Poachers from China and Vietnam have found a loophole for obtaining rhino horn by participating in legal trophy hunts in South Africa – and then having the horns shipped to Asia for illegal sale.
Last week, members of PHASA (Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa) were advised not to “book and conduct hunts with nationals from Vietnam or other Far Eastern countries” until the government had “removed this abuse of the SA legal system.”
The most recent example of this “system abuse” was the incident in May, when Dwesa Nature Reserve awarded the “right” to kill 6 rhino to the highest bidder – African Scent Safaris. It was then confirmed that Vietnamese clients of African Scent Safaris killed two rhino and had the horns exported to Vietnam.
This also brings into question whether or not SANParks’ recent auction of White Rhinos from Kruger NP could be contributing to the exploitation of legal trophy hunting by poachers from China and other Asian countries.
How SANParks’ rhino auctions may be creating a poaching “loophole”
Most recently, SANParks (South African National Parks) came under heavy criticism of ARA (Animal Rights Africa) for their auction of White Rhino from Kruger National Park two weeks ago. SANParks does not see a conflict with selling the rhino to trophy hunters, claiming that the animals are no longer their responsibility after the sale.
This unwillingness to monitor the rhinos’ welfare after the sale sets the table for the poaching “loophole”: Once the rhino are sold to trophy hunters, as in the case of the Dwesa hunt, poachers “posing as hunting clients” have unrestricted access to the rhinos – and the horns. The horns are then shipped to China, or other Asian countries, where the trade in illegal wildlife parts is rampant and unchecked.
SANParks Chief Executive Director David Mabunda has drawn criticism for his stance on the auction of the rhinos. Despite attempts to link the sale to “scientific management”, he has instead raised disturbing ethical questions about SANParks’ rhino conservation program.
Not only has Mabunda said publicly that SANParks “did not have anything against hunting or hunters as long as they did not hunt in national parks”, but other recent statements indicate that he is more concerned about the scrutiny the auction has received, than in the welfare of the animals under SANParks’ “care”:
Before 1994 the park’s management sold the animals indiscriminately and the auctions were never advertised. We wanted to take the democratic route and thus decided to place advertisements. Thus we are now the victims of our own democratic decision.
10 of the rhino that were sold two weeks ago have already died.
Scientific evidence has long since dispelled the myth that rhino horn (made of compressed keratin) has any medicinal properties. Unfortunately, many parts of Asia still believe the notion that rhino horn has “strong powers” that cure common ailments such as fever, headaches, and arthritis – common ailments for which cheap OTC medications are readily available.
“Disposing” of rhinos in the name of conservation?
As rhino poaching has reached a 15-year high in Africa and Asia, unsettling concerns are justifiably surrounding the current management of these animals.
Chief executive officer of WWF South Africa, Morné du Plessis, seems content to reconcile the ethical questions surrounding the auction of rhino with the unsurprising answer that indicates “money talks”:
Thus, it is not unrealistic for a management agency to dispose of animals at a market-related price in order to generate funding to reinvest in the conservation management (including security measures) to ensure the safety of primary founder populations.
So, let me get this straight: Once “conservationists” successfully increase the population of a species like the White Rhino to the IUCN Red List Classification of “Near Threatened” (two clicks better than “Endangered’), these groups have the right to decide how many animals are “excessive” and can be “disposed of”?
Is the sale of “excess animals” to the “highest bidder” with no responsibility after the sale – in the name of conservation – an ethical way to manage natural resources?
Or are these “sales” actually rolling out the red carpet to poachers – all in the name of “financial considerations”?
Image source: istock.com
About Rhishja Cota-Larson
You have No problem lying to the people. Phasa ( and it’s members ) was NOT advised to stop exporting Rhino to Vietnam and the far East. The Professional hunters’ Association made this decision as a result of our own concerns about illigal use of Rhino. This was a inhouse policy adopted. The world should take note that the hunting fraternity is more concerned about wild animals; than $25-00 donaters, to a radically emotionally dissturbed Tree Hugging Group.
Please can you get your facts right and stop the so called ‘animal rights’ propaganda.
1) Not ALL white rhino are ‘endangered’. Some POPULATIONS such as those in East Africa are ‘endangered’ but the South African white rhino can be considered a safe population.
2) When animals like rhino are sold from a National Park like KNP to private land holders, the purpose is twofold – it reduces the rhino population in the fenced Park to it’s desired level for habitat maintenance plus it generates much needed revenue for the Park.
3) The rhinos sold by Parks are either bulls past their breeding prime which are actually causing problems by attacking and killing other rhinos OR family units to start new rhino populations on private reserves.
4) These old rhino bulls are available for hunting by LEGAL hunters for large amounts of money which in turn is revenue for the conservation of wildlife and habitat in RSA. At the end of it’s natural breeding life as an old rhino, do you not think it better to utilise the animal rather than let it perish of disease and/or predators?
5) Why should the Park be responsible for the ‘after care’ of the rhinos sold? They are responsible as far as making sure they go to suitable habitat and size properties but that is all. They know most old bulls will be hunted and ‘sustainable utilisation’ of wildlife is one of the guiding principles for wildlife management policy of the ‘World Conservation Strategy’.
6) Try reading, studying and thinking (outside your cosy ‘animal rights’ box) before spreading your propaganda. You quote IUCN…Well, IUCN + WWF + UNEP + FAO (UN Food & Agricultural Organisation) + UNESCO, all in collaboration, published the following mission statement….
a) To maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems. This refers to soil regeneration & protection on which human survival depends. (One good reason for elephant culling in fenced Parks where massive elephant populations are destroying habitat).
b) To preserve genetic diversity. This refers to all world organisms dependent on the above.
c) To ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and eco-systems (notably fish and other wildlife, forests and grazing lands) which suport millions of rural communities and industries.
d) Supports the consumptive use of the earth’s renewable resources for both subsistence and commercial purposes.
7) The Chinese or Far East trophy hunters are NOT illegal poachers if they pay their large rhino trophy fee, hunting daily rate and hunt legally in accordance with the provincial game laws of RSA. As such they are LEGALLY allowed to export the trophy horn to their home country on a CITES Import Permit. What they are not NOT allowed to do under CITES regulation, is to take the horn home with them in a suitcase (it must be exported legally using a taxidermist & trophy export company) OR sell the horn on to someone else once in the Far East.
PHASA’s advice to it’s members simply acknowledges the potential abuse of the system but there is little they can do if the hunt and the horn exported, is legitimate. In my opinion you really can’t discriminate against a person on the basis of being from the Far East and what they may or may not do with the rhino horn once it is exported.
9) Rather these few Far Eastern people get rhino horn
at source in RSA legally than finance undercover large scale poaching organisations as still persists in other areas of Africa where hunting is banned, and wildlife has no financial or indeed, any other value, for the rural populations except for commercial poachers – notably Kenya.
Susan -
Thank you for sharing your opinion. The bottom line is that there are people who support trophy hunting, and those who do not. The same is true regarding the “fate” of the rhino after being sold – some believe the seller has a measure of accountability for the animal’s welfare, others believe responsibility ends once money exchanges hands.
Regarding the involvement of trophy hunters from the “Far East” – particularly Vietnam – it has been acknowledged by rhinoceros conservation experts that their interest in rhino trophy hunting is for unscrupulous purposes.
For further information about the issue of Vietnamese “trophy hunters”, you can refer to the report African and Asian Rhinoceroses – Status, Conservation and Trade: A Report from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC to the CITES Secretariat pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) and Decision 14.89, found at the CITES website.
What a hunting client “may or may not do with the rhino horn once it is exported” is actually a serious issue: Rhino horn that enters Asian markets further stimulates illegal trade – which compounds the current rhino poaching crisis. Legitimate hunting operators – who claim to be doing their part for conservation – (should) perform client due diligence regarding any rhino horn export.
And finally – the post, in fact, does not state that white rhino are Endangered, but that white rhino are classified as “Near Threatened” – which is just two clicks away from Endangered.
Thank you again for your opinion.
Rhishja Larson