African Hunting Gazette – July 2019

18 http://www.africanhuntinggazette.com

BritainandotherEuropeancountriestoban

theimport of huntingtrophies from those

Africanstateswhichpermittedsafarihunting.

Thiscampaignhascontinued,albeit ata

lowerlevelthaninthetwomonthsfollowing

thekillingof Cecil,butlingersonandit is now

oneofthecardsthatis perpetuallystackedto

opposeformsofsustainable-useconservation

involving trophy hunting as a means of

raisingincomeforlocalcommunitiesandfor

conservation.ThishasgainedpaceinBritain

withcelebrities,animalrightsgroupsandsome

politicianspushingforBritaintoimposea ban

ontheimportoftrophiesfromsafarihunting.

Ata meetinginLondonon 15 May 2019

(between the Secretary of State for the

Environment,MichaelGove,andsustainable-

use supporters from the scientific and

conservation communities, hunting groups

andproponentsofa banontrophyhunting)

a campaigning pamphlet was distributed

widely by those supporting a ban. It was

titled TrophyHuntingandConservation.An

assessment ofevidence regarding impacts and

benefitsof sporthuntingonwildlifeandhabitat

conservation. Onclosereadingit clearlyis not

anassessmentof‘impactsandbenefits’andit

carriesnoauthorororganisational nameto

identifyitsorigins.It wasdistributedbythe

‘CampaignAgainstTrophyHunting’.

Professor Somerville says this pamphlet

is a perfect example of card-stacking by

proponents of a ban on trophy hunting

and contains no scientifically supported

assessment of impacts or benefits, but a

seemingly endlessly series of bullet points

criticisinghuntingandtryingtobreakdown

theargumentsinfavourofhuntingaspartof

a packageofsustainableusepolicies.It is such

anextremeexampleofcard-stacking,cherry-

pickingandname-callingthathewillbeusing

it in the course on ‘Propaganda Methods’

thatheteachesattheUniversityofKent.In

particular it personifies in one document,

both in content and style, what the IPA

identifiedas“theselectionanduseoffactsor

falsehoods, illustrations or distractions,and

logicalorillogicalstatements”.

Factsarepresentedoutof context,quotesare

cherry-picked from reputable organisations

and conservation scientists and presented

in a way that totally negates their original

meaninginwell-constructedarguments,and

there isa wealth ofinaccuracy and partial

truths.It is allpresentedintheformofpages

ofbulletpointsandshort,punchyparagraphs

lackinganybalanceoranyconstructionofa

data-backed narrative. Professor Somerville

says“Readingit is likehavinga seriesofrusty

andtwistednailshammeredintoyourhead”.

Many of the points supposedly drawn from

‘studies’areactuallyfromotheranti-hunting

campaigning groups or individuals likethe

HumaneSociety oftheUSA,Conservation

ActionTrust(SouthAfrica)andJohnGrobler

(journalist in Namibia), creating an ‘echo-

chamber’whereonecampaigngroupvalidates

theadvocacyofanother.

Likeallpropagandait is emotive,repetitive

and follows a relentlessly consistent and

simpleline- Keepit SimpleStupid– theKISS

principle.Thiscampaigningdocumenthasthe

KISSprincipleinspades,aimingtoconvince

those with little in-depth knowledge ofthe

subjectbuta loveoforinterestinwildlifeof

theevilsanddamagingeffectsofhunting.It

definitelykeepstotheKISSprincipleasthe

documentis simpleandstupid.

Thefirstandmostextremeexampleofits

stupidityis thestatementinlargetypeatthe

startoftheexecutivesummarythat‘Biggame

hunting,interms ofconservation,doesnot

work-IUCN’.ThisattachestheIUCN’sgood

nameandreputationto a lengthyandrepetitive

denunciationofhuntingandthearguments

thatit canplaya partinconservation.This

supposed IUCN association was based on

thepublicationofa recentdiscussionpaper.

However,theIUCNhasmadeit clear that

“Thereportwhichmakesthisconclusionwas

commissionedbya programmeoftheIUCN

inordertostimulatediscussion,butincludes

a cleardisclaimerthatit representstheviews

oftheauthoronly- BertrandChardonnet-

andnottheIUCN.”

Bycontrast,theIUCNhasa clearpolicy

supportingsustainableuseof wildlife,of which

well-regulatedtrophyhuntingis oneform,and

hasproduceda briefingpaperwhichclearlysets

outtheconservationandlivelihoodbenefitsof

trophyhunting.Theversionof theChardonnet

paperusedbytheDailyMaverickand,it seems

quotedbythecampaigningliteraturefromthe

CampaignAgainstTrophyHunting,is oneon

thewebsiteoftheSouthAfricananti-hunting

advocacygroup‘ConservationActionTrust’,

which conveniently omits the wording that

thepaperis Chardonnet’sviewandnotthat

ofthe IUCN.Additionally,theforeword on

theIUCNwebsite sitemakesit clear thisis

a discussionnota policypaper,andthatit is

aboutthe futureof protectedareasand not

huntingperse.

The campaigning document also citesthe

IUCNregularly,as thoughitspolicypositions

arethesameasthoseofthecampaign,which

theyarenot.It alsocherry-picksquotesfrom

well-established scientists such as Andrew

Loveridge and Craig Packerin ways to use

selected quotes to support their arguments.

Ittotallyignores the widercontext andthe

fact that scientists like Craig Packer, who

haslong campaignedagainstcorruptionand

incompetence inthemanagement oftrophy

huntingin Tanzania,arenowextremelyworried

thattheclosureofhuntingconcessionsthere,

andtheturningofsomewhicharevacantinto

farmingareaswillbea disasterforwildlife.

Thereareendlessexamplesgivenof numbers

of trophiesexportedfromAfrica,andnumbers

ofspeciessuch aselephants, lions, leopards,

bears andmanymore specieslegallyhunted

worldwide, but with no context of the

circumstances,letalonetherightsofwildlife

rangestatesinanypartoftheworldtodecide

howtheirwildliferesourcesareused.Theyare

theretoraiseemotionsandimparta senseof

horror.Interestingly,giventhepaperis trying

toinfluencepoliticiansfromtheConservative

governmentintheUK,thereis noreference

to pheasant, grouse, partridge and wildfowl

shootingintheUK.

There is the use of broad, unsupportable

statements as though they are fact – such

as that “Studiesof lionshave found trophy

huntingto havebeenthe primarydriver of

thespecies’declineintrophyhuntingareas”.

Onemustaskwhichstudies,whichareasand

when? Certainly, at times, poor regulation,

inadequateage-limitsandmonitoringhaveled

toover-huntingof malesin someareas,butthe

primarythreatstolionsinAfricaarehabitat

loss, human encroachment onwildlife areas

andhuman-lionconflict.

Throughoutthecampaigningmaterialthere

aresimilarquotesoutofcontextand claims

that donotstandupto closescrutiny.Two

examplesinthesectiononwhetherhunting

fees benefit conservation are particularly

glaring – one is the claim that in Namibia

thereis a lackofevidence thatincomefrom

very limitedhuntingofblack rhino benefits

conservation.That is nottrue.TheWWFis

no great advocate oftrophy huntingbut it

believes that community conservancies in

Namibia,combiningregulatedtrophyhunting

(includingof a verysmallquotaof blackrhino)

andtourism,is a policythathasworked.Asits

websitestates:

“In the mid-1990s in Namibia, wildlife

numbers were at historical lows in

many areas. But since the government’s

visionary support for a community-based

conservationstrategy,includingsometightly

regulated trophy hunting, the recovery of

wildlifehasbeenremarkable.Namibianow

boasts the largest free-roaming population

of black rhino, as well as expanding

numbers of elephants, lions and giraffes

andtheworld’slargestcheetahpopulation.

Local communities have also benefitted

substantiallyfromtheprogramme.”

The campaigning document goes on