FREE STATE SAFARIS

LIMPOPO PROVINCE SAFARIS

KWA-ZULU NATAL SAFARIS

Drawing a line on gun ownership

One of the liveliest perennial debates in South Africa is the issue of civilian gun ownership. The arguments for and against are frequently highly emotive and tend to surface capriciously in the wake of a highly publicised crime or tragedy involving a firearm.

Protagonists on either extreme can put up strong cases to support their claims, but in the heat of the battle the views of the majority of South Africans are generally ignored.
But no longer, if a survey unveiled by the Human Sciences Research Council is taken seriously. It found that 58 percent of South Africans support a ban on civilian gun ownership and, although the majority is not overwhelming, it should encourage the Government as it moves to tighten legislation on private gun ownership.

The arguments for and against gun controls have been extensively aired and the old frontier mentality which suggests that every man has a right to bear arms is still widely held in some communities. Indeed, in America today, no presidential candidate would lightly contradict this view if he or she hoped to be voted into office.

In a perfect, or at least a significantly more pacifistic world, it would be easy to defend and implement a gun free society. But harsh reality has taught us that this is simply a utopian dream. And those who suggest that guns do not kill, only people do, are being blinded by this idealistic notion.
The fact remains, as long as there are criminals in our society who carry illegal weapons and use them with ruthless abandon, there will always be those who can convincingly argue that they have every right to defend themselves with a gun if necessary.

The way forward, and it is neither simple nor certain, is to threaten gun­toting criminals and illegal firearm owners with such lengthy prison sentences that they will hopefully see reason. Meeting force with force is the only language they understand.

 Validity of Firearm Licences

Statement issued by John Welch, SAGA Trustee (31 January 2006)
A private comment made during a lengthy conversation with a firearms enthusiast (and a reporter) was published in The Citizen - without being put into proper context. (A matter too complex for me to attempt to detail.)
The statement, made in my private capacity and NOT as an officer of the National Prosecuting Authority, read "...existing firearm licences are valid for life and the holders could not be prosecuted for refusing to renew them" was based on legal principles and past cases - which can be interpreted in contrasting ways.
Please DO NOT base any of your actions (or inactions) on that statement as it does NOT accurately reflect the legal position of firearm owners. As things stand at present, and as confirmed in a Press Statement by the Minister for Safety & Security, the current position is that firearm licences issued in terms of the 'old' (1969) Arms & Ammunition Act, and which were valid immediately before the commencement of the 'new' Firearms Control Act on 1 July 2004, remain valid for five years (until 30 June 2009) - unless terminated, cancelled or surrendered.
If you renew your 'old' licences within the deadlines laid down, that will be the end of the matter. If you do not renew on schedule, you will be required to (lawfully) dispose of such firearms on or before 30 June 2009. This means that if you wish to retain those firearms beyond 30 June 2009, you are required to renew their licences before the scheduled deadlines.
At present these deadlines are as follows:
For those with January to March birth dates - 31 March 2006;
For those with April to June birth dates - 31 March 2007;
For those with July to September birth dates - 31 March 2008; and
For those with October to December birth dates - 31 March 2009.

For serious hunters who love and are dedicated to the sport of hunting, it is imperative that we teach our children well and carry hunting safety into the next generation. The rules apply whether one hunts with a gun or a bow. Here are a few basic rules that should be implemented ALL the time:

1. Treat your disarmed gun or bow with the same respect that you would with a loaded bow or gun. ALWAYS assume that your gun or bow is loaded and ready to shoot.

2. NEVER, EVER point your gun or bow at anyone when unloaded.

3. Always point your weapon in a safe direction.

4. Keep your safety on until ready to shoot.

5. Do not become anxious and take your safety off of your weapon prior to the shot. That is why the safety is located usually within an inch of the trigger.

6. ALWAYS keep your target IN FRONT of you. That is crucial.

7. Clearly identify your target before you shoot. Every year individuals are shot because they are mistaken for a deer. In all my years of hunting, I still cannot fathom how this occurs. Even 30 minutes before sunrise, one should clearly see their target before shooting. Once again emotions get in the way and inappropriate shots are taken.

8. Always unload your firearm; never climb into a tree stand, climb over a fence, in or over a duck blind with a loaded weapon.

9. Know the range of your weapon. Know how far it will shoot. Know what loads you have in the chamber. Know how accurate you are with a bow and how far that your bow will shoot. Know what is behind your target.

10. Keep your emotions in check. Use GOOD judgment. No animal, no deer, whether it is a pintail drake, large rooster pheasant climbing out of a morning’s cornfield, or a 10 to 12-point buck is worth an accident. It is when these gifts of nature occur and our emotions rise that mistakes happen.

11. Ear safety: Many hunters will sacrifice ear safety so they can hear game coming, especially when deer hunting. Put a soft earplug in the ear closest to your weapon. I personally have decreased hearing now in my right ear because this is one area I neglected over time. All of our senses are precious and we must take care of them as best as possible.

12. Always keep your gun clean. When you unload your gun, if it is a pump, I usually make sure 2-3 ejections after the 3 shells come out that there is nothing in the chamber. I leave the chamber open. The same for automatics. Check and see if your barrel is free of any debris. Over the years, a mouse may find its way into your gun case. It can tear up some of the cotton, and cotton may be stuck in the barrel. If you shoot, you’ll have a split barrel. The shrapnel could come back in your face, causing eye injuries and severe facial lacerations. Even a little bit of snow at the end of your barrel can cause a severe injury. When you drop your gun, you should always dismantle it, clean it, wipe it down, and put it back together.

13. As with any piece of equipment, a clean weapon is a functional weapon. This holds true with bows, as well. Check them before use to make sure they are in good working order. All parts of the bow should be tightened and in correct position, usually accomplished with an Allen wrench, prior to hunting.

Well-managed game hunting will generate big bucks for South Africa

Conservation officials announced that preliminary permission has been granted for the hunting of five black rhinos in South Africa. Predictably, this announcement has resulted in a bun fight.

The hunting fee for each of the trophy bulls is likely to be about R1,2-million. On top of that, hunters pay for accommodation and other expenses. In other words, big bucks will flow into South Africa. With the exception of the North West province, all the animals will be shot on privately-owned land. The antilobby says that the rhinos are an endangered species. That is true, but they point out how few black rhinos there are in Southern Africa. We cannot control all of Southern Africa, so we have to view South Africa alone, for the purposes of this hunting issue. Over the subcontinent there is still signifi- cant poaching while, in South Africa, the conservation authorities have general control over the rhino state of affairs, even though the poacher problem is not totally under control. Here, the black rhino population is increasing. The decision to allow the hunting is governed by strict permit conditions and only designated animals may be shot.

But this whole story must be looked at much more fundamentally. One must not confuse conserving the species with protecting individual animals. The whole conservation approach is one of conserving the species, which means that the entire group of existing animals has to be looked at as one unit. Already, animal-behaviour specialists have pointed out that older bulls in a group are likely to be challenged by younger bulls and, quite possibly, fights between bulls will occur in which the older bull can be killed. They also point out that, at times, if there are too many bulls in a group, then some sort of frustration can develop, with the result that bulls can kill females.

So good game management practice seems to indicate that it is a good idea to remove some of the older bulls. If it is a good idea to do this then why not sell them to hunters so that the profit made can go back into the conservation system? Bear in mind that a number of the animals designated as trophy animals are privately owned. This would imply that any owner making a handsome profit is likely to take that money and buy more rhinos. The more rhinos there are in private hands the more those owners will ensure that they are carefully looked after. In other words, the more secure the species is from possible extinction.

So the sale of trophy animals is good for the survival and propagation of the species. As I have already mentioned, a distinction must be made between the professional and scientific approach to game management and the animal-rights people. Already, one of the animal-rights people has called the hunters ‘blood-thirsty hunters’ who are only interested in the animals as ‘consumables’. Clearly, this is emotive language based on getting support from the heart rather than from the head. South Africa should be a world leader in this whole exercise. Not only do we possess many animals in world terms, but we also have the conservation profession- als who know what they are doing.

For some time now there has been a problem with overpopu- lation of elephants, for example. At times, culling has been necess-ary. Why on earth pay a game ran- ger to shoot an elephant when a foreign hunter would be happy to come here with his cash and pay handsomely to shoot the same animal? It just does not make any business sense or conservation sense to pay a game ranger to cull animals.

The whole issue of hunting and conservation, and how the two interlock, has to be examin- ed carefully in a professional manner. But I know that it is an extremely difficult topic because of all the emotion that is constantly swirling around any mention of the topic.

 WWF International Feature Article:
By Roland Melisch and Maija Sirola*

Sustainable use of wildlife through trophy hunting has received attention in recent years as a potential tool for conservation. However, the impact of trophy hunting on conservation efforts has not been thoroughly assessed. A report released earlier this year by TRAFFIC provides much needed information on the supply and demand of trophy hunting in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Trophy hunting — the hunting of a particular species by a foreign tourist prepared to pay for the experience — is a significant industry. The European hunting industry, for example, is one of the largest and most affluent in the world. Around 20–30 per cent of the estimated 6.2 million European hunters (hunters from the EU, Norway, Switzerland, and Malta) travel abroad to hunt at least occasionally. These hunters are catered to by tourist hunting agencies, which offer different types of trips to Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America to hunt a wide variety of animals, including deer, moose, antelope, wild boar, bear, wolf, and birds.

Trophy hunting is also a controversial issue. While some believe that the consumptive use of individual animals for the sake of the population, the species, or the ecosystem is ethically acceptable, others vehemently oppose the killing of animals for personal satisfaction. Aside from emotional issues, there is also uncertainty about the ecological consequences of trophy hunting. For example, the impact of trophy hunting on natural populations, the gene pool of rare species, or possible long-term effects on habitats has not been well studied.

The debate has been fuelled in recent years by attempts to integrate trophy hunting as a conservation tool into wildlife management programmes, with the goal of sustainable use of wildlife. However, there are contradictory reports on the benefits of trophy hunting to conservation. Some examples indicate that when wildlife becomes economically important, the interest and concern of rural populations and governments to conserve this source of income increases. In contrast, other cases illustrate that trophy hunting may result in shortsighted overexploitation of populations, illegal killing, and smuggling, and that neither conservation returns nor advantages for the local population are guaranteed. The few and often contradictory facts and figures make it difficult to foresee the consequences of a trophy hunting initiative within a conservation programme.

To gain a better understanding of the demand and supply for trophy hunting, as well as the species hunted, in 1998 TRAFFIC Europe initiated a review of the Eurasian trophy hunting market. The resulting report — The Lion's Share of the Hunt — is the first market overview of its kind, covering 18 "demand" countries in Europe (EU countries, Malta, Norway, Switzerland) and 38 "supply" countries in Eurasia (Eastern Europe, Russia, Central Asia and the Near East, the Himalayas, Mongolia, and China).

The report provides interesting information about the habits of European trophy hunters. The lion’s share of the Eurasian trophy hunting market is EU hunters — mainly from Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, Italy, and Spain — travelling to Eastern Europe. This is because a trip to Eastern Europe entails only low risk in terms of hunting success, organization, and security, and at around €1500, costs about the same as an average holiday. In contrast, hunting trips to Eurasian conservation hot spots such as the Caucasus, the Altai and Tien Shan Mountains, and the Russian Far East involve higher costs and long-distance travelling, and thus attract only a minority of the foreign hunting industry.

As well as staying close to home, European trophy hunters generally hunt abundant species. For example, the game species preferred by German and Spanish trophy hunters are ungulates, mainly red deer, roe deer, wild boar and, to a lesser extent, antelope, gazelle, wild sheep and goats. Species listed under CITES only attract a small share of European tourist hunters. The main CITES-listed trophy item imports from Eurasia to Europe and North America between 1990 and 1996 were brown bear (Ursus arctos; 1135), argali (Ovis ammon; 421), and wolf (Canis lupus; 178).

The report also assessed the economics of trophy hunting in supply countries. European trophy hunters generate around €50 million annually for Eurasian supply countries. Thus, the economic relevance of foreign hunting is extremely limited on a national level, even within the main supply countries. For example in Hungary, which supplies the tourist hunting demand with between 10,000 and 20,000 hunts per year, the economic impact is limited to 0.0005% of the GNP. The number of hunts in the Central Asian countries and China is only in the hundreds, making trophy hunting economically insignificant on a national level.

The benefits shared between wildlife management systems, local communities, and the foreign trophy hunting demand were difficult to assess. Information about the use and re-investment of the revenue generated by trophy hunting into wildlife management or conservation in Eurasia is largely unavailable. Also, insufficient documentation reduces trophy hunting’s potential benefits to sustainable development within the region. However, while on a general level the activities of the Eurasian trophy hunting industry do not seem to have any large impact on a supply country's economy, benefits may well arise on a more regional or local level. This could indicate that giving financial support to the management of the few threatened species targeted by trophy hunters could be beneficial to their conservation.

One of the most interesting findings of the report is that the majority of foreign hunters support conservation, and even condemn those who endanger the public image of hunters by inconsiderate behaviour. This indicates that there are good possibilities for promoting conversation issues within the trophy hunting industry. The establishment of a common certification process for tourist hunting destinations and organizers, for example, may be a strong long-term instrument to reduce unacceptable practises and to ensure that trophy hunting is sustainable and gives true conservation benefits.

* Roland Melisch is National Representative of TRAFFIC Europe - Germany and Maija Sirola is Communications Coordinator at TRAFFIC International