BRITISH PARLIAMENTARIANS’ ANTI-HUNTING VOTES TO HARM AFRICAN WILDLIFE

An Opinion by Emmanuel Koro

The destruction of African wildlife was sealed when British pop stars, comedians, and animal rights groups influenced their parliamentarians to vote for the ban on hunting trophies imports, ignoring the harm it causes to African wildlife and habitat conservation.

Dr. Amy Dickman, a respected Oxford University conservation biologist and British citizen, along with other British scientists and conservationists worldwide, had warned against this ill-informed decision, but the British parliamentarians did not heed their advice.

The decision to ban hunting trophies in the United Kingdom is widely viewed as a "moment of madness."

The parliamentarians rejected a purely scientific approach to wildlife management, which involves the sustainable harvesting of excessive wildlife populations in specific ecosystems to prevent large wildlife populations from exceeding the carrying capacities of their habitats.

Hunting helps control wildlife overpopulation and prevents wildlife from facing insufficient water, food supply, and space to exist.

However, the British parliamentarians, largely influenced by comedians, pop stars, and animal rights groups, have set in motion an ecological disaster. Their apparent disregard for wildlife conservation and focus on increasing their popularity, fundraising opportunities, and political votes is concerning.

For animal rights fundraising industry NGOs, the wildlife conservation crisis that conservation scientists have warned about is good news, particularly in Africa, where iconic species like the Big Five can be used to solicit donations by portraying them as species in peril. However, these NGOs have not saved a single elephant in the wild.

They selectively focus on elephants in zoos to evoke public emotions and solicit donations, which is shameful.

International hunting is a purely scientific management measure supported by the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a big international NGO.

According to the WWF 1997 Quota Setting Manual, the main purpose of a quota is to identify the number of animals that can be killed without reducing the population.

Science is not determined by the votes of parliamentarians or public referendums. It is not influenced by animal rights groups fundraising industry NGOs, comedians, politicians, or pop stars.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world and resulted in millions of deaths, it did not take votes to decide on vaccines and other scientific measures to save human lives. Scientific issues are based on facts and do not require the votes of British parliamentarians.

Why then, in the 21st century, do we see the United Kingdom, one of the superpowers that is largely taking the lead towards poverty alleviation, incredibly violate the means towards poverty alleviation for African hunting communities by banning hunting trophy imports into the UK?

The United Kingdom seemingly can no longer accommodate political and economic refugees worldwide. However, it's ironically creating an environmental refuge crisis by ignoring the reality that banning trophy hunting imports into the UK may lead to refugees (residents of southern African wildlife producer communities) emigrating to Britain.

They will flee from the human-wildlife conflict that arises when the SADC region becomes overpopulated by harmful wildlife due to reduced wildlife off-take caused by the dwindling of hunting markets resulting from the British hunting trophy imports ban.

In an intense human-wildlife conflict scenario, people from SADC wildlife producer communities wouldn't be able to profitably grow crops or safely store their agricultural produce as wildlife would destroy them.

They wouldn't be able to move freely or feel safe to move at night, even to relieve themselves in the wee hours. Wildlife would have nowhere to run and get wiped out through revenge killings.

Where in your country, British parliamentarians, will you accommodate the southern African wildlife? You neither have the scientific wildlife management know-how, space, appropriate vegetation, nor love for African people and wildlife.

Nevertheless, be ready to welcome southern African wildlife producer communities fleeing from human-wildlife conflict caused by your ill-informed vote for the trophy hunting import ban bill.

An Acting Director of Zambia's Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management, Mr. Andrew Eldred Chomba, recently said, "One of the disadvantages of conservation success is that it results in elephant overpopulation that leads to human-wildlife conflict and our people continue to be killed by elephants."

It's against such a challenging scenario, as is the case in most hunting communities of southern Africa, that international hunting is used as a wildlife management tool to control the wildlife population.

No wonder why before the 17th of March 2023, British parliamentarians vote for a hunting trophy imports ban, elephant-overpopulated Botswana warned the British Government that the ban would harm its wildlife and negatively impact human livelihoods.

"If the Bill is passed by Parliament, it will affect Botswana's wildlife management," said a press release from Botswana's Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

"It will also increase the risk of poaching and human-wildlife conflict, negatively impacting, for example, the largest herd of elephants that Botswana supports."

Elsewhere, Ishmael Chaukura of Zimbabwe's wildlife-rich Masoka wildlife producer community, which boasts of a wildlife hunting revenue-built school that has produced medical doctors, nurses, accountants, and other professionals, said, "The hunting trophies imports ban bill shows that the British aren't genuine conservationists, but pretenders who don't respect African wildlife producer communities and their leaders."

"They can ban hunting trophies imports into the United Kingdom, but they can never stop hunting in Africa."

The British parliamentarians have already approved the hunting trophy import ban into the UK. However, the bill will be discussed and approved in the House of Lords in May or June 2023. While the House of Lords is unable to prevent bills from passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay bills and force the House of Commons to reconsider its decisions.

Therefore, it remains to be seen if the House of Lords can force the parliamentarians to reconsider their decisions.

*About the writer: Emmanuel Koro is a Johannesburg-based international award-winning independent environmental journalist who writes on environment and development issues.