Daure-Daman invite 'animal lovers' to see wildlife damage

NamStay

AH fanatic
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
864
Reaction score
1,588
Media
106
Articles
279
In the news today


DAURE-DAMAN deputy chief Zacharias Seibeb invited animal lovers to come and see for themselves what is happening on the ground” when it comes to the damages, injuries and deaths caused by marauding wildlife.

Addressing animal lovers on Monday at Uis, Seibeb said they were aware of the international outcry against the killing of animals, but that the world should know about the threats and losses communities face.

A series of regional meetings are being held after the National Council tasked the standing committee on habitat and human-wildlife conflict in May this year to consult communities.

The committee is also consulting on the issue of compensation or lack thereof in the instance of the loss of human life; damage to property by wild animals; and the role of the environment ministry in mitigating and managing conflicts.

The aim of the consultations is also to justify possible amendments to the 2009 national policy on human-wildlife conflict.

This policy's compensation clauses state, amongst others, that N$5 000 will be paid out by government for a human killed by a wild animal, while a person who poaches an elephant or rhino could face fines between N$1 million and N$25 million, or one to 25 years imprisonment.

“What if the elephant or rhino killed the person? The law is silent on that, and that's what we are discussing,” said committee chairman Cletius Sipapela, adding that the findings from all the consultative meetings will be tabled before the National Council and debated on 30 November.

The meeting at Uis was attended by commercial and communal farmers, non-governmental organisations involved in wildlife conservation, tourism operators, and traditional authority representatives.

Seibeb said traditional authorities will never want to drive away or eradicate wild animals, but believes that numbers should be manageable, and that compensation should be fair.

He said for a child killed by wildlife, the family should receive N$100 000 compensation, while if an adult is killed, especially a breadwinner, his/her dependants should receive compensation of N$200 000, plus additional monthly support. Likewise, compensation for livestock, cattle and crops should be increased.

“It is not our intention to financially exploit government, but livestock farming is the backbone of survival in this area, and so compensation should be fair,” Seibeb stressed.

He also called for a swifter response from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism in conflicts, and better protection of community infrastructure from especially elephants.

“Considering the actions of the environment ministry, we conclude that an animal's life is worth more than human life,” he said.

Seibeb also accused the non-governmental organisations of using all international funding, instead of channelling it to the victims of human-wildlife-conflict.

The co-owner of the Brandberg White Lady Lodge, Naude de Jager, agreed that compensation should be increased, especially for human life – that is N$20 000 for the funeral arrangements, and N$50 000 as “human cost”.

He said while it is understood that problem animals should be done away with, awareness campaigns should be intensified about human and wildlife co-existence.

“If we respect wild animals, they will respect humans,” said De Jager, adding that both humans and wildlife should be protected.

He noted that wild animals bring foreign currency to the communities, and are therefore an asset.

In fact, his lodge has established a fund which is aimed at supporting the protection and compensation of communities affected by wildlife conflict.

Government also needs to be clear about the benefits from trophy-hunting – whether by business, the community or government, especially when it comes to problem animals.

“At the end of the day, we must use animals to the advantage of the people, and it is essential that people understand what those advantages are,” he said.

Peace project coordinator of EHRA (Elephant-Human Relations Aid), Betsy Fox said wild animals such as elephants and rhino, are more valuable alive than dead.

According to her, and contrary to the general perception, the elephant population in Erongo was in fact decreasing because of bulls being shot and calves dying, especially during droughts.

She said rapid responses to any conflict were critical in defusing threatening situations which may lead to more damage, injury or death.

EHRA's aim is to help protect infrastructure, monitor elephant populations, and educate communities on how to manage human-wildlife-conflict.

Most conflicts in the region are caused by elephants and lions. Elephants destroy crops and houses, as well as water infrastructure, while lions kill livestock.

The communities are suggesting that they also have problems with leopards and hyenas.



Source: https://www.namibian.com.na/60067/read/Daure-Daman-invite-animal-lovers-to-see-wildlife-damage
 
Thank you for sharing the information
 
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting.

A basic sense of fairness seems to be inbred in human beings - we seem to know an injustice when we see it. Let's examine just one from this article:

A human kills an animal, and the penalty is N$1MM - 25MM.

An animal kills a human, and the 'penalty' is N$5000.

What's wrong with this picture? Well, clearly animals killing people lack "intent" (as we understand in criminal law), so maybe it's fair to 'penalize' people for killing animals more. But here's other ways to look at this:

1. The 'penalty' or compensation paid by government when an animal kills a person is so low that the fine from one poacher could pay the penalty for decades. There is absolutely no incentive for the government of Namibia to do anything to prevent human deaths when the amounts involved are this trivial. In fact, there is a financial incentive to keep animals 'available for poaching' (note I am not suggesting that is what Namibia is doing - just that there is a clear financial incentive to do that).

2. The difference in amounts can be viewed - realistically I submit - as some indication of how much value is placed on one life versus the other. Not a great message to get from your government.

3. The person may well have had a spouse and family who depended on him or her for their very existence. Even in the case of a child, that child would be expected to support his or her parents in the future. That is (relatively) unlikely with the animal, yet no attempt is made to address this.

I can tell you which side I'm on.
 
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting.

A basic sense of fairness seems to be inbred in human beings - we seem to know an injustice when we see it. Let's examine just one from this article:

A human kills an animal, and the penalty is N$1MM - 25MM.

An animal kills a human, and the 'penalty' is N$5000.

What's wrong with this picture? Well, clearly animals killing people lack "intent" (as we understand in criminal law), so maybe it's fair to 'penalize' people for killing animals more. But here's other ways to look at this:

1. The 'penalty' or compensation paid by government when an animal kills a person is so low that the fine from one poacher could pay the penalty for decades. There is absolutely no incentive for the government of Namibia to do anything to prevent human deaths when the amounts involved are this trivial. In fact, there is a financial incentive to keep animals 'available for poaching' (note I am not suggesting that is what Namibia is doing - just that there is a clear financial incentive to do that).

2. The difference in amounts can be viewed - realistically I submit - as some indication of how much value is placed on one life versus the other. Not a great message to get from your government.

3. The person may well have had a spouse and family who depended on him or her for their very existence. Even in the case of a child, that child would be expected to support his or her parents in the future. That is (relatively) unlikely with the animal, yet no attempt is made to address this.

I can tell you which side I'm on.

That elephant will never have its pay garnished to pay the fine. So, anything larger is just penalizing the government for supporting wildlife. Really, it is an acknowledgement that the citizens collectively are bearing the burden of a robust wildlife:)
Sorry folks, lawyers at play here....:D
 
I think lawyers should be encouraged to play.

I agree with your conclusion. People bear the burden, but when they react in what might be called a rational manner, given the situation, they are punished.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
54,083
Messages
1,145,315
Members
93,577
Latest member
markekcertifications
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Nick BOWKER HUNTING SOUTH AFRICA wrote on EGS-HQ's profile.
Hi EGS

I read your thread with interest. Would you mind sending me that PDF? May I put it on my website?

Rob
85lc wrote on Douglas Johnson's profile.
Please send a list of books and prices.
Black wildebeest hunted this week!
Cwoody wrote on Woodcarver's profile.
Shot me email if Beretta 28 ga DU is available
Thank you
 
Top