Some interesting facts about the hunting industry in South Africa

[James.Grage]

Some interesting facts about the hunting industry in South Africa:

2012 Statistics by Dr Herman Els

* 10 years ago, there were less than 5 000 game farms in South Africa

* Today (2012) there are 12 000 game farms in South Africa

* 10 000 of them have exemptions for hunting

* 20 million hectares of land is in private ownership representing about 70% of land use for wildlife conservation, the other 30% is government owned national and provincial game reserves

* Government owned game reserves cannot conserve all the wildlife in South Africa effectively and rely heavily on game and hunting farmers to assist them

* The hunting industry has generated R 7.7 Billion in 2011 - .25% of SA's national GDP

* R 3.1 Billion per year was generated from around 250 000 biltong hunters in South Africa

* R 2.1 Billion per year was generated from around 15 000 trophy hunters from abroad

* The balance was generated from add-on services, food and accommodations

* Trophy hunting has a lesser impact on wildlife than biltong hunting

* Hunting is by far the largest revenue generator for game farmers

* The sale of animals represents only around 5% of the revenue generated by game farmers

* There are over 500 luxury lodges with staff on private game reserves in South Africa

* 60% of all wildlife in South Africa are owned privately outside of national and provincial parks

* Game & hunting farmers are the largest contributors towards the conservation of wildlife

* Game farms creates three times more employment than on a normal livestock farm

* Over recent years more than 70 000 jobs were created on newly established game farms

* By 2020 the industry will have created an additional 220 000 new jobs

The industry has seen species like Rhino, Sable and Roan, breeded by game farmers, returned to its habitat in healthy numbers. Hunting played a role in providing game farmers with the needed income to sustain the breeding of these animals.

Hunting provides the needed funding to assist with effective wildlife conservation as in many cases is an extremely costly exercise. Hunting also provides employment to the many unemployed in Africa and is a main source to look at for future food security as arable land use for agriculture is under pressure due to population growth. Game meat is a serious food source to consider for our future generations.

We observe the fact that there are difference in opinion between hunters and non-hunters alike and respect the views of the non-hunter. We do however urge the non-hunter to be objective and try to understand the positive impact hunting has on our society at large by assessing issues such as the economic impact for the conservation of our wildlife, the re-introduction of previously dwindling species, employment and food security. All of these are important points to consider when the hunting industry is being scrutinized.

Hunting Legends fully supports the many initiatives to conserve wildlife and nature.

 

[Second Wind]

James,

I don't know about you but, while the efforts in RSA are to be applauded the one thing that bothers me is the actual "ownership" concept of the animals themselves

As you know, in Texas, all native wildlife is essentially owned by the State and this works pretty well because, for instance in a poaching matter, it becomes the State of Texas vs Joe the poacher

The construct we now operate under makes poaching, for instance, a multifaceted offense.

That is to say that first their is the criminal act of poaching itself and then after the smoke of that is litigated, the offending party, found guilty or not, walks to his mail box one day and receives a bill from the State of Texas for say, "one whitetail buck, 10 point or better, $3,100.00

Now, if you don't pay, the State has a cause of action in a civil venue, if the offender were to loose there there is a judgment, non-dischargeable, filed against him and the State will move to collect.

In the interim, his drivers license is cancelled, any professional license he may hold will not be renewed etc etc

The long and short of it is this. In Texas, when you are in the wildlife or game farming business you have the State as an enforcement partner and that is not always a bad thing.

 

[AfricaHunting.com]

Thanks james!

 

[MarcelV]

James,

I don't know about you but, while the efforts in RSA are to be applauded the one thing that bothers me is the actual "ownership" concept of the animals themselves

As you know, in Texas, all native wildlife is essentially owned by the State and this works pretty well because, for instance in a poaching matter, it becomes the State of Texas vs Joe the poacher

The construct we now operate under makes poaching, for instance, a multifaceted offense.

That is to say that first their is the criminal act of poaching itself and then after the smoke of that is litigated, the offending party, found guilty or not, walks to his mail box one day and receives a bill from the State of Texas for say, "one whitetail buck, 10 point or better, $3,100.00

Now, if you don't pay, the State has a cause of action in a civil venue, if the offender were to loose there there is a judgment, non-dischargeable, filed against him and the State will move to collect.

In the interim, his drivers license is cancelled, any professional license he may hold will not be renewed etc etc

The long and short of it is this. In Texas, when you are in the wildlife or game farming business you have the State as an enforcement partner and that is not always a bad thing.

In Texas it might be a good idea, but in Africa you do not want government to involved in ANYTHING....

 

[spike.t]

In Texas it might be a good idea, but in Africa you do not want government to involved in ANYTHING....

:agree: i can just imagine some one turning up to your ranch/reserve, with a letter from the minister saying he can shoot anything and everything he wants, and when you query it saying "ah but what is the problem" .:shakehead:

 

[35bore]

In Texas it might be a good idea, but in Africa you do not want government to involved in ANYTHING....

I don't care who you are, that's a funny statement, but it seems to be a common thought among most of the South Africans I have met.:laughing:

 

[Second Wind]

See there you guys go again with that International mind set and me just a poor little brown dirt cowboy

Here is how it works

The land is owned and that is sacred, get caught on another man's land with a firearm and you better know how to use it

like real well.

Secondly, you can't stand off on the right of way, the road or anything else that is State owned and discharge a firearm or engage in the act of hunting . . . that will draw you about a year in County if nothing is killed and nobody got hurt

in the interim, I literally have the Texas Parks and Wildlife at my beck and call for management issues. Substantial tax breaks and incentives and not one but three separate agencies to assist with enforcement. Not a bad deal if you ask me.

Now, since I have a moment

I have heard that poaching, in places, in Southern Africa is something of a problem at times. Remedy to that is simple really,
might want to check with oh I dunno...someone like Tres Kleberg just out of Kingsville Texas, I understand that on 850,000 acres he has no trouble with poaching at all, despite that his borders fall very close to some urbanized areas.

Or we could just ask one of the poachers . . . . except there is a bit of a problem there

 

[Wolverine67]

I really dont see the problem. In Norway you own the land AND you own the right to shoot the animals. You dont own the animals, but you own the right to shoot them.
So in case of poaching, you make a complaint and the perpetrators face legal actions. My point, you dont need to own the animals, just the right to shoot them. No needs for government right to the animals or privat ownership to the animals just the right to hunt. Wich you of course can sell.

 

[35bore]

Thanks James, very informative post. Keep them coming.

 

[James.Grage]

The issue is that all countries have there own rule and laws.

You can not compare them to your country. they are not the same...

 

[lwaters]

In Texas it might be a good idea, but in Africa you do not want government to involved in ANYTHING....

In Kansas you do not want the government to be involved in anything either. In the USA it would be alot better if the landowners owned the game. They would manage it alot better.

 

[spike.t]

SW/wolverine in zambia if you dont have a fence round your ranch/reserve you dont own the animals on your land, they belong to the govnt. when you have put up a fence they still belong to the govnt, until you have done a count, and had someone from zawa visit to checkout and agree on the numbers, then you can buy them from the govnt, and they become yours. this wasnt too expensive on my place as there were only a few bushbuck and duikers left to buy after it was fenced (everything poached). everything else was bought from other gamefarms. you cant compare the USA govnt to govnts in african countries in most things let alone wildlife. you have to remember that to the majority of africans in the bush wildlife is only good for eating, for the rest it either eats/destroys their animals or crops or even themselves. remember the saying, they wont be happy till the have killed every animal, and chopped every tree down . without private ownership there wouldnt be much wildlife outside of big national parks/reserves or big well controlled govnt hunting areas.

 

[Wolverine67]

Sorry if I was not clear in my post, what I mean is that the landowners need to have the right to hunt the animals on their properties, not the government. You dont need to own the animals, just the right to hunt on your property.

 

[spike.t]

if you dont own the animals you cant hunt them, and as i said if you didnt have a fence, there would very quickly be very few animals left, so there would be nothing to hunt anyway. they would wander off and be poached. if we took the fence down and gave them freedom to go where they want i think within a couple of weeks the animals would be poached and the meat sold /eaten. very few would survive. what you must remember also is that in a lot of african countries the state/govnt owns a lot of things including the land. we can get a 99 year lease in zambia for land from the govnt, not freehold. also the animals are a valuable asset . you have a farm and they are your crop so as to speak.

 

[Wolverine67]

I guess its when the government own all land, and no privat property exist, things tends to go wrong. And then I really see the need for fences...
The whole thing sounds a bit communistic to me. lol...
I am used to large areas privatly owned, where everybody respect the landowners solely right to the hunting, whith strict quotas. That means there no need for high fencing and the animals roam freely.
Well, different countrys, different regulations.

 

[lwaters]

Where I hunted in Namibia it looked like there was a high fence between one neighbor that would shoot any game that roamed onto his property. The farm also bordered Botswana and there was a high fence there but I don't think it stopped much game from crosssing. I quess some landowner just don't like game. I know one old farm neighbor I had here in Kansas felt he was alot better off with none of that stuff around. I fell as long as the wildlife has value it will be around but when it comes time where there aren't enough hunters the cattle and sheep will become more profitable. Sad but it well may happen.

 

[Second Wind]

Tall fences here used to be all the rage and many still exist

the problem with tall fences is that before long the gene pool just turns to crap

fences are useful for cattle ranching which is done concurrent with wildlife management

but if you have a herd of cattle or goats you do change bulls on a regular basis and adjust the number of cow to bull ratio for optimum performance

That process is a little harder with wildlife

For us here it has really never shown to be worthwhile to introduce foreign bucks into a deer population. I know it has been tried and some will argue about their success but all in all I think it has been shown to be an "iffy" proposition

In Texas when you take a deer lease you are taking a lease for the surface and right of entry. The wildlife are considered free ranging and wards of the State. Their harvest is regulated by the State wildlife code and by the landowner in that he can legally attach to the conditions of the lease anything he wishes. If you do not comply with the land owner's covenants in the lease you would be considered to have breached the agreement and for the lessor/hunter it may be time to start packing.

 

[Second Wind]

Iwater

if I may lend some encouragement

Those ranchers in South Texas have finally realized that the wildlife is much more valuable than livestock

Let's hope it finally turns out that way in Kansas

 

[enysse]

SW/wolverine in zambia if you dont have a fence round your ranch/reserve you dont own the animals on your land, they belong to the govnt. when you have put up a fence they still belong to the govnt, until you have done a count, and had someone from zawa visit to checkout and agree on the numbers, then you can buy them from the govnt, and they become yours. this wasnt too expensive on my place as there were only a few bushbuck and duikers left to buy after it was fenced (everything poached). everything else was bought from other gamefarms. you cant compare the USA govnt to govnts in african countries in most things let alone wildlife. you have to remember that to the majority of africans in the bush wildlife is only good for eating, for the rest it either eats/destroys their animals or crops or even themselves. remember the saying, they wont be happy till the have killed every animal, and chopped every tree down . without private ownership there wouldnt be much wildlife outside of big national parks/reserves or big well controlled govnt hunting areas.

Do you stock animals from Zambia, if you put a fence up? Because the animals are different than the ones from RSA and would think the animals from the area would be best adaptable to living behind the fence in their native land. Second question....Are fences being more and more common in Zambia ?....just reading things from the internet and magazines...it seem like they are in the increase.

 

[Bobpuckett]

James,

I don't know about you but, while the efforts in RSA are to be applauded the one thing that bothers me is the actual "ownership" concept of the animals themselves

As you know, in Texas, all native wildlife is essentially owned by the State and this works pretty well because, for instance in a poaching matter, it becomes the State of Texas vs Joe the poacher

The construct we now operate under makes poaching, for instance, a multifaceted offense.

That is to say that first their is the criminal act of poaching itself and then after the smoke of that is litigated, the offending party, found guilty or not, walks to his mail box one day and receives a bill from the State of Texas for say, "one whitetail buck, 10 point or better, $3,100.00

Now, if you don't pay, the State has a cause of action in a civil venue, if the offender were to loose there there is a judgment, non-dischargeable, filed against him and the State will move to collect.

In the interim, his drivers license is cancelled, any professional license he may hold will not be renewed etc etc

The long and short of it is this. In Texas, when you are in the wildlife or game farming business you have the State as an enforcement partner and that is not always a bad thing.

I don't know about you but it sounds like to me that the state of Texas has found another way to be in your business and your pockets " found guilty or not" now that sound American.