The paradox of the hunting ban
Lawrence Seretse | Saturday March 1, 2014 18:28
Hunting is such a strange issue that it can turn even the most logical people into purveyors of irrationality and make the most liberal intolerant.
A study titled ‘An Interdisciplinary Approach to Inform Conservation Strategies for Threatened Species in the Australian Western Desert’ by scientists Rebecca and Doug Bird offers insights into maintaining animal communities through ecosystem engineering and co-evolution of animals and humans.
The study shows that humans can have positive impacts on other species without the need for policies of conservation and resource management. It teaches that in the case of indigenous communities, the everyday practice of subsistence hunting might be just as effective at maintaining biodiversity.
But this is evidently a philosophy that is little appreciated at Government Enclave in Botswana where exports of any wildlife species was recently banned – indefinitely - and where the government has closed hunting on all government concessions for 12 months.
The tug of war between the government, conservationists and commercial hunters, each in their own position, about the most sustainable approach to mitigating the facing off of some wildlife species while keeping the tourism industry essentially profitable is one that will not go away.
In this equation, what is often disregarded is the rights and survival of subsistence hunters in poor communities such as in Kgalagadi, Gantsi, Chobe and the Tuli whose threat to wildlife is confined to killing for supper. Court records in Tsabong, Middlepits and Gantsi reflect this inherent conservationist nature of Basarwa and other indigenes who kill one or two antelopes for domestic consumption.
Says the Commander of Middlepits Police Station, Superintendent Moses Chibamo: “In Middlepits, we haven’t experienced many cases of wildlife smuggling. We have many cases tsa ba ba bolaelang go ja (of those who kill for the pot). Which shows you that people in this part of Botswana love their meat.”
The practice of hunting for consumption by indigenes, or so-called Remote Area Dwellers, is so common that it is not unreasonable to say it is rooted in their culture. Also among them are working class subsistence hunters who wait for hunting quotas to acquire licences to kill a buck or two, and these constitute a negligible part of the population.
Nevertheless, the Director of Wildlife and National Parks, Oduetse Koboto, disputes the existence of subsistence hunting because the government and conservationists regard hunters from poor communities as poachers.
But the issue is where to draw the line between traditional hunting, or hunting to survive, and poaching? The argument is endless. Some say subsistence hunters would kill a maximum of two antelopes per quota to feed one’s family, while poaching is for economic gain without regard for animal numbers killed.
What is indisputable is that poaching is illegal. But with the hunting ban, subsistence hunting by poor communities is also prohibited for the whole of 2014, which is a controversial imposition in the eyes of the affected communities.
The Member of Parliament for Kgalagadi North, Philip Khwae, says his people are domestic hunters. Ten years ago, the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism used to advertise hunting raffles for a specified number of animals. When the practice was stopped, community trusts were introduced for settlements and quotas issued to the trusts.
“The professional hunters came and started buying these quotas from the Basarwa for little money and meat from the hunted animal. The professional hunters kept all the trophies,” Minister Khwae said.
Realising the declining numbers of predators, and that the quota was being sold, government banned the inclusion of predators from the hunting quotas. The quota lost its value; professional hunters could not buy it any more because they preferred to hunt lion, leopard, hyena and cheetah for their lucrative markets.
However, hunters with community trusts argue that it was ill advised for government to ban predators from hunting quotas because lions pose a serious threat to people and domestic animals.
“I can attest to that,” says Khwae. “I lost 15 cattle to lions last year while I can count up to 50 cattle killed in two years by lions. But if you do not hunt any more, animals will not fear coming close to human settlements in large numbers.
“Predators will also come in large numbers. Ultimately humans will suffer more and could be killed alongside their livestock. The hunting ban will fuel this conflict further and…goa go nna le tlala!”
But the point is that the controversy around the total prohibition of hunting was always going to be inevitable because the debate never had anything to do with logic, evidence, animal welfare or the survival of small settlement hunters.
Professional hunters argued that it was instead an obsessive and bigoted attack on a group of people viewed with disapproval by promoters of photographic tourism.
Kgalagadi North lawmaker Khwae opines that the subsistence hunter, who is the same as the subsistence farmer, looks at this matter from the perspective of his conflict with wild animals.
Farmers are bitter, he says, because if a predator kills their livestock, compensation from government is P350 for a calf and P7,000 for a bull. On the market, the calf would fetch around P4,000 and a heifer up P12,000 at an auction sale. “The imbalance between the compensation and the market price fuels poaching and the killing of predators,” Khwae argues.
Professional hunters hold the view that government should consider captive breeding projects where trophy hunting would be monitored as it was with community trusts. One hunter summed up thus: “Hunting was perceived as cruel not because of any evidence of infliction of pain but because its opponents saw people they did not like doing something they did not like!”
Government argues that breeding facilities could prompt subsistence farmers to sell their quotas and smuggle animals into captive breeding facilities.
With a degree of gullibility, another hunter has commented: “So an easier way had to be created, and that is canned lion hunting. It’s controlled. The lion is bred for this reason, and it is just like the breeding of chickens. As some hunting outfits might say, we have never heard of chickens being listed as vulnerable or endangered by the IUCN!”
With several private game farms and animal breeding places coming into being years ago, many people realised how easier it is to breed wild animals and make money than keeping livestock because, among other things, the latter attract disease faster and can die in numbers during drought.
By comparison, wild animals are less prone to disease. As the game breeding ‘frenzy’ grew over the years, so did volunteer researchers find it convenient to visit the farms and study the animals better.
Not surprisingly, these researchers soon attracted the criticism that they hide behind the veil of ‘conservationism’ while through the captive breeding facilities that they support, they earn funding and profits through these animals.
In The Botswana Wildlife Management Area- Resource Economics report: Review of Safari Hunting in Botswana:
Financial and Economic Assessment, (R. Martin 2008 writes:
“A major study done by Mead (2001) put the gross economic value of the safari hunting industry in Botswana at about US$10 million, seven years later (2008) this value has increased to about $40 million.”
That was in 2008. Since then, elephant quotas have tripled, so the figure could be safely trebled to $120 million, a far cry from the $40 million. Licences for elephant generate in excess of P8 000,000 directly to government alone.”
An official statement from the ministry of wildlife has stated that changes in land use in certain areas where photographic and hunting operations have been combined has given rise to much speculation among the international hunting fraternity.
Last year, Botswana Wildlife Management Association confirmed that big game hunting would continue only in the following concessions:Butler & Holbrow Safaris / Chobe Enclave CH1/2 and Calitz Hunting Safaris / Mababe NG 41.
Interestingly, hunting on privately owned ranches in Botswana persists. As it turns out, there are a number of such properties many of which are currently operated as private getaways for family and friends. But some do offer commercial hunting opportunities to the general public.
Meanwhile, a few years ago, the government, through Botswana Tourism Organisation in partnership with National Geographic, sponsored filmmaker Dereck Joubert with close to USD6 million for the making of a movie titled The Last Lions that was shot in the Okavango.
The Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, Neil Fitt, has said this partnership has greatly supported the Botswana Tourism brand in the United States market and globally to an estimated seven million viewers of the National Geographic Channel worldwide.
The benefits that accrued to Botswana included the country’s association with the movie through messaging in highly engaging marketing programmes that leverage media and other platforms.
“The partnership with (the) National Geographic Channel carried a total investment of US$502,700.00 out of a total marketing and publicity value over $6 million. We have in the past also worked with Tim Liversedge on the release of the movie Roar Lions of the Kalahari where our main interest was taking advantage of the release of the movie to market the Botswana Tourism product,” Fitt continued.
“We have also had a partnership with Dr Michael Chase on the premiere in Gaborone of the movie, Elephants without Borders.”
Most conservationists and the government blame hunters for the phasing out of wildlife. The most prevalent being canned hunting.
The move towards photographic safaris has divided wildlife conservationists, with some arguing that hunting quotas issued to communities that live near wildlife management areas help empower and develop local communities.
Botswana’s tourism industry was initially based on trophy hunting and all areas outside national parks and reserves were divided into concessions to be tendered by professional hunting companies for trophy hunting safaris.
The Minister of Wildlife, Tshekedi Khama, has been quoted as saying poachers should be shot and killed. However, it is widely feared that the hunting ban will lead to increased poaching, which is already widespread in many parts of the country, particularly the Chobe National Park and Central Kalahari Game Reserve.
“The ban on hunting in Kenya in 1976 resulted in 100,000 elephants being poached within a year,” notes one hunter.
According to the Endangered Species Handbook, Botswana earns US$100 million (about P750-million) a year from tourism, including trophy hunting. Which means there could be a decline in these profits.
In an interview published by Mmegi late last year, top hunter Harry Charalambous, of Maun called for an increase in the quota for game hunting in the area, saying it attracts billionaires from Europe and America to Botswana. Charalambous said he hosted Russian billionaire and Chelsea Football Club owner, Roman Abromovich, every year for trophy hunting.
He added that he also pays approximately P10 million a year to four community trusts in the Chobe, Sankuyo, Mababe and the Okavango from proceeds earned from trophy hunting.
MP Khwae speaks of Basarwa in his district as nomads. He says government should set up game ranches for them as a way of encouraging sedentary lifestyles. Government should also consider setting up wildlife abattoirs. Khwae sees these measures as means that could keep people from poaching.
“Nowadays in my district, even if they get Ipelegeng wages, they cannot buy meat anywhere. Meaningful compensation to farmers would also play a crucial role in fighting poaching,” Khwae reiterated.
In the end, the question is why is the government failing to manage the wildlife-human conflict, a failure that results in poaching?
Further, if the government is truly in touch with the so-called foreign researchers, why has the country lost over 80% of its lions in 20 years before this controversial hunting ban?