“Rules” and “Regulations” of canned hunting

It would be prejudiced to state that all trophy hunting is an unnecessary evil and should be banned completely; thus my content will focus on the superfluous canned and trophy Lion hunting and the legalities of it.

Canned hunting is misjudged to be illegal in many well-known countries such as South Africa, but this is not the case. It is completely legal to partake in canned hunting in South Africa as long as certain regulations are abided. The laws vary depending on the province however there is a general consensus amongst the provinces.

These rules are as follows:

• Non-resident hunters have to hunt under the supervision of licensed, professional hunters.
• A licensed outfitter must outfit the hunt.
• Trophy hunting has to take place within 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after sunset.
• Night-time hunting with artificial light is allowed, provided the hunters have a night hunting permit.
• Some provinces allow shooting from a vehicle, but generally no shooting is allowed within 200 meters of a vehicle.
• Private landowners may determine on specie quotas.
• Permits have to be issued prior to commencement of a hunt (see document downloads below).
• Each hunting client has to be issued with a separate permit.
• Sport darting of rhino is strictly prohibited.
• Minimum calibre requirement for dangerous game varies per province, with a minimum of .375.

(Lionhuntinginafrica.com, 2014)

There are additional instructions that any hunter wishes to hunt an animal on the TOPS (Threatened or Protected Species) list must acquire a special permit for these animals.

As disturbing as it is to hear; there are fewer than 4000 lions left in the wild the species is declining by a rapid 5 – 8 percent a year, and yet they are not a threatened or protected species by South Africa standards.

Canned Hunting… Is it merely a social construct?

A very interesting debate for this topic of canned hunting is whether this issue is a constructionist one. The debate in favour of this being a social construct going in line with the canned hunters and is hard to recognise any truth in it, otherwise an individual must admit that in some way or form, canned hunting isn’t actually an issue at all, but one born from social construct. Like any argument however, not everything is black and white and there can be a sort of middle ground between the two arguments.

The view that canned hunting is a constructionist argument stems from the fact that evolutionary speaking; humans naturally hunted animals, whether they are carnivorous, omnivorous or herbivorous. It is natural for a human being to hunt prey seeing as though our species is an omnivorous one and needs protein (in any way or form) to survive. Evolutionary, one cannot deny that human beings have needed (and still do) to hunt. The argument then flows into that of “how can you be against hunting if you eat meat or wear leather shoes”. This argument clearly states that people who eat meat or wear animal products shouldn’t be judging hunting as they are benefiting from animals dying but do not claim the death of the animal on their conscience. These arguments are blatant in their allegation that the controversy and response to trophy hunting is nothing but a misguided social construct of left wing propaganda.

Now to some degree, this argument is right. It is a social construct that hunting is a bad and completely unethical thing to do. However in saying that, the social constructs argument is incorrect about a few matters. Many trophy hunters pursue the animal they kill in unjust and cruel means, and before the arguments begin that it’s a dog eat dog world and humans have never concerned themselves over fair and have taken trophies to boast of their feats, that argument is false in it’s misunderstanding of humans of the pasts motives. In the past, humans have almost revered animals to the point of taking trophies to either honour the life that had to be taken in order for the humans lives to live, or a boastful conquest of a hard won battle between man and beast where the outcome was never certain over whom would win. The motives were pure in the taking of an animal’s life and never done as pure hedonistic sport and enjoyment with wasteful actions, such as trophy hunters are with their kills. Majority of trophy hunters do not eat the meat of their kills or even keep more than 40% of their kill.

So yes, in response to the social constructionism debate, trophy hunting is to a degree a social construct, however not so completely that they do not have an argument to stand on. In fact, they have more of one by combating the misunderstood social constructionism one that is constantly (and incorrectly) thrown around by trophy hunters.

Thanks Melissa!

Canned and trophy hunting are controversial activities that have become more recognized as of late, especially after the international awareness that was garnered from the Melissa Bachman hunting photo from November 2013.

“What a h  c  unt”

The occurrence received massive awareness and heated opinions regarding the matter and although Melissa Bachman has been hunting for an extremely long time, with a reality television series dedicated to it, one photograph spurred a strew of death threats and hate mail in her direction. That photograph was one of her with a large dead male lion that she had shot and killed in South Africa on a hunting expedition with the caption “An incredible day hunting in South Africa! Stalked inside 60-yards on this beautiful male lion… What a hunt!”

The power of social media was illustrated fully with this incidence as angry South Africans had managed to create such uproar about Melissa Bachman and her killing of a lion in their country that international awareness had sparked and caught. The social media consciousness was so large that numerous Facebook pages depicting their outrage had sprung up with some reaching even 364 000 likes and followers, as well as an online petition demanding Bachman to be denied entry into the country again with over 350 000 signatures, top American social media blogging organisations such as Mashable talking about the issue and even famous comedian Ricky Gervais making derogatory jokes about the hunter.

The social media backlash was so large that Bachman had to delete all of her social media accounts and go into social media hiding for a while until the hype had died down somewhat. The hype did eventually die down for Bachman and when she did eventually release a statement to the public, generally no one had cared about her, however masses still cared about the canned lion hunting that had now been dragged out of the dirty closet. Melissa Bachman is definitely not thanked for her acts of killing a lion, but she is definitely thanked by the multitudes of unaware people for her inadvertently raising cognizance of what is going on behind the scenes of ‘conservation’ and blatant canned hunting.

Thanks Melissa!

Justification of canned hunting: acknowledged and debunked

Looking at the definitions of canned and trophy hunting, one would assume that it is quite an obvious issue; hunting is wrong and that’s that. However there is huge debate revolving around this topic at the moment and both sides are very passionate about their point of view…

 

The canned and trophy hunters (hereafter referred to as canned hunters) justify their actions by claiming that they are greatly contributing to the conservation of wildlife and economic contribution. Whilst there is fact in both of those contributing factors, that is taking a very rudimentary view on the matter, and one must analyse the statements from both sides in order to come to an understanding of this environmental issue.

The Professional Hunters Association of South Africa states that the economic contribution from trophy hunting is that of an exorbitant amount of R1.24 billion in 2012. The breakdown of this spend included expenses of airfares with SAA, transport within the country, ammunition, hunting gear, clothing, shipping costs and trophy handling, licenses and permits, additional tours and travel costs as well as their fee’s for their hunting trip and game killed.

Now one can see the monetary benefit for a country like South Africa from the figures stated, however there are a great deal of assumptions made in that figure; such as the statements that the hunters are buying their gear in South Africa and flying via South African Airways. Another contentious issue with this financial statement is that money is a satisfactory compensation for that of killing wildlife. An understanding of ethics is needed when conversing about this topic, as one would need to comprehend that money is not the only contributing factor to a successful nation. If job creation is one of the main justifications of canned hunting, then the figures of employment need to be considered of that of hunting lodges and that of game reserves. Hunting lodges typically employ between ten to twenty staff and game lodges between thirty to sixty, not to mention the fact that a live lion can bring in the same amount (plus some) as that of having it killed.

The assumption that this financial remuneration is one of the contributing factors to wildlife conservation is also another contentious issue, as that assumption has no basis in fact whatsoever. There is no satisfactory evidence of the monetary gains being fueled back into conservation in an adequate fashion.

The conservation defense put forward by the canned hunters has many different facets to it and the first one being that of reducing the risk of poachers. The argument for this is by making something legal it allows a means for people to gain what they want legally and not having to resort to illegal means and creating a market for poachers. If this was the only means possible to conserve a species then it should most definitely be looked at, however currently it is not the only means left to us to protect a myriad of species. This defense only supplies a means of simplifying things for poachers. A gunshot can be mistaken as a canned hunt when in fact it was the result of a poacher. It removes the alarmist from the ordeal and desensitizes people from the seriousness of the matter. Hunters are commonly lumped into either of two categories; those that want the trophy and those that want the hunt. If hunters are adamant about wanting the hunt; they will not be content with a canned hunt as those animals are not the wild satisfactory hunt they were after. Thus canned hunting does not dissuade those that they really need to be.

The other defense made by trophy hunters is; the money spent on permits etc. is fuelled right back into the conservation of the countries wildlife. Now let’s assume for arguments sake that this statement is 100% completely true, (which in many countries is not. Tanzania only receives 25 percent of hunting fees, and that goes back to the country for whatever spend) is this to say that, that amount is equal if not more to that of keeping the animals alive and gaining financial and environmental benefits that way? An interview done with villagers of Tanzania revealed the following regarding the effects of hunting the animals:

“We‘re more closely allied with the photographic operators than the hunters. They (the hunters) are finishing off the wildlife before we‘ve had a chance to realize a profit from it. Hunters don‘t recognize us; they only recognize the government 25 percent of hunting fees (that) goes into the “hole” at the district. We‘re supposed to get 5 percent- we don‘t even see that.” (Sachedina 2008, p152)