Problem Lions Announcement: Conservationist Challenges Namibian Minister

NamStay

AH fanatic
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
863
Reaction score
1,568
Media
106
Articles
278
full



AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM – HONOURABLE POHAMBA SHIFETA

I refer to the recent human-lion conflict incidents in the Kunene region in Namibia where over 250 livestock have been killed by marauding lions over the past week.

With reference to the press release by Mr Romeo Muyunda on behalf of the Minister or Permanent Secretary I have the following concerns.

1) I quote: “The MET has taken a decision to capture and translocate this pride of ten to fifteen lions to areas where they will not cause any conflict with people”.

• Considering the logistical challenges, cost and the low historic success rates proven and obtained through translocation of lions, is this option feasible? By comparison, would it not be more effective to identify key lions in conflict prone prides and dart and collar them with VHF/GPS collars? Would this not be more likely to become a “blanket solution” in conjunction with preventative measures like kraal upgrades and good husbandry by farmers?

Removing the lure of easy pickings through the aforementioned and adding the early warning/monitoring system and chase-offs by response units will surely be effective. Primarily “problem” animals, e.g. like baboons being fed by humans, are “cultivated” as such and without the temptation/lure simply do not develop an interest in human settlements.

2) I quote: “If there are challenges in capturing specific individual lions of this pride, then such individuals will be destroyed, but our first priority is to translocate these animals”.

• As mentioned above, capturing and darting a pride of 10 to 15 lions will be practically very, very challenging and the likelihood of challenges arising capturing them is high. This translates to the very real possibility of having to shoot some or many of them which in turn poses the possibility of the exercise turning into a bloodbath which will not resonate well in the tourism industry.

Also, killing them indiscriminately without consideration of social standing in the pride purely based on “challenges posed through capturing” will have a knock-on effect of its own. All in all, even if you bait them, it might turn into a logistical nightmare, whereas singling out two or three and darting/collaring them should be far easier and likely to succeed.

3) I quote: “We will continue to keep to other ways to prevent and mitigate such conflicts and therefore manage the situation. A variety of approaches can be implemented in order to manage the conflict efficiently and effectively. These include prevention strategies which endeavour to avoid the conflict occurring in the first place and take action towards addressing its root causes, and protection strategies that are implemented when the conflict is certain to happen or has already occurred, as well as mitigation strategies that attempt to reduce the level of impact and lessen the problem … Response to the conflict should be quick … Population numbers should be maintained to scientifically accepted carrying capacities”.

• With all due respect, and correct me if I’m wrong please, NONE of the above-mentioned actions have been executed by the MET, at least in the Kunene region, and it remains just empty promises and this had been the case for many years now, hyping up frustration and criticism aimed at your office in the process.

• Based on which scientific recommendations do you suggest the numbers to be maintained? Is it not so that the current researcher’s reports are outdated and not relevant anymore in terms of currency? Also, why should it be necessary to manage population numbers in an open system like the Kunene region? Surely, by removing livestock predation through effective HWC management, prey density should govern predator populations naturally and in harmony with nature?

• Is there any truth in the theory that surfaces more and more frequently that creating problem animals is part of a strategy to provide trophies of iconic species to the likes of the Dallas Safari Club and others? Even the researcher has referred to such exploitation in his 2010 report on gender skewing through hunting of lions.

It is feared that this would be the ideal strategy to circumvent restrictions pertaining to proof of sustainability of species and avail high-priced, rare, desert-adapted animals to the hunting fraternity. This is fast becoming a serious concern to the non-consumptive tourism industry stakeholders and tourists. How can you reassure them? Just what does the agreement with overseas hunting institutions entail, what undertakings had been given by Namibia against what reciprocation and how is it structured?

4) I quote: “The Ministry of Environment and Tourism takes issues of Human Wildlife Conflict Management seriously … if not addressed … and managed effectively, can harm if not destroy conservation efforts and tourism benefits for the country. We recognise this threat and in this regard we are currently finalising the review of the National Policy on Human Wildlife Conflict … Under this policy, a Human Lion Conflict Management Plan for North West Namibia has been developed and will be implemented fully“.

• Although we see and read of many, many meetings in this regard, with all due respect we are not aware of ANY tangible proof and has not seen any action undertaken in this regard. The policy-making and HWC Plan has received much media coverage but up to now I have not read about nor seen anything in the area undertaken or implemented by the MET with regard to its undertakings and mandate in this respect.

Surely the MET could in the interim, pending the promulgation of the new policy, act on the previous HWC Policy as it stands and execute it? Many farmers will agree that the reason they have killed/shot/poisoned lions was because of the lack of commitment and support from the MET which compelled them to take matters into their own hands. If needed I can come up with quite a number of statements corroborating this from them. The help they got from us, was up to now, all they got, even though it was not encouraged or recognised by the MET. Why is this?

• It sometimes occurs to me that there might be parties that do not want to see HWC Management/Prevention/Mitigation succeed as it would impact on their interests, being the opportunities arising to obtain trophy permits from “problem animals” generated by the failure of HWC prevention. This is in line with the policy to rather “derive value” from a problem animal by selling the trophy than “waste it”, which would ring logic if the lines did not seem somewhat blurred by the window of opportunity it affords and the potential for exploitation and abuse like we have seen recently in the Ugab valley pertaining to the shooting of Kambonde and Tusky.

Could the honourable minister please put our minds to rest regarding this? Our questions directed to the MET remains unanswered regarding this despite promises that it would be answered.

A response to this letter would be prudent and appreciated as it reflects the concerns of many citizens of Namibia as well as a large number of visitors to Namibia.

Written by Dr Ingrid Mandt (Namibian born and bred)


Source: https://africageographic.com/blog/problem-lions-announcement-conservationists-challenges-minister/
 
What a great opportunity for the Minister to respond. Finally, the government has a stage to create understanding. I hope they rise to the occasion.
 
So if they collar the lions who will monitor that and warn the farmers that the beasts are about???? Not sure how that would ever work. I think the good minister would have more success if he personally convinced all the lions in the area to become vegetarians!:whistle:
 
Just read up her background: a doctorate in dentistry (amazing how dentists have an affinity with lions, hey?), absolutely HATES big game trophy hunters "they make her blood boil" and, she gets more teary over an animal dying rather than any human. Hmmm! A dyed in the restroom "anti"!!

Source: http://www.ingridmandtdesertcollection.com/about-ingrid/
 
Just read up her background: a doctorate in dentistry (amazing how dentists have an affinity with lions, hey?), absolutely HATES big game trophy hunters "they make her blood boil" and, she gets more teary over an animal dying rather than any human. Hmmm! A dyed in the restroom "anti"!!

Source: http://www.ingridmandtdesertcollection.com/about-ingrid/

The Dr writes well enough to have the anti crowd on her side. I pointed out the collar scheme because it sounds good but as we all know would do nothing to prevent the lions from killing a few goats.
 
And who the heck is going to pay for the monitoring, upkeep and development of this warning system? How's the wifi in Namibia anyways....
 
The Dr writes well enough to have the anti crowd on her side. I pointed out the collar scheme because it sounds good but as we all know would do nothing to prevent the lions from killing a few goats.
The anti crowd in my opinion are all bloody hypocrites! I've never yet seen a protest march or demonstration outside McDonald's, KFC, any steak/burger joint or in any supermarket meat section. And why? Because those hypocrites like eating meat!!
I agree, lion collars are a good idea to keep them distracted!! And your quip on vegetarian lions is Great! Visions of baiting them up with a plate of couscous and a side of Caesar salad at 50yds has me LMAO!!
 
The collar idea is terrible. I was recently reading (somewhere on here, I am sure) that collars actually are very controversial in research circles. The placement of them affects animal behaviour. And, they have to be maintained as the animal grows.
 
The collar idea is terrible. I was recently reading (somewhere on here, I am sure) that collars actually are very controversial in research circles. The placement of them affects animal behaviour. And, they have to be maintained as the animal grows.
Quite! Then they'll have to take both full responsibility and the blame, and not us - what a refreshing change for once! - when it screws up!!
 
it seems a culling operation, with paying hunters would be attractive to all parties...except maybe the doc that made the write up above. saves livestock, saves farmers upgrading their property. saves helicopter time, darting, collars, monitoring, etc and all associated costs. and, somebody could get paid, ph's, local farmers, the government and more.

my 2 cents
 
An interesting letter.

It seems to me that an organization such as African Geographic could have done much better.

The 'solution' proposed here as an alternative is anything but. Chasing some lions down and collaring them? And then monitoring their activities in real time? If you don't monitor them in real time, and have an on-call hazing unit ready to spring into action if any of the lions approach livestock, will mean we would only know that these lions have killed livestock, after the fact. Of course, we know that now. So what is being proposed seems to be an expensive proposition, which, even if it were practical, seems extremely unlikely to solve the problem.

Lions have been well-studied, and there is only one solution here. The lions and the livestock have to be separated. There are lots of ways to accomplish that, with re-locating the lions being one of them. But we should all be aware that in order for re-location to have any chance of working, the lions have to be moved to a. place where there are no humans or livestock but, more importantly, where there is food for the lions and no existing lions. If there are existing lions in the area, one pride male or the other (and, often, their siblings) will end up looking for a new place to live, as surely as night follows day. And that new place may will have to be a place without existing lions, and so on, and so on.

So while I think that African Geographic is letting their agenda show - they believe the lions are more important than people and their livestock - I also believe that the Namibian Government is being a bit naive. This may be intentional, in which case, good for them. Otherwise, they will be doing this time after time.
 
What the hell does she plan to study? Whether or not lions eat meat? That was the most well written, verbal diarrhea, nonsense I have ever read. It always amazes me how stupid smart people can be.
 
I repeat Ron Thomson's query:
I ask the African Geographic Facebook team what kind of credentials they have to offer to justify their negative attack on my elephant management perspectives? They have no experience to compare with mine! And THAT begs the question: Just how much credence should the public give to the Africa Geographic magazine’s editorial opinions about ANY controversial conservation issue? Unless they want to be led by the nose all their lives, therefore, its readers should become critically independent thinkers.


Africa Geographic is a biased ill informed rag.

The Elephant ‘Murderer’!
by Ron Thomson
It is easy to create startling headlines to catch the attention of public opinion - as the Africa Geographic magazine published online and shared on Facebook recently did when it quoted the numbers of big game animals that I have hunted. And it left the question hanging: ‘Just why did I hunt so many?’ In the face of the public’s apparent acceptance of the untrue statements that are being made in self-serving animal rights propaganda - that the elephant is facing extinction - it is par for this magazine’s course that it chose, recently, to project a very negative anti-‘best-practice’ management stance on this important issue. I am not surprised.

The magazine’s Facebook team reported that I have killed, inter alia, 5000 elephants and it infers that this is a diabolical setback for Africa’s wildlife in an age where the elephant is “endangered” and facing extinction (which is absolutely not true) and where every elephant should be protected from all harm.

NB: I stopped hunting elephants in 1983. The relevance of this criticism, therefore, is well passed its ‘sell by due date’ limitation! But let us continue anyway. I don’t want to miss out on the opportunity this ‘personal crisis’ has to offer! It gives me the chance to tell the truth that has not yet been divulged.

They stated their disapproval of my elephant management suggestions for Kruger National Park - which is their prerogative - and they have supported the “landscape management plan” which is now in force in Kruger - of which I have publicly disapproved. I fully understand that their public exposure of my elephant management history is a blatant attempt to vilify my reputation. I expect no other treatment from Africa Geographic because the magazine is a major mouthpiece for South Africa’s animal rights brigade - my implacable enemy.

I don’t deny one single item on their list of my supposed ignoble history. Indeed, if I had a mind to do so I could add greatly to the environmental crimes that I am purported to have committed. Nevertheless, I would like to use this opportunity to advise the readers of the Africa Geographic Facebook - and everybody else in South Africa’s public domain - of the greater realities surrounding this attack on my person. It actually worries me not at all.

The big game hunting figures quoted (and more) were accrued over my 24 years as a game ranger/game warden/provincial game warden in the service of Rhodesia’s/Zimbabwe’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management. Not one of those animals was shot on licence. They were all killed in compliance of my big game management obligations to my country’s National Conservation Strategy (NCS) - which, like South Africa’s NCS, is based upon the IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy (WCS) 1980. And the reason why Rhodesia/Zimbabwe’s and South Africa’s NCSs are based on this same protocol, is because, in 1980 - when the WCS was hailed as being the blueprint upon which man and nature would progress into posterity in symbiotic harmony - all responsible nations obligated themselves to model their NCSs on the WCS template. Africa Geographic seems not to have heard of this state of affairs - or they deem it to be irrelevant.

In all the rhetoric used to besmirch my reputation, not one single reference was made to the fact that the primary purpose of a national park is to maintain its endemic species diversity; and no concern has been expressed concerning the fact that the current landscape management plan for Kruger National Park is causing massive species losses of both plants and animals. This is happening despite the fact that, for a very long time, SANParks has been mandated by parliament - above all else - to maintain the species diversity of its national park estates.

Wildlife management in a national park is the practice of establishing and maintaining a sustainable, healthy and generally dynamic balance between the soil, the plants and the animals in the sanctuary’s ecosystem. It is not species specific - and it certainly has nothing to do with giving one species preferential consideration over any other. Honest management is imperative! When one herbivorous animal species exceeds the carrying capacity of its habitat - and it starts destroying its own habitat - it should be understood that it threatens the existence of every plant species, and every other animal species, in the sanctuary. The remedial action should be to reduce the numbers of the excessive animal population to a level that the habitats can once again sustainably support. How more simple can this equation be?

I have never been a trophy hunter. During the 1960s and 70’s I was a ‘management hunter’ for the government department that I worked for. I killed hundreds of crop-raiding elephants; and many more for other legitimate reasons. I excelled at whatever I did and I killed elephants, when it was necessary to do so, with lots of exhilaration but no emotion. I was not the only game ranger in the department to reach such heights of excellence. During my career the department killed 44 000 elephants in the same period of time; and comparatively few game rangers were involved in the programme. Those who were each shot many thousands of elephants. Only the best persisted because they achieved the most desirable results. We all killed quickly and humanely causing minimal disturbance to those elephant herds that we left completely untouched.

The hunting of 5000 elephants for legitimate management reasons should not be looked upon as an indictment but rather as a manifestation of the great extent of my involvement with elephants and their management over a very long period of time. For 24 years I was steeped in elephants, their management implications, and their hunting. They became part of my psyche. And when I think of elephants all their management needs come oozing out of my soul; and the implications of having elephants in a national park are second nature to my being.

_SjctGJANcFYyP4rvd8gN5e37XXCH14CNS_j_3EYnrwIJb-sXWiw_d7Ky9SKBrpok7LHCn0PQpIulJEzhsnUkIirsOi-XxQMmgpJ_wCBlLBFmRBeHP6bC2aAdpYooAFd83QtqVgbXIaI=s0-d-e1-ft
The criticisms that the African Geographic Facebook article invoked are of no consequence to me. I look upon them as the sad manifestation of a society that is drawing ever further away for the realities of nature - pushed in that direction by articles such as the one here under review! But I noted that there were many responsible commentaries that see my point of view, too. THAT is encouraging. They indicate to me that responsible and intelligent people in South African society are starting to think this conundrum through.

Compared to my history and what must be obviously my great affinity for this iconic animal, I ask the African Geographic Facebook team what kind of credentials they have to offer to justify their negative attack on my elephant management perspectives? They have no experience to compare with mine! And THAT begs the question: Just how much credence should the public give to the Africa Geographic magazine’s editorial opinions about ANY controversial conservation issue? Unless they want to be led by the nose all their lives, therefore, its readers should become critically independent thinkers. And they should take the trouble to consider that if they continue to give support for the elephant’s preferential treatment in Kruger National Park today, they will be enabling the destruction of this country’s greatest single reservoir of terrestrial biological diversity. And THAT is the bottom line.
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.jpg
    unnamed.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 109
Last edited by a moderator:
I repeat Ron Thomson's query:
I ask the African Geographic Facebook team what kind of credentials they have to offer to justify their negative attack on my elephant management perspectives? They have no experience to compare with mine! And THAT begs the question: Just how much credence should the public give to the Africa Geographic magazine’s editorial opinions about ANY controversial conservation issue? Unless they want to be led by the nose all their lives, therefore, its readers should become critically independent thinkers.


Africa Geographic is a biased ill informed rag.

The Elephant ‘Murderer’!
by Ron Thomson
It is easy to create startling headlines to catch the attention of public opinion - as the Africa Geographic magazine published online and shared on Facebook recently did when it quoted the numbers of big game animals that I have hunted. And it left the question hanging: ‘Just why did I hunt so many?’ In the face of the public’s apparent acceptance of the untrue statements that are being made in self-serving animal rights propaganda - that the elephant is facing extinction - it is par for this magazine’s course that it chose, recently, to project a very negative anti-‘best-practice’ management stance on this important issue. I am not surprised.

The magazine’s Facebook team reported that I have killed, inter alia, 5000 elephants and it infers that this is a diabolical setback for Africa’s wildlife in an age where the elephant is “endangered” and facing extinction (which is absolutely not true) and where every elephant should be protected from all harm.

NB: I stopped hunting elephants in 1983. The relevance of this criticism, therefore, is well passed its ‘sell by due date’ limitation! But let us continue anyway. I don’t want to miss out on the opportunity this ‘personal crisis’ has to offer! It gives me the chance to tell the truth that has not yet been divulged.

They stated their disapproval of my elephant management suggestions for Kruger National Park - which is their prerogative - and they have supported the “landscape management plan” which is now in force in Kruger - of which I have publicly disapproved. I fully understand that their public exposure of my elephant management history is a blatant attempt to vilify my reputation. I expect no other treatment from Africa Geographic because the magazine is a major mouthpiece for South Africa’s animal rights brigade - my implacable enemy.

I don’t deny one single item on their list of my supposed ignoble history. Indeed, if I had a mind to do so I could add greatly to the environmental crimes that I am purported to have committed. Nevertheless, I would like to use this opportunity to advise the readers of the Africa Geographic Facebook - and everybody else in South Africa’s public domain - of the greater realities surrounding this attack on my person. It actually worries me not at all.

The big game hunting figures quoted (and more) were accrued over my 24 years as a game ranger/game warden/provincial game warden in the service of Rhodesia’s/Zimbabwe’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management. Not one of those animals was shot on licence. They were all killed in compliance of my big game management obligations to my country’s National Conservation Strategy (NCS) - which, like South Africa’s NCS, is based upon the IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy (WCS) 1980. And the reason why Rhodesia/Zimbabwe’s and South Africa’s NCSs are based on this same protocol, is because, in 1980 - when the WCS was hailed as being the blueprint upon which man and nature would progress into posterity in symbiotic harmony - all responsible nations obligated themselves to model their NCSs on the WCS template. Africa Geographic seems not to have heard of this state of affairs - or they deem it to be irrelevant.

In all the rhetoric used to besmirch my reputation, not one single reference was made to the fact that the primary purpose of a national park is to maintain its endemic species diversity; and no concern has been expressed concerning the fact that the current landscape management plan for Kruger National Park is causing massive species losses of both plants and animals. This is happening despite the fact that, for a very long time, SANParks has been mandated by parliament - above all else - to maintain the species diversity of its national park estates.

Wildlife management in a national park is the practice of establishing and maintaining a sustainable, healthy and generally dynamic balance between the soil, the plants and the animals in the sanctuary’s ecosystem. It is not species specific - and it certainly has nothing to do with giving one species preferential consideration over any other. Honest management is imperative! When one herbivorous animal species exceeds the carrying capacity of its habitat - and it starts destroying its own habitat - it should be understood that it threatens the existence of every plant species, and every other animal species, in the sanctuary. The remedial action should be to reduce the numbers of the excessive animal population to a level that the habitats can once again sustainably support. How more simple can this equation be?

I have never been a trophy hunter. During the 1960s and 70’s I was a ‘management hunter’ for the government department that I worked for. I killed hundreds of crop-raiding elephants; and many more for other legitimate reasons. I excelled at whatever I did and I killed elephants, when it was necessary to do so, with lots of exhilaration but no emotion. I was not the only game ranger in the department to reach such heights of excellence. During my career the department killed 44 000 elephants in the same period of time; and comparatively few game rangers were involved in the programme. Those who were each shot many thousands of elephants. Only the best persisted because they achieved the most desirable results. We all killed quickly and humanely causing minimal disturbance to those elephant herds that we left completely untouched.

The hunting of 5000 elephants for legitimate management reasons should not be looked upon as an indictment but rather as a manifestation of the great extent of my involvement with elephants and their management over a very long period of time. For 24 years I was steeped in elephants, their management implications, and their hunting. They became part of my psyche. And when I think of elephants all their management needs come oozing out of my soul; and the implications of having elephants in a national park are second nature to my being.

_SjctGJANcFYyP4rvd8gN5e37XXCH14CNS_j_3EYnrwIJb-sXWiw_d7Ky9SKBrpok7LHCn0PQpIulJEzhsnUkIirsOi-XxQMmgpJ_wCBlLBFmRBeHP6bC2aAdpYooAFd83QtqVgbXIaI=s0-d-e1-ft
The criticisms that the African Geographic Facebook article invoked are of no consequence to me. I look upon them as the sad manifestation of a society that is drawing ever further away for the realities of nature - pushed in that direction by articles such as the one here under review! But I noted that there were many responsible commentaries that see my point of view, too. THAT is encouraging. They indicate to me that responsible and intelligent people in South African society are starting to think this conundrum through.

Compared to my history and what must be obviously my great affinity for this iconic animal, I ask the African Geographic Facebook team what kind of credentials they have to offer to justify their negative attack on my elephant management perspectives? They have no experience to compare with mine! And THAT begs the question: Just how much credence should the public give to the Africa Geographic magazine’s editorial opinions about ANY controversial conservation issue? Unless they want to be led by the nose all their lives, therefore, its readers should become critically independent thinkers. And they should take the trouble to consider that if they continue to give support for the elephant’s preferential treatment in Kruger National Park today, they will be enabling the destruction of this country’s greatest single reservoir of terrestrial biological diversity. And THAT is the bottom line.
In my opinion, their prejudicial and deliberate avoidance of accepted and widely known historical facts (NCS/WCS) culminating in a baseless personal attack - and calculated to defame Ron's professional and personal character - are perfect grounds for him to sue the crap out of them!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,632
Messages
1,131,594
Members
92,714
Latest member
cazhino90
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top