|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have something to say and would like to see it here, write now and see yourself online.
Canned Lions Dear
Ooze Online The time has finally arrived to decide the destiny of the many lions held captive in South Africa’s sordid “canned lion” hunting industry. (If you want to see what a canned hunt is like, click here for a video clip. Warning, this is not pleasant viewing.) The proposed policy for the Sustainable Use of Large Predators (including the sustainable use of Cheetahs, African wild dog, Leopards and Hyenas) is finally published in the South African Government Gazette 21st January 2005 for public participation. What this effectively means to the general public is that anybody will now have a period of 30 days to submit written comments to the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. In this submission you may express your support or condemnation of the intended policy. Obviously the Department will only be considering informed decisions and it will be necessary for all parties to ensure that they fully understand the ramifications of having this proposed policy finalized and incorporated into the South African Conservation Laws.
Once the written submissions have been received DEAT will arrange some Public Participation workshops in the Provinces mostly affected. It is envisaged that these workshops will take place in the Free State, North West and Limpopo Province. If you have submitted your comments and suggestions in writing you will be invited to attend these workshops at your own cost. As we understand invitations to attend the workshops should also be advertised nationally in some major newspapers, but I will not bank on this at all. It is very possible that this will not be done. To be safe and ensure that you may have your say, it will be up to you to find out what, how and when. For a very long time, since the first screening of the Cooke Report in 1997 where the canned hunting of captive bred and tame lions (and also illegally captured lions) people have voiced their disgust and objection to the very unethical and cruel practice of killing captive bred lions for sports hunting trophies. However the general public outcry was not enough to stop the continued expansion of this terrible industry and over the years it has turned into a very profitable business with no conservation value at all. It is an industry driven by money only and it has shamed South Africa in many ways. Many of the cruel practices of breeding lions in captivity has never been addressed by the media or the conservation departments issuing permits for new breeding projects. One such example is the continued removal of cubs from their mothers to force the female to come into oestrus again to speed up the "breeding machines". At many lion breeding farms female cubs for example are killed by drowning or by a single blow to the head with a hammer. They are not wanted – to feed and raise a trophy lion cost a lot of money and there is a limited demand for females. It is the large males that are in high demand. Besides the ethical concerns around the hunting of captive bred lions, there are also major veterinary and animal health concerns that are totally ignored by the conservation departments and the lion breeders themselves and the local and international media has never brought any of these issues to the general publics attention. The time has come for all South Africans and the global community to speak out and stop this industry once and for all. If you do not get involved, this policy will be finalized and will become law. The danger of this document lies in the contents that have been very carefully worded to create the impression that “canned” hunting will be banned. It is unfortunately not that simple and one needs to understand the contents of the document and know what is happening in the lion hunting industry on the ground. You need to understand and know how far hunting ethics have degenerated, but most of all, you need to understand that conservation law enforcement in South Africa is at an all time low and that it will be impossible for DEAT (National Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism) and the Provinces collectively, to police and enforce this policy. With the current status quo the policy unfortunately will not be worth the paper it is written on. On provincially level the Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism has continued since 1997 to issue permits for the establishment of new lion breeding projects. This has been done despite a voluntary moratorium being called out by the then Minister of Environmental Affairs, Pallo Jordan asking the provincial Members of the Executive Councils (MECs’) to prevent the establishment of new lion breeding projects pending the outcome of a formal policy in this regard. The voluntary moratorium was called out after the screening of the Cooke Report that shamed South Africa in a great way internationally. The killing of captive bred lions has not stopped and has turned into a fast growing and very lucrative business. Conservation officials have attended many of these “canned hunts” and it appears is if this practise is widely accepted. Some conservation officials that were interviewed by local television are on record stating that their department would have no objection to the hunting of old tame circus lions. It is clear that on moral and ethical grounds there is not too much objection to canned hunting. In my opinion anyone that starts up a business where he or she is willing to breed lions for hunting and have them killed in unnatural conditions purely for money, has no ethics or common human decency. Some of the lion breeders are on record stating that they are not conservationists, but businessmen and in their own words they acknowledge that their “business” has no conservation value. To compare the captive lion hunting industry to that of crocodile, ostrich or live stock farming is preposterous and not even worth arguing. When South Africa has decided to abandon conservation and put all conservation related issues under the banner and control of the Department of Agriculture, this argument could be debate, but then one would also talk about lion farming and lion abattoirs where you may purchase lion skins, canned lion meat, lion steaks and biltong or maybe even a lion fur coat. With conservation law enforcement being at an all time low I can assure you that one should not expect this group of people to police themselves and breed and hunt lions (or other large predators) according to the guidelines of the proposed policy. It will simply not happen. From an international perspective - it is now the time to turn on media coverage and rally as much support and involvement from your local animal welfare organization and politicians to write to DEAT and condemn this policy. If we do not work together and mobilize a massive local and international opposition the policy will become law and then we should not cry as animal welfare and animal rights people if canned lion hunting continues in this beautiful country. As a closing thought - I do hope that our official conservation bodies and conservationists in general will find the courage once and for all to speak their minds and come out in strength against a hunting practice that should never have seen the light in South Africa. You can no longer remain in the background - unless of course you condone the killing of innocent animals in this terrible way. Killing Africa's King after it has learnt to trust you is ethically criminal and all good South Africans who are worthy to call themselves conservationists and animal lovers need to act now! For more information and the latest copy of the proposed policy please email me at louise@sanwild.org We intend setting up a mailing list of interested parties and undertake to keep you updated if you submit your name and email address to us. Thank you.
LOUISE JOUBERT Now read South African Lions Rescued and Canned Hunting to be Legal in South Africa?
Dying For Art The article Dying For Art has provoked a flood of emails of which the following are just a small sample Dear
Ooze Online I read the article and decided to react. Great animal lover myself, having 2 cats at the moment, I must say I got a really disturbing feeling in my stomach. The motive behind the pictures, “Every day, animals are sacrificed to end up as decorations on jackets or on a meat stack in order to stabilize our economy.” Edenmont’s question “whether we think the over consumption of our affluent western society is civilized” is a fair one, it's very true and it shouldn't be - but if you have to make a statement, do it some other way! We can think critically without killing harmless animals (even if they where meant to be snake food, which is even better). Edenmont is doing herself, what she says she's against. Using murdered animals for art's sake (although she thinks not). It's disgusting! It disturbed me also to read that the work sells very well. What kinds of people want a picture of 5 dead mice in their living room? It's morbid. For the sake of other animals I hope that she doesn't make anymore of these pictures. Let's make pictures of living animals, showing their beauty like that.
Best regards,
Dear
Ooze Online
I am writing to express my
disgust on seeing some examples of the photography exhibition by Nathalia
Edenmont. I cannot see any artistic quality to justify this needless cruelty. I
find the subject matter - dead and dismembered animals - revolting. The
treatment of these body parts shows a completely amoral attitude to the lives
of these poor, innocent animals.
Dear
Ooze Online
I wish to complain about the
current exhibition in the Wetterling Gallery in Stockholm, which I experience
as being unethical, an affront to morals.
Please inform the concerned
Swedish authorities of the thoughts of the Dutch citizens about this
loathsome exhibition.
Stephen Barry King Dear
Ooze Online I am appalled at the treatment of dumb animals by a man who professes to be an expert 'animal-behaviourist' and who, over several years, has profited and made a career by the employment of such brutal and barbaric methods. To escape a prison sentence merely because he is actively pursuing a career-change, (IT studies - so what! He shouldn't be trusted with any 'mouse'!). This is hardly mitigating circumstances in itself, nor does it excuse retrospective actions or past criminal acts, purely because that person has enrolled to undertake a college course. This presupposes that any criminal/student who undertakes education and training for their own betterment - no matter how commendable that qualification may be (eg. an NVQ in 'Child Development') could potentially escape a prison sentence. If this decision is based on the premise that a qualification (ie 'piece of paper') will dramatically cause a subsequent change in morality or absolve that person of all then that person would be seriously misguided and self-deluded From Mr King's standpoint, if he firmly believes in the principle of obedience which he promulgates, in that dumb animals should be subjected to a regime of blatant cruelty (sorry, showing who's the 'boss') supposedly to exert dominance and superiority, then prison-life would perhaps be in tune with his thinking. However, in actuality, I am sure that if he were to experience such harsh punitive measures first hand, he would not only realise just how damaging and ineffective such techniques were, but he would be the first to contact 'Civil Liberties' / 'The European Court of Human Rights'! Well, for his information dumb animals have rights too. He would come to realise the hard way that to inculcate such behaviour modifying patterns, without reward and positive reinforcement, (which he has been lucky to receive), is not only ineffectual, but does irreparable damage, most often, for life. Never mind him teaching the dog, the dog could teach him much about the basic qualities of life such as humanity, mutual respect, tolerance - not to mention, compassion for which he has been LUCKY to have received . His wife (who I understand have been allowed to keep her/'the family' dog), undermines and totally disregards the seriousness of his crime given the collaborative partnership and close association with the said dog. Moreover, if this was a small child whose parent is known to have abused a child, what would Social Services reaction be? (Please explain the difference as the response would be only too obvious). Furthermore, the very fact that he defended and attempted to give justification to his behaviour in the courts, proves conclusively that nothing has changed with regards to Stephen King's psyche. In short, he has not suddenly developed a conscience exhibiting remorse and sorrow for his actions, but rather, remains an unreformed and unstable character which has certainly not curtailed his current thoughts and potential actions. If society is adjudged to be civilised by the way it treats its young and old - not to mention the co-existence of all life, then he for one should never be permitted to work with either. Since the abuse and ill-treatment of an animal is of no difference to abusing a young child or the elderly. All our defenceless are at the mercy of the more powerful. Finally, who are the courts to decide which and whose life is more precious than others? Pete Tancred Former Teacher, SE London Now read Obey or Be Corrected and Guilty!
No material on this website may be copied or published elsewhere without permission. (c) Ooze Online 2001 - 2005 |