TROPHY HUNTING
www.interiorsafarisea.com Did you know that Between 2014 and 2020, trophies of 5,409 animals of internationally protected species were imported into Germany, including 194 leopards, 208 brown bears, 166 hippos 229 elephants, 138 lions, nine polar bears and two black rhinos. Many of these animals were killed because of the hunts sold at hunting fairs.
As from 24th-29 January,2023 Europe’s largest hunting fair has been taking place in Dortmund, Germany. Over 80 national and international exhibitors from Canada, Argentina, Namibia, South Africa, Germany, Spain, Poland and others, are in attendance, offering trophy hunting trips, that cost between a few hundred and tens of thousands of euros, around the world to kill elephants, big cats, rhinos, polar bears and numerous other iconic species.
Trophy hunting is a form of entertainment rooted in wealth and pageantry that results in both severe cases of animal harm and far reaching damaging biological and ecological impacts. Yet, more than 120,000 animals are killed in Africa each year by big game hunters. The European Union is the second largest importer of hunting trophies from internationally protected species, behind the United States. Germany is by far the greatest importer within the European Union.
OBITUARY : SAMANTHA DIXON
We regret to announce the passing of our beloved animal advocate and wildlife warrior extraordinaire, Samantha (Sam) Dixon on the 4th of March 2023 in Brisbane Australia after a short illness.
Sam attended the Presbyterian Ladies' College in Sydney and she graduated from Charles Sturt University but her greatest love and passion was always Africa and its wildlife.
She was a staunch anti-trophy hunting campaigner and worked tirelessly to ban trophy hunting. The message that she conveyed was that trophy hunting is done for greed, ego and the thrill of it.
Sam was also an advocate against poaching, trapping and the abuse of animals that should be free.
She was a brave and wonderful advocate for animals, with the heart of a lioness. Her disability never stopped her from fighting for the animals. She left an incredible mark and will be dearly missed and always remembered.
She loved her two constant fur baby companions, the late Winston and June bug with all her heart.
A true animal angel is gone. One of the bravest wildlife warriors to ever grace the battlefield.
Rest in eternal peace.
Floating Meadows and their Wildlife
The Untold Beauty of Floating Meadows
1. Introduction
2. The beauty of floating meadows
3. The importance of floating meadows
4. The ecology of floating meadows
5. The future of floating meadows
Killing Contests! Do you support?
The Unspoken Horror of Wildlife Killing Contests in the United States
1. The Unspoken Horror of Wildlife Killing Contests in the United States
2. These so-called “contests” are nothing more than opportunities for people to engage in wanton slaughter of innocent animals
3. native wildlife species are being decimated by these killing contests
4. These contests are often held in secret, with little to no public oversight
5. The participants in these contests typically take home grisly trophies of their kills, and bragging rights
6. These contests have a negative impact on ecosystems and local economies
7. It’s time for these contests to be outlawed
The Dark Reality: How The United States Is Enabling Wildlife Crime
The Dark Reality: How The United States Is Enabling Wildlife Crime
The United States is contributing to the decline of endangered species
The United States is actively contributing to the decline of endangered species across the world. This is due to the fact that wildlife trafficking is often associated with transnational organized crime and international terrorist networks.
The wildlife traffickers are linked to the illegal pet trade, poaching of iconic species, and illegal logging. The United States government is aware of this and has taken steps to address the issue on a global scale.
.png)
From "OUR BURNING PLANET"
TOPS FLIP FLOP
State caves in to game farmers and hunters over key wildlife protection
By Don Pinnock
10 Apr 2023
Vital legislation in South Africa for the protection of wildlife has been stopped in its tracks by a mysterious settlement between game breeders/hunters and the Department of Environment.
BeyondWords
The Department of Environment (DFFE) had gazetted the most progressive wildlife protection legislation ever drafted in South Africa. It seemed like good news for beleaguered wildlife.
But just before it was to become law, game breeder and hunter organisations applied for an urgent interdict to halt it. DFFE responded with a convincingly argued defence of its legislation, clearly indicating its strong opposition to the application, not least on the grounds that it was not urgent.
But at the last minute, in a secret, out-of-court settlement, the Department withdrew the proposed Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) regulations as well as related Norms and Standards amendments and agreed to pay the applicants’ legal costs.
Its reasoning? “Due to the urgent timeframes of the litigation, the Department required additional time to consider the varied issues raised in the court application” by Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA) and the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (PHASA). So was it urgent or wasn’t it?
What’s curious is exactly what happened between 24 March, when the Department filed its comprehensive and well argued 91-page affidavit opposing the interdict, and 27 March when it completely backtracked in conceding to retract the regulations without revealing any of its arguments.
Because the TOPS regulations were closely interlinked to four other Government Notices – also due to come into effect on 1 April – DFFE has also withdrawn the revised Norms and Standards for the management of elephants, the hunting of leopards, the amended protection list of 266 wild mammal, fish, birds, invertebrates and plants and new regulations involving the trade in rhino horn.
What were the seemingly convincing arguments made by WRSA/PHASA that made the DFFE back off? What other agreements or aspects to the settlement were reached? And why and on what basis did DFFE agree to pay costs when, in such cases, each party normally pays them? At this stage nobody’s talking and a request to DFFE by Our Burning Planet got no reply.
Consultation timeframes
The TOPS regulations were published on 3 February for public comment before being promulgated, and at that point WRSA and PHASA met with the Department. Were their concerns raised then? What prompted them to take the Department to court?
Explaining the court challenge, the CEO of PHASA, Dries van Coller, said the publication of the TOPS regulations and species list had taken the industry by surprise because the previous very limited public participation process was eight years ago in 2015.
“The Minister’s promulgated version of the regulations differed materially from the previous versions and included numerous provisions which would be detrimental to the ability of game ranchers and professional hunters to conduct sustainable business in the game industry.”
Van Coller had grounds for complaint. Very limited public participation followed the publication of the TOPS regulations. This is in contrast to the exhaustive consultation following the recommendations of the High Level Panel on lions, rhinos, elephants and leopards and also the White Paper on Biodiversity just approved by Cabinet.
It is also surprising that the minister’s legal advisers appear to have failed to take note of the precedent affirmed for the requirements for public participation in two other cases. One was an interim interdict granted to the Humane Society International-Africa which challenged the hunting and export quotas for elephants, rhinos and leopards. The second judgement was obtained by Endangered Wildlife Trust overturning the Department of Agriculture’s inclusion of several species of wild animals under the Animal Improvement Act.
More than time frames
A reading of the TOPS regulations, however, makes it clear why game farmers and hunters hit the panic button. It’s not just about consultation time frames. Following the report of the High Level Panel, DFFE’s Cabinet-approved proposals on animal wellbeing and the White Paper on Biodiversity just published, it’s clear that Creecy is responsive to increasing reports and studies on cruelty on game farms and, particularly, the hunting of lions bred for the bullet.
A lion in a breeding facility. (Photo: Conservation Action Trust)
All this is having a negative effect on South Africa’s image abroad at a time when the country desperately needs to rebuild its tourist industry after the Covid pandemic.
The new TOPS regulations tighten the thumbscrews on sloppy, inappropriate, dangerous and cruel game farming and hunting in an industry that has mostly been at great pains to fly below the radar. They considerably tighten regulation of captive breeding, rehabilitation, temporary holding and commercial exhibition facilities, game farms and animal translocators.
But the regulations go much further, listing 266 species as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered with precise listing of restricted or prohibited activities with regard to each. These include all rhino species, elephants, lions, leopards, African wild dogs, cheetahs, hyenas and a range of plains game including southern roan and sable antelope and both species of zebra.
TOPS also tightens regulations around hunting permits and drills down on captive breeding, which must have infuriated breeders and would have been the main points of contention in the court case. A huge bone of contention with facilities involved in so-called canned hunting, where hand-reared lions are released to be shot, would have been regulations prohibiting the hunting of a large predator in an area adjacent to a captive holding facility.
Also prohibited would be the introduction of wild-caught predators to breeding facilities, a time limit after which rehabilitation facilities would have to return animals to the wild, and a ban on breeding in sanctuaries.
The TOPS regulations put captive breeding facilities under an official microscope with the ability to close them down for non-compliance with the strict guidelines. All animals and the conditions under which they are kept would have to be documented for official inspection and stud books kept to curb inbreeding and hybridisation.
Enclosures would need to comply with regulations, the food supply for captive animals detailed, plans provided for the removal of waste and the availability of veterinary services. Captive breeding facilities would be required to provide a description of the strategies used in breeding that contribute to the conservation of wild populations, a requirement that lion farms would find impossible.
Breeding facilities would be denied registration if their activities conflicted with the Biodiversity Act or with anything within the TOPS regulations. And to add to the uncertainty of game breeders, their registration could be cancelled if “there is a change in the conservation status of the species involved being bred, reared, propagated, traded or kept by a permit holder”.
A question of capacity
A weakness of the TOPS regulations – and this would have been pointed out in the court case – is that the tight control required by DFFE would require far more trained officials and a data collection system capable of responding quickly and efficiently. Sadly, neither national or provincial environmental departments have either of these. This point was hammered home by Dries van Coller of PHASA:
“We are already being hamstrung by the inability of various national and provincial departments to administrate the myriad of environmental regulations. State departments already do not have the capacity or funding to administer the wildlife industry properly.
“We receive complaints from members on a near-daily basis of permits not being processed. There is simply no money in some provinces to cover the costs associated with statutory oversight work. The system is stalling due to the department not having enough people and money to do their job. Now we see a Minister who wants to impose even more conditions on an already over-regulated industry.”
So here’s the question. Will the TOPS regulations and linked wildlife laws be scrapped, rewritten or hit a new round of contestation? No time frame or way forward has yet been suggested. For now the issue lies smouldering in a firepit of confusion. OBP
Exposing the truth on hunting competitions
Facts on the Inhumane Practices of Hunting Contests
Hunting has been a popular activity for centuries, with many people enjoying the rush of tracking and taking down wild game. However, what many fail to realize is that this so-called "sport" has a darker side - one that involves animal cruelty, unethical practices, and inhumane treatment of wildlife. Hunting contests are just one example of this, where hunters compete to see who can kill the most animals in a set amount of time. We'll take a closer look at these competitions and delve into the facts surrounding their impact on both individual animals and entire ecosystems. Hunting contests are typically held in environments where there is a high concentration of wildlife. This means that the animals involved in these contests have had their natural habitat reduced. In this blog post, we're going to expose the dark side of hunting competitions in America - from baiting and trapping animals to using illegal methods - so buckle up and prepare to be shocked.
Many people don't realize is that the so-called "sport" has a dark side – one that involves animal cruelty
Many people view hunting as a traditional pastime that has been around for centuries. However, what many fail to realize is that the activities associated with this so-called "sport" can be incredibly cruel and inhumane. Hunting contests are one of the most egregious examples of this.
During these competitions, hunters compete to see who can kill the most animals within a set period of time. The focus is not on sustainable or responsible hunting practices but rather on winning at all costs. This often leads to unethical behavior such as cheating and taking shortcuts.
Moreover, hunting contests result in an astonishing number of animal deaths - far more than necessary for food or population control purposes. As a result, entire species have been pushed closer to extinction due to overhunting.
The suffering caused by these events cannot be overstated either. Many animals experience prolonged periods of pain before finally succumbing to their injuries - hardly a fair fight for any living creature.
It's important that we recognize the dark side of hunting and take action against practices like hunting contests that cause immense harm to wildlife populations and ecosystems alike.
Which States have the most hunting contests
Hunting contests are a widespread practice in many states across the US. According to reports, hunting competitions take place in more than 40 states, with some of them hosting multiple events each year. Among these states, Texas tops the list as having the most significant number of hunting contests.
In recent years, other states have also seen an increase in the number of hunting contests held within their borders. Arizona and New Mexico have become popular destinations for predator killing competitions, while Montana and Wyoming host several elk-calling tournaments.
However, it is worth noting that not all states permit hunting contests. California became the first state to ban wildlife-killing contests in 2014 when it outlawed coyote-killing competitions.
Despite this progress towards ending unethical hunting practices, there are still numerous challenges involved in bringing an end to such events altogether. It's essential that we continue raising awareness about this issue and advocating for stricter regulations surrounding wildlife management practices across all American states.
Texas does alot of disturbing unethical things involving wildlife and are very good as misleading the public
https://wildlifepartners.com/about-us/
"The above is a scam in my personal opinion. I had an interesting conversation with Brian Gilroy. I believe the organization has creatively fooled people that what they do is for conservation when I believe it is 100% about money. I also believe alot of their revenue comes from enclosed hunting on their ranch." Cami Ciotta
What organizations are behind hunting contests
Hunting contests are often organized by local hunting clubs, but there are also national organizations that support and promote these inhumane events. One such organization is Safari Club International (SCI), which hosts an annual convention where hunting enthusiasts can bid on hunts for rare and endangered animals.
One of the most hated by Activists is Jens Ulrich Hoch Hunter and Communications officer for Nordic Safari Club.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is another powerful organization that supports hunting contests. They argue that these competitions promote responsible gun ownership and wildlife conservation, but the reality is far from it - many of the species targeted in these contests are not even considered game animals. The winners not only can win money, trophy hunting Safari trips, but also guns!
Other smaller organizations also exist to promote hunting contests, often with misleading names like "Wildlife Conservation Society." These groups claim to be working towards conservation efforts while simultaneously supporting activities that harm wildlife populations.
It's clear that the organizations behind hunting contests prioritize profit over ethics or environmental protection. It's up to individuals to educate themselves on the true motives of these groups and take action against their harmful practices.
Why are there not stricter rules and regulations for hunting contests
Despite the evident inhumane practices of hunting contests, it remains legal throughout many states in the US. However, one may wonder why there aren't stricter rules and regulations for this so-called "sport." The answer to that is not simple.
Firstly, hunting has always been a part of American culture. It has existed for centuries as a means of gathering food or protecting livestock from predators. Due to its cultural significance, it can be challenging to convince lawmakers and hunters themselves to change their ways.
Secondly, hunting contests are often organized by powerful organizations such as the Safari Club International (SCI) or the National Rifle Association (NRA). These groups have significant lobbying power and influence over politicians who make laws that govern hunting activities. Plus many of our lawmakers are bought by the NRA and they now own them. The most powerful organization and most harmful organization in the U.S. is the NRA. Until someone, or some group has enough resources/money the NRA will always win and will continue to run the U.S. The way to win and to take their power away is to get enough citizens to go against them. It is all in the numbers.
Despite efforts made by animal welfare activists and environmentalists to push stricter regulations on these events, they still face opposition from those who view them as an infringement on their rights. Additionally, law enforcement agencies tasked with enforcing existing regulations may lack resources or funding necessary for proper implementation.
As a result of these factors combined with other underlying issues like politics and economics; our wildlife continues suffering at the hands of unethical slaughter during hunting competitions.
Why are hunting contests legal
The legality of hunting contests is a perplexing issue, especially given the inhumane and unethical practices associated with such events. It's important to understand that hunting is regulated by state laws, meaning jurisdictions play a significant role in determining whether or not hunting competitions are legal.
One reason why these contests may be considered lawful is because they generate revenue for both private businesses and state governments. Hunting activities bring money into rural areas through tourism, lodging, food services, and equipment sales. Additionally, states often receive license fees from hunters which help finance conservation efforts.
Another argument used to support the legality of these contests centers around individual rights. Proponents argue that participating in hunting contests falls under their right to bear arms and pursue leisure activities as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, it seems that concerns about animal welfare have been overshadowed by financial gain and personal freedoms when it comes to regulating hunting competitions. The fact remains that these events cause immense suffering for wildlife populations and can disrupt entire ecosystems - all in the name of "sport".
How Legislation is Failing to Protect Animals from Hunting Contests
Despite efforts by animal rights activists and the public, legislation is failing to protect animals from hunting contests. Hunting competitions are legal in many states, which means that organizers can hold them without fear of criminal prosecution.
In most cases, there are no laws regulating these events. Even when regulations exist, they may be weak or poorly enforced. This lack of oversight allows hunters to engage in unethical behavior such as using illegal baiting techniques or shooting more animals than allowed.
Furthermore, some organizations behind hunting contests have powerful lobbyists who influence state legislators and prevent stricter regulations from being implemented. These lobbyists argue that hunting contributes to conservation efforts and brings economic benefits to rural areas which is a huge lie and people are believing such lies. Please step up and do your part by educating others or simply share this article.
However, the reality is that hunting contests often lead to the unnecessary slaughter of wildlife and cause suffering for individual animals. Species can also become endangered due to excessive hunting pressure on their populations. The ecosystem itself can suffer if certain species disappear or become too scarce.
It's clear that current legislation is not doing enough to protect animals from inhumane practices associated with hunting contests. More needs to be done at both the state and federal levels if we want a future where wild animals are treated with respect and dignity rather than as mere targets for cruelty and sport.
What You Can Do To Help End hunting competitions
It's time to take a stand against the inhumane practices of hunting contests and protect our wildlife from suffering, torture, and extinction. As individuals, we can make a difference by raising awareness about these unethical competitions and advocating for stricter regulations.
One of the most effective ways to end hunting contests is to support organizations that are actively working towards this goal. Consider donating your time or money to groups like the Humane Society of the United States or Project Coyote is a favorite of MojoStreaming. https://projectcoyote.org/
Also, support MojoStreaming an online wildlife channel that are advocates for our wildlife. Join us for free (for a limited time) to watch or even participate in live debates, interviews, and more. Join other like-minded, compassionate people who have a love for nature and wildlife! It is a great community to be a part of: Learn more at
https://www.mojostreaming.com/
Sign up: https://www.mojostreaming.com/signup
Additionally, you can reach out to your local representatives and urge them to enact laws that ban hunting contests altogether. Your voice can make all the difference in protecting our ecosystem from needless cruelty and slaughter.
I URGE EACH OF YOUR READING THIS TO WATCH THIS 2 MIN TRAILER!
Share this video: https://www.mojostreaming.com/video/837/wildlife-killing-contest
If you have time watch this informative but disturbing short film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV0UZsaMjMM
Let us remember that animals are sentient beings deserving of respect, compassion, and protection. By taking action today, we can create a better future where wildlife is cherished rather than exploited for human entertainment.