You may not have heard, because there’s so much going on in the news these days, that a male lion was shot and killed for sport last week, along the border of the Kruger National Park.

There was quite an outcry, especially when you consider that the lion is more than likely Skye, the leader of the Western Pride, who has not been seen since the hunt on June 7.

If it was Skye, it’s worth noting that his cubs will be killed by another male taking over the pride.

In the days that followed, Peter Flack wrote a piece on the Daily Maverick, outlining how hunting pays conservation costs, keeps population numbers in check, and a number of other ‘positive’ takes on trophy hunting.

That didn’t sit well with Smaragda Louw and Michele Pickover, who published a rebuttal over the weekend, also on the Daily Maverick.

So that’s the backstory – now let’s get stuck into the bloody article:

Wild animals that move across imaginary human boundaries are being killed for profit and pleasure by a few people benefiting from an agreement which allowed the fences to be taken down.

The main tenet of the agreement was to “create ecological unity”. Surely this means it must be managed according to national park principles and not for trophy hunting purposes. Those who wanted to support trophy hunting should not have been allowed to be party to the agreement. But there was no public participation around the agreement’s formulation.

It simply cannot be proved that trophy killings in the Associated Private Nature Reserves are of animals that are the property of the reserves. They are a national heritage and the owners of those properties should not have the right to decide on the future of this heritage.

They were not keen on Peter Flack [above], either:

It’s not surprising that trophy hunters like Peter Flack and individuals from Umbabat who support trophy hunting (many, including the approximately 200 Ingwala shareblock owners do not) try to defend the indefensible…

He epitomises deeply flawed and abhorrent colonial, apartheid and untransformed conservation viewpoints…

The Umbabat lion was baited, which was confirmed by Umbabat warden Bryan Havemann. So much for “ethical” hunters and their so-called “fair chase” methods. This was nothing more than a canned hunt, to benefit certain private reserve owners. As an American, the hunter could be disbarred from Safari Club International, the world’s biggest hunting association, of which he is undoubtedly a member, for baiting and canned lion hunting.

According to Peter Flack’s website, this is one of his trophy rooms:

That’s the stuff of nightmares.

The article is a long, aggressive rebuttal, so let’s skip ahead to the end for the final few body shots:

So Mr Flack, could we ask you how many wild animals you have killed, how has this contributed to conservation, why you finally stopped hunting and, just out of interest, why were you asked to resign as a WWF trustee?

You can read Flack’s account of his ‘expulsion’ from the WWF here, but I’ve seen enough dead animals for a Monday morning.

Everyone can debate the conservation in hunting angle as long as they like, but what kind of human wants to shoot a lion, just so they can return home and tell their mates about it?

Screw loose.

[source:dailymav]