there appears to be a plateauing in the trends in poaching and killings reported during the latter part of 2014 and into 2015, but poaching levels still remain in some countries above acceptable recruitment level, i.e. populations seem to be in decline; recovery will now take a new generation for stabilization. Information on forest elephants (Gabon) is very still very poor and no conclusions can be drawn on their accurate status. Some countries seem to be preferred transit routes for ivory poached elsewhere.

At the insistence of Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa the “Final Statement of the Kasane Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade” included a section on Sustainable Livelihoods and Economic Development, where the signatories acknowledged that the illegal wildlife trade reduces current and future revenue from economic activities such as wildlife‐based tourism and sustainable utilization and that sustainable livelihoods are most likely to be secured with the engagement of relevant community groups and the appropriate retention of benefits from wildlife for local people. The representatives of Governments and Regional Economic Integration Organizations gathered in Kasane on 25 March 2015, committed to “promote the retention of benefits from wildlife resources by local people where they have traditional and/or legal rights over these resources and that they will strengthen policy and legislative frameworks needed to achieve this, reinforce the voice of local people as key stakeholders and implement measures which balance the need to tackle the illegal wildlife trade with the needs of communities, including the sustainable use of wildlife”.

Future follow-up conferences are planned for Congo-Brazzaville (May 2015), Vietnam (2016), Botswana (2017) to update on progress. Parallel to these are also the schedules wildlife crime meetings of ICCF, CITES and UN.






It is really difficult to ascertain if these expensive Conferences have resulted on the comparative changes in the levels of poaching and trade. While most countries strive to now show the crisis is “under control” some say the opposite. What is certain however is that the demand is by no means declining and neither is the price for the commodity. A rather interesting comment by a senior member of the Chinese delegation was a side query to the range state members on whether there is any interest in selling other parts of the dead elephant to the Chinese market, e.g. the trunk and reproductive organs, namely the penis! This was apparently not meant as a joke and was said in the sitting session of all the Technical Heads chaired by the Wildlife Minister of Botswana. No one knew how to respond!

Countries are firmly divided on what to do with the ivory in store and more to be collected in the future. There are those few – including the World Bank – who are asking for a sober debate on regulated ivory trade and then others who blindly want to see no ivory at all in the World!

2014 Elephant Poaching Rates Virtually Unchanged CITES Press Release (edited for space reasons)

According to the CITES program for Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE), overall

elephant poaching rates at monitored sites remained virtually unchanged in 2014 compared to the previous year. Poaching rates still exceed natural elephant population growth [rates].

The latest figures presented at the African Elephant Summit in Kasane show no increase in the overall poaching trends in 2014, with levels dropping and then levelling off since the peak in 2011. However, with overall killing rates exceeding natural birth rates, poaching trends remain far too high.

"African elephant populations continue to face an immediate threat to their survival from high-levels of poaching for their ivory, especially in Central and West Africa where the situation appears to have deteriorated. We are however also seeing some encouraging signals in parts of East Africa where the overall poaching trends have declined, which shows us all what is possible through a sustained and collective effort” said John E. Scanlon, CITES Secretary-General.

CITES has identified 22 countries that are most heavily implicated in the illegal trade in ivory. These are categorized as countries of ‘primary concern’ (8 Parties), ‘secondary concern’ (8 Parties) and ‘importance to watch’ (6 Parties). 19 of these 22 countries were requested by the CITES Standing Committee to develop and implement National Ivory Action Plans (NIAPs). Each plan outlines the urgent measures that a CITES

Elephant poaching trends in Africa with 95 % confidence intervals. Poaching levels (PIKE) above the horizontal line at 0.5 (i.e. where half of dead elephants found are deemed to have been illegally killed) are likely to be unsustainable. The number of carcasses on which the chart is based is shown at the bottom of the figure.)


http://cites.org/eng/mike_figures2014





Party commits to deliver – including legislative, enforcement and public awareness actions as required – along with specified time frames and milestones for implementation.

The CITES Standing Committee has recommended that all Parties suspend commercial trade in CITES-listed species with DR Congo, Lao PDR and Nigeria, as these countries have not submitted their National Ivory Action Plans (NIAPs) to the CITES Secretariat by the deadline specified by the Standing Committee. For more information and the unabridged article, contact Juan Carlos Vasquez at +41 22 917 8156 or [email protected].

Community-Led Solutions: A Key Force In Tackling Wildlife Crime IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group Press Release (edited for space)

As a result of the symposium Beyond enforcement: Communities, governance, incentives

and sustainable use in combating wildlife crime a group of more than 70 researchers, community representatives, government officials from Austria, Botswana, Germany, Namibia, Tanzania, the UK and US, UN agencies and NGOs from 5 continents issued recommendations on engaging communities to combat illegal wildlife trade (IWT) and protect key species. The recommendations were presented at the Kasane Summit and will be taken to CITES and CBD.

“Community-led approaches to combating wildlife crime are often overlooked in the international conversation on how to end wildlife crime,” said Dr Rosie Cooney, Chair, IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group. “The outcomes from the symposium show that many of these approaches hold the key to truly finding a solution to this illicit trade.”

Case studies of frontline experiences across Africa, Latin America and Asia from communities were shared, as well as innovative research on a diverse range of subjects from the economics of the illegal wildlife trade, to using criminology theory to understand what drivers trigger wildlife crime.

“Engagement of communities is crucial for success in reducing poaching and illegal wildlife trade,” said Nick Ahlers of TRAFFIC. “We are right now in the grip of a poaching crisis, with many countries currently in the process of implementing their National Ivory Action Plans, so the symposium recommendations are incredibly timely and relevant.”

The illegal wildlife trade is becoming ever more pervasive and increasingly impacting human livelihoods and species conservation. The international responses to date have largely focused on strengthening law enforcement efforts and reducing consumer demand. Much more emphasis must now be placed on the role of indigenous and local communities, and this needs to be included as an important issue in the wider discussions around sustainable development.

Wildlife can be an important asset for rural communities, providing a foundation for investment and economic development. “People should be able to profit from activities such as wildlife tourism and sustainable use while protecting species targeted by illegal trade” said Dr Dilys Roe, from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

Crucial learning’s from the symposium for creating an inclusive approach will be shared with other sectors outside the conservation world that could benefit from successful community approaches to tackling poaching. The following recommendations are made to governments, international organizations, NGOs, overseas development agencies, donors, and multilateral policy processes, when developing and implementing approaches to address IWT.


mailto:[email protected]





Support community rights and responsibilities through (i) recognizing that IWT is a development as well as a conservation issue; (ii) recognizing the central role of the communities that live close to wildlife in addressing and combating IWT; (iii) seeking to understand, respect and respond to community rights, needs and priorities in designing initiatives to combat IWT; (iv) recognizing the distinction between IWT and legitimate, sustainable use and trade of wild resources; (v) ensuring enforcement efforts are sensitive to potential negative impacts on local communities and are accompanied by appropriate accountability mechanisms; (vi) recognizing, supporting and providing an enabling environment for communities to be involved in wildlife governance and derive benefits from its conservation and sustainable use.

Strengthen community voices through (i) supporting a mechanism for communities affected by IWT to learn from each other and to have their voices heard in national and international policy fora; and (ii) strengthening their ability to be involved in decision-making surrounding action to combat IWT, including use and management of wildlife, and to derive benefits from conserving wildlife.

Strengthen partnerships through (i) encouraging the development of partnerships between communities, conservation NGOs and law enforcement agencies in tackling IWT; and (ii) recognizing the role of the private sector in generating the benefits from wildlife that support community engagement in conservation.

Strengthen the evidence base through (i) building knowledge and understanding about the motivations for, drivers of, dynamics of, and responses to, IWT.

Africa: Can Indigenous And Wildlife Conservationists Work Together? An edited version of Lyndal Rowlands’ article in AllAfrica

Indigenous and wildlife conservationists have common goals and common adversaries, but seem to be struggling to find common ground in their fight. The forest lifestyle of the Baka people of Cameroon helps provide improved habitats for wild animals. When the Baka clear a patch for a camp, the clearing later turns into secondary forest that gorillas prefer, Survival International said. Baka have "sophisticated codes of conservation" and have lived sustainably for generations following the ancestor's path. But pressures are coming from many angles especially resource exploitation like logging, mining, and poaching. These activities destroy habitats and bring thousands of workers to the forest who themselves hunt, eat and trade wild animals. Poachers, backed by international crime syndicates are employing increasingly sophisticated techniques.

"When wildlife trafficking and bush meat trade results in the decline in wildlife populations, the very first people to suffer are indigenous people who need those wildlife populations to survive," said James Deutsch of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). According to him, conservationists and indigenous people have common adversaries in organized crime syndicates and extractives industry.

Survival International is concerned that although conservationists have in recent years expressed a greater commitment to working with indigenous communities, this is not always reflected on the ground. "What these anti-poaching squads are doing, and by extension the conservation agencies that fund them, is really just focusing on the least powerful people, who are just hunting to feed their families," said a spokesperson for Survival International and added that "Often the poaching squads that enforce wildlife law are corrupt or they don't respect the human


http://allafrica.com/stories/201503051303.html

http://www.survivalinternational.org/

http://www.wcs.org/

http://www.survivalinternational.org/





rights of tribal people. The Baka have told us that even when they are hunting in their special zones, using techniques which are recognized as traditional and legal, and hunting just for food, sometimes their meat is confiscated, and they are being harassed by anti-poaching squads. The criteria that the Baka people need to meet in order to hunt legally are very strict and unrealistic, so often they are considered poachers, when they aren't.”

WWF commented that "On the ground, advancing the status and rights of tribal communities while also protecting the resources vital to them and the global community is extraordinarily difficult ... WWF agrees that models such as Community Based Natural Resource Management over many years have ensured that many parks have people. WWF is open to a collaborative approach and is standing by commitments to assist a Cameroon National Human Rights and Freedom Commission investigation of alleged human rights abuses by Ecoguards and military. WWF is reviewing field experience and activities in support of the Baka and forest protection in Cameroon."

Deutsch also echoed WWF's call for a collaborative approach, saying that a deeper partnership between the human rights community and the conservation community is needed to address complex conservation challenges. He reacted to Survival International statement that WCS funds similar anti-poaching squads in the Republic of Congo. "The conservation community has to be committed to partnering with indigenous people, because that's the only way that we're both going to find a future for wildlife, but also do it in such a way that human rights are respected and traditional societies are respected," Deutsch said.

Nik Sekhran, of the UNDP Sustainable Development Cluster, said, "For many communities and for indigenous people around the world, sustainable use of wildlife and sustainable use of flora for medicines for food ... is really critical to their survival."

The financial benefits of wildlife tourism are often cited as an important reason to support wildlife conservation in developing countries. However, tourism income does not always trickle down to the poorest communities in developing countries and particularly with hunter-gatherer people since they are less able to deal with the scrum for resources.

Kidnapped In Mozambique: In The Clutches Of Rhino Poachers Bartholomäus Grill, Spiegel Online Bartholomäus Grill, Africa-Correspondent for the German news magazine Der Spiegel and Swedish photographer Toby Selander traveled to Mozambique to report about the region's destructive and illegal trade in rhinoceros horns. The two journalists were taken captive by poachers, and found themselves staring death in the face. Their haunting story is a MUST READ for African Indaba subscribers.

Just a short time ago, I was taken hostage in a small Mozambique village. Now I'm speeding through the bush in a pick-up truck driven by the boss of a criminal gang, his underlings hooting and hollering in the back. They are going to "finish" me, they had told me earlier, and I am convinced that they will stop at the next clearing and beat me to death like a dog. For the first time in my almost 30 years as a correspondent in Africa, I am afraid for my life.

I had arrived in Mozambique with Swedish photographer Toby Selander a few days earlier to report on rhinoceros poaching and the illegal rhinoceros-horn trade. We were hoping to follow the






supply chain from the slaughter of the rhinos in South Africa through middlemen in Mozambique to the horns' ultimate buyers in Vietnam …

Read the full story at Spiegel Online International

Botswana Hunting Ban Causes Job Losses In 2014 Joseph Kgamanyane (edited for space)

According to a report prepared by the Ngamiland trusts, they have already lost money amounting to P7 million in the last 12 months because of the hunting ban. They also explained that close to 200 jobs have been lost, and there are fears that more retrenchments could come. The Mababe Zokotsama Community Development Trust saw income drop from P3.5 million to P500 000 and shedding around 30 jobs; Sankoyo Tshwaragano Management Trust income dropped from P3.5 million to P1.8 million, with 35 job losses; Okavango Kopano Mokoro Community Trust’s income fell from P4.8 million to P2.5 million and about 40 people lost their jobs. The report also indicates that trusts in other regions of Seronga/Gudigwa, Phuduhudu and Xaixai experienced about 80 jobs lost.

Ngamiland CBNRM forum submitted their concerns to the Ministry of Environment Wildlife and Tourism in May 2013 and top of the list was the issue of hunting ban. [In] 2013 MEWT issued a ban on hunting of wildlife in all controlled hunting areas in Botswana which was effective from early January 2014. The Ministry’s decision came after research surveys conducted by Mike Chase of Elephants without Borders, whose findings indicated that the country is experiencing a decline in wild animal species.

MEWT explained that the cause of the decline was likely due to a combination of factors such as anthropogenic impacts, including illegal offtake and habitat fragmentation or loss. Ngamiland CBNRM submitted that the forum appreciates that some wildlife species are indeed declining, however they pointed out that the same report concluded that wildlife species like elephants and buffalo are increasing. The forum members complained that the two species are a threat to the agriculture sector in the Northern part of Botswana (as elephants destroy crops while Buffalos transmit Foot and Mouth Disease to cattle). The forum recommended that the hunting ban should exempt Elephants and Buffalos.

The Ngamiland district is reported as the cornerstone of CBNRM with more than 20 legally registered community organizations or trusts. 8 of these CBOs leased wildlife management areas and derived benefits from the use of natural resources within their areas. CBNRM is a development approach that supports natural resources conservation and management while ensuring that the rural communities do benefit from the natural resources.

US Authorities Approve Import Of Namibian Black Rhino Trophies Gerhard R Damm

Based on extensive assessments of the conservation and management programs of black rhinos in Namibia, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has found that the import of two sport-hunted black rhinoceros trophies from Namibia will benefit conservation of the species. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Service authorizes imports for sport-hunted trophies of rhinos only when hunting in the country of origin is well-regulated, sustainable and benefits conservation of the species in question. The black rhino hunts associated with the imports of two sport-hunted trophies


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/investigation-into-rhino-poaching-turns-into-kidnapping-a-1022611.html

http://www.weekendpost.co.bw/wp-news-details.php?nid=345





are consistent with the conservation strategy of Namibia, a country whose rhino population is steadily increasing, and will generate a combined total of $550,000 for wildlife conservation, anti-poaching efforts and community development programs in Namibia.

“U.S. citizens make up a disproportionately large share of foreign hunters who book trophy hunts in Africa,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dan Ashe. “That gives us a powerful tool to support countries that are managing wildlife populations in a sustainable manner and incentivize others to strengthen their conservation and management programs.” Ashe also said that “the future of Africa’s wildlife is threatened by poaching and illegal wildlife trade, not [by] responsible, scientifically managed sport hunting“, and that the Service remains committed to combating wildlife crimes while supporting activities that empower and encourage local communities to be a part of the solution1.” Namibia’s Black Rhinoceros Conservation Strategy concentrates on maximizing population growth rates through biological management and range expansion, with an overall goal of increasing Namibia’s black rhino population by at least five percent per year. Under this strategy, the black rhino population more than doubled between 2001 and 2012. Local communities are an integral part of this strategy and receive direct benefits from the presence of black rhinos, thereby providing a disincentive to poaching. Annually, the management plan for black rhinos allows the harvest of 5 males, a decision that has also been supported by CITES. Although these rhinos may still be physically capable of reproducing, they are presumed to be genetically well-represented in the population and their removal may provide the opportunity for younger, less dominant males to reproduce, leading to a possible population increase. Click here for more information on the decision to authorize the import of two sport-hunted black rhinoceros trophies hunted in Namibia.

Dallas Safari Club (DSC) auctioned one permit for $350,000 in early 2014, says the federal approval is vindication for biologists in Africa who prescribed the hunt as way to grow rhino populations.. Conservation Force has in the meantime transferred 100% of the auction proceeds including accrued interest to Namibia to be used for rhino conservation, habitat and anti-poaching initiatives. The second permit was approved for another American hunter, who paid $200,000 directly to the Namibian government. 1In North America, trophy game hunting has led to the restoration of the white-tailed deer, elk, moose and a

number of other species. As the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other international wildlife management and conservation organizations recognize, well-managed wildlife programs that include limited, sustainable sport hunting can and have provided significant long-term benefits to the populations of many species. By law, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service cannot and will not allow trophies of certain protected species into the United States that were hunted in any nation whose conservation program fails to meet high standards for transparency, scientific management and effectiveness.

New Paper: Identification Of Policies For A Sustainable Legal Trade In Rhinoceros Horn Based On Population Projection And Socioeconomic Models Enrico Di Minin, Jussi Laitila, Federico Montesino-Pouzols, Nigel Leader-Williams,Rob Slotow, Peter S. Goodman, Anthony J. Conway, and Atte Moilanen

Abstract: Between 1990 and 2007, 15 southern white (Ceratotherium simum simum) and black (Diceros bicornis) rhinoceroses on average were killed illegally every year in South Africa. Since 2007 illegal killing of southern white rhinoceros for their horn has escalated to >950 individuals/year


http://www.fws.gov/international/permits/black-rhino-import-permit.html

http://www.biggame.org/





in 2013. We conducted an ecological–economic analysis to determine whether a legal trade in southern white rhinoceros horn could facilitate rhinoceros protection. Generalized linear models were used to examine the socioeconomic drivers of poaching, based on data collected from 1990 to 2013, and to project the total number of rhinoceroses likely to be illegally killed from 2014 to 2023. Rhinoceros population dynamics were then modelled under 8 different policy scenarios that could be implemented to control poaching. We also estimated the economic costs and benefits of each scenario under enhanced enforcement only and a legal trade in rhinoceros horn and used a decision support framework to rank the scenarios with the objective of maintaining the rhinoceros population above its current size while generating profit for local stakeholders. The southern white rhinoceros population was predicted to go extinct in the wild<20 years under present management. The optimal scenario to maintain the rhinoceros population above its current size was to provide a medium increase in anti-poaching effort and to increase the monetary fine on conviction. Without legalizing the trade, implementing such a scenario would require covering costs equal to approximately $147,000,000/year. With a legal trade in rhinoceros horn, the conservation enterprise could potentially make a profit of $717,000,000/year. We believe the 35-year-old ban on rhinoceros horn products should not be lifted unless the money generated from trade is reinvested in improved protection of the rhinoceros population. Because current protection efforts seem to be failing, it is time to evaluate, discuss, and test alternatives to the present policy. Keywords: African rhinos, CITES, conservation policy, economics, poaching, population model Download the full text of the paper HERE

News From And About Africa

Africa The State of Biodiversity in Africa, to be released in 2015, was presented to African leaders

and policy makers by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre at the 15th African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) in Cairo. Demand for and consumption of natural resources results in land use change, overexploitation and overharvesting of species, legal and illegal logging, illegal hunting, and pollution created by urbanization and industrialization. Over 3 million hectares of forest are lost yearly due to the conversion of agricultural lands to meet food and biofuels needs. The report makes recommendations in areas such as addressing the illegal trade in wildlife, through increased law enforcement; using initiatives such as the REDD+ forest restoration and conservation initiative; implementing conservation actions on a greater scale; improving governance to strengthen links between wildlife management and community development; and mobilizing resources from private and global funds, to establish practicable systems of payments for ecosystem services.

Africa Uganda has over 6.5 billion barrels of commercial oil resources and prepares to embark on

the production phase, while Kenya with an estimated one billion barrels of recoverable oil targets to start production in 2017. Tanzania has huge offshore gas resources in the south of the country. Rwanda is currently seeking firms for oil and gas exploration in the Lake Kivu area. All these activities could lead to environmental degradation if there are no stringent laws and policies to guide development activities.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12412/epdf





Botswana The Hukuntsi Sub-district chairperson said the sub-district experiences an increase in

poaching particularly in Zutshwa, where poaching had turned from subsistence to commercial. A poaching syndicate apparently operates underground butcheries to sell game meat. Also, human-wildlife conflict remains prevalent in Kgalagadi North (Source: AllAfrica).

DR Congo The government contemplates changing the boundaries of the 780,000 ha Virunga NP, home

to around a quarter of the world's mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei beringei) to accommodate oil exploitation. Any border changes of the World Heritage Site would have to be approved by the UNESCO (Source: www.Mongabay.com).

DR Congo 30 elephants were killed within 2 weeks in Garamba NP by a group of northern Sudanese

poachers according to African Parks (Source: Jeune Afrique)

Gabon Footage recorded as part of a chimpanzee study in the Batéké Plateau NP by the Max Planck

Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology's Pan African Program and released by Panthera shows a male lion wandering along an elephant path. Experts believe the lion travelled up to 250 km from DR Congo. The lion had entered the national park in November 2014; the question whether the male is solitary or part of a new breeding population is still unresolved.

Kenya In 2011 Zhuo Qiang founded Mara Conservation Fund (MCF) and started launching

awareness campaigns in China. Zhou runs the 73 km2 Ol Kinyei Conservancy in the Mara-Serengeti ecosystem and some 100 Chinese volunteers come to Kenya to work on conservation projects each year. MCF plans to translate Swara, the quarterly magazine on wildlife conservation and public face of the East African Wildlife Society into Chinese to reach people in China.

Kenya 3 people believed to be part of a poaching cartel, among them a police officer from Nairobi,

were arrested early March as they tried to sell a rhino horn to a KWS officer in Nairobi.

Kenya Many sitatunga apparently have been killed in a vast fire which destroyed 10,000 ac in the

Birei-Kapsisiywa swamp. The fire is suspected to have been started by an individual.

Kenya Suspected ivory smuggler Feisal Mohammed, who was arrested by Interpol on December 22,

was released on a Sh10 million cash bond in March. Detectives say that the Mombasa businessman is the leader of an international poaching syndicate in East Africa and has enjoyed protection from security agencies and state officials.

South Africa The PHASA Conservation & Empowerment Fund has donated more than 15 million Rand

over the past decade to anti-poaching, research, training, social responsibility and empowerment initiatives. Toyota South Africa made a vehicle available to the Fund.


http://allafrica.com/stories/201503260288.html

http://www.mongabay.com/





South Africa A 32-year-old Chinese national found in possession of 5 kg of rhino horn and chucked

abalone was arrested at Cape Town International Airport on 24 March 2015

South Africa 19 black rhino made available through the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency were

released at an undisclosed location to create the 10th breeding population in WWF South Africa's Black Rhino Range Expansion Project as part of WWF South Africa's five-point rhino plan to reach a target of 3 000 black rhino. One of the key objectives is to grow the population as rapidly as possible by harvesting animals from populations that are at or near ecological carrying capacity and using these animals to create new populations. This harvesting stimulates growth in the donor population.

South Africa The Hawks arrested 5 suspected rhino poachers in Mpumalanga almost 5 months after 8

rhinos went missing from the Ohrigstad NR. Two of the suspects confessed to killing another 2 rhinos in the Pretoriuskop area of Kruger NP. The suspects appeared in court; 3 had their cases withdrawn, 2 remained in custody.

Tanzania The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Tanzanian government launched an

initiative to protect East Africa's largest elephant population. Funded by USAID, the plan aims to reduce poaching and protect biodiversity across the 115,000 km2 ecosystem of the Southern Highlands and Ruaha-Katavi Protection Program (SHARPP) in 4 focal areas: Wildlife Management Areas, livelihoods, habitat conservation, and elephant monitoring and protection. SHARPP plans to complement existing anti-poaching activities with aerial surveillance, detection dogs, spatial monitoring, and anti-trafficking strategies as well as the introduction crime-scene management.

Uganda In March, Ugandan Wildlife authorities confiscated 500 kg ivory en route to Singapore at

Entebbe airport. The ivory pieces were immersed in cassava flour and sealed in 4 metal containers.

Zambia In mid-March Tourism and Arts Minister Jean Kapata announced that Zambia Wildlife

Authority (ZAWA) will be transformed into a government department. The Zambia Wildlife Act will be repealed. The ministry will absorb ZAWA staff and functions into a new agency to oversee wildlife and game parks. ZAWA had accumulated debts of over 1 million US dollars and ZAWA staff had gone several months without pay.

Zimbabwe USFW&S announced that “trophies, parts or products of elephant taken in Zimbabwe during

the 2015 hunting seasons will not be allowed to be imported into USA. The trophy import suspension for 2015 or future hunting seasons could be lifted if additional information on elephant status and management becomes available, including utilization of revenue generated through sport hunting by U.S. citizens”. John J. Jackson III of Conservation Force commented that “this is not final but an invitation for more action and information”.






The Debate On Hunting And Game Breeding in South Africa Gerhard R Damm

Readers of African Indaba have followed the debate on hunting and game breeding in South Africa. The stance of the editors of African Indaba and the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) has been made abundantly clear. Now the South African Hunting and Game Conservation Association and the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa came out with public statements on the subject. PHASA backed up their statement with a South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) position on color morphs. Interestingly this SANBI statement dates from 2010! The SAHGA statement was immediately followed by a press release of Wildlife Ranching South Africa, which attacked individuals and associations not conforming to the WRSA view.

In the interest of fair journalism, we publish all these statements unabridged. We do not believe that the debate should take place out of the public eye and ear; too much, namely the conservation ethos of South Africa, is at risk. Peter Flack, well-known writer, hunter-conservationist and former game rancher, said in his blog “I think I speak for a number of amateur hunters and game ranchers who [want] the debate out in the open where we can judge the rights and wrongs, threats and opportunities of the situation for ourselves.”

The game ranchers of South Africa and the regulating bodies in this country should contemplate what I said in my 2005 article Hunting in South Africa: Facts. Risks and Opportunities (see July/August 2005 Vol 3-4 and September/October 2005 Vol 3-5) – here are some short extracts: o … When we read about the wildlife industry, [the] expressions game ranching, game farming and

game breeding are often used interchangeably. I suggest that it is essential to make a distinction between wildlife management for conservation and wildlife manipulation for selective breeding of individual species, since otherwise serious interpretation problems and misunderstandings may evolve …

o … Scientifically sound ecological principles must remain one of the underlying purposes of private conservation and wildlife management. To deservedly use the proud phrase The South African Conservation Revolution, the stakeholders in the wildlife industry [must] ensure that the conservation of biodiversity on their land is based on these principles …

o … Hunters prefer large areas without internal subdivisions. Ecotourists also find them more attractive and more akin to the Old Africa. Game and veld management will be less complicated and less susceptible to climatic changes and disease incidents on large conservancies. Conservancies are ideally suited for the inclusion of community and BEE partners and last not least they have the highest triple bottom line potential …

o … South African game ranchers and their colleagues from professional hunting need to take a positive attitude and think forward in these difficult and challenging times. Pro-active engagement in biodiversity conservation initiatives, participation in wildlife research and an integrated approach to natural resource management must be cornerstones ...

On April 6th Bloomberg.com reported that the SA Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) said in an emailed response to questions dated March 31st that the Scientific Authority of South Africa (SANBI) is compiling a scientific study into the growing practice of breeding so-called color- variant animals such as golden gnus, black impala and white kudu. "DEA does not regard the intentional breeding of animals for specific traits such as color coats as a conservation benefit", the department is reported to have said and "whether it is a threat to conservation would depend on the size and genetic make-up (genetic diversity) of the population into which the color morphs are


http://www.sahunters.co.za/

http://www.sahunters.co.za/

http://www.phasa.co.za/

http://www.wrsa.co.za/

http://www.wrsa.co.za/

July%20–%20August%20(Vol%203-4)

http://www.africanindaba.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AfricanIndabaVol3-5.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-06/golden-gnu-black-impala-breeding-may-be-regulated-in-s-africa





introduced." DEA plans that the outcome of a national dialogue, as well as the SANBI scientific report assists determining whether or not it will be necessary to regulate or monitor this practice.

Read the following articles and form your own opinion – African Indaba welcomes contributions to the debate!

SAHGCA Calls For Regulation Of Intensive Commercial Game Breeding Practices SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association (formatted for space reasons by AI editor)

The South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association (SAHGCA) wants government to implement mechanisms to regulate selective and intensive game breeding practices in the interest of protecting the country’s biodiversity and its international reputation as a leader in conservation.

Selective and intensive game breeding practices in the private game breeding sector are aimed at enhancing or altering genetic characteristics of game species for commercial purposes and include artificial and unnatural manipulation of wildlife to achieve unusual coat colors and excessive horn lengths. Although SAHGCA fully supports an extensive game farming sector and appreciates its contribution to the economy, the Association believes that certain uncontrolled practices might have detrimental effects on biodiversity and holds unwanted consequences for the wildlife industry as a whole. Dr Gerhard Verdoorn, President of SAHGCA, says the Association is very concerned about trends in the private game ranching sector where game breeders produce a growing assortment of unnatural color variations among indigenous game. “These practices of deliberately selecting and breeding animals for specific traits, similar to stock farming, to produce unusual coat colors or very large horn-lengths are not compatible with conservation principles.”

SAHGCA says this ongoing exploitation of indigenous wild animals will affect the integrity of South Africa’s wildlife and harm the country’s reputation as a leader in conservation. “We understand that the stakes in the game industry are high, but we have to be responsible in utilizing our wildlife heritage,” Verdoorn said. Variations in coat colors in game occur in low frequencies in the wild and are caused by recessive genes that result in e.g. black impala, golden wildebeest or white springbok. The reason for the low numbers in the wild is that these animals are usually not well adapted to their environment and are eliminated through natural selection processes. However, commercial game breeders selectively breed these animals to enhance and manipulate the desired traits for commercial gain. Prices of these purposely-bred animals are exceptionally high turning wildlife into a financial commodity. To protect their expensive investments, breeders put in these animals in small camps with very tight security. Some of the undesired consequences of intensive breeding include (i) fragmentation of habitats and wildlife systems; (ii) decrease in the genetic integrity of indigenous wildlife populations; (iii) reduce animals’ natural ability to adapt to environmental changes associated with climate change; (iv) Animal welfare concerns; (v) increased persecution of predators because of the threat to breeding stock; (vi) disinvestment in extensive wildlife areas which impact on the contribution that game farmers make to national conservation targets.

The demand for ordinary breeding stock for intensive breeding purposes leads to outrageous prices of huntable animals which in turn has a negative impact on the consumptive hunting sector. Animals bred under these conditions cannot be hunted because it would be tantamount to canned hunting - a reputational risk the hunting industry can ill afford. At a game






auction on 13th February, ordinary impala ewes sold for R30 000 each. For hunting purposes an impala ewe would cost between R800 and R1000. “This drives the cost of hunting to unaffordable levels to the detriment of the hunting sector,” said Fred Camphor, CEO of SAHGCA. There are approximately 300,000 hunters in South Africa who contribute more than 74% of the total annual income derived from the hunting and wildlife sector. According to a recent study by the Northwest University hunting was responsible for R6.3 billion of the R8.5 billion that the wildlife and hunting sector contributed to the country’s economy in 2013.

Verdoorn said responsible wildlife utilization is the cornerstone for economic growth and sustainable development. In November 2014, SAHGCA adopted a policy position on intensive and selective breeding to enhance or alter genetic characteristics of indigenous game species for commercial purposes. The Association invited other hunting organizations and associations to adopt similar guidelines.

Sustainable Land Use Model: As part of its commitment to conservation and sustainable development, SAHGCA launched the Umfolozi Biodiversity Economy Initiative. It involves the establishment of a Biodiversity Economy node that will include Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, eMakhosini-Ophathe Heritage Park, various stewardship sites and private and communal areas around Ulundi. Linking all these areas can create a protected area of approximately 150,000ha. This initiative forms part of an integrated land-use model that enables transformation and promotes economic growth in rural communities. The [initiative] is in line with [the] National Development Plan and will provide opportunities for partnerships among government, communities and the private sector to achieve national and provincial conservation targets [and] create business and development opportunities that will generate sustainable job opportunities, build capabilities and enhance the capacity of all sectors to address complex challenges of growing rural economies. Lizanne Nel, conservation manager at SAHGCA, says economic activities cannot be separated from its impact on the environment and people. “The Umfolozi Biodiversity Economy Initiative provides a sustainable economic development model for harnessing KwaZulu-Natal’s rich biodiversity and heritage capital to reduce poverty and inequality. At the same time it will provide an inclusive economy, protect landscapes, productive ecosystems and their associated products and services to society.”

Contacts: Gerhard Verdoorn [email protected]; Fred Camphor [email protected] and Lizanne Nel [email protected]

PHASA Position Paper On Intensive Breeding And The Breeding Of Color Variants In The Wildlife Industry Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (formatted for space reasons by AI editor)

PHASA rejects any notion or claim that the breeding of color variants or excessive horn lengths are necessary to fulfil a demand from trophy hunters or to replenish a depleted gene pool as a result of trophy hunting.

This position paper has been created in the light of the following developments in the South African wildlife industry (i) the significant increase in the intensive breeding of game; (ii) the significant increase in the breeding of color variants of species; (iii) the significant increase in the variety of color variants, some of which are largely unknown or have been uncommon in the past; (iv) a significant increase on the emphasis on horn size in intensive breeding operations and live game auction sales; (v) a significant increase in the price of both “common species” (e.g. nyala,









wildebeest, blesbuck, impala etc.) and stud animals of “scarce species” (e.g. sable, roan, buffalo etc.).

Private Ownership Of Game And The Free Market System: PHASA respects the concept and the practice of private ownership and the free market system, believing these to have contributed significantly to South Africa’s conservation success and the establishment of its wildlife industry. PHASA, therefore, acknowledges the right of breeders to engage in activities that will result in higher returns on investments, provided that these activities are carried out legally, responsibly and sustainably. PHASA does not at this stage have an informed opinion on the long-term economic viability of the color variants and stud breeding markets.

Impact Of These Breeding Practices On Conservation: From a scientific and legislative perspective regarding these breeding practices, PHASA’s position is informed by the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) (see SANBI document), namely (i) “it is highly unlikely however, that animals selectively bred for the expression of a rare coat color would have any significant effect on a natural population should they escape, as the homozygous recessive genes would clearly have little effect in an overwhelmingly heterozygous population; (ii) …the Scientific Authority currently views this as a low risk threat to the species that are likely to be affected and therefore does not recommend that it be legislated against”.

That said, PHASA takes note of the following SANBI cautionary notes and recommendations (i) “Depending on the scale, such practices could be construed as a form of genetic manipulation.” (PHASA emphasis); (ii) “the breeding of genetically inferior recessive color morphs does not further the conservation of South Africa’s wild biodiversity…” (PHASA emphasis); (iii) “selectively breeding for rare color morphs should be discouraged or dis-incentivized as an undesirable practice…”

Concerns of These Practices from a Professional Hunting Perspective: PHASA notes increased concern among its members regarding the upward pressure on prices of common species and the potential negative effect it may have on the South African professional hunting industry. PHASA also notes increased concern among its members’ international clients that these color variants are seemingly being bred for the overseas market. PHASA is also aware of misperceptions and confusion among wildlife stakeholders that these animals are being hunted in intensive breeding systems/areas and that these breeding practices are aimed at increasing horn length specifically because trophy hunting depleted the gene pool. It is PHASA’s view that these breeding practices exist to satisfy demand from live game sales auctions and not trophy hunting. To say otherwise is both misinformed and damaging to the professional hunting industry.

PHASA Rejects the hunting of animals in any area other than an “extensive wildlife system” as defined in the Threatened and Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations issued in terms of Act 10 of 2004 [and] (i) any notion or claim that color variants are bred to satisfy a significant demand in the trophy hunting market; (ii) any notion or claim that breeding practice aimed at increasing horn size is necessary because trophy hunting depleted the gene pool; (iii) any notion or claim that the breeding of animals with abnormally large horn length lengths is driven by a significant demand in the trophy hunting market; (iv) highly controversial practices such as artificial insemination, cloning, genetic manipulation and any procedure that produces artificial color variants; (v) the inclusion of any further color variants in trophy hunting record books; (vi) any form of “catalogue marketing” of individual wild animals or groups of wild animals for hunting purposes.

Conclusion and Recommendations: PHASA respects the concept of private ownership and the free market system but urges breeders to approach such practices with the highest levels of due consideration for South Africa’s biodiversity. PHASA acknowledges that the impact of such breeding practices present a low risk to South Africa’s wild biodiversity but believes that potential risks need to be monitored and, if necessary, managed in a responsible manner and in consultation with fellow






industry stakeholders. PHASA is committed to continued constructive dialogue with all industry stakeholders in respect of the matters contained in this position paper. As such, this position paper may be amended from time to time following such discussions. For questions concerning this position paper contact the PHASA CEO by email at [email protected] or call +27 12 667 2048.

South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) on Color Morphs Editor’s Note (GRD): Below is the text of a letter written by Prof. John Donaldson, Chief Director Applied Biodiversity Research Division of SANBI addressed to Ms. Nosipho Ngcaba, Director-General, Department of Environmental Affairs. Please observe this letter is dated 10 September 2010.

The genes responsible for rare color morphs in a wide range of wildlife species are generally recessive in nature and are therefore very infrequently expressed in naturally occurring populations. Game breeders however select homozygous recessive individuals to breed from in order to ensure that the rare coat color is expressed in the offspring.

Due to the fact that the founder population is very small and often made up of closely related individuals, evidence of inbreeding depression is often seen within a few generations. Depending on the scale, such practices could be construed as a form of genetic manipulation.

The threat posed by the selective breeding of recessive color morphs will depend on the size and genetic make-up or diversity and viability of the population receiving these recessive color morphs. Relatively small receiving populations or threatened taxa could be more vulnerable than large or genetically more diverse populations. It is highly unlikely however that animals selectively bred for the expression of a rare coat color would have any significant effect on a natural population should they escape, as the homozygous recessive genes would clearly have little effect in an overwhelmingly heterozygous population. The only real threat may arise in a situation where there is a large scale “mixing” of recessive color morphs into a population of dominant color morphs, which in practice is highly unlikely to occur.

The breeding of genetically inferior recessive color morphs does not further the conservation of South Africa’s wild biodiversity and therefore cannot be supported.

However, the Scientific Authority currently views this as a low risk threat to the species that are likely to be affected and therefore does not recommend that it be legislated against. The Scientific Authority would however like to recommend the following: 1. Selectively breeding for rare color morphs should be discouraged or dis-incentivized as an

undesirable practice and game farmers who wish to manage their farms and animals using sound ecological principals should be incentivized.

2. Conservation authorities should be aware of the potential threat that could result from this type of practice and the risk should be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis. Towards this end, the Scientific Authority recommends that:

a) All breeders register with DEA. b) Breeders report annually on the number of animals leaving (i.e. being released from)

their facilities each year, as well as the destination of the animals leaving. c) DEA report on the number of animals of each species’ recessive color morph being

released in each province, relative to the total population of normal color animals in the province.







On this basis the Scientific Authority will be able to monitor the impact on wild populations and take relevant management actions before the practice becomes a real threat. The Scientific Authority, in conjunction with DEA, should decide on and agree to a threshold to initiate stricter regulation

3. The general public should be properly educated in these matters, so that conservation funding is not misdirected to illegitimate conservation programs, such as the campaign to save the white lion from extinction as if it were a separate species.

Response From Wildlife Ranching SA President Dr Peter Oberem to SA Hunters WRSA Press Release (formatted for space reasons by AI editor)

There has of late been a lot of noise in the press about certain wildlife ranching practices

that are perceived by some as having a negative impact on conservation. This noise comes from individuals with strange self-aggrandizing motivation who are clearly ill-informed about the wildlife ranching industry in southern Africa.

WRSA will in order to avoid further mudslinging refrain from focusing on the few elements in the hunting fraternity who, through their bad behavior, give both hunting and game ranching a poor image. It is a pity that the individuals mentioned in paragraph 1, who are responsible for the unnecessary noise, do not show wildlife ranchers the same courtesy.

I will try to avoid using unscientific, emotional and meaningless words such as ‘intensive manipulation’; ‘artificial wildlife’; ‘aberrant-colored’ and ‘compromised animals’, as used in documentation and on the radio by the authors under discussion. I always say ‘the lion never worries about the yapping of the jackals at his heels when he has his eyes focused on his goal’ and I have always tried to live by that code. This time, however, due to the unprecedented, intensive, sustained attack on our industry by a few ill-informed individuals, I find it necessary to waste time and energy to respond.

First, there are a few basic perceptions that must be corrected: Wildlife ranching does not take place on formerly conserved land. In fact, by far the greatest majority of game ranches are on formerly marginal, often badly overgrazed, denuded and eroded agricultural land, which has been converted into an economically sustainable form of agriculture with huge conservation and biodiversity spin-offs.

On the great majority of game ranches, internal agricultural fences that were there at inception have been removed to provide as much space as possible for wildlife movement. On only a small percentage of farms has only a small portion of the whole farm been allocated for ‘small’ breeding camps, usually between 25ha and 100ha in size, leaving the remaining camp significantly larger than the camps that were initially there to fence and manage domestic stock and/or crops.

Today, there are approximately 20 million head of game in South Africa, with private wildlife ranchers conserving roughly three times as many animals as the State does in all its parks. There are more game animals today in South Africa than there have been in the country since 1850, or over the past 165 years.

Apart from the sheer number of game animals and apart from the massive area (20 million hectares) that has been converted from monocultures of domestic stock or crops, a number of game species have been saved from near extinction by private wildlife ranching, e.g. the rhino, sable antelope, roan antelope, black wildebeest, Lichtenstein’s hartebeest, the bontebok, Cape mountain






zebra, cheetah, lion and even the African buffalo (buffalo in the Kruger National Park, our biggest publically owned herd, are infected with tuberculosis), to name a few. These have been saved from extinction, unlike the bluebuck and the quagga, which were hunted to extinction before the advent of private wildlife ranching. All this success hinges on private ownership of wildlife, which was introduced in South Africa as late as 1991. Nowhere in the rest of the world has such an amazing conservation turnaround taken place (because ownership is denied the citizens of the rest of the world). The dire conservation situation in Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana – as well as most of the rest of the world, in fact – serves as clear proof of the huge benefits of our government’s sustainable utilization policy.

A very basic concept that seems to have eluded the detractors of wildlife ranching is that of ‘herd building’. They do not seem to understand that, in order to provide animals for conservation, hunting or meat, the rancher needs to build his herd. With so many new entrants to wildlife ranching, it is to be expected that demand would be high for some of the rare species and the rare colour morphs. Of course, as their numbers increase (which is something we all wish to see), the prices will adjust. All sensible investors understand this. But then, more of these rarer animals will become available at lower prices for hunting.

Dealing with specific statements made to the press about: a) The cost of animals for hunting (and thus for cheap meat!): there are today far more animals

available for hunting than ever before. As far as the price of commonly hunted game is concerned, taking inflation into account, hunting prices are lower than they were in 1991. The complainants have never said a word in the press about the inflationary increase in their other hunting costs, such as vehicles, fuel, rifles, ammunition and their favorite tipple. It is strange how a price of R1 450 for a blesbuck or an impala is said to be out of reach of the local hunter. Pricing cycles are a fact of business life. There are, however, many more game ranches for hunting today than there were, say, five years ago – with many, many more animals available for hunting or meat.

b) The unfounded, libelous accusations that wildlife ranchers are using growth promotants [sic]: the accusers must back this statement up with facts! I have never seen nor heard of this unethical practice (which is condemned by WRSA’s code of conduct) occurring on wildlife ranches. Making unfounded, broad possibility-statements is typical of this style of communication.

c) Much of the vitriol in the campaign against wildlife ranching is aimed at (i) Breeding animals for longer horns. There are ranchers that do this, but they do it scientifically, using the most modern genetic monitoring tests, as part of a broader health and production selection process to rectify the negative selection against these traits by hunters of the past. The record African buffalo horn length today in SA would qualify only in position 18 in the Rowland Ward record books. Most of the records placed above it are from many, many years back, further strengthening this point [and] (ii) Breeding of color variants. Clearly, the authors of the campaign against wildlife ranching understand neither genetics, evolution nor the possible effects of climate change on the biomes found in South Africa (in particular when discussing the so-called ‘natural range’). This is too complex a matter to discuss in a short press release, but one merely needs to walk down the street and see the results (many, many natural color and other variations) in insects, birds, mammals, plants and even human populations around us. We value and praise these in many ways, viz. naming the beautiful color variants of our indigenous and other plants after our heroes and paying more for them. Similarly, thousands of tourists spend money, time and effort to flock to SA to see the Timbavati white lion, the king cheetah bred by the heroine Ann van Dyk,






or the yellow crimson-breasted shrike at Nylsvley. Why, then, the exaggerated negativity about differently colored antelope?

The attack on this country’s wildlife ranchers – and thus one of its major unique agricultural activities, wildlife ranching – by a few ill-informed and angry individuals purporting to represent the hunters of South Africa – is born from some other yet-to-be-determined motivation. This spreading of disinformation must stop! One does not punch a hole in the life raft one shares with others.

For more information, contact Dr Peter Oberem: [email protected]. Editor’s Note (GRD): It is recommended that you also read the latest Wildlife Ranching Magazine (Issue 1, 2015) – almost 300 pages of material to choose from. Download the magazine HERE

Eulogy Of Opportunities Missed Paul Stones Editor’s Note: Paul Stones, a highly experienced PH and long standing member of the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa PHASA, having served on their executive committee for many years, and a member of SAMPEO, South Africa’s Most Proven and Experienced Outfitters, has publicly nailed his colors to the mast.

How many times has it been said that, “Hunting will not last 10 more years”. I have heard

this statement made many times in my hunting career which, to date, spans some 25 years. To me, and for the very first time, this statement is starting to ring true although I cannot be totally sure of the actual time frame.

Hunting is disappearing in Africa, of this there can be absolutely no doubt. Today it is not a patch on what it was even 10 years ago, a fact seemingly unnoticed by many South Africans in the game and hunting industries. In the recent past we lost both Botswana and Zambia and, although Zambia has now reopened, much damage will have been done over the past two years of inactivity through the poaching of game. We can only hope that all will once again thrive through responsible hunting.

Zimbabwe is not close to what it once was, not by a country mile. The CAR is now regarded as one of the most dangerous countries on earth. Boko Haram threatens parts of the Cameroon. These may be perceptions to some but realities to many paying clients concerned about their well-being when it comes to booking hunts and paying deposits.

I can accept that much of the decline is exceptionally hard to control. For example, socio-economics factors in Africa play a huge role. Amongst them poverty, population explosion, unemployment, political interference, incompetent governments and corrupt officials are all factors that create environments where hunting suffers. An unavoidable chasm in Africa you may well be right in thinking.

However, when the threat comes from within and from forces that we can actually control, it is far more dangerous to our existence. The term “treason” comes readily to mind! A dictionary’s definition – “the betrayal of a trust or confidence; treachery”. A strong statement? An uneducated fool’s ramblings? Or maybe a truth that many do not wish to hear?

In the current turmoil of the hunting world, Africa and, more to the point, South Africa, has what no other continent or African country, respectively, has to offer. Unquestionably the largest variety of quarry species on the continent, we also have the most varied hunting habitat anywhere



http://www.wrsa.co.za/wrsa-e-magazine/book/17-issue-1-2015/2-wrsa-publications?tmpl=component





in Africa. We are logistically advantaged, we offer a first world tourism service…I can go on and on, the list is long and distinguished. We have the opportunity to create the finest hunting destinations for quality, experience and value anywhere in the world. In this we have no peers even if our erstwhile neighbors are included in this comparison! Why then the clear feeling of negativity in this writing?

The game industry in South Africa was born on the back of professional hunting – an indisputable fact. Out of cow, sheep and goat dung and barbed wire misery a Phoenix was born. Outfitters offered more money to domestic livestock farmers then they ever would have imagined possible for half the work and even less expense.

The industry grew, wildlife numbers increased and the game ranching industry flourished as did the outfitters of that era. All rightly so and all cards fairly dealt. A fairy tale of conservation success. Oh how those heady days of early beginnings and solid relationships between hunter and farmer have now diminished. In many cases the symbiotic relationship is no longer what it was. Landowners – often wealthy businessmen with no acumen for anything other than money making – pull the strings of a once glorious industry. The puppeteers control and the puppeteers will reap the rewards of their ignorance of an industry that few ever truly understood and even less are truly successful in.

South Africa has been tagged as a joke for many years by much of the African hunting fraternity. A misconception for sure but, at times, we do ourselves no favors in attempting to stem the tide of criticism. We have ridden this negativity with aplomb, business has continued to come to our shores and for that we can be grateful.

Today a very different threat now lurks. Our hunting grounds are being carved up into breeding pens, color variants flourish. They are a worthless addition to our famed “conservation ethic”, contrary to the drivel those that pedal these obscenities, spout! “They are bred for the demand of the hunting industry” they say. How noble of them to consider us, while they actually dupe many to pour their life savings into the “future” of game ranching. When all have acquired the “golden geese”, who will buy the eggs, I ask?

Without question it will not be the hunting industry. Our clientele by and large hunt for the experience of an African safari, hot coffee around hotter fires, wild animals in wilder areas with the possibility of the unknown and the assurance of value for the product we offer.

Colored, line bred, caged, corn fed, photographed, vaccinated, catalogued and priced through ignorance, these Frankenstein freaks are not on their radar and never will be. The oversupply and lack of demand for these animals will very soon become apparent and the term “tulip mania” will once again come into play – a term used metaphorically to refer to any large economic bubble (when asset prices deviate from intrinsic values)!

This scourge is now combined with the latest threat – the sale, for once again obscene prices, of quarry species with horns over a certain length and we see the removal of these animals from their natural environments into breeding pens in the hope of recreating their genes and breeding large horned, artificially raised “trophy” animals.

Market pricing is a free beast, capitalism ensures this. However, when greed supersedes longevity, it is highly dangerous. Short term gain over long term security will always have its victims. In this case professional hunting through the marketing to clients, be they foreign or local, is going to suffer hugely. The allure of seeking that elusive 60 inch kudu bull, 30 inch nyala or 45 inch buffalo is slowly but surely being eroded. Many landowners currently refuse to allow us to hunt animals of this size, stating that such specimens are worth far, far more to the breeder. If we wish to hunt them then the price offered to us is so exorbitant most would be too embarrassed to even offer it to a






client. Also, as soon as the clients realize that coming to South Africa removes the chance of finding that elusive trophy in the wild, they will seek other options. Most definitely!

The even greater victims will be the very game that was saved through hunting as, when the flow of Dollars, Sterling, Euros and Rubles dries up through the lack of desire to participate in the un-Hemingwayesque practices that now abound, the scent of cow dung and unsightly lengths of barbed wire will once again pervade the bushveld and our sons will weep for the opportunity that our generation took from them! This article appeared first in September 2014 on http://www.peterflack.co.za/blog/eulogy-of-opportunities-missed/ - African Indaba appreciates the permission to republish by the author Paul Stones and by Peter Flack.

Honor And Respect Daniel A. Pedrotti, Jr., Boone & Crockett Regular Member, Chair, Hunter Ethics Sub-Committee Editor’s Note (GRD): African Indaba thanks the Boone & Crockett Club as well as the author for the kind permission to reproduce this article from Fair Chase Magazine Spring 2015 issue. Founded in 1887, the Boone & Crockett Club is the oldest wildlife conservation organization in North America. For more information go to www.boone-crockett.org/

We are a community of multitudes and generations. Our way of life predates recorded history. Our roots go back to a time when there was no thought of justifying or defending the right to hunt. Hunting was done for one simple reason, survival. There was no one who did not understand the value of the hunt and no one to question the reason or consider the merit. There was honor and respect in taking wild game to feed one’s family.

In modern day society, our hunting community is based on a culture of honor and respect derived from our ancestors’ dependence on the hunt and the quarry. We are defined by our skills as hunters, our love for the wild animals we pursue, and our concern for the wild places in which the animals thrive. As hunters we are vigilant, prepared, and capable when there is a threat to our community, the animals, or their environment. Our intentions are true and pure as they relate to our pursuits, and the non-hunting public is tolerant, if not supportive, as long as we stay true to our core principles and ethics. Our ethics are not established nor limited by the minimum standards of the law. In fact, “legal” is often way less than ethical.

With that said, there is a war raging and the public’s perception (and therefore the acceptance or tolerance of us as a community), is potentially at stake. What is astounding is that multitudes and generations of us are being outmaneuvered by the Frankendeer faction. The “antler inches at all cost” addicts and their suppliers are so driven by ego and money that they will go to any lengths to legitimize their pseudohunts, including a very effective and well-funded lobby. At the very heart of their effort is a desperate need to make the public view them as a part of us, so as to trade on the goodwill we have worked for generations to establish and maintain.

They are very good at the political game. It all begins with their propaganda, which suggests that we are starting a fight among hunters when we reject their redefinition of the hunt. It is bizarre that this underwhelming minority has such potential to negatively affect so many of us and that their position is that “we started it!”


http://www.peterflack.co.za/blog/eulogy-of-opportunities-missed/

http://www.peterflack.co.za/blog/eulogy-of-opportunities-missed/

http://www.boone-crockett.org/





One of the hottest battlefields is Texas. There is a well-funded group in Texas that practices “extreme animal husbandry,” whereby they produce Frankendeer and sell them into a pseudo-hunt situation, which they sell as a “hunt.” It is currently legal to release Frankendeer and kill it within 10 days of its release. This cuts against so many of the parameters of the fair chase hunt equation it is laughable, but yet it is “legal.” And according to their propaganda, we are the bad guys for “pitting hunters against hunters.”

Another case of propaganda is that this is a property rights issue. This is the best defense in Texas, as everyone is exceptionally sensitive to our right to do what we want with our land. In this case, it is a red herring. We would no more advocate any diminution of a landowner’s rights than we would advocate against our rights as hunters.

The simple truth here is that we want to expose and thereby devalue the Frankendeer product and the pseudo-hunt scenario. We want to highlight the distinction between “legal” and “ethical” as defining standards of the hunt. We want to help the public see the tremendous difference between the egregious pursuits of antler inches at all cost versus simple, justifiable fair chase hunting. Fortunately, we have a remarkable advantage in this situation. There are multitudes and generations of us. All we really need to do is stand up and be counted.

AMOS Association of Mozambique Hunting Safari Operators Gerhard R Damm

African Indaba is grateful to Toni Wicker, member of the board of directors of AMOS, for giving us details about the revitalized Association of Mozambique Hunting Safari Operators. All hunters who contemplate a safari in Mozambique will be encouraged by the ambitious objectives and their exacting code of conduct. For a list of AMOS members contact Barbara Crown of the Hunting Report.

AMOS Mission Statement: AMOS supports the conservation and ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, for the benefit of current and future generations, through the promotion of sustainable and ethical hunting. The protection and the conservation of a species-rich and healthy wild fauna, and securing their livelihoods while respecting the local customs, traditions and culture; and the promotion of environmental, natural and animal welfare and the maintenance and improvement of the existing natural habitats.

AMOS Aims & Objectives (edited extracts): AMOS promotes, regulates and enforces professionalism in the Safari hunting industry, promotes the benefits of ethical hunting and sustainable utilization of wildlife to the conservation, and educates the general public on the contribution hunting makes to conservation, sustainable social economic development and the financial contribution to the state fiscal system. AMOS further promotes and facilitates the empowerment of all Mozambicans wishing to participate in the hunting profession, conservation and related activities and engages with the national and provincial Governments of the Republic of Mozambique and other countries, in all matters affecting hunting, conservation and related activities. AMOS promotes the conservation of nature, mainly the fauna, in the interest of the present and future generations by preventive and precautionary measures, and advocates sustainable use of natural resources as an important tool for social and economic benefits and therefore as an incentive for their conservation and the avoidance of the loss of biological diversity. AMOS co-operates with other persons and organizations in Africa and elsewhere having objects similar and promotes and markets Mozambique as a leading international hunting destination,


http://www.huntingreport.com/





enforces adherence to the AMOS Code of Conduct, works towards improvement of wildlife management and land-use by scientific research, education AMOS recognizes that ’culling’, ’cropping’, ’capture’ and vermin control are a necessary part of game management as long as they are conducted with consideration and humane treatment of the wildlife involved. However, at no time can these activities be regarded in the context of hunting

From the AMOS Code of Conduct (edited extracts): Outfitter and professional hunter members have the necessary qualifications and licenses to operate and uphold the laws of the country, all rules and regulations stipulated by the governing hunting body and by AMOS. They shall conduct themselves in a manner which will reflect honesty, integrity and morality and shall not allow material gain to supersede such principles; they will not mislead clients and take every reasonable step to ensure that clients receive the services contracted for, and ensure their safety, comfort and satisfaction. AMOS members respect the natural resources as well as the rights and interests of property owners and local communities of the country, obey all laws of the land and uphold at all times the spirit of fair chase. With respect to hunting methods, AMOS members pledge that they shall not be associated with or involved with any form of canned hunting and that no creature be hunted in an enclosed area of such size that such creature is not self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency includes the ability of the animal to exercise its natural inclination to escape from the hunter as well as catering for all its basic needs such as water, food, shelter and breeding.

The Code of Conduct further states that no shooting takes place from, or within a short distance of a vehicle, nor are vehicles used to drive game, that no aircraft be used to spot or drive game, or that aircraft is used to land hunters within a short distance of game for the purpose of hunting the game so spotted. No client to take shots that they are not capable of to prevent unnecessary wounding. All wounded game has to be pursued at all costs and by any means to ensure that the animal is killed as quickly and humanly as possible and not left wounded in the field; if wounded game animals are lost such incidents must be reported to the closest officials any adjoining concessions and local communities. Trophy elephant shall not be hunted from or in breeding herds. The objective is to endeavor to hunt old trophy animals with a legal hunting license within the allocated quota and legal season and as far as possible t the carcasses of all animals hunted are to be used as a food source.

AMOS members make sure that clients understand and are fully aware of the Associations’ Code of Conduct, ethics and standards that will be upheld during the course of any hunt.

African Indaba eNewsletter The official CIC Newsletter on African wildlife and conservation. The publication, free electronic

dissemination and global distribution are funded by the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation - CIC Headquarters, H-2092 Budakeszi, P.O. Box 82, Hungary. Email: [email protected]

Publisher: Gerhard R. Damm. Postal Address: PO Box 411, Rivonia 2128, South Africa, Phone +27-(0)11-883-2299. Email: [email protected] Web: www.africanindaba.com. Editors: Rolf D. Baldus (Germany),

Vernon Booth (Zimbabwe), Gerhard R. Damm (South Africa), Ali Kaka (Kenya). Webmaster: Aliz Ertler [email protected].

Opinions expressed in African Indaba are not necessarily those of the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation CIC, the publisher and editors. Whilst every care is taken in the preparation of this newsletter, the CIC, publisher and editors cannot accept any responsibility for errors. African Indaba is

published every two months as a free service. Please share it with others who may be interested. Archived copies of previous issues of African Indaba are available from our website www.africanindaba.com/previous-

issues.




http://www.africanindaba.com/


http://www.africanindaba.com/previous-issues

http://www.africanindaba.com/previous-issues

Download - African Indaba Vol 13 Issue 2

Top Related