- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 13,325
- Reaction score
- 9,602
- Website
- www.africahunting.com
- Media
- 5,597
- Articles
- 321
by Kai-Uwe Denker
By now most hunters have become aware of the fact that due to the unfortunate coincidence of illegal international trafficking in wildlife products and ill-advised anti-hunting campaigns, a serious crisis for trophy hunting as such has arisen. So much so, that it might well be a question of all hunting coming to an end, if – and this seemingly is the important underlying lesson only to be learned the hard way – the so-called hunting industry is not able to shrink into convalescence.
Several opinions were voiced lately, amongst them the accusation that hunters, although having been warned about this, have “done nothing” to create a united front against fanatic anti-hunting activists. This cannot be left standing; the issue is much more complex.
If there is one reproach that can be laid in front of the doorstep of hunters (and I mean those true hunters), then it is that they failed to properly justify their doings emotionally.
Fanatics at all times needed the hotbed of unhealthy circumstances for their campaigns.
The reproach that certainly has to be laid in front of hunters, is that they where unable to dissociate themselves from the amalgamation with the “abusers” of the sustainable use principle.
There is much talk about “winning the hearts and the minds of society”. However, and this is the crux of the matter, clever technocrats totally seem to forget that emotions (the hearts) are an immensely strong factor – ultimately perhaps the strongest force – in human opinion forming.
In the late nineteen eighties there perhaps was an intermediate high stage for our case, after pioneers like Dr. Heribert Kalchreuter (“Die Sache mit der Jagd”) and others had explained sustainable human off-take within the correct context of natural connotations. In their wake followed many dedicated experts, who had made the “principle of sustainable use” widely accepted.
For the open-minded general public and nature-loving hunters alike, at that time it went without saying that this “principle of sustainable use” meant “respectful, moderate, circumspect use”. There thus was this intermediate high, when the hearts and ears of the open-minded public at least where open for our case. But what has become from it?
Unfortunately the well founded and well meant “principle of sustainable use of natural resources”, to a considerable extent has become a matter of “sustainable abuse of natural resources”. “Zauberlehrlinge” who, typical for human nature, for reasons of greed, have run away, not only with generally accepted standards of ethical hunting, but with the very important ecological and nature conservation linkage of the sustainable use principle; financial aspects totally overriding any moral considerations, besmearing the image of trophy hunting and putting a big question mark over the true motives of trophy hunters and totally loosing the hearts of the general public in the process.
“Captive bred lion hunting” or, to even top it, the “artificial breeding of colour variants and outsized trophies for the hunting industry”, being the most unacceptable practices that developed under the guise of “wise use”.
Sadly enough too many people who should have known better, have lend their ears and their voices to these practises.
I cannot agree to the notion that the “only group that counts are the fanatics”.
The group that counts is the open minded general public.
If we for once just would learn that only with a well balanced approach of comprehensible facts and acceptable emotions the hearts and minds of society can be won.
The present ban on the transportation of hunting trophies by various airlines is directly linked to the worldwide concern about the illegal trafficking in wildlife products, most notably rhino horn – a concern that we hunters certainly share wholeheartedly. Unfortunately the disturbing truth is that unscrupulous PH’s have been directly linked to the horrible rhino poaching and rogue outfitters indirectly linked to the illegal trafficking of rhino horn. Fact is also that “Campaign Against Canned Hunting” (CACN) is actively promoting the ban. Whatever the ultimate aim of CACN might be, typically this movement uses the leverage of an unacceptable practice, to support their case and rally up emotions.
Let us be a bit practical. The general public is stricken with dismay about the constant bad news of rhino and elephant poaching becoming totally out of control. Let us rather have some understanding for a momentary overreaction born out of utter powerlessness, instead of polarising and accusing all around us of mysterious conspiracy with the anti-hunting lobby, thereby heaving the fanatics into an importance they do not have.
Still most decision makers, just like the general public, listen to reason if approached in measured way.
Nevertheless we face an imminent crisis, a make it or break it situation. What is at stake is not the financially lucrative side of an industry… it is hunting that is at stake. It is high time that we hunters for once take our fate into our own hands and distance ourselves from unacceptable practices and explain ourselves well, as being the nature lovers and conservationist that indeed we are, instead of having our case tabled by technocrats who too easily motion away valuable human qualities like compassion and consciousness as “just emotions”. For once those breeders and dealers and rogue outfitters, who, for greed alone, have commandeered the honest intentions of the sustainable use principle and ethical hunting standards, should step back.
Stewart Dorrington has explained that well in his deliberations on “hunting and game breeding” in the latest edition of African Indaba.
The art of survival largely depends on adaptability to changing circumstances and environments (changing times and growing awareness in our case). Instead of the ever-the-same “money counts” strategy of the last two decades, which in no way could stop our slow decline, we perhaps should adapt a bit and redefine trophy hunting as to suit such important human traits as growing compassion and circumspection. Perhaps it is time to more adequately speak of “sustainable off-take of natural resources within healthy eco systems” or even of “sustainable human participation in nature”. Because unspoiled nature as such is the one commodity that clearly is hugely desirable for many humans, not human “use” and “abuse” and “manipulation” of nature.
Hunting on the long run can never survive in the loud, money-driven, competitive “Wildlife Industry Form” it has grown into. In its pure, honest, respectful original form, however, it could be a hugely important supplement to a general conservation strategy – very much to the advantage of the protection of last fragments of unspoiled nature. And that, after all, is what mankind wants.
Hunting as such – and unspoiled nature it can help protect – is just too deer to me.
I have a strong feeling that it is time to cut old plaits. The principle of adding “value to wild animals” has not proven itself – it is just too prone to abuse, and with that creating the hotbed for fanatics. We should sit back and open-mindedly consider admitting that wild animals front and foremost have aesthetic value. That their value lies in their unconditional belonging to the nature humanity would like to protect. We should get away from the “killing animals for money” perception. Nature’s laws as such are easily explained.
And this is the most important need of the moment: to explain nature. Not nature manipulated to suit someone’s (financial or emotional) need, but nature as it is. Factual and from out scientific viewpoint only. It has to be pointed out that regularly rhino bulls are killed during fights amongst themselves. The merciless interaction between lion and hyena has to be pointed out. The food chains on which nature rests have to be explained. This is the important campaign that has to be started immediately without connotation to hunting. And then the question has to be asked and answered: Does humanity still want and need nature?
Human off-take – and importantly – if done respectfully and sustainably, will justify itself, once nature is properly understood. Surely we hunters do not kill environments, rather the contrary. The “value of the privilege to hunt” is what explains our case appropriately. To put it in plain, practical terms: the “daily fee” for being able to hunt in natural surroundings is the hugely powerful value (the incentive that adds monetary value to consumptive tourism) that supports our case of contributing towards ecologically sound conservation – not the value of the individual animal to be shot; its value is only indirectly; lies in being part of a bigger, healthy natural concept - a concept which tourist can use in consumptive and in non-consumptive way without doing any harm to it.
Source: Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA)
By now most hunters have become aware of the fact that due to the unfortunate coincidence of illegal international trafficking in wildlife products and ill-advised anti-hunting campaigns, a serious crisis for trophy hunting as such has arisen. So much so, that it might well be a question of all hunting coming to an end, if – and this seemingly is the important underlying lesson only to be learned the hard way – the so-called hunting industry is not able to shrink into convalescence.
Several opinions were voiced lately, amongst them the accusation that hunters, although having been warned about this, have “done nothing” to create a united front against fanatic anti-hunting activists. This cannot be left standing; the issue is much more complex.
If there is one reproach that can be laid in front of the doorstep of hunters (and I mean those true hunters), then it is that they failed to properly justify their doings emotionally.
Fanatics at all times needed the hotbed of unhealthy circumstances for their campaigns.
The reproach that certainly has to be laid in front of hunters, is that they where unable to dissociate themselves from the amalgamation with the “abusers” of the sustainable use principle.
There is much talk about “winning the hearts and the minds of society”. However, and this is the crux of the matter, clever technocrats totally seem to forget that emotions (the hearts) are an immensely strong factor – ultimately perhaps the strongest force – in human opinion forming.
In the late nineteen eighties there perhaps was an intermediate high stage for our case, after pioneers like Dr. Heribert Kalchreuter (“Die Sache mit der Jagd”) and others had explained sustainable human off-take within the correct context of natural connotations. In their wake followed many dedicated experts, who had made the “principle of sustainable use” widely accepted.
For the open-minded general public and nature-loving hunters alike, at that time it went without saying that this “principle of sustainable use” meant “respectful, moderate, circumspect use”. There thus was this intermediate high, when the hearts and ears of the open-minded public at least where open for our case. But what has become from it?
Unfortunately the well founded and well meant “principle of sustainable use of natural resources”, to a considerable extent has become a matter of “sustainable abuse of natural resources”. “Zauberlehrlinge” who, typical for human nature, for reasons of greed, have run away, not only with generally accepted standards of ethical hunting, but with the very important ecological and nature conservation linkage of the sustainable use principle; financial aspects totally overriding any moral considerations, besmearing the image of trophy hunting and putting a big question mark over the true motives of trophy hunters and totally loosing the hearts of the general public in the process.
“Captive bred lion hunting” or, to even top it, the “artificial breeding of colour variants and outsized trophies for the hunting industry”, being the most unacceptable practices that developed under the guise of “wise use”.
Sadly enough too many people who should have known better, have lend their ears and their voices to these practises.
I cannot agree to the notion that the “only group that counts are the fanatics”.
The group that counts is the open minded general public.
If we for once just would learn that only with a well balanced approach of comprehensible facts and acceptable emotions the hearts and minds of society can be won.
The present ban on the transportation of hunting trophies by various airlines is directly linked to the worldwide concern about the illegal trafficking in wildlife products, most notably rhino horn – a concern that we hunters certainly share wholeheartedly. Unfortunately the disturbing truth is that unscrupulous PH’s have been directly linked to the horrible rhino poaching and rogue outfitters indirectly linked to the illegal trafficking of rhino horn. Fact is also that “Campaign Against Canned Hunting” (CACN) is actively promoting the ban. Whatever the ultimate aim of CACN might be, typically this movement uses the leverage of an unacceptable practice, to support their case and rally up emotions.
Let us be a bit practical. The general public is stricken with dismay about the constant bad news of rhino and elephant poaching becoming totally out of control. Let us rather have some understanding for a momentary overreaction born out of utter powerlessness, instead of polarising and accusing all around us of mysterious conspiracy with the anti-hunting lobby, thereby heaving the fanatics into an importance they do not have.
Still most decision makers, just like the general public, listen to reason if approached in measured way.
Nevertheless we face an imminent crisis, a make it or break it situation. What is at stake is not the financially lucrative side of an industry… it is hunting that is at stake. It is high time that we hunters for once take our fate into our own hands and distance ourselves from unacceptable practices and explain ourselves well, as being the nature lovers and conservationist that indeed we are, instead of having our case tabled by technocrats who too easily motion away valuable human qualities like compassion and consciousness as “just emotions”. For once those breeders and dealers and rogue outfitters, who, for greed alone, have commandeered the honest intentions of the sustainable use principle and ethical hunting standards, should step back.
Stewart Dorrington has explained that well in his deliberations on “hunting and game breeding” in the latest edition of African Indaba.
The art of survival largely depends on adaptability to changing circumstances and environments (changing times and growing awareness in our case). Instead of the ever-the-same “money counts” strategy of the last two decades, which in no way could stop our slow decline, we perhaps should adapt a bit and redefine trophy hunting as to suit such important human traits as growing compassion and circumspection. Perhaps it is time to more adequately speak of “sustainable off-take of natural resources within healthy eco systems” or even of “sustainable human participation in nature”. Because unspoiled nature as such is the one commodity that clearly is hugely desirable for many humans, not human “use” and “abuse” and “manipulation” of nature.
Hunting on the long run can never survive in the loud, money-driven, competitive “Wildlife Industry Form” it has grown into. In its pure, honest, respectful original form, however, it could be a hugely important supplement to a general conservation strategy – very much to the advantage of the protection of last fragments of unspoiled nature. And that, after all, is what mankind wants.
Hunting as such – and unspoiled nature it can help protect – is just too deer to me.
I have a strong feeling that it is time to cut old plaits. The principle of adding “value to wild animals” has not proven itself – it is just too prone to abuse, and with that creating the hotbed for fanatics. We should sit back and open-mindedly consider admitting that wild animals front and foremost have aesthetic value. That their value lies in their unconditional belonging to the nature humanity would like to protect. We should get away from the “killing animals for money” perception. Nature’s laws as such are easily explained.
And this is the most important need of the moment: to explain nature. Not nature manipulated to suit someone’s (financial or emotional) need, but nature as it is. Factual and from out scientific viewpoint only. It has to be pointed out that regularly rhino bulls are killed during fights amongst themselves. The merciless interaction between lion and hyena has to be pointed out. The food chains on which nature rests have to be explained. This is the important campaign that has to be started immediately without connotation to hunting. And then the question has to be asked and answered: Does humanity still want and need nature?
Human off-take – and importantly – if done respectfully and sustainably, will justify itself, once nature is properly understood. Surely we hunters do not kill environments, rather the contrary. The “value of the privilege to hunt” is what explains our case appropriately. To put it in plain, practical terms: the “daily fee” for being able to hunt in natural surroundings is the hugely powerful value (the incentive that adds monetary value to consumptive tourism) that supports our case of contributing towards ecologically sound conservation – not the value of the individual animal to be shot; its value is only indirectly; lies in being part of a bigger, healthy natural concept - a concept which tourist can use in consumptive and in non-consumptive way without doing any harm to it.
Source: Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA)
Last edited by a moderator:
