Finders, keepers

I bang on about bad form & our veni, vidi, vici wits, the cuckoos of the domestic birding fraternity. Social media adds spice [or salt] to that platform but that's a laugh for another time. I do, however, want to spend a few words on the field-technicians who consistently root out vagrants; those selfless, tireless men & women who walk the hard-stare & who generously / timeously share their spoils with the rest of the great unwashed. (ie: us).

Before I do, however, some bits & pieces. Defined by a colouful kaleidoscope of characters, the birding community notes a few pseudo-character sub-categories. These lie somewhere between the sparrows & the eagles & are fun, fun, fun. My favourite is the self-proclaimed, get-along gang. These mystics emerge from their chrysalises of inactivity whenever a rarity is reported. They retire immediately after the feed & aren't seen again until the next hit. Hooked up to the info-channels like half-life junkies on life-support, they wait, unmoved. They are, on the whole, however, a colourful clique of fieldwork expats & usually worth the price of a pint @ story-time. As a rule, however, leave the party early & avoid the 'remember when I... ' soliloquies. It's easier on the wallet.


An emerging, more subtle group, is incipient within the frat. It's stealth-camo for self-interest. Like flight control they exercise exclusive ascendancy over the news; offer group rates on sponsored travel; cherry-pick, ... the cherries (what else, duh?) & 'confirm the ID... ', in person, before opening the gates to the rabid rabble, on the outside. It's no secret. These candidate-agents tap the web for flow & we love them for it.

Less tongue-in-cheek & at it's heart, however, beats the lifeblood of the community. Unspoiled, unpretentious & modest. Gentle men & women, unheralded, passionate, knowledgeable & honest. Too many to name; inspiring people all & therein lies the colour.

I want to reference a few specific individuals, perhaps more indirectly than I'd like. I'm going to exclude the rarity-stumblers ie: those fortunate enough to chance-upon a mega / giga / (tera) [ie: a hitherto 'extinct' sp. rediscovered - not really but it sounds cool anyway]. Those are yarns for another time.

The stars of the region's compass include some special field-pros. In the east, far east, gulls, stints, pelagics and other passer. goodies. In Namibia's west, terns, waders, skimmers & gulls. Another field-pro. In that country's far north, a bare-footed other. Further east, one more sharp-tailed pro. In the south, far south west, a new crop of youngsters - snow-white fresh but fluent in the field. In South Africa's east an understated few. Up here a handful; consistent, dedicated and hard to beat. There are others scattered around the sub-region equally watchful in weather's heat & sleet. Thank you. This year's been a cracker.

A thorn, it's said, makes the rose or a rose it wouldn't be; neither does a prick-or-two ruin the garden. Keep the field close & your dearest ones closer still. Be safe; be vigilant - be cool. Wishing you all a peaceful, prosperous & fulfilling New Year. May your lists get fat & your bins grow sharper.

We're going fishing. (it's easier)

Get-off 869: - Northern Wheatear

A wheatear [©FraukeFeind] - not THE wheatear

For at least a fortnight the Oenanthe² [ie: a Northern Wheatear, in the street vernacular] languished in peace & quiet. This particular Old World Flycatcher had held court on the derriere of its normal range, flitting, strutting & otherwise going 'bout its business near the Kruger National Park's Vervoer [Transport] Dam.

Two weeks on a private tour to darkest Africa - in seasonal rain, wind, some grit in its eye & under the watch of the grim reaper, this bird's sensitivities were never more at ease. Lions lurked; leopards leaped; crocodilians crunched & falcons frolicked. Ah yes; them carefree summers - 'Hakuna Matata, watta a wonderful phrase.. '

Now I lay me down to sleep - pray protect me from them peeps

Publicly announced some two weeks after the twinkle in its eye 1^st graced an African lens; & still on the keep the day after the Eye of Sauron swiveled eastwards; here, at last, a true vagrant to get us off the dreaded 869; an uncomfortable no. to hold still on for long & 1 worse-off than the more titillating 870.

For the progeny-free, carefree, couldn't-care-less-me & the otherwise foot & fancy-free, time plays no role. The rest of us find some common ground between fridge-magnets, bedtime-stories & the boardroom; usually on a weekend. Getting into Kruger at this time of the year is no small feat. Even so, our luck held - the house -booked, paid-for & looked-forward-to. On your marks, list set - hold the sweaty phone! It's FO [flown off, that is].

In betwixt Sunday's bulletin & tomorrow's long-weekend, 5 short days; time a-plenty for any bird to rethink it's sedentary hold on paradise-lost & so it's proved (again & again). Must be the sodding weather - only I'm thinking storm's playback thunder & bolts of flash-lightning arrives in cumulative cars, rather than from cloudy skies. Another dam(n) washout.

Fool's gold at Ithala

1^st call on the sub-region's Golden Pipit [Ithala Game Reserve - KZN, RSA] coincided with our short trip out of town; far out of town. Our reaction was muted .. This then the 3^rd specimen of its tribe to cock-a-snook at us - a two-fingered blocker; a panoply of bad timing & a swift kick to the nutmegs.

Johannesburg is rarely a waypoint for the ave. vagrant; a catch-all for unintended, lost souls on a wonky compass & / or maverick wanderers simply shooting the breeze. Most vagrants prefer somewhere off-the-beaten-track. That means we have to travel, far-afield, almost always.

These wanderers, in turn, are rarely desk-bound & usually offer the briefest of peeps. If life's dice roll the point, a win btw., we join the exodus & catch the bird snake-eyes - caught unawares, dizzy in uncharted woods & rusty on the local dialect. Yes sirree. We're an advanced species, a tag premised on instant porridge; instant coffee & instant soup. Twitching in a can is no less gratifying or instant. Get there a week late, however, and the canned granules are saliva-slippery from the spoons licked before. It's not my cup of tea. We went anyway.

Contrary to the feel-good press birders are a disruptive bunch: - the birds a Distant Tit to the list - a recorded leap of faith pillared on 'I think it was; therefore it must be'. That sentiment is often weak-minded under closer scrutiny; froth & indignation notwithstanding. This escapade proved no different. To end before we start, the bird had flown the keep sometime the day before - an inconvenience really & a calamity of whim, wind or weather. We'll never know.

Initially reported from atop a bush, not much more than a sand-wedge from the Mvunyane (Ntshondwe - wat dat?) Gate & later fairly reliable at the same flag variably throughout the days that followed; we few - we happy, happy few, thought we'd start our pan for gold .. there. We arrived in / under a cloud of mist, a second or two after open, to a confab of banshees, uproarious in volume rather than content. Out-of-the-vehicle shouts of 'the bird's not here', from within the bowels of the very tree still pinking from the bird, the day before, confirmed the loss. The nugget had gone - & wasn't that a helluva shock ... weather notwithstanding? Oblivious to the irony of it all, the travelling circus & its self-appointed ringsmen waxed on about unconfirmed sightings & hearsay post Tuesday, 3 or 4 days earlier. It's a claim the Wed / Thurs mob might find hurtful. The Sunday-morning arrival of Moe & Curly [Larry'd done a duck], in boards & tees, was another breath of hot air but ... I digress.

The bird wasn't there, here or anywhere & so it proved over the next 24 hours for those of us desperate enough to pan the fields. It's not that we didn't try - we did; hand on heart.

Back at the gate the keeper smiled wanly - whacked-out on the 'keep in your vehicle' ashlar. His studied view & I quote - 'they spooked (it) too much. The pipit's gone down - down in (sic) the valley.'

Ithala, a gold mine of riches, grades low, however, on road infrastructure & certainly nothing anywhere near 'into the valley'. As to who 'they' were we'll never know & what does it matter? We'd dipped. Our attempt was flawed, both in theory & out in the field. The grapes had gone sour.

Notwithstanding, we spent the night at Ithala's Ntshondwe Resort; a well-serviced rest-camp nestled high-up against the reserve's southernmost cliffs. The front-deck and the terrace, adjacent the dining area, offer sweeping views over the Ngubhu Basin. Getting to the camp is a pleasant, winding drive, through good habitat, on tarred road. Black & White Rhino are fairly common. We had memorable sightings of both. Other plain's game is equally abundant as are the birds. (We recorded 150+ sp. in our short stay. Specials included Bat Hawk & 2 sp. of crane.) The camp itself is colourful; an artist's palette of forest & montane specials. From the waterhole nearest the front-deck, frogs rise at sundown & chirrup on into the night. Sunset vistas are unsurpassed. Rates include a buffet breakfast & the food's not bad. Dinner is less inspiring but adequate given the locale. Our dinner was supposed to be a self-catered affair. The best-laid plans of mice & men.. Vervet Monkeys gained access to our cottage through a bathroom window no wider than a well-kept secret. The ensuing free-for-all in the kitchen, if the plastered poo & pee is anything to judge these things by, must have been a blast. We were pzzt ...

Anchored by overcooked venison [unforgivable in Africa btw.] & in chairs more comfortable than the situation warranted, we soon got to chewing the fat. Who 'they' were does, in fact, matter & not (only) because we dipped, although, betw. us, it's a bitter pill, but because it's the antithesis of bird-watching as an ethos.

A non-sedentary / migrant / vagrant bird, harassed by birders is mostly free to fly away. The causal loss is limited to an experienced emotion for late-comers to the site. The negative effects on the bird itself are minimal I would guess. A collated sightings report eg: the SARBN, which pinpoints & subsequently concentrates birders at a particular site, has little long-term impact on the effected birds even if the bird is sent packing. The positive spill-over for the participating community, as a whole, outweigh any perceived short-term negative consequences for the bird in question unless, of course, the bird is injured or killed in the melee. I know of no such case. I have, however, seen transgressions that are outrageous, callous, indifferent & often illegal. Trespassing is common. A momentary lapse or an instance of mistaken identity, particularly in low-light conditions, is an accident the community doesn't need. Where birders, responding to a public report, target a resident bird the consequences for the bird are more severe. Well-documented cases of abandonment, stolen eggs etc. are common. I concede the point that people mean well & or are caught-up in the excitement of a sighting but it isn't enough.

Bird-bothering as opposed to birding is an irritation, of course, but not necessarily as severe as the safari hats & boots make it out to be. Amateur photographers, in particular, are targeted as repeat-offenders. Some are more susceptible to acts of bird-bothering. Youth, exuberance, cynicism or the pursuit of a misguided sense-of-belonging are just a few of many social pitfalls.

Looking back at some of the photographs posted on the SARBN, it's fairly obvious the bird-botherers were hanging on its every word. Photographs of flight-shots & those in which the bird was displaying suggest 'they' know who 'they' are. Sure I got there late & the evidence is subjective / circumstantial only but dammit man, have a heart. The bird's supposed to be silent in Southern Africa.



 

Lions: Canned violence for profit - The IUCN decision.

On September 2^{nd [2016]} the IUCN passed the motion to terminate captive-bred lion hunting in South Africa. The motion requests the prohibition of the hunting of captive-bred lions [by 2020]. The motion also states that the breeding of lions be conducted at registered zoos / facilities demonstrating a clear conservation value only.

www.bloodlions.org

The South African Government's response to the motion is best described as muted. Albi Modise, chief director of communications for the DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs) notes -

1. “As you know, these motions or resolutions adopted by the IUCN are not legally binding and therefore compliance with the resolution cannot be enforced.”
2. While the applicable legislation will be revised, the motion does not 'necessarily' mean that South Africa's lion-breeding facilities will be closed. 
3. Industry compliance and the TOPS (Threatened or Protected Species) regulations will be enforced. 
4. Research to determine whether there is any conservation value in the captive-breeding of lions will be prioritised. 
5. Amendments to the TOPS regulations [early 2017] are expected to include the prohibition of captive-breeding where there is no clear conservation value.  

A blight on Brand South Africa

South Africa has been down this road before. Wordplay & nuance [http://markandalishakirk.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/lions-canned-violence-for-profit.html] is at the core of the industry. Amendments to the Norms and Standards & the TOPS regulations must prohibit the hunting of a captive-bred lion under any / all circumstances. Anything less falls short & perpetuates the exploitation of Africa's iconic predator.

Let's be candid for a change. The idea that a habituated, captive-bred lion is, for the purposes of hunting, legally deemed wild in 4 days [96 hours] ie: from the time of release, is nothing short of farcical & an affront to the intelligence of any reasonable person. Breeding perpetuates the conservation-fraud. Anyway you slice it, the commercial exploitation of lions is morally outrageous, ethically-defunct, grossly irresponsible & a blight on this country.   

Lions: canned violence for profit

Moral-decrepitude is the non-negotiable, basic premise on which the South African captive-bred lion 'hunting' industry relies.

P.O.A -  'Put & Take'

The 21^st century has its challenges. Existential issues confront humanity across a broad front. The media's focus on suffering, particularly children, is usually more than meets the eye. Ineffective leadership, graft, health, energy, the status of women, religious intolerance & racial division are current, calamitous & in urgent need of redress. Global ethics, therefore, especially w.r.t anthropogenic mortality, often gets lost in the rubble. 

APATHY, according to His Holiness, is 'the most dangerous thing' facing humanity today. 

www.bloodlions.org

I concede to and acknowledge the accomplished professionals who have tackled this subject before. In researching this post I spoke to many extraordinary men & women. These people have dedicated their lives to conservation. Consensus opinion was clear. Captive-bred lions do NOT contribute to the conservation of Africa's lions.

Africa's wild lion population numbers approximately 20000. The greatest threat to the surviving population is fragmented habitat and human-wildlife conflict. Lions have disappeared from more than 90% of their historic range. Perversely, in the last decade, nearly 10000 lions were killed for sport. 99% of those trophies originated in South Africa; commercial products of the captive-bred lion industry.

THE NUMBERS

©Pippa Hankinson                       www.bloodlions.org

The South African government's view is clear - claims of canned 'hunting' in South Africa are 'unfounded' -

• Some 15 years ago South Africa's captive lion population was approx. 200. Today the captive population is estimated to number somewhere between 8000 & 10000. By 2020 that figure is expected to exceed 15000. 

• Records show that in South Africa's North West province 134 lion were collected [ie: shot] in 2004. Two years later 272 lion went the same way. Since then growth in demand has been exponential. Other provinces noted a similar dynamic.  

• A classic 'fair chase' [ie: wild lion] hunt costs $75000 +. A captive-bred lion kill costs anything from $6000 to $50000 + depending on the category of animal selected.

• Approximately 1000 lion are shot by collectors, in South Africa, each year. Lions are not afforded a 'closed season' ie: they can be shot all year-round. Hunting Operators claim the average shot to be anywhere from 40 - 60 yards. Bow-hunters get closer still. 

• 1100 + lion skeletons were exported to Asia between 2008 & 2011.

• The captive-bred lion industry generates multi-million dollar profits each year. In economic terms, however, that figure equates to approximately 0.1% of South Africa's Tourism revenue. The tourism sector, as a whole, contributes approximately 9% to South Africa's GDP. 

• Between 2003 & 2013 South Africa exported approximately 7500 lion trophies. South Africa's wild population is fairly stable at 2500 - 2700 ... 

Colour aberrations - absent or exceedingly rare in the wild

• The domestic captive-bred lion industry specifically targets the international market. The FOREX translation incentives are clear. Male animals are graded according to their aesthetic appeal. The fullness of the animal's mane is especially important. Colour-aberrations add value. Tawny animals, with less luxurious manes, by way of example, are consigned to the lower categories ie: 1 & 2. The best graded specimens [eg: a full, anthracite-coloured mane ie: the classic lion of folklore & traditionally thought to symbolise POWER & DOMINANCE] fetch the highest prices and enjoy pride of place in the catalogue. On average lions retail at - 

• Category 1 - $13500
• Category 2 - $18500
• Category 3 - $23500
• Category 4 - $28500
• Category 5 - P.O.A

• Shoot a lioness for $5500 +

• Volunteer tourists or Voluntourism - [eg: kids on a gap year] often opt for work experience on South African lion 'sanctuaries'. They pay $1000 per week, on average, for the privilege. 20% of the lion's exit value accrues during the animal's formative years ie: petting & walking.  

• Lions ensnared in the captive-bred cycle are exploited for maximum return -



©Ian Michler                               www.bloodlions.org

• Tourists, enticed by the novel experience, pay to cuddle or bottle-feed cubs. ($90 - 20 mins.). Most cubs are weaned at 3 or 4 days to bring the lioness back into estrus.[ ENCOUNTER ]
• Older cubs service the 'walk with lions' fiasco. ($100 for the DVD) [ ENCOUNTER ]
• Adults return to the breeding pens to perpetuate the cycle. [ BREED - repeat ]
• Mature males & some females are harvested by the hunting community. [ KILL ]
• Skeletons / bones harvested from the trade are exported to Asia to supply the artificial demand for lion bones. ($165 per kg) [ DISPOSE ]

The captive-bred lion industry is an ethically-defunct parody of dominance; motivated by financial opportunism and sheltered in apathy - our indifference. 

THE LOOPHOLE

Welcome to the pride...

Lions are legally exploited in South Africa. The why is fairly straightforward. PROFIT. To understand how we need to look at the applicable legislation.

The Norms and Standards for the Sustainable Use of Large Predators, issued in terms of section 9(1) of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) sets out the regulations relating to the keeping and hunting of lion.

The regulations define CANNED hunting as any form of hunting where a large predator is:

• tranquilised, artificially lured by sound, scent, visual stimuli, feeding, bait, other animals of it's own species, or another species, or any other method; and / or
• CAPTIVE

CANNED hunting is illegal. The government's view that claims of canned hunting are unfounded, is plausible, although undoubtedly inaccurate.

If canned [or 'put & take'] hunting of large predators in South Africa is illegal, how did South Africa legally export 7500 lion trophies? Less than 10 wild lions are hunted each year. An anomaly then?

The duplicity is certifiably Machiavellian & to understand the subterfuge we need to look at the definition of WILD.

A large predator is considered WILD or **Managed WILD if:

• it's free-ranging
• it lives on wild prey populations, not supplemented [wild] or lives on wild populations of prey supplemented in numbers as & when required [managed wild]
• it's own diet is not supplemented with food artificially 
• it occurs in natural habitat.

A **Managed WILD large predator is an animal acceptably re-established in the wild, within their natural, historical range. This is important.

The shooting of CAPTIVE lions is prohibited. The hunting of WILD lions is legal. Crossing this Rubicon is a conundrum solved somewhere between magic & perfidious trickery. (Section 5) of the Norms & Standards permits the hunting of a CAPTIVE-bred predator once the animal is REHABILITATED [certified] to WILD status. 

Certification is the responsibility of the provincial conservation authority in whose area of jurisdiction the lion is to be harvested. This is also important.

Back to the legislation - In 2007 the TOPS [Threatened or Protected Species] regulations were introduced. TOPS was formulated under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. In terms of these regulations, any large predator born in captivity had to be free-roaming & self-sustaining for a period of not less than 24-months [2 years] before it could be hunted.

SAPBA - [South African Predator Breeding Association] challenged the regulations, specifically the inclusion of lion on TOPS as a 'listed large predator' and the regulation that captive-bred animals could only be hunted after a '24-month, self-sustaining period.'

2009 - SAPBA lost their case - the court ruling that the 24-month period was not unreasonable.

2010 - SAPBA appealed the decision and won their case. The definition of lions, as a 'listed large predator', was declared invalid. Lions lost the protection afforded in the TOPS regulations. The 24-month, self-sustaining period was no longer applicable. REHABILITATION [ie: the self-sustaining period] was made subject to the guidelines set by the provincial conservation authority in whose jurisdiction the lion was to be harvested.

Although the self-sustaining period for a habituated captive-bred lion varies across provinces, in the *North West province it's 96 HOURS. Think about that for a minute.

80% of lions harvested in South Africa [2010] were collected in the North West province...

*A habituated ie: hand-reared, captive lion on Farm A, moved to suitable habitat on Farm B, on Monday morning, for example, is legally WILD [ie: can be harvested] on Saturday later the same week. 

Africana - souvenirs, trinkets & toys

The captive-bred lion industry is an ethically-defunct parody of dominance; motivated by financial opportunism and sheltered in apathy - our indifference. 


'Of course I accept that there are three sides to every story – yours, mine and, possibly, the truth.' - [Gerhard Damm and Peter Flack] - Read their piece on the shooting of captive-bred lions here 


SUSTAINABLE USE

Enshrined in the South African Constitution is the doctrine of sustainable use. Access to scarce resources is official policy. [Get the White Paper here]

The South African Predator Association [SAPA] defines their intention to: 'Co-ordinate and promote the interests of its members with the view of establishing and maintaining a healthy and profitable predator breeding and hunting industry in congruence with national and international conservation principles and current national and provincial legislation.'      

[Read more about SAPA here]

It's important to note that:

• SAPA does not support canned hunting. 
• Only 5% of South Africa's 200 lion breeders are registered members of SAPA.

In response to more mainstream global intolerance, SAPA authored their '9 myths about captive-bred lions'.   [Get more detail here]

SAPA addressed these four points & 5 others -

1. Lions are facing imminent extinction.
2. Captive-bred lions cannot be released in the wild.
3. Captive-bred hunting is damaging 'brand SA'.
4. There is no conservation value in captive-bred lions.

I don't want to get lost in the semantics of each point. Credible rebuttal & robust, peer-reviewed, interrogation is available for public scrutiny [eg: here and here]. I will, however, address 'Brand SA' later in this post. SAPA's '9 myths' is notable for the author's reliance on argumentum ad hominem. For those who don't know ad hominem is a fallacy of logic in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the motive or character of the other perspective, rather than the substance of the argument itself. Under these circumstances, ignoratio elenchi or irrelevant conclusion, is a mode of argument most of us call 'missing the point...'  As a rule, I eschew obfuscation.

SCI [Safari Club International] advocates for it's 55 000 members & 'is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation worldwide.' 

[Read more about SCI here]

In December 2015 SCI published their 'How the new U.S. rules will affect lion trophy importation into the U.S'    [Read the article here]

Apropos the harvest of captive-bred lions, SCI notes that permits to import trophies are 'likely to be difficult to obtain'. The article quotes the US's official position on the captive-lion industry as follows -

"We do not believe that the captive-lion industry currently ... reduces, or removes threats to the species. ... While it is argued that South Africa's captive-bred lion industry may reduce pressures of trophy hunting on wild South African populations, there is no substantial or peer-reviewed science to support such a claim. Likewise, there is no record or evidence to support claims that the captive-bred lion industry is supporting reintroduction into the wild in any significant way."

The Professional Hunters Association of South Africa [PHASA] serves the domestic professional hunting industry & supports 'the conservation and ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, for the benefit of current and future generations, through the promotion of ethical hunting (to ensure environmental protection for current and future generations in accordance with Section 24 of the Bill of Rights of the South African Constitution). [Read more on PHASA here]

PHASA has always condemned canned hunting but until recently had said very little on the captive-bred lion industry. In their strongly-worded note entitled 'Let's put the lid on wild tales of canned hunting' [Read the note here] PHASA tacitly supported the well-managed captive-lion industry. That was their official position as at 2013.

In 2015 PHASA reversed its position in an about-turn welcomed by most. The resolution reads as follows - 'PHASA distances itself from all captive-bred lion breeding and hunting until such time as the South African Predator Association can convince PHASA and the International Union for Conservation of Nature that captive-bred lion hunting is beneficial to lion conservation.'

In a press release [July 2016] entitled 'Rogue lion breeders tarnishing South Africa's wildlife image' PHASA condemns the malnourished state of lions on a captive-breeding facility**. [Read the press release here]. (Read about the malnourished lions here WARNING: not for sensitive viewers). In the same press release PHASA note - 'Our wildlife is a key tourism asset and, in an age where destination decisions are based more and more on conscionable factors, potential tourists to South Africa are increasingly likely to live out their dream African holiday in a neighbouring country....' This is an important point of departure.

**According to a motion tabled for consideration at the IUCN World Conservation Congress later this year -  '..conditions of breeding and captivity are known to vary considerably but few, if any, comply with standards set by the Pan African Association of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZA) or the World Association of Zoos and Aquaria (WAZA).'    [Read more about September's IUCN congress here]


THE TRUTH

Choices & trade-offs

Government's policy on sustainable use ie: trade, is a growing trend in South Africa. Market economics and the commodification of wildlife is viewed as an efficient method of conservation.

Purported claims that the captive-bred lion industry supports conservation is unsubstantiated, if not grossly overstated. In contrast, the captive-bred industry generates multi-million dollar profits for proponents complicit in the industry.

International intolerance for the cycle of exploitation, is growing. Wegweiser-freiwilligenarbeit.com, a German online volunteering portal, is advising people not to participate in lion breeding projects.

Of South Africa's annual 9 000 000 foreign arrivals, only 0.1% are hunters; fewer still shoot lions. Foreign hunter numbers, spending Zar130 000 [adj.] on average, have dropped from approx. 16000 in 2007 to 7500 in 2014. The concomitant increase in captive-bred killing, over the same period, has interesting anecdotal connotations...Tourism contributes approximately 9% or R95bn. to South Africa's GDP annually [more info. here]. The national contribution from the lion shooting community is, therefore, comparatively negligible.

South Africa's non-consumptive, safari & eco-tourism Operators have joined the call to end the captive-breeding lion industry. [See who they are here and read their pledge here]. Ordinary, informed & responsible South Africans are doing the same.


THE PLEDGE

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (& women) do nothing.' (Edmund Burke)

www.bloodlions.org

Alisha & I have pledged our support for the campaign to end the commercial exploitation of lions [www.bloodlions.org]. We have made the same pledge on behalf of the companies we own, manage or consult to.

We encourage our business partners to do the same.

I invite you to do the same.   [Please visit www.bloodlions.org or show your support here]


The International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] comes together this September [2016] in Hawaii for its World Conservation Congress. 99 motions are tabled. One of the motions tabled, which will be voted on by the congress, 'aims to prohibit captive-bred lion hunting under any conditions and end captive-breeding that is for commercial & non-conservation reasons.' [AG May 9, 2016 (more here)]. 


The challenges we face as people, in a world accustomed to violence & threat, are broad, existential & often seemingly insurmountable. We are the products of our environment. Limitations on freedoms of expression & rights of movement are open-ended. Public indifference is the consequence of a routine dictated by circumstance. Progress, even under the best conditions, isn't linear.

I'm reminded of Kikuchi who said 'Even in the abyss of life, no matter how seemingly boring the circumstances may get, there are still hopes out there.' The wordplay or semantics of canned vs. captive-bred conceals the fraud that is the habituated lion ensnared in a commercial cycle of violence.

From the abyss, a voice of hope.






PS: The animal-human interface is explored in Ian McCallum's book 'Ecological Intelligence' [Get it here]. 

Driven grouse - two sides of one coin

75% of upland heather habitat is found in the UK - mostly on grouse moors

The Glorious Twelfth [12^th of August] celebrates the opening day of the Red Grouse [Lagopus lagopus scotica] shooting season. Most of the shooting takes place on grouse moors in upland Britain.

Grouse moors are areas of managed habitat characterised by heather & other low-growing vegetation for the purposes of shooting grouse. The season runs from the 12^th of August to the 10^th of December annually. In its driven form [DGS - driven grouse shooting] beaters are employed to drive or flush birds towards the waiting guns in small shelters or 'butts'. Participants pay upwards of £5000ppd for the privilege. The ecological impact of this exclusionary activity is increasingly coming under scrutiny.

In a campaign against DGS the BBC's Chris Packham [also the VP for the RSPB - Royal Society for the Protection of Birds] and Mark Avery, a former director of the RSPB, have called for the banning of driven grouse shooting. A related petition has garnered more than 85 000 signatures. Opposing the campaign is You Forgot the Birds, an organisation that represents the views of the shooting industry, fronted by Sir Ian Botham.

Traditionalists argue against DGS

In an emotional, public spat both parties skirted the facts relying instead on insult rather than substance. Describing those involved in shooting as 'the nasty brigade' & in turn attacked as an extremist is an exercise of petulance or the flinging of mud in the hope that some sticks. The public deserves better.

'Denying the truth doesn't change the facts' -  

• The Red Grouse is mostly found in heather moorland. 75% of heather moorland is found in the UK; most of it on the grouse moors & as proponents will argue, a consequence of grouse management. 60% of England's upland Special Scientific Interest Sites are managed grouse moors. The economic incentive, provided by the shooting of grouse, protects this habitat. 
• The grouse industry employs approximately 1500 - 2500 people.
• Routine predator control of foxes & stoats is legal and common practice.
• Other ground-nesting birds eg: the curlew & lapwing have benefited from grouse-managed moors. 
• The rotational burning of the moors encourages fresh growth. New shoots provides high-quality nutrition for the population of grouse. 

You could argue the semantics of grouse management, generally, but on the whole certain species of birds have done very well. Studies on a former grouse moor, in fact, recorded an 80% decline in bird numbers.

That's fair enough. It's also nonsense. Those who do the shooting, particularly when the birds are coming thick & fast, describe the shoot as exhilarating. The social / business spin-offs are equally cherished. I've had the privilege & I don't recall discussing employment or habitat protection, much. I do, however, remember saying 'Good shot' & occasionally 'He swings through the line but he's thinking of buying a grouse moor...' & that's the point. The shot is there for the sport and the craic. 

'Tell the truth or someone will tell it for you' - 

• Deliberately burning the moors affects the water-table and the rivers downstream. Burning also reduces moss growth and the associated number of macroinvertebrates. This has a negative consequence for water quality & the food chain.  
• Rivers draining burnt areas are usually characterised by lower ph levels & elevated levels of manganese and iron. 
• Peat affected by burning loses some of its absorptive characteristics and run-off, as a consequence, becomes problematic downstream.

That's fair enough but it's also a smokescreen from which naturalists build an argument. The ethos that the sanctity of sentient life is absolute is of greater significance ie: sport-shooting is inhumane, cruel & an abomination. The fact that most sport-shooting activities are exclusive & therefore exclusionary, is also reminiscent of social class structures long since disparaged.

In the early 1900s, when grouse were traditionally shot over trained dogs, heather was burnt less often to hold birds for longer. The heather was older, less nutritious & concentrated the birds in limited feeding zones. Inevitably an epidemic of disease decimated the grouse population. Investigations showed that the disease was less virulent on moors subjected to deliberate burning & or grazing. A correlation between infection and reduced resistance from malnutrition was shown to exist. Systematic burning of the grouse moors, as a consequence, became common practice.

The value of a grouse moor increases with the number of birds on offer. Gamekeepers optimise the habitat for the proliferation of grouse. Wet areas are drained. Heather doesn't do too well on sodden soils. Gamekeepers & groundsmen are also responsible for predator control. This is where the debate loses shape.


Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedes* - 

*Property in Land or the Law of Real Property gives landowners the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

Whilst the landowner's rights of peaceful enjoyment is absolute [Article 1 of the First Protocol] legislation provides for the public resolution of land use when there are competing interests among stakeholders. Specific legislation eg: UK environmental law, deals with cross-border issues eg: water pollution.

In the UK Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) ie: important wildlife & geological sites; cover over 8% of the UK. Almost 30% of SSSIs are in the care of private landowners. Prior to 2003 just under 60% of SSSIs were considered to be in good / recovering condition. Since then 95% of SSSIs are considered to be in favourable condition. Specifically on the grouse moors only 25% were considered favourable prior to 2003. Today 95% of grouse moors are considered to be in good / recovering condition.

Best practice management on the grouse moors now includes targeted conservation work to restore wetlands, peatlands and water quality.

The financial correlation between the 95% success* ratio on the grouse moors and the grant from the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme [ie: taxpayer-funded] is a given. The scheme rewards landowners for conserving important habitat. It's a contentious issue. Even so, the scheme also provides for the blocking of drainage ditches [grips]. Drainage ditches are directly associated with excess run-off and the negative consequences that has on the environment and resident communities downstream. Depending on what you read many argue that there are few remaining natural, highly-absorptive blanket bogs on managed grouse moors. Either way grip-blocking is being expanded.

*defining success is equally contentious. The grouse moors are sometimes regarded as a monoculture of young ling heather [Calluna vulgaris] promulgated at the exclusion of everything else. In that context, knowledge-gaps make it difficult to assess the impact on biodiversity on managed moors. Notwithstanding, we do know the following:

• Understanding & optimising burn cycles is key.  
• Some bird species, incl. species in decline elsewhere, are maintaining their populations on the grouse moors.
• Burning does impact scrub & woodland cover. The Meadow Pipit & small mammals eg: voles, which prefer grass, are also negatively effected. On this point Hen Harrier numbers are correlated to the general availability / numbers of their traditional prey ie: pipits & voles. In a geographically-limited study, published in the late 90s, the authors found that raptors killed circa 30% of adult grouse in winter and another 30% in summer. Some 40% of grouse chicks were taken by Hen Harriers specifically.   

Raptors & the grouse moors are at the centre of this human-wildlife conflict. If the published figures are taken at face value, the incentive to illegally control raptors is real. In the last year electronically tagged raptors have routinely gone missing over the grouse moors. Circumstantial evidence of illegal persecution maybe but the motives are compelling even so. Over the same period no individual was successfully prosecuted for illegal persecution ie: the killing of raptors on the grouse moors. Current legislation makes provision for an onerous burden of proof & this needs redress. Imposing vicarious liability on landowners / gamekeepers should improve the success rate in the courts. Social factors usually drive conflict and yet, despite evidence, they are often ignored.

In April this year the European Commission started an infraction procedure against the UK government. The complaint relates to the poor application of its Habitat Directive w.r.t blanket-bogs. The focus is on peatland burning and the effect that has on dependent biodiversity. Notwithstanding the semantics associated with Brexit, many recognise the need for constructive, collaborative change. Rhetoric from both perspectives muddies the discussion.

Traditionalists decry the unsporting nature of driven grouse. Their reasoning is fairly obvious. Although published information on 'walked-up shooting' [over trained dogs] & grouse numbers is lacking, this practice seemingly eliminates the need for large bags. Artificially manipulating the habitat, to increase the proliferation of the bag, may be less ruthlessly applied as a consequence. If the social rewards from a day's sport shooting is considered complimentary / progressive in the 21^st century, then more emphasis should be placed on the excursion rather than the competition associated with the numbers of birds killed. That burden falls on the shooting estates and a universally-adopted industry definition of sustainable utilisation. The dictates of shooting etiquette demand no less. State subsidies, where applicable, should be transparent and concomitant on the restoration of the natural habitat. Licensing of shooting estates is a given. Non-compliant estates forfeit the right to host shooting members of the public. Concurrently, the knowledge gaps w.r.t the effects of intensive management on biodiversity as a whole, must be independently addressed. Scaremongering; personal attack & biased points of departure, effused in the agenda-steered press, is neither constructive nor conducive to resolving the current human-wildlife conflict.

Prattling on about the 'dark satanic moors' or posturing in the press to undermine the integrity of a rival, are acts of deflection. Cool heads; substantive change and the rigorous enforcement of the law is a better point of departure.    

Fanning hot air

'..... it would break the laws of physics if emissions and fuel use didn’t go down when wind was contributing.' - American Wind Energy Association


Is wind energy, endorsed by co-sponsors BirdLife South Africa & Investec, a blast of hot air?

In August 2012 Investec & BirdLife South Africa [BLSA] appointed Samantha Ralston to 'actively participate in the renewable energy sector' - I assume to provide a responsible framework. BLSA acknowledged a possible [?], negative impact on birds. Investec Power & Infrastructure finance renewable energy projects. [Investec - Sustainability & BirdlifeSA]

From the BLSA site [BirdLife South Africa] the following -

'The need for cleaner energy has resulted in a burgeoning renewable energy industry in South Africa. At BirdLife South Africa we acknowledge the predicted shortfall of evergy [(sic) - presumably 'energy'] supply versus demand. We also recognise the need to include more renewable energy in our energy mix if the threat of climate change is to be reduced. BirdLife South Africa therefore supports the responsible development of a renewable energy industry in South Africa.'

Good intentions, clearly, but a little naive. Let's cut to it. We know birds are killed by turbines. In fact, a median estimate suggests some 300 000+ birds are killed in the US each year [Smithsonianmag.com]. Seabirds are at greater risk! [BirdLife International] To conclude before we begin and without being disparaging, the co-sponsored outdoor advert 'without impact' is misleading, if not high-grade BS. A claim of 'with minimal impact' is more accurate but let's not get into the semantics of language.

BLSA makes reference to the burgeoning renewable energy industry & this is key. The emphasis on burgeoning is mine.

What is wind energy? 

Wind energy is a form of solar energy. Wind energy (or wind power) describes the process by which wind is used to generate electricity. Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy in the wind into mechanical power. A generator can convert mechanical power into electricity.  [openei.org]

What are the purported benefits of wind energy? - ( per the Jeffreys Bay Wind Farm )

1. Wind is a clean, renewable energy source. There are many environmental benefits of wind energy, including:

• Water saving – wind energy does not consume water during the energy generation process, it also helps preserve scarce water resources.
• Reduced carbon emissions – one megawatt of wind energy equates to 2600 fewer tons of carbon emissions when compared to coal-fired energy generation.
• Wind energy generation emits zero air or water pollution.

As for the Jeffrey's Bay Wind Farm -

1. Annual 
   CO₂ 
   emissions avoided | 420 000 tonnes
2. Project lifetime CO₂ emissions avoided | 8 400 000 tonnes
3. Water savings | 590 000 000 litres per year

South Africa's Eskom [Eskom - Renewable_Energy] reached full capacity [annual 233000 MWh or approx. 95000 homes] at its own Sere Farm; a wind farm near Vredendal in the Western Cape. As an aside, Eskom's published map of Sere uncannily resembles BirdLife's own published map of the nearby Olifant's River Estuary [Olifants-river-estuary], an IBA [Important Bird Area]. 

Other local wind projects, including the wind facility near Darling in the Western Cape, claim the same benefits.  

That's all good & well if you take the data at face value. Unavoidably, bias is inherent in most projects - good & bad. 

Forbes - wind-energy-carbon published an article on a real-world study by Bentek Energy [now Platts], an energy analytics firm. The study concluded that wind-energy's carbon-reduction figures were, in many cases, grossly overstated and as a consequence, too expensive to be commercially scaled. Proponents of renewable energy refute their conclusions [Quora]. In context the Bentek study was sponsored by the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States... Debated inaccuracies notwithstanding, Bentek concentrated on the emissions of coal plants ie: when these facilities are continually cycled as backup for the variability of wind production. This is important.

The wind industry's claim on emissions-savings relies on two assumptions:

1. The reduction in production from coal-fired plants = a proportionate drop in emissions.
2. The wind's vagaries does not impact coal-fired facilities.

Both assumptions are false. 

Base-load energy production [**I'll get to this in a minute] ie: coal & nuclear, are designed to be efficient at optimal levels of production. Emissions increase as production & efficiencies decline. Wind production fluctuates with wind speed. To balance the grid other generators work harder. This increases emissions to the point where savings from wind may, in fact, be negative.    

**Base-load production is the high-efficiency production of energy, at a constant rate and usually at low cost. Base-load plants don't usually adjust output to comply with increased consumer demand. Peaks or spikes in demand are often provided for by smaller, less efficient peaking power plants eg: gas & wind. [Caveat - renewable energy sources are, however, sometimes incorporated into the base-load production.]

Jeffrey's Bay Wind Farm claims a saving of 8 400 000 tonnes of CO₂ over the project's life-cycle. Most often these kinds of figures are calculated on displacement ie: where each wind kWh eliminates the emissions from a coal-fired plant generating the same kWh BUT this almost always ignores the CO₂ emissions that are created [backup] to compensate for variance in wind production. 

The problem, generally, is a lack of production control. This leads to the prevalence of / need for backup plants - almost always running at lower efficiencies & usually at higher emissions. 

Eskom confirmed, very recently, that the utility was reviewing the role of renewable energy [Eskom - review] for the same reasons I've outlined above. It's an interesting take & the criticism of Eskom's position has been fierce. Notwithstanding, intuition & reality are not always interchangeable.  

Returning to BLSA's commitment to mitigating bird mortality - we know collisions kill birds. That fact has been widely reported by BirdLife International themselves. An improperly placed turbine can & does have a disproportionate impact on birds. Sensitive habitat destruction is also a valid concern. Understanding the impact on the birds themselves and on the habitat as a whole, I would assume, is key to BirdLife's monitoring process. In addition, newer turbines are purported to have less direct impact on flying birds & that's good news of course. 

What is not as broadly reported is the negative effect of turbines on bats. In addition to collisions, bats suffer fatalities without coming into contact with the blade itself. At close quarters the rapid change of air pressure results in barotrauma or pulmonary edema [oedema]. Estimates as high as 15 bats per turbine are quoted. There are 314000 [approx.] wind turbines around the globe [No. of wind turbines]   

I concede the merits of progress & the energy demands of an unchecked population. I understand profit and the incentive to innovate. What you may not know, however, is that the Jeffrey's Bay Wind Farm is owned by a consortium which includes local financial investment companies. That's fair enough of course. If opportunity doesn't knock, build a turbine...What I don't like is the disingenuous claim that wind proportionately reduces carbon emissions and let's be honest; that's the sales pitch. 

As for our two co-sponsors & their endorsement of wind energy, two things come to mind. Firstly, I'm not convinced that Bird'Life' South Africa has the mandate to publicly celebrate a product that in itself is factually indefensible however well it's done. Secondly, whilst Investec's motivations are an internal matter, I assume their CSR models are broadly relevant. Nobody likes a spoilsport. 

As for me, I enjoy my coastlines & mountains free of whirly-junk. What's wrong with that?