Stop killings on Robben Island

ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANISATION APPEALS TO PUBLIC FOR HELP TO STOP KILLINGS ON ROBBEN ISLAND

Animal Rights Africa (ARA) is outraged at the illegitimate killing of the deer, rabbits and guinea fowl, which have populated the Island for centuries and form an integral part of its heritage.



ARA has had access to the Robben Island Museum objectionable animal “eradication” plan and we confident there are more pro-active, sustainable and humane solutions to the problems of environmental degradation and these measures will also preserve the heritage of the Island for future generations and tourism purposes.



The more humane and compassionate representations and proposals by ARA and others – including a request for a moratorium on the killing- to those who control the Island and the entities advising them, have fallen on deaf ears. We believe that Robben Island management have not been properly advised, have not adequately applied their minds or have not consulted appropriately. We believe the SPCA has also erred in this matter.



ARA has already sought the assistance of the Office of the Public Protector and the National Prosecuting Authority. “We are appealing to the public to assist us as we would like to take legal action to prevent the management of the Robben Island Museum from executing the ill-advised contract they have entered into to kill the animals. This inhumane action and methodology, which has arisen solely as a consequence of the mismanagement of the national and international heritage site, is in contravention of Section 2 of the Animals Protection Act” said ARA spokesperson, Steve Smit.



It is ironic that globally this Island has come to symbolize victory over injustice and symbolism, and Nelson Mandela has said that for him the Island is now “a symbol of the finest qualities of the human spirit, rather than as a monument to the brutal tyranny and oppression of apartheid. It is true that Robben Island was once a place of darkness, but out of that darkness has come a wonderful brightness, a light so powerful that it could not be hidden behind prison walls…” but it seems that the Robben Island Management is determined to desecrate this internationally acclaimed heritage site and once again turn it into a place of oppression, injustice, exploitation, suffering and death.



Ends.



For more information contact:

Steve Smit +27 (0) 82 659 4711

ARA email - info@animalrightsafrica.org

ARA website – www.animalrightsafrica.org

Hands on, or hands off do APNR need to take a re-look at their policies.

Now that the dust has settled I would like to post mortem this event.

What ever the reasons, or motives for bringing this matter to the attention of Animal Rights Africa it needed to be done, as I feel that we should take notice of an animals suffering. I know many disagree with me, and that is fine we are all different and have different opinions. What did strike me was that people felt they needed to resort to personal insults toward myself and others, no matter which side of the argument they were on.
People who use personal insults are people who have nothing intelligent to say on the matter, and thus resort to insulting a person instead of discussing with them. I particularly found of interest, that people were keen to comment, but not put their names forward. The comments on this blog were all made anonymously, interesting if you truly believed in what you were saying why not sign your comment, I think it gives it more credibility.

Right with that said lets get down to business.

Let me say on the off set that I am not some one who thinks my opinion is the only opinion, I am happy to listen to other opinions as long as they are done with reason and with out insult. I also don’t profess to know it all, and feel that no one will ever really know it all where nature is concerned.

I feel that this case to me highlights the fact that us, in the APNR (Association of Private Nature Reserves) need to take a long hard re-look, at the non interference/intervention policy. I will outline my reasons below.

Okay why I feel we should help especially the larger herbivores is.-
Reason number one the larger herbivores suffering is less likely to be cut short without human intervention.
Unlike your antelope, zebra, giraffe they are not easily and sometimes almost never taken out by predators.
The elephant that are being taken out by predators in Botswana are by a pride of lions that specialise in this, and only take out young elephant never old or fully adult elephant, they just could never do this.
So when we become aware of an elephant who is suffering, even if it is because of old age and nature, as humans it is the humane thing to do to assist this animal by ending its suffering, whether it be by medical intervention or euthanasia. The excuse of the calf, was used to create support for the hands off cause, but as most of us know, the elephant family is a very close knit family and a calf of that age is already considered as part of the herd, it will naturally be taken care of by the rest of the herd, so that had nothing to do with the issue in my opinion. Euthanizing a suffering elephant will also not stop the other elephant in the herd from coming to pay their last respects, what did you think the vet would do cut it up can carry it away? Whether the animal died from euthanasia, being shot by hunters/poachers or dieing naturally they would still come to say goodbye.

A comment made on a blog that concerned me was the following -
“The medical details are not important, the fact that she lived a full life, a rich life and died of old age, is.”
I am sorry I strongly dissagree, I think the medical details of the case are very important, as the whole argument hinged around the suffering of the elephant and us allowing it to continue to suffer as part of a hands off policy. How can any one, as a compassionate human being stand by for two* weeks, and watch an animal suffer when we have the ability, and facilities to help the elephant, whether it be by medical intervention or euthenasia. For people who do not understand euthenasia, it is something that is never done with a light heart even if you know you are ending the extreme suffering of a creature, it is a very hard and emotional thing to carry out. Only those who have had to do it will know truly how it feels.
*(the timing is from all the articles & posts on web sites, from which I gather that humans were aware of her plight, I stand to be corrected on this.)

The argument which is used is that if it is not human induced hands off.

Well we need to look at that.
Now day’s there is human intervention all the way.
• What are fences? natural ?!
• What are human built and borehole fed water holes? Natural ?!
• What is culling? Natural?!
• What is trophy hunting? Natural?!
• Taking animals off because of increased numbers and selling them ? Natural?!
• The lack of natural migration routes due to fencing and urbanisation has a huge impact on animals.

Okay I think by now you are getting my drift.

It seems that if we are to successfully implement a hands off policy we need to address all of the above.

Only after we have addressed all the above issues and returned earth to its original state can we adopt a hands off policy…….yes I know it will never go back to the way it was…….therefore we need to re look at how we think about what is precious to this planet. (Not human beings by the way, we like to think we are the end all and be all of the planet, but in fact we are going very quickly toward being the End All of this planet). By Janine Scorer

Neither of the Elephant in the above picuture are the elephant discussed here.

ARA End of Female Elephant's suffering in Sabie Sands

05.10.09 Upate on the Elephant cow, it was reported to me last night that the cow died yesterday, and that they opend her up to do an autopsy, her death happend with out intervention. Her suffering is now at an end. RIP dear Elephant. Update from Louise Joubert. Just had confirmation from the vet on the ground that the elephant cow in Djuma died during the night and a post mortem was done yesterday. Post mortem results confirmed that she died a prolonged and very painful death. Impaction caused the gut to twist leaving her in severe pain and with a terrible infection. Nothing could have saved her!

Latest re Elephant in Sabie Sands http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article134233.eceRight of reply from Mr Moolman re article below:- click in link for his side of the story, http://www.djuma.com/blog/index.php?itemid=87
Reply from Mrs Moolman http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=5917157577305742150

Animal Rights Africa



PRESS RELEASE: 28 September 2009



Animal Protection Organisations and Government Work Together to End Suffering of Female Elephant in Sabi Sands



Animal Rights Africa (ARA) was appalled by the news that managers at the prestigious private game reserve, Sabi Sands, adjoining Kruger National Park, had allowed an elephant cow to suffer for over two weeks with what appear to be birth complications. The ongoing suffering of the elephant has been viewed by millions of people across the world via a live internet channel.



ARA contacted the reserve head to ascertain why nothing was being done to help the animal and was told that the reserve followed a policy of “non-intervention” in cases where animal suffering or distress were the result of natural processes.



“I spoke to Jurie Moolman of Sabie Sands who informed me of their reserve’s non-intervention policy which precluded him from assisting the suffering elephant in any way,” said Steve Smit, spokesperson for ARA. “I disagreed with his reasoning, after which he undertook to bring up the matter with the reserve’s ecological management committee at a meeting later today (September 29, 2009)”.



“Moolman said he was aware that the elephant was suffering and that it was very distressing for him to know this, but his hands were tied in terms of a management agreement with SANParks and the KNP whereby Sabie Sands is compelled not to intervene in cases like this,” Smit said. “I immediately phoned Dr David Mabunda, CEO of SANParks who informed me that under no circumstances would SANParks support a management policy that permitted the prolonged suffering of any animal in the wild, irrespective of the cause of that suffering. He added that in a case such as this one concerning the elephant cow, Sabie Sands has access to the veterinary and other assistance of Kruger Park, and that this assistance should have been called for as soon as the suffering of the elephant became known. Dr Mabunda assured me that he would immediately look into the matter. He called back a short while later to tell me that the head Kruger Park vet was dealing with the matter and that he expected the issue to be resolved soon in the most humanely practical manner.”



Smit said that ARA was heartened by the prompt response of SANParks which showed that the welfare of individual animals and a duty to care is an important component of their management plan.



We were also pleased to learn that the NSPCA was taking the matter very seriously and had telephonically notified Moolman that they would consider legal action against Sabie Sands if it was shown that their actions so far were in contravention of the Animal Protection Act.



Ends.

Ongoing war between David Mabunda & Animal rights Africa

Anti-hunting groups have misfired

August 30, 2009 Edition 1
David Mabunda
On May 10 and 17 this year, The Sunday Independent published two articles based on an earlier interview I had graciously agreed to on Eleanor Momberg's request.
The publication of the interview in two segments elicited vitriolic and venomous attacks on my personal integrity after comments I made were misinterpreted by my detractors as reflective of SANParks' policy on the sustainable use of natural resources.
Contrary to what was said by my critics, I never wrote any article or opinion piece for The Sunday Independent. The interview was about my personal history and put forward a wide variety of positions and perspectives on conservation matters. Regrettably my critics cooked a storm in a teacup over the "juicy bits" - culling and sustainable hunting.
I'm left wondering what crime I committed that warranted the "blitzkrieg" response from the regional director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Mr Jasson Bell-Leask ("Pitfalls of an outdated approach to conservation management", May 24) and Animal Rights Africa (ARA) represented by Michelle Pickover and Steve Smit ("SANParks is hiding behind indefensible excuses", May 31).
IFAW and ARA, although different in their architecture and gearing, are joined at the waist in opposing any form of sustainable-use practices and culling of animals, including elephants.
They seem to be too focused, obsessed even, on issues that only form a relatively minor part of managing a complex and diverse conservation organisation like SANParks in the 21st century and the importance of compliance with one of the main objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - to ensure that biodiversity conservation translates into access and benefit-sharing for the socio-economic upliftment of poor communities living adjacent to protected areas.
Their morbid views lead to inappropriate investment into trendy "conservation initiatives" of one kind or another to discredit successful state conservation institutions and liken its leadership to the apartheid-era conservation managers.
A strong, financially viable and functional state conservation institution is not in the interest of any animal rights and welfare NGO because its independence from donor funding to execute its primary functions limits opportunities for animal rights and welfare NGOs to influence the conservation policies of the state. The references to "failed conservation policies or outdated approaches to conservation" are nothing but grand public relations stunts.
Let me repeat my earlier responses to the lie peddled by our detractors that SANParks is allowing Kruger Park animals to be hunted on community-owned land adjacent to it. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have done no such thing. We are a responsible national custodian of the national park system. The fact that the Timbavati game reserve (as part of the Association of Private Nature Reserves) hunts certain quotas in terms of the historical agreement that was entered into with the previous SANParks leadership is a truism inherited from the past. The matter has been contested in the High Court and the said court, based on evidence before it, ruled in favour of Timbavati. My advice to the anti-hunting lobby is to take this matter to the Appeal Court rather than levelling false accusations at SANParks. It is clear to all and sundry that this is an anti-hunting campaign directed at a soft target.
I categorically deny that SANParks is "pushing the agenda of the powerful commercial hunting industry", and certainly I'm not their apologetic spokesman. Why would I take such a burden when I already have the huge task of managing one of the largest and most complex conservation agencies in the world? Hunting is a legal land use in this country in certain designated areas, bar national parks, and indeed there is a tiny band of hunters who are bringing the industry into disrepute through their unethical practices. It is not for SANParks to "police" these shenanigans but to refer any such repugnant deeds to law enforcement agencies. The entire debate on hunting is being addressed by the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs and should not be directed to SANParks. Our mandate does not have a single reference to "hunting" in it.
I'm not a hunter myself and no dead animals "grace" my lounge - but I'm not opposed to those who hunt. It is their democratic right to do so just as it is the democratic right for people to associate with animal rights NGOs in this country.
The public has been left with a mistaken image of our policy on the sustainable use of resources which was deliberately misconstrued to fit the ARA and IFAW attacks on SANParks. We were accused of killing South Africa's heritage.
The Protected Areas Act of 2003, as amended, excludes any form of extractive use including mining and hunting in national parks.
We can't even dig river sand for construction, maintenance and renovation of infrastructure work or "harvest" firewood. Park managers have to source such commodities from outside the parks.
Our sustainable-use policy is premised on the international prescripts of article 10 of the CBD which calls on all parties to:
The mainstay of sustainable use in national parks is ecotourism activities, which underpin our objective of using tourism as a conservation strategy.
In 2000 we joined our communities outside Kruger Park and repaired public infrastructure such as roads, bridges, schools, clinics and boreholes after floods that had disrupted the lives of the local communities.
Communities constitute BEE partners in our luxury lodge concessions businesses.
We have created medicinal nurseries for indigenous use in line with traditional and cultural practices to support communities where there is no (medical) doctor. We are the biggest sponsors of food security gardens and allow communities to supply our restaurant outlets with their produce. Our entire procurement and commercial activities account for a large slice of sustainable use.
We educate approximately 150 000 learners per annum in all the parks at huge cost. We offer bursaries and scholarships for university studies and employ the graduates in the various careers available.
Our track record in implementing sustainable use is broad and has no peer. We are assisting adjacent communities to set up buffer zones for ecotourism purposes in Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) outreach programmes. Recently we have provided the Mjejane community with animals worth over R40m for its ecotourism venture in the Hectorspruit area. None of these animals will be hunted.
In the 2006/07 financial year we commissioned an independent study of the economic impacts of the existence of national parks through Urban Econ, peer-reviewed by the University of Pretoria. The study found that SANParks created approximately 100 000 jobs directly and indirectly through various industry sectors such as construction, tour operating, travel and car hire, retail outlets, lodges in private nature reserves surrounding national parks, various procurement opportunities for small SMMEs etc.
It would be interesting to see what animal rights and welfare NGOs have done for our society besides megaphone politics in newspaper columns and radio stations.
Perhaps ARA and the Southern Africa regional IFAW want to emulate the "success" that IFAW and the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) achieved in Kenya in 2004 when they successfully lobbied the president not to sign an important amendment to the Wildlife Act (World Economics Vol 8, No 2 April-June 2007). Hunting and sustainable use policies were banned in Kenya in 1977 with the heavy lobbying of animal rights and welfare NGOs, thus triggering unintended backdoor plundering of wildlife for the bush meat trade.
This led to private land owners having little interest in practising wildlife economics in the same manner as the private nature reserves do in South Africa. In general, wildlife in Kenya has declined by between 60 percent and 70 percent (World Economics Vol 8, No 2, April-June 2007). The proposed amendment to the Wildlife Act to provide for greater participation of wildlife landowners who owned rangelands, and to address the issue of compensation for the loss of human life and damage to property, thus transformed conservation management practice.
The amendment came from the floor of the House, went through all the required procedures, debates and public consultations, including the Attorney-General's office, and was properly voted on by parliamentarians.
However, the foreign animal rights and welfare NGOs were able to hijack the entire consultative process by shipping in rent-a-mob crowds who successfully reduced everything to an endless shouting match about the amendment being a ploy to "re-introduce hunting and sustainable use" in Kenya.
IFAW launched a massively well-funded publicity campaign in newspapers and on TV with posters in Nairobi and the international airport. Noticeable by their silence were the established progressive international conservation NGOs, including the WWF, African Wildlife Foundation and the IUCN, all of which have regional offices in Kenya. They were frightened off by IFAW's publicity campaign and the threat of being labeled as advocates of "killing animals for fun".
No one has any objection to IFAW or ARA holding an opinion, but one can and must question the lengths they are prepared to go to achieve their objectives. I argue that such objectives are not in the interest of conservation in Africa but to please their masters in the northern hemisphere.
As Deepak Lal elegantly puts it: "Foreign NGOs claim to speak on behalf of the world's poor but in fact speak the language of the world's rich and invariably seek their own agendas and purpose rather than those they purport to help. Through their financial strength and access to political elites, especially in poor countries, they are able to subvert the representative democratic process and insinuate foreign minority views into what are supposedly parliamentary majority voting systems." (Lal, 2006, Reviving the Invisible Hand: the case for classical liberalism in the 21st Century. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.)
I thank the South African government for its commitment to fund conservation in this country, thus saving us from the vagaries of the likes of IFAW and other animal rights and welfare organisations as is the case in other African countries where these NGOs rule the roost. ARA might argue that it is indigenous to Africa, but its links (as displayed on its website) with the international animal rights fraternity place it squarely in the realm of this new form of colonialism and imperialism.
The current leadership at SANParks was raised and shaped between the hammer and the anvil of the liberation struggle, and as such it will not support policies that are at odds with the protection of the dignity of conservation, indigenous people and the national heritage for the equitable benefit of all and make national parks the pride and joy of all citizens.
Dr David Mabunda is the chief executive officer of South African National Parks
Source: Sunday Indepdendent for subscriptions please go to http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/

Reply by ARA

'Mabunda smear tactics a low blow'

September 06, 2009 Edition 1
Michele Pickover
Animal Rights Africa is dismayed at the unwarranted attack on ARA by SANParks CEO Dr David Mabunda in his opinion piece, "Anti-hunting groups have misfired" (Sunday Independent, August 30, 2009). But clearly, in our dedication to ending the unnecessary suffering of oppressed and exploited sentient beings, ARA has struck a raw nerve.
Let us start with Mabunda's simplistic and patent attempt to side-line and discredit ARA. By implying that ARA is part of some kind of international illuminati-type conspiracy from the North, Mabunda makes use of apartheid-style smear tactics worthy of P W Botha. Why is it so difficult for Mabunda to accept that ARA is a "proudly South African" initiative that is simply part of a global trend towards the expansion of justice and respect for all animals (humans included)?
The liberation struggle in South Africa was part of a global momentum towards recognising the dignity and integrity of oppressed people the world over. Why are the same principles, when applied to the animal liberation struggle, so difficult for him to comprehend? It is clear that Mabunda has not bothered to understand what the guiding principles of the animal liberation and animal rights movement are. It is therefore absurd and disingenuous in the extreme that he tries to link our movement to colonialism and imperialism.
We are a new global breed of activism and we are part of the new social movements: seeking new relations with the natural world and an end of hierarchies. As a South African advocacy and campaigning organisation that is trying to contribute to policy debates and formulation in relation to wildlife, ARA obviously welcomes robust engagement, but Mabunda's vitriolic response is worrying because at its core it damages constitutional democracy in South Africa.
By striking out at NGOs like ARA he is showing unacceptable intolerance for those that he perceives as not totally in support of SANParks - the kind of censoring "if you are not with us, you are against us" position. Not everything can and should be state-driven. By taking such an intolerant stand, Mabunda is making a cynical and comprehensive attack on the rights of civil society to legitimately organise themselves.
The irony is that it is current government neoliberal conservation policies which are reproductions of old colonial economic logic where the unfettered exploitation of natural and human resources was (and is) the norm. So it does not surprise us that in South Africa it is pro-utilisation lobby organisations, donors, individuals and governments from the North that rule the roost and with whom government conservation agencies partner withAlong with Mabunda, members of the IUCN and other aligned organisations are largely proponents of so-called "wise use" interest groups, the very antithesis of "progressive conservation". Rather than consider the sustainability of wildlife and ecosystems, wise use emphasises sustaining the maximum human consumptive use of the animals and the environment.
Mabunda's unwarranted swipe at Kenya and its wildlife policies, which he says have been hijacked by animal rights and welfare NGOs, is patronising and dismissive of Kenya's sovereignty. It is far-fetched to claim, as he does, that animal rights and welfare NGOs have the financial and political clout to influence the views of Kenyans on such a grand scale. Kenya will no doubt reply to this poisonous allegation itself. But, let us be clear, through a consultative process, it is the majority of communities living with wildlife in Kenya who are overwhelmingly opposed to the resumption of trophy hunting, believe that it will negate conservation and provide even fewer returns for local communities in wildlife areas. The fact that Kenyans seem to be weighing up the arguments and then choosing to take a more respectful stand is laudable. It is Kenya who leads the fight at every Cites meeting against countries, such as SA and Namibia, and "wise use" lobby groups, that are trying to weaken protection and who push trophy hunting and the trade in wildlife as the panacea for protecting wildlife. Is this the real reason why Mabunda is so keen to misrepresent Kenya?
ARA will continue to push for vigorous public debate and policy change that will build our democracy and not stifle it. We can only hope that SANParks will be gracious enough to accept that.
Michele Pickover is Co-ordinator: Animal Rights Africa
Source Sunday Independent: for subscriptions click here http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/

September 02 2009 at 03:35PM
The poaching war in the Kruger National Park intensified on Wednesday with an announcement by SANParks that seven more white rhino have been killed over the past month.This brings the total number of rhino the flagship reserve has lost to poachers since the beginning of the year to 33."It is with sadness that we announce that since... the end of July, we have lost a further seven white rhino to poachers," SANParks chief executive David Mabunda said in a statement.According to SANParks, all seven carcasses were discovered with the horns hacked out.Six suspected poachers had been arrested, and five illegal firearms seized.

A fact sheet posted on SANParks website on July 27, says poachers killed 26 white and one black rhino in the Kruger in the first seven months of this year.It also shows a recent sharp rise in the number of white rhino poached in national parks and provincial protected areas around the country, with more killed over the past 18 months than in the preceding eight years.From 2000 to 2007, a total of 120 white rhino were killed nationally, while from January 2008 to end July this year, a total of 134 fell victim to poachers.Mabunda said it was alarming that of the 33 rhinos poached in the Kruger this year, 28 were killed along its eastern boundary with Mozambique. Of the 14 poaching suspects arrested by park authorities this year, all were Mozambican.Efforts to stem the poaching would be stepped up."Discussions have been started with Mozambican authorities to solicit their assistance in apprehending suspects and preventing illegal activities from proliferating on their side of the fence," he said.According to SANParks general manager media and stakeholder relations, Reynold Thakhuli, the fence along the Kruger's eastern border with Mozambique is down."The fence is still down - along its whole length - in the east of the park, in terms of the establishment of the transfrontier conservation area," he told Sapa on Wednesday.The latest rhino deaths follow an announcement by Mabunda, in July this year, that more rangers would be deployed in the Kruger."Poachers must beware, because we will seek them out, we will find them and they will be dealt with. This is a war that we plan on winning," he said at the time.White rhinos - the world's second-largest land mammals - are targeted by poachers for their horns, which sell for thousands of dollars each.Figures show the rise in rhino poaching is not just confined to the Kruger National Park.Reserves and protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal have lost 30 rhino over the past 18 months, while 24 have been killed in Limpopo, and 10 in North West over the same period.According to SANParks, the white rhino population of the Kruger National Park is performing "exceptionally well", and increasing at a rate of 11.9 percent a year."At present, the white rhino population in Kruger is estimated at between 9 000 and 12 000 animals," it says on its website. - Sapa

source: http://www.travelwires.com/wp/2009/09/improved-anti-poaching-efforts-yield-results-sanparks/

Another Article on South Africa not looking after their rhino
http://www.thecitizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=104192,1,22

Improved anti-poaching efforts yield results – SANParksFeatured, PR Talk — By Muzi Mohale on September 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm

Improved anti-poaching efforts yield results – SANParks

South African National Parks (SANParks) announced today that more poachers have been apprehended in recent weeks due to the increased efforts to stamp down on poaching of rhino and other high value wildlife in the Kruger National Park.
In July 2009 SANParks announced that the organisation had lost 26 white rhino and one black rhino to poaching and an added 10.3kg of rhino horn through a violent robbery in the Addo Elephant National Park.
“It is with sadness that we announce that since our announcement at the end of July we have lost a seven white rhino to poachers. However, the greatest news to come out of these despicable activities is that SANParks has since apprehended another six suspected rhino poachers and the recovery of five illegal firearms,” said Dr David Mabunda, the Chief Executive of SANParks

The new arrests bring the number of arrested suspects to 14, with 11 recovered illegal firearms.
Dr Mabunda said that what is alarming about this information is that of the 33 rhinos (including 1 black rhino) poached this year 28 of them were illegally killed along the eastern boundary with Mozambique and all the 14 suspects arrested thus far were of Mozambican origin.
“We intend to increase our efforts even more in ensuring that this scourge is routed out. Discussions have been started with Mozambican authorities to solicit their assistance in apprehending suspects and preventing illegal activities from proliferating on their side of the fence,” said Dr Mabunda.
SANParks has pledged a sum of R5.2 million from its Park Development Fund which is aimed at improving anti-poaching interventions in the KNP. The funds are being used for increasing the number of field rangers by 57 people as well as buying more vehicles and a state of the Crime Information Management System.
For other previous related articles on the matter please visit the SANParks website http://www.sanparks.org/ or link to the following pages:
http://www.sanparks.org/about/news/2009/july/rhino_response_knp.php

http://www.sanparks.org/about/news/2009/july/rhino_response.php

http://www.sanparks.org/about/news/2009/september/mabunda_editorial.php

source:http://www.travelwires.com/wp/2009/09/improved-anti-poaching-efforts-yield-results-sanparks/

PRESS ADVISORY: 31 August 2009 In the past few months a war of words has erupted between SANParks and Animal Rights Africa over the management of rhinoceroses in South Africa’s national and provincial Parks and on private land. But despite SANParks’ angry kneejerk response there is little doubt that national and international concern about the current protection and management of these animals in South Africa abounds. Said ARA spokesperson, Michele Pickover, “whether SANParks likes it or not, the public have a right to be concerned, to express this concern and to expect transparency and accountability from government agencies. By allowing ‘sustainable use’ to trump issues of conservation, biodiversity protection and concern for the welfare of wildlife, government conservation agencies seem to be interpreting their mandate as custodians in way that is contentious and contested. As a consequence they need to give a public account of how they discharge their custodial role, they need to be accountable to stakeholders and they need to encourage public discourse rather than to lash out and shoot the messenger.” The ARA Report, Under Siege: Rhinoceroses in South Africa, which also collated information relating to the hunting, trade and poaching of rhinos, reveals a worrying trend: enormous suffering, a lack of centralised statistics and data, an uncoordinated response from authorities, insufficient enforcement and resources to adequately protect South Africa’s rhino population and a general way of thinking that promotes killing instead of protection and respect.South Africa is currently entrusted with the vast majority of the world’s population of rhinos, but at the same time it has become abundantly clear that not only are rhinoceroses in South Africa facing one of their worst threats ever as a species, but they are literally under siege. South Africa is quite literally the last bastion for rhinoceroses in the world but the colossal growth of rhino killings (both legal and illegal) and the concomitant insufficient anti‐poaching capacity ability and poor record keeping means that rhinoceroses are facing untold suffering, exploitation and death and has the potential to once again threaten the survival of the entire species. Poaching of rhinos in South Africa has reached the highest levels in decades. In the short space of 19 months, poaching of rhinoceroses in South Africa has accelerated to a rate almost six times higher than that of the previous eight years and at the same time South Africa has become the conduit of most of the rhinoceros horns leaving the African continent.Generally, the threats rhinos in South Africa are facing are: Government policies that promote overt consumptive use; Trophy hunting; Trade in live rhinoceroses; Demand for rhinoceros horn; Poaching; Inadequate field protection; Insufficient funds and resources to protect rhinoceroses; Lack of data (both nationally and provincially) and Statistical inconsistencies. It is unclear how the Department can confidently supply information to CITES, or indeed Parliament and the Minister, when officials regularly admit that provincial data keeping is in many cases poor. The findings of the ARA Report reveal that there is an urgent need to: Improve data collection at both provincial and national level; Re‐examine the permit system under which government sellers of rhino abrogate their responsibility with regard to what happens to the animal once it has been sold; End all rhinos hunting in South Africa because it has been proven to be as great a problem as poaching; Re‐examine the entire CITES reporting procedure because it is quite clear that limited and often inaccurate information is submitted; Open the government policy of ‘sustainable use’ and trophy hunting to public debate; Publicly publish through websites up‐to‐date applications for hunting permits and hunting statistics; Impose an immediate moratorium on all capture, sale, translocation and hunting of rhino in South Africa. “Rhinoceros poaching has put South Africa in the spotlight, even within the framework of CITES, and it is likely South Africa will have to answer serious questions at the next CITES Conference of the Parties, to be held in Doha in March 2010” said Pickover.

Full report click on link below

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.animalrightsafrica.org%2FArchive%2FARA_Report_Under_Siege_Rhinos_in_South_Africa2009.pdf&h=607261b2fc78f0f988642afccd6731fe

Hunting in APNR...stats from SANParks

Summary of proposed hunting off-take by the APNR for the 2008/2009 period

Species & Proposed Off-take numbers

Elephant 55

Buffalo 144

Impala 5003

Zebra 7

Kudu 19

Lion 2

White Rhino 7

Hippo 3

Leopard 1

Waterbuck 4

Warthog 6

I have just returned from the APNR area after a three week visit in and around the area. I saw over that period of time 5 different vehicles with hunters and hunting rifles, driving around the Klaserie cut lines, east and west cut lines. One of the gate guards informed me that most of them were there to hunt Elephant. They captured just over a hundred impala for auction on Olifants North Reserve over this period too.

South Africans involved in rhino poaching in Zimbabwe

South African men part of Zimbabwe rhino poaching set

Eleanor Momberg, The Cape ArgusAugust 16, 2009

South Africans are involved in the poaching of rhinos and other endangered species in Zimbabwe, according to conservationists and wildlife monitors. The claim comes in the midst of denials by the father of Prince Harry'sformer girlfriend, Charles Davy, that he was linked to a poaching syndicate that allegedly involved two Zimbabwean ministers. "South Africans have been involved in poaching for quite some time in Zimbabwe," said David Newton, head of Traffic, the wildlife trade monitoring network, this week. "It is not just rhino poaching, but also generalised poaching. They are taking advantage of a collapsed system there." South Africans were also linked to the bush meat trade, which saw the appearance of mobile butcheries near poaching sites and the sale of game meat to not only the luxury end of theZimbabwean market, but also to the export market, said Traffic. The involvement of South Africans in killing Zimbabwe's depleting wildlife was also confirmed by Johnny Rodrigues, head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force (ZCTU), and Prof John Skinner of the Onderstepoort Centre for Veterinary Wildlife. Both alleged that two Afrikaans-speaking men from Musina were among those leading poaching operations in Zimbabwe. Rodrigues also implicated two brothers from Alldays, Limpopo, particularly for lion poaching in protected areas.Skinner said the "whole poaching operation" was being run by the two Musina men. "The authorities know who they are, but cannot nail them." Musa Zondi, spokesman for the police's organised crime unit, yesterday said the police were working with the Zimbabwean authorities in "trying to crack and smash syndicates involved in poaching or any other crime". Zondi said while some syndicates did have Chinese links, most of those operating in South Africa used locals. Rodrigues said poaching of rhinos had reached critical levels, with between four and 12 white and black rhinos being killed monthly. Only five of the 54 rhinos in the Midlands Conservancy have not been killed by poachers in the past eight months, while three rhinos had been poached in the past week in the Bubye Valley Conservancy, partly owned by Davy. More than 50 rhinos had been shot for their horns this year, and an estimated 120 were killed last year. Zimbabwe's rhino population, he said, was estimated to be about 350, of which 100 were to be found at Bubye Valley.

'I shot a lion in Africa' Derek Taylor July 19 2009 at 10:09AM interesting article
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20090719091252729C291952

This is the latest article on the Rhino saga written by Eleanor Momberg http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20090719063628362C640547

Mauricedale - John Hume Taxidermy business linked to Singapore ???????

http://www.customs-data.net.cn/SINGAPORE-SINGAP/MAURICEDALE-TAXIDERMY.html

What can one start to think about this connection, seeing the hunting pages with the rhino with such beautiful large horns in the links below ??

This is where some of the rhino refered to in articles below went ...... If that is not hunting then I don't know what is.
white rhino: http://www.africatrophyhunting.com/TrophyRoom.asp?sf=8&PageStack=%2FTrophies.asp%3Fsf%3D8&Id=56Black rhino: http://www.africatrophyhunting.com/TrophyRoom.asp?sf=8&PageStack=%2FTrophies%2Easp%3Fsf%3D8&Id=55Sabel: http://www.africatrophyhunting.com/TrophyRoom.asp?sf=8&PageStack=%2FTrophies%2Easp%3Fsf%3D8&Id=10And a article refrencing john as owner of mauricedale: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=ct20000625205215317R500996

Response from SANParks to Misleading Reports and Claims about Rhino Sales and Hunting in National ParksYesterday (Tuesday, 14 July 2009), South African National Parks (SANParks) Chief Executive Dr David Mabunda addressed a media briefing at its Head Office, Groenkloof National Park, in response to tackle the issues of rhino sales and hunting in National Parks. He opened the discussion by saying “we need to dispel the confusion created in recent media reports, between the sale of rhino and hunting in and outside national parks.” South African National Parks is guided in it decision to sell or distribute white rhino and other wildlife by Clause 55(2) (b) of the Protected Areas Act, 57 of 2003 (as amended) which states that: “South African National Parks may, in managing national parks sell, exchange or donate any animal, plant, or other organism occurring in a park, or purchase, exchange or otherwise acquire any indigenous species which it may consider desirable to reintroduce into a specific park.”The decisions by SANParks to sell white rhino are scientifically determined. Dr Mabunda said that the decisions on off-take quotas of wildlife are scientifically determined, based on population growth, sex and age structure, spatial use, natural dispersal, resource distribution and population dynamics. He added that the present removal rate has no detectable consequences on population growth, with the start of only 4 donated white rhinos in 1961 to the current population estimated at between 9000 and 12 000 white rhinos in the Kruger National Park. South Africa has the most viable and healthy rhino population in the world. According to 2007 statistics there were approximately 17 000 rhino in the world, with approximately 15 000 of those in South Africa. About 9 000 of them at the time were under the management of SANParks, and the second largest population in the country, estimated at 4000, was managed by private hands, while the rest was found in Provincial parks. At present SANParks has between 9000 and 12 000 rhinos.According to CITES, rhinos are an endangered species, pegged at Appendix 1, except for the populations of South Africa and Swaziland which are on Appendix 2. CITES regulates that animals on Appendix 2 are for the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and hunting trophies, while those on Appendix 1 shall be deemed to be specimens of species and trade in them shall be regulated accordingly. “What this means is that South African rhino populations are not endangered and can be sold or exchanged, however South Africa has made a conscious decision not to allow trophy hunting in national parks”, said Dr Mabunda. He said: “SANParks, by selling or donating rhinos is assisting in the process of re-colonisation of the range in the country and outside. It should be noted that it would be fool-hardy if South Africa were to have its only rhino population residing in the Kruger, because we run the danger of losing them should there be a major outbreak of disease or rampant poaching. We would be sitting ducks.” The accident that occurred on the N4 with the one rhino was not as a result of animals being unsuitably transported, but a tire burst which we have no control over. The 10 rhinos that died of the 72 rhinos sent to Mr John Hume is something we are investigating in order to understand what happened. There is nothing wrong with selling a number of rhinos to a single operator as long as the conditions of the operation and the land size are permitting.South Africa has about 43,9 million ha of land under biodiversity protection, of the country’s overall 121 million ha. Of this amount, only about 6,9 million ha are protected under the State, while about 37million ha is privately owned land which has been brought under conservation at various levels of protection. “The enormous amount of protected land under private hands gives South Africa an undeniable opportunity to broaden the ranges of wildlife, thereby improving resilience in the system” said Dr Mabunda.Dr Mabunda also said: “Much has been said about Kruger National Park animals being sold to entities that may put them up for hunting. I want to state up front that we do not have anything against hunting or hunters as long as they do not hunt within a national park, however, we will not allow SANParks to be abused by the anti-hunting lobby. We deal only with ethical operators and if we should learn otherwise, SANParks makes the decision not to continue doing business with them.” SANParks does not have a regulatory mandate for hunting in the country as it does not issue hunting permits. In South Africa, nature conservation is a concurrent mandate which can be read in Schedule 4 of the South African Constitution of 1996. In terms of this, provincial conservation agencies are responsible for laws and regulations pertaining to permits and handling of wildlife outside national parks. SANParks sells and donates rhinos and other large mammals for both the management of its own populations and also for meta-population management. The SANParks strategy is informed by the following objectives: population control; broadening of the range for populations; spreading the risk of managing wildlife; making the populations more resilient and viable and fundraising for specific conservation and land-expansion programmes. We are not going to suspend the sale of excess rhino as long as national legislation and policies permit. SANParks will continue to sell and distribute these animals in accordance with our management strategies.When the Honourable MP, Bantu Holomisa legitimately raised a concern that KNP animals were being hunted in Timbavati (a member of the APNR contractual parks to the KNP), the Limpopo Environment and Tourism Authority decided to withhold hunting permits to the reserve. Timbavati took the Provincial Authority to court and the Provincial authority lost with costs. Decisions by the court supersede organisational policies and assist in the correct interpretation of applicable legislation.In response to the ARA statement which was released yesterday, Dr Mabunda said that the assertions made in that statement were “a cacophony of baseless emotional outbursts.” To claim that “actions (taken by SANParks) speak of failed management policies” lacks rational thinking or knowledge of our mandate and business, as SANParks rhino populations have been growing since 1961 and since the 80’s when we started with the selling of excess animals in the park. Objectives of ecosystem integrity and economic sustainability have been reconciled.South African National Parks is the only successful conservation institution in the world which has been able to generate 80% of its annual operational budget of R1.2 billion from sustainable commercial interventions, while other conservation institutions have, to a greater extent depended on government funding and other large corporations; funding which has in recent times been critically reduced. We will soon be receiving a delegation of officials from the largest and richest national parks authority in the world, the US Parks Authority, to come and learn from us how to revive the viability and sustainability of the parks system in the US. The claims that SANParks has given concessions for hunting to contractual parks come as news to us, because we do not know of any such decision. We invite anyone who has such documented decisions to bring them to our attention. It should be understood that communities around national parks who intend to bring their land for contractual agreements may have a shopping list of things they want to do, but it is our duty and our responsibility to guide them in that which is permissible in a national park. So far, that is what we have been doing. For ARA to equate SANParks to a museum is to expose a grand level of ignorance of the business of national parks as we are not in the business of dead artefacts (albeit priceless) but in the business of living and transforming organisms. ARA needs to understand that animal rights should be seen in the context of the eco-system and its importance to the survival of natural life as we know it. We welcome and look forward to the ARA-promised “explosive investige (sic) report” and want to say that in actual fact, they can take us to court on these matters so that we may settle this once and for all, because we are confident that we have correctly interpreted national and international legislation and have stayed true to our principles and ethics. Whoever has concrete evidence (rather than wild statements and insult) to support their allegations may take these to the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs so that she may deal with her organisation accordingly should we be found lacking in the implementation of our mandate.“It is obvious that ARA is targeting what they consider to be the soft target in order to gain maximum exposure on matters that have nothing to do with SANParks but we will not allow ourselves to be used in the name of other entities which may be less visible than ourselves,” stated Dr Mabunda.In closing, Dr Mabunda said: “Let ARA and their associates play the politics of conservation and leave us to manage the national parks.”
______________________________________________________________
Issued by SANParks Corporate Communications on behalf of Dr David Mabunda, Chief Executive of South African National Parks_________________
Zakiya Fareed Media & Stakeholder Relations South African National Parks

Comment by Janine on the above press release

SANPark: “Dr Mabunda said that the decisions on off-take quotas of wildlife are scientifically determined, He added that the present removal rate has no detectable consequences on population growth, with the start of only 4 donated white rhinos in 1961 to the current population estimated at between 9000 and 12 000 white rhinos in the Kruger National Park. South Africa has the most viable and healthy rhino population in the world.”

Janine: Rhino figures taken directly from the Sanparks site Scientific section.
•White rhinoceros: 4 509
•Black rhinoceros: 350
Large discrepancy in numbers from what Mr Mabunda is giving us.

“There is nothing wrong with selling a number of rhinos to a single operator as long as the conditions of the operation and the land size are permitting.”

If so why did SANParks not inspect the property of Mr Hume which resulted in the death of ten of the rhino bought by him from you.

“We are not going to suspend the sale of excess rhino as long as national legislation and policies permit.”

What about the increase in poaching, that makes a huge dent in the so called excess rhino.

I don’t know readers, please give me your view of this press release from SANParks, I don’t think the explanation of moving so many rhino from Kruger has enough merit, especially due to the huge increase in poaching. Figures 56 in Kruger in 18 months and 77 in Zimbabwe, I think Southern African need to be cautious about how many rhino they hunt. In order that we do not go back to the days when rhino were highly in danger of becoming extinct. More thought needs to go into this matter.