01 Nov 2005 - by Dr Aldo Berruti
Gamebird-related Comments on the Report of the Hearing of the Panel of Experts on Professional and Recreational Hunting
Aldo Berruti
1 November 2005
1. Introduction
This is a summary designed to advise AGRED members on this issue. The executive summary (5.5 pages) will be forwarded electronically to anyone requesting this. For those interested few, the full 78-page report will be forwarded electronically on request.
Marthinus van Schalckwyk, Minister of Environment Affairs, appointed a Panel of Experts to advise him on aspects of professional and recreational hunting as a result of the controversy on canned lion hunts and hunting in private conservation/hunting areas adjacent to the Kruger National Park.
AGRED made a verbal presentation in August to the Hearing backed by a detailed written document focussing on gamebird hunting. SA Wingshooters did the same and we co-ordinated our submissions to ensure unity and agreement in sharp contrast to the major conflicts demonstrated by other sectors (e.g. the landowners adjacent to the Kruger National Park).
This comment summarises the recommendations of the report. Of course, the real meat lies in the decision of the Minister, but I believe that it is unlikely that the Minister will not act on the recommendations, particularly as the process was chaired by the former director-general of DEAT, Dr. Chippy Olver.
2. Overall impression
In short, excellent.
The findings of the report were weighed against three sets of principles. The first principle is that hunting should contribute to biodiversity conservation and conserve the resource base on which it depends, through sustainable consumption which does not threaten species or ecosystems. Secondly, animals should be treated humanely as set out in the Animal Protection Act. The third principle is that hunting should be ethical and abide by the concept of fair chase.
The report, I believe, substantially reflected the general weight of opinion, as shown at the Hearings, on controversial issues. Prior to the hearings, there were a few fears that the hunting industry as a whole was under threat. However, this report establishes hunting as a valid and major industry in South Africa. There is no subtext that hunting will be phased out in the future. I also quote from the Report ….”it became apparent to the Panel that the contribution hunting makes to the wildlife industry outstrips other sources of revenue such as live wildlife sales and non-consumptive tourism”. This very important recognition is now on record.
The Report does recommend banning of controversial practises such as canned hunting, put-and-take operations whilst restricting captive-breeding and intensive wildlife production. I believe that these restrictions on the whole sets the foundation for an ethical industry of high standard, which will in the longer term generate added value to the South Africa industry globally as an ethical sustainable industry offering high-quality experiences, whilst delivering biodiversity benfits, jobs and income.
The Panel was concerned that sectors of the hunting industry are involved in practises such as breeding of rare colour forms, movement of species outside of natural ranges as well the introduction of alien species which were not regarded by the Panel as contributing to conservation. They noted that financial gain should not override biodiversity concerns or the humane treatment. The recommendations relating to captive breeding, canned hunting, intensive production and put-and-take operations will have a profound effect on some hunting operations, particularly those based on small areas. However, I believe that these restrictions will make hunting far more defensible against the inevitable increase in anti-hunting sentiments and lobbying.
In the narrower gamebird focus, the outcome is very good to excellent in its recommendations. It establishes gamebird hunting/wingshooting as a fundamentally different activity to furred animal hunting, and establishes that it has its own requirements, and that gamebird organisations will be consulted when national norms and standards are put in place.
Other general issues are that the need for transformation of the industry and the lack of black participation in or equity in hunting was highlighted. Also, the need for uniformity in provincial regulation through national frameworks as emphasized, to be achieved through the proposed national and standards norms. Permitting will remain provincial although the need for funding for some provinces was emphasized.
3. Outcomes for the gamebird hunting
3.1. Positive elements
3.1.1. Recognition of gamebird hunting as a distinctive form of hunting
• “The panel established that the gamebird hunting is a unique form of hunting that has the potential to develop into a lucrative trophy (sic!) hunting sport but that it needs to be regulated differently from mammalian hunting due to substantial differences between the two forms of hunting. It should be regulated by the agricultural sector unless there are conservation or biodiversity implications, especially where the hunted bird is a rare or threatened species. Under these circumstances, an additional permit is required from the relevant conservation authority.”
This recommendation establishes gamebird hunting as a unique form of hunting although the use of the term trophy is absolutely wrong. In fact, on page 39, it goes as far as to say that the Panel initially felt there were three different types of hunting: trophy hunting, recreational hunting (biltong) and traditional and subsistence hunting. To this list they added gamebird hunting as a distinctive fourth type of hunting.
3.1.2. Control of controversial practises
• It is recommended that all Put-and-take hunting is banned because it compromises the principle of fair chase and the humane treatment of animals.
• It is recommended that banning the introduction of alien species or species out of natural ranges.
3.1.3. Acceptance of dogs
• “In terms of hunting with dogs, the use of dogs for tracking and retrieval of a hunted (dead or wounded) animal is considered an acceptable practice.”
Whilst it does not mention the use of dogs in locating targets, it clearly finds that the use of gundogs in gamebird hunting is acceptable.
3.1.4. Monitoring and permitting
• It is recommended that annual off-take should be based on a scientific assessment and monitoring of ecosystems and species co-ordinate via the South African national Biodiversity Institute (enlarged from the National Botanical Institute.
• Permitting of gamebird species. SANBI would compile two lists of gamebird species – one list that could be hunted without a conservation permit and anther list which would require a conservation permit. This second list would also indicate bag limits, areas of restricted activity and possibly hunting seasons. The implications are very clear that both AGRED and SA Wingshooters would be involved in this process.
It seems likely that although no conservation permits would be required, that the new national norms and standards would probably set quotas and hunting seasons in the absence of provincial legislation. However, this is a grey area which needs resolution.
3.1.5. Legislation and National Norms and standards
• Legislation on conservation and therefore gamebirds is a concurrent legislative competence, meaning both national and provincial government ca legislate. It is recommended that there is a national set of Norms and standards for the hunting industry (and gamebirds) which will act as guidelines for the provinces. We will have an opportunity to input into these guidelines which I believe will be critical for future provincial regulations, and which will act as guiding legislation in the absence of provincial legislation. This area will contain the detail on issues such as uniformity of bag limits etc. Whilst the outcome cannot be guaranteed, I regard this opportunity as full of potential to set excellent guidelines for the long-term future.
3.1.6. A further role for AGRED in development of the industry
• It is recommended that the Minister formally recognise national organisations which stand for the interest of professional and recreation hunting and associated industries (see below).
• The Panel proposes that further consultation with industry role-players to assess how the potential of gamebird hunting specifically can be faciliated. The gamebird organisations specifically mentioned are AGRED and SA Wingshooters (page 16).
3.2. Grey areas
• The control of gamebird hunting will fall under the agricultural sector. It is not at all clear as to the process and seat of control within agriculture. Given the lack of experience by Dept of Agriculture on gamebird hunting, there could be a steep learning curve in advising the Agriculture on gamebird hunting and its control. In the longer term, there may be huge advantages in placing gamebird shooting in the agricultural sector as a form of “natural” meat production, and make access to government regulatory bodies simpler and more powerful. It remains a grey area however.
3.3. Areas in which hopes for change were not met
A better outcome was hoped for in both the following items, although these responses were not unexpected.
• Permitting will remain a provincial regulatory function although it is recommended that these would be guided by a set of national norms and standards. It does recommend that national government should support the permitting in province here capacity is lacking. However, this may be a moot point if control of gamebird hunting falls under Agriculture with permitting for most species controlled through National Norms and standards. In practise, replacement of provincial permitting systems by a national central authority could produce more problems than solutions.
• Complaints about the firearms control Act were noted, but the Panel noted that it was not the Act per se which seemed to be creating problems but the implementation of such an Act.
|
