There are several practical and highly profitable ways to end the slaughter of Africa’s rhinos, writes Michael Eustace
MICHAEL EUSTACE
Published: 2012/01/20 07:13:38 AM
IN 1910, South Africa was said to have 100 white rhinos. With great care and good management, the number has increased to 19000 today.
There are also 2000 black rhinos in the country. In 1960, there were 100000 in Africa outside the South Africa, but by 1970 that population had fallen to 65000, and today there are only 3150.
If there had been no poaching from 1970, the black-rhino population in the rest of Africa, at its natural growth rate of 6% a year, would have increased to 700000 today. (There would not have been the habitat to accommodate that number of rhinos, but the arithmetic is interesting.)
There were 448 rhinos poached in South Africa last year, of which 252 were killed in the Kruger National Park. To this number can be added about 200 rhinos shot in the country by pseudo-trophy hunters for the horn trade, along with rhinos poached in Zimbabwe (28), Kenya (27) and Swaziland (two). This makes 705 rhinos out of an African population of 26000, or 2,7%.
The net growth of the rhino population is about 6% a year, so the current level of poaching has not meant a decline in the total population. The concern is that the level of poaching in South Africa has increased by 35% over the past year (333 in 2010), and if the growth in poaching continues at this rate, then the country is looking at 805 (3,8%) being poached and pseudo-trophy-hunted this year, and 1017 (4,7%) next year. (I have assumed that the levels of pseudo-hunting will remain the same.) In 2015, the levels of poaching in South Africa may exceed the natural population growth rate.
POACHING
Some commentators are surprised at the current high level of poaching, but it is relatively low compared with the 1960s, when more than 8000 animals a year must have been poached outside South Africa. (This takes into account that rhinos were breeding at the same time as their numbers were being reduced by poaching.)
The Kruger National Park increased its anti-poaching effort last year by about 50% over the 2010 level. Also, the army was co-opted and now patrols the border with Mozambique. Nevertheless, rhinos poached have increased from 146 in 2010 to 252 last year, or by 73%. Twenty-one poachers were shot dead in skirmishes last year and 82 arrests were made. (The national rate of rhino-poaching convictions relative to arrests is less than 5%.)
While there have been some notable successes, the Kruger is clearly not winning the war. It has about 10000 rhinos, or 48% of the national herd, and with the animals having been wiped out in countries to the north of South Africa, the park has become the focus for poachers.
The Kruger is 20000km² in extent and has a 400km border with Mozambique. It would be prohibitively costly to patrol effectively. The park has 400 rangers on patrol — that is 50km² per ranger. I doubt that one ranger could effectively protect more than 10km² per day. This implies a force of 2000 rangers, or five times the current force. Assuming only half the park needs to be patrolled intensively, because rhinos are concentrated there, then 1000 rangers would be needed.
The cost, including overheads, of an additional 600 rangers would be about R80m a year — more than the annual surplus of SANParks, which was R52,6m for the year to March 2011. It is not possible for SANParks to finance 1000 rangers; even if it were, there would still be a weakness that undermines law-enforcement efforts in most parks in Africa: corruption among law enforcers.
GREAT REWARDS
The rewards of poaching are high and, at the bottom level, can be as much as R160000 for a horn-set of 4kg. (African rhinos have two horns, but for the sake of ease, a horn-set in this paper is referred to as "a horn".) This prize can be won in one night by two poachers armed with a rifle, a dart-gun or poisoned cabbage and an axe, and it represents six years of wages for each of the two poachers, at Mozambique rates. That is if they are lucky enough to have a job.
In the Zambezi valley, the experience was that it did not matter how many poachers were shot and arrested — the rewards were so great that there were dozens of candidates to take the places of those shot or jailed. The rhinos ran out before the poachers. The 21 poachers shot last year represent a ratio of 8% of the rhinos killed and the five likely convictions a ratio of 2% of the rhino shot, assuming the national average. These numbers suggest there is a 90% chance of a poacher avoiding any penalty.
Only about 15 rhinos are shot in true trophy hunts in South Africa every year. About 200 are shot each year, mainly by Vietnamese, in pseudo-trophy-hunts where the hunter is solely interested in the horn for on-selling into the Asian market for horn. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), to which South Africa is a party, allows trophy hunting. However, it is clear to everybody including the Cites management authority in South Africa, that most of those horns are for the trade and not to hang on a wall.
The Department of Environmental Affairs, embarrassed by the loophole, has offered to close down these Vietnamese hunts but the game farmers are opposed to the closure because it is a source of revenue of about R48m a year and they argue, convincingly, that they need the money to justify keeping and growing rhino numbers and paying for their security. These farmers own 5000 rhinos, or 23% of the national herd.
There is also a valid argument that if these hunts were not allowed, the level of poaching would simply increase by 200 a year, which would then transfer income from farmers to criminals and not reduce the overall number of rhino deaths.
MEDICINE MARKET
Rhino horn is sold into the Asian traditional medicine market where it is used in a cocktail of other substances to cure a range of ailments. The main market is China, and while there is some comment on Vietnam being a major market, it will also be a way into China. The Chinese have believed in rhino horn for centuries and although somewhat flimsy western medical research, paid for by a wildlife donor agency, claims that rhino horn is of no medicinal value, the Chinese buy it and pay no attention to western views. It is exotic, expensive, illegal (China banned its trade in 1993) and prestigious.
Only about 2g is used in each dose. It can be calculated that, in effect, less than 0,1% of the Chinese population use it and that is because of the prohibitively high price.
The traditional doctor demands to see the retailer shave the horn in front of him as he fears substitutes. This suggests there would be no market for artificial substitutes.
The Vietnamese "trophy hunter" pays R80000/kg for horn. This price probably doubles by the time it reaches the wholesale market and doubles again in the retail market. Over the years, there has been comment that horn trades at about the same price as gold, by weight. The current price of gold is $52000/kg. The poacher, who might be a peasant, is being paid a maximum of $5000/kg, so there is a spare $5000/kg that can be used to pay a collecting agent and to bribe parks staff to stay away from a hunt or to inform on the whereabouts of rhino — or to bribe the police or army — before the total price of an informal hunt exceeds the cost of horn obtained in a formal Vietnamese hunt.
The gold price has risen by six times over the past 10 years, so the price of rhino horn might well have risen by a similar amount. The horn market is an imperfect one, spread over a large area, and there will be many prices at any one time.
HORN COUNT
Rhinos live for about 38 years so, on average, about 2,6% die every year. With that assumption, about 676 animals died of natural causes last year in Africa as a whole. Africa has a total rhino population of 26000. While most of the horns collected from dead animals find their way into official stocks, some would have been collected and sold illegally to the trade. The 20% collected illegally or stolen from stocks would amount to 135 horns.
In addition, game farmers in South Africa are known to be selling horns illegally, and this is estimated at a further 100 horns. Add these horns to the original estimate of 705 and the total becomes 940. The purpose of this calculation is to estimate the total annual supply of horn. While we have no specific statistics on the demand, we can derive demand from the supply, as supply and demand must be equal.
Supply and demand are brought into equilibrium by the price of $40000/kg. Above that price, volumes sought decline; below it, price sellers are reluctant to sell. Thus, there were about 940 horns sold last year for an average price of $40000/kg at the retail level. Assuming the average weight per horn was 4kg, then 3760kg was sold for $150m at the retail level and $75m (R600m) at the wholesale price.
With the price having increased strongly in recent years along with other commodities, it is probable that speculators are buying and hoarding horn in the expectation of selling it at higher prices in the future. If speculators bought 20% of the volume, then the balance of 3008kg was sold into the medicinal market. At 10g for a course of treatment, there were 300800 patients that used horn, or 0,02% of the Chinese population of 1,3-billion. It is a minuscule proportion of that country’s population that use rhino horn.
TRADE BAN
Cites, which is made up of 175 parties, or countries, banned international trade in rhino horn in 1977. While well intentioned, the ban has been a miserable failure. All it did was to push the trade underground where it has thrived and made money for criminals. In the process it has impoverished parks, where the money rightfully belongs.
Southern Africa could supply the market with 676 horns a year from natural deaths alone. There are also stocks of 5000 horns collected over many years. Southern Africa could easily supply the market with 940 horns a year and increase this by 40 horns a year from the increment of natural deaths, provided poaching was controlled. It would be 19 years before existing stocks were exhausted.
In addition, private farmers in South Africa could provide the equivalent of 1000 horns, or 4000kg a year, by cropping their rhinos. The horn regrows at the rate of 0,8kg a year. The cropping process appears not to harm the animal provided about a third of the horn at the base is left behind when it is cut, which is the normal practice. In theory, Southern Africa could provide the market with 1940 horns a year, or more than twice the current demand.
This greatly increased supply could be achieved without the need for the killing of one rhino.
To trade internationally, Cites needs to approve a change in the rules, and for that to happen, 66% of the 175 member countries, or 116 countries, need to vote in favour of the change. The argument in favour of trade is compelling but Cites can be driven more by political game playing than logic. The wildlife donor agencies that attend the meetings and have their own agendas often shape the debate. The next meeting is due in March 2013 and a proposal needs to be made six months before then. South Africa, being the owner of 80% of Africa’s rhinos, is the obvious choice to make the proposal.
SANParks has asked the Department of Environmental Affairs to put the proposal to the next meeting, and the SADC Rhino Management Group has asked for the same action.
RHINO STUDIES
The department has also asked for two studies, as a result of a ministerial rhino summit held in October 2010. The terms of reference were only published nine months later and the contract for one study awarded towards the end of last year.
The awarded study concerns South Africa’s internal trade in rhino horn, over which Cites has no control. There was a moratorium placed by the department on internal trade in February 2009 because horn was finding its way on to the illegal market.
There is no end-user market for horn in South Africa and without external trade being possible, internal buyers would be confined to speculators who would buy horn in the expectation of international trade being allowed by Cites at some stage in the future. This horn would need to trade at a large discount to the (illegal) market price because of the uncertainty over when it might become tradable.
Yields required on venture capital investments are about 25% a year. As there is only a Cites meeting every three years, speculators would require a discount of at least 50% if they anticipated having a waiting period of three years before disposal. At that discount, there will be a temptation for the originators and speculators to sell into the illegal market for a quick profit. To prevent this, there will need to be a set of cumbersome controls and audit procedures.
It is difficult to see why a study on the internal market in horn should be an issue worthy of costly delay.
The other study, which has not yet been awarded because of a lack of a suitable candidate, has to do with international trade. The terms of reference ask for estimates of the size of the market, prices, why people buy, whether there is a trading opportunity and how trade might operate. All these issues are covered in this paper and are, in any case, well known. Of course there are "nice to knows" but there is very little that we need to know that we don’t already know.
I fear that these largely irrelevant studies are a delaying tactic because the Department of Environmental Affairs is anxious about putting a controversial proposal to Cites that the donor agencies and their followers will oppose. The argument needs to be presented by top South African lawyers who would be a good investment: we are losing 448 rhino a year, which is worth $14m, a year and we could be making $75m from the sale of 940 horns. The differential is $89m a year (R712m) or R2m per day.
If this loss continues for a further four years, which it looks set to do unless there is more urgency, the country will lose $356m (R2,8bn). The ministers of finance, planning, and trade and industry must surely support greater urgency.
CENTRAL SELLING
Rather than a free-for-all, it would make sense to have all sales of horn conducted through a central selling organisation (CSO) where the volumes can be controlled and the legality of the origin of the horn can be assured. The CSO would act as a broker and receive a small commission of, say, 5% on the value of the horn sold. The plan would be for it to make a small profit but for most of the proceeds to go to the suppliers. An essential component is to have market expertise to manage the sales, and there should be scope to replace managers when and if that becomes sensible.
The CSO could be owned by the owners of rhino, pro rata, roughly, to the number of animals they own or are custodians of — for example, SANParks, 45%; Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife, 20%; South African private farmers, 20%; Namibia, 10%; Zimbabwe, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and Swaziland, 5%. The structure should probably not allow for one organisation to have control. The inclusion of Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and Swaziland is necessary because they need to be in the net and not selling independently against the best interests of the whole.
Monthly sales could be held at OR Tambo International airport. The managers could assess the demand in the market and call for a specific amount of horn in accordance with a quota system. Horn would then be offered to a selected range of buyers at a particular price per parcel on a "take it or leave it" arrangement, like De Beers used to have in the diamond market. It would not be an auction. All horn would be properly marked and have a DNA signature. Payment would be made to the undoubted suppliers and the horn immediately loaded on to an aircraft for export. There would be no room for laundering of illegal horn or corruption.
HORN BUYERS
The buyers would mainly be Chinese state pharmaceutical companies with whom the CSO had a partnership arrangement and who would buy and expect to retail at a 100% profit. Having a profitable investment in the industry, these pharmaceutical companies would see that the Chinese government closed down the illegal operators. To prevent collusion, there should be scope to include buyers other than China, such as Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea and Yemen. Given a legal trade, these countries would need to close down their illegal trade, and partnership arrangements would help with this.
In the long term, the CSO needs to be able to sell as much horn as is sustainably possible at as high a price as possible. Initially it might drop the price below $20000/kg to clear out the speculators and damage the illegal trade. Inevitably there will still be some illegal trade (200 horns a year) but the risks will be much higher because Africa will have more money for law enforcement and China will be harsh with the illegal trade. Profits to the criminals will also be much lower because illegal goods typically trade at a discount of about 30%; if the Chinese police are severe, it will be more.
If southern Africa was to sell 1200 horns a year or 4800kg at $20000/kg, it would produce income of $96m (R768m) a year, which is substantial in conservation terms and approximates the total annual tourism, retail and concession income of SANParks.
There are hundreds of donor agencies that profit from rhino being in crisis. Their outputs are seldom measured and there are far too many that are accountable to no one.
Their main strategy is to change the Chinese mindset away from the belief that horn is a useful medication. How much success have they had? The Chinese are not going to listen to the west on this subject. The strategy is futile.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Another major focus is on encouraging increased law enforcement. This is unaffordable in Africa given the more important priorities such as food, health and education. Conservation comes way down on the list. Law enforcement is important but it is undermined by corruption in Africa and at currently affordable levels is not winning, even in rich and well-managed parks such as the Kruger.
The agents like to say that demand is insatiable and that there are too few rhinos left to satisfy the demand. They ignore price and the fact that price brings whatever level of demand there is into balance with supply.
They suggest that the introduction of a legal trade will stimulate the illegal trade, whereas the reverse is probable. A legal trade will satisfy the market and there will be little room for the illegal trade. The criminals will be left to trade at low prices and high risks and disruption by the CSO. It is unreasonable to believe that the traditional Chinese medicine market and the Chinese government would accommodate an illegal market run by criminals, given a legal trade.
At present, the only way to satisfy demand is to kill the animal. This will become unnecessary given a legal trade.
BENEFICIARIES
The agencies say that trade will benefit only a few wealthy individuals. The reality is that governments own 80% of the rhinos and national and provincial parks will be the beneficiaries of 80% of the profit. Governments will also collect taxes from private sector profits.
They suggest that if Africa traded, then endangered populations of rhino in the rest of the world would come under increased pressure. In fact, pressure would be taken off those animals because Africa would fill the market with legal goods at cheaper prices and there would be fierce policing of the illegal trade in China.
The experience in the crocodile, ostrich and vicuna markets is that commercial farming has taken poaching pressure off wild populations.
The agents refer to the "precautionary principle", which means that because we do not fully understand the illegal trade and the prices and the routes and the people involved, we cannot risk a legal trade. The current trade is secret and by definition we are never going to know all the details, but we know enough. If for some unexpected and unlikely reasons a regulated trade did not reduce poaching, then it could be closed down. Hiding under the precautionary principle in the past has been at great cost to the rhino.
Some agencies suggest flooding the market with horn from stocks to bring down the price to a level where poachers find poaching no longer profitable. This cannot work on a sustainable basis as 100g for only 200000 Chinese would eliminate the entire stockpile in one year. In all probability, speculators would buy all the cheap supply knowing it could not be sustained and that there would be a large profit to be made when stocks ran out.
DEHORNING
Dehorning as a solution has also been widely advocated, but all it does is to move poaching from populations that have been dehorned to populations where they have not. Furthermore, it is expensive and has to be done every two years because horn grows at the rate of 0,8kg a year and about 1,2kg is left behind in the stump after cropping. Thus the horn has a total weight of 2,8kg after two years, which is attractive to a poacher. Consider regular dehorning of the Kruger’s population of 10000 rhino. It is not practical, desirable or affordable.
Burning horn stocks is also a suggestion that the agencies make to help the rhino. Destroying stocks would reduce potential supplies to the market and encourage speculators to stockpile, which would increase prices and increase poaching. It makes no sense. Selling one horn from stocks may save the life of one rhino. Kenya was keen to destroy stocks and put a proposal to the last Cites meeting, which it later withdrew because there was no support for it.
Most donor agents appear not to like the idea of a regulated trade; maybe because it is the most likely solution, and a solution is not what they seek?
The public should be cautious about donating money to these agencies. They may be perpetuating the crisis.
Filtering poisoned horn on to the illegal market would have a dramatic effect on demand if the traditional Chinese medicine market began to fear there was a chance of horn doing more harm than good. While this has been discussed, there has been very little support for it but in the absence of trade and increased poaching, it may well happen.
About 150 live rhinos were sold by South Africa to China on the understanding that they were for educational purposes and not for commercial purposes. This was allowed within the Cites rules. However, it was later found that the horns were being shaved and that there was a business plan for commercial use. The exports were stopped by the Department of Environmental Affairs. Selling live rhinos to other countries is the wrong strategy and undermines Africa’s competitive advantage — one of the best that we have.
BENEFITS OF REDUCTION
Poaching will never be totally stopped, but if it is reduced to about 200 rhinos a year, the current population of 21000 rhinos in South Africa will double to 42000 over the next 12 years. The country could sell the annual increment to parks in southern Africa. Selling 1260 rhino a year would produce income of $39m (R312m). This would then increase South Africa’s total income from rhino to R1bn a year.
Assume that the World Bank, some other organisation or even a wealthy individual financed these sales over 12 years for a total investment of $500m. The financier could retain ownership of the animals and their increment of 6% a year. If the parks farmed the horn from half the animals, they would produce 8400kg of horn a year with a current wholesale value of $168m. Typically, this would pay for the anti-poaching and operational costs of 168 parks.
There would need to be an assurance that the rhino would be protected in these parks, and part of the transaction would need to be that an organisation such as African Parks or Frankfurt Zoo managed the protection of the rhino using existing park rangers. (There are often sufficient numbers of rangers, but they are poorly managed.) The operation would be self-financing and while the rhino were being protected, other animals in the park would be too. For a park to thrive, all that needs to happen is for poaching to be controlled. In most of Africa’s parks this is not happening, and most are in decline. One good man and a reasonable budget can make a big difference to a park.
The whole of Africa has fewer tourists visiting every year. Parks and wildlife are Africa’s competitive advantage — if we could attract an additional 1-million tourists a year, and they stayed for an average of 10 days at $200 per day, then that would generate income of $2bn a year
We have the opportunity for turning around a conservation tragedy into the biggest contribution to conservation in Africa imaginable, with rhinos as the catalyst.
It is hard to believe that the world, as represented by Cites, can choose to continue with a failed strategy (the ban on trade), sacrifice 705 rhinos a year and fund criminals when there is the potential from a regulated trade to produce annual profits of billions for African conservation and secure 168 parks, all without the need to kill one rhino.
South Africa should not waste time collecting more data. We have enough and the time has come to put a proposal to Cites.
--
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Rhino poaching: what is the solution?
I recently read this article and give you food for thought!
MICHAEL EUSTACE
Published: 2012/01/20 07:13:38 AM
IN 1910, South Africa was said to have 100 white rhinos. With great care and good management, the number has increased to 19000 today.
There are also 2000 black rhinos in the country. In 1960, there were 100000 in Africa outside the South Africa, but by 1970 that population had fallen to 65000, and today there are only 3150.
If there had been no poaching from 1970, the black-rhino population in the rest of Africa, at its natural growth rate of 6% a year, would have increased to 700000 today. (There would not have been the habitat to accommodate that number of rhinos, but the arithmetic is interesting.)
There were 448 rhinos poached in South Africa last year, of which 252 were killed in the Kruger National Park. To this number can be added about 200 rhinos shot in the country by pseudo-trophy hunters for the horn trade, along with rhinos poached in Zimbabwe (28), Kenya (27) and Swaziland (two). This makes 705 rhinos out of an African population of 26000, or 2,7%.
The net growth of the rhino population is about 6% a year, so the current level of poaching has not meant a decline in the total population. The concern is that the level of poaching in South Africa has increased by 35% over the past year (333 in 2010), and if the growth in poaching continues at this rate, then the country is looking at 805 (3,8%) being poached and pseudo-trophy-hunted this year, and 1017 (4,7%) next year. (I have assumed that the levels of pseudo-hunting will remain the same.) In 2015, the levels of poaching in South Africa may exceed the natural population growth rate.
POACHING
Some commentators are surprised at the current high level of poaching, but it is relatively low compared with the 1960s, when more than 8000 animals a year must have been poached outside South Africa. (This takes into account that rhinos were breeding at the same time as their numbers were being reduced by poaching.)
The Kruger National Park increased its anti-poaching effort last year by about 50% over the 2010 level. Also, the army was co-opted and now patrols the border with Mozambique. Nevertheless, rhinos poached have increased from 146 in 2010 to 252 last year, or by 73%. Twenty-one poachers were shot dead in skirmishes last year and 82 arrests were made. (The national rate of rhino-poaching convictions relative to arrests is less than 5%.)
While there have been some notable successes, the Kruger is clearly not winning the war. It has about 10000 rhinos, or 48% of the national herd, and with the animals having been wiped out in countries to the north of South Africa, the park has become the focus for poachers.
The Kruger is 20000km² in extent and has a 400km border with Mozambique. It would be prohibitively costly to patrol effectively. The park has 400 rangers on patrol — that is 50km² per ranger. I doubt that one ranger could effectively protect more than 10km² per day. This implies a force of 2000 rangers, or five times the current force. Assuming only half the park needs to be patrolled intensively, because rhinos are concentrated there, then 1000 rangers would be needed.
The cost, including overheads, of an additional 600 rangers would be about R80m a year — more than the annual surplus of SANParks, which was R52,6m for the year to March 2011. It is not possible for SANParks to finance 1000 rangers; even if it were, there would still be a weakness that undermines law-enforcement efforts in most parks in Africa: corruption among law enforcers.
GREAT REWARDS
The rewards of poaching are high and, at the bottom level, can be as much as R160000 for a horn-set of 4kg. (African rhinos have two horns, but for the sake of ease, a horn-set in this paper is referred to as "a horn".) This prize can be won in one night by two poachers armed with a rifle, a dart-gun or poisoned cabbage and an axe, and it represents six years of wages for each of the two poachers, at Mozambique rates. That is if they are lucky enough to have a job.
In the Zambezi valley, the experience was that it did not matter how many poachers were shot and arrested — the rewards were so great that there were dozens of candidates to take the places of those shot or jailed. The rhinos ran out before the poachers. The 21 poachers shot last year represent a ratio of 8% of the rhinos killed and the five likely convictions a ratio of 2% of the rhino shot, assuming the national average. These numbers suggest there is a 90% chance of a poacher avoiding any penalty.
Only about 15 rhinos are shot in true trophy hunts in South Africa every year. About 200 are shot each year, mainly by Vietnamese, in pseudo-trophy-hunts where the hunter is solely interested in the horn for on-selling into the Asian market for horn. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), to which South Africa is a party, allows trophy hunting. However, it is clear to everybody including the Cites management authority in South Africa, that most of those horns are for the trade and not to hang on a wall.
The Department of Environmental Affairs, embarrassed by the loophole, has offered to close down these Vietnamese hunts but the game farmers are opposed to the closure because it is a source of revenue of about R48m a year and they argue, convincingly, that they need the money to justify keeping and growing rhino numbers and paying for their security. These farmers own 5000 rhinos, or 23% of the national herd.
There is also a valid argument that if these hunts were not allowed, the level of poaching would simply increase by 200 a year, which would then transfer income from farmers to criminals and not reduce the overall number of rhino deaths.
MEDICINE MARKET
Rhino horn is sold into the Asian traditional medicine market where it is used in a cocktail of other substances to cure a range of ailments. The main market is China, and while there is some comment on Vietnam being a major market, it will also be a way into China. The Chinese have believed in rhino horn for centuries and although somewhat flimsy western medical research, paid for by a wildlife donor agency, claims that rhino horn is of no medicinal value, the Chinese buy it and pay no attention to western views. It is exotic, expensive, illegal (China banned its trade in 1993) and prestigious.
Only about 2g is used in each dose. It can be calculated that, in effect, less than 0,1% of the Chinese population use it and that is because of the prohibitively high price.
The traditional doctor demands to see the retailer shave the horn in front of him as he fears substitutes. This suggests there would be no market for artificial substitutes.
The Vietnamese "trophy hunter" pays R80000/kg for horn. This price probably doubles by the time it reaches the wholesale market and doubles again in the retail market. Over the years, there has been comment that horn trades at about the same price as gold, by weight. The current price of gold is $52000/kg. The poacher, who might be a peasant, is being paid a maximum of $5000/kg, so there is a spare $5000/kg that can be used to pay a collecting agent and to bribe parks staff to stay away from a hunt or to inform on the whereabouts of rhino — or to bribe the police or army — before the total price of an informal hunt exceeds the cost of horn obtained in a formal Vietnamese hunt.
The gold price has risen by six times over the past 10 years, so the price of rhino horn might well have risen by a similar amount. The horn market is an imperfect one, spread over a large area, and there will be many prices at any one time.
HORN COUNT
Rhinos live for about 38 years so, on average, about 2,6% die every year. With that assumption, about 676 animals died of natural causes last year in Africa as a whole. Africa has a total rhino population of 26000. While most of the horns collected from dead animals find their way into official stocks, some would have been collected and sold illegally to the trade. The 20% collected illegally or stolen from stocks would amount to 135 horns.
In addition, game farmers in South Africa are known to be selling horns illegally, and this is estimated at a further 100 horns. Add these horns to the original estimate of 705 and the total becomes 940. The purpose of this calculation is to estimate the total annual supply of horn. While we have no specific statistics on the demand, we can derive demand from the supply, as supply and demand must be equal.
Supply and demand are brought into equilibrium by the price of $40000/kg. Above that price, volumes sought decline; below it, price sellers are reluctant to sell. Thus, there were about 940 horns sold last year for an average price of $40000/kg at the retail level. Assuming the average weight per horn was 4kg, then 3760kg was sold for $150m at the retail level and $75m (R600m) at the wholesale price.
With the price having increased strongly in recent years along with other commodities, it is probable that speculators are buying and hoarding horn in the expectation of selling it at higher prices in the future. If speculators bought 20% of the volume, then the balance of 3008kg was sold into the medicinal market. At 10g for a course of treatment, there were 300800 patients that used horn, or 0,02% of the Chinese population of 1,3-billion. It is a minuscule proportion of that country’s population that use rhino horn.
TRADE BAN
Cites, which is made up of 175 parties, or countries, banned international trade in rhino horn in 1977. While well intentioned, the ban has been a miserable failure. All it did was to push the trade underground where it has thrived and made money for criminals. In the process it has impoverished parks, where the money rightfully belongs.
Southern Africa could supply the market with 676 horns a year from natural deaths alone. There are also stocks of 5000 horns collected over many years. Southern Africa could easily supply the market with 940 horns a year and increase this by 40 horns a year from the increment of natural deaths, provided poaching was controlled. It would be 19 years before existing stocks were exhausted.
In addition, private farmers in South Africa could provide the equivalent of 1000 horns, or 4000kg a year, by cropping their rhinos. The horn regrows at the rate of 0,8kg a year. The cropping process appears not to harm the animal provided about a third of the horn at the base is left behind when it is cut, which is the normal practice. In theory, Southern Africa could provide the market with 1940 horns a year, or more than twice the current demand.
This greatly increased supply could be achieved without the need for the killing of one rhino.
To trade internationally, Cites needs to approve a change in the rules, and for that to happen, 66% of the 175 member countries, or 116 countries, need to vote in favour of the change. The argument in favour of trade is compelling but Cites can be driven more by political game playing than logic. The wildlife donor agencies that attend the meetings and have their own agendas often shape the debate. The next meeting is due in March 2013 and a proposal needs to be made six months before then. South Africa, being the owner of 80% of Africa’s rhinos, is the obvious choice to make the proposal.
SANParks has asked the Department of Environmental Affairs to put the proposal to the next meeting, and the SADC Rhino Management Group has asked for the same action.
RHINO STUDIES
The department has also asked for two studies, as a result of a ministerial rhino summit held in October 2010. The terms of reference were only published nine months later and the contract for one study awarded towards the end of last year.
The awarded study concerns South Africa’s internal trade in rhino horn, over which Cites has no control. There was a moratorium placed by the department on internal trade in February 2009 because horn was finding its way on to the illegal market.
There is no end-user market for horn in South Africa and without external trade being possible, internal buyers would be confined to speculators who would buy horn in the expectation of international trade being allowed by Cites at some stage in the future. This horn would need to trade at a large discount to the (illegal) market price because of the uncertainty over when it might become tradable.
Yields required on venture capital investments are about 25% a year. As there is only a Cites meeting every three years, speculators would require a discount of at least 50% if they anticipated having a waiting period of three years before disposal. At that discount, there will be a temptation for the originators and speculators to sell into the illegal market for a quick profit. To prevent this, there will need to be a set of cumbersome controls and audit procedures.
It is difficult to see why a study on the internal market in horn should be an issue worthy of costly delay.
The other study, which has not yet been awarded because of a lack of a suitable candidate, has to do with international trade. The terms of reference ask for estimates of the size of the market, prices, why people buy, whether there is a trading opportunity and how trade might operate. All these issues are covered in this paper and are, in any case, well known. Of course there are "nice to knows" but there is very little that we need to know that we don’t already know.
I fear that these largely irrelevant studies are a delaying tactic because the Department of Environmental Affairs is anxious about putting a controversial proposal to Cites that the donor agencies and their followers will oppose. The argument needs to be presented by top South African lawyers who would be a good investment: we are losing 448 rhino a year, which is worth $14m, a year and we could be making $75m from the sale of 940 horns. The differential is $89m a year (R712m) or R2m per day.
If this loss continues for a further four years, which it looks set to do unless there is more urgency, the country will lose $356m (R2,8bn). The ministers of finance, planning, and trade and industry must surely support greater urgency.
CENTRAL SELLING
Rather than a free-for-all, it would make sense to have all sales of horn conducted through a central selling organisation (CSO) where the volumes can be controlled and the legality of the origin of the horn can be assured. The CSO would act as a broker and receive a small commission of, say, 5% on the value of the horn sold. The plan would be for it to make a small profit but for most of the proceeds to go to the suppliers. An essential component is to have market expertise to manage the sales, and there should be scope to replace managers when and if that becomes sensible.
The CSO could be owned by the owners of rhino, pro rata, roughly, to the number of animals they own or are custodians of — for example, SANParks, 45%; Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife, 20%; South African private farmers, 20%; Namibia, 10%; Zimbabwe, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and Swaziland, 5%. The structure should probably not allow for one organisation to have control. The inclusion of Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania and Swaziland is necessary because they need to be in the net and not selling independently against the best interests of the whole.
Monthly sales could be held at OR Tambo International airport. The managers could assess the demand in the market and call for a specific amount of horn in accordance with a quota system. Horn would then be offered to a selected range of buyers at a particular price per parcel on a "take it or leave it" arrangement, like De Beers used to have in the diamond market. It would not be an auction. All horn would be properly marked and have a DNA signature. Payment would be made to the undoubted suppliers and the horn immediately loaded on to an aircraft for export. There would be no room for laundering of illegal horn or corruption.
HORN BUYERS
The buyers would mainly be Chinese state pharmaceutical companies with whom the CSO had a partnership arrangement and who would buy and expect to retail at a 100% profit. Having a profitable investment in the industry, these pharmaceutical companies would see that the Chinese government closed down the illegal operators. To prevent collusion, there should be scope to include buyers other than China, such as Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea and Yemen. Given a legal trade, these countries would need to close down their illegal trade, and partnership arrangements would help with this.
In the long term, the CSO needs to be able to sell as much horn as is sustainably possible at as high a price as possible. Initially it might drop the price below $20000/kg to clear out the speculators and damage the illegal trade. Inevitably there will still be some illegal trade (200 horns a year) but the risks will be much higher because Africa will have more money for law enforcement and China will be harsh with the illegal trade. Profits to the criminals will also be much lower because illegal goods typically trade at a discount of about 30%; if the Chinese police are severe, it will be more.
If southern Africa was to sell 1200 horns a year or 4800kg at $20000/kg, it would produce income of $96m (R768m) a year, which is substantial in conservation terms and approximates the total annual tourism, retail and concession income of SANParks.
There are hundreds of donor agencies that profit from rhino being in crisis. Their outputs are seldom measured and there are far too many that are accountable to no one.
Their main strategy is to change the Chinese mindset away from the belief that horn is a useful medication. How much success have they had? The Chinese are not going to listen to the west on this subject. The strategy is futile.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Another major focus is on encouraging increased law enforcement. This is unaffordable in Africa given the more important priorities such as food, health and education. Conservation comes way down on the list. Law enforcement is important but it is undermined by corruption in Africa and at currently affordable levels is not winning, even in rich and well-managed parks such as the Kruger.
The agents like to say that demand is insatiable and that there are too few rhinos left to satisfy the demand. They ignore price and the fact that price brings whatever level of demand there is into balance with supply.
They suggest that the introduction of a legal trade will stimulate the illegal trade, whereas the reverse is probable. A legal trade will satisfy the market and there will be little room for the illegal trade. The criminals will be left to trade at low prices and high risks and disruption by the CSO. It is unreasonable to believe that the traditional Chinese medicine market and the Chinese government would accommodate an illegal market run by criminals, given a legal trade.
At present, the only way to satisfy demand is to kill the animal. This will become unnecessary given a legal trade.
BENEFICIARIES
The agencies say that trade will benefit only a few wealthy individuals. The reality is that governments own 80% of the rhinos and national and provincial parks will be the beneficiaries of 80% of the profit. Governments will also collect taxes from private sector profits.
They suggest that if Africa traded, then endangered populations of rhino in the rest of the world would come under increased pressure. In fact, pressure would be taken off those animals because Africa would fill the market with legal goods at cheaper prices and there would be fierce policing of the illegal trade in China.
The experience in the crocodile, ostrich and vicuna markets is that commercial farming has taken poaching pressure off wild populations.
The agents refer to the "precautionary principle", which means that because we do not fully understand the illegal trade and the prices and the routes and the people involved, we cannot risk a legal trade. The current trade is secret and by definition we are never going to know all the details, but we know enough. If for some unexpected and unlikely reasons a regulated trade did not reduce poaching, then it could be closed down. Hiding under the precautionary principle in the past has been at great cost to the rhino.
Some agencies suggest flooding the market with horn from stocks to bring down the price to a level where poachers find poaching no longer profitable. This cannot work on a sustainable basis as 100g for only 200000 Chinese would eliminate the entire stockpile in one year. In all probability, speculators would buy all the cheap supply knowing it could not be sustained and that there would be a large profit to be made when stocks ran out.
DEHORNING
Dehorning as a solution has also been widely advocated, but all it does is to move poaching from populations that have been dehorned to populations where they have not. Furthermore, it is expensive and has to be done every two years because horn grows at the rate of 0,8kg a year and about 1,2kg is left behind in the stump after cropping. Thus the horn has a total weight of 2,8kg after two years, which is attractive to a poacher. Consider regular dehorning of the Kruger’s population of 10000 rhino. It is not practical, desirable or affordable.
Burning horn stocks is also a suggestion that the agencies make to help the rhino. Destroying stocks would reduce potential supplies to the market and encourage speculators to stockpile, which would increase prices and increase poaching. It makes no sense. Selling one horn from stocks may save the life of one rhino. Kenya was keen to destroy stocks and put a proposal to the last Cites meeting, which it later withdrew because there was no support for it.
Most donor agents appear not to like the idea of a regulated trade; maybe because it is the most likely solution, and a solution is not what they seek?
The public should be cautious about donating money to these agencies. They may be perpetuating the crisis.
Filtering poisoned horn on to the illegal market would have a dramatic effect on demand if the traditional Chinese medicine market began to fear there was a chance of horn doing more harm than good. While this has been discussed, there has been very little support for it but in the absence of trade and increased poaching, it may well happen.
About 150 live rhinos were sold by South Africa to China on the understanding that they were for educational purposes and not for commercial purposes. This was allowed within the Cites rules. However, it was later found that the horns were being shaved and that there was a business plan for commercial use. The exports were stopped by the Department of Environmental Affairs. Selling live rhinos to other countries is the wrong strategy and undermines Africa’s competitive advantage — one of the best that we have.
BENEFITS OF REDUCTION
Poaching will never be totally stopped, but if it is reduced to about 200 rhinos a year, the current population of 21000 rhinos in South Africa will double to 42000 over the next 12 years. The country could sell the annual increment to parks in southern Africa. Selling 1260 rhino a year would produce income of $39m (R312m). This would then increase South Africa’s total income from rhino to R1bn a year.
Assume that the World Bank, some other organisation or even a wealthy individual financed these sales over 12 years for a total investment of $500m. The financier could retain ownership of the animals and their increment of 6% a year. If the parks farmed the horn from half the animals, they would produce 8400kg of horn a year with a current wholesale value of $168m. Typically, this would pay for the anti-poaching and operational costs of 168 parks.
There would need to be an assurance that the rhino would be protected in these parks, and part of the transaction would need to be that an organisation such as African Parks or Frankfurt Zoo managed the protection of the rhino using existing park rangers. (There are often sufficient numbers of rangers, but they are poorly managed.) The operation would be self-financing and while the rhino were being protected, other animals in the park would be too. For a park to thrive, all that needs to happen is for poaching to be controlled. In most of Africa’s parks this is not happening, and most are in decline. One good man and a reasonable budget can make a big difference to a park.
The whole of Africa has fewer tourists visiting every year. Parks and wildlife are Africa’s competitive advantage — if we could attract an additional 1-million tourists a year, and they stayed for an average of 10 days at $200 per day, then that would generate income of $2bn a year
We have the opportunity for turning around a conservation tragedy into the biggest contribution to conservation in Africa imaginable, with rhinos as the catalyst.
It is hard to believe that the world, as represented by Cites, can choose to continue with a failed strategy (the ban on trade), sacrifice 705 rhinos a year and fund criminals when there is the potential from a regulated trade to produce annual profits of billions for African conservation and secure 168 parks, all without the need to kill one rhino.
South Africa should not waste time collecting more data. We have enough and the time has come to put a proposal to Cites.
--
Friday, August 5, 2011
Geza - The Final Hours by Dr William Fowlds
As many of you may know Dr Fowlds is our business partner and this is his story of a white rhino mutilated by poachers and Dr Fowlds was the vet on call that day when he he received the phone call that made his heart sink.....
This is the story of a white rhino callously mutilated by poachers and left alive with his horns and part of his face hacked off with pangas
On the 11th February 2011 I found myself forced into a personal exp...erience of the most horrific, man-inflicted animal suffering. An experience that has affected me beyond what I thought was possible. More than five months on and I still struggle to contain and express the emotions burned within me, that churn to the surface every time I talk about that day.
I don’t expect to make sense of it, or the similar rhino deaths that take place daily in my country. I do intend to ensure that the account of this one rhino’s tragic end, will reach into the conscience and hearts of all men and woman, and compel each of us to do something towards stopping the suffering of this magnificent species and others like it.
I count myself truly blessed to be able to live my dream as a wildlife vet in a part of Africa that satisfies my senses and fills my soul. One of my many privileges is that I get to work with rhino in the wild. These living dinosaurs are truly iconic symbols of our successes and failures as custodians of this planet. The current rhino situation is a dying testimony of our conservation efforts. If we are not able to save the rhino from extinction, this flagship species that’s larger than life, what hope do we have of saving the rest?
On that fateful morning in February, I was called by Mike Fuller of Kariega Game Reserve, in the Eastern Cape, who informed me that one of their rhino had been poached. My heart sank, as I relived that dreadful feeling, a few months before, which had hit me when news of a rhino poaching on my own game reserve came through. Knowing how slow the initial crime scene proceedings can take, I expressed my heart-felt remorse and said I would get there later in the morning. There was a silent pause before the sledge-hammer ..... ”William, he is still alive!”
Images of the hacked bone and bloodied tissues I had seen previously came flooding back, doubting the truth of this outrageous claim. As I fumbled for questions to check my own doubts, the description of this poor animal began to take shape. “The horns are gone, it’s a bloody mess”, added Mike. I had seen one picture of a rhino who had suffered the same fate and the anger when I saw it the first time, crowded my thoughts as I tried to listen to directions and get my planned day out of the way.
As I drove rapidly for 30 minutes following the directions; the location, the description and the circumstances around this animal started to sound familiar. I remembered that two rhino from my own reserve, Amakhala, had been moved to Kariega three years before and had been joined by another two animals from a different reserve, making a sub-adult group of four rhino. At least one of these four, was now in an unthinkable situation and I prayed it wasn’t one I knew.
On approaching the location where the rhino had last been seen, I was struck by the tranquil beauty of the place. A small, open area alongside a meandering river with broken vegetation joining up into thickets of valley bushveld on the hill slopes. A picture-book setting which could have been used to depict a piece of heaven. It just didn’t seem possible that somewhere here, there was an animal that was going through a living hell.
Mike could not bring himself to accompany me, having been to hell and back already that morning. I grabbed my small camera and began working my way into the wind to where I was told he was last seen.
The horror of that first encounter will remain branded in my memory forever. In a small clearing enclosed by bush, stood an animal, hardly recognisable as a rhino. His profile completely changed by the absence of those iconic horns attributed to no other species. More nauseating than that, the skull and soft tissue trauma extended down into the remnants of his face, through the outer layer of bones, to expose the underlying nasal passages.
Initially he stood on three legs with his mouth on the ground. Then he became more aware of my presence and lifted his head up revealing pieces of loose flesh which hung semi-detached from his deformed and bloodied face. He struggled forward and turned in my direction, his left front leg provided no support and could only be dragged behind him. To compensate for this, he used his mutilated muzzle and nose as a crutch and staggered forward toward me. His one eye was injured and clouded over, adding to his horrific appearance.
At first I stood shocked in front of the sight before me, then I struggled to comprehend the extent and implications of the jagged edges and plunging cavities extending into his skull. As he shuffled closer in my direction, now scarcely 15 meters away, the realisation of his pain overwhelmed me. I had been so stunned by the inconceivable, I had neglected to consider the pain. What possible way could I have any reference of understanding the agony he was in? How long had he been like this? Were his efforts to approach me a weakened attempt of aggression towards the source of his suffering or was there a desperate comprehension of finality, a broken spirit crying out to die.
I crouched down trying to steady my shaking hand which held the camera, as I realised that this was possibly Geza, the young rhino I had sent to this sanctuary three years ago. Thoughts and emotions raged through my head. How low had we fallen to inflict so much suffering on such a magnificent creature whose care had been entrusted to us? Could any reason justify this happening? Without thinking I apologised under my breath, “I am sorry boy, I am so, so sorry.” His breathing quickened in response to the sound. Was he trying to smell me, was this their characteristic huffing which is part of natural investigatory behaviour or was this a pathetic version of rhino aggression in response to a source of threat. I was close enough to see the blood bubbling inside his skull cavities and wondered how every breath must add to the agony, the cold air flowing over inflamed tissues and exposed nerves.
I expected at any moment for his suffering to snap into a full blown rage, but it never came. I backed away slowly and he kept staggering in my direction, not showing any aggression, just one agonising effort after another. For a moment the thought even crossed my mind that this animal, in an incomprehensible amount of pain, acting completely out of character, could be desperately seeking something, anything, to take away the pain.
I didn’t trust my own eyes to recall the detail of these injuries and so I recorded some images, and backed away from this vortex of emotions and pain. On the walk back to the vehicle where Mike now waited, the weight of responsibility began to descend on my shoulders. This poor animal, suffering at the hands of my own species, through at least one night of absolute agony, now relied on me for relief from this torture. My gut instincts told me he had little chance of healing even though I had experienced rhino making some spectacular recoveries from severe injuries. I recalled having heard of a few other cases of rhino having survived and scrambled for the details somewhere in my swirling mind.
Thinking I should be fairly hardened to trauma and the sight of poached rhino and mutilated bodies, I had to re-assess my own reaction to what I had just seen. This took things to a new level. This stirred up anger and despair and regret and shame more than anything I had ever experienced. This brought the suffering of this and many other rhino right into the living room of my soul.
Surely, I would never be able to think of a rhino poaching in the same way ever again. If we are shaped by our experiences, then this experience was a watershed moment in my life. Part of that watershed was out of my control, but the other part involved decisions which were optional and would take me across an ethical line which had been formed by a lifetime of nurturing and training.
Knowing that this reserve relied on my professional opinion on what to do next, I buried my personal emotions and approached Mike with three recommendations. Firstly, I confirmed their fears that, in my opinion, there was no chance of saving this life and the most humane thing to do would be to end this tragedy by euthanasia for this animal. Secondly, I asked for time to consult with some of the other vets who had experienced similar survivors just in case there might be some hope for this animal.
Thirdly, with considerable trepidation, I asked if they would consider allowing the world to see the horrendous suffering that was taking place a short distance from where we stood. The practicalities, though, would involve getting a camera on site to take broadcast quality footage, something that would take a few hours to happen in this remote part of the reserve.
Could a vet, who is supposed to care deeply for animals; who is trained to be the mouthpiece for those that can’t speak for themselves; who more than most should understand the extent of suffering that this animal had gone through and was still enduring, be at ethical liberty to extend the suffering of this animal a little longer. Would those who do care, and even those who purport not to care, be shocked out of their complacency at the sight of such inhumanity?
The request sounded irrational to my own ears, and I wrestled with the thought of it. For the previous three years our association of private game reserves had built up measures to combat the looming threat of rhino poaching. I had seen the mortality figures escalate in 2009 and double again in 2010 despite a series of attempts to curb the carnage. Seven animals had been poached during this escalation within 60km’s of me, and there was still no sign of the public or the law enforcement agencies finding the will to stop it.
Many of the animals poached were being immobilised with veterinary drugs before having their horns and underlying skull bones hacked off with pangas and axes. The assumption is that these animals are under anaesthetic and so don’t feel anything. I assure you, they feel; as, in many instances, the amount of drug used does not kill the rhino. If they don’t bleed to death, they wake up under circumstances which I am finding difficult to describe.
I had always wondered why the poachers made such a mess of the rhino’s faces when their modus operandi suggested that these were well organised criminals. The sight of Geza that terrible day brought the realisation that many of these animals were probably still alive and responsive to the mutilation that they were being subjected to; hence the panga marks chaotically arranged around the facial areas.
My mind was telling me that to keep this animal alive was wrong, but somewhere inside I felt certain that the story of this despicable suffering could get to even the most hardened minds. The people driving the demand for this bizarre product, who say they take rhino horn to feel good - surely, they couldn’t feel good knowing that animals are suffering to this degree at their hands. If they could, in some way, be made to feel part of the massacre, then perhaps this cruel and senseless killing might stop.
It was agreed to call in a camera to get the footage while I phoned colleagues for second opinions. For the next three hours I went back several times and agonised over my decisions while watching his condition deteriorate. During those hours I learned that this rhino was indeed “Geza” – the Naughty One - a male born on Amakhala, the reserve on which I live. He was born in January 2006 as the second calf of “Nomabongo” – the Proud Lady. His mother was the first rhino to come to our reserve, which like many in our area, was a reserve which had transformed previous farm land into protected areas.
I vividly recall the day Nomabongo arrived in 2003. Her presence, just one rhino, immediately transformed the whole atmosphere of that landscape from farmland into wild land. I also remembered the first week of Geza’s life. Unlike Nomabongo’s first calf, which she hid from us for 6 weeks, the “Proud Lady” showed off her boy calf within a few days of giving birth to him and a photographer friend captured these moments in some breathtaking photos.
Geza's name came about because from a very early age he would challenge older rhino in a mischievous manner and then bundle back to the safety of his ever protective mother. In social gatherings with other mothers and calves, Geza was always the instigator in the interactions, always playful to a point of seeming to show-off.
Typical of normal rhino social structures, when Geza was two and a half years old his mother pushed him away as she prepared to give birth to her next calf. During this time Geza joined up with another rhino cow and her female calf named Landiwe, who was born in May 2006.
Geza stayed with Landiwe and her mother. The mother provided the protection from mature bulls that Geza now needed as he was still not old or big enough to protect himself. This grouping remained until it was decided to remove some rhino off our reserve and Geza and Landiwe were relocated in August 2008 as a pair. They adapted well, as they knew each other and, as young rhino in a new environment, this helped ensure a successful relocation.
The group of four young rhino, were the first to be introduced into this section of this sanctuary and their presence there had the same effect of transforming the reserve back to wild land. Now two and half years on, Geza was critically injured and the other rhino had disappeared into the thicket vegetation. Even if they were still alive, this event would ensure their removal from this area and with them a part of the soul of the land would die too.
As the hours passed slowly by, the location of the actual poaching was discovered and a crime scene investigation commenced, piecing together the train of events which had taken place there. A large pool of blood marked Geza’s initial fall and where the hacking took place. Pieces of flesh and bone lay in the blood stained grass nearby. He had stood up at some stage and staggered about ten paces before falling on a small tree, where, judging by the signs of his struggling, he had lain for some time. Again, a large area of blood stained earth bore testimony to his solitary ordeal. Every dozen or so paces another pool of blood marked where he had stood a while. I imagined his body going through the phases of drug recovery which, without an antidote, would have taken him through cycles of semi-consciousness before he was plunged back into the reality of his painful wounds. It could not be accurately ascertained how long he had been left in this state. Could this have possibly happened two nights ago? We were not sure. The possibility of this was too much to comprehend so, for now, I kept it out of my mind.
His front left leg had been cut off from circulation while he struggled on his side and this accounted for his eye injuries too. When cells get starved of oxygen they die off and release inflammatory chemicals inducing a cycle of swelling, pressure and pain ending in necrosis. By the time Geza was found, he had lost all use of his left front leg. Through blood loss, shock, dehydration and pain this animal was paying dearly for man’s senseless greed.
The wait for what seemed like ages eventually passed. The camera-crew arrived and I was finally able to bring this nightmare to an end. The most humane way to end it all was to administer an overdose of opioid anaesthetic. The method would have to be the same way the poachers did it, with a dart. A heavy calibre bullet to the brain would ensure finality - no return to hell.
As the dart penetrated his skin I wondered if this rhino had any mental association of being darted all those long hours before and the agony that ensued. Would he recognise that dart impact and the ordeal that followed shortly after? Would any feelings of helplessness suddenly be overcome by one final fit of rage as I would expect it to be? His response was to take only a few paces in our direction as the dart penetrated, before his injuries stopped his advance.
Within a few minutes the drugs were taking effect and even though his final conscious moments could have been extremely painful, I knew that the pain would be subsiding as he began to slip away. One final close up inspection of his wounds confirmed there was no going back and I injected more anaesthetic directly into his bloodstream. A sense of relief mingled with sadness, disgust and shame descended over that small piece of Africa, which for long hours had been gripped in tension and violation. The heavy bullet slammed though his skull, with the noise and shock wave blasting out across the landscape, heralding the end to a tortured and agonising struggle.
Geza, the Naughty One, who had touched my heart as a playful calf, died while I held my hand over his intact eye, his shaking body growing still and peaceful. Geza, who had his horns and part of his face hacked off while he was still alive by poachers feeding a chain of careless greed and ignorant demand. Will this rhino, whose suffering I prolonged, so that the world could get a visual glimpse of this tragedy, end up as just another statistic in a war that rages on? Or, will this rhino’s ordeal touch us in a way that compels us to do something about it? What I have witnessed ensures that I will never find peace until the killing stops.
As I write this, news reaches me of seven more rhino killed yesterday. Please help all of us on the frontline of this war against rhino poaching. If we can’t save the rhino, what hope do we have of saving the rest?
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Dr William Fowlds.
Help us spread the word on what is happening to the species by getting this message out to those who believe that the rhino horn is a valuable product that can enhance their well-being. Rhino horn has absolutely no medicinal value nor does it offer the most suitable material for ceremonial daggers. The visual images of this story are being used in awareness campaigns run by numerous conservation NGO’s. Some of these images can be accessed by following the Wilderness Foundation web-link below.
http://www.wildernessfoundatio
You can do something about rhino poaching NOW!
Watch the video, sign a petition and send a letter.
Don’t try and aim too much. Darting game in the helicopter is all about practice. You look down your barrel, and you shoot.
“You have to keep ahold of that thing. This wind can tear that right out of your hand if you don’t hold tight.” I grip the handle of the gun tighter, nodding at the voice coming from the veterinarian in the seat behind me. “Are you ready?”
“Yep.” My reply sounds rather crackly and unfamiliar as it goes through the headsets and back into my ears.
Suddenly, the ground beneath me shakes and seems to fall away. I watch in astonishment as the trees and bushes become smaller and smaller as the helicopter begins its takeoff. My stomach does a turn in the seat as I feel the rush of wind come in from the opening to my left where the passenger door would normally be. A herd of beautiful red impala are grazing below me, looking like small children’s toys. But they aren’t what I’m after. A family of warthogs rush out from the bushes, tails straight up in the air as they trot away from the strange, noisy aircraft. They are not my target either. The helicopter dips into a tight turn, and then I can see the strange creature in the distance approaching. That’s the one I’m interested in.
The bright blue is what I spot first. It’s not many animals in the African bush that have this bright, brilliant blue. As I get closer, I notice that it also has a distinctive black head that shines metallically as the sun hits it – a protective helmet, of sorts. I tried to picture what I’d been taught earlier that morning: Don’t try and aim too much. Darting game in the helicopter is all about practice. You look down your barrel, and you shoot. Don’t spend too much time aiming, just take your best shot and then adjust. Dr. Kriek, the veterinarian sitting behind me, gives me a nudge and tells me that my shot is coming up soon, and I edge the gun out into the wind, making sure to look down the barrel and take aim. Suddenly, the blue figure starts moving across the grass. He has been waiting for me.
The pilot pulls the helicopter alongside, and I take my first shot. I smile as I see it connect. Again, I pull the trigger, and another shot flies down, hitting the target on his back. Another shot connects with the blue machine that the strange primate was riding. Before I could celebrate too much, the pilot turns back to the hanger. As soon as the skids touch the ground, I take off the headphones and hand the paintball gun back to Dr. Kriek, and the next student takes my place in the front seat, waiting for her chance to hit the target. After all the students have a turn, we all gather around Dr. Peter Brothers to claim the paint marks that are on him as our own shots. But to our surprise, he’s completely clean! The paintballs didn’t even explode. Our vet and guide tells us each where we hit him and where the welts are forming. Paint ball darting is one of the great things about this course – and a great way to practice our darting skills before we go out tomorrow and dart our own patients.
Earlier that morning, we were sharpening a different set of skills. After darting a roan bull, we each had our own specific job to do to monitor the animal and make sure that he kept constant respirations and remained immobilized. There was a little bit of tension in the air with some of us as they electroejaculated him to check his fertility and he swung his sharp horns around behind him, eyes twitching. I remember at one point checking my stopwatch as we were bouncing along the gravel road, the roan’s saliva dripping down my hand, and noticing the time. He’d been under for over an hour, and was showing classic signs of becoming light – twitching ears, head movements, and increasing heart rate. We urged the driver to go faster, and I secretly planned a route of escape in case he suddenly decided he didn’t want to ride with us on the trailer anymore and thrashed about. Monitoring and keeping patients alive while immobilized seems like such a trivial skill, but for most of these farmers, one mistake from us could cost him a couple hundred thousand rand.
As we headed back to the lodge, a full day’s work done, we paused at a prominent copi (small hill) to share drinks and watch the sun set. One by one, the stars came out and we wrapped up in blankets, listening to the veterinarians talk about their adventures in the wildlife business. It’s going to take a lot of practice to get as good as these veterinarians when it comes to darting, but the skills and experience we learn here on this course will be invaluable to us as students as we continue our school year. I doubt, however, that I’ll be able to find such a willing target to dart back in America as this one!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
World Veterinary Congress
30th World Veterinary Congress 2011
 Brothers Safaris is offering you the ideal opportunity to extend your stay in South Africa and encounter some of our famous wildlife as well as experience the breath-taking scenery of our wonderful country from a veterinary perspective. Brothers Safaris have prepared both a pre and post Congress tour which will travel between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town (in both directions). Spend 9 days and 8 nights in the company of a resident wildlife veterinarian, experiencing behind the scenes work with South African wildlife species (veterinarians only but provision will be made for alternate activities for accompanying non-veterinarians), as well as travelling along the scenic Garden Route, visiting various wildlife veterinary facilities along the way. You will spend 3 nights on an Eastern Cape game reserve, working behind the scenes with a resident wildlife veterinarian on antelope and one of the larger charismatic species of South African Wildlife. Here you will gain first-hand knowledge of challenges and conservation concerns that are faced in this country on a daily basis. You will then head into the scenic Garden Route and visit Tenikwa Cheetah Awareness Centre and Rehabilitation facility, where we work behind the scenes with the owner and founder of this remarkable facility. Travelling further into the Garden Route we visit a mixed veterinary practice as well as a local wildlife farming enterprise before heading inland to the ostrich capital, Oudtshoorn, where once again we are privileged to get a behind the scenes look at this thriving local industry. Heading to Cape Town we stop over at a disease free buffalo breeding project, where you will also learn about a revolutionary quagga breeding project. Your final destinations are the world famous winelands situated just outside of Cape Town, and finally the V & A Waterfront and a Peninsula Tour of the beautiful coastline surrounding the Mother City. All accommodation is in four star or four star equivalent establishments. Not only will you have a fantastic time but your participation helps fund wildlife conservation in the various game reserves and wildlife facilities that you will visit. For detailed itineraries and prices click here for pre-congress and here for post-congress dates, or email us for more information. |
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
This weeks adventure
The adventures of the week end behind me, it was back to buffalo on Monday morning. Becky joined me, despite he cold which is making her feel lousy, and we darted eight animals ranging in aged form 12 weeks to about 12 years. All went well although the last cow did break through the fence of the camp they were in and make loading very tough for the team – luckily she was well drugged by then and did not go far. The animals were being sold and went off in the truck after 3 darting and retrieving sessions.
Tuesday the action continues with some waterbuck being darted form the air first thing. They are being moved onto a nearby game farm and I hope all goes well – they are notorious for running and running after darting, but I ma using one of the newer drugs available and it seems to be working better. Later on Tuesday we have two guests arriving and I will be spending until Friday with them. Alan and Jane are American and reside in Netherlands Antilles and our four days will be spent focusing on rhino – their ecology, conservation aspects and the role that veterinarians play in all this. It promises to be a fun educational week, culminating in some work with rhino that we need to dart for various procedures…. I’ll keep you updated.
Tuesday the action continues with some waterbuck being darted form the air first thing. They are being moved onto a nearby game farm and I hope all goes well – they are notorious for running and running after darting, but I ma using one of the newer drugs available and it seems to be working better. Later on Tuesday we have two guests arriving and I will be spending until Friday with them. Alan and Jane are American and reside in Netherlands Antilles and our four days will be spent focusing on rhino – their ecology, conservation aspects and the role that veterinarians play in all this. It promises to be a fun educational week, culminating in some work with rhino that we need to dart for various procedures…. I’ll keep you updated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
