Now let’s be honest, one of the reasons why wildlife is flourishing in South Africa is, in part, a direct result of hunters’ desire to hunt (and ultimately kill) animals. So one can argue that whether animals are bred to be killed in a small camp or large, free roaming environment the end result is the same i.e. they’re going to end up dead...
But surely there is a difference between buying trophy animals at a game auction and releasing them on a marginally sized hunting property for the sole purpose of shooting them and moving animals to a property where they can breed and grow old before ending up in a hunter’s crosshairs?
Take our Buffalo capturing exercise as example: The Buffalo we captured were all bulls of two to three years of age that came from breeding camps. None of these animals are even close to being considered trophy material and would need another 5-6 years before they’d have hopefully developed hard bosses sought by trophy hunters. These Buffalo were released on properties of between 10,000 and 15,000 acres and will therefore have the next 5-6 years to get to know their surroundings and figure out where and how to hide from hunters. So if we were to hunt one of them in 6 years’ time, can such a hunt be termed as “canned”? I don’t think so...
But then there is of course another scenario... which is where 5-6 year old Buffalo bulls - already with hard or semi hard bosses are bought on auction and released in a 500 acre high-fenced area shortly before the unsuspecting hunter arrives for his “dream” buffalo hunt... Can this hunt be termed as “canned”? In my view - certainly YES...
Are both practices “sustainable”? I believe so - yes! Because as long as there is a demand from hunters to hunt Buffalo, Breeders will continue breeding Buffalo and there will be a continuous supply of animals.
Are both practices “ethical”? I will leave it up to readers to answer this question for themselves but what I do know is that the latter scenario is not my cup of tea and what I do know is that those individuals privileged enough to have participated in a real buffalo hunt would share my sentiment.
Buffalo are expensive to buy and not everyone wants to (or can afford to) carry the risk of having them roam freely for 5 or 6 years before getting a return on their original investment. If an animal gets killed by one of its peers, gets poached, bitten by a venomous snake or trapped in a snare it’s gone. And for this reason some opt to rather buy adult animals and have them shot as soon as possible than to look after animals until they’re ready to be hunted.
There are also some high volume operators who need to keep their hunting camps full of clients and who don’t have access to hunting areas large enough to take off the number of animals their clients seek to hunt. And these Operators often have to buy in extra hunting stock or risk sending their clients home empty handed. Unfortunately the desire to make money above all costs all to often supersedes that of ethical hunting practices.
Of course the example above is not limited to Buffalo but to many other species of African Game or wild animal including Lion. It is indeed a pity that some hunters will come to Africa with expectations of coming on “safari” and end up on a “shooting expedition” instead of a hunt. What is a greater pity is that often all South African Outfitters end up being painted with the same brush while there are many that have a passion for the African bush and its wildlife.
At CT Safaris we can proudly say that we fall in the category of truly sustainable utilization of wildlife resources through ethical hunting.
