SWAT THANKS FOR YOU SUPPORT!!

[flying4rhino]

All very interesting comments thanks. Luckily i don't take them personally, nor my morale has been knocked. An argument will take us to another argument......so there is no point replying back to all of your comments, especially political and racist ones. I am only interested in FACTS! The main one being, raising international awareness and support of their plight and the growing epidemic of poaching for their horns and Ivory, hence the reason SWAT set up in the first place. I felt compelled to act! to do something to help, offer my flying skills etc (please see my first posting!!) as a result that lead me to South Africa. Meetings took place, with some members of the microlight community, game park owners and a specialist anti rhino poaching team. Who at the time, some were very interested in SWAT and things were looking promising in the pipeline.....................

Right from the outset I was deeply moved, angry and I swore to myself I will let no man stand in my way, if it means I only save one rhino from being slaughtered by mindless barbaric criminals or shall I say including some professional hunters. I was very passionate, prepared to risk life and limb, time and money, the "PLAN" was to set up some sought of International volunteer team who could assist various anti poaching teams on the ground..... hopefully support and fly with www.bateleurs.org occasionally on their some of their missions...

Some of the comments and feedback on this forum don't surprise me, as some of my friends here in the UK are from SA/ZIM, one friend told me, we have a saying in SA, we are like a can of worms, if one worm tries to escape out of the tin, the other worms will pull back down. However, saying that the people I stayed with in SA were very hospitable. There is also a good SA joke, about a lion with a stick up its ares chasing a monkey reading the news paper.... That's another story. I,ll be honest, If I Knew Then, What I Know Now. I would of not got involved in the first place. Most folk I have spoken to in the UK regarding rhino poaching are in the fog like me. I had this perception rhino were roaming in the wild with no one to protect them little did i know what's really going on in Africa never mind South Africa with its pro-advocate rhino breeders and trophy hunting.

I started working on SWAT project since September 2012. I basically emailed some government parks & organisations to start with, offering my aircraft at no cost not even fuel/ accommodation or food. Most of the time, got no reply, but if I did, quite often it was an indignant one similar to that (how dare you suggest that we need help?). It seems to me now that their vested interests, immediately feels threatened when offered voluntary help.


There is no simple solution to the poaching crisis, from pissed up experts leaning on the bar to Oxford professors trying to crack the code of rhino http://uk.reuters.com/video/2013/02/19/ ... =241200899 are all having a go. There will be pro's and cons, rights and wrongs, ethical and unethical. I know one thing for sure and that is I will continue with my passion. Believe me, I sympathise! with some members of the SA community http://www.oscap.co.za/ etc, it must be very frustrating seeing so many rhinos being killed for greed. Like I said I am only interested in FACTS! The main one being, raising awareness and support of their plight. If there is one lesson I learnt and that is to give African governments a political will to do more, wildlife poaching has become like the drug wars and modern military tactics is required to fight with modern weapons, and they must use money ceased from illicit trade! long gone the days when poachers use bow and arrows. http://www.facebook.com/SwatPatrolUk?ref=tn_tnmn

PS before any of you reply back and say why didn't your SA friends inform me about the rhino poaching in SA, they did one word, corruption!

[D2O]

Mods, please....give this SWAT team the boot

this is enough now...last time I checked this was a forum about South African recreational flying

[WOBBLY]

Mods, please....give this SWAT team the boot

this is enough now...last time I checked this was a forum about South African recreational flying

D20

I agree that this forum is all about South African recreational flying and that SWAT are visitors on your South African recreational flying Forum, but I would like to think that discussion on forums don't always have to be wrapped in Cotton wool and that most of you are hardy enough to take imbalance of opinion as cultured debate.

Booting off people who challenge forum debates is a 'very british' thing to do, surely you guys are better than that ?

[D2O]

Uuuuh, what debate? Last time I checked, the discussion was straying far away from the topic, and you resorted to name calling. That, imho is the end of the debate and the natural conclusion of a forum thread in any case.
Why did you see fit to start another topic anyway? Losing the "debate" in the last one maybe?
Besides, I do not go onto this forum to debate. I'm not a politician. I come on this forum to discuss my recreational flying. Either do the same and stop spamming your SWAT nonsense, or get booted by the mods. It's quite simple really.
Run along now, I've got flying to do

[Tumbleweed]

Flying, from your post it's obvious that you've had your mindset broadened to a more complex issue.

Corruption, no political will, selective prosecution (why only one Vietnamese prosecuted and no Chinese) international embassies with diplomatic immunity, immoral game park owners/ vets and previously active terrorists with an abundance of weapons who have undertaken far more gruesome acts than removing a horn off an animal to rather find a job.

I'm not suprised that your simple intro e.mails were'nt taken seriously because the same applied here. You've still not understood the concept of how South Africa's reserves, commerical game farms and hunting has sustained the most effective means of nature conservation in Africa.

What is your sponsor's stance on reconsidering the Cites ban which if lifted under controlled circumstances would allow the selling of horn and tusks from animals died naturally or numbers culling in game parks to self fund security and anti poaching?

I'd like an update on whether you ever progress and enjoy the banter. Just don't give up your day job.

[flying4rhino]

[quote="Tumbleweed"]



What is your sponsor's stance on reconsidering the Cites ban which if lifted under controlled circumstances would allow the selling of horn and tusks from animals died naturally or numbers culling in game parks to self fund security and anti poaching?

Now that is a very good question!!!!


If the trade in Ivory or Rhino horn should ever be legalised, personally I believe wildlife organisations around the world who support conservation in Africa, especially rhinos and elephants should not be allowed to use generous donors money or foreign aid. The money should come from likes of rhino owners, John Hume and from the multi million dollar hunting industry South Africa generates from trophy hunting/culling and selling surplus animals......


The other point I would like to mention, South Africans a very Intelligent people I have spent some time working in Holland, Belgium, including Germany. Despite this distorted picture wildlife charities are portraying about your rhino becoming extinct this will never happen in South Africa you guys are very smart.

so lets keep this forum for recreational purposes , PLEASE PLEASE mods bann me i have said everything i need to say

FUCK THE RHINO SAVE THE ENGLISH GENEROUS DONORS GIVING SOUTH AFRICA MONEY

[nicow]

What English Doners ....Maybe they donate money to the goverment-not to the farmers

In Afrikaans we call them Engelse Donners...

[Bulletjie]

What English Doners ....Maybe they donate money to the goverment-not to the farmers

In Afrikaans we call them Engelse Donners...

[Tumbleweed]

Nicow,

Koop vir jou een Rhino toe. Laat hiedie ouens jou trikes 'hire 'n fly' heel dag om jou plaas an skep bietjie van hiedie Euro funding, dan koop jy vinnig daai chopper.

[nicow]

Nicow,

Koop vir jou een Rhino toe. Laat hiedie ouens jou trikes 'hire 'n fly' heel dag om jou plaas an skep bietjie van hiedie Euro funding, dan koop jy vinnig daai chopper.

Ek sal eerder een van my Rhinos verkoop en dan 'n chopper koop voor ek hulle vir geld vra...

[WOBBLY]

With a view to the Zimbabwe Unit being operational earlier than the SWAT UAV Unit reaching operational status, both Frank & myself have concluded that the Zimbabwe Operation and the SWAT UAV Operation are to be separated into 2 independently ran projects, whilst this doesn't change the end result or the objective, it will give both projects a safety net in terms of being financially independent of each other.

[zucac]

read this
people in South Africa rock
RHINO WAR NEWS Special Report !!- Pre-CITES CoP 16 Opinion Stand-off !!
“THE ANIMAL RIGHTS IDEOLOGY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT” - (Ron Thompson) - Refer article below !!
RWN Introduction - It is obvious the “Animal Rights-Alliance” posing as bogus-conservationists & preservationists are intentionally ignoring, or don’t understand, or won’t accept the concept of 21st Century “African Conservation”, the IUCN Jeju International Conservation Doctrine heralding a new era in resources management, which is critical for the future of Africa’s wildlife survival.
They and all CoP 16 voting delegates (in particular the EU Block), will do well to remember & accept that the CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi) was decided upon at the 5th World Conservation Congress of IUCN from 6-15 September 2012 in Jeju, Republic of Korea.
Following the adoption of Resolution 4.039 (Cross Commission Collaboration on Sustainable Use of Biological Resources) at the 4th IUCN World Conservation Congress, the IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) and the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) have established a new cross-Commission group focused on sustainable use: the Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi). This builds on and re-focuses the extensive work of the Sustainable Use Specialist Group. The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) and IUCN-SULi organised a workshop entitled “Towards a Collaborative Partnership on Sustainable Wildlife Management”, at the occasion of the 5th World Conservation Congress of IUCN from 6-15 September 2012 in Jeju, Republic of Korea. The workshop gathered together organisations with an interest in wildlife management including CIC, IUCN, CBD, OIE, FAO and TRAFFIC.















Rhino & Elephant Issues in perspective

“CoP 16 Delegates (Voting & non-voting NGO observers, including the AR-Alliance ideologists) must learn to accept the reality that the 21st Century African Wildlife Ideology demands of Sustainable Utilization (SU) of wildlife & their habitats is to be ignored at the peril of their survival !!” The “Winds Of Change” in wildlife management presents many challenges, significantly ‘African Conservation’, the IUCN Jeju International Conservation Doctrine heralding a new era in resources management, which includes acceptable “Bush Meat” utilization, is a major realistic feature relevant to the continent despite any arrogant, ignorant interference by ideologists.”
RWN COMMENT - The battle lines have been drawn as, at last, the science-based wildlife management lobby gathers momentum & clashes horns with the Animal Rights-Alliance Ideologists who for too long have dominated & manipulated CITES management & voting decisions.
RWN Special Report - Contents for delegates & your archive reference ::
• SAHGCA slams Colman O’Criodian of the WWF
• Kenya puts squeeze over SA rhino trophies
• South Africa, Kenya to ‘speak with one voice’ on rhino at Bangkok conference
• Important rhino agenda at upcoming CITES meeting - “savetherrhino.org”
• THE ANIMAL RIGHTS IDEOLOGY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT” - (Ron Thompson)
• CITES Secretariat Rhino & Elephant Recommendations on Proposals at CoP 16
• Privately Owned Rhino Management - The Importance & Value of Wildlife Ranching in South Africa by Dr Gert Dry (President of WRSA)
• IUCN - CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi)
• IUCN - Sustainable Use & Livelihoods Specialist Group - SULi News
• SULi News - Message from the Chair - Rosie Cooney
• Rhino Debate - Issue No 1 - Escalation of rhino poaching in South Africa: is the trade ban approach working? By Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes
• Rhino Debate - Issue No 2 - The Rhino Debate - Colman O Criodain of WWF and Mike Knight, Chair of the African Rhino Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC.
• Rhino Debate - Issue No 3 - Some remarks on letters relating to rhino in the past two issues of SULiNews By Rowan B. Martin
• Step closer to the collaborative partnership on sustainable wildlife management By Mark Ryan
• "Blood Ivory" by Bryan Christy - National Geographic October 2012 - includes CHINA’S IVORY FACTORIES
• Crocodile Farming vs Rhino Farming comparison (applicable also to Ostrich or the International icon - the American Buffalo or Bison & many other species) The NGO and manipulated CITES voting position on the rhino is ludicrous, they accept crocodiles BUT not rhino !! - you can draw your own conclusions with regard to this farce !! Now is the time to change it ??
• Is it time to legalise rhino horn trade? By Khadija Sharife - Le Monde Diplomatic
• A private rhino owner’s dilemma !! What to do ?? Fight for our right to decide for ourselves on how to manage the rhino we own. - Karel Landman Trust t/a Pongola Game Reserve
Read below or at the links provided @
The SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association (SAHGCA) slams & strongly refutes the preposterous statement by Colman O’Criodian of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) that legalising rhino horn trade would increase poaching.
RWN MAILBAG From: Magda Naude [mailto:magda.naude@gmail.com]
Sent: February-22-13 4:25 AM
To: Tim & Val Condon
Subject: Media statement: SA Hunters question WWF's stance on rhino horn trade

MEDIA RELEASE BY SA HUNTERS AND GAME CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Date: 22 February 2013

SA Hunters question WWF's stance on rhino horn trade

Pretoria, South Africa - SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association (SAHGCA) strongly refutes the preposterous statement by Colman O’Criodian of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) that legalising rhino horn trade would increase poaching. It was reported in the media earlier today, that both WWF and Traffic would oppose any pro trade proposals at the CITES meeting in Bangkok from 3 – 13 March.

O’Criodian, who claimed he had visited South Africa a while ago, said the calls from South African game farmers and rhino owners to legalise the trade were ‘ridiculous’, and that there were many ‘ethical issues’. He did not elaborate on these so-called ‘ethical issues’. "How ethical is it to allow the extinction of a species through irresponsible actions?", SAHGCA asks.

SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association thinks O’Criodian is ill-informed and short-sighted. As an environmental scientist, surely he should know that the CITES inspired trade bans have failed spectacularly in stopping the demise of 800 000 elephants, 64 000 black rhinos and 355 000 lions in sub-Sahara Africa since the implementation of its imperialistic, new colonialist watch over Africa’s treasured wildlife 35 years ago.

WWF’s stance is a slap in the faces of highly successful and respected conservationists such as Dr Ian Player who had the foresight to realise the vulnerability of the rhino many years ago. He is one of many highly esteemed experts in South Africa who supports legalising the trade in rhino horn. Just who is O’Criodian to refer to these stalwarts of conservation, as being ridiculous?

Trade bans do not work. They are merely naive reactions to try and stop criminal activities. Give legal trade a chance. We know it is not the only solution, but is a start. South Africa is a crucial and the most important stakeholder in the rhino debate. Armchair conservationists from countries where there are nothing left to conserve, should back out of the rhino debate. They have no right to try and dictate to those that actually know how to look after their wildlife, such as South Africa.

SAHGCA would like to know what notable conservation successes WWF and its members have achieved besides publicity stunts? Has WWF spent its donor money from concerned citizens wisely on real conservation projects, or is it perhaps just a source of income for officials? The end

Issued by the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association (SAHGCA), the biggest conservation association in South African with over 33 000 members.

Editorial enquiries: Dr Herman Els 083 294 7503
General enquiries: Magda Naudé on 082 452 5878 or magda.naude@gmail.com

RWN Footnote re WWF - It should be noted that the WWF has recently come under severe criticism from proven science-based wildlife managers on many issues, one in particular, over its controversial stand over the irresponsible burning of legal ivory, as well as the scandalous “removal” by WWF Spain of its Patron King Carlos, because he went to Botswana on a legal elephant hunt, in a country of dire need of culling of its massive overpopulation of 180,000 animals - this certainly slaps the “SU” concept in the face - TC


ZWF MEDIA UPDATE - Kenya puts squeeze on SA over rhino trophies - Mercury February 21 2013 By Tony Carnie
Although the Kenyan proposal does not call for an outright ban on legal rhino hunts in South Africa, it has called for a zero export quota on any rhino hunting trophies until at least 2018.
Durban - South Africa is to come under further international pressure from Kenya next month to clean up the rhino-hunting industry and to ban any rhino horn trophies from leaving its shores for at least five years. The proposal from the Kenyan government is to be debated in Bangkok, Thailand, at the 16th meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), which begins on March 3.
Although the Kenyan proposal does not call for an outright ban on legal rhino hunts in South Africa, it has called for a zero export quota on any rhino hunting trophies until at least 2018. But the ban seems unlikely to succeed, as the Cites secretariat has recommended that Kenya’s proposal should not be adopted. In its proposal posted on the Cites website, Kenya said it did not intend to jeopardise the hunting industry in South Africa, but seemed to acknowledge that the five-year export ban would reduce the incentive for private owners to keep rhinos on their land.
“Kenya is of the firm opinion that the export of white rhino hunting trophies should not be allowed. Evidence suggests that hunting trophies offers a legal pathway for criminal networks to obtain rhino horn which is then illegally sold for ‘medicinal’ and ornamental purposes, and the continued legal trophy hunting of rhino may be stimulating demand.”
Kenya also acknowledged that South Africa had made several efforts to shut down “pseudo-hunts” of rhinos by Vietnamese citizens and nationals of other countries not traditionally associated with trophy hunting. However, when Vietnamese nationals were banned from hunting rhinos in South Africa last year, criminal networks appeared to have shifted tactics by employing pseudo hunters from the Czech Republic, Poland and Russia to take the place of the Vietnamese.
According to Kenyan officials, the number of rhino hunting applications from Americans soared by about 300 percent last year from that in 2010, “possibly indicating the flexibility and opportunistic nature of pseudo-hunting criminal operatives”.
Despite South Africa’s recent actions, not all the trophy-hunting loopholes had been plugged.
“Kenya is convinced that by preventing legal trophy exports, pseudo-hunting will be eliminated and infiltration of legal horn into the illegal markets will be brought to an end.”
However, the Cites secretariat has recommended that member states should reject the Kenyan proposal when it is put to the vote by 177 Cites members in Bangkok next month. The secretariat said that the Kenyan proposal would discourage the private sector from conserving rhinos on their land, and recognised that South Africa had taken “significant steps” to manage rhino hunting.
The Private Rhino Owners’ Association has also voiced strong opposition to the Kenyan proposal. In an open letter to the EU and other Cites member states late last year, association chairman Pelham Jones said Kenya’s plan would “devastate” the private rhino industry in South Africa.
“There are more rhinos on private land in South Africa than across the entire remainder of the African continent, and this fact bears testimony to the conservation success achieved in South Africa since the 1960s when there were only a few hundred rhino left in the country.” Jones noted that until recently, private land owners had been investing in rhinos as an appreciating financial asset, and this had contributed to the proliferation of the species.
“The road to hell is unfortunately paved with good intentions and at present we are watching the rhino populations in our country being condemned to extinction because of such misguided and naive good intentions… We appeal to Cites member states to resist the urge to regress to a clampdown knee-jerk reaction and to carefully consider the hard-fought successes of South African conservation history.” - The Mercury
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/en ... -1.1474640
IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses of Proposals CITES CoP16
In preparation for the CITES CoP16 meeting that will take place March 3 – 14, 2013 in Bangkok, Thailand, IUCN and TRAFFIC have released the Analyses of the Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices on December 24, 2012.
In the table available to download below, you can see each proposal to amend the CITES Appendices that the Parties have submitted to CoP16 and the corresponding Analyses of the proposals completed by IUCN and TRAFFIC. If you have questions about how the Analyses was conducted or how IUCN is preparing for CITES CoP16, please contact Dena Cator at dena.cator@iucn.org.
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programm ... tes_cop16/
South Africa, Kenya to ‘speak with one voice’ on rhino at Bangkok conference
by Steve Mbogo, February 18 2013,
Related articles
• New ‘harvesting’ plan to stimulate birth rate of black rhino
• Forging a partnership to stamp out poaching
• Fifty-seven rhinos poached in SA in January
• Drones now part of anti-poaching arsenal
• Rise in rhino poaching ‘threatens to undo years of successful effort’
KENYA and South Africa have agreed to vote as a bloc during the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) conference in Bangkok next month.
The two countries are fast-tracking their co-operation in wildlife management matters as poachers expand the killing of elephants and rhinos to supply markets in Asia.
Kenya has been able to grow its rhino herd from 300 in the early 1990s to the estimated 700 rhinos now. Last year, South Africa lost 668 rhinos to poachers, about the entire population of rhinos in Kenya, according to the World Wildlife Fund.
A delegation from South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs has been in Kenya since late last week on an official working visit for final discussions on the proposed areas of co-operation, said the director of Kenya Wildlife Service, William Kiprono.
The head of the South African delegation, Moscow Marumo, said a lot of ground had been covered. "We are confident that South Africa and Kenya will speak with one voice during the upcoming Cites conference in Bangkok."
Kenya has proposed five amendments to international wildlife conservation treaties in the wake of increased poaching of elephants, rhinos and cheetahs.
Kenya proposes that only white rhinoceros from Swaziland and South Africa should be allowed to participate in international trade in live animals. All other species of rhinoceros should be included in Appendix I, which lists species of animals and plants that are threatened with extinction.
Kenya has proposed that no application for ivory trade will be submitted during the life of the existing moratorium, which ends in 2017. The proposal is jointly submitted with Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Togo and Mali.
The European Union supports the proposal on ivory trade.
Kenya and Tanzania further propose that a plant known as East African Sandlewood be included in Appendix II, which lists species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but that may become so unless trade is closely controlled.
East African Sandlewood has recently entered the international market as a substitute for the traditional sandalwood oil sourced from Asia and Australia.
http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/scienc ... conference


The EU “manipulated” Block vote at the instigation of the “AR-A” preservationists !!


• On Feb 6th, the EU Parliament passed the Motion for a Resolution to present a unified recommendation by Member States to the CITES Conference of Parties on a number of issues. The EU as a bloc holds 27 votes apart from further influence. What the EU Parliament voted for, inter alia, was the following:

1. Transparency of decision making and a strong call to base decisions on scientific information;

2. Encouragement of the Precautionary Principle in all decisions made by CITES, meaning that when not enough information is available on the effect of trade on conservation of a particular species, that one should err on the side of caution;
...
3. Rejection of any calls to legalize ivory trade;

4. Supporting a call by Kenya to halt trophy hunting of rhinos in South Africa;

5. Reducing all national trophy hunting exports of CITES Appendix I and Appendix II species; urging the CITES Parties to stop unsustainable and unethical trophy hunting which has caused large-scale declines in African lion populations;

6. Regretting that no proposal was submitted by an African lion range State to transfer the lion from CITES Appendix II to Appendix I;

7. Transfer of polar bears to CITES Appendix I;

8. Further good resolutions in terms of sharks, manatees, crocodiles, amphibians, birds, trees, etc.

We would encourage the European Union to not only propose these changes to CITES, but also act within their EU Wildlife Trade Regulations that currently mirror CITES but can benefit from independent and perhaps better regulations by EU Member States. The USA is currently considering listing of the African lion on their Endangered Species Act independent of CITES evaluations. The EU could do the same and set a trend for better conservation of a myriad of other species involved in international trade.

Most importantly, the EU WTR should immediately close many loopholes allowed by CITES to trade in listed species – most urgently to get rid of the “personal and household effects” derogation that exempts about 70% of lion products (trophies) to be considered as trade. Exemptions from trade should not be allowed as all trade influences conservation.

As a result of this Resolution, the EU Parliament instructs its President to forward same to the Council, the Commission, the Parties to CITES and the CITES Secretariat.


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/get ... anguage=EN
Important rhino agenda at upcoming CITES meeting -
http://www.savetherhino.org/latest_news ... es_meeting

CITES – 16th meeting of the Convention of Parties 3-4 March 2013
CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Every three years the parties gather in a Conference of Parties (CoP) to address proposals to amend the appendices which have an important impact on endangered species such as rhinos.
The 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP 16) will take place in Bangkok (Thailand) during 3-14 March 2013. With the current rhino poaching crisis this meeting is of great importance in terms of discussing international cooperation to reduce the killing of rhinos and illegal trade in rhino horn.
CITES has just released a Rhinoceros briefing note detailing important topics which will be discussed during the conference. It highlights several areas of concern and matters which urgently need addressing. The document states that ‘’illegal trade in rhinoceros horn continues to be one of the most structured criminal activities faced by CITES''.
Despite high and increasing levels of poaching, the report says that overall populations of both African species, the white rhino and the black rhino continue to increase in the wild. However rhino poaching has reached a crisis point, and if the high levels of poaching continue rhino populations will be seriously affected. In South Africa if the killing continues at this high rate, we could see rhino deaths overtaking births in 2016-2018, meaning rhinos could go extinct in the very near future.
The report highlights several key aspects to be addressed:
- The alarming rate of rhino poaching in South Africa, with the highest number of rhinos illegally killed in South Africa in recent history. This is despite the many measures that have been put in place to deter rhino poaching and the rhino horn trade
- The organised criminal networks that have emerged to illegally export rhino horn from Africa to Asia, using different trade routes across the globe
- Increasing demand for rhino horn in Vietnam. Current levels of demand for rhino horn seem to be driven by non-traditional purposes such as cancer treatment, hangover cures and a body detoxification, especially in Vietnam. Rhino horn is also seen as a status symbol amongst the elite.
- Vietnam’s lack of law enforcement and inability to monitor legally imported rhino horn trophies to ensure that these trophies never become part of the illegal trade. Vietnam has produced limited evidence of arrests and prosecutions related to the illegal trade in rhino horn
- Pseudo-hunting. Measures implemented to address pseudo-hunting, whereby individuals with no hunting background are recruited by crime groups to pose as trophy hunters to obtain horns through legal hunts destined to the illegal markets. Overall Vietnamese citizens have hunted more than 400 rhino legally on privately-owned properties in South Africa since 2003. However in April 2012, South Africa formally suspended the issuance of hunting permits to Vietnamese citizens, which has led to a marked decline in rhino hunting applications from South-East Asian citizens
- Organised criminal crime groups operating at a global level. As well as rhino range states and in Asia, these groups are operating in Europe, where thefts of rhinoceros horns from museums, auction houses, antiques and taxidermists have occurred
- The level at which arrests are made. Currently most arrests in rhino range states address the criminal syndicates at lower levels including the poachers and local couriers. However these individuals are easily replaced. Global collaboration and coordination is needed to ensure that the leaders of these criminal networks are targeted
- Legislation and prosecutions. Although there have been an increasing number of rhino-related arrests and convictions in some countries such as South Africa, the lack of tough penalties in other countries such as Kenya does not act as a deterrent to rhino poaching. For example in Kenya the maximum fine for a rhino related crime is only US$500 which bears no economic relation to the value of the crime.
- Poachers from Mozambique have been involved in numerous poaching cases in South Africa’s Kruger National Park. Law enforcement and adherence to CITES needs to be stepped up in the country where rhino poaching and rhino horn dealing are still only misdemeanors and not criminal offences
-High levels of poaching in Zimbabwe Poaching in Zimbabwe continues to be a problem and the country’s rhino population has declined since the last CITES CoP15
-Use of technology. CITES identifies that methods such as DNA databases have an important role in detecting and protecting rhino populations
-Ongoing threats to Asian rhinos Low population numbers and habitat destruction remain ongoing threats to the survival of Sumatran and Javan rhinos
Although South Africa will not be making any proposal on a legal trade in rhino horn until 2016’s Cites meeting, there will be discussion on Kenya’s recent proposal to the international body that a trophy-hunting moratorium be placed on South African white rhinos. Kenya proposed that all rhino horn trophy exports from South Africa and Swaziland be banned, at least until 2019.
The meeting is taking place at a critical point in the rhino poaching crisis. It is evident that international collaboration and government will by all states are essential for clamping down on these criminal networks.
RHINO WAR NEWS - IMPORTANT FEATURE FYI THE ANIMAL RIGHTS IDEOLOGY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.
Response by Ron Thompson to the Document written by A.L Thompson (Refer both @ --- http://corumana.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/1018/
The tragedy with documents like these is that the delegates of organisations like CITES read them and give them credence; as does the Secretary General of CITES who is himself a ‘fellow-traveler’ of the animal rights brigade.　 The author of this dubious document (Ms. Allison Thomson) is clearly in the camp of the animal rightists whose mission in life is to ABOLISH all animal ‘uses’ – including trade.　 And they will brook no deviation from this their ultimate goal. This document of hers is merely one broadside fired in the ongoing battle.　 The fact that Ms Thomson has enrolled the support of that arch animal rightist, Chris Mercer, to back her verbiage, suggests that if she is not HERSELF an animal rightist, then she is certainly one of the ideology’s ‘fellow travelers’. And I don’t know who is worse – the REAL ‘animal rightist’ or the ‘fellow traveler’.　 The answer to THAT question rests with the stature of the ‘fellow traveler’. If the fellow traveler has great ‘influence’ in society (for example if he is a university professor) HE (or SHE) is more dangerous to our wildlife that the Real McCoy.
Ms Thomson’s paper is a match thrown into the veld. Its purpose is to create alarm and disillusionment in ‘our’ camp.　This is a ploy used all the time by animal rightists.　Their purpose is to　get us running round putting out the fires that they light – and to deflect our focus and energies from the issues that really count.　We can’t achieve anything by fighting them on this issue – so best we ignore them – and get on with what really matters. And lets stop worrying about the fires they light!
OUR crime is that we give these documents added credibility by believing that “they need to be addressed”. Why should we address them?　 For what purpose?　Those who believe in the idiotic and iniquitous animal rights ideology will NEVER be moved away from their long-ago-plotted and narrow course; and we need to understand another thing. The animal rights doctrine is being more and more described as ‘a confidence industry’ – because its purpose in life seems to be concentrated on extracting money from the uninformed and gullible publics in the big cities of the world – which moneys are, apparently, not be used for the purposes for which they were solicited.　 The proportion of their contribution to wildlife and to its proper management is virtually NIL (when compared to their vast annual incomes – IFAW, is said to have an income of US$ 200 000 000 p.a.　And HSUS is said to earn US$ 120 000 p.a.).　
Anyone who doubts any or all this should start examining the website “Humane Watch”. Humane Watch is a consumer watchdog organisation reporting on the growing intensity of the court proceedings being brought by “Feld” against HSUS (The Humane Society of the United States); and the charges against HSUS include racketeering; corruption; paying witnesses to make false statements in court; and a whole host of other charges relating to the way they recover funds (under false pretenses it has been said in court) from the general public.　 HSUS is being charged under a law that was designed to curb gangsterism (the mafia) in the United States.　 And it has already been revealed that HSUS pay a bucketful of lawyers to keep their organisation functioning – despite the alleged criminality of their actions – and several of their lawyers are being charged will illegal activities, too. The CEO of HSUS, it has been claimed in court, is paid a salary (with other benefits) of US$ 300 000 a year; and the organisation, apparently, spends millions on keeping its stable of lawyers employed; whilst paying less than one percent of their annual earnings on actual animal ‘welfare’ issues. And those minimal expenditures are given MAXIMUM public exposure. I am finding this an interesting and exciting case to follow.　 Should HSUS be found guilty of these offences the CEO (and others in the organisation – including some of their senior lawyers) may face prison time; and the fines could force HSUS ‘out of business’.
Rather than waste our time trying to evaluate any justification in what Ms. Thomson has stated – or to criticise her – we need to look at some of the realities of the predicament that South Africa (and other country’s) now finds itself with regards to CITES. We should rather be using our energies to extricate ourselves from an organisation (CITES) the membership of which is now intolerable.　 We should either be working towards making CITES ‘work for us’ (not against us) – and to get CITES to clean up its act; and if we cannot achieve that – and quickly – we should extricate ourselves from this anachronism (and animal rights weapon) that everybody seems to believe is “SO GOOD” that we have to continue to prop it up.
WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT CITES?　God forbid.　Not to have CITES in this world is unthinkable.　How will we control international trade in our wildlife and wildlife products without CITES.　 We need to think about that question carefully.　 CITES is now corrupt! Our question should rather be: How do we conduct our international trade – and wildlife management practices internally – in the presence of an international organisation that doesn’t have our wildlife interests at heart and which keeps dragging us down.
In 1975 South Africa – as a responsible sovereign state – elected to join CITES in order to combine with the other responsible nations of the world in establishing an international organisation that would regulate international trade in wildlife and wildlife products.　 Every other responsible sovereign state in the world did the same thing.　In order to become a member, South Africa had to surrender its sovereign right to trade in its own wildlife and wildlife products and it had to agree to abide by the decisions made by CITES – with regards how CITES would “allow” South Africa to carry out such trade. CITES now comprises 177 sovereign member states, only five or six of whom are ‘African rhino range states’ – that is countries in Africa where rhinos still live.　 So there are over 170 states (vs. half a dozen) who have a say in how South Africa should conduct its international rhino trade affairs; and very few of them know a damn thing about our rhinos, how they should be managed, or how we combat the current poaching pressures.　 PROHIBITION is the ONLY answer CITES is capable of coming up with!!!!!　
Since 1975, CITES has encouraged more and more uncommitted sovereign states to become members of CITES; and it has encouraged NGOs from all over the world to become what it calls ‘accredited’ members of CITES.　 Only the sovereign state members have a vote at CITES. The NGOs don’t have a vote but they have access to all debates and workshops during every CITES meeting; and they now outnumber the official delegations. And with their high annual incomes (and dogmatism) these NGOs have great ‘persuasive power’ during the many CITES meetings that sit to determine what each country can do, or cannot do, with regards international trade in its own wildlife and wildlife products.　
Many (most?) of the NGOs accredited to CITES are animal rightists – whose purpose in life, remember, is, inter alia, to ABOLISH all trade in wildlife and wildlife products. We have to ask the question, therefore, WHY have the animal rights NGOs accredited themselves to CITES - if NOT for the purpose of destroying all and every trade proposal? They are there to sabotage the whole purpose of CITES.　They are spanners placed in the middle of the CITES machinery.　 And when you add to the equation the fact that over 170 of the delegates present have no idea what a rhino even looks like – and have no emotional or material attachment to rhinos in general, anyway – AND when you understand the huge and preponderance of the animal rights influence at CITES – the danger to Africa’s wildlife becomes ever more apparent.　 It takes very little ‘persuasion’ to get a South American – or an Asian – delegate, for example, to vote the way an animal rightist WANTS him to vote, on an issue that he knows nothing about and about which he cares even less, anyway.　And THIS happens all the time at CITES.
Bribery and corruption is rife during CITES meetings – with NGO’s wining and dining delegates every night – persuading them – with argument’s like Ms Thomson’s – to vote the way the animal rightists want them to vote.　In 1987 – in Ottawa Canada – I personally interviewed two delegates from two poor African countries, who told me openly that a leading animal rights organisation were paying for their airfares, ground transport, hotel accommodations, food bills, bar bills, telephone bills – and one admitted even their ‘ladies of the night’ bills – on condition they voted in the manner their paymasters prescribed. They were their paymasters’ puppets. They were enjoying a two week long holiday in a foreign country, in an expensive hotel, all at their benefactor’s expense.　 This is why when a ‘secret ballot’ is called for at CITES, the animal rights NGOs create a furore.　 And, in those circles that frequent CITES, this is all well known. In the 1980s it was investigated by the American government, without conclusion. It was impossible to prove because of the scale of the problem’s international dimensions.
So CITES, at this time, is working against the better interests of South Africa’s wildlife.　Our energies, therefore, would be best directed towards getting the South African public and government to effect change in the CITES ‘NGO accredition rules’ – with the purpose of expelling the accredited animal rights NGOs from CITES (because they are just spoilers; and because they have destroyed the integrity of this once great organisation). All it will need to expel the animal rigjhts NGOs from CITES is for the delegates to demand that all accredited NGO’s sign an affidavit endorsing their support for “the sustainable use of wildlife for the benefit if man”.　 This is one of the cornerstones of the IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy. And, if South Africa (or the African block of nations) cannot purge CITES like this – and return CITES to its former glory – then we would all be better “OUT” of CITES.　Certainly, for all those of you who believe that ‘reason will prevail at CITES’ – and that South Africa will be allowed to ‘farm’ its rhinos in order to legally supply the demand for rhino horn in the Asian markets – don’t hold your breath. If that result eventuates, it will happen against the now decades-old flow of play.
And let us all remember that the animals rightists who write these kinds of articles have no accountability for the decisions that they may push though at CITES. But so long as they “succeed” in stopping trade, they will have hundreds of thousands of supporters back home in their own countries who will continue to provide them with funds “to keep up the good work”.
Remember, too:-
(1). AN ANIMAL RIGHTIST CANNOT ACHIEVE HIS OBJECTIVES WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE.
(2).THERE IS NO PLACE IN A RESPONSIBLE AND CIVILISED SOCIETY FOR THE ANIMAL RIGHTS IDEOLOGY.
(3).THE ANIMAL RIGHTS IDEOLOGY IN INCOMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE-BASED WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.
We have all ‘right’ things on our side!
So let us consider challenges – like this one from Ms Thomson’s – in these perspectives. Let us get on with constructive wildlife management programmes and let us urge the South African government to purge CITES of the animal rights NGOs. And if they cannot do THAT, let us persuade　government to resign as a signatory to, and member of, CITES. Although I have had a lot to say in this email, I decline to waste my time commenting on Ms Thomson’s illogical animal rights considerations.
CITES Secretariat Rhino & Elephant Recommendations on Proposals at C0P 16
Important News Flash which will be welcomed by all rhino conservationists, owners & managers of a proven conservation management policy !!
The decisions below, critical to SU (Sustainable Utilization), are welcomed & will help restore some respect and confidence in CITES, who has been seen as being ensnared in the tentacles of the negative Animal/Humane Rights Activists/East African Alliance. The threat still however exists in the flawed CoP 16 voting system which allows countries without any rhino or elephant, an equal vote to those who do - it’s the “Cape Verde Islands or similar - e.g. the EU countries” Syndrome - RWN
CITES Secretariat presents recommendations on proposals to amend the CITES Appendices
The upcoming sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (Bangkok, Thailand, 3-14 March 2013) will be considering 70 proposals to increase or decrease controls on international trade in wildlife and wildlife products, submitted by 55 States from around the world. In total around 320 species are affected by these proposed changes. Amongst the species involved are polar bear, African elephant, white rhinoceros, turtles, frogs, crocodiles, several shark species, the manta ray, valuable tropical timbers, ornamental and medicinal plants and many other animals and plants.
The CITES Secretariat has just released its own recommendations (based upon the agreed amendment criteria) to CITES members (Parties) concerning these proposals.
As instructed by the Parties to the Convention, the Secretariat consulted bodies concerned with the conservation and sustainable use of marine species and timber species about these proposals. Eleven inter-governmental bodies responded including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) who convened an Expert Advisory Panel over 6 days to examine the proposals related to commercially-exploited aquatic species in detail. The full text of the FAO Panel’s report and the responses from other inter-governmental bodies have also been released on the CITES website.
Governments will use these evaluations and recommendations to make their own decisions about which proposals should be adopted and which rejected.
“CITES Parties now have comprehensive appraisals and recommendations on these amendment proposals at their disposal” said CITES Secretary-General John E. Scanlon. “The debates are certain to be rich and varied, supported by the best scientific advice that is available” he added.
Refer Important Recommendations @
http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/16/doc/Pro ... mments.pdf
Proposal 10
Kenya
Ceratotherium simum simum Amendment of the annotation for Ceratotherium simum simum as
follows:
(added text underlined): “Ceratotherium simum simum (Only the populations of South Africa and Swaziland; all other populations are included in Appendix I. For the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and hunting trophies. Hunting trophies from South Africa and Swaziland shall be subject to a zero export quota until at least CoP18. All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly.)”

White rhinoceros The proposed amendment would result in a trade regime for hunting trophies from the Appendix-II listed Ceratotherium simum simum populations of South African and Swaziland that is more restrictive than that for range States whose populations are included in Appendix I (noting that the populations of South Africa and Swaziland do not meet Appendix-I criteria).

It would prevent South Africa and Swaziland from a using a management option that can be sustainable and beneficial for the conservation of the species; discourage the involvement of private landowners in the conservation of white rhinoceroses and undermine national and local rhino management strategies.

South Africa has recently taken significant steps to improve its management of rhino hunting and the supporting statement does not show that trophy hunting, as currently regulated and enforced in South Africa, is negatively impacting the populations of C. s. simum in that country. The available information suggests the contrary.

A precautionary approach that acts in the best interest of the conservation of the species therefore consists in keeping those management options in place that have successfully contributed to the restoration of C. s. simum in South Africa and Swaziland, ensuring that abuses are minimized and effective regulatory provisions strictly adhered to.

Based on the information available at the time of writing (late January 2013), the Secretariat recommends that this proposal be rejected.

African elephant

Proposal 11 -

United Republic of Tanzania - Loxodonta Africana -Withdrawn

This was originally for the sale of ivory BUT suspicions are it was withdrawn after interference & pressure from the AR Alliance.

Proposal 12

Burkina Faso and Kenya - Loxodonta Africana - Amend the annotation for Loxodonta africanaas follows (additional text underlined, deleted text struckthrough) no further proposals to allow trade in elephant ivory
from any populations already in Appendix II shall be submitted to the Conference of the Parties for the period from CoP14 and ending nine years from the date of the single sale of ivory that is to take place in accordance with provisions in paragraphs g) i), g) ii), g) iii), g) vi) and g) vii). In addition, such further proposals shall be
dealt with in accordance with Decisions 14.77 and 14.78 (Rev. CoP15).

African elephant The proposed wording in the annotation refers to “the date of the single sale of ivory that is to take place”, but this ‘single sale’ actually occurred four years ago, in 2008 and the two Decisions referenced
are scheduled to expire after CoP16. As regards the main purpose of the proposal, the proponents claim that the suggested language would better reflect “the intention” of what the Parties meant at CoP14, but this is questionable given that the current annotation was collectively agreed and proposed there by all African Parties, and adopted by consensus.

More generally, the Secretariat is of the view that the annotations related to the listing of L. africana in the Appendices are no longer solely governed by the listing criteria or the existing guidance on annotations. They are the result of protracted, difficult negotiations and compromises, and consequently have become particularly
lengthy and detailed. The existing annotation was agreed and proposed by all African Parties at CoP14, and is widely understood and adhered to. It would be preferable if amendments to it were agreed in a similar spirit of continent-wide consent and agreement.

A debate on this matter - at a time when all African elephant range States are uniting to face the common challenge of increased levels of illegal killing of elephants in Africa and illegal trade in ivory - could take valuable time and attention away from the focus on agreeing to more concerted and coordinated enforcement responses thereto.

Based on the information available at the time of writing (late February 2013), the Secretariat recommends that this proposal be rejected
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RHINO WAR NEWS - Special New Privately Owned Rhino Management Feature - The Importance & Value of Wildlife Ranching in South Africa by Dr Gert Dry (President of WRSA) - Refer attached article/graphics & stories below !!
“There is no other continent on earth that even remotely approaches the actual and potential value of southern African wildlife. If carefully managed, wildlife ranching will remain the competitive edge and unique selling point of southern Africa.” - Dr Gert Dry








A typical privately bred & owned crash (group) of rhino on a wildlife/game ranch, in fact at 5000 plus being 25% of the total “wild” population, excluding zoos & safari parks (another 1000 plus) - Photo - John Hume
Introduction by Dr Gert Dry (Refer article/graphics attached)
For the purpose of this article, commercial wildlife ranching is defined as the management of game in a sizeable game-fenced system, with minimal human intervention in the form of the provision of water, the supplementation of food during periods of drought, the strategic control of parasites, and the strategic provision of health care.
There are currently more than 10,000 wildlife ranches in South Africa, of which approximately half are situated in Limpopo, 19,5% in the Northern Cape and 12.3% in the Eastern Cape, with the remainder spread across the other regions.
Gross contribution to GDP from major agricultural products for 2008/9
Poultry (R20 billion) - Red Meat (R18 billion) - Maize (R18 billion) - Fruit (R15 billion) - Vegetables (R10 billion) - Wildlife Ranching - R7,7 billion - Followed by other agri-commodities, such as milk, sugar cane etc ……
NB :: It should be noted that New Zealand’s export volumes of game meat is already 41 times greater than that of South Africa, and totals approximately 40 000 tons or 700 000 head at an approximate value of R2,5 billion. (RWN - Begs the question why the hypercritical antagonists don’t target this market ??)
Read more by Dr Gert Dry …………
Wildlife Ranching in Perspective
http://www.wrsa.co.za/management-a-prod ... erspective

[zucac]

What we do !!

Broadly, the work of SULi will include highlighting the importance of wild species for providing community benefits; analysing and communicating best-practice in aspects of sustainable use; promoting innovation in adaptive responses to the challenges of sustainable use; and developing practical tools and approaches to support sustainability and resilience in resource use.

Key thematic areas of interest are likely to include:

Food security
Wild meat (bushmeat)
Coastal/artisanal fisheries
Sustainable use/Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) and community empowerment
Engaging with key international fora such as the CBD and CITES on sustainable use and equitable benefit-sharing. Collaboration is also anticipated with other IUCN Commissions, such as the Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM), and other specialist groups, programmes, and working groups both within and outside IUCN.

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commiss ... hat_we_do/

Message from the Chair by Rosie Cooney > Read Rosie's message

Greetings, and welcome to this inaugural edition of SULiNews. SULi is above all a network, and one of its primary functions is to connect you with others working on sustainable use and livelihoods so that as a group we can pool our expertise to contribute to IUCN’s work. I very much hope that you will find this a valuable resource.

These are exciting times for SULi. The linking of SSC and CEESP – bringing together biological science and socio-political expertise – in this new group is enormously positive, and lays exactly the right foundation for our work, from which we can reach out to other relevant constituencies such as CEM in particular. I’d

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commiss ... rsmessage/

Rhino - Issue No 1 - Escalation of rhino poaching in South Africa: is the trade ban approach working? By Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes

Rhino poaching is on the rise in South Africa and threatens to undermine the country’s remarkable conservation track record, which is grounded in principles of sustainable use. Eager to maintain this success, many South African conservationists now wonder whether the rhino horn trade ban is the problem rather than the solution.

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commiss ... sn1_rhino/

Rhino - Issue No 2 - The Rhino Debate - Colman O Criodain of WWF and Mike Knight, Chair of the African Rhino Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC.

The rhino debate continues. In the first issue of SULiNews Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes described the increase in rhino poaching in South Africa where rhinos are hosted on both state and privately owned land, suggesting that a fresh look be taken at the possibility of re-opening international trade. The article provoked considerable interest and we have therefore invited follow-up contributions from Colman O Criodain of WWF and Mike Knight, Chair of the African Rhino Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC. Colman focuses on enforcement problems relating to illegal trade in one country, while Mike explains more of the background as well as the dilemmas facing rhino conservationists and calls for a balanced and creative approach. If others wish to offer different perspectives on this burning issue they are invited to contact the Co-Editors with a view to the debate being rounded off in issue 3.

Rhino poaching – a contribution to the debate - By Colman O Criodain

This is a response to Michael t'Sas Rolfe's article in Issue 1 of SULiNews describing the increasing loss of rhinos in South Africa from poaching. WWF agrees broadly with his description of the current situation in the country but we do not agree that resuming trade in rhino horn is the appropriate solution at this time.

We are not ideologically opposed to consumptive use of wild animals; in fact, we are committed to the principle of sustainable use. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the answer to a species conservation crisis always lies in easing trade restrictions, any more than we believe that that the solution always lies in curtailing trade. The realities are more complex and they vary according to the biology of the species concerned, the prevailing legislative and enforcement regime, and the demands of the market.

Read more at link below -----

The rhino dilemma - By Mike Knight

The letters by Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Colman O Criodain reflect the polarized debate buzzing around the rhino community. As Chairman of the IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG), my role is to remain independent, yet promote the debate towards seeking sustainable conservation management solutions for our African rhinos. All too often simple solutions are being advocated for this otherwise complex issue. Under the current escalating rate of poaching of a relatively low resource base (rhino population size), we will need to be bold and assertive to conserve these magnificent creatures. We ultimately need do what is best for rhinos, irrespective of ideological leanings. Crucially, we need a shared vision and objectives for rhinos that virtually everyone can agree on, such as the need to have growing rhino populations, part of an economically viable wildlife industry, gaining full benefit from the species, with a reduced illegal demand and black market prices for horn, and less of a poaching threat to our living rhino populations.

Read full article @ the link below

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commiss ... inodebate/

Rhino - Issue No 3 - Some remarks on letters relating to rhino in the past two issues of SULiNews

By Rowan B. Martin - All three SULiNews articles on rhino have left me with a sense of dissatisfaction.

It would seem that everyone is a ‘stakeholder’ when it comes to debating the rhino crisis...but it is essential to understand that these stakeholders are not equal. The primary stakeholders (those with rhino on their land) should have a far greater say than other stakeholders on decisions relating ‘to trade or not to trade’.

All three articles are weak in this area.

Last year in July and August, I did a field trip around South Africa and Namibia to assess the readiness of the diverse players in this theatre to put a proposal to CITES for a legal trade in rhino horn. The following is an extract from my trip report:

I was surprised at the overwhelming consensus amongst the people with whom I met that a legal trade in rhino horn offers the best remedy for the escalating illegal hunting of rhino in South Africa. In Namibia, although illegal hunting is not yet as serious as it is in South Africa, there was a similar consensus in favour of a legal trade.

However, this groundswell is not reflected in the articles. Both ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Knight want more research. This appears to me as temporising.

Mike Knight calls for risk-benefit assessment but adds that: “We also need to be adaptive in our approach, and accept the fact that we learn most by trying”. There is an inherent contradiction in this. Adaptive management is both a means of managing and, simultaneously, it is the research tool to understand the system being managed. Adaptive management requires structuring one’s approach into a comfortable acceptance of surprises and uncertainties as an ongoing part of the environment, and not simply events which one failed to predict.

Colman O’Criodain reduces the problem simply to that of closing down the illegal trade in rhino horn in Viet Nam. This is naïve. Studies of the illegal drugs trade show quite clearly that getting rid of one entrepot will automatically result in the opening of another.

But O’Criodain’s letter also gives an insight into much larger issues. Let us say that, implausibly, shutting down the Viet Nam connection worked and, overnight, the illegal hunting of rhino in South Africa ceased. What is the prize? A quote from Marshall Murphree (1997) is relevant: “The incentives which determine preferences for the mode of use vary significantly from global to local levels. At present the tendency is for international intrinsic and existence valuations to be accorded higher order status and for local and instrumental conservation incentives to be regarded as lower level factors to be co-opted in the pursuit of these values. This does not work. Aside from their inherent merits, local incentives have a powerful veto dimension. Unless they are accommodated, international values and goals will be subverted by local responses ranging from defiance to covert non-compliance.”

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commiss ... sn3_rhino/

SULi News - No 3 - WCC report: A step closer to the collaborative partnership on sustainable wildlife management By Mark Ryan

Since wildlife knows no national borders, more regional and cross-boundary management efforts are needed. With this in mind, the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) and IUCN-SULi organised a workshop entitled “Towards a Collaborative Partnership on Sustainable Wildlife Management”, at the occasion of the 5th World Conservation Congress of IUCN from 6-15 September 2012 in Jeju, Republic of Korea. The workshop gathered together organisations with an interest in wildlife management including CIC, IUCN, CBD, OIE, FAO and TRAFFIC.

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commiss ... femngment/

Important Analysis - "Blood Ivory" by Bryan Christy - National Geographic October 2012 (No pics)



Article @ http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/ ... ivory_news



Highly recommended you purchase a copy of this October Edition to share in the exceptional photographs.



RWN COMMENT - For those concerned with the fate of Africa’s icon species at the hands of unscrupulous poachers, the corruption & crime, the Oriental factor and the controlled trade in ivory & rhino horn debate - this is important reading.



“Just before elephants were discussed at an August 2011 CITES meeting, China orchestrated the expulsion of all attending NGOs. It was an extraordinary act.”



CHINA’S 35 IVORY FACTORIES (RWN - There is no chance of them closing down for lack of ivory - legal or poached)
Inside the Beijing Ivory Carving Factory it smells and sounds like what it essentially is: a vast dentist’s office. The whir of electric drills on tusks fills the air. Ivory dust lies heavy on windowpanes and doorframes and even coats my teeth as I make my way among men and women bent over images that repeat the religious and mythological motifs I find throughout China, such as Fu, Lu, and Shou, the gods of luck, money, and long life; the Happy Buddha; and Guanyin, Buddhist goddess of mercy, a Madonna-like figure who doubles as a fertility goddess and who sometimes holds in her arms a male child, the “giving sons” Guanyin, popular under China’s one-child policy. No matter where I find ivory, religion is close at hand. “Chinese people believe in the concepts these figures represent,” the head of the Daxin Ivory Carving Factory in Guangzhou tells me.



On the corner of one of the most popular ivory-selling streets in China, outside the Hualin International Buddhist jewelry arcade, a four-story electronic billboard runs a video announcing to passersby a hot new investment opportunity: Sales of Buddhist jewelry and related religious products have reached $15.8 billion a year and are growing by 50 percent a year. “There are nearly 200 million Buddhism believers in China,” the sign declares. Inside the building two stores deal exclusively in ivory carvings. Down the street other galleries offer Buddhist ivory carvings—some legal, some not.

Everything about China’s ivory industry is poised for growth. The government has licensed at least 35 carving factories and 130 ivory retail outlets and sponsors ivory carving at schools like the Beijing University of Technology. Most telling of all, as in the Philippines, Chinese carvers such as Master Li are training their relatives—they’re investing in their own blood.

Final Thought - The hypocrisy of the ANIMAL RIGHTS- ALLIANCE IDEOLOGY exposed !!



Crocodile Farming vs Rhino Farming comparison (applicable also to Ostrich or the International icon - the American Buffalo or Bison & many other “farmed” wild species)



I find by comparison the NGO and manipulated CITES voting position on the rhino is ludicrous, they accept crocodiles BUT not rhino !! - you can draw your own conclusions as to what a farce they are !! Now is the time to change it ??





cid:image013.jpg@01CE1273.F3932990



REVIEW OF CROCODILE RANCHING PROGRAMS - Conducted for CITES by the CROCODILE SPECIALIST GROUP of IUCN/SSC - JANUARY – APRIL 2004 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS



CITES REPORT - Ranching is one of many different strategies for utilizing wildlife species. It is generally considered a "safe" strategy because it depends on harvesting the smallest or youngest animals (or even eggs) in a population, which relative to adults are numerically more abundant, are typically subject to higher mortality rates and are of less reproductive importance to the wild population in the short-term. Ranching has always been an available management option for using species listed in Appendix II.



In the late 1970s the Parties to CITES recognised that the conservation of some wild populations of species

listed on Appendix I, which bans trade in wild-caught animals, would benefit from limited "safe" use and trade.

For example, populations in the early stages of recovery which did not yet satisfy the criteria for an unqualified

transfer to Appendix II, but were unlikely to be allowed to continue recovering and expanding unless people

were receiving tangible benefits from them. Based on the results of a working group established by CoP2 (San

Jose, 1979), CoP3 (New Dehli, 1981) adopted Resolution Conf. 3.15 on Ranching.



Resolution Conf. 3.15 provided a mechanism for transferring an Appendix-I species or population to Appendix II, if a clear conservation advantage could be demonstrated and if the utilization was largely restricted to ranching under an approved ranching program. To ensure that the criteria for transfer continued to be met after the transfer to Appendix II took place, the original ranching Resolution (Resolution Conf. 3.15) recommended that the Management Authority of the exporting Party shall include in its reports to the Secretariat, “… sufficient detail concerning the status of its population and concerning the performance on any ranching operation to satisfy Parties that these criteria continue to be met”.etc;etc;



Refer complete report @ http://www.cites.org/common/com/AC/22/E ... -Inf02.pdf



Some final comments !!

Is it time to legalise rhino horn trade?

One of the world’s most magnificent animals, the rhino is in serious danger of extinction largely due to the value placed on its horn – which is presently twice as expensive as gold. Traditional methods to stem the tide have largely failed. Now conservationists and game park owners in South Africa want to legalise and control the trade in rhino horn without harming the animal. Can it work?



25 February, by Khadija Sharife - Le Monde Diplomatic - English Edition



Read well researched article @



http://mondediplo.com/openpage/is-it-ti ... horn-trade



A private rhino owner’s dilemma !! What to do ??

I further believe that it is time that all private rhino owners come out and publicly air their opinions, even if many of our stories are quite similar. Our Pongola Game Reserve extends over 7000ha and my long term goal was to eventually build up a herd of 150 white rhino, which is within the carrying capacity of the reserve.

However the situation changed to the present scenario:

a). I sold some white rhino and moved the remainder to a 1000ha section of the reserve for security reasons.

b). I keep the numbers below 20.

c). Presently I am considering selling all my rhino, something I did not even contemplate as an option before.

What are the reasons for this:

a). The cost of security, as well as the risk of losing millions overnight due to illegal hunting, result in rhino farming not being an attractive option anymore. I am surprised to learn of how many people in our area alone have sold all their rhino.

b). Keeping rhino becomes less and less of a financially viable option. We keep rhino because we are conservation minded people, but at the same time the reality is we need to make money out of such an investment to survive in the business of conservation.

The present permit requirements, red tape and lengthy time frames, make it extremely difficult to hunt or move rhino, influencing the price and demand. I could not sell one rhino hunt this season, although I have too many males which need to be removed from the reserve.

c). Confidence in the future of private rhino ownership is problematic. I say this despite the good work of people like Pelham Jones and John Hume.

Will common sense prevail to allow controlled trade in rhino horn, which is the only long term solution to the survival of our rhino?

Maybe the answer is not to get out, but to fight for our right to decide for ourselves on how to manage the rhino we own.

Kind regards

Karel Landman

Karel Landman Trust t/a Pongola Game Reserve

www.pongolagamereserve.co.za

Invitation - Join INTERPOL and Partners at the Upcoming Side Event of the CITES 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties - Partnerships for Linking Countries and Regions to INTERPOL's Global Environmental Security Network

Thursday, 7 March 2013, between 12:30 and 14:00, CITES 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Side Event (Meeting Room No. 1), Bangkok, Thailand

Confirmed keynote speakers in alphabetical order:

· Mr. Azzedine Downes, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

· Mr. Jeremy Eppel, UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK DEFRA)

· Ms. Mary Melnyk, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

· Mr. Keshav Varma, Global Tiger Initiative (GTI), The World Bank

INTERPOL will host a side event at the upcoming CITES 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, where our Partners will be invited to share joint successes, experiences and recommendations for future collaborative initiatives.

During the event, INTERPOL representatives will showcase the Environmental Crime Programme's projects and activities that are bringing countries and regions together to fight the criminal threat to human security and the environment.

Initiatives such as Project WISDOM, for the conservation of elephants and rhinoceroses, and Project PREDATOR, for the protection of Asian big cats, are of particular interest to country delegations and specific regions, and thus provide an opportunity for their engagement.

Project LEAF, Law Enforcement Assistance for Forests, and Project SCALE, an initiative to combat fisheries crime, as well as other INTERPOL projects focused on maintaining environmental security at multiple levels, will also have a place on the agenda.



Linking countries, regions and continents in INTERPOL's global network of environmental specialists is a shared responsibility and a common pursuit for effective multi-disciplinary environmental compliance and enforcement.



Best regards / Cordialement / Atentamente / مع التحية

INTERPOL Environmental Crime Programme
I.P.C.O. - INTERPOL, General Secretariat
200, Quai Charles de Gaulle
69006 Lyon - France
environmentalcrime@interpol.int
www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Environmental-crime/
Follow us on Twitter: @INTERPOL_EC



LATE NEWS - 25/02 - Two de-horned white rhino poached for their horn stumps on a Northern KZN private game reserve !!



Please forward to CITES CoP 16 Delegates, rhino owners (government or private) & conservationists for their interest & archives!!



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ZWF ENVIRO-FOCUS 2050 & RHINO WAR NEWS are committed to promote the Awareness & Perspective of all conservation issues, whether controversial or positive, plus any events, projects & publications relevant to Southern African Regional Issues, which could impact on the fate & future of the regions Game Reserves and Wildlife. The opinion and contents of any of the published articles are circulated FYI and are not necessarily, unless stated, those endorsed by the ZWF & RWN.



All regular conservation news (including rhino poaching incidents) is readily available @ Google -



Keep up to date !! - For daily headline updates visit & join our Facebook Page & Group at ::



http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=100757903525

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/



If not already a subscriber to receive the regular ZWF ENVIRO-FOCUS 2050 & RHINO WAR NEWS Special Editions please send an email to tim.condon@shaw.ca just saying "Subscribe" which is at no cost or should you wish not to receive these bulletins please just send an email stating “Unscribe or Remove”.



Let’s hear from you about any topical conservation matters of interest or concern. We value welcome & thank you for your support with any input, copy or photos, but regret to advise & apologize that due to the overwhelming flood of emails, it's most difficult to acknowledge or publish every submission ::



Please send to - tim.condon@shaw.ca



ZWF ENVIRO-FOCUS 2050 & RHINO WAR NEWS



Compiled & distributed for your information by the timconwild secretariat



timconwild conservation network



“Working towards healthy parks, dealing with hungry people” - IRF Commitment .



~~~ RHINO SURVIVAL 2050 - EXTINCTION IS NOT AN OPTION ~~~



“Learn to accept the reality that the 21st Century African Wildlife Ideology demands of Sustainable Utilization (SU) of wildlife & their habitats is ignored at their peril !!”

SA Rhino Poaching Apocalypse Escalates !! 2013 - 107 plus at 25/02

South Africa's Shame -- 107+ (25/02) 670 (2012) 448 (2011) 333 (2010) 122 (2009)

“Kruger Park Rhino Killing Fields” - 70 plus (20/02) KZN/Ezemvelo - 12 (9 HiP) NW/LIM - 22



“Please help expose any criminal poaching in South Africa, Mozambique & Zimbabwe plus any corruption & collusion including some elements in the Political arena, among rhino conservation management & field staff, as has been the case in SANParks “Kruger Park Rhino Killing Fields”, the provincial North West, Maphumulo & other conservation departments, Ezemvelo’s HiP & Opathe Game Reserves PLUS some private game ranches & the infamous “Boer Rhino Poaching Mafia , including even rogues elements in the police & army in each of the countries.”

“In 2013 let us not look back in anger, but forward in fury.” - Dr Ian Player !!



~~~ RHINO SURVIVAL 2050 - EXTINCTION IS NOT AN OPTION ~~~



Prime immediate focus & challenge is, besides the importance of strong anti-poaching security to protect rhino, elephant & other threatened African wildlife, the exposure & eradication of any elements of political government & conservation staff collusion & corruption - whilst the critical sale of rhino horn clash & debate will continue ad infinitum, ensnarled by arrogant Animal Rights Ideology in the workings & voting systems of CITES



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[flying4rhino]

Legalising the trade in rhino horn/Ivory and realising large stockpiles available, is one thing, how will the supply of horn/Ivory be fulfilled once the stockpiles have been depleted?

[KFA]

I won't, but for atleast a the foreseeable future the black market price will drop drastically and the risk for the poacher will not be worth the reward. This will buy a bit of time to get other more sustainable processes in place. SA, Kenya and others have massive stockpiles of ivory and rhino horn. If the sale is controlled then there should be a large supply for a couple of years. Enough time to put some kick in the Rhino Horn to get rid of the end user. Heard of a farmer that put cianide in his Rhino's horns, they got poached and a couple of months later some chinks died of cianide poisining. Now that sounds like eliminating the end user effectively to me.
My 2c