Leeubedryf wil sy huis in orde kry

Die leeujagbedryf het vanjaar wereldwyf opskrifte gehaal na die Amerikaner, Walter James Palmer, te midde van groot omstredenheid, Cecil die leeu in Zimbabwe geskiet het.

Lynette van Hoven Leeube wil sy huis in orde kry Die leeujagbedryf het vanjaar wereldwyd opskrifte gehaal ná die Amerikaner, Walter James Palmer, te midde van groot omstredenheid, Cecil die leen in Zimbabwe geskiet het. Op eie bodem het die dokumenter Blood Lion die tonge laat klap. Hierin word daar gewys hoe leeus in haglike omstandighede leef en mishandel word.

Geblikte leeujag lok ook groot konsternasie uit met meer as 1 000 leeus wat jaarliks op hierdie wyse geskiet word. Kenners is dit eens: Dit is tyd om die leeubedryf in orde te kry. Daarom het die Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelersvereniging (SAPBA / South African Predator Breeders Association) vir prof Melville Saayman en sy span by die Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society (Trees) by Noordwes-Universiteit se Potchefstroomkampus genader om na die waarde van die leeubedryf in SuidAfrika te kyk. Die studie, wat meesal op die hoofteelareas van Noordwes en Vrystaat gefokus sal wees, gaan ook kyk hoeveel leeus daar in die bedryf is, want getalle wissel tussen 4 000 en 6 000.

 ”n Verbod op jag in Zimbabwe en die gepaardgaande verlies van inkomste vir Zimbabwiers beteken dat sowat 2.3 miljoen kinders nou van nodige hulpmiddele ontneem is. Dit beteken dat die onderwyssektor daaronder ly en dat brood uit hub borde geneem word. Hub reeds lae lewensgehalte het nog verswak as gevolg van ‘n ondeurdagte besluit deur die regering,” se Saayman.

“Ons sien klaar dat wildstropery toeneem en dat werkloosheid toeneem. Dit is nie gesonde situasie nie.”

Volgens Saayman het die Blood Lions-dokumenter die prentjie ietwat skeefgetrek, maar ook daarin geslaag om die kollig op misdrywe, wat uitgewis moet word, te plaas.

“Blood Lions het ‘n slegte indruk van die bedryf geskep en een van ons uitdagings gaan wees om dit reg te stel. Daar is ongewenste praktyke wat die hele bedryf skade aandoen. Dit kan egter slegs aan paar persone toegeskryf word, maar dit lei tog daartoe dat wanpersepsies oor die bedryf geskep word. Daar is een of twee vrot appels in die leeuhok.”

 Saayman se verder dat Suid-Afrika se leeupopulasie ver daarvan is om gevaarligte te laat flikker, maar meer kan gedoen word om leeus doeltreffend te versprei asook beter te benut.

“Ons gaan ook kyk waarheen die oorskot leeus gaan, want daar moet ondersoek word wat die beste vir die mark sal wees. Sommige van die leeus moet terug parke toe gaan en sommiges moet aan nuwe gebiede voorgestel word om die genepoel te verbeter. Ons het ‘n gesonde getal leeus in die land en danksy ons teelprogramme sit ons nie met ‘n gevaarsituasie nie, maar ons moet kyk na wat met die oorskot leeus gebeur,” verduidelik hy.

 “Daar is verskeie moontlikhede wat die oorskot leeus betref. Hub be kan opvoedkundige doel dien, hub be kan groot rob in ekotoerisme speel, soos om met leeus te stap, en soos genoem kan hulle rondgeskuif word om die genepoel in die land te versterk. Dan kan ons ook natuurlik leeus uitvoer na lande waar daar tekort is. Dit sal web behels dat hierdie lande die versekering moet gee dat daar na die leeus gekyk sal word. Ons het dit in die verlede gedoen, maar toe word die diere gestroop.”

Saayman het ook SAPBA se toewyding aan die verbetering van die bedryf asook hub wedywering vir beter toekoms vir leeus in die land geprys. “Cecil het die bedryf baie seergemaak. Blood Lions het die bedryf benadeel. Deur die beroep vir hierdie studie wys dit web dat die bedryf ernstig is om vrot kolle uit te wis en dit sal tot voordeel van die hele bedryf strek.”

The end of canned lion hunting looks imminent

Breaking news has also come out of the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (PHASA) AGM. A motion has been passed that disassociates PHASA with the captive-bred lion industry until such a time that the industry can convince PHASA and the IUCN that the practice is beneficial to lion conservation. This came after canned lion breeders and supporters were apparently outvoted 147 to 103.

A post on the Facebook page, The ‘Con’ in Conservation states: “This won’t ever happen, so its over for them. Thanks to Ian Michler and his Blood Lions documentary, which made such a big difference.”

Blood Lions also stated on their Facebook page that the recent screening of their documentary on the lion breeding industry to European Parliament members, “may well turn out to be the most significant one to date.”

Following the screening, the UK government has decided to meet next week for a full debate on the conservation status of lions, including the role played by all forms of trophy hunting. There was a commitment from the MEPs to ensure that Blood Lions would eventually be seen by the politicians of every state in the EU.

Matthias Kruse, the editor of Jäger, the leading German hunting magazine, made the trip to Brussels especially to see Blood Lions. He announced after the screening that, as of next year, Germany’s leading hunting show that is held in Dortmund will no longer allow the advertising or selling of any form of canned or captive hunts. The show will also no longer allow the sales and marketing of any species bred as unnatural colour variations, such as golden wildebeest.

Blood Lions has also been invited to screen the film for Italian and Spanish parliaments next year.

Lion industry wants to get its house in order

The lion-hunting industry made global headlines after the American Walter James Palmer shot Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe, causing great controversy.

At home the documentary Blood Lions had tongues wagging. It showed how lions lived in terrible conditions and were abused. Canned lion hunting also causes great controversy, with more than 1 000 lions being shot in this manner every year.

Experts agree: It is time to set the lion industry straight. That is why the South African Predator Breeding Association (SAPBA) contacted Prof Melville Saayman and his team at TREES (Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society) at the North-West University’s Potchefstroom Campus to investigate the value of the lion industry in South Africa. This study, which will focus mainly on the main breeding areas of North West and the Free State, will also determine how many lions are part of the industry, as numbers vary between 4 000 and 6 000.

“A ban on hunting in Zimbabwe and the accompanying loss of income for Zimbabweans mean that approximately 2.3 million children are now deprived of the necessary aids. This means that the education sector is suffering, it means that bread is taken from their mouths. It means that 2.3 million children are worse off and their current low quality of life has deteriorated even more as a result of a bad decision by the government,” said Saayman.

“We can already see how poaching is increasing and we see unemployment increasing as well. This is not a healthy situation.”

According to Saayman, the Blood Lions documentary portrayed a rather skewed picture of the industry, but also succeeded in putting the spotlight on offences that need to be wiped out.

“Blood Lions created a bad impression of the industry and one of our challenges will be to rectify the situation. There are undesirable practices that harm the whole industry. However, this can be attributed to only a few people, but still leads to the fact that misperceptions about the industry are created. There are one or two bad apples in the lion cage.”

Saayman further says that South Africa’s lion population is far from showing problems, but more can be done to distribute the lions effectively and also to utilise them better.

“We will also determine what must be done with the surplus of lions, because it has to be determined what the best will be for the market. Some of the lions have to go back to the parks and some must be introduced to new areas to improve the gene pool. We have a healthy number of lions in the country and thanks to our breeding programmes we are not in a dangerous situation, but we will have to see what is going to happen with the surplus lions,” he explained.

“There are various possibilities as far as the surplus lions are concerned. They can serve an educational purpose, they can play a major role in ecotourism, like walking with lions and, as was mentioned before, they can be distributed to improve the gene pool in the country. Of course we can also export lions to countries where there is a shortage of lions. This will mean that those countries will have to guarantee that they will care for the lions. We did that in the past, but then the animals were poached.”

Saayman also praised SAPBA’s commitment to improving the industry, as well as to striving for a better future for lions in the country: “Cecil hurt the industry a lot. Blood Lions hurt the industry. The initiation of this study shows that the industry is serious about erasing the bad patches, and that will be to the benefit of the whole industry.”

Photo safaris trump trophy hunting

In July, the illegal killing of Zimbabwe’s iconic lion, Cecil, re-ignited the debate over the desirability of trophy hunting in Africa. Supporters of the practice argue that it contributes significantly to the continent’s economy – particularly in impoverished rural areas – and helps to fund conservation efforts. But are these assertions actually true?

In September, a New York Times article claimed that a ban on trophy hunting in Botswana lead to “a precipitous drop in income” for local communities.

However, Costas Christ, Editor at Large for National Geographic Traveler magazine believes that it’s misleading to argue that rural communities in Africa benefit more from trophy hunting than they do from non-consumptive wildlife tourism and that they have been negatively impacted by the ban on trophy hunting. “I have yet to find more than a one-off random example of trophy hunting viable as either a conservation strategy or income generator that can compete with the economic benefits of non-consumptive wildlife tourism.”

South African safari operator and conservationist, Ian Michler, agrees. He comments “There is no evidence to support the claim that rural communities benefit more from trophy hunting than they do from non-consumptive wildlife tourism. In fact, in areas where the two exist as a comparison, the opposite is true and that’s one of the primary reasons the Botswana government has stopped trophy hunting. Of course hunting offers work and creates revenue, but when measured in the bigger picture against a range of factors, including ecological and ethical ones, well-managed, non-consumptive tourism offers a significantly better long-term model”.

While Larry Rudolph and Joe Hosmer of the US-based hunters’ organisation Safari Club International, have claimed that “revenues from hunting generate $200m annually in remote rural areas of Africa”, the accuracy of this figure has been questioned. More importantly, it shrinks into insignificance if considered in the context of the whole of the African tourism industry.

In 2009, a study published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature characterised big game trophy hunting in West Africa as using “up a lot of space without generating corresponding socio-economic benefits”, making “insignificant” financial contributions to local populations and national GDPs.

A more recent briefing paper released by the World Tourism Organisation asserts that “the total international tourism receipts for Africa in 2013 reached $34.2bn” and that the number of international arrivals is predicted to more than double from a record 56 million tourists in 2013 to 134 million a year by 2030.

The authors note that Africa accounts for about half of the global wildlife watching market, which “has been estimated at 12 million trips annually and is growing at a rate of about 10% a year”. They highlight the fact that “wildlife watching represents 80% of the total annual sales of trips to Africa and sales are increasing”.

Regional case studies show that in 2005, 176 000 nature tourists spent $194m in Zambia, and in 2009, Tanzania’s popular Serengeti-Ngorongoro Circuit alone generated $500m from wildlife watching visitors.

The recently released documentary ‘Blood Lions’ estimates the annual revenue generated by a typical African hunting lodge to be $800 000 compared to $2.46m raised by an equivalent photo safari outfit. Operating all year round, the wildlife-watching business trumps the seasonal (6 months of the year) hunting company by serving a significantly larger number of tourists and making a substantially greater contribution to the local economy, for instance through airfares, wages and taxes.

A 2013 report by the organisation Economists at Large describes the role of trophy hunting in Africa as “tiny” and “completely insignificant” in the context of national economies, accounting for less than 2% of overall tourism revenues and never more than 0.27% of the GDP of the countries surveyed.

This appears to be the case even in South Africa, the continent’s most lucrative trophy hunting state. A report published by the global wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC in July puts the average annual revenue for all mammals killed by trophy hunters in South Africa between 2003 and 2010 at $55m. Approximately 20% ($10.9m) of this is accounted for by the controversial practice of hunting lions bred in captivity. In a recent opinion piece, Edna Molewa, South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs, estimated the number of international hunters visiting the country in 2012 at 8 500 and the value of its trophy hunting industry in 2014 at about $80m (R1.07bn).

These figures are dwarfed in comparison with the yearly income raised by the country’s tourism industry as a whole, which is estimated at around $19bn. Non-consumptive wildlife watching tourism plays a much greater role than trophy hunting in South Africa and the eco-tourism sector has become one of the leading and fastest growing segments of the market.

Contrary to claims by the industry, very little of the money made from trophy hunting appears to be finding its way to affected communities. Based on an analysis of the literature available on the issue, the Economists at Large report finds that only 3% of this revenue actually reaches the rural communities in the areas where the hunting takes place.

By contrast, the World Tourism Organisation’s briefing paper suggests that “there is a wide range of beneficiaries from wildlife watching tourism”, including local communities which draw both direct and indirect benefits, for example through the provision of goods and services to tourists, employment opportunities, fees from national parks and social and infrastructure development programmes. In the case of the Serengeti-Ngorongoro Circuit in Tanzania, mentioned above, for instance, $100m a year is considered “pro-poor”, reaching local people in the form of wages and other benefits.

To what extent trophy hunting fosters the conservation of African wildlife remains open to debate (although at least one scientific paper published in recent years suggests that it does the opposite), but it seems clear that its supposed economic benefits are routinely overstated by its supporters.

What’s of growing concern is the immense reputational damage this small industry can potentially inflict on the continent’s much more important non-consumptive wildlife tourism sector. The dubious, unethical or downright illegal actions of some of its members can have devastating effects on public sentiment as the overwhelming worldwide outcry following the killing of Cecil attests.

For the South African tourism industry in general, and for its very substantial and valuable wildlife watching component in particular, the mounting controversy over the captive-breeding and ‘canned’ hunting of lions, which is powerfully documented in the documentary Blood Lions, adds a particularly distasteful dimension that is unlikely to find any favour among international tourists interested in experiencing our increasingly embattled wildlife in its natural surroundings.

Empowers Africa Presents ‘Blood Lions™’ – Behind the Scenes.

The Explorers Club, New York, December 2, 6:00-8:30 p.m.  

NEW YORK, N.Y.  (November 10, 2015) Non-profit foundation Empowers Africa is hosting a special screening of the new documentary film, Blood Lions™, which exposes the shocking captive lion breeding and canned hunting industry in South Africa. This will be the first public screening of the full 85-minute documentary in the United States.

The fundraiser will take place at The Explorers Club, 46 E 70th St, New York, starting with cocktails at 6:00 p.m. The special screening will be followed by a panel discussion on South Africa’s captive lion industry and its links to canned hunting, voluntourism and the burgeoning lion bone trade with Asia, featuring Dr Andrew Venter, CEO of Wildlands, Dr Luke Hunter, President of Panthera, and Ian Michler, Blood Lions™ consultant, and lead character.

“We are hosting this fundraiser to support the Blood Lions™ campaign to raise awareness and put a halt to this brutal and unethical industry,’’ says Krista Krieger, executive director of Empowers Africa.  “If hunters, volunteers and tourists stopped supporting South Africa’s commercial lion breeders, it would go a long way towards closing their facilities down.”

According to leading South African NGOs Wildlands and Endangered Wildlife Trust, as well as the respected New York based NGO, Panthera, captive lion-breeding does nothing for lion conservation. Not a single captive-bred, hand-reared lion has been successfully released into the wild. Instead, every day in South Africa, two to three captive-bred, effectively tame, lions are killed in canned lion hunts.  Helping to fuel this industry are eager volunteers who unwittingly pay up to $1,000 per week to hand-rear lion cubs that have been forcibly removed from their mothers after birth.

Says Dr. Andrew Venter, CEO of Wildlands: “The scale of the industry is huge, with some 4,000 lion cubs born in captive breeding facilities in South Africa each year. Unbelievably, in South Africa canned lion hunting is legal, generating some US$10 million per year.’’

Dr Luke Hunter, President of Panthera, says the growth in Asian demand for lion bones (used as a proxy for tiger bones in traditional Chinese medicines) has created yet another revenue stream. South African lion breeders export over 1,000 lion skeletons annually for the lion bone trade in Asia. Hunter says: “There is absolutely no medicinal value in lion parts – you might as well consume cow for all the health benefits of lion bone. South Africa’s legal trade only fuels the demand for big cat body parts, providing a ready market for cats poached in the wild.’’

In order to reserve a seat for the Blood Lions™ event on 2 December, a donation of $150 can be made for regular seating or a $250 for VIP seating. “All donations from the screening will be granted from Empowers Africa to Wildlands to support the Blood Lions™ campaign. Funds raised will be used to recruit additional NSPCA Wildlife Unit inspectors to prevent abuse in the captive lion industry and to support wild lion conservation in South Africa,” Krieger says.

 “We are thrilled to be supported by Empowers Africa in New York,” says Blood Lions™ co-producer Pippa Hankinson of Regulus Vision. “It’s been four years since I embarked on this project and I am determined to see an end to this cruel industry. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”.

For tickets for the event, click here. http://bit.ly/bloodlions.

The Sad Saga of Cecil the Lion

There can be very few hunters around the world who have not heard about ‘Cecil the Lion,’ a collared animal from Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, that was shot and wounded outside the park by an American bowhunter, and subsequently tracked and killed on 1 July 2015.
A number of other newsworthy events around Lions happened concurrently or subsequent to this event, resulting in a frenzy of social media activity which was amplified by the mainstream print, radio and television media.

All this unwelcome negative publicity was not at all good for the authentic hunting community where high standards of ethical behaviour are upheld. The ongoing practice of ((canned lion hunting”, while it is not illegal in South Africa, continues to drive a large amount of public condemnation that keeps adding more fuel to the general anti-hunting sentiment which spreads around the world like wildfire, thanks to the Internet and social media. There is now a detailed reference in Wikipedia on the subject of Cecil the Lion.

This story had received worldwide coverage in the period just before the launch of a film called Blood Lions, a documentary about canned lion hunting in South Africa. The film’s sponsors could not have wished for better publicity for their movie, which was released at the Durban International Film Festival on 22 July.

“The film follows long-time wildlife campaigner Ian Michler on his quest to uncover the truth behind these breeding facilities and the canned hunting industry. Opponents to predator breeding and canned hunting have been calling for an end to these practices for almost 20 years, but with little lasting success, as both practices continue to grow.

“The Blood Lions team believes the film will provide the campaign with a significant boost,” says Michler. “Powerful footage and a compelling narrative from a number of world-renowned conservationists and welfare experts will leave viewers in little doubt as to what is taking place on many private farms across South Africa. Other than greed and ego, there are no reasons to be breeding lions in captivity to be killed in captivity. We believe the film can be a global tool for meaningful change.”

Michler is a tireless anti-hunting campaigner, and the canned lion industry provides a convenient scapegoat for the hunting fraternity in general. The film has been touring the world, and has its own website at www.bloodlions.org. So another anti-hunting body comes into existence, gathering more opposition to hunting — and not only canned lion hunting. The website reports as follows (6 September 2015) on the success of the campaign in Australia:

Tomorrow is the last public screening in Australia. We have had a great response in both cities including a standing ovation in Sydney. Ian Michler had this to say: “A huge thanks to Sydney for the great support they gave Blood Lions. A special evening for me with family and great friends in the audience. Special thanks to Matt Collis from IFAW, Hon Mark Pearson MLC, Animal Justice Party and Jerone Van Kernebeek from Four-Paws for the support and their contributions to the panel discussion. It’s Melbourne next and I am looking forward to meeting all the film’s supporters there, including Bruce Poon, Convenor of the Animal Justice Party and Nichola Donovan, President of Lawyers for Animals. Thanks to the UMAPS Student Club and Human Rights and Animal Ethics Network of Melbourne University for hosting us. For those that have not booked tickets, please come and support Blood Lions. While lions are the main characters in the film, we are also dealing with global issues about humanity and our approach to the planet.”

 Among the many thousands of comments about Cecil, a couple stood out for their objectivity, like the one from the Chair of the IUCN’s Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP)/Species Survival Commission (SSC) Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (see http://www.iied.org/rip-cecil-lion-whatwill-be-his-legacy-who-should-decide).

Another valuable commentary may be found at http://thinkinglikeahuman.com/2015/08/26/on-the-conservation-oftrolls/#more-244

While the Internet storm over Cecil the lion is highly relevant to the wildlife policy in Zimbabwe, and elsewhere in Africa, it also has broader implications for conservation. These relate to the impact of social media. Conservation organisations are heavily committed to social media as a way of getting their message out and recruiting supporters. This means that what social media says about conservation strategies has real bite. Hunting-based conservation strategies are suddenly embarrassing.

Live by the sword, die by the sword: if conservation is prosecuted through social media, it will be forced to abide by the norms of those who dominate that community. Science is hard to explain, and evidence-based decisions may be hard to explain or to justify. Subtle arguments do not work very well in 140 characters. Those who are most connected get listened to first and most. Celebrity and connectivity determine influence.

Hence, the conservation of trolls: In the world of the Internet, it is the views of the connected that matter, meaning trolls as well as the many others who use social media to express their views in less extreme ways. And the case opens The Wildlife Game up conservation policy in Africa to a vast passing audience whose views are strongly held and fiercely expressed.

In the end, whose values should drive conservation strategies in countries like Zimbabwe? Those of local people in rural areas where lions hunt and are hunted? Those of national government officials, balancing an industry against their international responsibilities for conservation? Those of media managers in international conservation NG0s, desperate to fted the insatiable demands of Facebook updates and Twitter streams? Or those who only think about conservation when they tune to the shifting emotional storm fronts of social media?

The TRAFFIC organisation had been researching the trade in lion bones for some time, and at the height of the Cecil pandemonium a letter was published in a widely-read journal, titled “Traditional medicines: Tiger-bone trade could threaten lions” (Vivienne L. Williams, Nature 523, p 290, published online 15 July 2015). Shortly thereafter the full TRAFFIC report was published (see Williams, V.L., Newton, D.J., Loveridge, A.J. and Macdonald, D.W. (2015). Bones of Contention: An Assessment of the South African Trade in African Lion Panthera leo Bones and Other Body Parts. TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK & WildCRU, Oxford, UK.) Since a clamp-down on the use of tiger bones for traditional Chinese remedies, lion bones are in demand as substitutes.

Ironically, and coincidentally, this TRAFFIC report features a full-page portrait of Cecil!

The fuller picture of the “lion industry” in South Africa has now been unraveled, and a sordid one it is, and one that does little for the proud conservation reputation of this country. There are an estimated 6 000 or more lions in captivity, mainly in the Free State and North West Provinces. Many of the lion-breeding farms host paying volunteers from overseas, who are duped into thinking they are helping to breed lions for “release into the wild”. Many cubs are placed in “lion-petting” facilities, where children can pet the cubs and have their photographs taken (for a fee). They are also fed the “breeding for release in the wild” line, when, in fact, the animals end up being shot by paying visitors. The bones are then cleaned and sold to China as a further revenue stream. It is a lucrative business, and it is mostly not illegal.

But it is not a business that does any good for the genuine hunting industry, and may end up damaging it severely. In the Internet era, the social media have powerful political influence, and perhaps thanks to Disney’s Lion King, lions share with elephants a special place in Western affections (Mufasa joining the Dumbo club). We can expect every incident involving any perceived downside of hunting to hit the headlines in future.

Jagberaad met VSA nou skielik oop vir media

JOHANNESBURG. – Die beraad van die departement van omgewingsake met trofeejagters is skielik nie meer geslote nie.

Die departement het gister teruggekrabbel en gese die media is welkom om die beraad met die Safari Club International Foundation (SCI) by ‘n luukse vakansieoord in Limpopo by te woon.

“Die vergadering is oop vir die media,” het Albi Modise, woordvoerder van die departement, gese. Vroeer het ‘n kollega van hom gese die beraad is nie oop vir die algemene publiek nie omdat dit ‘n vergadering tussen regerings (Suid-Afrika en Amerika) is.

Die media is ook nie van die beraad in kennis gestel of daarheen genooi nie. Die sakelys van die beraad het egter Saterdagaand aan bewaringsorganisasies uitgelek.

Die bewaringsorganisasie Conservation Action Trust het gister gese die doel met die beraad is duidelik om ‘n veldtog te voer ten gunste van trofeejag in Suid-Afrika. Trofeejag is veral sedert die jagtog op Cecil die Zimbabwiese leeu in Julie wereldwyd omstrede.

Ian Michler, vervaardiger van die dokumentere rolprent Blood Lions, het gese hy vind dit baie vreemd dat ‘n oorsese jagklub so ‘n groot rol speel op ‘n beraad oor die volhoubaarheid van wild in Afrika.

Modise het erken die SCI betaal vir die beraad en dat die departement van omgewingsake die gasheer is. Hy het ontken dat die departement die SCI as sy vennoot beskou en het beklemtoon geen beleidsbesluite sal op die beraad geneem word nie. Volgens Modise is SuidAfrikaanse jagverenigings ook na die beraad genooi.

Polokwane: SA Government and US hunters in secret meeting on future of Africa’s wildlife

Hunters from the United States and South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) are meeting behind closed doors at a resort near Polokwane this week, to plan the future use of Africa’s wildlife. Journalists have been told they are not welcome at a meeting hosted by the South African government, in collaboration with pro-hunting groups from the United States.

A four-day conference of The African Wildlife Consultative Forum (8-12 November) is being run jointly by the DEA, and the Safari Club International, the US’s biggest and most influential hunting fraternity. From a leaked agenda it is clear that the gathering is aimed at building an African pro-hunting lobby at the forthcoming meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), scheduled for Johannesburg next year.

The African Wildlife Consultative Forum is an offshoot of Safari Club International. However, environmental non-governmental organisations requesting access to the conference were blocked by DEA deputy director, Mpho Tjiane, who emailed them claiming “this is a Government meeting and is not open to the general public.”

Journalists requesting accreditation have been told that attendance is by invitation only, and they are not invited. There is no indication that deliberations will be made public.

“It is of grave concern that issues of this nature and importance are discussed at closed meetings, with what appears to be predominantly pro-hunting representation,” said Karen Trendler of the NGO, Working Wild. “Many conservation and response organisations will be affected by the various issues being discussed, as will broader South Africa, and it would be preferable to have wider representation.”

Ian Michler, who produced the film Blood Lions, questioned why a foreign hunting club was playing such a significant role in deliberations about the sustainability of wildlife in Africa. “The agenda is clearly not only pro-hunting, but also seeks to raise doubts about the value of photo-tourism against hunting. It also appears to support those wishing to overturn the CITES ban on trade in rhino horn.

“Given the non-transparent nature of the conference, it’s hard not to infer a conspiracy between hunters and governments in proposals that will be presented to CITES in the public’s name.”

The first session kicked off with an address by professional hunting associations, and presentations include issues around the trade of ivory and rhino horn, the role of sport hunting, the Vietnamese demand for rhino horn, import/export permits, the breeding of colour morphs for hunting, and the value of hunting as opposed to photo-tourism.

Moderators from the DEA are being assisted in every session by George Pangeti, an official of Safari Club International, who was head of administration in the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management of Zimbabwe.

His online biography makes it clear that the African Wildlife Consultative Forum was created by Safari Club International to “discuss issues of sustainable wildlife management, sport hunting and benefit flow” in Africa. It was, also, tasked to lobby CITES “in support of sustainable use, especially sport hunting, and trade in wildlife products.”

Following the recent death of Cecil the lion, and a huge tusker in Zimbabwe, trophy hunting has come under considerable pressure from governments and conservation organisations. Questions have been raised about whether trophy hunters are protectors of biodiversity, as they claim, providing funds, and a reason to protect wild areas, or whether they are simply killers of wild animals?

Safari Club International has a large and wealthy membership keen to counter negative publicity about trophy hunting. The agenda at the Polokwane meeting makes it clear that they aim to convince African delegates to support trophy hunting, and act as a bulwark against growing distaste among members of CITES. Scientific studies shows that little money from hunting goes to communities, and that killing the biggest, and fittest animals, is detrimental to species. The South African Government’s enthusiastic support for this line of thinking is of concern to many involved in genuine conservation.

Lions to the slaughter

The trophy-hunting industry is making many farmers rich – but the process of domesticating the king of the jungle is destroying the species for the amusement of thrill-seeking tourists .

THE LIONS ARE PACKED SO CLOSELY that they’re touching each other. In their enclosure they “move like snakes”, says environmental journalist and safari operator Ian Michler, his voice strained with the affront. Territorial by nature and requiring vast open spaces to survive, these big cats have been tamed, habituated to humans and many hand-reared by international paying volunteers who are led to believe they’re doing a service for conservation in Africa by raising orphaned cubs.

Somewhere overseas, a thrill-seeking man with some spare cash goes online to pick out the creature he’d like to kill; the darker the mane, the better, because the more powerful-looking the lion, the more thrilling to vanquish. He’s got limited time (and he’s cheap) so he doesn’t want to spend weeks – or too many thousands of dollars. (A real lion-hunt in the wild can take up to 21 days of tracking and stalking.)

He wants a guaranteed kill, needs to do the shoot quickly and take home his trophy to mount on the wall. His lion, bred in captivity for the express purpose of being shot, will have clean good looks. These animals have no bush history, so there are none of the scars of animals in the wild.

He comes to South Africa, where there are 6,000 to 7,000 predator lions born in captivity on about 200 farms and breeding facilities. (There were fewer than 1,000 in 1990, and about 3,000 in 2005, indicative of the growth of the industry.) Here he meets his lion and is shown exactly where to aim to be most effective. Every day, in South Africa, two or three male lions die this way, shot from perhaps 20 or 30 metres away, unable to escape. After a speeded up and intensive reproduction cycle, the females, whose offspring are taken away when still cubs, are usually sold in the “bone trade” for Traditional Chinese Medicine.

He’s warned by the farmer, a hunting operator, to be careful but this is part of the game, part of making it feel like real hunting – unpredictable, a challenge, and as though he is pitting himself against a genuine foe, the king of the animal world.

He feels ethically quite good about what he does, harbouring the idea that the US dollar (50% of hunters are American) or other foreign currency he’s paying translates into many, many South African rands which will go toward the conservation effort for this magnificent endangered species.

Michler says: “They have no consideration or appreciation of the irony that they are domesticating lions. If you look at the marketing of the entire trophy hunting industry, it’s based on the notion that these are wild, noble dangerous creatures and that they are pitting their skills in a fair contest against this noble beast. That he who downs or slays the beast is a brave man and made his contribution to saving the species. The absurdity is that every aspect of that marketing line has been completely shattered. They’ve tamed and human-imprinted the lions and there’s nothing noble or fair about the chase and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with conservation whatsoever.”

Michler, protagonist of and special consultant for an eye-opening documentary on the canned lion industry, Blood Lions: Bred for The Bullet, says their gene pool is useless because they are inbred, and they’re too habituated to humans to be used for breeding in the wild. Only animals bred under the auspices of an authentic team of scientists and conservationists can be used for conservation.

Nor does he buy the argument that the captive lions take pressure off those in the wild; it’s a different market and in fact, wild lions, whose number continues to decline, are taken to support dwindling gene pools in the captive market. And their very existence is detrimental to the conservation effort, artificially bumping up numbers.

It is only in South Africa that this occurs, says Michler, who is often asked why there are no black people interviewed in the documentary. He says he has never met a black person who owns one of the breeding facilities or hunts predators. His theory is that the mentality driving the industry is an extension of the brutality of South Africa’s apartheid past. Running the show are “mostly people out of the apartheid era which had no regard for human rights either – it is an offshoot of that period in our history.”

Blood Lions, locally produced by Regulus Vision in collaboration with the Wildlands Conservation Trust, and directed by Bruce Young and well known filmmaker Nick Chevallier, was launched at the Durban International Film Festival in July. It has since been aired by MSNBC in the US, will be screened at the European Parliament, at the Royal Geographic Society in London, and is doing the rounds of international film festivals. Its production was funded by philanthropists. For now, the campaign plan involves a release to schools and other educational institutions, carefully selected television stations and film festival They’ve tamed and human-imprinted the lions and there’s nothing noble or fair about the chase screenings so that the film’s message is controlled and funds for the campaign are generated from ticket sales and donations. Eventually, says Michler, it will be free to air on YouTube.

The film’s serendipitous launch was just two days before the shooting of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe hit headlines, sparking outrage worldwide. The two fed into each other, says Michler. The response should put breeders and hunt organisers on notice: “[l’m saying] forget about defending your positions, just look at what happened and understand that there’s a significant proportion of the global population who do not agree with what you’re doing and why you’re doing it. The response to Cecil is for me representative of an outrage toward this continued abuse of our fellow species and the planet.”

Noseweek watched a screening of Blood Lions at Bishops School in Rondebosch (where Michler, who grew up on a farm in the southern Cape, boarded in high school). The front rows were occupied by junior boys, warned beforehand that what they were to see was “grossly unfair” and would be shocking. And shocking it is.

With great pride, Michler is described by the Chairman of the Old Diocesan Union, Brian Robertson, as someone who’d gone “from a life of success to a life of significance. He is, other speakers say, a keystone person, someone who gives a damn… N go to war with him.” He’s definitely more alternative than most of the audience, and was welcomed with something like adulation by other old boys, along with many jokes about his good looks and how they tagged along behind him because he was popular with girls.

In a previous incarnation, Michler was a successful stockbroker, running the Cape Town office of Ferguson Brothers, which later became Investec. Then, when he was 30, or 31, in 1989, he had some sort of epiphany and went to live in the Okavango Delta in Botswana and re-invented himself, buying a lodge (since sold) and immersing himself in wildlife photography and environmental journalism.

“Broking was fantastic. My leaving was both a push and a pull: the pull was my love of being in wilderness, and the push was this notion that your relationships in your work environment were based purely on financial equations. If the market was up, everyone was your friend and if the market was down, everyone was grumpy… it was a little disturbing that you could chart that on a daily basis.”

In Botswana, he soon realised that “living in paradise” was not enough, and that he “needed to make a meaningful contribution”. Back then, Botswana was still a big hunting destination. “We used to ride horses for photography tourists, but we shared that concession with hunters. We’d stop and then they would come in… there were too many shots, and outside the season we would hear shots and light aircraft. It didn’t add up and that very quickly took me to those hunting farms and breeding facilities in South Africa.” He’s visited scores of them and has been following the story since 1999.

Today, he’s based in Plettenberg Bay and his main income is from high-end wildlife safaris in 15 countries, including Zimbabwe, Namibia and Madagascar, where he sees lions living a natural life in the wild, and deals with conservationists and ecologists. The juxtaposition with the canned hunt when he comes home to South Africa is almost intolerable. “You’re dealing with real conservation challenges, with animals in the vast open landscape in very intricately evolved ecosystems, then you come back and see them broken down in cages. It’s this complete perversion…

“Most shocking to me, more than individual cases, is the notion that there’s a group of people who have collectively come up with an economic or social justification for taking an apex predator like a lion, which requires in its natural world large amounts of space, and confining it to small enclosures.”

Lions, he says, not only command a very powerful presence in our spiritual beings, in our poetry, in our mythology, but in an ecological sense are a charismatic species at the apex of our ecosystems. “If we can’t look after them responsibly, then what hope is there for anything? Here in South Africa, we are completely denigrating that standing and justifying it on an economic basis.”

South Africa’s tourism industry is worth about R95 billion annually. Of that, about 1.5% is generated by hunting – of which only a fraction comes from canned or captive hunting. Of the nine million international visitors to South Africa every year, only about 9,000 go on a hunt. It is, he says, illogical to claim that it is significantly good for the economy. “They’ve overplayed their hand and everyone has bought into it. We are saying to the government: Why are you pandering to a few hundred people who are contributing a fraction of 1% of the tourist dollar and damaging Brand SA?

“One of the main reasons is that it’s a sport for wealthy and influential people – businessmen, politicians, military men from all over the world come here.” In fact, a section of the film that was cut after legal threats were issued was that of a “very well Everyone’s survival, rich or poor, is based on conservation and healthy ecosystems Ian Michler known” person shooting a lion.

Making the documentary wasn’t easy. The lion trade is a murky world, with shadowy agents as go-betweens to disguise the path from farm to target. While the documentary does feature trophy hunters, breeders, ecologists and conservationists and welfare experts, trying to get evidence sometimes involved deception, including getting a sympathetic American – Rick Swazey from Hawaii – to pose as a hunter. But always they were discovered and in some cases, threatened.

Other than captive hunting, there are some newer revenue streams for the lion-breeding industry. Last year about 1,000 carcasses were used for the bone trade for Traditional Chinese Medicine. China banned the trade of tiger parts in 1993. Welfare standards for these lions are worse still, says Michler, because they don’t even have to look good.

Another revenue stream that fits in nicely is volunteering, which sees young people from all over the world paying significant sums to farmers, lion park owners or so-called sanctuary owners (in one case, there’s a farmer making more than $100,000 in a month in the season) who are taking advantage of their naivety The volunteers are told they are raising orphaned or abandoned cubs, when in fact the cubs have been taken from their mothers at about a week old and will later be sold into the hunting or bone trade. “It’s a double betrayal, betraying the kids and animals and making money from both.”

Michler has a response for every potentially tricky question: Is it not hypocritical to focus on the glamorous lions? What about factory farming, what about the packaged meat we all eat from the supermarket shelf?

The difference, he says, is that hunting is done for fun, for pleasure. With food, there’s at least some logic to it. But anyway, focusing on one issue does not mean others don’t matter, or you don’t understand the rest. It’s a question of being pragmatic and narrowing down to get traction, not always addressing man’s “entire relationship with fellow species”.

Instead, he and his team have taken a position in the middle ground, where the decision-makers and politicians are based. “I explained this to the vegan community in Australia. They take an absolute line and I said I’m in complete sympathy/empathy with what you’re saying but by taking an extremist line, you’re not going to have any impact. Being pragmatic you will. That we take a more defined line in the film doesn’t mean we don’t care, we completely care on [the issue of] domestic animals.”

Finally, how do you justify focussing on animals in a country where people have so much need too? For Michler and his team on the documentary, the answer is simple. Everyone’s survival, rich or poor, is based on conservation and healthy ecosystems, and for that, wilderness needs as much attention as education, health, and policing. “We need clean air, clean water, healthy forest topsoil and carbon sequestration systems… If we don’t have those, we’re all gone, okay? In the sixties, we had an excuse that we didn’t know; now we do, we are in the age of awareness. We know about the ozone hole, climate change, how the oceans have been depleted, about acid rain. We can no longer be ignorant about the way forward. Blood Lions is symbolic on a small scale of a more sensitive, a more ecologically aware approach to the planet and the way we live.

“We talk about sustainability, it’s the catchphrase of the world today, but in South Africa particularly, it’s become definition which focuses on the human sustainability component. Everyone understands that we need to take care of people, but it’s how and why we develop now, after 250/300 years NOSEWEEK November 2015 of unconsidered development.”

Conservationists tread a fine line, and have to be wary of targeting the extremely wealthy or alienating big corporates, because wealthy philanthropists are some of the biggest contributors to the cause. “I want them to understand that they’ve been part of the problem, as have we all, but they need to be part of the solution… It’s not about them, it’s about understanding the impact that 300 years of rapacious greed has had on the planet.”

The eradication of poverty and the way we treat the environment are inextricably linked, says Michler. One of the main reasons for poverty in Africa is that the management of natural resources has been so skewed in favour of the wealthy. Nothing will change until the short-term goals and mandates of industrial conglomerates and politicians/decision-makers are uncoupled and conservation’s long-term goals become the paradigm. And, although they might present it as an either/or jobs or conservation, it’s not as though politicians are taking care of poverty anyway, he points out. Playing one off against the other doesn’t make sense.

Still, there is room for optimism. International pressure is building, he says and, as with sanctions on apartheid South Africa, the international revenue stream will dwindle as the world realises what’s going on. There’s growing pressure inside South Africa too. Recently, the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa, PHASA, after viewing Blood Lions, called the current situation “no longer tenable”. Legislative change, hopefully, will see the closure of predator facilities and stop all breeding. There is no other solution. Breeding of lions in captivity should only be done by a legitimate conservation agency, well-funded and peer-reviewed. Not one of South Africa’s predator-breeding facilities is working with any recognised conservation agencies or lion ecologists. At present, there are no legal requirements on farmers with regards to understanding biology, animal husbandry, lion ecology, or conservation in general. It is legal to breed as long as farmers comply with provincial legislation that focuses on minimum standards for fencing and enclosure sizes.

Captive predator breeding falls into a grey area, legislatively. Typically, says Michler, environmental departments internationally look after biodiversity and conservation involving wild animals in wilderness areas, while agriculture departments deal with animals in agricultural conditions. “It’s a classic distinction… but with these lions, you have a wild animal kept under agricultural conditions, so they are constantly passing the buck between the two departments, avoiding responsibility.”

On-side is the Minister for Tourism, Derek Hanekom, who says the canned lion trade is damaging “Brand South Africa”. But ultimately it will not be his decision. “Can you imagine,” says Michler longingly, “all the goodwill that would be generated internationally if she [Minister for Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa] were to listen to her cabinet colleague and end it? Everyone is saying something needs to happen here…”

Clarion calls for the wild

Ian McCallum has a diverse range of skills and talents – medical doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, wilderness guide, author and poet. Scott Ramsay spent a few hours in his company

Ian McCallum’s love for the African wilderness and wildlife is clear to see. He has travelled to most parts of the continent from his base in Cape Town.

He is an eloquent and effective advocate of the protection of the wilderness and the restoration of relationships between humans and animals, and with the planet itself.

Ian’s Ecological Intelligence is a highly readable book that will challenge and inspire readers who are concerned about the state of the Earth. His poems in the anthologies Wild Gifts and Untamed are clarion calls for a renewed reverence for wildlife and wild places.

The wildlife and wilderness areas of Africa are under immense pressure, despite the best intentions of some concerned governments and citizen groups. What needs to be done to ensure they are sustained and nurtured?

The critical level will be the number of people who are genuinely concerned about the future of wild animals. The greatest danger is the indifference that so many people have for wildlife and wild areas – the attitude that “it’s got nothing to do with me”.

For example, why should somebody in New York City or Beijing worry about the rhino? Rhinos may go extinct, but so did the dodo. Isn’t this just part of the cycle of life? There’s a terrible sense that there’s nothing that any of us can do as individuals.

This is the biggest challenge. It comes down to the question: what are we – the privileged ones – going to do about it?

We are the ones who are privileged to have had contact with elephants and rhino and lions in a way that most people will never have. We are the ones who must speak up for the wild places and animals.

It depends on an acknowledgement of what I call “web-of-life” thinking. Everything is connected. Wild creatures are part of our identity.

What about the so-called “sustainable utilisation” model, including trophy hunting, as a way to create jobs and increase revenue flows to wildlife areas?

This is quite contentious. We have to be very careful of the sustainable utilisation model, which turns all living things, other than human beings, into objects: Objects for our use, objects which have a monetary value and that therefore are exchangeable on economic terms.

There is another school of thought,that some things – surely – are just simply not for sale. And what is it going to take for us to reach that level of ethics and say, “I’m sorry, this is not for sale. This is priceless.”

Is your mother for sale? Is your daughter for sale? Are you going to put an economic value on child trafficking? Oh, no, we’re talking human beings here. Some will argue this is a different issue. I’m saying no, it’s not a different issue. It’s part of the same continuum.

Do you really give a stuff about your fellow man? Then show me that you actually give a stuff about the animals and the natural state of the planet.

Does your mother have an economic value? No. Would you die for her or your sister? Surely. There are some things worth dying for.

There are different kinds of hunting, of course. Hunting a gemsbok or kudu to feed your family and friends is one thing, but trophy hunting of elephants, rhinos, lions or leopards is a continued act of dominance where the hunter stands on top of his or her prize with a high-powered rifle, where the animal didn’t have a snowball’s hope in hell, and pretending that you have shot it in self-defence or that this is some statement of your personal prowess. This is a mind-set that is heavily cushioned and fed by the sheer amount of money that comes pouring into this industry.

The economics of trophy hunting don’t always match up to what the hunters claim. I’m afraid the reality and some of the statistics don’t always match. The amount of money that goes back into conservation or communities is not as much as hunters say.

What do you say to the trophy hunting operator, who is adamant that trophy hunting is a valuable part of the conservation matrix?

Sometimes you have to kill wild animals, yes, because the highly managed game reserves of today mostly have fences, and can only sustain certain numbers of animals. Why not give those same trophy hunters a quota, and then they can come in to hunt, and get a replica on their way out? Give them the best fibreglass replica of the animal they are allowed to shoot.

But that dead animal stays here in Africa. Nothing leaves here, okay? You can take a photograph of your animal, but there will not be a photograph of you standing in triumph over this animal. You’ve come for the hunt and for the chase.

We need to encourage a new breed of hunters. The message needs to be: “You are welcome to come and track that animal, but you must identify the track first, and then you have to follow it on foot, and find the animal by yourself.”

There will be no use of vehicles, or shooting from the back of vehicles. Let’s regenerate an honourable hunting ethos. Let’s go back to how it all began.

The issue of sustainable utilisation is highlighted by the current crisis surrounding rhino poaching, and the potential legalising of the sale of horn into Asia. What’s your view?

How can you justify the selling of rhino horn for a use which is nothing but sheer superstition? Isn’t this intrinsically wrong? Don’t you think education is the key here?

Why underestimate the intelligence of Chinese and Vietnamese people, where the so-called market is? We’ve got to be very careful about turning the Chinese people into the enemy. Our enemy is right here in SA and, Trailists on the Imfolozi Wilderness Trail in KwaZulu-Natal watching a white rhino. sadly, it is fed by the economic model that follows the money.

The proposed trade in rhino horn is madness, because we haven’t got a clue about who the market is. Who are you going to sell it to? Secondly, we don’t know whether such trade is going to work. It is filled with uncertainty.

The argument against that will be, “Yes, but nothing else has worked in the past”, and we’re saying, “Rubbish”. We haven’t even begun to give it the best chance in terms of global awareness and demand reduction, to educate and stop people from using rhino horn.

There’s a third factor – ethics. For me, rhino horn is surely something which is not for sale. That, personally, is an important one. I’d like to know that I’m prepared to go and fight for this. Let’s show a little bit of backbone here.

What is the solution to the crisis in conservation?

You’ve got to get the government in SA, for example, to be totally committed to protecting what I’m going to call “national treasures”. They have to declare a state of emergency right now. We need to have world leaders say, “This is not right”. Citizens and governments around the world have got to assist the governments of Africa to solve the problem. It’s a global crisis, and we need global help and co-operation.

Let’s talk about something more personal. Which are your favourite wild regions in Africa?

I have three. Two are in Botswana and one in Namibia.

The Linyanti region in northern Botswana, on the Linyanti River overlooking the Caprivi Strip, is one of them. I’ve spent a lot of time there. Equal to that would be the Okavango Delta. There is a tremendous sense of space.

In both the Delta and Linyanti, you’re looking at a vast expanse of wilderness where there are no human beings and where natural processes have been going on for thousands of years. You are taken back in time, and when I go there I feel as though I’m part of the life cycle.

The other place would be the northwestern part of Namibia, towards Skeleton Coast. It’s phenomenal. What really strikes me is that there are no fences. Even places in Botswana, such as the Moremi Reserve, are defined by a buffalo fence that separates humans from wildlife.

But in Namibia’s northwest there are no fences. There is this unique demonstration of how humans coexist with wild animals, and that is precious. There’s a sense of continuity there.

A lot of the Himba people are continuing a way of life that’s hundreds and hundreds of years old. If I couldn’t die in Botswana, I’d be quite happy to spend the last years of my life there. That desert speaks!

Sadly, there are very few South African wildlife areas that would leap at me in the same way, beautiful as some of them are. I think of Pafuri in northern Kruger Park. It really is wonderful but sadly, for me, there’s a sense of claustrophobia because it’s so highly managed.

And who are some of the people in conservation who have inspired you?

I think the first person is Ian Player. I did my first Wilderness Leadership School trail in 1981 in Imfolozi. I found my spiritual home changed my life, that wilderness experience.

Prior to that I had lots of experience of watching animals from inside a motor car, behind the safety of a windscreen. But when you are walking and living in the bush as a guest, walking in silence, sitting around a fire through the night and listening to the sounds… It was profound, so I owe Ian Player and his friend, Magqubu Ntombela, a huge debt on that score.

Magqubu gave me a branch of the Ziziphus mucronata (buffalo thorn), saying this would tell me how to live my life. The forward-pointing thorn on the branch reminds us to think of future generations, and the one that points backwards reminds us not to forget where we’ve come from. I don’t know of a more simple yet profound philosophy. That’s my philosophy: never forget where you’ve come from. Learn how to say thank you, not just to your parents or grandparents. Where have you actually come from? Once you start getting into the whole field of evolutionary biology, you understand how much we need to be thankful for.

Another person who has inspired me is Ian Michler, a wilderness guide and conservation photojournalist and activist. We have worked very closely together. He is incredibly knowledgeable and a brilliant ornithologist. He’s extremely alert to animal behaviour, and is a great teacher.

Recently he’s been instrumental in exposing canned lion hunting in SA, in his new documentary, Blood Lions. Ian has immense courage and integrity.

There are other people I’m drawn to simply because of their dedication to what they are doing and their love of the wild. I think of characters like Chris Bakkes, Garth Owen-Smith and Margaret Jacobsohn in Namibia, working with communities and wildlife. These are giants of conservation.

Some of the Wilderness Leadership School guides, especially Mandla Buthelezi, also inspire me. Mandla has been around for a long time and he knows how to handle a wild animal. He is like Superman and Clark Kent. When he goes into the wilderness, the transformation is immense and his levels of awareness and knowledge are incredible.

Then there’s Karel “Pokkie” Benade, who is one of the finest trackers I’ve met. Yet he’s one of the most humble human beings. The pleasure I had while working with him at The Tracker Academy cannot be measured. I recently spent a week with him and his wife, Jeanette, who is the principal of the academy. He’s the main tracking mentor.

I’ll never forget the first time I met Pokkie, in 2010. It was in January, the height of summer. We went tracking in the veld. We picked up springbok spoor, and he said, “Ja, maar hierdie dier kom nie van die Karoo af nie”. And he was right. These springbok had been brought in from the Kalahari. Their tracks were just that little bit wider than those of the Karoo springbok. Amazing.

What do you admire most about the wilderness, and what do you miss about it when you’re away from it?

It’s very simple. Wilderness is part of the geography of my identity as a human being. That wildness is crucial for human sanity. Please note, I’m not talking about savagery, that which is raw and crude; I’m talking about that which is spontaneous, which is authentic.

Wildness on a psychological level is something that is untamable in us, thank God. But you can’t civilise it because it is civilised already in its own way. It is civil. I feel it. It’s in my blood. It’s part of my identity as a human being and without it I would die of a loneliness of spirit. I couldn’t put it any other way.

And spending time in wild places of Africa is a sort of homecoming. They are places of homecoming.