Our Photographer of the Year 2019 is now in full swing and there is only a month left to go before entries close!
There are three galleries showcasing this week’s Weekly Selection. To see the other two galleries for this week’s selection, click here: Weekly Selection Gallery 2 and Weekly Selection Gallery 3.
Our Photographer of the Year 2019 is now in full swing and there is only a month left to go before entries close!
There are three galleries showcasing this week’s Weekly Selection. To see the other two galleries for this week’s selection click here: Weekly Selection Gallery 1 and Weekly Selection Gallery 3.
There is an expression in Afrikaans that goes “so taai soos ‘n ratel” – which translates to “as tough as a honey badger”. Across the continent honey badgers have earned the reputation of being tough, even lending their name to an armoured personnel carrier used by the South African Defence Force. This reputation is in part due to its appearance, that stocky frame and those long powerful claws, but really it is the honey badger’s tenacity that sets it apart from the rest. After all, this is a creature who snacks on honey from the notorious African ‘killer bee’ hives and thinks nothing of eating venomous snakes and even taking on lions.
Simply put, honey badgers are the Chuck Norris’ of the African bushveld.
Honey badgers are easily identified by their striking colouration: jet black with a grey mantle, and a white stripe running from the head down to the base of the tail. The mantle and the stripe may vary in colour and thickness from one individual to the next.
Honey badgers are sexually size-dimorphic, with males at least one-third larger than females. From the shoulder, the honey badger stands at a height of 250 mm high. The males weigh on average 9-16 kg, while females weigh 5-10 kg.
Even though they may be small in stature, honey badgers are built for battle. They have loose-fitting skin, which is 6mm thick around the neck, that protects their vital organs during a brawl and allows them to wriggle out of any grasp and even twist around to bite any assailant silly enough to grab them. They have short, sturdy legs, with five toes on each foot, armed with powerful claws of up to 40mm in length! Their low-slung frame and short legs make them animals of stamina, not speed, and their distinctive jog-trot allows them to relentlessly pursue their prey until it has collapsed with exhaustion.
Honey badgers are territorial and use their anal scent glands to mark their territory. They can turn these glands inside out, and emit a pungent distraction when escaping from predators.
Read about an interesting encounter between a honey badger and black-backed jackals here: Fantastic sighting: Honey badger versus jackals
The honey badger (Mellivora capensis) is the only species of the genus Mellivora and belongs to the diverse Mustelid family, which includes eight other badger species, otters, weasels and the wolverine. The name badger was given to the honey badger because of its superficial resemblance to the Eurasian badger, but the two species are not closely related, and the honey badger is the only representative species of a separate subfamily.
As many as 12 honey badger subspecies have been suggested, but intraspecific taxonomy has not yet been sufficiently studied, and no DNA investigation of subspecies has been completed. The suggestion of subspecies based on pelage (fur) colour and pattern is dubious at best as the honey badger’s colour – particularly the grey mantle and white stripe pattern – is highly variable and changes with age.
The honey badger is widely distributed and can be found in a variety of habitats – from dense rain forests and arid deserts to sea level and afro-alpine steppes in the Bale Mountains of Ethiopia. They are found across sub-Saharan Africa from the Western Cape in South Africa through to southern Morocco and south-western Algeria, and across to the Middle East and India.
While known as being affectionate, protective and involved mothers, honey badgers eke out most of their existence alone. As solitary carnivores, males and females only meet up to mate before again going their separate ways. The males play no part in rearing the young.
They do not have a fixed den, but rather move about their home ranges, usually sleeping in a different self-dug hole every night – though they have also been known to use old aardvark and warthog burrows on occasion. Honey badgers are intelligent creatures who have even been spotted using tools. They are also expert diggers, and it takes them roughly 10 minutes to excavate a burrow in hard ground.
The honey badger is very adaptable; for example, it is naturally diurnal during winter, but if there are humans around, it will adopt nocturnal habits.
In southern Africa, honey badgers do not have a fixed breeding season and kits are born year-round. Honey badgers usually only have one or two kits at a time after a six-month gestation period. Kits are born blind and will stay with their mother for roughly 14 months before going off on their own.
During this long period of dependency, kits need to learn the skills of hunting, climbing and digging from their mother, as these do involve a certain degree of coordination and technique that takes some time to learn.
Despite their ferocious reputation honey badgers are seldom unnecessarily violent. They will defend themselves if attacked, even against buffaloes or lions. When defending itself, the honey badger can produce a booming ‘rattling-roar’ and will rush towards its attacker, rather than away from them. There is a reason why the Guinness Book of Records lists the honey badger as the ‘most fearless animal in the world’…
Honey badgers have an acute sense of smell which helps them to locate their prey, which they catch mainly through digging. While they feed on a wide variety of foods including birds, small mammals, insect larvae, scorpions, lizards, rodents and eggs, their most impressive kill has to be highly venomous snakes such as cobras, puffadders and black mambas. Honey badgers have been known to sleep off the effects of a snake bite, although it is not known whether this would happen if it is bitten by a highly venomous snake species.
Although ground-dwelling, honey badgers are also accomplished climbers and can scamper up a tree to raid bird nests or beehives. Honey badgers have immensely strong jaws, and in sparse regions such as the Karoo they provide for themselves by cracking open tortoise shells and feasting on the meat inside.
There is anecdotal evidence that the honeyguide bird species guide the honey badger to wild beehives by calling and leading the way, so that the honey badger can break open the hive to feast on the honey and bee brood (the eggs, larvae and pupae of honeybees). This symbiotic relationship has been witnessed frequently in the wild, although no scientific study has been conducted to confirm or explain the behaviour.
In what is now often shared folklore, Kruger Park Ranger Stevenson-Hamilton suggested in 1947 that the honey badger would attack the testicles of larger animals, such as buffaloes and wildebeests, letting the animal bleed to death before claiming their prey. It should be noted though that this behaviour has not been reported after Stevenson-Hamilton’s claims.
As tough as they are, honey badgers do have to be on the lookout for natural predators such as lions, leopards, pythons and hyenas. But their greatest adversaries are humans.
Many badgers suffer gruesome fates when they encounter humans, whether it’s being poisoned, gin-trapped or shot by beekeepers, hacked up for traditional medicine or being snared in traps set for black-backed jackal and caracal. Badger-friendly honey has become commonplace in many shops in South Africa, in an attempt to provide a financial incentive to honey farmers to conserve honey badgers – the solutions often being as simple as placing beehives high up, out of the reach of foraging honey badgers.
Another obstacle to the conservation of this unique species is the sheer size of their home range, with males occupying roughly 638 km², and females 138 km². This would mean that the majority of protected reserves are too small to serve as a safe haven for a viable population of honey badgers.
The honey badger is currently listed as ‘Least Concern’ by IUCN, but their population is decreasing. Honey badgers tend to live in low densities, which makes assessing the population harder. Their status has risen to ‘Near Threatened’ in Southern Africa in the past, as well as in Morocco, and they are considered ‘Endangered’ in Niger. In Israel, honey badgers are a protected species.
“While on safari in Linyanti, Botswana a few years ago, I met an Australian couple who were keen to see a honey badger. They had seen lions, leopards, elephants and so many other awesome species, but hilarious YouTube memes about this fantastic survivor had created a strong desire to see one. They spoke of little else during the two days that we shared a game drive vehicle. Alas, they saw no honey badgers during that safari, but in a twist of fate, we saw one on the drive back from the airstrip after having dropped them off for their journey home! Hopefully, they have since had better luck.
“The honey badger is the stuff of myth and legends, one of the true characters of the African bushveld, and a reminder to us all that life is what you make of it, and that it takes character and true grit to beat the odds.” ~ Simon Espley, Africa Geographic CEO 
Growing up watching Beverly and Derek Joubert’s documentaries and idolising Jane Goodall, Noelle has always dreamed of living in the bush. For now, she writes about her bush adventures from her home in Cape Town, South Africa. She has a particular soft spot for chacma baboons, and she advocates for these charming primates every chance she gets. By far her favourite adventure has been being a foster mom to an orphan baby baboon.
I was shocked to read about the sudden closure of a well-known luxury safari operation in the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania. My dismay was not only because I personally know the owners of this wonderful operation and know what a terrible blow this must be to them. It was also not only because of the tragic loss of tourism jobs and potential for safari-goers to share in the incredible wilderness of this part of the Selous in Tanzania. My deepest alarm came from the realisation that the Selous will lose 150,000 hectares of wilderness landscape to alternative land use, and this at the cost of some 2.6 million trees, and an uncountable number of other plants and animals.
To clarify my position, I do not believe that Tanzania should be deprived of the option to solve their electrical supply problems, and I do realise that there are probably many facets to this issue that I am not even aware of. However, this event has once again highlighted the reality of our greatest threat to the survival of wildlife in Africa – the availability of land.
For some years now, I have been arguing for the real imperative that we should all be focused on: To unify the conservation community behind a common goal of preserving wildlife habitats from alternative land uses, and not allowing the fragmentation of interconnected wilderness spaces, as this too reduces the populations of animals that these habitats can support. So, with this imminent loss of land in the Selous fresh in my mind, I came to wondering about how to illustrate again the importance of this imperative.
The relationship between the well-being of wild animal populations and habitat sizes can be found in the many scientific papers that analyse the dramatic decline in various species’ numbers over the last hundred years or so. In this article, I am choosing to focus on the two most iconic examples of such declines – lion and elephant populations.
Please note that this piece is not intended as a scientific paper, it is not peer-reviewed and it does not claim to answer all problems facing African wildlife. Instead, it is aimed at highlighting the almost linear relationship between animal populations and the availability of habitats that those animals have to survive in.
Let’s begin by looking at lions. In the case of lion, the maps below show the decline in lion range area from the historical full range extent of lions in Africa, to the current picture, which represent about 8% of historical range according to the data published on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (latest assessment dated 20 June 2014).
It is well accepted and widely published that the lion population in Africa has decreased in the last century by 90%. So, comparing these numbers then shows the population reduction mirrors the reduction in range habitat of 92%.
Interestingly, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2017-3), supports the habitat argument, citing the following threats to lion:
“Habitat loss and conflicts with humans are considered the most significant threats to the species.”
Turning to elephants, there was a well-reported drop in elephant numbers from 1979, when the estimated African elephant population stood at 1,3 million, to 2007 where the population had dropped to between 472,000 and 690,000. At best, the population reduction was 47%, while at worst it was as much as 64%. Let’s assume it to be the worst at 64% drop in the elephant population. Since then, there was a further 30% drop in elephant numbers as reported in the Great Elephant Census of 2014.
Let’s then look at the range maps of habitats which supported elephant in 1979, to that of 2007, and then again in 2014. The available range habitats for elephants had reduced by at least 65%, between 1979 and 2007, further dropping by another 30% between 2007 and 2014. There is an astounding correlation between the population drop and the available range habitat data.
Once again, this correlation and habitat threat is underlined in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (2017-3), which states the following primary threats to elephants:
“Currently the most important perceived threat is the loss and fragmentation of habitat caused by ongoing human population expansion and rapid land conversion.”
Closer to home, here in the Greater Kruger, we experience the same land-use pressures that conservationists face all over Africa. A pressing example is the proposed 120-hectare citrus farm development on the border of the Greater Kruger National Park. Today we are awaiting a decision from the authorities on whether this development will be allowed to go ahead. If it does, it will represent another loss to the collective wilderness landscape, and will drive a wedge of agricultural development in between existing protected areas.
If these types of development are allowed to continue, it can lead to the fragmentation of a network of protected areas that has taken many decades to integrate. Whilst we are working hard to maintain and grow the connected Greater Kruger National Park, there are those who do not seem to understand the importance of a large, unfragmented open system.
The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (GLTFCA), of which the Greater Kruger forms an important part, is a visionary network of linked protected areas. It contains approximately 2,000 lions and over 20,000 elephants. Every single one of these animals can call the GLTFCA home because millions of hectares are secured for conservation purposes. If we want to see thriving wildlife populations together with the economic benefits these can bring to local people, we need to unite behind habitats and wise land-use. This means cooperation between private nature reserves, government parks and other types of land-holdings that are compatible with conservation goals.
Getting back to the broader African picture, I am not saying that there are no other pressures on wild animal populations in Africa. Poaching, the bushmeat trade, trade in animal parts and human-wildlife conflict are all factors affecting a seeming onslaught on Africa’s wildlife. Many of these factors are blamed individually for the plummeting numbers of certain species in Africa, and many people take up a call to battle against one, or a number, of these factors.
But, while all of these issues are important, we must not lose sight of the one fundamental truth. Wild animals cannot exist if there is no wilderness habitat for them to live on.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Don Scott has over 15 years of experience in the Aerospace Engineering Industry in Africa, Europe and the USA, as well as 15 years in the safari tourism industry. Don’s journey with tourism started in the Timbavati Private Nature Reserve in 2001. Today, Don and his wife, Nina, are the owners of the Tanda Tula safari camps in the Timbavati. Don is deeply involved and dedicated to both community development and conservation through tourism in the region. He sits on the executive committee of the Timbavati as well as on the Greater Kruger National Park task team for Responsible Tourism and Best Practice.
Sleeping lions can make great sketching subjects – especially when they choose to lie out in the open, like this lioness in Botswana’s Chobe National Park. Looking down on an animal can look unnatural in a sketch, but I was far enough away from this lioness that the angle wasn’t a problem.
It took me exactly 5 minutes to create the pencil sketch and I added the watercolour later in the day, from memory and imagination. I also added some vegetation, which makes the finished piece look more natural.
In case you are wondering, I filmed this with a GoPro, attached to my sketchbook with a Jaws Flexclamp.
The nice thing about videoing your sketches is that you can look back and see how you sketched, what you would change, and exactly how long each sketch took.
Want to learn my techniques for sketching animals from life? Then join me on an Africa Geographic Art Safari.
Want a glimpse into an African Art Safari? Have a look at Africa Geographic’s Art Safari video, with Alison Nicholls, below
Post series: Botswana elephants – to hunt or not?
The international furore over the Botswana government decision to recommence the hunting of elephant (and other species) necessitates an understanding of the entire picture. This post is one of eight posts from various sources looking at this issue from different angles. The other seven posts you should read to get the full picture:
• Botswana government announcement – hunting ban should be lifted
• Botswana 2018 aerial survey – of elephants, baobabs and cattle
• Botswana government questions elephant survey report by Dr Mike Chase
• Personal statement from Dr Mike Chase, Elephants Without Borders
• Opinion post from Dereck Joubert – conservation spokesperson, filmmaker and lodge owner
• Opinion post from Gail Potgieter – human-wildlife conflict specialist
• Opinion post from Clare Doolan – tourism industry product and sales manager
OPINION FROM ERIK VERREYNNE – LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE VETERINARY SURGEON IN BOTSWANA
The debate about the proposed lifting of the hunting ban in Botswana continues. It’s not surprising that elephants dominate the debate and that the arguments are based on various perspectives and perceptions. Various solutions are offered and are driven by arguments on lethal versus non-lethal approaches and hunting versus photographic tourism industry sustainability.
What is not acknowledged by many participants, is that this very complex situation is highlighting a very important conundrum facing conservation. The issue is not simply about elephants. The issue is about elephants and people, more precisely wildlife and people.
Human presence close to conservation areas, and the interfaces it creates, is the most important conservation challenge faced in Africa. The best way to illustrate this conundrum is to analyse the situation from a holistic perspective.
Botswana, with some of its neighbours, is facing unique challenges concerning its wildlife. Nearly 17% of Botswana is under Protected Areas, such as the Chobe National Park, otherwise known as National Parks and Game Reserves. That is more than the 10% stipulated internationally. Very few of these protected areas have any fences and none are fully fenced, allowing wildlife to come and go. An additional 32% of Botswana is designated as Wildlife Management Areas where people and wildlife co-exist in some form or another.
More than 65% of Botswana’s wildlife occurs outside the Protected Areas, in the Wildlife Management Areas(WMAs). Surrounding these WMAs lies the unprotected pastoral and farming areas. Communities reside along the boundaries of Protected Areas or inside and along many WMA boundaries, where they and their livestock must share the resources with wildlife. Subsistence livestock and crop production are the main sources of livelihoods. The land division in Botswana creates a huge spatial overlap between people and wildlife.
The scale of the demographic human-wildlife interface in Botswana is well illustrated by the elephant issue. The elephant range includes most of the Ngamiland District in the west, all of the Chobe District in the north, and parts of the Central District in the east and south. The elephant range in northern Botswana varies from 85,000 km² during the dry season to more than 116,000 km² during the wet season.
According to Dr. Mike Chase (Elephants without Borders), the elephant population in Botswana was estimated at between 116,191 and 136,036 during the dry season of 2018. (In the absence of other published population data, I will refer to those survey results). Only about 23,000 km² (about 20%) of the elephant range falls within the Protected Areas, about 70,000 km² (or 65% of the range) in WMAs and forest reserves, and the rest of the range covers ranches and pastoral areas.
During the aerial survey in 2018, only 20% of the elephants (about 25,222) were counted in the Protected Areas, 57% of the elephants (nearly 72,000 at an estimated density of 1.4 elephant/km²) were counted in WMAs and forest reserves, and 22% (about 27,750 at an estimated density of 1.2-1.3 elephant/km²) were counted in pastoral areas and on ranches.
The elephants have taken semi-permanent residency in these areas and may only move during the rainy season. In theory, this means that, if elephants and people were evenly spread, there would be a high probability of an elephant within 600m from a person at any given time in the pastoral and farming areas. In reality, both settlements and human activities overlap with elephant concentrations where common resources like water are shared.
Significantly, nearly half of Southern Africa’s elephants were counted during the survey in an area as big as South Carolina or Portugal. From another perspective, more than 5% of the total estimated population of elephants in Africa was counted only in the small section of pastoral areas in Botswana demarcated solely for agricultural use.
Ngamiland District has a population of about 165,000 people (at a density of 1.5 persons/km²) while Chobe district has a population of about 26,000 people at a density of 1.25 person/km². The 2016 Botswana agricultural report indicated a total of 238,132 cattle and 6,876 ha of subsistence crops on 9,072 holdings in Ngamiland. The dry period aerial count report indicates nearly half the cattle population in Ngamiland shares the landscape with elephants at a cattle density of 1.4/km². Almost all subsistence crops farming in Ngamiland falls within the elephant range.
In 1992, the elephant population was estimated at 55,000 – so the current elephant population is more double what it was about twenty seven years ago. At the same time, the human population has increased, and activities expanded. Botswana is now looking after nearly half the Southern African elephant population in an area of fewer than 100,000 km², and nearly 80% of these elephants share the land with people.
The drivers for human-wildlife conflict are obvious and the price to pay is hefty. The international perception that Botswana is one big wilderness is skewed and as such creates a skewed expectation about wildlife and people. With a total human population of fewer than 2,5 million people, the argument that there are too many people is invalid. The situation clearly illustrates how expectations based on wrong perceptions can drive arguments and solutions. Many do not want to accept there is a crisis in Botswana because they downplay the human component and expect one big game reserve.
The current debate focuses much on numbers and asks whether Botswana has too many elephants. That inevitably leads to the question on the limits of Botswana’s international responsibility towards elephant conservation. There is no doubt that elephant numbers internationally are under pressure. There is also no doubt that elephants play an important role in modifying landscapes, and should be conserved.
Acceptable densities of elephants in different landscapes and thresholds for management vary and the impact on vegetation is more important than the numbers. Even though the vegetation impact in certain areas looks severe, the population density in Botswana is within the acceptable limits of 2-3 elephant/km² – the elephant density according to the 2018 survey averages about 1.22 elephant/km² across the range in Botswana.
But again, range and impact can be misleading:
Firstly, the range is artificial, as 22% of the elephant range in Botswana is not intended for wildlife.
Secondly and more importantly, is the issue of the impact of elephants on the ecology, and ecosystem resilience to recover or change – where the land is subject to differing uses. These issues (elephant impact and ecosystem resilience) differ when people, livestock and elephants share the same landscape. Impacts where there are spatial overlaps between people, livestock and elephants are likely to be more severe and the ecosystem will recover more slowly. Acceptable density thresholds of elephants in those areas should, therefore, be less than they are in ecosystems with little or no overlap between people, livestock and elephants.
Furthermore, when acceptable elephant densities are determined, the impacts on people and livelihoods are of paramount importance – yet are being ignored. Management objectives of areas shared by people and livestock also consider human needs and are likely to be less considerate of the long-term ecological benefits that might be brought about by elephant landscape changes. In other words, in these areas, there is of necessity a bias towards human needs, and tolerance of elephants is reduced.
In a country that has already set aside nearly half of its surface area for some form of wildlife conservation, the levels of crop damage, livestock losses and damage to infrastructure in areas that have been zoned mainly for human use, clearly indicates that the threshold of acceptable damage by wildlife has been exceeded in those areas.
From a pristine ecological perspective, the answer about elephant numbers in Botswana may be that the status quo is acceptable. From a human-wildlife conflict perspective, however, it is safe to conclude that Botswana has too many elephants in some land use areas. Management interventions that aim to decrease the elephant densities in the specific areas and preventing influx into more densely populated areas are therefore justified.
That raises another challenge facing Botswana.
The international conservation status of a very charismatic and iconic species dictates the limits of accepted wildlife management practices available to resolve the problem.
Elephant conservation has increased in profile due to rampant poaching, and management options tend to focus on increasing elephant numbers by increasing safety from poaching and avoiding losses. Methods to control populations are accordingly not considered anymore.
Where elephant numbers have dropped significantly in some countries due to rampant poaching, numbers in Botswana have increased to unacceptable levels in certain land use areas. The human-elephant conflict in Botswana requires a critical evaluation of current elephant conservation measures. The success rate of many of the options are hailed as high, but when measured considering people as part of the landscape the success rate becomes questionable and threatens the sustainability of the management activity.
Corridors inside countries and across international borders are a much-promoted solution for natural dispersal of elephants from high density to low-density populations. The corridors are established to allow dispersal while avoiding human conflict, and as a result, human development has to be reduced in these corridors.
The establishment of the KAZA TFCA to accommodate the redistribution of the estimated 230,000 elephants in five Southern African range states is considered a milestone in elephant conservation. Despite media reports of a big influx of elephants into Botswana as a safe haven and movement between Botswana and its northern neighbours, the most recent aerial surveys do not support the expected movement north into the KAZA TFCA.
According to EWB reports, the elephant population has been stable since 2010 and instead of moving north to an area of lower densities, elephants in Botswana are moving south and deeper into human-populated areas, despite the presence of fences. Does this imply the various range states have reached their saturated densities or does that mean the corridors have been selected incorrectly and are failing?
Whatever the reason, the conundrum faced is that the current solution to Botswana’s elephant problem is currently not working, and an unsustainable number of elephants are sharing the land with people, and Botswana is running out of time.
Translocation of elephants is under consideration, but enormous costs involved in relocating large numbers of elephant is likely the reason, despite invitations and donations, that no elephants have been relocated out of Botswana. The number of elephants that would have to be relocated from Botswana to make a difference in areas of conflict with people amounts to many thousands, which would be impractical. As such the potential benefit of relocation is limited for Botswana, and more beneficial in establishing new populations in previous range states stable enough to control poaching.
The potential use of contraception in elephants in Botswana is also considered, but contraception is a long-term management tool to be used to reduce population growth in smaller populations in selected areas. It will not provide immediate solutions to the current challenges.
That leaves the coexistence of humans and wildlife, and the concept of sustainable utilisation. Coexistence remains the most important strategy when the major conservation challenge of lack of new conservation land and increased pressure on existing Protected Areas. Many NGOs in Botswana are doing sterling work in finding ways to promote peaceful coexistence. Coexistence, however, has some limitations because it requires the cooperation of both people and elephants, and the former is value-based. Coexistence is determined by “how” and “how much” people can benefit from the coexistence. The elephant crisis in Botswana illustrates the limitation very effectively.
Coexistence in wildlife management areas where most of Botswana’s elephants occur has actually been in place for many years. Although education has resolved some human resistance, the increased number of elephants in recent years has diluted the perceived limited benefits and reduced community cooperation. The communities now demand and support the lifting of the hunting ban. For coexistence to be restored in these areas, human resistance has to be reduced, by reducing elephant densities or increasing tangible benefits for the local people.
Tangible benefits through tourism income can provide the lion’s share of benefits, but protein provision and trophy hunting income must be considered to restore lost cooperation. Tourism-based incentives on their own have proved to be insufficient – partially because thresholds of impact were based on elephant needs and partially because the benefits to communities did not increase as elephant numbers and impacts increased.
Coexistence in pastoral areas and livestock ranches presents the biggest conservation dilemma for Botswana and illustrates the limits of coexistence.
By marketing “wilderness”, we have created an expectation with eco-tourists who do not want to see rural people and livestock while on safari. That excludes a major source of benefit that would promote coexistence in pastoral areas. As a result, the priority of coexistence in the pastoral and ranching areas is strongly biased towards protecting people and their livelihoods against elephant damage. In short, local people view their own existence and livelihoods as a priority and consider coexistence as unnecessary because localised tangible benefits from elephants are perceived as non-existent. Rather, they demand total protection from elephants or removal of elephants.
The sheer number of elephants “coexisting” in the affected pastoral areas renders total protection a very difficult and expensive process that becomes difficult to justify from a taxpayer’s perspective. The use of bees, flashing lights and chilli pepper in various forms have been trialled with various degrees of success and while it may work in some areas, it did not work in others. Unless we can educate the international tourist that an Africa with people, livestock, crops and wildlife is worth a paying visit, consumptive-based benefits to promote co-existence in pastoral areas will remain the reality.
Where do you draw the line? Elephants will expand their range if allowed to. As witnessed in Botswana, they inevitably reach more developed areas with higher income-generating activities. Tourism and hunting do not provide sufficient benefits to promote coexistence, and so a problem-animal control culling program needs to be instigated – to protect people and property. The only way to prevent large scale bloodshed is to prevent elephants from entering these areas. That introduces the option of fences.
Botswana is very aware of the intrinsic value and international conservation responsibility towards elephant conservation. The growth of the elephant population testifies to that. But the elephant problem faced needs to be acknowledged. While Botswana is accommodating a significant population of elephants in large Protected Areas, most Botswana elephants are outside these protected areas, sharing the land with people at densities that put enormous strain on resources.
People are part of the equation and should be part of the solution. That includes adapting our management objectives and impact assessment to accommodate the needs and impacts of local communities, which will naturally require limits on densities and dispersal. A common tendency as part of opposing arguments is to attribute community concerns to manipulation by stakeholder groups, mostly because the opposing stakeholders fear the community concerns may contradict more idealistic solutions. Another strategy is to blame it on political manipulation. Unfortunately, these tactics do not provide solutions but remove the focus from the real community concerns and limit the painful dissection needed to prevent crisis management from overriding much needed lasting practical solutions.
Resolving the challenges will require a combination of solutions and critical assessment of current approaches. It will require accepting that where people and wildlife are sharing the landscape, the needs of communities are important in wildlife management objectives.
A solution will require an acceptance of the concept of limits and barriers, and that coexistence is value-based and depends on tangible human benefits correlated to sacrifices. It will require acceptance that benefits in some areas cannot be provided by photographic tourism only.
It is therefore justified to consider consumptive-based benefits. It will have to address the contradiction and challenges the unequal distribution of an internationally desired species can cause.
After all, Botswana is much more than simply elephants.
Our Photographer of the Year 2019 is now in full swing and there is only a month left to go before entries close!
There are three galleries showcasing this week’s Weekly Selection. To see the other two galleries for this week’s selection click here: Weekly Selection Gallery 2 and Weekly Selection Gallery 3.
Our Photographer of the Year 2019 is now in full swing and there is only a month left to go before entries close!
There are three galleries showcasing this week’s Weekly Selection. To see the other two galleries for this week’s selection, click here: Weekly Selection Gallery 1 and Weekly Selection Gallery 2.
Our Photographer of the Year 2019 is now in full swing and there is only a month left to go before entries close!
There are three galleries showcasing this week’s Weekly Selection. To see the other two galleries for this week’s selection, click here: Weekly Selection Gallery 1 and Weekly Selection Gallery 3.
Written by Dr Julie Kern from Elephants Alive
Identifying elephants is one of Elephants Alive’s four main research angles and helps us to understand population dynamics and factors influencing elephant movements. Identifying elephants depends on looking at vital physical characteristics which differ between individuals. e.g. body size and shape, tusk configuration and ear features, such as notches, tears and holes.
Unfortunately, there are still a lot of elephants out there with very few notches and holes in their ears, especially younger individuals, which makes them much harder to identify. It’s then a case of finding other clues to their identity, such as the veins on their ears, or body scars.
Based on the photographs collected in the field, identikits of each individual elephant are drawn, detailing their unique physical features. And using these, we can then identify the individuals we see in the field.
Identifying individuals is incredibly essential and enables us to investigate questions with a high level of detail, e.g. documenting the influence of life-history effects such as adolescence or dispersal, or the impact of social relationships.
For example, we can use ID studies to build a picture of a population’s social network by observing who spends time with whom, allowing us to detail the number and strength of connections held by different individuals. Such studies on elephants in the past have highlighted the importance of matriarchs in family units and older mentors in bachelor groups (more specifics regarding these individuals below).
Social benefits can be an important driver of elephant movements, something which Elephants Alive also has a very rich data set on, having collared close to 100 elephants in approximately 140 collaring operations.
ID studies provide a great base layer over which a considerable number of other methods can be layered, enabling us to investigate everything from DNA to population dynamics. For example, by combining ID data with genetics, we can investigate the kinship structure of populations, paternity success, and assess whether related individuals have stronger bonds.
By combining ID data with personality assessments or hormonal analysis, we can start to understand how different personality types behave and interact, and investigate which individuals are most affected by stress. We can even use ID data to run mark-recapture studies for detailed population estimates.
When thinking of specific individual types in elephant society who have pivotal roles, matriarchs and older bulls spring to mind.
• Matriarchs have a crucial role in elephant societies. With age comes experience and a vast accumulation of social and ecological knowledge including knowledge of their surroundings, such as the availability of food and water in periods of drought, safe migratory routes, and predatory threats.
• Individuals in elephant groups benefit immensely from the influence of an older leader who can make crucial decisions about predatory danger. Playback experiments in Amboseli found that groups with older matriarchs responded more appropriately to predatory threat (male lion roars) than groups with younger matriarchs (McComb et al. 2011).
• Matriarchs have superior spatial memory of migratory routes and water- or resource-rich areas which translates to better survival of offspring. In Amboseli, calves with more experienced mothers were better able to overcome periods of stress, especially regarding food shortages (Moss et al. 2011).
• Family units show complex social ties, but it is the older females who are critical members of the network, being the most well-connected and influential. Poaching targets older individuals for their larger ivory, with the consequence that many family groups suffer the loss of their matriarchs. Socially, elephants have proven to be remarkably resilient to poaching, with daughters taking up their mother’s social roles (Goldenberg et al. 2016). If an individual’s mother was highly social and died, the offspring also tended to be highly social.
• Traditionally females are viewed as repositories of knowledge, but we now know that older, dominant bulls are also incredibly important for a well-functioning elephant society.
• Older bulls are of great importance with regards to suppressing musth and abnormal/aggressive behaviour in younger bulls (Slotow & van Dyk 2001). Their presence helps to maintain social stability and behavioural norms.
• Older bulls are vital members of a population’s social network. Older bulls are socially well-connected, interacting often and with many others. This indicates a high level of influence and leadership potential and demonstrates their importance as information sources for others (Chiyo et al. 2011).
• Genetically, older bulls are also disproportionately important. Male reproductive dominance is determined by size, and size by age as elephant bulls grow throughout their life. Females prefer to mate with older bulls, and older bulls have more paternity success than younger males, with the number of calves fathered at a given age peaking between 45 and 53 years old (Hollister-Smith et al. 2007).
References:
• Chiyo, Patrick I., et al. (2011) Association patterns of African elephants in all-male groups: the role of age and genetic relatedness. Animal Behaviour 81.6: 1093-1099
• Goldenberg, Shifra Z., Iain Douglas-Hamilton, and George Wittemyer (2016) Vertical transmission of social roles drives resilience to poaching in elephant networks. Current Biology 26.1: 75-79
• Hollister-Smith, Julie A., et al. (2007) Age, musth and paternity success in wild male African elephants, Loxodonta africana. Animal Behaviour 74.2: 287-296
• McComb, Karen, et al. (2011) Leadership in elephants: the adaptive value of age. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278.1722: 3270-3276
• McComb, Karen, et al. (2001) Matriarchs as repositories of social knowledge in African elephants. Science 292.5516: 491-494
• Moss, Cynthia J., Harvey Croze, and Phyllis C. Lee, eds. (2011) The Amboseli elephants: a long-term perspective on a long-lived mammal. University of Chicago Press
• Slotow, Rob, and Gus van Dyk. (2001) Role of delinquent young “orphan” male elephants in high mortality of white rhinoceros in Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa. Koedoe 44.1: 85-94
Written by Jonny Vaughan, CEO of Lilongwe Wildlife Trust
Three years ago illegal logging in Malawi’s Dzalanyama Forest Reserve became so rampant that army forces were deployed to the site to protect the trees. Although politicians have since taken action to address the deforestation crisis, the continued devastation of trees across the country has led some to call for the soldiers to return.
Militarising Malawi’s forests may sound like a drastic measure, but the truth is that the country is at a tipping point. At current rates of deforestation, Malawi could be stripped of all trees by as early as 2079. One of the major drivers of deforestation is Malawi’s dependence on wood for meeting its energy needs, given that 89% of Malawians don’t have access to electricity. Illegal cutting of trees on a commercial scale is fuelled by both a growing urban demand for charcoal within Malawi and an international demand for hardwoods.
Rapid deforestation triggers a dangerous domino effect, leading to potentially catastrophic impacts on wildlife, biodiversity, ecosystems and weather patterns. The tragic fatalities as a result of recent flooding in southern Malawi is a stark reminder that land degradation can literally be a matter of life and death.
Putting the nation’s woodland under military protection is clearly not a long-term solution to this crisis. If we are to preserve the country’s most precious natural resource, the Government – and other stakeholders – must take a more progressive approach.
Initial signs are positive. Building on the success of its pioneering work to address the illegal wildlife trade, the Government is now turning its attention to wider conservation challenges, including deforestation. The National Charcoal Strategy is promoting alternative sources of cooking fuels, while a new Forestry Bill is expected to pass this year that will bolster regulatory mechanisms for the protection of forests and introduce stiffer penalties for perpetrators of forest crimes. Much of this work has been driven by the Malawian Parliamentary Conservation Caucus, of which Lilongwe Wildlife Trust is Secretariat. It is hugely encouraging to see that high-level political commitment to this issue cuts across party lines.
But political will and legislative reform is only part of the picture. Progress also depends on changing hearts and minds at the community level.
The theme of today’s International Day of Forests – ‘Learn to Love Forests’ – captures this point perfectly. The fact is that people protect what they value, which means that legal and political interventions to address deforestation must go hand-in-hand with targeted education and communications campaigns.
Instead of stationing troops in protected areas, we must build a national army of citizen-custodians who understand the significance of protecting trees and are empowered to live more sustainably within their environment.
This is precisely why we are working in collaboration with the Government and UN Environment to design an ambitious national campaign that will drive more sustainable environmental practices. As a first step, we are conducting research into people’s attitudes and behaviours in relation to nature. We want to understand how people feel and relate to natural resources like trees so that we can identify crucial levers and barriers to changing behaviours.
As part of this work, we will also develop an ‘ecological consciousness score’ that will serve as a powerful tool for measuring attitudinal change, and has the potential for use in other contexts and geographies beyond Malawi.
As ever, there is no silver bullet when it comes to curbing widespread ecological loss. On a political level, every government department has a role to play in restoring Malawi’s woodlands, from agriculture, water and electricity to finance, industry and infrastructure. But if we want to amplify impact from high-level decision-makers, we also need to engage people in across Malawi to take a more active role in fighting for their country’s natural capital.
Press release written by Louise De Waal and Blood Lions
The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has proposed that the Captive Lion Breeding (CLB) industry should continue as long as it is properly regulated and appropriate legislation introduced
This ignores the PCEA resolutions from the two-day Parliamentary Colloquium on CLB in August 2018, which included the resolution (9.1) specifying that the “DEA should as a matter of urgency initiate a policy and legislative review of CBL for hunting and lion bone trade with a view of putting an end to this practice.” This Resolution was subsequently adopted by parliament making it a Parliamentary Resolution.
Currently, South Africa is holding between 9,000-12,000 lions in captivity, in approximately 300 facilities for a number of commercial purposes, including canned hunting, breeding and the lion bone trade.
In a shocking reversal of the overwhelming condemnation of CLB expressed during the August Colloquium by a wide range of conservation and welfare experts and forcefully endorsed in the PCEA report thereon, DEA merely reiterated the same tired justifications for CLB as if the Colloquium had never taken place.
During last week’s meeting, DEA reported that of the 227 breeding facilities inspected in the Free State, Limpopo, North West and Eastern Cape, nearly 40% (88 facilities) were non-compliant with, among others, the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations.
In the Free State of the 111 facilities inspected, 62 were found to be in non-compliance with TOPS Regulations. Most facilities were also found to be operating with expired permits. All permits were however renewed without providing reasons for renewal.
DEA further reported (incorrectly) that activities involving petting and walking with big cats are not allowed in the Free State and Western Cape, and therefore no permits were issued to facilities to conduct such activities. However, there are many facilities in both provinces that offer these exploitative activities to thousands of tourists and volunteers.
The committee appeared unconcerned that these activities are taking place without or with inadequate regulation in the North West, Limpopo and Gauteng. DEA has only four inspectors to cover the entire country and admitted they were under-resourced.
DEA inspections are only TOPS compliance checks in conjunction with provincial authorities and DEA inspectors are not trained to carry out welfare inspections. The NSPCA is the sole organisation mandated to carry out welfare inspections however neither the NSPCA nor PCEA has been able to obtain a full list of CLB facilities from DEA.
On 25 February 2019, the Minister announced the formation of a High-Level Panel to review the existing policies, legislation and practices related to the management, breeding, hunting, trade and handling of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros. There has however been no public consultation on the Terms of Reference of the panel and membership is restricted to those with experience of Sustainable Utilisation. From the PCEA chair’s closing remarks, it seems certain that this panel will review the Resolutions of the PCEA Colloquium Report.
Blood Lions, a leading organisation that works to end the captive lion breeding, canned hunting and lion bone trade industries in South Africa, is deeply concerned by the outcome of the recent briefing.
“DEA’s recommendation to regulate an industry which has been thriving for over 20 years already, under so called ‘governance’, is proof of ineffective legislation and poor regulation. Leading global conservation and scientific authorities state that the captive predator breeding industry has no conservation value whatsoever, and in fact flouts internationally accepted ethical and welfare protocols.”
Blood Lions urges DEA to follow the sound resolutions made in the PCEA Colloquium report, which included this vital statement advising DEA to “urgently initiate a policy and legislative review of the captive breeding of lions for hunting and the lion bone trade with a view to putting an end to this practice”.
Press release from University of Pretoria/Sea Search – Namibian Dolphin Project
Research led by scientists at the Namibian Dolphin Project has shed light on a new level of complexity communication amongst dolphins. This research, conducted by Morgan J. Martin, a PhD candidate from the University of Pretoria has found that the small Heaviside’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus heavisidii) selectively switch between high frequency, echolocation clicks (i.e. biosonar) used to navigate and search for prey, and lower frequency clicks that comprise communication sounds which help to maintain their highly social lifestyle.
Further, unique patterns were found within some communication sounds which leads scientists to believe that these dolphins have developed a more sophisticated way to communicate messages or emotion. Also, Heaviside’s dolphins appear to decrease the number of sounds they produce when in larger groups, potentially as a means to control the noise level and improve communication across the group.
Heaviside’s dolphins are only found in the Benguela Ecosystem along the west coast of southern Africa and range from southern Angola to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. They are found in shallow waters along the coast and are one of the smallest dolphin species on Earth (< 1.7 m long).
“Heaviside’s dolphins are a poorly understood species, and we are working to collect as much baseline information as possible on their numbers and behaviour,” says Dr Simon Elwen, a marine mammal expert at the University of Pretoria and director of the Namibian Dolphin Project.
All dolphins use sound to find objects in their environment, such as fish. This process, called echolocation, involves the animal producing a sonar pulse, commonly termed a ‘click’, which hits a target, producing an echo which the animal hears and processes, effectively ‘seeing the world with sound’. Most dolphins echolocate with clicks which cover a range of frequencies, from around 10 kHz to 200 kHz; however, Heaviside’s dolphins are one of 13 species that have shifted their echolocation signals to occur only in an incredibly high and narrow frequency band around 130 kHz (almost seven times higher than the 20 kHz upper limit of human hearing).
Also, most dolphins also use other sounds, such as lower frequency whistles, to communicate over long distances; however, these 13 species do not produce whistles for communication. These acoustic adaptations are thought to reflect a type of acoustic crypsis, meaning that these adaptations decrease the dolphins’ risk of being overheard by predatory killer whales.
The current study links specific sounds produced underwater by Heaviside’s dolphins with their surface behaviours to understand the function of different sounds, including social signals.
“Although we can’t see what the dolphins are doing underwater, their surface behaviour is often used to interpret what is happening below the surface. By combining acoustic recordings of the dolphins underwater with the simultaneous behaviours observed at the surface, we can piece together a vocal repertoire of the types and functions of sounds these dolphins can produce,” says Dr Tess Gridley, a co-author on this study (based at the University of Cape Town).
This research has shown that the lower frequency sounds discovered are indeed used for communication, but Martin emphasises that there’s still much more to learn, “These dolphins communicate by emitting bursts of clicks very rapidly (more than 500 clicks per second) at highly varying repetition rates. We don’t yet know what information they can encode when they produce these sounds, but it appears they have a more complex communication system than previously understood.”
Imagine a potential form of dolphin Morse code where dolphins emit clicks in specific patterns or series, to communicate something specific like their emotional state. Unique patterns of communication sounds were paired with some particular dolphin behaviours seen at the surface including aerial leaping, backflipping, mating and tail slapping the water’s surface. So, they might be using this dolphin Morse code to tell group members what they are doing or that they are excited.
Also, the team investigated how the number of sounds produced by a group changes with increasing group sizes. Heaviside’s dolphins reduce the number of communication sounds produced when in large groups. This might be to keep them from ‘talking’ over each other and would help improve communication across the group.
This study has increased our understanding of the function of different Heaviside’s dolphin sounds as well as shed light on how this species mediates communication in groups.
Full report: Morgan J. Martin, Simon H. Elwen, Reshma Kassanjee, Tess Gridley (2019). To buzz or burst-pulse? The functional role of Heaviside’s dolphin, Cephalorhynchus heavisidii, rapidly pulsed signals. Animal Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.01.007
The authors gratefully acknowledge research funding by the University of Pretoria, a United States Fulbright Research Fellowship, a National Geographic Society grant in conjunction with the Waiit Foundation, the Claude Leon Foundation and the National Research Foundation.
Post series: Botswana elephants – to hunt or not?
The international furore over the Botswana government decision to recommence the hunting of elephant (and other species) necessitates an understanding of the entire picture. This post is one of eight posts from various sources looking at this issue from different angles. The other seven posts you should read to get the full picture:
• Botswana government announcement – hunting ban should be lifted
• Botswana 2018 aerial survey – of elephants, baobabs and cattle
• Botswana government questions elephant survey report by Dr Mike Chase
• Personal statement from Dr Mike Chase, Elephants Without Borders
• Opinion post from Dereck Joubert – conservation spokesperson, filmmaker and lodge owner
• Opinion post from Gail Potgieter – human-wildlife conflict specialist
• Opinion post from Erik Verreynne – livestock and wildlife veterinary surgeon in Botswana
OPINION POST FROM CLARE DOOLAN – TOURISM INDUSTRY PRODUCT AND SALES MANAGER
So you’ve been reading the press. Looks bad, doesn’t it? Botswana wants to shoot elephants for money they say. Not just that, but ideas for managing Botswana’s elephant population include packaging them up for pet food.
The easy reaction is a horror-filled “how COULD you?!” Petitions do the rounds, while people ‘act now’ by stating their sadness on social media. But IS this action? Can signing a petition improve the livelihoods of communities living with wildlife, while gaining none of its benefits?
Read any argument about why hunting isn’t ‘necessary’ and people will point to photographic safaris. “Look,” they’ll say, “this is a great alternative which doesn’t put a bullet between an animal’s eyes.”
But, is it?
While I can’t claim to be a scientist with easy solutions to Botswana’s human-wildlife conflict problems, what I do know a bit about, is tourism.
As the Marketing Manager for one of Botswana’s larger tourism operators, I spend most of my days either promoting travel to Botswana or travelling in Botswana. I love Botswana so much that I made it my home. Put me in front of a breeding herd of elephants and I’ll stay all day. Elephants are ALWAYS doing something interesting, and I’m guilty of adding running commentary to their antics, at the risk of being considered insane.
Now, over to my day job, when I’m standing in the office of a tour operator on another continent, who’s selling travel to Africa. When I make these visits, my intentions are twofold. Firstly, help people understand what Botswana has to offer as a destination. Then, recommend safari camps, areas and experiences which make the best Tinder match with their client book.
“And the game viewing. Is it good there?” they’ll ask.
And here we have our first roadblock.
Yes, photographic tourism is a great income earner. It puts value on the land wildlife inhabits, just by letting the animals stay there. No need to plough a field and grow a crop, or bring in a gun and a taxidermist. We just need to build a safari camp, and the money will pour in. Or will it?
People often blame hunters for being ‘consumptive’ when they visit wilderness areas. In order for them to be happy, an animal needs to be shot, stuffed and hung on the nearest wall – or so the feeling goes. But photographic clients also come with their own demands. Before they’ll get on the plane, they want the Africa they visit to match the Africa of their dreams. Unspoilt. Filled with wildlife and worthy of dinner table brags, like “that time a lion stared us down, not five feet away” and then, “pass the potatoes please. We can recommend a great safari outfitter after dessert”.
But, in order for the story to be told, the lion needs to be seen.
And so, those of us selling travel to Africa focus on offering the most remote, unspoilt safari possible, with the best-bet of seeing the most of whatever is out there. These travellers may not want a buffalo head to take home, but they sure as hell need a stack of ‘insta-worthy’ photos as their bounty. Lots and lots of photos.
Elephants Without Borders’ recent aerial survey reports that only 20% of our elephants are in Botswana’s national parks (including Moremi Game Reserve). Another 57% are in Wildlife Management Areas and Forest Reserves, including not just the private concessions of the Okavango Delta and Linyanti, but also ex-hunting concessions which aren’t currently earning a tourism revenue.
By contrast, 22% of our elephants (more than what’s in our national parks) are in pastoral or other unprotected areas (Chase et al, 2018), where communities are in conflict with wildlife, and tourism doesn’t improve their livelihoods.
So why don’t we build safari camps in all these other areas, and spread the love a little further?
Sadly, the photographic traveller is often just too fickle.
The camps which make the most income from photographic safaris, are those which maintain the dream of unspoilt Africa: scenically pretty, full of wildlife, and far from villages and people living with human-wildlife conflict. An Africa which, for the most part, doesn’t actually exist: so, can only be found in very few places.
Send a traveller with a $3,000 a night budget to Ngwasha & Sepako, which have a combined count of 12,728 elephants (Mike et al, 2018) and they’ll demand a refund.
I mean, who’s ever heard of those places, right?! Certainly not the friends who’ll be at your next dinner party. So, we’ll stick with Mombo thanks. (Moremi Game Reserve, where you’ll find Mombo, has 8,402 elephants by comparison.)
An area may host 12,000 elephants, but if its densely vegetated, you won’t easily see them. Further, if water is only seasonally-available for wildlife, animals will often just be ‘passing through’, rather than hanging around for months on end. This is why so many of Botswana’s safari camps are based near permanent water instead.
So, back to that question:
“And the game viewing? Is it good there?”
The answer is often no.
So, forget bragging at the next dinner party. But will a hunter go there? The answer is yes.
Forget relying on the two percenters who grace Botswana’s high-end safari camps to form the sum total of our tourism income. Most travellers can’t afford a USD$3,500 a night holiday anyway. If we want to increase tourism’s earning potential, get more people experiencing Botswana, and have more Batswana earning from tourism, we need to get more creative.
Those of us selling travel to Africa need to reframe the way we present it. We need to stop teaching travellers that Botswana is pristine wilderness and wildlife, or nothing at all. We need to encourage people to learn about human-wildlife conflict, and donate to organisations trialling mitigation techniques with communities (try Elephants Without Borders, Ecoexist or Elephants for Africa).
After all, people have co-existed with wildlife longer in Africa than anywhere else on Earth.
For those of you travelling to Botswana: seek out experiences beyond the straight-up safari. Support Batswana who offer unique ways of introducing you to Botswana, regardless of whether it includes wildlife or not.
Those of us operating tourism businesses need to do better than just peddling animal spotting from the back of a vehicle. We need to create tourism experiences around villages and towns, and take the pressure off our wilderness areas. They’ll be cheaper to run, easier to access, and more affordable for the ‘average’ traveller. Smaller overheads mean greater opportunity for a more diverse ownership – including Botswana’s own citizens.
In the meanwhile, I’ll be promoting what I love about Botswana more than ever. This is not the end of a conversation, but the start of an opportunity to diversify how people experience Botswana, and to create more opportunities for Botswana to show off her heritage to the world.
Subscribe to enjoy more stories like this.
TRAVEL WITH AFRICA GEOGRAPHIC
Travel in Africa is about knowing when and where to go, and with whom. A few weeks too early / late and a few kilometres off course and you could miss the greatest show on Earth. And wouldn’t that be a pity? Search for your ideal safari here, or contact an Africa Geographic safari consultant to plan your dream vacation.
Press release by NEAT – Namibian Environmental Awareness Training
Namibian Environmental Awareness Training (NEAT) has just launched a three-month research project in the Kunene region in northwest Namibia to understand the relationship and interactions between rural communities and the regions’ iconic nature and wildlife. This study will allow NEAT to develop tailored environmental education programmes for schools and communities, to empower them to actively engage in and benefit from nature conservation.
The Kunene region is one of Namibia’s last wildernesses and home to rare desert-adapted elephants, rhinos and lions, as well as numerous other endangered species.
Himba, Herero, Damara, San people and many other indigenous communities also live in the region, often in remote villages and in direct contact with nature and wild animals.
Rural livelihoods often depend on natural resources and are affected by human-wildlife conflict or environmental disasters such as droughts. Wildlife populations are also under pressure, facing threats from habitat loss and illegal poaching.
NEAT’s research and education programme will address these issues together, recognising that human prosperity and biodiversity conservation are inextricably linked.
NEAT started the research study on Sunday, 3rd March 2019. Over the coming three months, a team of four conservationists and educators will visit eight different communities from across the entire Kunene region and interview adults, children and school teachers. Two experienced UK-based scientists will assist with data analysis. The results will be shared with Namibian school directors and the Minister of Education, who have already expressed their interest in this study.
The project is led by NEAT founder Steven Maseka, an award-winning Namibian environmentalist who previously worked in Namibia’s world-renowned Community-Based Natural Resources Management programme and featured in the 2018 BBC documentary Pangolins – The World’s Most Wanted Animal.
The first phase of the project is supported by crowdfunding, and you can help immensely by donating here.
It was late in the evening when we sat down for a beautifully prepared three-course dinner at the impeccably decorated Manor House in Samara – a game reserve located near Graaff-Reinet in the Great Karoo. The main topic making the rounds was about the much-anticipated lion release, which took place earlier in the day. Well, technically it happened, though not in the way it was planned…
Waking up at the crack of dawn, the Samara team and a small group of lucky people, including yours truly, had eagerly made our way to the boma where two lions – Titus, a three-year-old male, and Sikelele, a four-year-old female – had been living for the past six weeks. Today was the day of their release into the reserve. A day that would herald the start of new beginnings in Samara history.
The lions had been spotted at the far end of the boma, sleeping under a bush. The gate was quickly opened, and a fresh gemsbok carcass lay just a few metres outside the entrance in the hopes to entice them out… We waited quietly in the game drive vehicles, about 25 metres away from the gate, the first warm rays of the sun hitting our backs as the sound of cameras zooming in on anything that moved broke the otherwise silent group.
A few minutes passed, then murmurings amongst the rangers and a few concerned glances were shared. Maybe they haven’t noticed the gate was open? Perhaps they need more time?
Half an hour later and still no sign. One of the rangers decided to check up on the location of the lions by circling the outside perimeter of the boma. He soon came back and dejectedly reported that the lions were still dozing under the bushes… flat-cats.
So, with the promise from Marnus, the general manager, that we would be informed as soon as any movement happened, we continued with our day, taking advantage of the available time to explore the vast landscape of Samara.
Now a lion release might not seem like a big deal – relocations happen all the time across the country – but in this case, it is quite significant for what Samara stands for, and what the owners and staff are hoping to achieve for the Great Karoo and its wildlife.
To understand more about the Great Karoo and the importance behind animal reintroductions by Samara, let’s first take a brief moment to step back in time to see how the Great Karoo became what it is today and why it’s such a unique and special place.
A semi-desert landscape, the Great Karoo is considered internationally famous in palaeontological circles for its abundance of pre-dinosaur fossils. The region covers two significant extinction events, the end-Permian (252 million years ago) and the end-Triassic (200 million years ago), and is home to rich fossil beds that preserve approximately 80 million years of vertebrate evolution that documents early primitive reptiles to the transitional stage between reptiles and mammals. This is the only place in the world where such an extended fossil record of the early evolution of ‘reptilian’ life is preserved in a single basin.
Incredible geological transformations over millions of years from glaciers to desert dunes to volcanic lava, and erosion over time, helped create the landscape that we see today.
Fast-forward to recent history, and we discover that less than two hundred years ago, large herds of antelope—such as eland, blesbok, and springbok—roamed the grass plains. Also present were quagga (now extinct), Cape buffalo, black rhino, ostrich, wildebeest, lions, leopards, painted wolves (African wild dogs), hyenas, and jackals. During what could have emulated the Great Wildebeest Migration in East Africa, the Karoo once played host to its very own migration spectacle of trekbokke – ‘migrating antelope’.
Not much is known about this phenomenon as it was never scientifically studied, but accounts from the 19th century tell of herds numbering in the millions.
In his book, The Migratory Springboks of South Africa, the Trekbokke (1925), S.C. Cronwright-Schreiner recalls the time in 1896 when he and two farmers, who were used to estimating small stock numbers, attempted to estimate the amount of migrating springboks, saying:
“With the aid of the field-glasses, we deliberately formed a careful estimate, taking them in sections and checking one another’s calculations. We eventually computed the number to be not less than five hundred thousand — half a million springboks in sight at one moment. I have no hesitation in saying that that estimate is not excessive.”
However, the springboks that they could see were just part of a massive herd, which in total covered an area of approximately 138 x 15 miles (222 x 24 km)!
Cronwright-Schreiner declared: “To say they migrate in millions is to employ an ordinary figure of speech, used vaguely to convey the idea of great numbers; but in the case of these bucks it is the literal truth.”
Following the rains and resultant nutrition across the Karoo basin, these migrating herds were of such enormity that it would sometimes take a week for all the springbok to pass.
They would eat their way across the landscape, an unstoppable force grazing their way through vegetation like a locust swarm. This may sound destructive but, like a natural veld fire, the springbok manure and hoof action helped prepare the soil for the next rainy season, and also helped to prune and invigorate the vegetation.
Lawrence G. Green’s book, Karoo (1955), provides a personal account by Gert van der Merwe of the great springbok migration:
“At last came a faint drumming. No doubt the Bushman had sensed this drumming hours before, with his ear to the ground. Only now could Gert hear it. The cloud of dust was dense and enormous, and the front rank of the springbok, running faster than galloping horses, could be seen. They were in such numbers that Gert found the sight frightening. He could see a front line of buck at least three miles long, but he could not estimate the depth. Ahead of the main body were swift voorlopers, moving along as though they were leading the army.”
Unfortunately, the last natural springbok migration was recorded in 1896. Due to human interference – by overzealous hunters and farmers dividing the land with barbed wire fences – the springboks faced too many obstacles to continue their natural route, and so it came to an end. And so the Great Karoo can no longer be compared to a Kenya safari highlights itinerary. Rather, it represents hope for the rewilding of the vast open plains that are still relatively undisturbed.
The expansion of human settlement in the Karoo caused much of the wildlife to be displaced or wiped out. With the occupation of the area by stock farmers, cattle, sheep and goats gradually replaced the wildlife and the grass receded along with the changed grazing and weather patterns.
It is at this point where Samara comes in. Reintroducing indigenous wildlife back into the Great Karoo has been a vision of Samara’s and its owners. Since the inception in 1997 of Samara, Mark and Sarah Tompkins have made it their mission to rewild the Great Karoo, recreating a self-sustaining ecosystem and restoring it to its former glory.
Over the last 22 years they have been painstakingly restoring eleven reclaimed farms that were once degraded and overgrazed, removing the internal fences of their 70,000 acres property and allowing the land to first rest and recuperate for at least a decade before reintroducing indigenous species that had gone locally extinct. They hope that one day the reserve could act as a link between other conservation areas – from Camdeboo National Park in the west to Mountain Zebra National Park in the east – creating an ecological corridor for wildlife to traverse, and perhaps even see the return of such great spectacles like the great springbok migration.
Since their journey began, Samara has engaged in an ambitious programme of animal reintroduction, some of the more notable reintroductions to date include:
Cheetah
In 2004, Sibella – a young female cheetah rescued from abuse at the hands of hunters – was the first among three cheetahs to be released into Samara. They were the first cheetahs to step back into the wilds of the Karoo in 130 years, after hunting and persecution drove them to local extinction in the 1870s. Sibella thrived in her new environment, successfully rearing 19 cubs in four litters before she died of natural causes in 2015 at the ripe old age of 14. Near the end of 2018 Samara was proud to announce that Sibella’s last daughter, Chilli, gave birth to a second litter of cubs.
White and desert-adapted black rhino
Already under serious threat from poaching and illegal trade, Samara did their part for rhino conservation in 2006 when they introduced white rhinos into the reserve. Then in 2013, they introduced south-western black rhino (Diceros bicornis bicornis) – a desert-adapted subspecies of the critically endangered black rhino. According to Samara, they are one of only two private reserves in South Africa to house this subspecies, the population stronghold being in South African National Parks and Namibia.
Samara takes rhino protection very seriously, and several measures form part of the anti-poaching strategy, including dehorning, patrols, surveillance and community education.
Springbok
In the hopes to restore what once was, Samara recently reintroduced 800 springbok to the reserve and has plans to increase that number to several thousand in a bid to recreate the natural ecosystem processes of holistic grazing. It is hoped that the reintroduction of springbok and the growth of the herds will enable the reserve to meet its objective of reversing decades of prior livestock overgrazing.
Elephants
After a 150-year absence, elephants were successfully reintroduced into Samara in October 2017. A founder family herd of six elephants came from Kwandwe Game Reserve near Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape and were soon joined by two mature bulls, who came from Phinda Private Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal, in 2018. Both elephant reintroductions were part-sponsored by the NGO Elephants, Rhinos, People.
The reintroduction of elephants has helped restore the function of the megaherbivore ecosystem processes in Samara. They have plenty to eat, and no supplementary feeding is required as they enjoy grazing mainly on cabbage trees and jacket plums that grow in the reserve.
Tracking collars have been fitted to two of the elephants: the sub-matriarch of the family herd, and the one bull, so that they can be tracked for conservation, ecotourism and academic purposes.
Lion
Reintroducing a founding lion pride has been Samara’s latest milestone in its journey to restoring a fully-functioning Great Karoo ecosystem. Lions once roamed the mountains and plains of the Karoo, though over time were wiped out by hunters and farmers, with the last wild lion spotted in the region in 1840. There is a pressing need for conservation initiatives targeting lions as the species has dwindled by 43% in the past 20 years, with current lion populations estimated to be between 20 000 and 30 000. However, researchers believe that the number is closer to 20,000.
At the end of 2018, a new chapter started as the first pride of two lions arrived at Samara, and were officially released into the reserve in January 2019. This marks Samara as the first Big 5 private game reserve in the Great Karoo region, and at the same time, this forever shifts the predator-prey dynamic in the reserve.
Additional reintroductions over the years have included dozens of plains game like red hartebeest, eland and Cape mountain zebra, to name but a few. Incredibly there has also been the natural return of other species, such as the elusive Cape leopard and Cape vultures.
Now that we’ve covered a bit of the background, it’s back to the evening’s dinner after a long day out with no word from the rangers as to the movements (or lack thereof) of the lions…
We were finishing off our main course when Veronica, the assistant manager, approached the table.
“I have an announcement to make,” she declared with a hint of a smile.
The table quietened down, turning towards her with anticipation
“I have a message from Marnus,” she went on calmly. “He says that the lions have finally left the boma and that you must all head outside as he is waiting to take you to where they are.”
It took us a mere moment to process what she had just said… and then all hell broke loose. Napkins flew into the air, chairs were pushed hastily away, and the room erupted in an energetic frenzy as everyone scrambled to get their cameras and jackets while hot-stepping it to where Marnus was waiting in the vehicle.
Dessert would have to wait!
Soon we were on the road for the short ride to the boma. It was pitch black and slightly chilly, and Marnus drove by the boma’s gate, left open since the morning, surveying the area with a spotlight for any sign of the lions – the gemsbok carcass lay untouched.
Had they really left without feeding? Surely they were hungry? Would they vanish into the night, leaving us equally excited yet disappointed at the same time? Questions and theories to their location flew around in hushed whispers.
Trying to remain positive, we slowly drove around the area, the spotlight dancing across the landscape, creating shadows that had us second-guessing, when suddenly it fell upon a sleek feline figure walking about a hundred or so metres away – everyone gasped – it was Titus! Moving like the ghost of his ancestors, he was silently making his way through the thick acacia trees towards the carcass.
In anticipation, we drove back to the carcass, only to find that Sikelele had returned in the last few minutes and was already tucking into her dinner, unperturbed by our presence.
Our patience was rewarded when Titus soon joined her — seeing the two lions calmly eating together sparked a flurry of muted congratulations and rejoicing amongst those of us lucky enough to witness this historic event. That night, after speeches and champagne, a sense of relief and hope for the future took us to bed for a blissful night’s sleep, while the founding lion pride of Samara strolled under the stars, exploring their new home in the Great Karoo.
The Karoo covers almost 40% of South Africa’s land surface and stretches over the provinces of the Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Free State, and Western Cape. No exact definition of what constitutes the Karoo is available, so its extent is also not precisely defined.
The Karoo, however, is distinctively divided into the Great Karoo (or Groot Karoo) and the Little Karoo (or Klein Karoo) by the Swartberg Mountain Range area. Both regions lie almost entirely within two of South Africa’s eight botanical biomes: the Nama Karoo and the Succulent Karoo.
The massive Nama Karoo is South Africa’s second-largest biome which extends into southeastern Namibia. It is defined as a vast semi-desert region, and the name is derived from the Khoi San word kuru, meaning ‘dry’. The Succulent Karoo covers the arid western parts of South Africa, including Namaqualand and the Richtersveld, up to the south-west region of Namibia. It is distinguished by its arid or semi-arid climate, allowing for a rich diversity of succulent plants and animals.
The Karoo is partly defined by its topography, geology and climate, and above all, its low rainfall, arid air, cloudless skies, and extremes of heat and cold. It is also home to the widest variety of succulents on Earth. Here you can find the richest desert floras in the world, with 40% of these species not found anywhere else on the planet.
Samara Karoo Reserve is a family-run, award-winning, malaria-free, Big 5 reserve in the Great Karoo. It is located in the Eastern Cape province, 53 km southeast of Graaff-Reinet – the country’s fourth oldest town. Spanning 70,000 acres of Great Karoo wilderness, Samara offers a Big 5 safari with a difference.
Consisting of 11 former livestock farms assembled since 1997, Samara’s vision is nothing less than the rehabilitation of an entire landscape. Key to the Samara experience is the concept of co-creation, where every guest plays a role in rewilding the landscape and preserving it for posterity. Activities include game drives, guided walks, wilderness picnics, cheetah tracking on foot, aardvark spotting (best sightings to be had in winter), birding, hiking and a luxury star bed (open October to April). Children of all ages are welcome, and there is a Samara Kids Programme that caters to children up to the age of 12 years old.
Thea was graciously hosted at one of the two accommodation options at Samara:
The Karoo Lodge is a restored farmhouse encircled by a natural amphitheatre of mountains. Combining colonial comforts and modern-day luxuries with a rustic and welcoming feel, the Karoo Lodge is the perfect place to relax, either outside by the pool or on the verandah. The lodge has nine, en-suite double rooms of varying sizes and caters for individual travellers, couples and families.
The luxurious Manor House is a modern yet understated villa which reflects the local Karoo landscape and traditions with a unique twist. It comprises four, en-suite luxury suites, which can be booked independently or the entire villa can be taken over on an exclusive-use basis. This option is popular with families and groups looking for privacy, indulgence and complete relaxation.
For those seeking just a bit more privacy and adventure, Samara offers a star bed – a bedroom on a raised wooden platform. The star bed is some distance from the camp and overlooks the Milk River, where wildlife comes to drink. You will be dropped off at the private star bed in the evening and picked up the following morning. Your stay in the star bed includes a romantic sundowner drink followed by a moon-lit dinner. You will sleep high up and safe from predators and things that go bump in the night.
Your bed is as comfortable as those back in the camp, and a mosquito net protects you from pesky insects. The treehouse has a toilet and a hand basin. Awaken the next morning to the big skies and birdsong of the Karoo as another beautiful day dawns in Africa, before being collected and taken back to the main camp to freshen up. This is a wonderful, romantic and very memorable twist to any safari.
The Tracker Academy
The Tracker Academy, a training division of the SA College for Tourism, operating under the auspices of the Peace Parks Foundation and funded by the Rupert Family Trust, was founded and is hosted at Samara. The one-year full-time intensive course into the dying science of tracking, led by experienced trainers, is the first of its kind in Southern Africa.
Samara makes its land available free of charge to the Tracker Academy for all its semi-arid practical training sessions and as part of its charitable donation to the Academy, also provides lecturing facilities and accommodation for the trainees.
As a former field guide and teacher, Thea has combined her passion for the English language and love of wildlife to work behind the scenes as a content editor sharing African wildlife, travel and culture with a global online audience. When not in front of the screen she makes time to get out and explore the beautiful Cape Town wilderness in search for her favourite reptile species (and other fascinating creatures, of course).
The imposing Atlas Mountains of north Africa stretch thousands of kilometres, creating an almost impenetrable barrier between the Atlantic and the mighty Sahara. The High Atlas, referred to as Idraren Draren by the Berbers who have made this hostile environment home for centuries, means “Mountains of Mountains”. Of these it is Jebel (Mount) Toubkal that rises over all and the reason for our visit.
The Red City (Marrakech) grew ever smaller in our rearview mirror as we sped due south with our trusty Berber driver, Rashid, who spoke no English and even less French. But it didn’t matter. He knew where he was going.
After finally dissuading him from stopping at all the usual tourist traps along the way selling Argon Oil, famous to the region, we reached the town of Imlil, the unofficial gateway to this part of the Atlas mountains. We did not linger, our journey continued up steep hairpin bend roads with sheer drop offs to the village of Aroumd.
Aroumd was quiet and positively diminutive, built on the edges of a rocky floodplain dotted with apple and walnut trees. Lunch was served at our hotel (Mount Toubkal Lodge) with breathtaking views over the valley leading up to the snowy summits of Toubkal.
We spent the afternoon exploring the steep, winding pathways of Aroumd and as we climbed higher we finally left the village behind. On a large lookout point we sat side by side and surrendered to the heat of the sun as contemplated our adventure to come.
Light only reached our valley after 8am in the morning. We set off with our guide Ibrahim, a man stocky in nature who had climbed the mountain over 400 times. We were in good hands but he left us to it for long stretches of the day as he caught up with friends along the hike.
It was of no consequence, the route is simple to follow, slowly winding its way up the side of the valley that culminates at the three refuges. Along the way we passed numerous police checkpoints on the way up, a response by the Moroccan authorities to the tragic incident that occurred in late 2018. The 11-km hike took us a steady four hours and saw us gain over 1,000m in altitude.
While there were three refuges available, all run by different organisations, we had elected the Refuge de Toubkal CAF (booking ahead advised, altitude 3,207m). The refuge was absolutely bursting at the seams with climbers and skiers from all over.
As the sun dropped behind the neighbouring peaks the temperature plummeted. We found shelter inside the refuge and drank sweet tea.
Our aim was to summit Toubkal at sunrise. We set our departure time for 5am. In a dorm room with 16 people, however, sleep did not come easy.
Frustrated by the outrageous snoring going on I turned to Jorien lying next to me, “Why do we even do this?”.
The alarm erupting at 4:30am came as a relief and soon the whole refuge descended into a flurry of chaotic activity.
There was hardly a moon as we stepped onto the virgin snow with our cramponed shoes. Ice axe at the ready we were the first to head up.
Soon, however, a scattering of 40-50 lights were dancing in our wake. We kept our pace steady to stay ahead of the multitudes. The night was bitterly cold and standing still was not an option. Or so we thought…
Ibrahim slowed to a stop, “We stop here for 5 minutes. I pray, Ok?”
He wasn’t joking, I checked. I cursed under my breath. I had lost feeling in my toes an hour ago. I checked my watch. It was 6am. After what felt like an hour, but was only a moment, we continued. We were desperate to get blood flowing again.
The sun breached the horizon as we arrived at Tizi’n Toubkal (south col at 3,940m). We ditched our crampons as we navigated the boulder field up the summit ridge. Still, a nervy snow traverse just below the summit made me question the wisdom of that act.
Suddenly the summit triangle loomed ahead of us, announcing an altitude of 4,167m.
There was no one but ourselves on that beautifully windswept morning. We looked out over Morocco, the Sahara to the southeast, the Atlantic to the west.
A glorious morning in an incredible landscape.
In his IUCN report titled ‘Africa is changing: should its protected areas evolve? Reconfiguring the protected area in Africa’, wildlife vet and protected areas consultant Bertrand Chardonnet suggests that the following factors are required to effectively conserve biodiversity in Africa’s protected areas:
1. A minimum of US$7-8 per hectare per year of funding
2. Political backing and management skills
3. Support from local communities
Chardonnet also suggests that the larger, more ecologically intact areas are vital because they hold higher biodiversity than the smaller, more disturbed areas. Human population growth is mentioned as placing increasing pressure on these protected areas.
He recommends an increase in protected area size and boundaries, not by evicting people already living in those areas, but rather by the reclassification of areas not currently under sufficient ecological protection.
First opportunity:
Chardonnet notes that the ongoing decline in big game/trophy hunting opens up the opportunity to join up former hunting areas with protected areas – this process being subject to the availability of sufficient funding.
Second opportunity:
The second opportunity highlighted by Chardonnet is the potential creation of community tourism conservancies in these areas – with benefits relating to conservation and community development, which will also facilitate better management of human-wildlife conflict. The financing of these tourism projects is seen as a considerable business opportunity.
Chardonnet stresses that no protected area can function without a prevailing rule of law and good governance. In this regard, political commitment from governments is vital, as are the related sovereign services of security, the rule of law, appropriate legislation and control of its enforcement.
He also emphasised that protected areas cannot be operated in isolation and that the integration of conservation areas and community development are vital strategies. The combination of tourism investment and conservation (donor) funding as a global common good is also highlighted as being crucial components for success.
The report includes four interesting Appendixes, as follows:
1. Protected Area management categories
2. The decline of big game/trophy hunting in South Africa
3. Main special and socio-economic parameters of big game / trophy hunting in Africa in 2018
4. Analysis of different types of conservancy
This is a summary of this thorough and lengthy report, and we advise you to read it in full, to better understand the issues.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
BERTRAND CHARDONNET is a doctor in veterinary medicine by training. After a doctoral thesis in Guinea Bissau on wildlife management, he started to work in West Africa in 1985 as adviser for livestock breeding. Over the years, he has worked as chief game warden of Bamingui-Bangoran National Park in Central Africa Republic, adviser to the Director of Wildlife in Burkina Faso, adviser to the Minister of Environment in Chad and head of Rinderpest eradication in West and Central Africa.
During this time, he also served as co-chair of the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group. He has also performed wildlife veterinary services and consulted as protected areas and wildlife specialist, focusing on ecological monitoring, anti-poaching strategies, conservation strategies and protected areas planning.
Chardonnet has worked in 40 African countries, and today he focuses on training, ecotourism and wildlife photography.
Azura Selous, a luxury game lodge situated along the banks of the Great Ruaha River in the remote Selous Game Reserve in southern Tanzania, has announced its sudden closure due to the unexpected arrival of loggers in the area.
In a newsletter sent out to various members of the travel industry, Azura Selous stated that the loggers intend to clear the area for the flooding that will occur during the construction of the hotly debated Stieglers Gorge hydropower dam along the Rufiji River.
Azura’s management team made the decision to close the lodge due to the damage and disturbance that the loggers will cause to the surrounding environment.
The Stieglers Gorge hydropower project has come under intense scrutiny from a number of wildlife organisations and activists, who are concerned that the $3 billion project will seriously affect the ecosystem of Selous Game Reserve.
According to latest news reports, seventeen Tanzanian companies have been awarded tenders to clear 1,500 square kilometres of terrain inside Selous – an estimated 2.6 million trees – to make way for the hydropower plant.
Selous Game Reserve is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is considered one of the largest remaining wilderness areas in Africa, covering an area of 54,600 square kilometres.
Upon completion, the plant will provide 2,100MW of electricity to a country that is currently extremely under-supplied. The plant will be designed to supply more than double the country’s power generation capacity. According to Tanzania’s Minister for Energy, Medard Kalemani, the plant is expected to completely end the country’s power woes and sustain local industries with electricity and sell the surplus power to neighbouring countries.
In addendums to his IUCN report titled ‘Africa is changing: should its protected areas evolve? Reconfiguring the protected area in Africa’, wildlife vet and protected areas consultant Bertrand Chardonnet proposes that big game/trophy hunting is in a state of decline and is no longer able to pay for its ecological footprint, leading to poaching and habitat loss in hunting concessions.
Chardonnet’s proposal is against the background of the following three indicators:
1. The progressive disappearance of big game/trophy hunting zones due to farming activities linked to population growth. Countries such as Senegal, Niger, Chad, CAR, DR Congo, Sudan, Malawi and Angola have lost 90% of land formerly available to big game hunting. In contrast, countries such as Kenya, Gabon, Cote d’Ivoire and Botswana (subsequently changed) chose to close big game hunting.
Amongst countries still offering big game hunting, ecosystem degradation and decline of game species have led to the non-use of significant portions of former big game hunting areas – 72% in Tanzania and 40% in Zambia. In Tanzania, 110 out of 154 hunting zones have been abandoned because they are no longer profitable for big game/trophy hunting. This represents a surface area of 140,000 km2 or four times the size of Tanzania’s national parks.
2. The decrease in the number of shot animals
Tanzania is Africa’s leading country for big game hunting in unfenced areas, and yet the numbers of lions and elephants shot have plummeted over the last six years (see Figure 1 below).
Despite a six-year age limit on lions (only lions older than six years may be shot), in 2015 66,7% of the lions shot were five years old, or younger. Aside from the issue of the hunting of under-age lions, this statistic demonstrates the lack of suitable lions left to hunt.
Additionally, during that time the annual lion-hunting quota awarded by the Wildlife Divisions was 315 until 2015, and then 207 since 2016. This mismatch between available lions (as per Figure 1) and quotas was behind the reason certain Western countries controlled and even banned the imports of sport-hunted lion trophies.
The dramatic surge in ivory poaching in Tanzania has led to the collapse of elephants available for hunting (Figure 1), as big game hunters target the same large-tusked individuals that poachers target. Taking into account the slow growth rate of tusks, it will take decades of protection with zero offtake before elephant hunting can recommence – a likely death-blow for the big game hunting industry in Tanzania. As was the case with lions, the awarded quotas were far more than what was available – with 200 elephants available on quota up to 2013 and 100 since 2014. The suspension of elephant trophy imports into the USA was only imposed in 2014 – far after the decline in available elephants and had little impact on the sustainability of the trophy hunting industry.
In northern Cameroon, the animals harvested per annum halved over the period 2008 to 2016, despite the same number of hunters.
3. The decrease in the number of hunters
The number of hunters in countries that provide trophy hunters to Africa has dropped dramatically. For example, in the USA, the number of hunters had fallen by 18.5% between 1991 and 2016, from 14,1 million to 11.5 million. In France, the drop was 50% in 40 years.
When it comes to big game hunters visiting African countries, the numbers are not as easy to access, but South Africa has seen a 60,5% drop in eight years, from 16,594 in 2008 to 6,539 in 2016. In 2018, the former president of the Tanzanian Hunting Operators Association said that lion and elephant hunts had dropped to a handful. Figure 2 below shows the reduction in foreign trophy hunters visiting that country.
Let’s talk about money
The average spend in Tanzania by trophy hunting operators for anti-poaching efforts was US$0.18 per hectare per year – far off the current standards of US$7-8, and Kenyan Wildlife Service’s figure of US$14. By spending a mere 2% of the required amount, Tanzanian trophy hunters have not been able to maintain biodiversity in those areas. Total revenue generated by the 200,000 km2 of hunting areas in Tanzania is US$30 million per annum, whereas the conservation cost for that land, if done correctly, would be US$150 million per annum.
When it comes to contributions to local communities, the average trophy hunting operator in Tanzania spent US$0,08 per hectare per year, compared with tourism concessions in Kenya’s Maasai Mara paying US$40 per hectare per year – without counting the redistributions linked to entry fees and employee salaries.
Moreover, the amount collected from Tanzanian trophy hunting operators were not all used in Tanzania, as highlighted in the Panama Papers financial scandal, which underlined the poor governance of this sector.
A functional trophy hunting area would have a lion density of 2 per 100 km² and therefore requires about 5,000 km² (500,000 hectares) to shoot one lion per year, sustainably. The expected annual spend to keep poaching at bay for that land alone would be a minimum US$4 million (500,000 x US$8). This compares to the sales price of an average lion hunt of US$50,000 (the price paid for Cecil the Lion). In other words, the going rate for a lion is 2,5% of the cost to keep that lion area safe from poachers and habitat loss.
In South Africa Peter Flack, one of the leading defenders of hunting in 2018 wrote in his blog that after a 50% decrease in the number of foreign hunters in just a few years, many game farmers were killing their wild animals and replacing them with cattle, given the poor economic situation of the game farming sector. This follows the attempts to manipulate the wild, ethical character to keep these exploitations economically viable using artificial means, first of all through the hunting of lions kept in small enclosures (canned hunting), then through the genetic manipulation of ungulates to produce animals with different colours or larger trophies sought after by hunters. Condemnation of both practises has come from all corners, including groups of IUCN specialists, and the prices of these animals have now dropped to their lowest level. This leaves numerous game farms without real sources of income and thus without any means of funding their conservation.
Tourism versus big game/trophy hunting
In Kenya, tourism recorded a turnover of US$2.8 billion in 2017 for 429,500 direct jobs. Kenya does not permit big game/trophy hunting.
In neighbouring Tanzania, the figures were US$1,975 billion and 446 000 direct jobs off 57,800 km2 from tourism areas. By contrast, big game/trophy hunting in Tanzania generates US$30 million in revenue and creates 4,300 direct jobs – off 200,000 km2 of hunting areas.
In Botswana, tourism generated US$687 million in revenue in 2017 and created 26,000 direct jobs. By contrast, in 2014 (when big game/trophy hunting was banned) the trophy hunting industry generated under US$20 million in revenue and created 1,000 jobs.
In conclusion, big game/trophy hunting:
1. has seen a rapid decline in Africa over several years;
2. does not protect the natural habitat from habitat loss and poaching
3. can only finance a small percentage of the sum required for its conservation; and
4. does not provide sufficient socio-economic benefits.
Hunting used to be a conservation tool, but in the vast majority of cases, it no longer plays this role and will not do so in the future either. Before many hunting zones are colonised, it is essential to recover part of some of them to improve the configuration of certain protected areas and, through this, nature conservation.
The absence of the economic profitability of big game/trophy hunting confirms that consumptive management cannot generate sufficient income to conserve nature. The solutions thus now involve the funding of public goods, which involves living animals, and not the development of conservation actions based on the commercialisation of dead animals.
To read Chardonnet’s report in this regard, refer to page 33 (Appendix 2) and page 37 (Appendix 3) of this document.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
BERTRAND CHARDONNET is a doctor in veterinary medicine by training. After a doctoral thesis in Guinea Bissau on wildlife management, he started to work in West Africa in 1985 as an adviser for livestock breeding. Over the years, he has worked as chief game warden of Bamingui-Bangoran National Park in the Central Africa Republic, an adviser to the Director of Wildlife in Burkina Faso, an adviser to the Minister of Environment in Chad and head of Rinderpest eradication in West and Central Africa.
During this time, he also served as co-chair of the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group. He has also performed wildlife veterinary services and consulted as protected areas and wildlife specialist, focusing on ecological monitoring, anti-poaching strategies, conservation strategies and protected areas planning.
Chardonnet has worked in 40 African countries, and today he focuses on training, ecotourism and wildlife photography.
Sourced from University of Exeter
A new study suggests that banded mongoose pups that receive the most nurturing and attentive escorting in the first months of their life breed more successfully than others. Banded mongooses live in social groups, and for each pup, there is a single adult known as an ‘escort’ – that is not their mother or father – who cares for them one-on-one. These escorts carry, groom and protect the pups, who in turn will inherit lifelong habits and behavioural traits from these role models. This access to extra care and resources during the early part of life is known as the ‘silver spoon effect’.
Now a new study published in Philosophical Transactions B shows that the care mongoose pups receive in the first few months of life play a crucial role in their future successes and that this ‘silver spoon effect’ has a lasting, long-term effect on both their survival and later reproductive success, long after the short-term period of care has ended.
The study, based on data taken between the years 2000 and 2016 from a habituated population of wild banded mongooses living in Queen Elizabeth National Park in western Uganda, found that pups that were closely escorted were heavier as they achieved sexual maturity – which is associated with higher reproductive success. Crucially, for female pups, the amount of care received had the most significant impact on how successfully they reproduced throughout their adult life, over and above effects of larger size.
The study provides a fascinating insight into how helping behaviour shapes the life history of social mammals including humans, that evolved in cooperative family groups in which offspring were cared for by helpers (grandparents, older siblings) as well as their parents.
“Our study shows that the impacts of early life care extend well past the initial caring period. As humans are also very sensitive to early life conditions, these ‘durable benefits’ of cooperation may have played an essential role in shaping the development, health, and life history of our own species.” said one of the authors, Professor Michael Cant from the University of Exeter.
The study looked at a 17-year dataset and found that despite being born on the same day, pups within the same litter are not always equal: some pups spend all day with their escort while others are left to fend for themselves from an early age.
“We know that care and resources received early on in life have profound effects on health and wellbeing in humans. Our study shows that also in mongooses, these early differences accumulate, with bigger pups receiving more care and doing better overall”, said lead author of the study Dr Emma Vitikainen, from the University of Helsinki.
Full report: Emma I. K. Vitikainen, Faye J. Thompson, Harry H. Marshall and Michael A. Cant (2019). Live long and prosper: durable benefits of early-life care in banded mongooses. Philosophical Transactions B. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0114
BOTSWANA 2018 AERIAL SURVEY – OF ELEPHANTS, BAOBABS AND CATTLE
Post series: Botswana elephants – to hunt or not?
The international furore over the Botswana government decision to recommence the hunting of elephant (and other species) necessitates an understanding of the entire picture. This post is one of eight posts from various sources looking at this issue from different angles. The other seven posts you should read to get the full picture:
• Botswana government announcement – hunting ban should be lifted
• Botswana government questions elephant survey report by Dr Mike Chase
• Personal statement from Dr Mike Chase, Elephants Without Borders
• Opinion post from Dereck Joubert – conservation spokesperson, filmmaker and lodge owner
• Opinion post from Gail Potgieter – human-wildlife conflict specialist
• Opinion post from Clare Doolan – tourism industry product and sales manager
• Opinion post from Erik Verreynne – livestock and wildlife veterinary surgeon in Botswana
BOTSWANA 2018 AERIAL SURVEY – OF ELEPHANTS, BAOBABS AND CATTLE
The much-debated 2018 aerial survey of Botswana’s wildlife is now available to members of the public via the Elephants Without Borders website.
Specific aspects of this survey have been the subject of heated social media debate and political posturing from all sides. Which is a pity, because this peer-reviewed report covers a lot more than the numbers of elephant carcasses – be they fresh, old, poached or natural deaths. You can also read about how baobab trees are being impacted by elephants, about significant increases in populations of many species and reductions in others, and about fluctuations in livestock numbers.
This fascinating and comprehensive report is well worth the read, especially if you wish to participate meaningfully in these critical discussions.
Turtles, tortoises and terrapins are reptiles with bony or cartilaginous shells. They belong to the taxonomic order of Testudines, or Chelonii – which comes from the Greek word ‘khelone’, meaning interlocking shields or armour. Interestingly, their shell – unlike claws, nails, horns and beaks – contains nerves, so they are quite receptive to feeling through their shells. For example, they can feel the pressure of weight on their shells and will experience pain if their shell is broken or cracked.
Want to see tortoises, turtles or terrapins on an African safari? Check out our safari ideas here, or let our travel experts plan the perfect African safari for you by clicking here.
They are typical reptiles: cold-blooded (ectothermic), have scales, breathe air, and lay eggs on land.
However, the terms used to describe these species can get a bit confusing, depending on the type of English used.
The distinction between a turtle, tortoise or terrapin comes from what habitat they are adapted to live in, though the terminology differs slightly in certain countries. Depending on where in the world you’re from, the term ‘turtle’ can be used to refer to all species under the order, whereas on the other hand, ‘turtle’ could also only apply to the water-dwelling/marine species.
In America, all chelonians that live in or near water are commonly referred to as turtles, whereas in countries where British English is used (such as in the United Kingdom and South Africa), the word turtle relates to species that live in marine environments. At the same time, terrapins are those that live in freshwater, and tortoises are land-dwelling species.
Of course, these are all just generalisations and, depending upon where you live, these terms may be interchanged or used in different ways. That being said, in general, there are a few commonly accepted distinctions between turtles, tortoises, and terrapins.
Marine-based turtles spend most of their lives at sea, only returning to land to lay eggs. Their shells are flat and streamlined to help reduce drag while swimming. Unlike land-based tortoises who have short, sturdy legs, turtles have flipper-like limbs that help them to swim more efficiently – though this makes getting around on land far more difficult.
Turtles enjoy a varied omnivorous diet, and depending on the type of turtle, they may eat jellyfish, small invertebrates, sea sponges or sea vegetation such as seaweed or aquatic algae.
Turtles can grow to substantial sizes! The largest is the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). It’s easily distinguished by the lack of a bony shell, which is replaced by a leathery carapace. Adult leatherbacks have an average length of 1-1.75 metres and can weigh anywhere between 250 to 700 kg.
Tortoises live exclusively on dry land and are usually found in hot, dry environments. Their shells are not streamlined like marine turtles but are instead shaped like a dome, and they have column-shaped feet with claws.
They are not good swimmers, but will occasionally enter bodies of water (such as at a waterhole or even a puddle) to clean themselves or drink water.
Even though they are known to eat a small amount of meat, tortoises are mainly herbivorous, primarily eating low-lying shrubs, cacti, grasses, weeds, fruit, and other forms of vegetation.
Like marine turtles, tortoises can grow quite big and can live for a very long time. The giant tortoises of the Galapagos and the Indian Ocean, along with the Aldabra tortoise from Seychelles, are the largest. They can weigh as much as 417 kg and can grow to be 1.3 metres in length.
The oldest known living tortoise (also regarded as the oldest living terrestrial animal in the world) is Jonathan – a Seychelles giant tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea hololissa) living on the island of St. Helena – who is due to turn 187 years old in 2019.
Terrapins are the semi-aquatic, freshwater-living versions of turtles. They live in either fresh or slightly salty (brackish) water, and you will find them by waterholes, ponds or lakes. They tend to swim quite often, but also spend their time on land, basking in the sun and occasionally burrowing in the mud. Their name comes from ‘torope’, a Native American Algonquian word meaning ‘a little turtle’.
Their hard shell is slightly streamlined yet also slightly domed (like tortoises). Even though they can swim, they don’t have flippers like a turtle, but rather legs similar to tortoises. You could say that they are like a mix between a turtle and tortoise.
Terrapins are omnivorous, and their diet can consist of molluscs, small fish, crustaceans, insects, algae and other aquatic plants.
Unlike turtles and tortoises, terrapins remain relatively small. However, there are some giant species of terrapin out there, such as the snapping turtle (found in America, hence the use of the term ‘turtle’) which is capable of growing to over 60cm and weigh up to 80 kg.
Terrapins are aggressive and will bite. They have incredibly sharp claws and a powerful snapping jaw. Although they do not have teeth, they can easily take a finger off with a single chomp. They may also ‘bark’ when angry.
ADDITIONAL READING
• Turtles being ‘feminised’ by climate change, say scientists
• Why did the tortoise cross the road?
The Comoros. It’s a name that conjures up a rich history of mighty sultans who once ruled over a melting pot of different cultures on islands at the end of the world. A volcanic archipelago off Africa’s east coast, the Comoros is made up of three major islands, called by their French names: Grande Comore (Ngazidja), Mohéli (Mwali), and Anjouan (Nzwani). Once an important trading post in the 15th century for Arab, African and European traders, today Comoros lies far off the beaten track, bringing no more than 3,000 tourists per year to its wild shores. And yet here I was.
“What is your purpose for visiting Comoros?” the immigration official asked, bored.
“Tourism” I replied cheerfully.
She raised her eyebrows but didn’t say anything. She handed back my passport, “Bienvenue a Comoros”.
The first thing I did was to try and get my hands on a car to get around. I approached a booth that claimed to hire out vehicles from a reputable company. The man behind the booth was reluctant.
“Too expensive,” he said as if by the look of my appearance, he could tell that my budget would not suffice.
“My brother has a car, however, that you could rent… much cheaper,” he suggested hopefully.
And so it was. No paperwork. No hassle. And only €40 cash in hand. The car, however, was an absolute liability. No wing mirror, questionable brakes and generally a poor disposition to roadworthiness. It was perfect.
I spent the next four days exploring Grande Comore, the main island of Comoros, with Moroni as its hustling and bustling capital city. While the main attractions were concentrated in the north of the island, I first headed south as storm clouds loomed over the horizon.
Just outside of Moroni I came upon the village of Iconi, home to the impressive 16th-century ruins of the Palais de Kaviridjeo where the mighty Sultan of Bambao once ruled. The ruins are overlooked by steep cliffs where it is said women once leapt to their deaths to avoid being sold into slavery by Malagasy pirates.
Further south, I explored the village of Sangani, a small village partly destroyed by one of Mount Karthala’s (an active volcano) eruptions in recent times. I continued south on increasingly deteriorating roads to the village of Chindini on the far south of the island. Then I ran out of fuel…
The tropical rain poured down with a vengeance as I negotiated prices with some local vendors for some fuel held in yellow jerrycans. The rain was beautifully warm. Soon I was on my way again and headed up the east coast. The road all but disappeared, but I was distracted by the beauty of Mount Karthala’s flanks that dominate the south. A blend of vibrant greens and earthy browns punctuated with the odd hidden cove. It was a truly wild island.
It was then that I started to notice that the roads were littered with the carcasses of countless vehicles, left to the mercy of the elements. The driving was of a frighteningly terrible standard in Comoros, but there was more to this story. So I asked a local taxi driver.
“These cars come from France. When they break, we cannot get the spare parts to fix them, so we abandon them next to the road,” he told me casually.
This made a lot of sense. Comoros is a graveyard of vehicles.
To the north, I drove along empty roads to the famous Mitsamioula beach. Sadly, like most of Comoros, it was covered in plastic and rubbish due to a lack of a proper waste management system. I pushed on to Maloudja, a palm tree-lined beach which was absolutely stunning (read: less plastic). I walked along the three perfect bays that led to the Trou du Prophete (Hole of the Prophet) where the Prophet Muhammad is said to have sought refuge behind some tall rocks in the bay from marauding pirates.
Along the way, I took a peek at the abandoned house of former mercenary Bob Denard (who launched four attempted coups in Comoros). Comoros has endured an extremely colourful political history averaging a coup d’etat – by assassination or otherwise – every two years since 1975. Delightful.
I pushed on to Lac Salé (Salt Lake)– a stunning little coastal crater lake – and hiked up the Dos du Dragon (Dragon’s Back), the aptly named spine of the sleeping dragon. The views are incredible from the top.
Mount Karthala volcano looms large over the southern part of Grand Comore, its imposing presence a constant reminder of the fury that bubbles just below the surface. I simply could not resist the opportunity to look down from its crater rim, usually lost in the clouds above.
But it would not be easy; it was a 32 km hike. By 3 am we were on the trail heading up in the cool of the night. Over the next six hours, we climbed over 2,000 metres in altitude until we reached the rim. The crater was breathtaking and according to my guide due to erupt soon.
On my last day on the main island, I explored Moroni. The town is gritty and busy, especially in the chaotic Volo Volo Market, but the locals are friendly. I spent several hours aimlessly strolling through the quiet Old Town that leads to the iconic landmark in the harbour: the Ancienne Mosquee du Vendredi (Old Friday Mosque) dating back to 1427. While the streets cannot rival the beauty of Zanzibar, there are just enough ancient Zanzibar doors to remind me of it. The old town is an oasis of calm within the city.
And so, my time on Grande Comoro came to an end, and now it was time to move onto my next adventure: exploring the island of Mohéli, the third island that together with Grande Comore and Anjouan forms the archipelago of Comoros.
Paradise Found
An imposing mountain ridge of impenetrable green jungle bisects the island, isolated beaches lie undiscovered in secluded bays, and some of the most incredible coral reefs in the Indian Ocean thrive just below the surface. This is Mohéli. It is paradise, visited by fewer than 400 tourists a year… but getting to this paradise isn’t always so easy.
“What time is your flight?” the check-in lady at Prince Said International Airport enquired, barely looking up.
“1 pm” I replied confidently.
A look of confusion spread over her face, “There is no plane at 1 pm, wait me here”.
I had been told flying within Comoros could be a bit hit-and-miss, mostly miss. In the past, the infrequent traveller had also had the choice of making the crossing to neighbouring islands on rickety, less than sea-worthy motorboats, but due to the poor safety records the government, probably wisely, put a stop to this. As such, the plane was the only way. Given my original flight had already been cancelled and rescheduled, this was not promising news.
Nevertheless, an hour later, a plane with a pilot had been located that could take me across to Mohéli. But I had to hurry. It was leaving in 5 minutes. I grabbed my luggage and ran.
My 10-seater caravan touched down on the tarmac strip in Fomboni after a 20-minute flight, and we were directed to an unassuming yellow building with a rusty sign: Mohéli International Airport. I was given the third degree by a policeman who questioned the purpose of my visit, made to fill out a document especially for foreigners, and told to learn more French for my next visit.
I promised I would.
A car was waiting to whisk me away. We left Fomboni behind and headed southeast to circumnavigate the island to the diminutive and laid-back village of Nioumachoua (home to Laka Lodge) that looked out across at the islands of Mohéli Marine Park. It was an hour and 30 minutes over a terrible road through a tropical rainstorm. Rain pelted our little car as I caught glimpses of some incredibly remote and wild stretches of coastline.
Laka Lodge was an oasis of calm on the southern part of Mohéli with simple bungalows situated just off the beach. I would manage five days just fine, but first I had to attend a local Comorian wedding taking place in the centre of town. It was a colourful affair with much dancing!
The days passed in a heartbeat. Morning runs in the sweltering humidity, followed by snorkelling with turtles in the bay followed by watching magical sunsets from nearby viewpoints as the kids from the village played a game of football on the beach down below.
The highlight of the trip was, however, the diving. Mohéli Marine Park, established in 2001 as the first National Park of Comoros, is home to some of the healthiest coral still left in the Indian Ocean (it is part of the northern Mozambique channel) and frequently visited by humpback whales, green sea turtles and manta rays.
A 15-minute traverse over to Leprosy Island – yes, you read that right: a place where unlucky sufferers were sent to either heal or die… given the graveyard it was mostly the latter. The graveyard is gradually being eroded by the waves, leading to somewhat morbid discoveries every once in a while. The coral just off the island, however, is magical.
On more than one occasion we prepared our gear and rolled back over the edge of the boat into the crystal clear waters, dropping down quickly to coral outcrops beneath that teemed with a staggering variety of fish. The hours spent underwater were over in a flash, and it was with some sadness that I kicked for the surface, leaving such beauty behind.
On my final night, we travelled to the fishing village of Itsamia, a place where the endangered green sea turtle comes and nests all year round. Under a moonlit night, we watched a prehistoric creature haul herself up the beach, lay her precious eggs and exhaustedly return to the depths of the ocean. It was a humbling experience to witness.
Mohéli is everything you could want from an island getaway: remote, undeveloped, unspoiled and wild. It is a place that would typically exist only in people’s imaginations. But we are lucky, for it exists.
The Comoros remains undiscovered, for now… but there is an incredible beauty to be found, and one day people will come in large numbers. In time, this stunning place will be ideal for family safari adventures. I’m sure of it. For now, you have the opportunity to have the country almost entirely for yourself. One simply has to go; I’m glad I did.
The Comoros, known officially as the Union of the Comoros, is a little-known archipelago that consists of a group of volcanic islands at the northern end of the Mozambique Channel of the Indian Ocean, between Madagascar and the southeast African mainland, about 290 km off the eastern coast of Africa. The islands from northwest to southeast include Grande Comore (N’gazidja), Mohéli (Mwali), Anjouan (Ndzuwani), and Mayotte (Mahore).
Mayotte, geographically part of the Comoros archipelago, is claimed by Comoros but is administered by France.
Sometimes referred to as the ‘perfumed islands’ due to the fragrant plant life, the Comoros was an important trading post for Arab, Persian, African and European traders from the 15th century onwards. In the 19th century three of the islands were annexed by the French, hence their names – Grande Comore, Mohéli and Anjouan – while their Comorian language names are given in parentheses. In 1975 they gained independence, though Mayotte, the fourth island, remained a French territory.
Created through volcanic activity over the ages, the Comoros is a nature-lover’s paradise. From stunning coral reefs that offer exquisite diving experiences to uninterrupted white sandy beaches, dense forests and active volcanoes. That said, the Comoros does not have a well-developed tourist industry. Less than 3,000 tourists pass through the archipelago each year as visitors looking for an island experience in the region instead choose destinations such as Réunion, Mauritius, the Seychelles, or Madagascar.
Born in the Netherlands but raised at the end of a tarmac road in a remote Ugandan village, Maurice was always going to end up living in Africa. After a brief stint in Europe, he returned to this great continent to pursue a Master’s in Conservation Biology at the University of Cape Town, which was followed by several years of traipsing across the globe in search of adventure and stunning wild places. For the last few years, Maurice has been based in Kenya and is working towards securing a future for African elephants and the landscapes on which they depend. He is a passionate conservationist, amateur explorer and his camera is always with him! You can follow more of his adventures on Facebook, Instagram and his website.
Post series: Botswana elephants – to hunt or not?
The international furore over the Botswana government decision to recommence the hunting of elephant (and other species) necessitates an understanding of the entire picture. This post is one of eight posts from various sources looking at this issue from different angles. The other seven posts you should read to get the full picture:
• Botswana government announcement – hunting ban should be lifted
• Botswana 2018 aerial survey – of elephants, baobabs and cattle
• Botswana government questions elephant survey report by Dr Mike Chase
• Personal statement from Dr Mike Chase, Elephants Without Borders
• Opinion post from Dereck Joubert – conservation spokesperson, filmmaker and lodge owner
• Opinion post from Clare Doolan – tourism industry product and sales manager
• Opinion post from Erik Verreynne – livestock and wildlife veterinary surgeon in Botswana
OPINION POST FROM GAIL POTGIETER – HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT SPECIALIST
A sub-committee appointed by President Masisi of Botswana recently made its recommendations in a White Paper regarding the hunting ban and human-elephant conflict. Among their recommendations, they suggest that the hunting ban be lifted, efforts are taken to confine elephants to the protected areas and/or reduce the population through culling, and that the government should focus on reducing human-elephant conflict. These statements are highly controversial among urbanised people in Western societies who are concerned about the rights of animals they don’t live with, whereas many Batswana welcome the statements – as is evidenced by the many comments on Facebook threads from people with Setswana-sounding surnames.
My purpose here is not to defend the list of recommendations, because a White Paper is in effect not final – it is merely a list of issues for further discussion. The social media furore of outraged people that predictably followed the White Paper announcement is largely driven by those with little understanding of the context in which these recommendations have been made. And so, I would like to provide that necessary context. Hopefully, this context will give you a deeper understanding of what is going on in Botswana since former President Khama handed over the reins to President Masisi.
As a result of this White Paper announcement, Western news media seems to mourn the change of presidency in Botswana, and yet in Botswana itself, this is not the case. To find out why perhaps it is necessary to look at the apparent difference in the governance style of these two presidents.
Masisi consulted with his people by setting up this task team specifically for “Social Dialogue”. The broad community consultation process was actioned at the request of parliament, in recognition of calls by citizens and local scientists to re-think the hunting ban. This may not seem revolutionary to outsiders, as this is surely what presidents of democratic governments should do. But for the citizens of Botswana, this simple act of consultation was seemingly both a breath of fresh air and a blast from the past. The spirit of democracy and consultation is what made Botswana a successful nation, and some say that this was sorely missed during Khama’s rein.
The slow machinations of government and consultative politics were not the chosen route by former President Khama, and some of his decisions and rulings were made without the necessary consultation. One little-known fact about the hunting ban is that it was never ratified by parliament, and is therefore not actually an official policy of the government of Botswana. Changing the policy or legislation would have required a more thorough, democratic process, which would conceivably have failed. Instead, the then President Khama gave his brother, the Minister of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism (MENT), the power to suspend hunting permits, with supposed annual review. The Khama government thus closed down the industry without bothering to ask the people if they thought it was a good idea and entirely ignored recommendations from a respected local conservation organisation.
In the current furore, I hear many people calling for different solutions to the elephant issue, rather than trophy hunting or culling.
“There must surely be some ways to live together,” we hear.
Although no one has found the ultimate solution, the Department of Wildlife and National Parks used to have sound policies and management strategies for reducing problems with elephants, yet these were overturned by the Khama administration. Research-focused non-governmental organisations in Botswana are still working on finding innovative ways to reduce human-elephant conflict – Ecoexist, Elephants for Africa and Elephants Without Borders. If you want to help Botswana find better ways to coexist with their elephants based on sound scientific research, I suggest supporting these good organisations.
A major issue is that, for nearly two years, neither these nor any other research organisation (e.g. those working on human-lion conflict) have been able to obtain permits for new research projects. The opportunities to develop innovative new ideas were thus effectively blocked by the Khama government. Many people know about the hunting ban, but few have heard about the research ban – which was implemented in much the same way. It seems that researchers from non-profit organisations were not contributing enough money to the country’s economy – which surely speaks volumes for what the previous administration thought about the role of research. This year, President Masisi lifted the research permit ban – so there is now some hope of finding new solutions to these problems.
Even with new solutions, elephant management is expensive – both financially and in terms of human resources. As more and more government resources are channelled towards the elephants, other wildlife is being ignored. Conservation should be about much more than a single species, however charismatic it may be.
Involving communities in conservation has proven to be successful in Namibia and Zimbabwe, and Botswana was moving in this direction until this strategy was blocked by the former administration. Communities that live in the heart of the Okavango Delta (including the villages of Khwai, Mababe, and Sankoyo) lost P7 million and 200 jobs after the hunting ban, and when they tried to make up for it by switching to ecotourism, their income was threatened. The supply of meat from the hunting industry was also the only reliable source of protein these people had, as livestock farming is all but impossible in areas teeming with predators, and these villages are hours from the nearest towns where meat is sold.
Khama’s government took away the rights of local communities over their land by dictating that land authorities could no longer sign leases with communities. This took away the communities’ right to negotiate with an investor of their choice, forcing them to accept whichever investor the Botswana Tourism Organisation chose for them. The resultant restriction of income, jobs, and protein in these areas has further impoverished people who were reliant on these things to feed their families, send their children to school, and generally help themselves out of poverty. Former President Khama’s decisions made the rural poverty trap even more difficult to escape and forced once-proud, employed community members to rely on government hand-outs to survive. President Masisi has since changed the Khama policy to ensure that the communities’ rights over their land and natural resources are once again respected
It does not help that some of the communities in question are San people (known as Basarwa in Botswana), who have a long history of displacement and oppression in Botswana and neighbouring countries. Whilst the communities in the Delta retained some income through ecotourism, the impacts of the hunting ban were even more severe among San communities that most tourists have never heard of – like XaiXai, Hukuntsi, and Zutshwa. These communities are located in the dry parts of the country, far from the main tourist hubs. The ban on hunting covered both trophy hunting and subsistence hunting, so these communities were not allowed to make an income, or even feed themselves in their traditional way.
One of the fascinating things about this recent furore, and others like it, is seeing how differently environmental issues are handled between Western countries and those in Africa. When wolves expanded their range in Europe, livestock farmers were up in arms, wolves were shot – which some local governments allowed, in the interests of keeping the peace (and their votes). Similarly, although there is no scientific evidence that badgers spread Bovine Tuberculosis in the UK, they are still culled due to popular perceptions. Preventing the badger cull would be good for the environment, but political suicide.
These issues are debated among Europeans, some of whom are for wolves and badgers, and some against. The same can be said for wildlife-related debates in the USA, Australia, and elsewhere. Oddly enough, none of these issues hit the African press. I have never picked up an African newspaper to find people writing letters to the editor about the “unjust culling of badgers in the UK” or pleading to “let the wolves live!”
Nonetheless, if one were to ask any rural African farmer if he or she would prefer living with rather harmless badgers instead of elephants, I’m sure we know the answer!
In case the answer isn’t obvious to you, consider this: elephants have killed 36 people in Botswana in the last few years, with 14 deaths and many more serious injuries recorded since February 2018. Many crop farmers have lost their entire annual yield in just a few nights, which severely compromises their food security. Elephants effectively impose a curfew on any human movement after dark. Women who have spent the day working their fields, collecting water, and feeding their families can no longer walk over to their friends’ houses at the end of the day for a relaxing chat. To do so when elephants are around is life threatening. Yet when they ask their democratically elected government to “do something” about the elephants in their backyards, and their government finally starts listening to them, those living in the comfort of their urban homes in Western societies are outraged!
After years of being bound and gagged by international interests and by her own former president, Botswana has finally stood up and started to speak. I suggest we sit down, stop judging, and start listening.
I would like to acknowledge three Batswana colleagues who are working or have worked in the conservation sector (both government and non-government) in Botswana. They checked the article for accuracy and provided valuable input.
The sentiments I share in this article are endorsed by 25 conservation scientists, wildlife managers, community-based conservation support organisations, resource economists and journalists from Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Post series: Botswana elephants – to hunt or not?
The international furore over the Botswana government decision to recommence the hunting of elephant (and other species) necessitates an understanding of the entire picture. This post is one of eight posts from various sources looking at this issue from different angles. The other seven posts you should read to get the full picture:
• Botswana government announcement – hunting ban should be lifted
• Botswana 2018 aerial survey – of elephants, baobabs and cattle
• Botswana government questions elephant survey report by Dr Mike Chase
• Opinion post from Dereck Joubert – conservation spokesperson, filmmaker and lodge owner
• Opinion post from Gail Potgieter – human-wildlife conflict specialist
• Opinion post from Clare Doolan – tourism industry product and sales manager
• Opinion post from Erik Verreynne – livestock and wildlife veterinary surgeon in Botswana
PERSONAL STATEMENT FROM DR MIKE CHASE (ELEPHANTS WITHOUT BORDERS)
On the 7 January 2019, I submitted Elephants Without Borders (EWB) survey report titled ‘2018 Aerial Survey of Elephants and Wildlife in Northern Botswana’ to the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) for their review. I wish to state categorically that, apart from having the survey peer-reviewed by eminent scientists, EWB has not released this survey report.
Prior to submitting it to the Government of Botswana (GoB), the report was extensively peer-reviewed, verified and validated by some of the world’s foremost authorities on elephant conservation and wildlife aerial surveys. Many of these reviewers were or are members of the IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group. I took great care in consulting with elephant biologists who have undeniable qualifications. I can, therefore, confirm that this report has not been released by me to ‘second guessers’ or anyone else not qualified to review a report of this scientific subject matter.
In September 2018, the BBC reported that Elephants Without Borders (EWB) counted 87 poached elephant carcasses while flying our aerial the survey in northern Botswana. The news went viral and a misinformation campaign ensued. At the time, because I remained committed to completing the survey and determining the extent of elephant poaching, I did not respond to the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories which dismissed my genuine concern about what the survey revealed – an increase in elephant poaching. The information I shared was true and verifiable and has since been complemented by additional data.
To date, I have not given a response to the unfounded claims levelled against me and my supporters. Let me state at the onset – we observed dozens of poached elephants – ‘close to the Okavango Delta wildlife sanctuary’. To make sure we had this correct, I chartered a helicopter and visited elephant carcasses to determine their cause of death. Carcasses were verified by both ground and low altitude assessments. I did not have the resources to visit every recently killed carcass seen on the survey, but of the over 100 carcasses of concern, 90% were confirmed as poached.
I reported these criminal acts to the appropriate authorities on a case-by-case basis almost immediately, as they were sighted, and long before any articles appeared in any media. In total, I submitted 16 incident reports to the authorities, following standard procedures that EWB has followed on all previous surveys. These reports included photographic evidence and GPS locations of all suspicious dead elephants and suspected poachers’ camps.
It is worth noting that public discussion about my concern for elephant poaching is often focused on secondary issues (political, donor, policy and contractual) instead of addressing my call to acknowledge and deal with a potentially serious problem. This is unfortunate because my purpose in reporting to the GoB and subsequently Batswana journalists was to inform them of an escalation in criminal activity.
I was accused by some of being a “traitor” and “liar”, whilst some thought I should be banished back “to where I came from”, and others still thought it better if I was “killed”. My figures were immediately refuted, and labelled “fake news”.
As an Honourary Wildlife Officer, elephant ecologist, professional guide and concerned citizen, I have a duty to report sinister activities in our National Parks and wilderness areas. Critics created a devastating echo chamber of spiced-up allegations by simply repeating other’s unsubstantiated accusations against me.
Our detailed technical report shows that the weight of evidence is indisputable and supports our warning that elephants are being killed by poachers at worrisome levels in four poaching hotspots near a world-renowned ‘wildlife sanctuary’ where gangs of poachers are operating.
In response to the original BBC article highlighting my poaching reports, in October 2018, the BBC were invited to Botswana by the GoB, to film and report on any evidence of alleged elephant poaching. On the 8 January 2019, with full press accreditation from the Office of the President, the BBC came to film their story (Full press accreditation below).
On the 10 January, I received a letter from GoB regarding EWB’s Survey Report which states: “no person or organisation shall be authorised to either disseminate, discuss its contents let alone anything related thereto”. Ironically, this stipulation contradicted the very permission already provided to the BBC by the relevant authorities. Furthermore, such a demand has never been imposed on any previous survey reports or publications.
I wish to clarify that EWB was not under contract to the GoB, and no taxpayer’s money was used to pay for this survey. EWB did not ‘tender’ for this work. The aerial survey was funded by both EWB and the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF). CTF is administered by an independent board of trustees who voted in favour of awarding a grant to EWB. CTF is specifically mandated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to use CTF funds explicitly for elephant conservation. As with previous aerial survey collaborations between EWB and DWNP, the survey team included a DWNP observer.
Despite widespread decreases in African elephant populations in the last three decades, Botswana has, until now, been the exception – where elephants have been safe with low levels of poaching for ivory. Strong law enforcement policies, good governance and the political commitment of conservation-minded leaders kept Botswana’s elephant population secure and stable.
Elsewhere in Africa, the initial reaction of authorities to elephant poaching has been to deny reports of increasing incidents, refute census results or block reports from being published. Such denials have proven disastrous as levels of poaching that initially seemed no more than a nuisance rapidly escalated into population collapses for elephants. Thankfully, openness is becoming more common. Earlier this month the South African government announced that poaching in Kruger National Park has reached a recent high, with 71 elephants killed for their ivory in 2018.
My motive in speaking now is to refute falsehoods and aspersions levelled at both the scientific data and my credentials, to honour those people who have spoken supportively on my behalf, and most importantly to provide what I believe is vital information for Batswana. I hope that by being informed, the people will be motivated to take the necessary action to stop poaching before it gets worse. We cannot solve problems if we don’t acknowledge them.
In ending my personal statement, I ask for a calm discussion on elephant conservation issues, without animosity or personal attacks, in order to reach agreement on the necessary actions needed to ensure successful ongoing elephant conservation. Elephant poaching in Botswana is happening on the scale I proclaim. By continually denying the extent of poaching, we might be undermining international support.
I believe that in avoiding transparency, we could be exposed to a potential threat that can adversely affect our tourism, our economy, our international reputation as a country that is the conservation flagship of Africa, as well as the rule of law. I have dedicated my life’s work to conservation in Botswana, the country of my birth, and I will continue my life and my work as a dedicated elephant conservationist, researcher and academic.
Report peer review
On the 7th January 2019, Elephants Without Borders (EWB) submitted a comprehensive technical report on the 2018 aerial survey of elephants and wildlife in northern Botswana to the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP). Prior to submitting this report to the Government of Botswana (GoB), EWB had the report extensively peer-reviewed, verified and validated by some of the world’s foremost authorities on elephant conservation and wildlife aerial surveys.
The following professionals reviewed the report: Dr. Iain Douglas-Hamilton CBE, Dr. Paul Elkan, Dr. Richard Fynn, Mr. Falk Grossman, Dr. Keith Leggett, Dr. Keith Lindsay, Dr. Chris Thouless, Prof. Rudi van Aarde, and Dr. Samuel Wasser. See Summary of Reviewers here or Download Summary of Reviewers as PDF here.
Reviewers stated the reports “conclusions are robust, and indisputable” another said, “this is a very thorough and carefully documented report demonstrating exceptionally high rigor”. The survey and report are the most comprehensive and efficient study of elephant numbers ever undertaken in northern Botswana.
BOTSWANA GOVERNMENT QUESTIONS ELEPHANT SURVEY BY DR MIKE CHASE
Post series: Botswana elephants – to hunt or not?
The international furore over the Botswana government decision to recommence the hunting of elephant (and other species) necessitates an understanding of the entire picture. This post is one of eight posts from various sources looking at this issue from different angles. The other seven posts you should read to get the full picture:
• Botswana government announcement – hunting ban should be lifted
• Botswana 2018 aerial survey – of elephants, baobabs and cattle
• Personal statement from Dr Mike Chase, Elephants Without Borders
• Opinion post from Dereck Joubert – conservation spokesperson, filmmaker and lodge owner
• Opinion post from Gail Potgieter – human-wildlife conflict specialist
• Opinion post from Clare Doolan – tourism industry product and sales manager
• Opinion post from Erik Verreynne – livestock and wildlife veterinary surgeon in Botswana
BOTSWANA GOVERNMENT QUESTIONS ELEPHANT SURVEY BY DR MIKE CHASE
Botswana’s Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism has questioned a new report by Elephants Without Borders (EWB), the organisation contracted in 2018 to conduct an aerial survey of elephants in northern Botswana. In a recent press release, the ministry’s permanent secretary Thato Raphaka said the government was not satisfied with the report by Dr Mike Chase – director of Elephants Without Borders.
Raphaka said that there were concerns about the methods used to count the elephants and that it was “regrettable that Dr Chase, in a report purporting to be scientific, includes an astonishing number of pictures of dead elephants, 63 pages to be precise. This is definitely not standard practice in aerial survey report writing.”
He went on to question why the authors of the report did not “sound the alarm” in 2014 when the survey results showed a significant difference in elephant carcass ratio from 2010: 2% in 2010, 7% in 2014, and a slightly higher ratio of 8.1% in 2018.
“Surely, greater concerns should have been expressed after their 2014 survey than now when the ratio is only slightly higher,” said Raphaka. “In fact, independent reviewers have raised concern around the authors’ interpretation of carcass ratios to conclude that mortality rate has recently increased in northern Botswana.”
He did acknowledge that the government was “under no illusion that poaching has become a threat to Botswana with her large elephant population”, and concluded by asking that the report’s authors “immediately submit their raw data to IUCN AESP for further independent review in the interest of transparency.”
See below for full press release
Press release from Botswana’s Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism
The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that we have received a report of the 2018 aerial survey of elephants and other wildlife species in northern Botswana undertaken by Elephants Without Borders. Although the Department of Wildlife and National Parks participated in the conduct of the survey through secondment of one officer, it was not involved in the analysis and report writing.
A review of the methodology used in the survey indicates that it is sound and was based on the established methodology for flying aerial surveys using transects. We, however, have concerns about the blending of several different techniques, i.e. sample counts, total counts and reconnaissance flights.
The rationale for this is not well explained, and we would have expected the authors to provide the raw data as is standard practice to the IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group (AESG), the foremost authority on continental elephant numbers so that it can be independently assessed.
The figure reported by the authors in the report on the number of elephants in their survey area is not statistically different from the 2014 survey. The only reasonable conclusion that can be inferred from the authors’ statistical analysis is that the population has remained stable between the two surveys. The results of the survey are at odds with statements attributed to Dr Mike Chase in an interview with BBC (see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-45396394).
It is regrettable that Dr Chase, in a report purporting to be scientific, includes an astonishing number of pictures of dead elephants, 63 pages to be precise. This is definitely not standard practice in aerial survey report writing.
By their own admission, only a portion of all carcasses observed during the aerial survey were verified by helicopter. The authors report that only 33 out of a total of 128 suspected poaching events were actually confirmed by ground verification.
Another interesting point is that the authors reported a carcass ratio of 2% in 2010 and 7% in 2014, with 8.1% reported for 2018. The 2014 figure is almost four times higher than the 2010 figure, but the authors did not sound the alarm at the time. Instead, at that time, the authors considered Botswana an elephant safe haven. Surely, more significant concerns should have been expressed after their 2014 survey than now when the ratio is only slightly higher. Results from the survey also indicate that sex ratios are not as skewed as one would expect from a population under heavy poaching pressure since large bulls usually are targeted first, an admission made by the authors on pages 17 and 18 of their report.
In fact, independent reviewers have raised concern around the authors’ interpretation of carcass ratios to conclude that mortality rate has recently increased in northern Botswana. We are under no illusion that poaching remains a threat to Botswana with her large elephant population. Our own statistics and regional trends in recent years bear testimony to this fact. We have always reported transparently on these conservation efforts to the international community.
Our elephant population is the largest on the continent, a testimony of the great lengths that we have gone to protect this iconic species. We stand ready to work with the international community to ensure that we continue to secure our natural heritage for the nation’s posterity.
In conclusion, we call upon the authors of the report to immediately submit their raw data to IUCN AESP for further independent review in the interest of transparency.
Thato Y. Raphaka
PERMANENT SECRETARY
Editorial note: The use of the term ‘wild’ horses below is in keeping with popular references, although in fact, these horses are feral, and not indigenous to the area.
Sourced from third-party site: Oxpeckers, written by Linda Baker
Namibian environment officials last week shot and killed three spotted hyenas blamed for the near extinction of its famed wild horses.
A long-running battle between the desert-dwelling wild horses and hyenas, which share a single water point in the arid southern Namib-Naukfluft National Park, reached a crisis point as horse numbers plummeted recently from 286 to only 77 remaining animals.
“We are now in the final hour of the wild horses’ existence on the planet,” the Namibia Wild Horses Foundation warned in early February. It called on the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET), custodian of both the hyenas and the horses, to take immediate action to save the horses from extinction.
An international social media frenzy joined the call, with articles, petitions and debates about the plight of the horses. Minister of Environment Pohamba Shifeta is due to join representatives of the foundation and the Namibian Environment & Wildlife Society (NEWS) at a public debate titled “Are horses more important than hyenas in our national parks?”, scheduled to take place in Windhoek on Thursday, February 28.
The only remaining foal in the park was attacked and wounded by hyenas last week, with gruesome images of its injuries circulating on social media. Two attempts to catch and translocate the hyenas proved futile, prompting the MET to shoot three hyenas, including a large female thought to be the main cause of foal mortalities.
Interference condemned
MET spokesperson Romeo Muyunda told Oxpeckers that three more hyenas would be captured and translocated elsewhere in the park, at a good distance away from the horses. Trap cameras showed up to 11 hyenas at diversionary feeding sites in 2017.
While horse lovers across the globe cheered, environmentalists condemned interference, stating that “MET appears to be contradicting its own tourism and wildlife policies by advocating the removal of the hyenas from the national park”.
“Spotted hyenas are classified as vulnerable and are therefore a conservation priority in Namibia,” NEWS said in a statement.
“To have a natural species killed in favour of a feral species in a national park is a very, very sad day for carnivore conservation,” commented a carnivore researcher who asked not to be named.
NEWS said killing or translocating the spotted hyenas would only temporarily reduce predation of the feral horses, until new hyenas fill the gap left by the removed animals. The exact number of horses killed by hyenas is also debatable, as drought and disease also account for mortalities, the organisation said…
To read more about the controversial hyena cull, continue to the article on Oxpecker’s website here
“With no adult females to look to for reassurance, guidance and learning, one can only imagine the youngsters’ distress. Zimbabwe continues to exploit its wildlife to the highest bidder with no meaningful oversight. Recognising elephants as sentient beings, South Africa has banned the capture of elephants from the wild for captivity. Zimbabwe must urgently follow suit to redeem itself.”
Elephant experts at Humane Society International/Africa have condemned Zimbabwe’s capture of 35 baby elephants, some as young as two years old, who have been stolen from their mothers and are awaiting export to foreign zoos. According to The Times of London, the young elephants are being held in pens in Hwange National Park while travel crates are prepared and the documents finalised for the detrimental 7,000-mile journey to China.
Footage provided to Humane Society International/Africa shows the youngsters frantically pacing around the Hwange pens, some showing signs of stress such as temporal streaming (dark streaks down the side of the face from the temporal gland) and others demonstrating wide-eyed, ear-splayed defensive postures.
Iris Ho, senior wildlife policy and programs specialist at Humane Society International, who attended the Summit, stated: “Ripping baby elephants from their mothers is morally indefensible and ethically reprehensible. We cannot agree more with the Honourable Balala and the African Elephant Coalition regarding the conservation and welfare concerns related to the deliberate capture of wild elephants for the purpose of holding them in permanent captivity outside their natural range.”
Based on the trade data of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), since 2012 Zimbabwe has exported 108 young elephants to zoos in China despite opposition from other African countries, elephant experts and non-governmental organisations including the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International.
Audrey Delsink, Humane Society International/Africa’s wildlife director and an elephant biologist, said: “The capture of baby elephants from the wild is barbaric, and captivity will be a life sentence of suffering. Video footage shows that these young animals are already displaying stress behaviour after being ripped away from their mothers and bonded family groups, and are terrified. Calves normally remain closely bonded to their natal family groups; females never leave their families whilst males only leave the herd at 12-15 years of age.
The AEC’s press statement of the Summit called for an end to the export of wild elephants to zoos and other captive facilities. These positions are reflected in the proposals and documents submitted by the AEC to the 18th meeting of the CITES Conference of Parties which will take place this May in Sri Lanka.
In collaboration with the AEC, Humane Society International co-authored a report highlighting the challenges that the live trade in elephants poses to the CITES regulations.
WATCH: Exclusive footage by journalist Oscar Nkala of baby elephants captured from Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe for export to captive facilities in China in February 2019
Humane Society International (HSI) and its affiliates together constitute one of the world’s largest animal protection organisations. For more than 25 years, HSI has been working for the protection of all animals using science, advocacy, education and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty worldwide.
For over 150 years the function of zebras’ stripes has intrigued scientists, with several proposed theories including avoiding predators, better heat regulation and a social function, yet there is still no agreement between scientists.
Now a new study by the University of Bristol, published in the journal Plos One, has provided additional support to the one theory that zebras’ stripes act as a deterrent towards flies and other blood-sucking parasites, which confuses and discourages them from landing and taking a bite.
Researchers from the University of Bristol and UC Davis, USA, spent time on a horse farm in Britain where they investigated the behaviours of tabanid horse flies around captive plains zebras and uniformly coloured domestic horses using video analysis techniques.
They discovered that the stripes don’t deter horse flies from a distance, with both zebras and domestic horses experiencing the same rate of circling from the flies. However, video analyses revealed differences in approach speed, with horse flies failing to slow down on approach to zebras, which is essential for a successful landing.
Professor Tim Caro, Honorary Research Fellow from the University of Bristol’s School of Biological Sciences, said: “Horseflies just seem to fly over zebra stripes or bump into them, but this didn’t happen with horses. Consequently, far fewer successful landings were experienced by zebras compared to horses.”
Dr Martin How, Royal Society University Research Fellow in the School of Biological Sciences, added: “This reduced ability to land on the zebra’s coat may be due to stripes disrupting the visual system of the horse flies during their final moments of approach.
“Stripes may dazzle flies in some way once they are close enough to see them with their low-resolution eyes.”
To make sure that the effect was not caused by the difference in smell between zebras and horses, the scientists placed different coloured cloth coats – black, white or zebra-striped – over the horses to observe horse fly behaviour. Just as before, when horses wore coats with striped patterns, they experienced fewer horse fly landings compared to when they wore single-colour coats.
The research also directly observed zebra and horse behaviour in response to biting flies. Zebras exhibited preventative behaviour, such as running away and tail swishing at a far higher rate than horses. Consequently, any horse flies that did successfully land on zebras spent less time there compared to those landing on horses, with few staying long enough to probe for a blood meal.
In Africa, horse flies carry dangerous debilitating diseases such as trypanosomiasis and African horse sickness, which cause wasting and often death. Therefore, it is unsurprising that zebras utilise both behavioural defences and morphological striping to avoid horseflies.
The scientists did acknowledge that the latest experiment was carried out in Somerset rather than around the biting flies of Africa, and other limitations included that the path of the flies could only be seen in two dimensions from video recordings and that the horse coats were made of different materials.
However, this research provides new evidence for the theory that zebras evolved dichromatic striped coats to evade biting flies and has considerable implications for the horse industry.
Full report: Tim Caro, Yvette Argueta, Emmanuelle Sophie Briolat, Joren Bruggink, Maurice Kasprowsky, Jai Lake, Matthew J. Mitchell, Sarah Richardson, Martin How (2019). Benefits of zebra stripes: Behaviour of tabanid flies around zebras and horses. Plos One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210831
OPINION POST FROM DERECK JOUBERT – CONSERVATION SPOKESPERSON, FILMMAKER AND LODGE OWNER
Post series: Botswana elephants – to hunt or not?
The international furore over the Botswana government decision to recommence the hunting of elephant (and other species) necessitates an understanding of the entire picture. This post is one of eight posts from various sources looking at this issue from different angles. The other seven posts you should read to get the full picture:
• Botswana government announcement – hunting ban should be lifted
• Botswana 2018 aerial survey – of elephants, baobabs and cattle
• Botswana government questions elephant survey report by Dr Mike Chase
• Personal statement from Dr Mike Chase, Elephants Without Borders
• Opinion post from Gail Potgieter – human-wildlife conflict specialist
• Opinion post from Clare Doolan – tourism industry product and sales manager
• Opinion post from Erik Verreynne – livestock and wildlife veterinary surgeon in Botswana
OPINION POST FROM DERECK JOUBERT – CONSERVATION SPOKESPERSON, FILMMAKER AND LODGE OWNER
Respected conservation spokesperson Dereck Joubert has reacted to the recent recommendation by a Botswana government committee that the ban on trophy hunting should be lifted, elephants culled and fences erected to prevent certain wildlife migration:
GREAT PLAINS STANCE ON BOTSWANA’S PROPOSED ‘BLOOD LAW’
Our beautiful Botswana is under siege by lobby groups. Yesterday a white paper was submitted to the government recommending wildlife utilisation with a series of suggestions to:
a) open up the largely condemned hunting of elephants and all wildlife again;
b) the culling of massive numbers of elephants;
c) the setting up of canning factories for those dead elephants to convert them into pet food;
d) more fences; and
e) the active cutting off of wildlife corridors.
At first, I thought it was a cruel April Fools’ Day announcement, but no one is laughing today. I have given this white paper a name and if it passes I believe it should be called ‘Botswana’s Blood Law’.
Internally we are meeting to understand what it means to Great Plains, to our conservation efforts and to you, our partners, guests and friends. Whilst disturbing, I cannot for a moment believe that any government, let alone Botswana’s, which is world renown for being moderate and well informed, would adopt this policy. We believe that it will be stopped in its tracks but we are soliciting support to help express exactly how shameful it would be to institute a policy such as this.
I have seen enough dead elephants from the bad guys. I don’t need to see a thousand more piles from our own government. I have seen the damage fences can do. We don’t need more fences we need fewer. I have promoted connective corridors my whole life, with the science being quite clear: according to the very theories of Darwin and Wallace (Biogeography), that the smaller the island the more likely and rapid the rate of extinction. Botswana’s proposed ‘Blood Law’ would be instituting policies to do all of that.
We will be voicing our opinion against this, as strongly as we can. I will be doing that personally, as the CEO of this company, our foundation, and as large investors in Botswana. Great Plains Conservation will be doing the same.
As a global community, and a local one, we are better than this and our entire ethos at Great Plains Conservation is based on caring; caring for our communities by sharing revenues and benefits, caring for our guests and partners, and caring for the environment and everything in it. Not one element of this white paper is about caring. It is just the opposite, and so, we are registering, via this announcement, that we are opposed to the very substance of the proposal.
Our pledge to you, industry partners and guests, is that we will do whatever we can to engage legally and respectfully to make sure this ‘Blood Law’ is not passed in Botswana.
Dereck Joubert
CEO Great Plains Conservation and Great Plains Foundation
BOTSWANA GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT – HUNTING BAN SHOULD BE LIFTED
Post series: Botswana elephants – to hunt or not?
The international furore over the Botswana government decision to recommence the hunting of elephant (and other species) necessitates an understanding of the entire picture. This post is one of eight posts from various sources looking at this issue from different angles. The other seven posts you should read to get the full picture:
• Botswana 2018 aerial survey – of elephants, baobabs and cattle
• Botswana government questions elephant survey report by Dr Mike Chase
• Personal statement from Dr Mike Chase, Elephants Without Borders
• Opinion post from Dereck Joubert – conservation spokesperson, filmmaker and lodge owner
• Opinion post from Gail Potgieter – human-wildlife conflict specialist
• Opinion post from Clare Doolan – tourism industry product and sales manager
• Opinion post from Erik Verreynne – livestock and wildlife veterinary surgeon in Botswana
BOTSWANA GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT – HUNTING BAN SHOULD BE LIFTED
A report submitted by a Botswana government subcommittee has proposed that the ban on hunting should be lifted and the hunting industry grown, that elephants should be culled and the meat processed, some animal migration routes closed and human-wildlife conflict strategies implemented.
The report was officially handed over to President Mokgweetsi Masisi at a briefing on Thursday. The subcommittee, made up of seven cabinet ministers and one junior minister, have been consulting with researchers and hunters as well as attending weeks of public hearings on the elephant hunting ban, which was introduced in 2014 by the previous administration.
The report and its recommendations will now be debated by the President and the cabinet, before becoming law.
See below for full press release
Sourced from the Botswana Government Facebook page
HANDOVER NOTES OF THE CABINET SUB COMMITTEE ON HUNTING BAN SOCIAL DIALOGUE REPORT BY HON FRANS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (21/2/19) [FULL TEXT]
Salutations
1. It is my pleasure to officially handover a report of the Cabinet Sub Committee on Hunting Ban Social Dialogue to His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Botswana, Dr. Mokgweetsi Eric Keabetswe Masisi.
2. I wish to highlight that the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism, pursuant to Statutory Instrument no. 2 of 2014, took a decision to stop hunting of wildlife in all areas of Botswana effective January 2014.
3. Your Excellency, the hunting ban has become a subject for discussion in the country because of its apparent experience and observed consequences, with two schools of thought on the debate;
• Proponents of the hunting ban postulate that it is a good and noble conservation effort which will create a conducive environment for increased wildlife populations, and;
• Those against the hunting ban are of the view that hunting is a good wildlife management tool if properly implemented.
4. They maintain that if and when wildlife populations and human livelihoods are taken into consideration, this would translate to communities becoming good conservationists. It was also observed that as communities realise the potential value and associated income to be derived from wildlife resources and related activities, they will be converted to be good conservationists as opposed to concentrating on negative aspects of property destruction and loss of human lives caused by wildlife.
5. It is on the basis of the above that in June 2018 His Excellency the President established “The Hunting Ban Sub Committee of Cabinet” to kick-start a social dialogue aimed at reviewing the ban on hunting. The Cabinet Membership of this Committee is as follows;
• Minister of Local Government and Rural Development- Chairperson
• Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism
• Minister of Transport and Communications
• Minister of Employment, Labour Productivity and Skills Development
• Minister of Youth Empowerment, Sports and Culture Development
• Minister of Agricultural Development and Food Security
• Minister of Basic Education
• Assistant Minister for Presidential Affairs, Governance and Public Administration
6. Your Excellency, this is a Consultation Report as assigned, it therefore embodies communication between those consulting and those consulted on the identified problem: The Hunting Ban. The report covers the consultation outline, opinions of those consulted, conclusions and the recommendations.
7. It is essential to note that the consultations covered Kgotla meetings, Full Council meetings as per Appendix 1 (page 33), submission of papers and meetings with individuals and private entities at different forums outside the kgotla. Those entities consulted include Elephants Without Borders, Community Trusts such as KALEPA-Kazungula, Lesoma, Pandamatenga, CECT-Chobe West as well as the NGO Council, Botswana Wildlife Producers Association and individuals including Richard White, Mark Kyriacou and Richard Pascall of Bartrek Ranch in Tsabong.
8. Your Excellency, the Terms of Reference as clearly highlighted on Page 4 of this report guided the process of consultation.
9. From the submissions made by the communities and other stakeholders, the Committee as assigned by Your Excellency, found it necessary to propose the following recommendations, stated here in summary form.
• Hunting ban be lifted.
• Develop a legal framework that will create an enabling environment for growth of safari hunting industry.
• Manage Botswana elephant population within its historic range
• Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) should undertake an effective community outreach program within the elephant range for Human Elephant Conflict mitigation
• Strategically placed human wildlife conflict fences be constructed in key hotspot areas
• Game ranches be demarcated to serve as buffers between communal and wildlife areas.
• Compensation for damage caused by wildlife, ex gratia amounts and the list of species that attract compensation be reviewed. In addition, other models that alleviate compensation burden on Government be considered.
• All wildlife migratory routes that are not beneficial to the country’s conservation efforts be closed.
• The Kgalagadi southwesterly antelope migratory route into South Africa should be closed by demarcating game ranches between the communal areas and Kgalagadi Wildlife Management Areas.
• Regular but limited elephant culling be introduced and establishment of elephant meat canning, including production of pet food and processing into other by products.
10. Your Excellency, with these few remarks I hereby officially handover the Report of the Cabinet Sub Committee on Hunting Ban Social Dialogue to you.
I thank you Sir.
Additional information supplied by the Botswana government, dated 25th February 2019
Press release by University of Zurich
The effects of climate change are especially obvious in arid environments where resources are scarce and subject to seasonal availability. However, the demographic mechanisms through which seasonal climate affects population persistence remains mostly unknown. Using detailed monthly life-history data collected by the Kalahari Meerkat Project between 1997 and 2016, scientists at the Universities of Zurich and Cambridge have now assessed how meerkats (Suricata suricatta) will fare in response to future changes in seasonal rainfall and temperature.
Meerkats are cooperative breeders that live in social groups. A dominant female monopolises most of the reproduction, while subordinate helpers assist in raising her offspring. Changes in the physical and social environment affect the growth, survival and reproduction of meerkats. For example, wet and warm conditions at the beginning of summer increase the growth, survival and reproduction of these animals. In contrast, high population densities and cold weather during winter decrease individual growth and survival.
The Kalahari Desert in Southern Africa is projected to become drier and warmer as a result of climate change. The new study investigates how consistently rising summer temperatures and rainfall fluctuations will affect body mass and growth of meerkats, resulting in lower rates of reproduction and offspring survival. However, this isn’t the only finding of the study.
“In addition to the common practice of modelling average annual dynamics, we took a closer look at seasonal dynamics and developed a specific climate change model,” says Maria Paniw of the Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of Zurich. “We found that the picture is more complex: Seasonality matters because improving conditions in one season can partially counter the worsening conditions in the next season.”
The team linked changes observed in growth, survival and reproduction to changes in seasonal rainfall and temperature. Using these links in a population projection model, the scientists projected the population dynamics 50 years into the future, creating different scenarios based on a report on climate change issued by US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The data shows that the combined effects of hotter and drier summers, in particular, may threaten the persistence of the meerkat population. In the study’s projections, fewer offspring were produced, resulting in fewer helpers in the population. In this scenario, the meerkat population plummeted, increasing the risk of population collapse.
In contrast, the negative effects of less rainfall in summer would be alleviated to an extent if winters became warmer, allowing meerkats to gain weight and step up reproduction. Taking these counteracting seasonal changes into account leads to a different scenario, in which the probability of extinction is less severe and the meerkats would still persist in 50 years.
“The effect of an environmental change on a population depends on how individuals interact with their biological and physical environment, and how these interactions will change over time. Our study demonstrates that we have to accurately identify these interactions, especially in terms of how these interactions vary between seasons, to predict a population’s vulnerability in the face of climate change,” says Arpat Ozgul, senior author of the study and professor of population ecology at the Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies at the University of Zurich.
Professor Tim Clutton-Brock, co-author from the University of Cambridge and founder of the Kalahari Meerkat Project, adds: “Our work emphasises the importance of long-term, individual-based studies that extend over several decades. Only where data of this kind is available is it possible to assess the effects of climate change on animal populations and to understand the ecological mechanisms responsible for them.”
Full report: Maria Paniw, Nino Maag, Gabriele Cozzi, Tim Clutton-Brock, Arpat Ozgul (2019): Life history responses of meerkats to seasonal changes in extreme environments. Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau5905
Have you ever wondered why South Africa seems to have so many captive lion cubs, in what are known as ‘lion parks’?
The reason, in my opinion, is one that we all need to face up to: IT’S A SCAM.
The still-growing lion cub petting industry masks a sinister legal industry in South Africa. Playing with cute little lion cubs is the tip of the iceberg – it’s what you don’t see that defines this abusive industry.
When tourists and volunteers visit one of the numerous ‘lion parks’ in South Africa and enter the play pens of young orphan cubs, their instinct is to question the situation. What? Why are so many lion cubs being orphaned? And, almost without exception, they are told a lie – that the cubs’ mothers died or abandoned them. This lie is repeated again and again – in marketing material, press releases and hashtags – so much so that even good, caring people repeat the mantra and become party to the lie, and the scam. You see, these lion cubs are forcibly removed from their mothers – to feed what has become a lucrative the lion cub petting machine.
We can all do the research. I’ve done it for five years, both as an animal advocate and consultant in the tourism industry. Spend 5 minutes on Instagram and see for yourself. There are thousands of images of young, motherless lion cubs (plus cheetahs and even tigers) and all of them are being interacted with by tourists and volunteers.
How could it be that there are so many big cat mothers out there suddenly willing to abandon their cubs?
This does not add up. Right?
On the face of it, lion parks look like fantastic nurseries for unfortunate ‘orphaned’ cubs – offering a caring home, and eventual return to the wild. Oh, and of course there are endless streams of tourists paying to manhandle the cubs continuously throughout the day – when lion cubs should be sleeping, feeding and bonding with their mother and siblings. Instead they are passed around like binoculars on a safari game drive.
According to South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa has an estimated 8,000 captive lions in approximately 200 breeding facilities. One can add to this an unknown number of private (backyard) breeders that operate without permits and provide an endless supply of cudly merchandise to this hungry industry.
Each of these lion parks and breeding facilities may have between 1-4 breeding females. If we take a conservative average of two lionesses per facility – that’s 200 facilities, 400 lionesses and conservatively 2,400 lion cubs born every year (assuming two litters per year per lioness and three lion cubs per litter – an extremely conservative estimate).
Lion farmers/breeders speed-breed their lionesses by removing the cubs soon after birth, thereby inducing the lionesses into estrus once more. Wild lions breed only once per year, at the most. The tiny blind cubs have now become part of the machine.
>2,400 LION CUBS BORN EVERY YEAR TO FEED THE MACHINE
Where and what are all these lion cubs destined for?
There is no documented evidence of any captive-bred lion in South Africa having been released into the wild – despite claims to the contrary. So remove that solution from the equation.
So why are these lion parks claiming that their lion cubs are “orphans”? And what exactly is the journey for that lion cub after its petting shelf life has expired? What is the link between these tiny cubs and the burgeoning canned lion hunting industry?
• REMOVAL OF CUBS: This usually happens after only a few hours or days after birth, when the newborn lion cubs are forcibly removed by breeders from their mothers and sold or loaned to lion parks for exhibition and petting purposes. Volunteers have often described to me the days when newborn cubs arrive by the box-load. Again the reply to obvious questions is that the mothers died or rejected and abandoned their babies
• PETTING: Each tiny cub, initially still with closed eyes, is petted by thousands of tourists keen to experience a close encounter with a cute and cuddly big cat cub. The cubs are handed from person to person and forced to pose for the all-important selfies.
• WALKING: Once the cubs reach the age of about six months they become too big (and dangerous) to cuddle, and graduate to being walked with tourists, while a handler protects the tourists from being harmed by the adolescent and sometimes boisterous lions.
• VOLUNTEER EMPLOYMENT: Local and international volunteers are tempted to South Africa, with the tantalising prospect of caring for these newly “orphaned” baby lion cubs. These naive volunteers pay for such work experience at lion parks, believing the lie that there work is important conservation work – to ‘save’ orphaned cubs and help with ‘lion research’ and/or to ‘return the lions to the wild’
• TOURISM: Local and international tourists, in their thousands, pay around R100-R200 ($10-$20) for the opportunity to play with baby lion cubs and to walk with adolescent lions, usually at the same facility. These tourists are fed the same lies.
At this stage the lion parks wash their hands of their ‘orphaned’ lions.
• HUNTING: After two years of tourist petting and walking, the lion progresses to the second-last stage of its usefulness. The tourism industry now has no further need for this lion, and it is traded into the hunting industry, where it is shot by trophy hunters in what is known as ‘canned hunting’. Some of the lions are sold to zoos, others are kept back for breeding, but the majority disappear into the opaque and sprawling network of trophy hunting farms that are spread across the South African bushveld. Lion parks will often vehemently deny any association with the hunting industry, claiming that they sell / trade / swap lions to intermediaries and that they have no control over what happens after that. The lion parks will simply refuse to disclose the identities of the buyers or locations of the lions’ new homes, in order to keep the lions “safe from poachers”.
There have been several exposés on various lion parks around South Africa (CBS 60 Minutes, Carte Blanche, The Guardian, to name just a few), which have uncovered these sales and permits, demonstrating how cub petting facilities are selling their lions to known lion hunting outfits.
The canned hunt attracts trophy collectors paying anywhere from $4,000 for a lioness, to $40,000 for a male white lion (hunting wild white lions is illegal). The hunt takes place in a small fenced area (often the size of half a football field), complete with typical bushveld trees, for that African feel. The lion, fresh from captivity, is released into this enclosed area – and shot. Legally the hunt organiser needs only release the lion into this area for 36 hours for it to be classed as “fair chase”.
• LION BONE TRADE: The final stage for the (now dead) lion is the selling of its bones to the insatiable Asian market for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), for approximately $1000-$1500 per skeleton.
To avoid the usual slew of accusations and legal threats from this industry, let me be clear on one point: the lion park facilities offering tourists the opportunity to play with lion cubs are not the same entities offering canned hunting experiences. I will leave it to you to come to your own conclusions in this regard.
Recently I conducted a small research task on social media to highlight this issue.
Considering that Instagram is the go-to place for lion-petting selfies, I based my research on this platform, with the following results:
90% OF VISITORS TO LION PARKS ARE LIED TO ABOUT WHY THERE ARE SO MANY LION CUBS
Using popular hashtags and an appropriate time period to prevent double-counting of cubs, I asked my population of 100 respondents: “Did the park inform you about where these lion cubs (that you are interacting with) came from?”
Here are some of the replies. The level of deceit is obvious.
Of those answers gained from my questioning 90% were similar to those above. The other 10% stated that they either could not remember, were not told by the facility or that they didn’t ask about the whereabouts of the cubs’ mothers.
To be clear on this matter: 90% of lion park visitors polled were told the lie that the park’s lion cubs are orphaned or abandoned by their mothers.
What we have here is cruel exploitation of helpless lion cubs and the scamming of thousands of tourists and volunteers every year. And this is all legal, apparently.
This must end. The lion parks in South Africa are not only fuelling the trade in wildlife and wildlife parts, blatantly scamming innocent tourists and volunteers out of their money, and ruining South Africa’s proud tourism brand name.
In March 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture barred zoos from allowing cubs under four weeks old to be petted or fed by members of the public.
WATCH: The truth about South Africa’s lion breeding industry © Dave Cohen / Blood Lions / YouthForLions
https://www.facebook.com/africa.geographic/videos/vb.64146191399/322164915091023/?type=2&theater
I urge and plea with South Africa’s Government to adopt a similar regulatory policy, and to ban all public interactions with big cats.
The effects of such restrictions would:
• Result in a decline in the non-conservation related breeding of big cats (namely lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards and mixed breeds);
• Create better monitoring capability of both the legal and illegal wildlife trade in South Africa;
• Ensure both local and international tourists are safeguarded from deceitful practices;
• Protect South Africa’s reputation as a respectable, responsible tourism destination;
• And repair South Africa’s conservation reputation, following years of abuse by this cub petting industry.
Instead of dwelling on the past and asking how this evil industry was allowed to mushroom and thrive, let’s take a step forward and simply end it. I believe in progress and that the South African Government, and President Cyril Ramaphosa particularly, can lead this beautiful country away from abusive industries like this.
It is up to all of us to stamp out the wrongs that we see. Please let’s start by stamping out the scam that is the big cat cub petting industry.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Paul Tully is an animal advocate and African tourism consultant, working with various South African companies and conservation projects.
Granitic in nature, laid-back in character and absolutely enticing at its core, this is Praslin, the second-largest island in Seychelles. It is a place of unparalleled beauty waiting to be explored…
Our Air Seychelles flight skimmed low over the azure waters before kissing the tarmac at Iles des Palmes Airport on Praslin.
Outside the airport, we rudely awoke a car hire sales assistant from her afternoon snooze. Who could blame her, it was 30 degrees! Once awake she was more than happy to send us off on our way in our little Kia. Having rented out a car to us she decided it was time to knock off for the day. We were loving this relaxed Seychelles vibe.
Our lodge, located high above the serene-looking Cote D’Or (Gold Coast), looked out over the picturesque St. Pierre Island shimmering in the bay far below with yachts dotted around her. The view was priceless and the slight increase in altitude a respite from the heat down below.
With our reliable Kia we went in search of adventure. Praslin Island is dominated by the lush jungles of the famed Valle de Mai National Park where visitors flock to lay eyes upon the rather shapely coco de mer (Lodoicea maldivica) – a rare species of palm tree native to Seychelles.
Centuries ago, when fishermen happened upon the nuts washed up on the shores, they believed they came from underwater forests home to terrifying sea monsters of the deep that preyed on unsuspecting fisherman. While this may no longer be true, seeing an endemic coco de mer is non-negotiable. To avoid the crowds, however, we opted for Fond Ferdinand Nature Reserve in the southeast of the island. Same nut, no crowds.
There is no shortage of spectacular beaches on Praslin. In fact, based on numerous internet polls, Anse Lazio may just be the ultimate award-winning stretch of coastline in the world.
The moment we laid eyes on it we couldn’t agree more. A perfect white sandy bay flanked by the most piercing of blue ocean waters. Still, given the crowds, we wanted to get away and find some solitude. We knew just where to find it.
An unmarked trail led away from Anse Lazio carving a path through the inland humid forest. It was a strenuous 1.5-hour hike along the contours of the bay. Suddenly we crested the final rise and there below us lay Anse Georgette, sparkling in the sun, turquoise waters lapping powdery white sands.
Once we finally made it down to the water we wisely channelled our inner Robinson Crusoe and abandoned all plans for the rest of the day!
For the next few days, we grabbed our Kia and headed out to find secluded little bays, stopping only to play amongst the large granite boulders that are strewn along Praslin’s beaches.
We sampled mouthwatering Seychellois cuisine at Coco Rouge in Baie St. Anne and watched mesmerising sunsets with a cold beer in hand. It was a magical experience.
Praslin is the most incredible of destinations. It has more in common with its sleepy neighbour La Digue then the hustle and bustle of Mahé but in some ways, it’s completely unique. You’d be silly not to visit!
Press Release by NYU Abu Dhabi
A new species of puddle frog (order: Anura, family: Phynobatrachidae, genus: Phrynobatrachus), has just been discovered by NYU Abu Dhabi researchers on the unexplored and isolated Bibita Mountain in southwestern Ethiopia. The research team named the new species Phrynobatrachus bibita or Bibita Mountain dwarf puddle frog, inspired by its home.
In summer 2018, NYU Abu Dhabi Postdoctoral Associates Sandra Goutte and Jacobo Reyes-Velasco explored an isolated mountain in southwestern Ethiopia where some of the last primary forest of the country remains.
Bibita Mountain was under the radars of the team for several years due to its isolation and because no other zoologist had ever explored it before.
“It had all the elements to spike our interest,” says Dr Reyes-Velasco, who initiated the exploration of the mountain.
“We tried to reach Bibita in a previous expedition in 2016 without success. Last summer, we used a different route that brought us to higher elevation,” he added.
Their paper, published in ZooKeys journal, reports that the new, tiny frog, 17 mm for males and 20 mm for females, is unique among Ethiopian puddle frogs. Among other morphological features, a slender body with long legs, elongated fingers and toes, and a golden colouration, set this frog apart from its closest relatives.
“When we looked at the frogs, it was obvious that we had found a new species, they look so different from any Ethiopian species we had ever seen before!” explains Dr. Goutte.
Back in NYU Abu Dhabi, the research team sequenced tissue samples from the new species and discovered that Phrynobatrachus bibita sp. nov. is genetically different from any frog species in the region.
“The discovery of such a genetically distinct species in only a couple of days in this mountain is the perfect demonstration of how important it is to assess the biodiversity of this type of places. The Bibita Mountain probably has many more unknown species that await our discovery; it is essential for biologists to discover them in order to protect them and their habitat properly,” explains NYU Abu Dhabi Program Head of Biology and the paper’s lead researcher Stéphane Boissinot, who has been working on Ethiopian frogs since 2010.
Full report: Sandra Goutte, Jacobo Reyes-Velasco, Stephane Boissinot (2019): A new species of puddle frog from an unexplored mountain in southwestern Ethiopia (Anura, Phrynobatrachidae, Phrynobatrachus), ZooKeys. DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.824.31570
Sourced from third-party site: Department of Environmental Affairs
The latest annual rhino poaching statistics have been released by the Department of Environmental Affairs. Minister of Environmental Affairs, Ms Nomvula Mokonyane, has reported significant progress on the implementation of the Integrated Strategic Management of Rhinoceros covering the period 1 January to 31 December 2018. But Susan Scott (STROOP – Journey into the Rhino War filmmaker) cautions against too much optimism.
The statistics show that in 2018 there was a decrease in rhino poaching incidents to 769, making it the third consecutive year that South Africa has seen a decline in rhino poaching, particularly in the national parks. This is a decrease of 259 rhino compared to 2017 (1,028 rhino poached). It is also the first time in five years that the annual figure is under 1,000.
A total of 421 rhino were poached in the Kruger National Park, 16.5% less than the 504 poached in 2017, and one was poached at the Marakele National Park.
The number of poacher activities in the Kruger National Park declined by only two recorded activities during the year, with a total of 2,620 incursions and 125 contacts recorded during 2018.
The provincial and national breakdown for rhino poaching incidents in 2018 is as follows:
| PROVINCES AND NATIONAL PARKS | 2017 | 2018 |
| SANParks | 504 | 422 |
| Gauteng | 4 | 2 |
| Limpopo | 79 | 40 |
| Mpumalanga | 49 | 51 |
| North West | 96 | 65 |
| Eastern Cape | 12 | 19 |
| Free State | 38 | 16 |
| Northern Cape | 24 | 12 |
| Kwa-Zulu Natal | 222 | 142 |
| Western Cape | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 1028 | 769 |
With regard to the biological management of rhinos, the statement mentioned that “within Kruger National Park, the translocation of rhinos from Kruger as part of South Africa’s biological management innovations of expanding ranges and establishing additional rhino strongholds are challenged by the emergence of bovine tuberculosis in both black and white rhino, albeit at low incidence … the development of efficient systems to overcome this challenge is in progress”.
It continues, saying: “Even so, innovative biological management have used translocations within Kruger National Park as a mechanism to direct poaching to focus less on cows. This goes hand in hand with initiatives to dehorn rhinos embedded in strategic approaches that target individuals that frequent poaching hotspots, but more importantly, approaches that minimise the losses of cows. Complimenting these interventions are guarding initiatives that focus on regular individual monitoring of individual rhinos. These combinations of interventions seek to ensure maximising the breeding potential of both black and white rhinos.
“The integrated initiatives of SANParks to manage its rhino population have had varied successes. Within Kruger National Park the continued onslaught of poaching resulted in a continued decline of rhinos. SANParks conducted a distribution survey of rhinos that forms part of predicting future rhino localities that can inform pro-active anti-poaching and biological management. This also allowed the evaluation of the robustness of the techniques to obtain formal rhino estimates. The evaluation is in progress.”
The statement concludes saying, “Combating rhino poaching remains a national priority, and as such, all the relevant government departments will continue their close collaboration to ensure that this iconic species is conserved for generations to come. Although we are encouraged by the national poaching figures for 2018, it is critical that we continue to implement collaborative initiatives to address the scourge of rhino poaching.”
Filmmakers Susan Scott and Bonné de Bod – the makers of the award-winning rhino documentary STROOP: Journey into the Rhino Horn War – had the following to say regarding the latest rhino poaching statistics:
Of course it’s welcome news that we’re under 1,000 rhinos poached for the first time in five years, but if we look deeply into the release coming from the department, there are some grim facts that we need to look at, and we must look at what’s not in the release:
The stats are broken down by province, so it’s hard to see the state rhino stats versus the privately owned rhino poaching stats. And that would tell us a lot… we know that farmers have sold their rhinos, exporting them overseas or moving them to neighbouring range states while our state rhinos, those in Kruger in particular, are down in total numbers so there are fewer rhinos to poach**.
And we can look at the incursion stats that were also released, they are staying at around the same rate: 2,620 last year compared to 2,662 the previous year (1% decrease). So the onslaught is not stopping. We’re still at seven incursions a day. That’s not the amount of people… that’s the incursions… footprints seen in the park, sound picked up, rangers spotting poaching teams. So seven times a day a gang is active inside Kruger and those are the picked up incursions.
The onslaught is not subsiding and the loss of Ranger Respect Mathebule last year has also changed things for the ranger corps.
We’ve seen papers out on the TB inside the Kruger National Park from 2016* and Karen Trendler will tell you that that is because our rhinos are under severe stress from the poaching, and the drought of 2016/17 no doubt played a huge role. This is the first time the department has mentioned that our Kruger rhinos (black and white) have TB, although they say “albeit at low incidence”. They go on to say that South Africa’s veterinary regulations are strict about preventing TB from being spread into commercial stock, so they are developing systems for this challenge… this does mean that auctions are on hold, which also tells us the severity of this. And there is no mention if orphans rescued in the Kruger also have TB which will affect any protocols in place for that.
The release goes on to say that translocations have happened within the park as a way to reduce poaching on cows. It’s very unclear from the language used, but it also seems that Kruger are dehorning cows in poaching hotspots. The actual quote is: “This goes hand in hand with initiatives to dehorn rhinos embedded in strategic approaches that target individuals that frequent poaching hotspots, but more importantly, approaches that minimise the losses of cows.”
This is a biggie. For years now there hasn’t been acknowledgement of this collateral damage where rhinos breed well, but cows poached not only removes that individual from the population but all future rhinos that could’ve been birthed by her and that could be as much as anywhere from 10 to 15 rhinos in her lifetime. This collateral damage is a real worry in this poaching crisis.
We’re a long way from it, but once rhinos get below a certain number in the wild, they become less productive, and can even become infertile which we’ve witnessed with the northern white rhinos, and isolated populations of the Javan and the Sumatran rhinos. Plus, have’t we always been told that rhinos in Kruger can’t be dehorned because they cannot defend themselves from lions and each other? We’ve all heard many stories of female cows protecting their young with their horns. This needs to be looked into more deeply.
The worldwide management of rhinos depends hugely on numbers coming out of Kruger. The poaching deaths yes, but more importantly the living numbers of wild rhinos in the world’s largest population, which of course is Kruger’s white rhino population. We have CITES in Sri Lanka in a few months time and this is the body that actually sets the agenda for rhino management for the next three years (they only meet once every three years).
So trading in rhino horn internationally will be decided at CITES and exporting live rhinos to Asia will be determined by what happens at CITES. So it’s very important that we know what the largest population of rhinos on the planet is…
Block-counting was the method used up until the last census, (Aug/Sept 2017). And the census results are usually released a few months after they are compiled but not this last one… it was released a year later, a day before World Rhino Day in September last year. We were in San Francisco for the world premier of STROOP and we were 10,000 miles away but still surprised that the press didn’t pick up on it.
White rhino numbers had declined by almost 30%. Thirty percent! Let’s look at this: the 2017 number was given as a range from 5,532 to 4,759 versus the previous census count in 2016 where the range was 7,830 to 6,649 and when that was released, Africa Geographic was the only publication to note that it was an 18% decline**.
I asked a DEA spokesperson why the most recent census results, the 2018 ones, had not been released yesterday and was told to get them from SANParks… we’ve been on this roundabout before. SANParks can’t release them to us, they release them to the department who then release them to the public. So this latest press release should’ve had the 2018 rhino numbers from the last Kruger census in 2018, but they’re not there. There have been a lot of rumours about “real” rhino numbers and if the block counting method of extrapolation is flawed leaving us all with the worry that the number is much lower than the range of around 5,000 counted back in 2017.
But the bigger picture that we must focus on is if we go back to the start of the poaching crisis… to 2010. The range of white rhinos counted in the park was 12,700 to 8,700***. In seven years, anthropomorphic factors (poaching and a little bit of the drought) have caused a 56 to 47% drop in our white rhino numbers in the Kruger. Half of our population is gone. Half. And we were told not to worry, rhinos breed well.
The next CITES is coming up and when the diplomats sit down in the huge conference halls to read through papers of white rhino management, our white rhino stats from 2017 will be a year and a half old, that’s what should’ve been in the press release coming out of the department today/yesterday. No wonder animals get uplisted at CITES when it’s almost too late… they’re working on old data. It’s the number that’s not in the press release that’s most important for our rhinos… how many are left, not just in Kruger but in the whole country.
The takeaway is to press the department for as much information as possible to help those in decision making processes… such as the correct and latest census results of Kruger’s rhinos. And the incursions are not stopping. Financial support has declined for Kruger and the worry is that it will decline further when South Africans see that rhinos poaching numbers have declined. Our rangers in Kruger, iMfolozi, and all our state parks need even more support now, we cannot take our eye off this.
Since the crisis started in 2010 we can now, by official numbers, say that we have lost at least half our white rhino population in the Kruger National Park, and that’s despite an incredible effort by the ranger corps. Now, more than ever, we should be ploughing in whatever support we can give them. The fight is a long way from over.
* Mycobacterium bovis in a Free-Ranging Black Rhinoceros, Kruger National Park, South Africa, 2016: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314145118_Mycobacterium_bovis_in_a_Free-Ranging_Black_Rhinoceros_Kruger_National_Park_South_Africa_2016
** 18% crash in Kruger white rhino population: https://africageographic.com/blog/crash-in-kruger-white-rhino-population/
*** SANParks annual report 2011: https://www.sanparks.org/assets/docs/general/annual-report-2011.pdf, and Status of Rhino Population in Kruger: https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/rhinopopulationstatus_august2014.pdf
Press release by STROOP
Acclaimed South African documentary, STROOP – Journey into the Rhino Horn War, continues its winning streak on the film festival circuit internationally. The film had its world premiere at the San Francisco Green Film Festival last September and picked up a further 10 awards during the rest of 2018, among them ‘Best Documentary’ at the prestigious San Diego International Film Festival. The start of 2019 sees STROOP winning four further awards at the Hollywood International Independent Documentary Awards with the ceremony taking place at the Raleigh Studios in Hollywood on March 23. This week also sees an announcement from The Impact DOC Awards on the film winning the Award of Excellence for a Feature Documentary. The competition states that the exceptional storyline made it worthy of a further Special Mention from the Competition Jury. The Impact DOC Awards are given out annually to films making a difference in the critical issues of our times.
In more exciting news, STROOP has been officially selected for The Earth Day Film Festival, the Green Mountain Film Festival, the Colorado Environmental Film Festival, and the Wellington Film Festival in New Zealand (where it has also been nominated for Best Documentary). The film also screened on opening night at the Guwahati International Documentary Film Festival in India at the end of January. In a further nod to honour the film, STROOP is one of only five documentaries invited to have its Italian premiere at the Riviera International Film Festival in May. The international jury, which determines the prize for best documentary feature film out of the five in competition, will comprise various film, culture and art personalities and will be announced at press conference in Milan next month. As part of this achievement, STROOP will be translated by the festival into Italian, furthering the exposure of South Africa’s rhino poaching crisis around the world.
The film has now been officially selected for 20 international film festivals and has collected a total of 15 awards.
Despite this phenomenal worldwide critical acclaim however, STROOP has been unable to get local cinema distribution, prompting the Associated Press to report on the issue which was picked up by the New York Times, the Washington Post and other leading newspapers around the globe. Undeterred, the filmmakers began self-distributing STROOP by hiring cinemas around the country and by promoting the local screenings on social media and in local press. The film subsequently played to packed cinema houses.
“It was quite incredible! We kept being told that no-one would come to see a documentary in our cinemas, let alone a documentary about rhino poaching, but the support has been overwhelming!”, says Bonné de Bod, one of the filmmakers of STROOP.
“We thought we’d put on one screening in Joburg and one in Cape Town,” adds STROOP director Susan Scott, “and both of them sold out pretty quickly… Cape Town in under 48-hours!
“So once we had a screening paid for by the public, we could then hire another cinema and then another one and then that’s how come we have been able to take it around the country to Joburg, Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, Hoedspruit, White River and now Bloemfontein – this coming weekend – for our last cinema screening.”
AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD NOW
The international support of the film continues, with Amazon, iTunes, Google Play and Vimeo on Demand on their digital platforms this week. A delighted de Bod says, “this is our first film, and everyone tells us how the film industry is different to two years ago, to five years ago, to ten years ago… but that doesn’t frighten us!
“Because all of this is new to us, we’ve been pushing these new boundaries to get our important story seen around the world. The fact that these big tech giant studios believe in the film and will be making it available for anyone to see at any time, is exactly what we set out to do when we started making STROOP all those years ago! Now it really can be seen by millions… getting our rhino story everywhere!”
The film recently screened in Hong Kong on the public broadcaster RTHK, and also formed part of a judiciary workshop on tackling wildlife trafficking through the port of Hong Kong. Locally, STROOP is also having an effect in the enforcement sector, after having being screened to the South African Police Service trainees undergoing specialised training on wildlife crime.
Keeping their sights firmly on local awareness, Scott and de Bod have started on their community and school roll-out of the film, working with Africa Geographic and the Jane Goodall Roots and Shoots Foundation to get the film seen in areas without access to cinemas.
The film is also releasing digitally through its website: www.stroop-film.com
Written, and photographs, by Will Burrard-Lucas
Since childhood I have been fascinated by stories of black panthers. For me, no animal is shrouded in more mystery, no animal more elusive, and no animal more beautiful. For many years they remained the stuff of dreams and of far-fetched stories told around the campfire at night. Nobody I knew had ever seen one in the wild and I never thought that I would either. But that didn’t stop me dreaming…
Then, a couple of years ago, photos started emerging of a black leopard in India. It was a cat that had made its territory in the tourist area of Kabini Forest in Karnataka. The leopard was hard to see but some persistent photographers managed to capture images of it that got my pulse racing.
Then, by chance, I was asked to speak at the Nature in Focus Festival in Bangalore last September. I took this opportunity to spend three days searching Kabini Forest for the famous cat. The festival organisers arranged for me to be guided by Giri Cavale, a photographer whose knack for finding the elusive black panther is legendary.
I didn’t have high hopes of seeing it in such a short period of time but as we explored the forest it was thrilling just to know the cat was out there. Then, on the second day, we managed to spot the black leopard crossing the road in front of us! It was far away but I was enthralled and managed to capture the image below. The lucky encounter ignited my imagination and I dreamed more than ever of finding and photographing one of these stunning cats in Africa.
I have never seen a high-quality image of a wild black leopard come out of Africa, even though stories of them being seen are sometimes told… “a friend of a friend saw a black leopard crossing the road early one morning”. By chance, around the time of my India trip, my friends James and Abigail from Ker & Downey told me one such story – that a black leopard had been seen up at Laikipia Wilderness Camp in Kenya. My ears pricked up and I contacted the owners Steve and Annabelle Carey to find out more. Steve confirmed that it was true and he had seen several black leopards over the years. That was enough for me and I decided to invest some time in checking it out.
On arrival in Laikipia, Steve took me to meet Luisa Ancilotto who lives close to the camp and had seen a black leopard recently. She told us as much as she knew about the leopard’s habits and territory. Then Steve managed to pick up some fresh leopard tracks nearby and followed them to a path that leopards seemed to be using. I deployed a plethora of camera traps each consisting of a Camtraptions wireless motion sensor, a high-quality DSLR camera and two or three flashes. I had high hopes of photographing a leopard, but would it be black?
The next day I eagerly checked the cameras but had no images of leopards. I was disheartened and suddenly felt the enormity of what I was trying to achieve. Surely I was not going to be lucky enough to actually photograph a melanistic African leopard?!
I left the cameras for several more nights. On returning, I checked them and by the time I got to the last camera, all I had seen were pictures of hyenas but no leopards. I had a quick look at the last trap, not expecting to find much. As I scrolled through the images on the back of the camera, I paused and peered at the photograph below in incomprehension… a pair of eyes surrounded by inky darkness… a black leopard! I couldn’t believe it and it took a few days before it sank in that I had achieved my dream.
Over the days that followed I moved the camera traps around as I gained a deeper understanding of the leopard’s movements. The next hit I got was further down on the same game trail as the first capture. I love the way this cat melts out of the darkness!
Thereafter the black leopard disappeared and I started capturing images of a big spotty male instead – apparently he had chased away the younger black leopard. I have never been annoyed at capturing a spotty leopard on camera trap before! I suppose at least he was rather handsome…
The spotty male hung around for what felt like an age and I began to think that the black leopard might never return. During this time I checked my cameras daily and often had images of striped and spotted hyenas as well.
Then, on the night of the full moon, the black leopard reappeared and I captured the shot below as the moon was setting behind a ridge. Needless to say, I was thrilled that he was back and that I had captured such an atmospheric image.
In all the pictures I had taken, it were the leopard’s eyes that struck me first. I adjusted my lighting to darken as much of the background as possible. Just before I left, I managed to capture one last picture… eyes in the night…
As far as I know, these are the first high-quality camera trap photographs of a wild melanistic leopard ever taken in Africa. I can still scarcely believe that this project – which started out as a speculative recce trip – has paid such spectacular dividends!
A big thank you to Steve Carey from Laikipia Wilderness Camp and Luisa Ancilotto, without whom I never could have found and photographed the African black panther.
Update: For clarification, I am not claiming that these are the first photos of a black leopard taken in Africa. I do however believe that they are the first high-quality camera trap photographs. The headline, “first in 100 years,” is derived from a quote attributed to scientists from San Diego Zoo stating that my images, in combination with their video footage, constitute the first scientific documentation of such a creature in Africa in nearly a century. This was first published by National Geographic but was misinterpreted as meaning “the first photos taken in 100 years” as was subsequently reported by many media outlets. I hope this blog post and update clears up any confusion and I appreciate that this error has now been corrected in a number of articles.
Update: People have raised the valid concern that the leopard may now be a target for trophy hunters. Fortunately trophy hunting is illegal in Kenya. My take is that the benefits of promoting tourism far outweigh the risks and hence I have stated the location. Tourism brings valuable revenue to these places and is often a critical source of funding for conservation efforts. I would like to encourage people to visit Kenya, support local communities through tourism and look for leopards; you have a good chance of spotting a spotty leopard and maybe, just maybe, a…
I will soon be heading back in an attempt to capture more images, please follow @willbl on Instagram for more photos and updates.
Professional hunter Paul Stones has responded in a Facebook post to Simon Espley’s opinion editorial questioning whether the trophy hunting industry will ruin Kruger National Park’s expansion plans. We publish Stones’ post here, with his permission. The text in italics and quotation marks relates to statements extracted from Espley’s opinion editorial, followed by Stone’s responses.
Espley: “It is no secret that the trophy hunting industry staggers from one unsavoury incident to the next…”
This is a statement that is undeniably true. In certain cases a blatant disregard for rules and requests, all in the name of self-enrichment! The damage that these acts causes does not only impact the wildlife we profess to “conserve” but the many livelihoods, community projects, and service industries that rely on hunting income and contribution. However, it goes even further than that, way further. It directly impacts the future of Africa’s fauna and flora! This statement is equally powerful if not more than the opening statement to this article. Many may wish to dispute this but please, humour me and read on.
The banning of elephant hunting in Botswana lead to much of the impact I mention in the past paragraph. The ban that had been implemented has caused nothing but heartache and loss for communities and wildlife alike. The lack of revenue and the dishonesty of photo safari companies that had promised to run these hunting concessions in photo mode has never transpired, other than a few select areas that adjoin with the Okavango Delta. The increase of meat poaching with snares – that is way more damaging to wildlife than selected species poaching as it removes anything and everything caught in these snares, including all the lion and leopard that these selfsame crusaders of conservation profess to save. The condemning of hunting through story-telling from “days of yore” are not conducive to the far more conservation-based hunting industry of 2019. Much of what transpired in the past left a legacy that we should not be proud of – we know this. As with all industries, no matter how small or how large, there will be those that detract from the immense good industries can and often contribute to specifics.
The agreement signed between Kruger and the neighbouring private and community reserves is not only one that is hugely beneficial to all current activities in this relationship but for the future of the Kruger National Park, it should be applauded.
Espley: “In the latest trophy hunting-related disaster, South Africa’s Parliament has attacked Kruger’s magnificent and visionary 10-year plan by calling for the nullifying of the recently signed agreement between Kruger and neighbouring private and community reserves. Who knows what political manoeuvrings are behind this, but it is notable that trophy hunting and a perceived lack of local community benefits were at the root of the statement from Parliament.”
Insofar as to suggest “political manoeuvrings” I would agree with that comment, only from the anti-hunting fraternity and their capture of Parliament in this regard. This could not have been clearer, attending the Colloquium late last year, I was stunned to see how certain journalists were given more credence than the very people with all the experience, and those in the trenches were reprimanded for questioning a journalist on his anti-hunting diatribe by the chair of the portfolio committee! Say no more about political manoeuvring!
Espley: “The main focus and revenue drivers are the targeting of big gene elephants, lions, leopards, buffaloes, etc. and these have become increasingly scarce in the wild, resulting in drastic (sometimes illegal or contrary to agreed protocol) antics to secure the desired trophies.”
Trophy hunting does play a huge role in African conservation, an undeniable fact. The comment that it is all about “big gene” animals is one that needs addressing; this is not entirely a false statement. Record Books are, in my humble opinion, the damnation of hunting as a noble pastime, and should be banned! Where does the truth lie? Somewhere in the middle? No, in today’s world with a very large majority of people who come to hunt in Africa, the size of game animals is not of importance, as representative, old animals are far more sought after. The record book entries are damaging to us, this is a fact, however, those that subscribe to this chest-beating exercise are in the minority in the greater world of hunting.
As Espley’s article is about the agreement between one of the main players, the APNR (Associated Private Nature Reserves) and the Kruger National Park, I can categorically state and unequivocally fight the “big genes” statement! The APNR has unquestionably the finest hunting protocol in Africa today. This is an absolute fact. We do not hunt ANY big gene animals!
An example, ALL buffalo hunted may never exceed the 38-inch spread of horn (width of the horn from outside curve to outside curve) and these buffalo may not be younger than 12 years of age. They are old buffalo. The next category, if one needs to use that description, are ‘management buffalo’ bulls that are of inferior genetics and improve the herd quality by removing some of them. These buffalo may not exceed 34 inches and they may be hunted just on the maturity of six years, and absolutely no big tuskers, ever! Cats, well, aged-based only and not size! Yes, conservation at its best!
Espley: “Last year I wrote to the good people of the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR), a collective of private reserves that forms part of the Greater Kruger. I know some of them personally – good people who want the best for conservation. I cautioned them that their fund-raising model needs to change. Trophy hunting constitutes a sizeable chunk of the revenue pie that is applied to manage the reserve and keep wildlife safe from poachers. They acknowledged my letter politely, but I got the sense that the day-to-day reality of the issues that they face prevent them from taking too seriously warnings of the coming storm.”
To talk of the “coming storm” re the future of trophy hunting is not an invalid observation and one that might well have frightening consequences for all I mentioned above.
The Dollar comparison of the consumptive and non-consumptive activities, if one bases it on eco-footprint and sustainability alone is immense.
Espley: “Rather, my warning was that the rolling snowball of public rage at killing animals (particularly large-gene individuals) for fun and ego is growing in size and momentum every day, and the consequences will only increase.”
Is it not ironic that the “public rage” perpetuated by faceless, ignorant, emotive millions is over a sustainable and highly beneficial activity? Driven by egoistical individuals who generally have no dog in the fight! What if those faceless millions were to be shown the eco footprint stamped across Africa by the photographic industry with regard to the classic case of the tragedy of the commons: WATER!
Let us for one minute forget about the encroachment of wilderness, the destruction of habitat by luxury lodge building, the perpetual humdrum of humanity invading wild animal spaces, the creation of Disney-like habituated (once wild) animals, the belching of fumes coming out of the diesel stalks by countless vehicles into herds of game in the hope of a kill sighting, the damage to flora and the ‘lesser’ species by driving into and across so much of our precious African bush, the Mara game viewing jamboree at the time of the migration is criminal and the incessant hum of charter aircraft transporting the myriad planeloads of human cargo into what was once a pristine Africa.
Let’s look at one small facet that seems to go unnoticed and ignored – WATER.
How many of these areas have ever had a single environmental study conducted in them where the future of water may be a deciding factor in granting permission for the construction of these behemoths, of which many are such, simply because it is about volume and that in the modern world it is all about more, quicker, easier and shorter, so the more people that can be accommodated in the shortest space of time is the most beneficial to the financial well-being of photographic safari “camps”.
We all know that the world is changing, climate change is real, whether it is through human activity or simply a natural phenomenon, it is happening! South Africa is feeling it more than many other parts of the world!
So, based on this fact, the APNR, or let’s refer to it as the Greater Kruger, is in a very low rainfall area to begin with. Wild animals require vast swathes of habitat to move through, and as the seasons change, so too do their feeding patterns. If we continue to allow the photographic industry to grow in these areas we will absolutely destroy the natural patterns that currently exist. Besides the destruction of habitat and riverine being a large part of that habitat loss, as rivers draw lodges like a dog draws fleas! We will use up the groundwater to the point that spring lines, drainage lines and pans will cease to exist. What then?
The millions and millions of litres that are currently sucked out of the ground to fill the claw baths, outdoor showers with views that hardly encourage a quick soaking, can and will not be replaced!
The lioness and her four cubs, 2 miles down the valley from the lodge are dying of thirst, for the seep that her pride has used for millennia is now dry and her cubs will die!
Espley: “Timbavati, one of the APNR reserves, recently increased the conservation levy paid by visiting tourists, and now cover 55% of their operational budget from this revenue source (the rest comes primarily from trophy hunting). Based on simple maths explained to me recently, increasing that levy from the current R368 to about R750 per person per night would remove the need for any trophy hunting. This arithmetic is of course subject to assumptions, such as demand staying the same, but in broad strokes this number holds water.”
The argument that an increase of levies will solve the financial requirement to run such areas is true but a very temporary solution. Over an inordinately short time frame, R750 will be worthless, as simple inflation will erode and increase each year. There are only so many Golden Geese! The author was clear with regard to this short-term solution. Also, within the APNR, certain land masses have very few lodges so how do they benefit with the levies?
Espley: “Would travel agents and tourists agree to this increase? Time will tell. This model of increasing conservation levies paid by photographic tourists will not work in all of the reserves incorporated into the APNR, because some simply do not have not enough commercial lodges relative to land size and management costs. Those reserves have to find another model – perhaps including funding by the passionate and powerful anti-hunting lobby?”
The treacherous suggestion of the anti-hunting fraternity funding our wildlife and its habitat should be condemned with the venom it deserves. The mentality that the “white west” must once again control Africa and our wildlife should be spurned with all the contempt it deserves!
Espley: “Two community-owned reserves in the Greater Kruger (but outside the APNR) only have trophy hunting as a revenue source. The larger of the community-owned reserves with open fences to the Kruger (the 42,000 hectare Letaba Ranch) is now buried in chaos, after the trophy hunting operators left after being accused of unsustainable offtakes, baiting animals from the Kruger and of channelling little or no benefit to the community landowners.”
Let us look at the community areas and the comments made. Letaba Ranch is a sad indictment of a lack of governance. Letaba Ranch, I wholeheartedly agree, is a mess but we cannot pin this mess on trophy hunting per se. It would be grossly unfair to do such. Our country has the laws to deal with all the issues raised re this beautiful area bordering the KNP. They simply have not been enforced and it is an absolute disgrace. An opportunity perhaps for the right people to be given a fair chance to create what it should be?
The Kruger Park’s 10-year management plan to secure land for species to roam is admirable and should be supported to the best of all adjoining lands capability, however, we need to be very clear that most is private land and private land should not bend to the wiles of public perception or opinion if that perception or opinion damages our wildlife and its habitat. Hunting does not damage either when conducted under protocols such as the APNR protocol, it enhances wildlife and habitat. It has an eco-footprint that is minimalistic.
God forbid that we ever have to go back to fences and protectionism, it is the curse of a modern world where wildlife and habitat are in short and ever-decreasing supply, and that which we have we need to cherish dearly and in certain cases agree to disagree. It is not only the behaviour of certain hunting practices that need to be changed and condemned in the strongest possible terms, but the behaviour too of those that know so very little or refuse to enlighten themselves on the massive benefit responsible hunting offers and promotes across much of Africa.
Espley: “The trophy hunting industry seems, by virtue of its behaviour, not capable of playing a constructive role in the future conservation landscape on the western border of the Kruger National Park. Plus, the increasing public awareness and assertiveness will most likely eventually take down any attempt to involve that industry. Decision-makers can ignore these realities, or they can undertake the hard task of finding alternative conservation-funding models.”
We do not need to seek “alternative conservation-funding models” – we have the two finest that exist – we simply need to ensure that both are responsible and both have the end result that we seek and that is the betterment of our wildlife and habitat for future generations to marvel and enjoy.
‘The systematic demise of hunting as a conservation tool, will ensure the absolute demise of wildlife in Africa.’ – PAUL STONES, professional hunter
Sourced from third-party site: Oxpeckers – Center for Investigative Environmental Journalism, written by Roxanne Joseph
The internet is used to trade endangered animals, plants and their parts, and more broadly hosts communities and subcultures where this trade is normalised, routine and unchallenged.
There are numerous law enforcement agencies and organisations working to ensure that wildlife trafficking is identified, prevented and prosecuted at every opportunity, but with almost complete anonymity, easy access and seemingly endless variety, the internet makes this even more difficult to do.
Detecting Online Environmental Crime Markets, a report released in January by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI), introduced an innovative tool called the Dynamic Data Discovery Engine (DDDE). It is designed to build as comprehensive a picture as possible of how, where and when vulnerable plants and animals are transacted over the internet.
If you were to type “claws”, “skins” or “horns” into a search engine, you would be met with too many results to sort through. The DDDE attempts to solve this by giving you results that contain only illegal transactions, or discussions related to restricted commodities.
To see what the DDDE was capable of, researchers Carl Miller, Jack Pay and Josh Smith trialled the tool across three case studies: orchids, pangolins and ivory.
The intention was to identify as many URLs (the address or link to a page available online) as possible, and as precisely as possible, that were engaged in either the transaction of the commodity, or conversations about them…
To read more about the three case studies, continue to the article on Oxpecker’s website here
A charismatic carnivore has made itself right at home in the shadow of a large petrochemical plant in South Africa, according to researchers. The heavily industrialised Secunda Synfuels Operations plant, 140 km east of Johannesburg, has been found to contain a strong population of servals (Leptailurus serval) – a medium-sized carnivore that feeds primarily on rodents and is dependent on wetland habitats.
Researchers Samual Williams and Lourens Swanepoel, from the University of Venda, and Daan Loock from the University of the Free State, spent four years documenting these elusive predators. Their findings were published in a report in the international journal Nature.
“As the environment becomes increasingly altered by human development, the importance of understanding the ways in which wildlife interact with modified landscapes is becoming clear,” the researchers said. “Areas such as industrial sites are sometimes presumed to have little conservation value, but many of these sites have areas of less disturbed habitats around their core infrastructure, which could provide ideal conditions to support some species, such as mesocarnivores.”
Over several years the researchers placed camera traps and live traps (which allowed them to identify a serval’s sex and age) throughout the plant to determine the population. They found that the densities of serval were consistently far higher than had previously been recorded elsewhere, which is presumably due to favourable conditions such as a high abundance of rodent prey and the absence of persecution or competitor species. The results of the population density showed that the population structure appeared to be stable and normal, suggesting that the high density was not a temporary situation, but a long-term trend.
“Carnivore species able to adapt to urban environments often succeed in these areas due to high food availability, favourable climatic effects, and the reduced threat of intraguild predation because of the absence of larger apex predators,” the study reported.
In conclusion the researchers stated that although servals appear to thrive in close proximity to such a heavily industrialised site, they suggest that further research is conducted to identify any potential effects of industrial activity, such as the influence of noise and air pollution on the physiology and behaviour of wildlife in the vicinity.
“The cases of modified environments benefiting wildlife should not be taken as evidence that industrialisation is generally a good thing for wildlife,” they said. “As humans modify natural habitats biodiversity tends to suffer, and it is of paramount importance that we curb our impact on the environment. But our findings suggest that even heavily industrialised sites can still have conservation value. We should not overlook these areas when developing conservation plans as they can still play a role in protecting threatened species.”
Full report: Daan Loock, Samual Williams, Kevin Emslie, Wayne Matthews & Lourens Swanepoel (2018). High carnivore population density highlights the conservation value of industrialised sites. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34936-0
It is no secret that the trophy hunting industry staggers from one unsavoury incident to the next, be it baiting and shooting of pride male lions, illegal collared elephant hunting or the surgical removal of the remaining large-gene animals. Cecil the Lion was just one example that hit the viral stratosphere, but this kind of behaviour goes on all over Africa, often unreported or not picked up by mainstream media, and it swamps the good that does result from some hunting operations.
Recently, respected filmmaker and conservationist Dereck Joubert shared some of his experiences with trophy hunters that massacred their way through Botswana in the old days. His recollections make for harrowing reading. I have heard similar accounts from multiple people, including former professional hunters.
In the latest trophy hunting-related disaster, South Africa’s Parliament has attacked Kruger’s magnificent and visionary 10-year plan by calling for the nullifying of the recently signed agreement between Kruger and neighbouring private and community reserves. Who knows what political manoeuvrings are behind this, but it is notable that trophy hunting and a perceived lack of local community benefits were at the root of the statement from Parliament.
The trophy hunting industry could play such a powerful role in African conservation (there are some examples where this does happen), but in practice it simply refuses to adapt to modern-day conservation realities and rid itself of unsustainable take-offs, corruption and the bad apples that taint the entire industry. The main focus and revenue drivers are the targeting of big gene elephants, lions, leopards, buffalos etc and these have become increasingly scarce in the wild, resulting in drastic (sometimes illegal or contrary to agreed protocol) antics to secure the desired trophies. Fenced private game farms appear to be better managed as trophy hunting businesses, with arguably more sustainable practices. For open ecosystems though, this is a classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons. It appears that this rudderless industry will not change – it is what it is, and it simply does not operate in a manner that is conducive to sustainability in large ecosystems with multiple landowners and land-use models. Such as the Greater Kruger.
BUT BACK TO MY HEADLINE…
Last year I wrote to the good people of the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR), a collective of private reserves that forms part of the Greater Kruger. I know some of them personally – good people who want the best for conservation. I cautioned them that their fund-raising model needs to change. Trophy hunting constitutes a sizeable chunk of the revenue pie that is applied to manage the reserve and keep wildlife safe from poachers. They acknowledged my letter politely, but I got the sense that the day-to-day reality of the issues that they face prevent them from taking too seriously warnings of the coming storm.
My warning was not based on ignorance as to the amount of revenue raised by trophy hunting and the significantly lower eco-footprint per Dollar raised of trophy hunting versus that of photographic tourism. I am well aware of these realities.
Rather, my warning was that the rolling snowball of public rage at killing animals (particularly large-gene individuals) for fun and ego is growing in size and momentum every day, and the consequences will only increase. And social media and other technologies are empowering millions of new-age activists to pursue and persecute trophy hunters and others in the industry. Ask that dentist Walter Palmer if he would do it again.
I stressed to APNR management that their personal faith in the trophy hunting industry and their granular understanding of what it actually takes to manage, and keep safe from poachers, vast tracts of wildlands, are simply not deemed relevant in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, what is relevant is that the emotional tidal wave will quite simply swamp all of that, and reduce the APNR to tatters if public opinion is ignored. We now live in a world where accumulated opinion becomes fact, emotion trumps knowledge, and experience on the ground has a low ranking. Those are the cards that we have been dealt with. Thank you, Facebook. I am not suggesting that APNR management surrender and let public opinion and the hordes of ’emotional keyboard warriors’ (favourite hunter term) manage the Greater Kruger. Heaven forbid! I am suggesting that they make wise decisions about aspects of their model that do not seem to have longevity, and where the risk of brand destruction is high.
My parting comment was that surely they had no choice but to stop trophy hunting as soon as possible and seek alternative revenue-raising strategies. I expressed faith that the significant combined intellectual and financial muscle amongst the landowners and lodge owners (often separate entities/people) would come up with a plan.
Timbavati, one of the APNR reserves, recently increased the conservation levy paid by visiting tourists, and now cover 55% of their operational budget from this revenue source (the rest comes primarily from trophy hunting). Based on simple maths explained to me recently, increasing that levy from the current R368 to about R750 per person per night would remove the need for any trophy hunting. This arithmetic is of course subject to assumptions, such as demand staying the same, but in broad strokes this number holds water.
The 19 commercial lodges in Timbavati charge on average R8,275 per person per night, so the suggested increased conservation levy would still pale by comparison. So there is one workable solution for one particular reserve.
Would travel agents and tourists agree to this increase? Time will tell. This model of increasing conservation levies paid by photographic tourists will not work in all of the reserves incorporated into the APNR, because some simply do not have not enough commercial lodges relative to land size and management costs. Those reserves have to find another model – perhaps including funding by the passionate and powerful anti-hunting lobby?
Two community-owned reserves in the Greater Kruger (but outside the APNR) only have trophy hunting as a revenue source. The larger of the community-owned reserves with open fences to the Kruger (the 42,000 hectare Letaba Ranch) is now buried in chaos, after the trophy hunting operators left after being accused of unsustainable offtakes, baiting animals from the Kruger and of channelling little or no benefit to the community landowners. That reserve is now in a nosedive, with increasing illegal mining on the property, and poaching. Remember that there are no fences between this reserve and our beloved Kruger.
If the current situation persists (trophy hunting of Kruger animals in neighbouring properties), the probable result of the rising public anger and politicisation by opportunists could see the APNR and others being forced to disband and fences going back up. In that case some of the landowners will revert to livestock and crop farming and intense trophy hunting. After all, they own the land and can utilise it as they choose. That would be a catastrophe, and the knock-on effects could be significant – Kruger’s big westward expansion plans could wilt and die, and the tourism industry in that area would collapse – taking with it many jobs and trickle-down benefits.
Remember that by far the best way to protect species such as elephants, lions and wild dogs going forward is to secure more land for them to roam and that the vital east-west migration patterns are at stake. Kruger’s 10-year management plan does just that. Kruger has to expand, and its laudable ten-year plan to do so depends on this model of incorporating other land under one conservation footprint. The Greater Kruger (and APNR) is a majorly important part of the 10-year plan and shining light on the conservation landscape. It is a thriving working model that requires ongoing evolution, and this discussion is part of that process of constant change. We have to get this right.
The trophy hunting industry seems, by virtue of its behaviour, not capable of playing a constructive role in the future conservation landscape on the western border of the Kruger National Park. Plus, the increasing public awareness and assertiveness will most likely eventually take down any attempt to involve that industry. Decision-makers can ignore these realities, or they can undertake the hard task of finding alternative conservation-funding models.
Keep the passion
Also read: Pro hunter responds to our CEO regarding hunting in Greater Kruger
The South African Parliament has strongly criticised South African National Parks for signing a formal agreement on 5th December to ratify a long-standing cooperation arrangement between Kruger National Park and several neighbouring private and community game reserves, which together form an area known as “Greater Kruger”. The arrangement resulted in fences between Kruger and the reserves coming down and wildlife roaming freely over the expanded conservation area. Some of these private and community-owned reserves allow trophy hunting of wildlife that roams from Kruger into the reserves. This agreement is a vital aspect of Kruger’s 10 year management plan.
The Parliament session included presentations by several anti-hunting and community rights organisations. The Portfolio Chair announced the following towards the end of the session:
• That SANParks defied Parliament by going ahead with the signing of the Agreement. He is demanding sanctions against members in SANParks;
• That the signed Agreement not be recognised and be treated as “draft”;
• That the Agreement be presented to Parliament and via public hearings, and aspects such as trophy hunting and community and land claimant benefits be scrutinised.
MEDIA STATEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE STRONGLY CONDEMNS THE ACTIONS OF SANPARKS IN PROCEEDING TO SIGN THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN KRUGER NATIONAL PARK AND PRIVATE RESERVES DESPITE THE DIRECTIVES OF PARLIAMENT
Parliament, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 – The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs strongly condemns the actions of South African National Parks (SANParks) in proceeding to sign the cooperative agreement between the Kruger National Park and the Association of Private Nature Reserves despite the directives of Parliament.
In September last year, the committee requested SANParks to compile a concept paper on the sharing of benefits arising from the collapse of the fence in the western boundary of the Kruger National Park in the interest of broader society to be presented to the committee in October/November 2018. The committee wanted to engage with SANParks and subsequently hold public hearings to determine the best way forward. Despite this clear committee resolution which was subsequently publicly communicated through a media statement, SANParks defied Parliament and went ahead with the signing of the cooperative agreement even after it was brought to their attention by the chairperson of the committee that by proceeding with that action, they will be in breach of both the committee and the National Assembly resolutions on this matter.
The committee is appalled by the conduct of SANParks and believes that there should be consequences for defying Parliament. The committee will engage with the Minister of Environmental Affairs to ensure that an appropriate sanction is taken in this regard.
The committee has also requested SANParks to once more prepare a comprehensive presentation on the benefit sharing to the communities, arising from the collapse of the fence in the western boundary of the Kruger National Park. The presentation must also include the current hunting protocols that allow hunting of animals in the Greater Kruger National Park as a result of an open system.
ISSUED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMUNICATION SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, MR PHILLEMON MAPULANE.
I’ve been asked to respond to the following remarks that came up in a discussion following the broadcast of our latest Documentary, Birth of a Pride:
The remarks:
“He is exaggerating the extent to which hunting had anything to do with the near absence of lions and the extent to which his taking over the area contributed to the lions coming back again. The whole of northern Botswana has very unstable rainfall (like Namibia) – if it is dry (or flooded) in an area for a couple of years the herbivores move out and the predators go with them. When it rains (or the floods are lower) they all come back again – nothing at all to do with human interventions. They were certainly involved in moving SA rhinos to the Okavango, an intervention which allowed Great Plains and Wilderness to market themselves as big 5 destinations. They are not fake conservationists, but their approach to hunting and other forms of ultilisation is driven by a very narrow focus on the bottom line. Joubert is on record as saying that he would give a job to every hunting employee post ban, in reality he gave no jobs to anyone and his company did not take over any of the vacated hunting concessions.”
My response is detailed but is as follows:
Actually we lived in the area permanently through the hunting era unlike so many of the old ‘Hunters Africa’ hunters and friends of mine, who probably spent three or four months in the bush each year, and would probably not be considered ‘reliable witnesses’, in particular, they were doing the shooting. There will always be different opinions of how to USE the land and wildlife and the South African policy is pro-hunting, while the Kenyan, Uganda, and Botswana one is of no hunting. So the differences will always be there, and I have learned that trying to convince someone who has firm views one way or another is probably not going to be successful, but I can speak to some of the details you mention, just for accuracy for those who may be interested.
The demise of wildlife in what was once called Area 6 and now NG 16 is very clear. I wrote a paper on this for government in 1993 and lion researchers – Drs Winterbachs – similarly presented the results of zero recovery from excessive lion hunting in 2004 at the Lion Symposium. So the science is irrefutable. I personally saw hunters shoot the last 6 of 11 tsessebe, with sable antelope being shot for ration meat and fed to hunters’ dogs at home in Kasane. Elephants were wild and attacked Beverly and me nine times during that era as a result of being persecuted or wounded by hunters.
Once I may have been one voice in dozens at these symposiums, who felt that big cats were suffering from over-hunting. Today there are very few scientists that disagree. There are parallels to the Climate Change debate. People can simply deny it over and over – but it doesn’t go away.
With regard to the Selinda ecosystem, rainfall and trophy hunter behaviour
To suggest that an area in an open ecosystem like northern Botswana can collapse because of a drought is incorrect, especially along a permanent river system like the Linyanti! If anything it should be even more concentrated with wildlife as pools dry up in the interior and the Spillway, but with water remaining in the river. Droughts happen all the time and unless the wildlife is dying up against fences in closed systems, they simply follow the water and adapt most of the time. Some local resident species don’t move, but our study showed that even resident species like impala moved when they had to.
In fact, this dry cycle you talk of is exactly when most of the hunting took place, when the tectonic shift caused the drying up of the Savute channel, starting in 1981. As that happened, large numbers of wildlife flocked to the rivers – and were shot.
I have 15 years of detailed logs of hunters shooting madly from vehicles – at night, on baits – almost in a frenzy. And today, many of those same hunters tell me it was a crazy time of abundance and excess. Lions were shot down to such low numbers that male cubs started breeding with their mothers and sisters, and were then shot. New sub adult male cubs mated with their sisters, mothers and grandmothers just because hunters had shot out every breeding male in the region and beyond. Again, I documented this, as well as the rash of deformities the subsequent cubs were born with. Then it collapsed. So the notion that when it floods again, ’they all come back’ is a wonderful idea but not realistic if you are shooting them all, year in and year out.
By chance, when we took the concession over, the rains brought water into the Selinda Spillway again. We have annual game counts and official censuses on that recovery process. But there are still have species here that were very highly desired by hunters, and once occurred in good numbers but that have simply not recovered. In over 136,000 ha we have fewer than 400 zebras, and wildebeest are half that number. It took years for hyena numbers to recover, and they usually do really well in dry conditions. But as I recall, one hunter who had just slaughtered nine of them in one moment around a den (1997) answered me when I asked how he decided which to shoot, males or females (only males were legal even then): “Oh, hyenas are both male and female, they are hermaphrodites!”. This was 1997 I see in my notes – not 1897!! And this was by a licensed professional hunter.
There was no science behind what to kill, how many and when to stop. It was the Wild West, and these declines are just too easy to blame on a dry cycle. The recovery, as it is, is also not to be accredited to a wet cycle, but on sane wildlife management. At the time, by the way, wildlife advisors to Chief Tawana came to me to tell me what used to happen 100 years ago, and even then there was basic science on what not to shoot and kill, as hunters accounted for their kills, and if the chief noticed fewer of a certain species, or the stories were about how much harder it was to find something, he would place a ban on either that species or on all hunting. Those representatives asked me to help take their call for a ban to government.
I won’t go into the detail of what I saw and recorded in this post, but I can say that if there is a solid record of what happened in that area at all over a 30-year period of time, it lies in my notes, footage and photographs in my office, not in the rhetoric in the bars of Maun. That humans could behave like that was a disgrace, to be frank. Dragging a squealing and gutted duiker across the ground to a tree where it was wired up (still alive) to attract a leopard to shoot after dark (also illegal), diesel used to pour into warthog holes where a wounded leopard had run, and then set on fire; over 200 rounds of gunfire shot into a palm island where they thought a male lion was holed up, but ended up shooting his pride and eight cubs, and then later, setting the palm alight to “smoke the sucker out” – are all testaments to the atrocities. The male was wounded so couldn’t escape and burned to death, but the hunters logged it up to an accident and went on to shoot his brother. I saw all these things and heard the hunters tell the stories with no remorse afterwards around the campfires. Well known local professional hunters were nicknamed ‘Matches xyz’ and ‘Fireman xyz’ for burning the swamp to attract the rare sitatunga to kill, amongst other unsavoury hunts.
Buffalo herds, science tells us, are often indicator species and when you see them in their ideal numbers of around 250 in a herd, there is a balance. Larger herds in this habitat indicate high predator numbers (so their behavioural response is to band together as a defence). But very low herd sizes indicate massive human persecution (where the better defence is to disband and hide in the thickets). Selinda, between 1993 and 2010 had average herd sizes of 15-20. We have just taken over an ex-hunting area in Zimbabwe where the hunting was very heavy, and the herds are small there as well. In Duba Plains or places like Kidepo in Uganda those herd sizes are well over 1,000 – not because of habitat or drought, but because of high lion numbers. Anyone who denies that hunting, and in particular heavy or overhunting has no effect, is not being logical or totally truthful with themselves.
On the rhinos, we don’t actually market rhinos in Great Plains Conservation and with regards to this area, Selinda, we actually refused to move rhinos here, partly because it may be seen as us providing some commercial advantage to ourselves, which would probably be fine given that with our partners we raised the full $5m and brought them in, but I was always determined to “give” them as a gift to Botswana and the people of Botswana. If Wilderness Safaris do indeed market rhinos, it is not from the batch of nearly 100 we have donated to the nation of Botswana, but something they may have done themselves and nothing to do with me or marketed or condoned by me.
Besides that, frankly, I don’t think there are many people who would book a ticket to come to Africa to see rhino. Studies show rhinos to be quite low down the list of requested species (in Kruger), and below giraffe, for example. Booking a ticket to come and shoot a rhino – as is possible in South Africa or Namibia, is another thing, however, and studies also show that the more endangered a species the more desirable it becomes as a hunting ‘trophy’. If the price to shoot an endangered or threatened species is higher than the ‘yet to be threatened’ species, then my mind questions the conservation ethics of those hunters.
With regards to employment and other benefits
Selinda was a hunting area when I purchased it, so it came with its financial records, and I was able to analyse the different benefits to the two opposing management styles. It turns out that, where 12 semi-permanent staff were hired before, we now hire 140. (On the day we took over, 100% of our staff were, therefore, ex-hunting staff so in fact that alone refutes the statement that we didn’t hire any ex-hunting staff in itself.)
Those (all ex-hunting staff,) under the previous management, were hired for five months of the year and let go every year, so no 5, 10 or 15-year gratuities were ever paid to them. In addition very few advanced their careers. The most senior was a tracker earning about $1.60 a day. Today we have those same cooks and trackers as managers, as guides, as PR and HR staff in our offices, earning more than ten to twenty times that. And more relevant to me is that many have left us and moved into other sectors, in banks and businesses, and started their own companies. Airline tickets, curios, food supplies, fuel transport, etc. etc. all developed as a result of this conversion from hunting to photographic tourism.
In converting Selinda from a marginal area for hunting to one of the most productive wildlife areas in Africa, it has generated jobs and businesses around it for local communities. In fact, the net benefit (in a paper I did about six years ago), to the nation is 2,500% better than it is for trophy hunting! Jobs, taxes, skills, costs are all included, and we do that by inviting fewer than 50 people a day into the area, so the environmental footprint is minimal, and we do it without killing an animal. An analysis of benefit to communities is interesting because, by way of example, our guests have left behind around $1M in donations over the past few years, and a lot of that goes to providing communities with solar lanterns and a range of projects, We are about to start the Great Plains Academy to prepare some of the forgotten community members for higher education. This was not going on before.
By the way, around 15% of our current staff are ex-hunting employees and actually finding staff who were once hunting workers is getting even harder as time passes, as they are either absorbed into the tourism market or retire. We are constantly looking for staff to hire. Obviously, we have to train them and they need to be willing to be trained, but we are growing and will probably see the need for another 50 people to join us in the short term (18 months). We hire about 300 people in Botswana alone and over 660 across the group. According to the UN benefit proportion of breadwinners:dependants that means we put food in the mouths of over 4,000 each day. And we do it without shooting sable or elephants as ration meat. So the claim of us not hiring a single person is factually incorrect.
With regard to former hunting concessions
The allocation and management of retired hunting concessions has been a disappointment to all of us, and some areas have actually been gazetted as part of the National Park scheme, so they actually aren’t available for me or others to take over, even if we wanted to. But some of these concessions came up for tender two years ago, and we were the only company to apply to take over all eleven of these old hunting concessions. Unfortunately, that process was stopped for some internal government reason (possibly to do a survey on what could be incorporated into National Parks). We can hardly be blamed for not taking over an area that was not awarded at all, let alone to us.
Finally,
The debate on whether to hunt or not is not really relevant anymore as we stare down the barrel of 8 billion people on Earth and over 1 billion head of livestock in East Africa alone – and massive disenfranchisement across Africa, and within our communities. This is a real threat to wildlife. The answer, in my humble opinion, is in education, creating real benefits (like the Selinda model does), and in being respectful to those people who need us to drive the increase in their basic wealth and to fight poverty and corruption. The Okavango and the few wild places like it in the world deserve complete protection. The people who look after it deserve our respect. Dumping a rotting elephant carcass at their villages from time to time is not respectful or of real benefit to the poor. It may feed people today, but it doesn’t lift them up to that place where they can feed themselves. Together we need to tackle the far bigger problems with knowledge and passion and the deeper insight that local communities bring from generations of living side by side with nature, something we in the Western mindset are losing daily.
Kind regards,
Dereck
Endemic in tropical areas of Africa and Central and South America, yellow fever is an acute viral haemorrhagic disease spread by the bite of infected female mosquitoes. The ‘yellow’ in the name refers to jaundice that affects some patients. Symptoms include fever, headache, jaundice, muscle pain, nausea, vomiting and fatigue.
According to the World Health Organization, only four African countries have seen cases of yellow fever in 2018, although many more countries carry a risk warning (see map below). The four countries are Central African Republic (one new suspected case in December 2018); Democratic Republic of Congo (15 cases confirmed since the beginning of 2018); South Sudan (one confirmed and two suspected cases in December 2018) and an epidemic in Nigeria.
An outbreak of yellow fever in Nigeria prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA to issue a Level 1 Travel Alert (Practise Usual Precautions), saying that “Travellers going to Nigeria should receive vaccination against yellow fever at least ten days before travel and should take steps to prevent mosquito bites while there”.
According to the Nigeria Centers for Disease Control (NCDC), the outbreak of yellow fever began in September 2017. Since then, it has spread throughout the country. By the end of November 2018, 14 Nigerian states had reported more than 55 laboratory-confirmed cases of yellow fever; all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory had reported more than 3,500 suspected cases and several deaths; and Edo State had reported a large number of suspected cases, several of which had been laboratory-confirmed as yellow fever. No new cases have been confirmed as of the end of December 2018.
Vaccination is the most important means of preventing yellow fever. WHO states that just one dose of the vaccine will provide life-long protection. Booster doses and new vaccination certificates used to be recommended every ten years for people who continued to be at risk of the infection, but this is no longer necessary in most cases – however, some countries do recommend the booster dose if travelling to areas that have a high risk of exposure to the virus, such as Nigeria.
“Yellow fever is prevented by an extremely effective vaccine, which is safe and affordable,” says WHO. “A single dose of yellow fever vaccine is sufficient to confer sustained immunity and life-long protection against yellow fever disease. A booster dose of the vaccine is not needed. The vaccine provides effective immunity within ten days for 80-100% of people vaccinated, and within 30 days for more than 99% of people vaccinated.”
However, the vaccination is not recommended for the following individuals:
• children below nine months of age;
• pregnant woman;
• people with severe allergies to egg protein;
• and people with cancer or compromised immune systems (due to symptomatic HIV/AIDS or other causes), or who have a disorder with their thymus gland.
According to WHO, there have been rare reports of severe side effects from the yellow fever vaccine. These severe ‘adverse events following immunisation’ (AEFI) provokes an attack on the liver, the kidneys or the nervous system.
The risk of AEFI is higher for people over 60 years of age and anyone with weakened immune systems due to symptomatic HIV/AIDS or other causes, or who have a thymus disorder. However, the risk of these severe side effects is low, occurring about one in every 100,000 doses of vaccine recipients.
If travelling in high-risk areas, various precautions against mosquito bites that can be taken include:
• using insect repellent;
• covering legs and arms with long-sleeved shirts and trousers;
• sleeping under a mosquito net in an air-conditioned or well-screened room;
• and avoiding standing in water that may breed mosquitoes.
Also read: Understanding malaria.
Press release from Wild Tomorrow Fund
The Wild Tomorrow Fund has announced the discovery of a new spider species, the Phinda button spider, in the critically endangered sand forest of South Africa. Closely related to the infamous North American black widow, the Australian redback, and the katipo from New Zealand, it is the first new widow spider to be discovered in almost three decades, and potentially the largest widow spider in the world.
There are 31 recognised species of widow spiders globally, with eight recorded on the African continent. This discovery, once officially described, will make it the ninth widow spider on the African continent (known locally in South Africa as the button spider).
Barbara Wright, who works for Wild Tomorrow Fund in South Africa, was passionate about proving this spider is a new species.
“In the arachniverse, this is a big discovery”, said Wright. “To find a spider in a critically endangered habitat really highlights the importance of its protection. The Phinda button spider is a red flag to raise awareness of the importance of habitat protection”.
Wright worked together with Dr Ian Engelbrecht, an arachnid expert with the Department of Zoology and Entomology at the University of Pretoria, to confirm the uniqueness of this large, red-backed widow spider, first spotted at Tembe Elephant Park on the northeast coast of South Africa in 2014.
“When Barbara showed me the first photo, I literally could not believe this spider existed and that it was unknown to science” said Dr Engelbrecht. “Discovering a new species is always exciting, but the feeling of finding something so spectacular and unique is indescribable. Widow and button spiders are medically important for humans, so it’s important to understand their diversity.”
In order to collect enough data to confirm this spider is new to science, Wright searched for additional specimens in the sand forest of andBeyond Phinda Private Game Reserve, finding females with the help of the conservation team. She then spent two years raising spiderlings, while waiting for male specimens to hatch and mature.
It was the charismatic bright red markings on the female’s back and underbelly that set the Phinda button spider apart from other African button spiders, which either have markings on their back or their underside, but never both.
Not only is the spider potentially the largest widow spider in the world, it also creates a unique purple-coloured egg sac and lives specifically in a critically endangered South African forest type called a sand forest. This forest is unique to South Africa and southern Mozambique (where it is known locally as Licuáti Forest), and is an important habitat for many endemic plants and animals, including the endangered suni antelope.
“The discovery of this new species of widow spider in South Africa’s most critically endangered ecosystem, the sand forest, underlines the importance of habitat protection. By saving the habitat, we are saving species potentially not yet discovered,” said Wild Tomorrow Fund’s Executive Director, John Steward.
A scientific name has been chosen for the spider and will be released once the species description has been published (currently under review).
ABOUT WILD TOMORROW FUND
Wild Tomorrow Fund is a registered wildlife conservation charity both in the United States and South Africa. Wild Tomorrow Fund is dedicated to the protection of threatened and endangered species and the habitats they depend on for survival. Wild Tomorrow Fund works on the ground in southern Africa with a vision for a world in which wildlife habitats are expanded and protected, and where existing reserves have the resources needed to keep their animals safe.
“Listen”, says Jean, cupping his ears and staring at the distant horizon. I listened. Nothing, except for that constant muuuuuh muuuuh? muuuuh coming from the wildebeest herds dotted around us, and the constant buzz of birds and insects. Still I listened. Nothing. I looked at him and raised a quizzical eyebrow.
“Exactly”, he said.
You see, the Serengeti can be pretty busy during the Great Wildebeest Migration season, and yet we had been on safari for days without hearing a vehicle, or seeing another soul. This was no private concession; we were in Serengeti National Park. On one occasion, we had watched a pride of lions hunting a herd of cranky old male buffaloes (more about this later) – no other tourists present, despite this being prime tourism season. Huh?
It turns out that the Serengeti is VAST, and there are massive swathes of wilderness that are far away from the roads, and therefore see no tourism traffic. I have seen this during several flights over the Serengeti over the years – miles and miles of open savannah dotted with rocky kopjes and woodland, and rivers snaking through – but no roads or tourists in sight.
I was on a walking and fly-camping safari in these Serengeti wilderness areas. Heaven on Earth.
When I say ‘fly-camping’, I don’t mean dig your own pit latrine, divine water and find food. I mean comfortable, rustic tented camps that are either seasonal (timed according to the migration movements) or they are set up specifically for your walking safari. And there is a team behind the scenes to cater to your needs while you make the most of being in paradise.
One late morning, after walking since sunrise, the rising heat and aching feet drove us to a huge fig tree clawing out a living on a rocky kopje with views across the simmering savannah. We clambered up the rocks, to find chicken wraps, chocolate brownies, cool drinks and mattresses set out in the cool shade. Say no more.
Four hours of feasting and snoozing later, we walked the last hour to our camp for the night. It was just us on that rock, with regular visits from white-headed barbets and Fischer’s lovebirds as they plundered the ripe figs overhead. Some in our party spent that time reading books or Kindles, some chatted quietly, and others like me simply hit the snooze button. Could life be better?
About those lions. So, we were walking across a slope overlooking a riverine drainage line below us, when we first heard their faint grunted contact calls. Then we saw a few svelte lionesses slinking through the dense riverine shrubs, totally focused on the hunt. We sat in the shade of a small tree a few hundred metres away and waited for the drama to unfold. The lionesses ignored us like we were wallpaper, though they did glance at us now and then, possibly to make sure we would not spoil the hunt. Sharp eyes amongst us picked up the dark shapes of several huge male buffaloes lurking amongst the shrubs, seemingly oblivious to the advancing threat. We held our collective breaths.
Suddenly the silence was broken as the buff boys picked up the scent of the lions and got the hell out of there, joined by several others that we had not realised were mud-wallowing a short distance away. The cantankerous buggers made their indignant departure (happily in the opposite direction to us) amidst snorts, farts and bellows. And the lions simply vanished. Gone.
An hour later, while walking up a small valley that would crest with a view over our next camp, we gaped in wonderment at the sheer number of animals just across the valley, a few hundred metres away – good numbers of elephant, giraffe, zebra, wildebeest, topi, hartebeest and warthog. In fact, I cannot remember one time during the 5-day walking safari that we could not see or hear large numbers of animals all around us. At times when walking across the flat grassy savanna, the herds of wildebeest and zebras seemed to part ahead of us and reform behind us, like a magnetic force field.
One morning I was enjoying a quiet moment alone on the fringes of the camp, mug of coffee in hand and watching a stunning red-cheeked cordon-bleu waxbill scratch around for grass seeds when a daring side-striped jackal appeared out of nowhere and dived into the grass 10 metres from me. He emerged with a tiny Thomson’s gazelle fawn in his mouth, and headed off, dragging the screaming young thing with him. In a flash, the fawn’s mom appeared and attacked the jackal with diminutive determination. After a few head-butts in the rear-end (those sharp little horns must have hurt), the jackal dropped his intended breakfast and ran for the hills. Mom quickly escorted her kid away, shaken but not stirred.
Life on a walking safari is made of these moments of magic, these packets of exhilaration and solitude. This is the “slow safari”, the true essence of journeying.
These walking safaris are not the brief mid-morning stroll after your game drive, offered by many traditional safari lodges. Instead, the goal is to cover a good amount of ground and to explore the vastness beyond the usual tourist haunts. And so, you should be prepared to spend most of each morning walking, and possibly part of each afternoon. The pace is slow, and the terrain easy, but you should be walking fit.
This is not a route march, so every excuse to stop is taken – from bird-watching to wondering at a spider packing up her dew-drenched web after a night of hunting. And watching lions hunt buffaloes.
You will carry your water and personal items for that walk, but of course, your kit bag and heavier items are left in camp, to be transported to the next camp location. Blisters are the norm, and you will get hot and uncomfortable at times. And did I mention the tsetse flies?
There is a game-drive vehicle-based at camp, and so game drives are possible during walking safaris – but the true essence of walking safaris is to, well, walk.
Indeed, Serengeti walking safaris are for those who want more than the traditional lodge and game drive arrangement. That said, a combo of the two is just perfect. After this fantastic soul-food walking safari, I headed off to enjoy a more traditional lodge-based safari, also in the Serengeti. Which did I prefer? That is like asking whether you prefer the main course or dessert. The question is what you want, versus what you need. The answer lies within you…
Serengeti National Park, in northern Tanzania, comprises of almost 15,000 km² of predominantly rolling grasslands, savannah, riverine forest and woodlands.
This vast landscape forms part of the unfenced Mara-Serengeti ecosystem that spans Kenya and Tanzania and plays host to the Great Wildebeest Migration and offers regular sightings of the Big Five (lion, leopard, elephant, buffalo and rhino) as well as zebras, crocodiles, hippos, giraffes, various antelope species and good populations of cheetahs and hyenas, as well as smaller species such as serval and bat-eared fox.
The name Serengeti is derived from the Maa word siringet, which refers to a “place where the land runs forever.”
Simon was a guest of Wayo Africa, who offer several activities across northern Tanzania, from canoeing to biking and walking. Using expert guides and unique access, they focus on remote areas within the iconic Serengeti, Ngorongoro, Lake Manyara and Arusha regions. With only 30% of the Serengeti currently accessed by tourists, they prefer to operate in the unexplored regions of the park, from their various permanent and mobile camps that are located seasonally to either follow the Great Wildebeest Migration or to cater to specific client requests. The camps are simple and very comfortable, evoking a feeling of adventure – from a bygone safari era. They are termed “green camps” because every effort is made to tread lightly – making use of solar power, gathered rainwater and compostable toilets.
The three camps range from ‘classic’ camps (canvas bell tents) to ‘walking’ camps (canvas dome tents) and ‘trekking’ camps (ultra-lightweight nylon tents).
Naabi Green Camp is located under a stand of large Acacia tortilis trees in a beautiful quiet area at the foot of the giant Nabi rocky kopje in the southern Serengeti short grass plains, south of the prime Seronera area and close to the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. The camp is open from December to March each year, to catch the Great Wildebeest Migration as it moves through this area, but also well-placed to be able to head further south, west or north to wherever the migration is moving.
Trekking Safari Camp and Serengeti Walking Camp provide access to remote parts of the Serengeti, following the migrating herds. The lightweight mobile camps have comfortable mattresses and mosquito mesh sides/tops.
For camps & lodges at the best prices and our famous ready-made safari packages, log into our app. If you do not yet have our app see the instructions below this story.
Simon Espley is an African of the digital tribe, a chartered accountant and CEO of Africa Geographic. His travels in Africa are in search of wilderness, real people with interesting stories and elusive birds. He lives in South Africa with his wife Lizz and two Jack Russells, and when not travelling or working, he will be on his mountain bike somewhere out there. His motto is ‘Live for now, have fun, be good, tread lightly and respect others. And embrace change.’
Several hours flight due east of mainland Africa a rugged island, covered in towering green mountains and home to wild stretches of coastline, rises from the ocean floor. From afar it looks positively Jurassic, an Eden in every sense of the word. It is only when you draw near that you see the tell-tale signs of humanity carving out an existence in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
“Welcome to Seychelles. Enjoy your stay!” the immigration officer said cheerfully before waving us through. We could barely contain our excitement, we had arrived in Seychelles!
The sun was shining and the tropical humidity drenched us to the bone in minutes. Our hire car was waiting for us and we quickly navigated our way into the sparse afternoon traffic heading for Anse a la Mouche located in the southwest of the island. We had booked an incredibly cute wooden bungalow located in a lush piece of forest just a stone throw from the beach.
By the time we had found it (we got lost a few times) the sun was fighting its last battle. We strolled over to the nearby beach and sat side by side as we watched a mesmerising display of colours in the sky.
We had given ourselves four days to explore all of Mahé – the largest island in the Seychelles archipelago – had to offer… and there was plenty on offer.
From lazy drives on winding roads traversing the island to impromptu picnics on hidden away beaches to grabbing drinks in Beau Vallon to hiking in Morne Seychellois National Park returning just in time to chase another sunset. It was magical.
The stretch of coastline along Port Launay Marine National Park was especially wild. A non-descript little track led to a rocky outcrop from where we had the most incredible view overlooking a beach with towering green mountains in the background and white caps of breaking waves hungrily advancing on the shores down below.
Like I said – Jurassic in every sense of the word.
Mahé was a hiker’s paradise with an impressive network of trails for all degrees of fitness and sense of adventure. The 30-minute scramble up to the Morne Blanc viewpoint was well worth the exertion and the 45-minute trail to Anse Major in the northeast of the island was simply put: spectacular.
It was an easy path that took us high above the tantalising azure waters before dropping down to an incredibly secluded little bay. With a little bit of sadness, we were forced to leave many more trails unexplored.
The days merged into one and before knew it our time had come to an end. On our last day on the island, we headed for Victoria, the laid-back capital city of Seychelles. While not the most attractive of cities, it exuded just enough charm with its wide boulevards, bustling markets and old colonial architecture to keep us hooked for a few hours.
Though, with all the concrete around the heat was punishing. We needed a quick escape.
“Shall we go into the Natural History Museum babe?” I suggested hopefully. Surely, they would have some air-conditioning. Jorien agreed. And yes, they did have aircon.
After spending an hour learning about volcanic rocks we braved the streets of Victoria again. We wandered over to the famous cast-iron clock tower on Independence Avenue, erected in 1903, then onto the Victoria Market where an explosion of colours and smells hit us. We got a takeaway octopus curry from a local joint. Seychellois cuisine was extremely tasty!
For many travellers, Mahé is but a stepping stone to one or more of the other 115 islands that make up the archipelago, but as far as rugged beauty is concerned you are not going to find much better than Mahé… so give it a chance!
Research by respected scientist P.E. Stander reveals that the desert-adapted lions eking out a living on the harsh northwest coast of Namibia’s Skeleton Coast National Park (SCNP) are again specialising in hunting seals and coastal birds such as flamingos and cormorants, after an absence of 35 years. They have also been seen feeding on brown hyenas and beached pilot whale carcasses.
Lions disappeared from this hostile, remote coast during the 1980s due to intense human-lion conflict, but since 2002 have gradually re-colonised the area after a successful community-based conservancy model was implemented, and the growth of tourism in the area.
These lions have only recently, after a period of 35 years, again started to utilise the rich marine resources, with as much as 79% of their diet in the past 18 months consisting of seals and birds.
The last SCNP lions were killed off by 1990, shot or poisoned by livestock farmers on the fringes of this narrow national park. Then, in 1997, a group of 20 desert-adapted lions was discovered in the mountainous eastern edge of the Namib Desert.
The population has since gradually recovered, thanks to periods of good rains, growing Namibian tourism industry and a successful program to generate benefits for local communities from the tourism industry, although it is still beset with issues relating to human-wildlife conflict and trophy hunting.
During the poor 2017 rainfall period, lions living inland of the coastal area started visiting the coastal area to utilise the marine resources.
Three young lionesses, orphaned at the age of less than one year when their mother died of natural causes, found their way across the dunes to an island in a fresh-water spring on the coast and survived by hunting cormorants, flamingos and teals. They then moved on to scavenging off seal carcasses, and then to hunting and killing juvenile and then adult seals.
Stander, P. (2019). Lions (Panthera leo) specialising on a marine diet in the Skeleton Coast Park, Namibia. Namibian Journal Of Environment, 3, Section A, 1-10. Retrieved from https://www.nje.org.na/index.php/nje/article/view/volume3-stander
Why choose us to craft your safari?
Handcrafted experiential safaris since 1991.
Travel in Africa is about knowing when and where to go, and with whom. A few weeks too early/late or a few kilometres off course, and you could miss the greatest show on Earth. And wouldn’t that be a pity?
Trust & Safety
Guest payments are processed through Flywire, a leading international payment gateway known for its high safety and security standards. Also, we are members of SATSA, who attest to our integrity, legal compliance, and financial stability.
Make a difference
We donate a portion of the revenue from every safari sold to carefully selected conservation projects that make a significant difference at ground level.
YOUR safari choice does make a difference - thank you!
