Source: NAPHA FB Page
A brilliant letter from a NAPHA Member, Hagen Denker.
To whom it may concern,
Re.: The proposed ban on the import of hunting trophies into the UK
Personally, from a practical perspective, I could not care less about a possible ban of hunting trophies into the UK. Yes, I am a landowner, and yes I make a living from trophy hunting, but my business would not cease because of a ban, and I would not stop hunting because of a ban. I would not have to diversify into some other business, because the conservation of nature - that I also achieve through hunting - is a much more fundamental question and activity to me. I am a conservationist because I believe that there is an incredible importance to conserve nature and live a natural life. And this would not be changed by a ban from whatever country.
So why am I opposing the proposed ban by the UK? There are three main reasons, and the first two are a question of principle for me.
Firstly, the proposed ban is nothing else than an ideological drive by people who have largely or completely become detached from nature and a natural life as well as being part of nature, and what this actually entails. Such people have lost the comprehension of what happens in nature and moreover reduce the act of hunting to a mere act of killing, which brings them into a moral dilemma. They do not understand that killing is only the penultimate and yet necessary part of hunting - and no true hunter will claim to enjoy killing. However, to have hunted you have to have killed. As such detached people never directly come into a situation where they have to decide to, or even ‘only’ witness, killing, they condemn hunting as a whole, where in actual fact their problem is with killing (death) and more specifically a human directly being ‘responsible’ for this.
The questions must be asked: what do such people eat? What do they wear? Where do they live? How many living beings had to die to afford such people such a life style?
Secondly, these detached-from-nature people have a problem with a hunter bringing back a ‘trophy’ from abroad. Some of these people accept that the killing of animals is necessary to feed people, but that killing for a mere trophy is despicable, as the notion persists that meat from trophy hunted animals is wasted. This is decidedly not the case; especially in communal hunting areas in Namibia, hunting outfitters are contractually obliged to distribute the meat to the local communities. Also in private hunting areas, all meat is utilised.
Therefore the so-called trophy that is much rather a piece of memorabilia - in simplified terms like a pebble from a beach or gnarly piece of wood from a forest - from the adventure of the hunt, has no greater effect than a meat hunted animal. To the contrary, a trophy hunted animal yields much higher financial returns, resulting in less animals that have to be taken.
Hence, again, this is much more an ideological and emotionalised question than a question of whether there is a threat to an animal species.
The third reason I am opposed to the proposed ban is because the ramifications that such a ban would render, go far beyond what most people can imagine, and they go far beyond how I personally feel about or am affected by such a ban.
The ultimate goal of hunters, conservationists - and in some ironic way probably also of the proposed ban - is to protect nature, natural habitats and the beings living there. The single biggest threat to all of this nature is the encroachment by humans/ civilisation, and it is of paramount importance that we do our best to protect what little nature is left.
More so than in other parts of the world, the drive and hunger for civilisation and a piece of land in developing countries is incredible. Therefore these local communities are key to conserve nature.
This In many instances is achieved from them receiving benefits from nature that far outweigh the benefits that other (destructive) land uses have.
Hunting presents such benefits.
And a ban would actually and seriously jeopardise the positive effects and benefits for the local communities and, arguably more important, nature at large.
The local communities will have no option neither will they have second thoughts but to turn to alternative land uses to just make a living off of the land.
This means that a ban would be the absolute end of nature in such areas.
Can anybody really live with the responsibility of taking a decision that will effectively wipe pristine natural lands off the map?
I cannot fathom that a so-called first world country would actually take a decision that would be purely based on emotions and ideologies of a saturated community, and that would moreover ironically result in the exact opposite of what it intends to do.
Even many anti-hunting and/ or hunting critical NGOs have acknowledged that well regulated hunting can be a conservation tool, especially in the absence of a viable alternative.
Therefore one can only hope that a fact-based decision will be taken that will not be to the detriment of nature.
I thank you for reading this and for your consideration.
Yours sincerely
Hagen Denker
Namibia
A brilliant letter from a NAPHA Member, Hagen Denker.
To whom it may concern,
Re.: The proposed ban on the import of hunting trophies into the UK
Personally, from a practical perspective, I could not care less about a possible ban of hunting trophies into the UK. Yes, I am a landowner, and yes I make a living from trophy hunting, but my business would not cease because of a ban, and I would not stop hunting because of a ban. I would not have to diversify into some other business, because the conservation of nature - that I also achieve through hunting - is a much more fundamental question and activity to me. I am a conservationist because I believe that there is an incredible importance to conserve nature and live a natural life. And this would not be changed by a ban from whatever country.
So why am I opposing the proposed ban by the UK? There are three main reasons, and the first two are a question of principle for me.
Firstly, the proposed ban is nothing else than an ideological drive by people who have largely or completely become detached from nature and a natural life as well as being part of nature, and what this actually entails. Such people have lost the comprehension of what happens in nature and moreover reduce the act of hunting to a mere act of killing, which brings them into a moral dilemma. They do not understand that killing is only the penultimate and yet necessary part of hunting - and no true hunter will claim to enjoy killing. However, to have hunted you have to have killed. As such detached people never directly come into a situation where they have to decide to, or even ‘only’ witness, killing, they condemn hunting as a whole, where in actual fact their problem is with killing (death) and more specifically a human directly being ‘responsible’ for this.
The questions must be asked: what do such people eat? What do they wear? Where do they live? How many living beings had to die to afford such people such a life style?
Secondly, these detached-from-nature people have a problem with a hunter bringing back a ‘trophy’ from abroad. Some of these people accept that the killing of animals is necessary to feed people, but that killing for a mere trophy is despicable, as the notion persists that meat from trophy hunted animals is wasted. This is decidedly not the case; especially in communal hunting areas in Namibia, hunting outfitters are contractually obliged to distribute the meat to the local communities. Also in private hunting areas, all meat is utilised.
Therefore the so-called trophy that is much rather a piece of memorabilia - in simplified terms like a pebble from a beach or gnarly piece of wood from a forest - from the adventure of the hunt, has no greater effect than a meat hunted animal. To the contrary, a trophy hunted animal yields much higher financial returns, resulting in less animals that have to be taken.
Hence, again, this is much more an ideological and emotionalised question than a question of whether there is a threat to an animal species.
The third reason I am opposed to the proposed ban is because the ramifications that such a ban would render, go far beyond what most people can imagine, and they go far beyond how I personally feel about or am affected by such a ban.
The ultimate goal of hunters, conservationists - and in some ironic way probably also of the proposed ban - is to protect nature, natural habitats and the beings living there. The single biggest threat to all of this nature is the encroachment by humans/ civilisation, and it is of paramount importance that we do our best to protect what little nature is left.
More so than in other parts of the world, the drive and hunger for civilisation and a piece of land in developing countries is incredible. Therefore these local communities are key to conserve nature.
This In many instances is achieved from them receiving benefits from nature that far outweigh the benefits that other (destructive) land uses have.
Hunting presents such benefits.
And a ban would actually and seriously jeopardise the positive effects and benefits for the local communities and, arguably more important, nature at large.
The local communities will have no option neither will they have second thoughts but to turn to alternative land uses to just make a living off of the land.
This means that a ban would be the absolute end of nature in such areas.
Can anybody really live with the responsibility of taking a decision that will effectively wipe pristine natural lands off the map?
I cannot fathom that a so-called first world country would actually take a decision that would be purely based on emotions and ideologies of a saturated community, and that would moreover ironically result in the exact opposite of what it intends to do.
Even many anti-hunting and/ or hunting critical NGOs have acknowledged that well regulated hunting can be a conservation tool, especially in the absence of a viable alternative.
Therefore one can only hope that a fact-based decision will be taken that will not be to the detriment of nature.
I thank you for reading this and for your consideration.
Yours sincerely
Hagen Denker
Namibia
