logo

I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote

- Herman Melville

image

Earth

Jun 08, 2018

URGENT: Zambia Plans Slaughter of 2,000 Hippos in Luangwa National Park

In a shocking move, the Zambian government has apparently given a South African trophy hunting company an exclusive license to 'cull' this threatened species.

WRITTEN BY

The Outdoor Journal

There is an urgent situation arising in Zambia’s South Luangwa National Park and surrounds.

In a shocking move the Zambian Government have apparently overturned a 2016 decision to suspend a proposed hippo ‘cull’ and South African hunters have allegedly been given the go-ahead to slaughter up to 2,000 hippos in the area. Currently on the ‘Red List’ of threatened species, and categorised as vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

A South African professional trophy hunting company, Umlilo Safaris, has been awarded a hunting license allowing for up to 2,000 hippos to be killed over a 5 year period.

“Culling of wildlife is not an option. It is a primitive wildlife conservation strategy…”

These licenses have been granted under the guise of ‘animal management’. The Umlilo Safaris company are already offering a five day ‘hippo management hunt’ in the Luangwa Valley, and according to a post on africahunting.com and the company’s own Facebook page, they say their clients can shoot five hippos per trip and keep the animals tusks. Apparently the hunts will run from June until the end of October and are due to continue until 2022

Find the Umlilo Safaris Facebook post for yourself here.

The Department of National Parks has argued that a ‘cull’ in the Luangwa River region, is a bid to control overpopulation and stop the spread of anthrax. A statement by Zambia’s Ministry of Tourism said the culling was to maintain a “suitable habitat for aquatic species and wildlife in general… the hippos are causing considerable damage to the riverbanks and continue to threaten the sustainability of the river system”. However the killing has been labelled barbaric by conservationists, who are citing no scientific basis for the hippo hunt.

Zambia initially suspended a planned cull in 2016 following pressure from activists, but Born Free Foundation has accused the government of “secretly” overturning the decision, with no consultation process. Born Free says that no information has been provided to show river levels or water flow in the Luangwa River are abnormally low, and that there is no scientific evidence to show that a hippo cull would prevent an outbreak of anthrax. Will Travers, chief executive of Born Free, believes that the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate any overpopulation of hippos in the Luangwa River, or to make public any data that justifies the cull.

“They are, apparently, using the same flawed rationale for the slaughter as last time – a preventative measure to avoid a future outbreak of anthrax, combined with an assertion that low rainfall will exacerbate the situation… They also appear not to have informed key stakeholders in the Luangwa Valley… The negative consequences for thousands of hippo and Zambia’s reputation as a wildlife tourism destination cannot be underestimated.”

In a statement to Zambia’s Lusaka Times, Peter Sinkamba, President of the Zambian Green Party, said “Culling of wildlife is not an option. It is a primitive wildlife conservation strategy… What is more appalling is that the Luangwa Valley is not overpopulated as they claim. The hippo population in that conservation area has dwindled by about 14-20% in the last 20 years, motivated by mainly poor conservation policies, strategies and allocation of financial and human resources. The culling policy is motivated by pure greed.”

Richard Kock, professor of wildlife health at the Royal Veterinary College, speaking to speaking to UK’s The Independent newspaper, believes the Zambian government have yet to provide adequate data to justify the ‘cull’. “There’s no doubt that hippos can build up numbers until there really are probably too many for the ecosystem… and so I think anthrax may well be a factor in controlling their populations, and it may benefit the environment because they will consume large quantities of herbage, and obviously that will affect other species… I’m also very sensitive to the fact people use these things as excuses for nefarious behaviour… I would say you need good data and you need good evidence and it should be the scientific authorities who should back up any sort of criteria on culling.”

On the ground stakeholders in Luangwa are inclined to be of the opinion that the ‘cull’ and issuing of permits is

“quite clearly a money making venture on the part of the people who signed the initial deal.”

They believe that the reason the hunting contract was so attractive for Umlilo to run their hippo hunts, is that the area covered by their license is in the main tourism area of South Luangwa, an area easily accessed by air and road for clients to come in and shoot, and to get the hippo meat out. But operators point out this ease of access and convenience is due to photographic tourism investment and development created by safari lodges, operators, NGOs, charities and other stakeholders. “Now these people are going to come and take advantage of that, and in the process threaten the survival of the very industry that created the nice environment for them! If photo tourists see this they will boycott the area and our businesses… leaving the people and wildlife they support under threat.” Operators also question why, of the approximately US$3,000,000 raised annually by the South Luangwa National Park, only a tiny fraction ($60,000 in 2017) is sent back to the park to facilitate park management and infrastructure.

Another issue raised by the ground operators is how the hunters will cure the hippo meat. This apparently will be done by drying it using the traditional method of fires made with mopane wood. Trees that it would appear, Umlilo have been given permission to fell around their hunting camp. Operators say “we have a continuous battle here trying to save the forests and habitat that supports such amazing wildlife and in turn earns the government around US$3m a year in revenues from this amazing national park. Local people are not allowed to cut these trees, why should this company? And all apparently without having to buy a licence from the Forestry Department or Community Resource Board.”

Operators say… “If culling for meat and revenue could be done without affecting that product and the revenues it earns, and the hippo population would not be jeopardised, many of us here would support it, as it could provide protein and revenues for local people… and that would help to secure the future of conservation. But the reality is that this ‘culling’ will impact on the photo safari business and tourism as a whole to Zambia.” They go on to say “you cannot have unskilled trophy hunters shooting hippo in the river opposite the busiest game viewing area in Zambia without it impacting the industry and park earnings. For them to shoot two hippos a day every day for 5 months is going to be carnage. If you had professional culling companies, shooting at night with silenced rifles and harvesting the hippos from dry land, then maybe. But killing a hippo in the water, (which we have evidence often takes 6 or 7 shots) then letting it sink, waiting for it to float to the surface, hooking it, dragging it to the shore line, then butchering it and drying it on drying racks, is going to have a massive impact.”

Safari operators also worry that a by-product of the cull will be that “predators will be dragged out of the park by the smell of dead hippo, and become ‘fair game’ for the other hunting company who have the concession that Umlilo are operating in. These legally chosen concessionaires are also not happy to have these fly by night, canned hunters, operating in what they were promised was their exclusive hunting area. The real hunters have the good sense to stay away from the photo tourism areas most of the time, and conduct their hunts away from the river and the park.” In fact tender process for allocation of the license to Umlilo appears to be less than transparent, operators say it was a “behind closed doors deal,” and are questioning why if a licence was going to be granted it wasn’t offered to one of the existing hunters in the area.

Culling does not work as a population control. In fact evidence suggest that culling actually stimulates population growth. Indeed in a 2012 Research Paper by Chansa Chomba for the Zambian Wildlife Authority and Zambian Department of Parks and Wildlife entitled “Factors affecting the Luangwa (Zambia) hippo population dynamics within its carrying capacity band – Insights for better management”, the author states “This study has established that along the 165 km stretch of the Luangwa River, Zambia, the amount of food produced (grass biomass) regulated hippo population size within the carrying capacity band” he went on to say “The amount of food (biomass) influenced the population size and density within the carrying capacity band” and that “Culling, trophy hunting, problem animal control, poaching, and disease, did not significantly affect population size and density.” Chomba’s conclusion in his study was that “In fact it has been documented that the act of culling removes excess males and frees resources for the remaining female individuals, leading to increased births and facilitating rather than suppressing population growth rate.” Whilst this report could be construed as an argument to support the ‘cull’, by claiming it will not negatively affect numbers, it does also clearly indicate that a ‘cull’ will be of no effect in population control, which contradicts the Zambian Government stance on the matter.

Clearly this is an emotive issue, but the fact remains that on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) ‘Red List’ of threatened species, which is reknowned as the world’s most comprehensive inventory of biological species, hippos are listed as “vulnerable” with an estimated population of just 115-130 000 animals and with population declines continuing to be reported. Whatever steps are taken next need to be well thought through, transparent and with reliable scientific data to back up any decisions made.

In Zambia’s South Luangwa National Park a hippo stands on the water’s edge, with a poacher’s snare cutting deep into its neck. In normal situation like this, a task force would mobilise to rescue the hippo, dart it, remove the snare and give it the medical attention it needs to aid recovery, but as one operator says… “It is ludicrous to dart a snared hippo when the government is planning on shooting 2,000, the cost of darting and the risk is extremely high.”

What can you do? If you’re against this cull, sign the petition now.

In issue 14 of The Outdoor Journal, we reviewed South Luangwa National Park as a safari destination. Subscribe to the magazine now.

Continue Reading

image

Environment

Sep 04, 2019

The Great Barrier Reef outlook is ‘very poor’. We have one last chance to save it.

It’s official. The outlook for the Great Barrier Reef has been downgraded from “poor” to “very poor” by the Australian government’s own experts.

image

WRITTEN BY

Terry Hughes

That’s the conclusion of the latest five-yearly report from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, released on Friday. The report assessed literally hundreds of scientific studies published on the reef’s declining condition since the last report was published in 2014.

The past five years were a game-changer. Unprecedented back-to-back coral bleaching episodes in 2016 and 2017, triggered by record-breaking warm sea temperatures, severely damaged two-thirds of the reef. Recovery since then has been slow and patchy.

Fish swimming among coral on the Great Barrier Reef.
AAP

Looking to the future, the report said “the current rate of global warming will not allow the maintenance of a healthy reef for future generations […] the window of opportunity to improve the reef’s long-term future is now”.

But that window of opportunity is being squandered so long as Australia’s and the world’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

The evidence on the reef’s condition is unequivocal

A logical national response to the outlook report would be a pledge to curb activity that contributes to global warming and damages the reef. Such action would include a ban on the new extraction of fossil fuels, phasing out coal-fired electricity generation, transitioning to electrified transport, controlling land clearing and reducing local stressors on the reef such as land-based runoff from agriculture.

But federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley’s response to the outlook report suggested she saw no need to take dramatic action on emissions, when she declared: “it’s the best managed reef in the world”.

Major coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017 have devastated the reef.

The federal government’s lack of climate action was underscored by another dire report card on Friday. Official quarterly greenhouse gas figures showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen to the highest annual levels since the 2012-13 financial year.

But rather than meaningfully tackle Australia’s contribution to climate change, the federal government has focused its efforts on fixing the damage wrought on the reef. For example as part of a A$444 million grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the government has allocated $100 million for reef restoration and adaptation projects over the next five years or so.

Solutions being supported by the foundation include a sunscreen-like film to float on the water to prevent light penetration, and gathering and reseeding coral spawn Separately, Commonwealth funds are also being spent on projects such as giant underwater fans to bring cooler water to the surface.

But the scale of the problem is much, much larger than these tiny interventions.


Climate change is not the only threat to the reef

The second biggest impact on the Great Barrier Reef’s health is poor water quality, due to nutrient and sediment runoff into coastal habitats. Efforts to address that problem are also going badly.

This was confirmed in a confronting annual report card on the reef’s water quality, also released by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments on Friday.

The Great Barrier Reef attained world heritage status in the 1980s.
AAP

It showed authorities have failed to reach water quality targets set under the Reef 2050 Plan – Australia’s long-term plan for improving the condition of the reef.

For example the plan sets a target that by 2025, 90% of sugarcane land in reef catchments should have adopted improved farming practices. However the report showed the adoption had occurred on just 9.8% of land, earning the sugarcane sector a grade of “E”.

So yes, the reef is definitely in danger

The 2019 outlook report and other submissions from Australia will be assessed next year when the UNESCO World Heritage Committee meets to determine if the Great Barrier Reef should be listed as “in danger” – an outcome the federal government will fight hard to avoid.

An in-danger listing would signal to the world that the reef was in peril, and put the federal government under greater pressure to urgently prevent further damage. Such a listing would be embarrassing for Australia, which presents itself as a world’s-best manager of its natural assets.

Environment activists engaged in a protest action to bring attention to the dangers facing the Great Barrier Reef.
AAP

The outlook report maintains that the attributes of the Great Barrier Reef
that led to its inscription as a world heritage area in 1981 are still intact, despite the loss of close to half of the corals in 2016 and 2017.

But by any rational assessment, the Great Barrier Reef is in danger. Most of the pressures on the reef are ongoing, and some are escalating – notably anthropogenic heating, also known as human-induced climate change.

Read more:
Great Barrier Reef Foundation chief scientist: science will lie at the heart of our decisions

And current efforts to protect the reef are demonstrably failing. For example despite an ongoing “control” program, outbreaks of the damaging crown-of-thorns starfish – triggered by poor water quality – have spread throughout the reef.

The federal government has recently argued that climate change should not form the basis for an in-danger listing, because rising emissions are not the responsibility of individual countries. The argument comes despite Australia having one of the highest per capita emissions rates in the world.

But as Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise – an outcome supported by government policy – the continued downward trajectory of the Great Barrier Reef is inevitable.The Conversation

Terry Hughes, Distinguished Professor, James Cook University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Cover photo: A supplied image obtained Thursday, June 6, 2013 of holiday makers in the Great Barrier Reef, Tropical North Queensland, October 2008. ReefLive, a live 12-hour interactive online show about the reef, will be broadcast on YouTube from 10am (AEST) on Friday to coincide with World Ocean Day on Saturday. (AAP Image/Supplied by Tourism and Events Queensland, Richard Fitzpatrick) NO ARCHIVING, EDITORIAL USE ONLY

Recent Articles



India Must Stop Deforesting its Mountains if it Wants to Fight Floods.

During floods and landslides in August 2019, two villages were completely destroyed killing several people, while a year earlier Kerala saw its worst floods in a century.

How climate change is driving emigration from Central America

Rising global temperatures, the spread of crop disease and extreme weather events have made coffee harvests unreliable in places like El Salvador. On top of that, market prices are unpredictable.

It’s Time to Break the Deadlock over Africa’s Ivory Trade: Here’s How.

Fierce debates over ivory have dominated the global conference for the international trade in species for 30 years since the first international ivory ban was instituted in 1989.

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other