In this second article on the Hunting Trophies [Importation Prohibition] Bill, we will look into the mindset of Europeans concerning this piece of legislation. This has, to a large extent, been overlooked in the local press. The article will focus on what the British think of wildlife, and we will see why some 80 percent of the UK’s population support the anti-hunting ban. The word “conservation” means something different to the Brits from what it means to most Batswana.
Here in Botswana, conservation of wildlife does include trophy hunting since controlling wildlife numbers is advantageous to humans as has been recently well documented by the local press. Also, it benefits the animals themselves in that fewer animals reduces overcrowding and damage to their environment or habitat. Food will also be more available to animals thus reducing competition at food sources. In the Oxford dictionary, to conserve means, “to protect something from being harmed or overused.” Now to Brits trophy hunting implies harming wild animals.
And in the Cambridge dictionary, conservation means “the protection of plants and animals from the damaging effects of human activity.” And to the Brits, what can be more damaging to wildlife than shooting them? From an early age, many Brits often watch wildlife documentaries on their TVs. And they are so often told that many of the animals that they see on these documentaries are endangered, or facing extinction, even if such reports are exaggerated. So, many people will now conjure up images of poor suffering animals that need to be protected and conserved at all costs and so need to be given a lot of loving care!
The fact that some of these animals may negatively affect humans is not given a thought in these documentaries. Instead, viewers so often hear about the loss of wildlife habitats as a result of “thoughtless, indifferent, irresponsible” individuals and multinational companies who carry out “reckless” human activities such as mining, agriculture and road construction. But little is mentioned about human-wildlife conflicts in such areas. Unlike in Africa, the chances of seeing wild animals in the UK are slim, apart from the occasional glimpses of squirrels and foxes. Only in the more remote parts of the Scottish Highlands, can one see herds of deer. This means that human-wildlife conflicts are very few and far apart from the odd chicken providing a tasty meal for a crafty hungry fox!
So, people see wild animals in a different light here. They may appear docile and do not harm humans, devastate crops, or damage infrastructure. In fact, wild animals in the UK are in the same league as domestic animals. The only place where many Brits see wild animals is in zoos. But for a wild animal, living in a zoo is very different from living on the open savanna plains of Africa! A zoo is a very controlled environment and so there is no interaction, or conflict, between visitors and the wild animals. The animals here do not look threatening since iron bars, or panes of glass, separate them from people. Animals kept in captivity may appear more docile and even habituated, or used, to the presence of humans.
They are almost like pets! And the Brits are mad over heels about their pets, especially cats and dogs. Here in Botswana, however, many dog owners give their animals little care, love and affection. Dogs are beaten, fed a monotonous diet of mealie meal and odd scraps, and sleep outside even if it is cold or wet. But the Brits pamper their animals. I was in the UK last December and was really amazed at the way dogs are revered; they are treated as part of the family! It was winter, and on the streets most dogs wore thick woollen coats wrapped around their bodies. And some even wore heated electric blankets and had woollen booties on their paws. But that’s not all. Some people put on specially designed “doggy rucksacks” when they go out with their dogs.
So, when a dog tires out when exercising, its owner will put it into the rucksack and all you may see of the dog now is its head poking out of the top. And at home, dogs may sleep on top of comfy cushions inside a basket and, of course, they will sleep inside a cosy kennel. And I know of people who even sleep in their beds with their dogs; they are seen as organic hot water bottles on a cold winter night! No wonder, then, that the dog here is known as man’s best friend! Many Brits participate in a wide variety of wildlife conservation programmes abroad. For example, they can spend up to 24 weeks at an elephant camp project in Thailand. Duties here include collecting elephant feed, taking elephants for walks, taking care of baby elephants and bathing them.
The website claims that participants will work with professional conservationists and so learn more about wildlife conservation techniques. Images on the website show participants touching and hugging elephants as if they are harmless pets! Conservation here lives up to the meaning of the term shown in dictionaries; no hunting allowed! And in Nepal, volunteers can support elephant conservation by looking after neglected, sick and old elephants. Volunteers can also participate, for up to eight weeks, at the Amazon Animal Rescue Centre Project in Ecuador.
The centre works with the Ministry of Environment in the fight against the capture and hunting of all wild animals. This, once again, is British-style conservation. Many volunteers regard themselves as do-gooders since they may believe that what they have done will, indeed, protect countless species from going the way of the dinosaurs. Volunteers who work for some organisations, such as Voluntary Service Overseas [VSO], may receive a monthly allowance which covers basic living expenses such as accommodation, food and transport. However, if you work as a volunteer for a wildlife conservation programme, things are very different. Here participants have to actually pay to work – fees may average about $500 a week [about P6 000, or P900 a day].
This money is used, not only to cover all their living expenses, but also to contribute to the costs of running the project plus the bloated salaries of the scientists. This shows how deeply conservation, without trophy hunting, is deeply embedded into the British psyche. Now if I was visiting Thailand, I would rather use this money travelling around the country and staying at locally owned hotels and eating out at local restaurants. In so doing, I would be supporting the local economy and helping to raise the standard of living of the locals. People are more important than animals! Period! In Sri Lanka, volunteers can participate, for up to 12 weeks, in a wildlife conservation and research programme.
The aims of this project are somewhat different from those mentioned above and may assist rural communities on how to co-exist with their wildlife neighbours. Here participants work with researchers to record the behaviour of elephants. In addition, they also discuss with local villagers to help identify practical solutions to human-wildlife conflicts and observe, assess and document human-wildlife conflicts. In addition, they teach environmental education to local school children and even build and mend fences to protect crops and homes from damage by elephants. At one lodge in the Okavango Delta, visitors are treated to rides on top of elephants. Again, this may lead them to believe that elephants can cause no harm! However, these elephants have been trained by their guardians, or mahouts, and so are less aggressive than those in the wild. But they are still wild animals! And back home, they may see on TV mahouts caring for their elephants elsewhere – India, Myanmar, Thailand, Sri Lanka... Surely these magnificent beasts cannot cause mischief? In the UK, elephants symbolise the exotic since there are no similar animals that occur naturally there. As characters, elephants are most common in children’s stories where they are portrayed positively. Many such stories tell of isolated young elephants returning to, or finding, a human family, such as “The Elephant’s Child” from Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories, and Kathryn and Byron Jackson’s The Saggy Baggy Elephant. So, children in the UK will grow up thinking that elephants are, indeed, harmless animals! Finally, the British may be somewhat hypocritical on wildlife conservation.
Throughout the UK, fox hunting has been a common pastime, especially for the elite. It has been practised since the 16th century and involves the tracking, chase, and killing of a fox. Participants, led by the “master of the hounds”, follow on horseback a pack of foxhounds [dogs] which can smell out the local foxes. Participants are well dressed in striking red or black waistcoats and caps. Most hunts begin in a village where villagers gather to wish the hunters luck – it’s a social occasion. However, fox hunting was finally banned in the much of the UK in 2004 although it remains legal in Northern Ireland. But supporters of fox hunting claim that the number of foxes killed has actually increased since the ban. They also claim that hunting targets old, sick and weak animals, just like trophy hunting does in Botswana. Grouse shooting involves the shooting of red grouse [a type of bird] in remote highland areas of the UK.
It is estimated that the economic value of grouse shooting is some £67 million a year [about P1 100 million] and so it is big business here. In conclusion, we have seen some of the reasons behind why most Brits support the Hunting Trophies [Importation Prohibition] Bill. But that is no excuse for criticising Botswana’s conservation policies. Only Batswana can decide on the fate of their wildlife; after all, they live with them every day, and have a better understanding of the problems that they face resulting from increasing numbers of wild animals, such as elephants, in their backyard.
Grahame McLeod
Here in Botswana, conservation of wildlife does include trophy hunting since controlling wildlife numbers is advantageous to humans as has been recently well documented by the local press. Also, it benefits the animals themselves in that fewer animals reduces overcrowding and damage to their environment or habitat. Food will also be more available to animals thus reducing competition at food sources. In the Oxford dictionary, to conserve means, “to protect something from being harmed or overused.” Now to Brits trophy hunting implies harming wild animals.
And in the Cambridge dictionary, conservation means “the protection of plants and animals from the damaging effects of human activity.” And to the Brits, what can be more damaging to wildlife than shooting them? From an early age, many Brits often watch wildlife documentaries on their TVs. And they are so often told that many of the animals that they see on these documentaries are endangered, or facing extinction, even if such reports are exaggerated. So, many people will now conjure up images of poor suffering animals that need to be protected and conserved at all costs and so need to be given a lot of loving care!
The fact that some of these animals may negatively affect humans is not given a thought in these documentaries. Instead, viewers so often hear about the loss of wildlife habitats as a result of “thoughtless, indifferent, irresponsible” individuals and multinational companies who carry out “reckless” human activities such as mining, agriculture and road construction. But little is mentioned about human-wildlife conflicts in such areas. Unlike in Africa, the chances of seeing wild animals in the UK are slim, apart from the occasional glimpses of squirrels and foxes. Only in the more remote parts of the Scottish Highlands, can one see herds of deer. This means that human-wildlife conflicts are very few and far apart from the odd chicken providing a tasty meal for a crafty hungry fox!
So, people see wild animals in a different light here. They may appear docile and do not harm humans, devastate crops, or damage infrastructure. In fact, wild animals in the UK are in the same league as domestic animals. The only place where many Brits see wild animals is in zoos. But for a wild animal, living in a zoo is very different from living on the open savanna plains of Africa! A zoo is a very controlled environment and so there is no interaction, or conflict, between visitors and the wild animals. The animals here do not look threatening since iron bars, or panes of glass, separate them from people. Animals kept in captivity may appear more docile and even habituated, or used, to the presence of humans.
They are almost like pets! And the Brits are mad over heels about their pets, especially cats and dogs. Here in Botswana, however, many dog owners give their animals little care, love and affection. Dogs are beaten, fed a monotonous diet of mealie meal and odd scraps, and sleep outside even if it is cold or wet. But the Brits pamper their animals. I was in the UK last December and was really amazed at the way dogs are revered; they are treated as part of the family! It was winter, and on the streets most dogs wore thick woollen coats wrapped around their bodies. And some even wore heated electric blankets and had woollen booties on their paws. But that’s not all. Some people put on specially designed “doggy rucksacks” when they go out with their dogs.
So, when a dog tires out when exercising, its owner will put it into the rucksack and all you may see of the dog now is its head poking out of the top. And at home, dogs may sleep on top of comfy cushions inside a basket and, of course, they will sleep inside a cosy kennel. And I know of people who even sleep in their beds with their dogs; they are seen as organic hot water bottles on a cold winter night! No wonder, then, that the dog here is known as man’s best friend! Many Brits participate in a wide variety of wildlife conservation programmes abroad. For example, they can spend up to 24 weeks at an elephant camp project in Thailand. Duties here include collecting elephant feed, taking elephants for walks, taking care of baby elephants and bathing them.
The website claims that participants will work with professional conservationists and so learn more about wildlife conservation techniques. Images on the website show participants touching and hugging elephants as if they are harmless pets! Conservation here lives up to the meaning of the term shown in dictionaries; no hunting allowed! And in Nepal, volunteers can support elephant conservation by looking after neglected, sick and old elephants. Volunteers can also participate, for up to eight weeks, at the Amazon Animal Rescue Centre Project in Ecuador.
The centre works with the Ministry of Environment in the fight against the capture and hunting of all wild animals. This, once again, is British-style conservation. Many volunteers regard themselves as do-gooders since they may believe that what they have done will, indeed, protect countless species from going the way of the dinosaurs. Volunteers who work for some organisations, such as Voluntary Service Overseas [VSO], may receive a monthly allowance which covers basic living expenses such as accommodation, food and transport. However, if you work as a volunteer for a wildlife conservation programme, things are very different. Here participants have to actually pay to work – fees may average about $500 a week [about P6 000, or P900 a day].
This money is used, not only to cover all their living expenses, but also to contribute to the costs of running the project plus the bloated salaries of the scientists. This shows how deeply conservation, without trophy hunting, is deeply embedded into the British psyche. Now if I was visiting Thailand, I would rather use this money travelling around the country and staying at locally owned hotels and eating out at local restaurants. In so doing, I would be supporting the local economy and helping to raise the standard of living of the locals. People are more important than animals! Period! In Sri Lanka, volunteers can participate, for up to 12 weeks, in a wildlife conservation and research programme.
The aims of this project are somewhat different from those mentioned above and may assist rural communities on how to co-exist with their wildlife neighbours. Here participants work with researchers to record the behaviour of elephants. In addition, they also discuss with local villagers to help identify practical solutions to human-wildlife conflicts and observe, assess and document human-wildlife conflicts. In addition, they teach environmental education to local school children and even build and mend fences to protect crops and homes from damage by elephants. At one lodge in the Okavango Delta, visitors are treated to rides on top of elephants. Again, this may lead them to believe that elephants can cause no harm! However, these elephants have been trained by their guardians, or mahouts, and so are less aggressive than those in the wild. But they are still wild animals! And back home, they may see on TV mahouts caring for their elephants elsewhere – India, Myanmar, Thailand, Sri Lanka... Surely these magnificent beasts cannot cause mischief? In the UK, elephants symbolise the exotic since there are no similar animals that occur naturally there. As characters, elephants are most common in children’s stories where they are portrayed positively. Many such stories tell of isolated young elephants returning to, or finding, a human family, such as “The Elephant’s Child” from Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories, and Kathryn and Byron Jackson’s The Saggy Baggy Elephant. So, children in the UK will grow up thinking that elephants are, indeed, harmless animals! Finally, the British may be somewhat hypocritical on wildlife conservation.
Throughout the UK, fox hunting has been a common pastime, especially for the elite. It has been practised since the 16th century and involves the tracking, chase, and killing of a fox. Participants, led by the “master of the hounds”, follow on horseback a pack of foxhounds [dogs] which can smell out the local foxes. Participants are well dressed in striking red or black waistcoats and caps. Most hunts begin in a village where villagers gather to wish the hunters luck – it’s a social occasion. However, fox hunting was finally banned in the much of the UK in 2004 although it remains legal in Northern Ireland. But supporters of fox hunting claim that the number of foxes killed has actually increased since the ban. They also claim that hunting targets old, sick and weak animals, just like trophy hunting does in Botswana. Grouse shooting involves the shooting of red grouse [a type of bird] in remote highland areas of the UK.
It is estimated that the economic value of grouse shooting is some £67 million a year [about P1 100 million] and so it is big business here. In conclusion, we have seen some of the reasons behind why most Brits support the Hunting Trophies [Importation Prohibition] Bill. But that is no excuse for criticising Botswana’s conservation policies. Only Batswana can decide on the fate of their wildlife; after all, they live with them every day, and have a better understanding of the problems that they face resulting from increasing numbers of wild animals, such as elephants, in their backyard.
Grahame McLeod
