By Claudiu Popa, CISSP CIPP PMP CISA CRISC. Chairman and Co-Founder, The Knowledge Flow Cyber Safety Foundation
I have submitted a letter to the editor of the Guardian in response to the following article which reports on an open letter signed by a group of "leading Scientists and Conservationists". (see link below) The letter attacks what the writer has termed "poorly conceived hunting legislation":
www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/13/poorly-conceived-trophy-hunting-bill-puts-wildlife-at-risk-uk-government-told
A proposed UK ban on trophy hunting imports risks undermining the conservation of rhinos, elephants and other endangered wildlife, according to a group of leading scientists and conservationists who said African perspectives have been ignored by the government.
On Friday, MPs will vote on a private member’s bill to ban trophy hunting imports while, separately, the government is preparing legislation to ban hunting trophies from thousands of species, including lions, leopards, rhinos, elephants and polar bears.
In an open letter seen by the Guardian and signed by more than 100 scientists, conservationists and African community leaders, the group said the ban is poorly conceived and threatens to reverse conservation gains and undermine the livelihoods of rural communities across sub-Saharan African.
It urged the UK government to implement a smart ban that incentivises good practice by prohibiting trophies from “canned” hunting operations, where captive-bred animals are shot at close range, or those that fail to share revenues with local communities.
By allowing trophy hunting to continue within the UK, where hunters can pay thousands of pounds to shoot deer, the group said the government was opening itself up to accusations of hypocrisy by banning imports from countries with impressive conservation records such as Namibia and Botswana, where trophy hunting is used to fund conservation.
“We understand (and many of us share) the public’s instinctive dislike of trophy hunting. However, the reality is that no alternative land use has yet been developed which equally protects the wildlife and habitats found in these vital landscapes while also generating valuable revenues for local communities. Indeed, where trophy hunting has been subjected to bans, wildlife has often suffered, and conflict with communities has increased,” the letter states.
“This is not to claim that trophy hunting is perfect. It is beset with a variety of problems, including but not limited to the inequitable sharing of hunting revenues, inappropriate or poorly observed quotas, corruption and inadequate regulation. But tourism is not a perfect industry either,” it continues.
Signatories include the heads of leading conservation NGOs such as Save the Rhino International, academics from the University of Oxford and African community leaders.
The IUCN, which oversees the red list of endangered species, established that trophy hunting has supported the conservation of several species, including rhinos, African elephants and markhors, the national animal of Pakistan, and a UN report said that trophy hunting is helping to protect millions of acres of wildlife habitat in sub-Saharan Africa. Community leaders have previously criticised British celebrities for calling for a ban on trophy hunting, naming Ricky Gervais, Joanna Lumley and Piers Morgan in July 2020.
Supporters of the trophy hunting import ban argue it will help protect endangered species and end a cruel practice. The prime minister, Boris Johnson, has called trophy hunting a “disgusting trade” and his father, Stanley, has campaigned in favour of the ban.
But Leslé Jansen, CEO of the NGO Resource Africa, who signed the letter, said the legislation will harm conservation and African livelihoods and undermine the rights of rural communities to use their natural resources.
Supporters of the ban say it will help protect endangered species as well as ending a cruel practice. Photograph: Johnny Armstead/Alamy
“We have voiced these concerns many times, and have attempted to engage in the process. Why are Africans’ rights, views and conservation successes continually ignored?” she said.
Dr Rodgers Lubilo, chairman of a community leaders network covering Angola, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, called on the government to reconsider the proposed legislation.
“We have time and again told our international friends that trophy hunting is part of local rural livelihoods, and we will continue to pursue sustainable use of wildlife for generations to come,” he said.
Dr Amy Dickman, a professor of conservation at Oxford University who signed the letter, said: “We shouldn’t base policy on what comedians and celebrities think. We should be basing it on expertise and on local opinion. Those are the two things that count the most.
“Ricky Gervais has 14 million followers on Twitter, whereas the African Community Leaders Network, when they post about this, tend to get zero engagement. The people most affected have the smallest platforms,” she said.
A Defra spokesperson said: “We are bringing forward ambitious legislation to ban the import of hunting trophies from thousands of species.
“This will be one of the toughest bans in the world, and goes beyond our manifesto commitment, meaning we will be leading the way in protecting endangered animals and helping to strengthen and support long-term conservation.”
Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features
.
What a spectacular rejection of common decency it must have taken for this clique of "scientists and conservationists" to sign a letter in favor of cruelty to animals!
The hyperbolic claims of a group of misguided officials and corrupt functionaries even managed to bamboozle "African community leaders", striping their people of dignity and respect in the rich tradition of neo-colonialism and greed.
From the disgraceful distortion of local people's interests to the shameless public pandering for undeserved pity, to lobbying the UK government in favour of commercial interests (read: safari hunters, whose definition of 'conservation' is an offensive aberration designed to confuse the public about the differences between industrial-scale poaching, bushmeat hunting, subsistence hunting, defensive hunting, trophy hunting and regulated hunting), this is all sadly reminiscent of the situation that describes the embarrassing Canadian seal hunt, whose persistence in spite of all rational argument is a testament to the influence of histrionic appeals to authorities.
For these 100 signatories to stoop so low as to relinquish all claims to professional integrity and use misdirection by suggesting that the real opponents here are comedians and celebrities instead of human dignity and basic animal rights, is to irreversibly abandon any claim to respectability and credibility. The world's effort to criminalize trophy hunting has been described as "poorly conceived", but a doctrine of sadism could indeed only be concocted by those who have in fact been "poorly conceived". If the supporters of such carnage are indeed endowed with professional qualifications, their calls to stop resisting and just embrace the killing categorically disqualify them from taking part in any exercise requiring critical thinking, let alone patronizing the public on behalf of private interests.
This ragtag posse of incentivized individuals claims moral authority, a warrant, a mandate to tell people they are wrong in protecting innocent fauna from psychopaths based solely on non-founded claims and shockingly contrived affirmations. Obnoxious and toxic claims that the first world's "corruption by abundance" and "suburban comforts" act as a distorting lens on the real pleas of animals - like Cecil the Lion, who apparently had it coming - and should be extinguished for sport so that so many others can hope be spared by the insatiable demand fueled by trophy buyers. Lest we forget the silent plea of the impotent foreign millionaire with delusional aspirations of "keeping the yang up" with powdered tusk, leopard claw, tiger bone, rhino horn and liquefied ivory. Such misinformation and conspiratorial thinking leads to countless human crimes against decency, from the very visible rhino and elephant hunts to the silent tragedies of sharks and seahorses, but apathy and the bystander effect play as much of a role as the crime itself. Belittling people with childish and romantic accusations of anthropomorphizing animals is not going to eliminate the common sense reality that trophy hunting is about satisfying the base instincts of sad, broken people who need to kill or amass the proceeds of slaughter. No son of Trump's will ever convincingly make a rational point, least of to claim that by cowardly brandishing the severed tail of a slaughtered elephant he was in fact the courageous savior of a defenseless African village. Trophy hunting and poaching are neither about defense nor subsistence hunting. It's not about anecdotal criminal activity but about legitimizing large scale, recreational killing with the complicity of authorities that turn a blind eye to the suffering of creatures genetically similar to their abusers. Using local farmers and starving populations as negotiating pawns in the argument that an illegal market is unsustainable is bunk because such a market reduces the surface measurably as opposed to opening it up immeasurably. For rational beings to side with criminals by saying that it is best to embrace their practices than to suffer at their hands is pure nonsense, but it has a long tradition in the colonialist mindset.
Few things can make me blacklist an animal conservation charity, but the use of fear, uncertainty and doubt to deceive and bully the public into supporting the morally bankrupt, "shoot to conserve" mindset is indeed an affront to the most basic sensibilities of any thinking person. Not that anyone will care, but I had the regretful task of removing two groups from my list of supported organizations (on ClaudiuPopa.ca/personal) which, at the risk of coming across as a feeble attempt at breathless virtue signaling, is simply my personal resignation to the reality that we all need to get involved, contribute and a reminder to consistently do our due diligence.
Claudiu Popa
Toronto, Canada
January 2022
The Ugandan kob (Kobus kob thomasi), male,Queen Elizabeth NP, Uganda, 2016.
The Ugandan kob is a subspecies of the kob, a type of antelope. Only the males have horns, which are lyre-shaped, strongly ridged and divergent.
Males are slightly larger than females, being 90 to 100 cm (3.0 to 3.3 ft) at the shoulder, with an average weight of 94 kg (207 lb), while females are 82 to 92 cm (2.7 to 3.0 ft) at the shoulder and on average weigh about 63 kg (139 lb). Apart from the throat patch, muzzle, eye-ring and inner ear, which are white, the coat is golden to reddish-brown, the color differentiating it from other kob subspecies. The belly and inside of the legs are white, and the front of the forelegs are black.
It is typically found in open or wooded savanna, within a reasonable distance of water, and it also occurs in grasslands near rivers and lakes.
Ugandan kobs are herbivores and feed largely on grasses and reeds.
The females and young males form loose groups of varying size which range according to food availability, often moving along watercourses and grazing in valley bottoms. Sometimes non-breeding males form their own groups. Ugandan kobs usually have a lek mating system, in which males defend small territories clustered on traditional mating grounds. Females visit these leks only to breed, and males provide no parental care. Each lek is associated with a female herd of about 100 individuals. Females begin to mate at the age of one, but males must normally wait for several more years. A single calf is born in November or December, after a gestation period of about nine months.
Ugandan kob appears on the coat of arms of Uganda. #Godfreytheguide #Uganda #Animals #Antelope.
www.interiorsafarisea.com
The shameful War against
Wolves in Sweden and Scandinavia
Questionable and
partly biased background information concerning the present wolf slaughter in
Sweden 2022,
by Eva Stjernswärd
Painter
artist
Board member of NGO
Jaktkritikerna (Hunting Critics) and Dris (Animal’s Voice in Society) against
licensed hunting in Sweden.
KA
The current hunt in 2022 is more cruel than usual as the different
local County Boards are cooperating to eradicate whole wolf families from their
territory and habitat. Norway (A non EU-country where the hunt for 54 wolves
can go on until 31st of May) and Sweden are cooperating with each
other in this grotesque extermination, creating a wolf holocaust. On the
Swedish side nearly 2 000 hunters have registered to kill 27 wolves.
Finland will also started a hunt for 18 wolves on February 1st. So in Scandinavia more than 99
wolves will be slaughtered in the most gruesome ways in 2022.
Wolves and other predators were almost eradicated because of human
persecution toward the end of the 19th century. In the early part of
the 1900’s, the romanticism of nature as well as people moving in to urban
areas helped to awaken an appreciation of a diverse fauna. Even the hunter’s association
helped to protect certain species. But unfortunately in the late 1930’s the
hunters association was nominated by the state to be responsible for wild life
management and they were granted huge economic resources, which coupled the
state and hunting interests, copied from a model then being utilized in
authoritarian Germany. This model is still valid and renders them a budget of
approximately 5.6 million dollars each year. This has created an institution that
exerts control over wild life as well as being a lobbying force infiltrating
the government and the political agenda for hunting on all levels. This is despite hunters only representing
less than 3 % of the population.
Why is there trophy hunting in
a developed country like Sweden?
Wolves were completely
protected from 1966 to save the species. But as we can see this has changed in
spite of being under the EU protection laws when Sweden agreed to enter the EU
in 1995. As from 2010 licensed hunting has escalated trophy hunting in Sweden,
as hunters can now kill bears, lynxes and wolves. Foreign hunters are welcomed
too. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency changed its strategy of wild
life management in favor of hunters after a string of political changes from
the end of the 1990’s. This escalated when hunters decided that predators,
especially wolves, should be viewed as competitors for other game that they
were hunting! This had a negative impact on all wild animals, but for predators
in particular, as they were politicized.
very unlike its cultural heritage and is now an industry with export ambitions. Not to mention the
extreme cruelty with which farmers are allowed to handle reindeers (Not as Nature intended – A book by
undercover journalist Rich Hardy). These semi-wild animals are transported to
slaughter houses in masses. Snowmobiles and helicopters are used to round the
animals up under stressful conditions. Although climate change is more of a
threat than predators, enormous financial support from the state keeps this
cruel business alive.
There is huge
financial support to reindeer owners/villages from the state to “accept” the
presence of predators in their land, as well as payment for each of their animals
taken by predators. However, this in no way protects the predators from
ultimately being killed. On the contrary; this has been proven by the increase
in so called protective hunting as well as illegal hunting. For wolves, this is
a lethal problem in additional ways; as the only path to genetic renewal actually
comes from Finland and Russia. No wolves survive if they enter Sweden. The hate
of wolves has become pathological when not even “stately bribes” can save them.
In some regions it’s like a reminder of the witch hunts that took place against
women in the seventeenth century.
The debate about the
degeneration in Swedish wolves has been unsuccessful in achieving any more
protection for them than other than token numbers.
In 2016 the Supreme
Administrative Court ruled that 300 wolves must be the minimum for conservation
of the species. Instead of this being a minimum - it is used as a maximum of
tolerance by the EPA and the hunters. Biological and scientific proof does not
help. The legal system is basing its judgement on this, which in general leave
the NGO’s appeal with hardly any success in saving individuals. The European
Commission has an open case against Sweden’s wolf hunt but nothing concrete has
been achieved yet.
Sweden’s repetitive
violation of the EU’s Habitats Directive continues and by customizing its own
national loop holes and interpretation of the exception rules for limited
hunting, Sweden is also undermining the aim and purpose of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, as export permits for all
trophies is easily granted by the Agricultural Board. On this note, its worth
mentioning that Swedish government refused to take up the ban on import of
trophies from canned lion hunts in 2016/2017, which would have been a low
hanging fruit. Unfortunately it shows that most politicians in all parties are
not at all engaged when it comes to animal protection, and definitely when
hunting is concerned.
Despite the Covid
pandemic the mink industry and industrial farming of pigs and chickens prevails
in horrible conditions in Sweden.
More than 7 000 red
listed predators have been killed in 20 years
K.A.
The Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Naturvårdsverket,
has even increased the quota for legal trophy hunting. Since the year 2000 more
than 7 000 brown bears, lynxes, wolves and wolverines have been killed
legally in this system.
have an estimated 2 800 brown bears, not much over 1 000 lynxes and perhaps
600 wolverines. This is in a country with a low density of people in the areas
where predators naturally have their habitats. But predators have become chess
pieces on the political agenda. This polarization is based on predator conflicts
locally by hunters, livestock owners, reindeer keepers and of course the economic
interest groups behind them.
The system of
monitoring and counting wolves is done by local authorities and hunters. As the
wolf is considered not only to be a threat to livestock but as a competitor in
the hunter’s quest for wild game – it’s easy to conclude that the hunters want
to demonstrate as high a count of predators as possible.
In addition, humans
are diminishing predator’s territory in general, with exploitation of land for
livestock, especially the huge areas in northern Sweden where reindeers are
kept roaming free.
Wolf population
The number of wolves
is always debated and questioned as illegal hunting still counts for 10-20 %. When
the counting of individuals is done (1st October to 1st
March) these wolves as well as the animals killed in accidents or for other
reasons (killed in livestock conflicts for example) after this date, are not
accounted for. This means that wolves killed after 1st March and
until the following autumn, that is several months after, when the hunting decisions
are being made are not included! Some believe that there could therefore be
even less than 300 wolves.
K.A.
The “precautionary principle” is not a Swedish forte
When it concerns
bears, wolves and lynxes, the “precautionary principle” is largely ignored.
The official number given
was 395 wolves when the authorities took the decisions to kill 27 to 33 of them
in 2022. Some local counties are even trying to extend the areas to be sure to
kill wolves that are trying to flee. This is what can happen on the border to
Norway (involving administrative boards in Dalarna, Värmland and Jämtland) and
it is repeatedly happening in the county of Gävleborg. Legally it should not be
allowed to change or extend hunting areas that were initially drawn up when the
decisions was made, in November/December. But the local administrative boards
of the mentioned regions above – are hard liners against predators, as are all
the northern regions. We do not know yet what the courts will say.
alarming - is the inbreeding and degeneration in Swedish wolves.
Many male wolves have
only one testicle (cryptorchidism) and autopsies of killed wolves show cruel
proof of hunters sadism – many have old wounds and lead ammunition in their
bodies.
killed against the EU directives for protection of species. Labeled
license hunting and/or protective hunting
Both methods have increased since 2010. The
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has delegated the decisions to local
government boards in each county that houses predators. The protective hunting
orders are often given over the phone and mostly the animals are permitted to be
killed the same day. The time to challenge the decisions by NGO’s is therefore futile
and purely symbolic. These hunts are fast executions done by helicopter and snowmobile.
On the ground dogs are utilized to track them down if they try to hide in dens.
The heli-hunts might be inspired from American war-fare…and also what is
happening now in the US. Sadly these methods spread like a pandemic due to
globalization and hunters’ international organizations. Historically, Americans
started shooting African game from trains and cars in the era of the white hunters, also the time of the
Swedish baron Blixen (husband of author Karen Blixen) who guided all the rich
and famous on trophy hunting and killing tours in Africa.
So cruelty still takes
its toll in Sweden. Females with young are not spared. For example wolverine
females with cubs are permitted to be killed in their den. Female lynx with
cubs are killed from helicopter and the “ethics order” is to kill the
“children” before the mother…
The licensed hunt for
lynx takes place from 1st of March – which is the mating season of
the shy felines. A real crime! Our Nordic Leopard!
abuse does not include wild animals – only hunting laws are applied.
Swedish hunting laws
are based on the use of animals as objects - owned by the hunter and/or
landowner. State land/forests are also leased for hunting and its big business,
as well as for all the agricultural farmers who lease the right to hunt on
their land. Wild life has no respite. Not even in a National Park or nature
reserve, where EPA permits hunting. The sea is also a hunting ground and EPA is
extending hunting every year on all species of seals, even the very threatened
red listed species in the northern Baltic Sea.
self-assessed killing action
Legislation allows for
killing predators in situ, as a prevention method to stop an attack. This of
course is used without control from authorities and it can’t be excluded that
dogs often provoke bears for example, while hunting other game. And the most common argument from hunters is
that dogs are killed by wolves and that they cannot hunt elk as freely as they
want with loose dogs.
Needless to say, loose
dogs in wolves’ habitats should be prohibited – a NO GO.
Since 2010 this legislation
has been used with an alarming increase as the “excuse” to kill bear, wolves
and lynx. Very few cases lead to investigation and are annulled due to lack of
proof. The issue of animal abuse when killing a female bear for example (and
then discovering two cubs hiding in trees) or parental wolves leaving pups is
never punished or even discussed.
and the frequent wounding by hunters or dogs is never punished.
Cruel hunting with dogs
Pack hound hunting has
developed in Sweden and is becoming animal abuse for both dogs and wild animals
that is not addressed at all. Swedish hunters have also introduced new type of
aggressive hunting dogs, which are trained on predators. The Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), mainly responsible for wild life and
hunting issues, has extended the rights to hunt with loose dogs – 3 dogs are
allowed to chase 1 wolf, it doesn’t matter whether a puppy or adult. The non-ethical
hunting methods also include old medieval ways of hunting with beaters and circling
the environment with “scary wires with moving textiles”, set up to enclose the
fleeing wolves and force them towards the hunters.
Shutterstock
Training of hunting dogs in
the wild on predators in their habitat
The worst is that EPA
has introduced even more vile techniques – namely that all hunters can train
their dogs one month before the official hunting starts! Even in areas of
Sweden where the licensed hunt will not be granted.
This means training on
wild bears (with their cubs) in their habitats begins from July-August (hunt
starts 21st August), on wolves in December (hunt starts 2nd
January) and lynx in February (hunt starts 1st March). It is also
permitted to train dogs on captured wild animals in special training centers.
This sadistic practice is not addressed by the EPA, even though many protests
are heard from NGO’s. Simultaneously hunting with dogs terrorizes other
wildlife, like hunting for boar that is permitted nearly all year round as well
as nighttime.
Sweden’s hunting lobby
is firming its grip on all wildlife and the legal system for hunting is rigged.
To spin the wheel of death the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has
liberated hunting even more on all animals, including migrating birds like
cranes and swans with a renewed decree from 2021 to 2026! Be sure to watch the interview at https://www.mojostreaming.com/video/677/crisis-facing-wolves-in-scandinavia-a-panel-discussion
KA
