 | |
| Leopard Number 29 is dead 29 NOW DEAD, 29 NOW LEFT! Press Release: 16 July 2009 This large territorial male leopard, of 41kg, was killed on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth yesterday. It was caught around the neck in a cable snare and died of suffocation. It was likely a dominant male that commanded a territory of larger than 25 000 hectares. The snare was made from a bicycle break cable. The damage to the already stretched genetic stock of the species in the region and the social structures of this population of leopard is incalculable. This leopard's death is of major concern, as a recently completed Rhodes University study indicated that this cat would have been part of a core population of territorial leopard that lived in a 300 000 ha area in and around the Baviaanskloof Reserve. The study indicated that only about 30 territorial leopards remained in this region (between PE/Uitenhage and Uniondale, Eastern Cape, South Africa). Over the past 6 years we know of at least 29 killed leopards in this area. It does not require a rocket scientist to realize that this species is under severe stress in this region, and that perhaps we are past the 11th hour for its survival. Such snaring and agricultural production practices such as gin traps, poisons and hunting dogs continue to threaten these species and hundreds of others across the country. Such events are now so common that it is almost not newsworthy. Yet, we still live in a country where we have legislation that makes it legal to set leg hold traps (such as gin traps), to use poisons and even to hunt predators from helicopters. We have many other less charismatic species suffering similar and worse fates, and at far greater rates. We have production bodies like the National Woolgrowers, the South African Mohair Growers and Red Meat Producers Organization calling for more lethal controls of predators through indiscriminate methods. We as consumers must vote with our wallets and support produce that is not tainted with this abuse of our wildlife! Please support Fair Game™ Wildlife Friendly produce when it appears on your supermarket shelves later in the year, as it will be produce that does not destroy our wildlife in its production, and it will reward producers that comply with audited and acceptable production standards that are ethically and ecologically acceptable. The Landmark Foundation has tried to create some respite for the leopard in this corner of South Africa, and working with willing farmers, especially in the Baviaanskloof River Valley of the Baviaanskloof Mega-reserve, to counter the persecution of the leopard in this region. It has seen us now rescue 27 leopards since 2004, of which 24 cases have taken place in the last 30 months in an around the Baviaanskloof and the Garden Route areas. The last of these rescues occurred on Sunday 12 July 2009, where 2 leopard cubs were rescued in a cage trap – unusually caught together. This area had been totally cleared of gin traps which had been the method of predator control previously, and which in the past would certainly have resulted in the death of at least one of these cats. The cubs were released and reunited with their mother who was seen with them at the release. ________________--end press release--__________________
Bool Smuts' response to questions from Farmer's Weekly What is the approach to predator management that the Landmark Foundation promotes? We support ethical, ecologically acceptable and financially viable methods of predator control and livestock management. As such we promote non-lethal predator controls, which change the focus from predator control to livestock protection. We thus actively promote the use of methods that negates the use of indiscriminate lethal control methods. Our results indicate that this is financially beneficial to the farmer. We as an organisation are committed to finding sustainable and environmentally friendly land use solutions. As such we are not anti-farmer or against the farming industries, on the contrary. We go to great lengths to work with, and find solutions to some of the obstacles farmers have to sustainability, especially where actions result in environmental damage. This relates to our predator and species conservation work. We will happily work with any party that sees merits in these endeavours, and equally against any party that continues to harm our environment. We do not do this for financial gain, in fact, we invest in this endeavour. We believe that we have found and demonstrated ecologically, ethically and financially profitable solutions to farmers and are happy to share that with the industry. In controlling losses on farms to predation, if and when live removal and lethal controls are to be used, they are only acceptable where non-lethal control methods have been exhausted and appropriately implemented, and where they are ethically implemented under permit conditions, and by accredited professionals. In such circumstances we only support the ethical removal of culprit individual animals, and not blanket targeting of species, or for that matter the by-catch of indiscriminate methods. We support rescues, rehabilitation and appropriate wild releases of animals affected by predator controls. We help the agricultural industry with predator damage mitigation strategies and advocate against ethically unacceptable, ecologically damaging and financially unviable methods of control. Our research work examines predator ecology and the efficacy of non-lethal control methods. We are developing a wildlife-friendly meats and animal fiber brand, Fair Game™, to provide financial incentives to producers to conserve biodiversity on their farms.
We are publishing the second edition of our guidelines on non-lethal predator control methods, Predators and Associated Wildlife, in collaboration with Jackal Connect (Rob Harrison-White) later this year to assist interested producers in their conversion to non-lethal controls. Farmers claim it is on record that you have said they have a cultural obsession to use unethical and cruel practices to get rid of problem animals? Evidence strongly suggest that methods that are ethically unacceptable, like gin taps (or as some perversely wish to call these traps –soft traps/devices), hunting dog packs, poisons, denning and helicopter hunting are also biologically ruinous and clearly ineffective in addressing the problem. Most pertinently, we hear a clamor and outcry from the agricultural sector that the problem is out of control and getting worse, in spite of the dedicated and almost 3 centuries of the use of some of these methods. In the face of that, what we did say is that logical deductions are that the methods have not worked for the last 300 years, and further, it is becoming clearer from analysis of research and even industry data that these methods are actually the cause of the problem. In other words, the methods we are advocating against have not only been ineffective in dealing with the problem, it has caused and aggravated the problem. This, besides the massive and systematic ruin it has caused to our national biodiversity, and the plainly barbaric nature of their use, makes their continued use illogical and in fact counterproductive. Non-lethal control methods have been shown to be more cost effective and have resulted in better production results, and reduced impacts of predation. In the face of this logical analysis, it is fair to assert that it is something other than logic driving the attachment certain players in the sector have to these methods, and also since there are ethically preferable and better functioning methods available. Yes, I do assert that it is something deeply ingrained in our culture and frontier mentality. It is no surprise that the frontier countries such as South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have hung on (variably) to the methods of production, such as gin traps, poisons, and hunting dog packs. (Gin traps have been banned in almost 100 other countries!) We suspect this is deeply rooted in a cultural tradition, stemming from a "taming of the frontier" attitude that is still pervasive. So yes, we do believe there is a cultural obsession with certain practices by some players in the industry, and certainly no logical justification for their ongoing use. Indeed, there is as much anthropology, psychology and sociology in this as is economics, ecology, market mechanisms and linked emotions. Certainly it is not driven by logic! Paradigm shifts are hard to make, and people hate their cultures being questioned… so be it. You have been labeled as an activist that uses a few exceptional and drastic incidences of predator control over and over again to purposely put farmers in a bad light. Your reaction? Let me refute this allegation of anti-farmer activities first off, and say that we propose our activities in the interests of farmers that wish to support their own sustainability and that of biodiversity, and those who want to be part of an ethical world. Our recommendation of non-lethal predator controls is supported in equal parts by ecological knowledge and data, a clear ethical standpoint and sound economic data. There is nothing isolated about the events. Literally thousands of similar events happen across this country on a nightly basis! Lethal predator controls have caused the reported escalating stock losses and secondary predator number increases. We have demonstrated that non-lethal controls yield better livestock production results, and we are developing the value-adding to ethical produce reaching the marketplace. The suggestion to our contrary intentions is mischief making and emanates from sectors of the industry unable to adapt to a world where consumers demand ethical production standards and a sustainable world. The absence of leadership in this direction in the agricultural production bodies is extremely disconcerting, but not entirely surprising. Name calling and labeling those with differing views and sound logic as activists, is an age old and rather defunct political strategy – ala McCarthyism – which tries to marginalize criticism. On another more humoring side it is flattering that I have moved from being called by your publication an armchair conservationist to being called an animal rights activist, to just an activist, and now lately a sentimentalist. You must admit that it demonstrates progress in reputation, and that we must be a threat to some. We are all activists to our own causes, even Peter Schneekluth, Prof HO de Waal and Petrus de Wet (NWGA) are activists for gin traps and lethal controls. We are proud to be activists to our cause, which is fully declared and without any hidden agenda, unlike those partaking in name calling. Some of those most vehemently objecting to our message are in fact profiteers of killing thousands of animals each year. They are making a living from killing our biodiversity, or wanting to train those wanting to do so, and it is thus understandable that they would object to our campaign. It is welcomed that people have agendas, they must just declare them. To suggest that the almost daily atrocities, most going hidden to the world, as isolated is being disingenuous. This is a constant refrain from the industry groups such as RPO and NWGA, and their paid advisors. We will continue to expose this hypocrisy and the atrocities of livestock farming to the world, and producers will have to decide whether such images and actions are worth linking with their products. We know what consumers will decide. We have in the space of 5 years collected literally thousands of images and events of this carnage across farms, and to suggest these events are isolated is dishonest and hiding the facts from the consumers. Amongst a network in which we operate, more than a decade's visual record have been kept of these atrocities, let me assure you that they are not isolated and are numerous, and will over time to brought into the public domain. We will constantly use these images to support our cause. Let us again reiterate that we are not anti-farmer. The contrary is the case. We are pro-conservation first and foremost, secondly we recognize that farmers own land and manage land, and as such are best placed to assist us in conservation or, as the case may be, ruin our conservation agenda. We support the former and we would happy become the agent identified with advocacy against the latter, and make absolutely no apology therefore. Yet we are also happy, where capacity allows, assisting those that wish to and do support our vision. It would thus be wrong of you to suggest that we are driven by placing farmers per se in a bad light. We are however intent on placing those, their products, and their agents that are intent on ruining our biodiversity in a very bad light as a means to educate consumers who ultimately either support a product or not. By your suggestion that we purposefully put farmers in a bad light, you suggest some malice on our side, we clearly deny this. It is more the actions of those not being able to answer the criticism we have generated on an industry that has operated with these production practices under the radar, and now that it is being exposed and who use name calling and misinformation to try to discredit us, that is damaging this sector. Be that as it may, we know there are many producers that do not partake in the unethical and ecologically ruinous practices, yet they and their produce are sullied by those that do. We believe this to be unfair. Our developing wildlife –friendly brand, Fair Game™, intends to reward those who are certified with it by better returns. Such blame of putting farmers in a bad light should be placed on people like Mr Petrus de Wet, Chairman of the National Woolgrowers Association who utters on international television programmes comments like: "fence your property and eliminate all predators on your property, that is the only 24/7 solution to this problem". Such position statements of the industry to the public are shocking, and dare I say revealing. The industry bodies who should lead these issues, are absent in their leadership, or are trying to defend indefensible practices. I feel these bodies have failed farmers badly, as those that look after biodiversity, and in so doing does so ethically, should be rewarded in gaining value-added premiums. Yet, we have a RPO CEO, Mr Gerhard Schutte, saying in public meetings that he will use his position to advocate against the establishment of a biodiversity-friendly meats and animal fiber brand, such a Fair Game™ that we are launching precisely to achieve this. Perhaps the 15 000 or so gin traps produced by Peter Schneekluth at his factory in Prince Albert each year and the farmers that buy them, and his poisons, together with the bizarre defense of these methods by the likes of the NWGA and RPO has alone placed farmers in a bad light, not us.
Predator ecology has a few very basic "rules" to it. Firstly predators want stability, as stability allows them to establish territory and dominance, as those aspects allows access and protection of food sources. It is generally the same for all predators. Most of our top predator species have been exterminated from agricultural landscapes, for example the last Cape Lion as shot out in 1858 in the Cape Colony in those days. (Humans are now largely the top predators and in some areas leopards, for example, have filled that void.) Another general "rule" is that food supply and competition for food amongst predators themselves control predator numbers in functioning ecosystems. Humans have demonstrated that they are hopeless at doing so – just look at the predator debate we are involved with! Another fact is that predators, especially caracal and jackal, are generally opportunists and should the dynamic stability be disturbed, the resultant void will be filled, usually by juveniles, outcasts or dispersal predator individuals. Nature does not tolerate voids. The removal of territorial and dominant animals from the ecosystem causes incalculable damage to the social structures and "stability" of predator populations. Juveniles, dispersal and outcast individuals occupy smaller areas in these voids, and thus result in far higher densities of predators, especially without territorial behavior being established. Thus, I hope it is clear that indiscriminate lethal controls actually result in massive increase in predator numbers and stress on their prey base. Furthermore, secondary predators, like jackal and caracal, are adapted to persecution, and the more stress placed on the species, it would appear, the more they respond by increasing their populations. Harrison-White's research indicates that jackals in persecuted areas demonstrate earlier breeding (less than 1 year as opposed to 2 – 3 years of age) and an almost doubling of the normal litter size. Predators seem to have a preference for their natural prey, thus in this stress and with increased and unstable predator numbers, it is logical that those farmers that put pressure on their predators would continue to suffer more livestock losses. The importance of protection and conservation of natural prey species should then also be self evident. There also appears to be no data to support the often voiced opinion in the agricultural sector that jackal and caracal have a livestock prey selection tendency. With these predators, being opportunists, it is vulnerability that plays an important part in prey selection, and thus the emphasis must be on livestock protection, not predator control. It is thus incorrect to say that we focus on only on leopards; we focus on the conservation of predation as an indicator of ecosystem health. It is clear to us that lethal controls have been the cause of the problems that the sector is sitting with. We facilitate our research through universities and collaborate with credible agents and experts in the field that is bringing much knowledge to this issue. What does make us different is that we are happy to speak out, where others may be coerced into submission. We have indeed been working in detail with and researching leopards for the last 5 years and have seen 29 killed in the Western region of the Eastern Cape alone – we suspect this to be less that 50% of the actual losses as a result of 'predator control methods" that occurred in this small area of the country. The species is under threat in this area. This problem is not isolated as some would suggest, but merely exposed there as we have focused on that area. The leopard's story and its fate are intricately woven into the debate of predators' controls on livestock farms. (For the record, we are following 13 GPS collared leopards and their interaction with livestock farmers, and other predators, inclusive of caracal and jackal.) The problem is that the controls exercised by the majority of farmers and so extensively and emotively defended by livestock production industry bodies are utterly indiscriminate. Thus you set your controls for jackal and caracal and everything else gets caught in them – even Peter Schneekluth admits that his traps catch one culprit animal for every 20 caught as by-catch. Dismissing this to a leopard or non-leopard debate misses the point altogether. In the more than 30 years of data we scrutinized of the Oranje Jag (organized hunting in the Free State) more that 65 000 Cape Foxes (only the known data) have been known to be wiped out, and this is not even a culprit animal! It will become extinct at this rate. Leopards are the charismatic species that has become the "poster boy" for all the associated animals that are being wiped out by the production practices we oppose. We will continue to exploit its public allure for this cause. Our work has spanned leopard, caracal, jackal and even hyena areas. We have assessed the impacts on these areas, done case studies on conversion to non-lethal controls (and demonstrated their dramatic efficacy), and are doing large prospective trials on two areas, one with predominantly caracal problems, and another with predominantly jackal problems. We are continuing with our leopard meta-population studies.
Yes, practical and profitable. It shifts the focus from controlling predators to protecting your livestock. It uses the ecology of predation, as well as the social behaviors of the animals, to good effect by allowing territoriality and dominance to be established by predators, and through livestock protection to keep the livestock away or protected from predators. It is simple, but requires active management. It brings intensive farming practices back into extensive stock framing scenarios. There are various methods that can be used alone, in combination and alternately. It must be a dynamic application and requires a bit of effort that has been demonstrated to deliver financial rewards. On 12 trial farms the benefits have delivered increased revenues of between R70 000 to R170 000 per farm per year. The methods we promote are active management methods (prefereably in combination):
We are not fixated with Anatolian dogs as a "breed", but are more in favor of supporting livestock guarding dogs – there are many such dogs, many of which are cross breeds. They work brilliantly but have to be appropriately selected, trained and managed. You only have to look at many badly trained house dogs to realize that bad behavior is often not the dog's fault, but that of the owners. Where dogs are appropriately managed and, equally importantly, selected and trained we have seen improvements of around 90% reduction in livestock losses due to predation. We have seen large farms (5000 livestock) operating with up to 8 dogs at a time. They work particularly well against jackal and in combination with livestock collars and bells, and with certain stock rotation methods. That they work well is not in doubt. That some people cannot work with dogs and should not own dogs is just as clear. Livestock guarding dogs that kill wildlife are failed livestock dogs, and should be removed. This reflects bad dog trait selection and training. You are to select attentive, alert, and protective traits, not the chase, bite-kill traits. The problem rests with many "breeders" emerging who have no idea of training these dogs or their desired trait selections. The training must start with the mother dog at about 3 – 4 weeks of age, as the smell and auditory bonding senses are almost fully developed by 7 to 9 weeks, when most of the dogs are moved out to farms, this is when the boat is missed already, and thus the very high failure rates. The issue that you raise is actually a mischief making issue driven by "professional" hunters who wish to continue dog hunting who are trying to equate their killer dogs with that of guard dogs as a "tit for tat" attempt to get them banned if their hunting dogs are banned. It is indeed a curious debate driven by ignorance of the workings of these dogs (even amongst organizations such as the Nama Karoo Foundation), and misinformation by those with undeclared agendas. They have saved many people much money and have proven successful. Knowledge is the key, besides, all dog hunting is illegal anyhow in this country presently, yet it is widely practiced on South African farms. What is the rational behind your standpoint that consumers should "vote with their wallets" in terms of predator control. How will this impact, in your opinion, on commercial red meat production? Is it fair on the farmers? It is our belief that consumers will increasingly vote with their wallets against unacceptable production practices. Do I need to remind you of the impact of the mulesing debate in Australia and what it did to Australian wool exports? Gin traps, poisons, hunting dogs and denning (together with the emerging helicopter hunts) will have a similar impact against our export and fashion related products, such as wool and mohair, and locally, meats. These industries can ill afford to be associated with these practices. The way the production bodies have responded to this issue unfortunately steers the entire industry down this abyss, it is utterly unfair to those ethical producers and dare I say more successful farmers. The industry will change, willingly or not. It is unfair on a silent and sizeable proportion of producers who are ethically responsible, but are being dragged down by vociferous groups and resistant colleagues who intend to continue on this discredited path.
No, not at all! Caracal and jackal have saved themselves as species a long time ago, thanks to lethal predator control practices. Agricultural practices and ignorance of the ecology of these animals have "bred" these super-predators. They have evolved over thousands of years to adapt to persecution; they are exercising that option at present with the total onslaught practiced by many farmers. Say what they may, the RPOs and NWGAs of this world cannot fight against those genes. What these lethal control methods have done is made the stock farmer an endangered species, it is they who must be saved, and we believe our methods are the way to do it. As said earlier, paradigms don't shift easily. We are fighting for the farmer, as much as the treasured biodiversity. The debate is not about protecting caracal and jackal, but about ecosystem functioning. And the "shotgun" kill-all strategies advocated by the Chairman of the NWGA, Mr Petrus de Wet on national television on 21 June 2009, has massive negative knock-on effects on a multitude of other species. I am sure you would understand that this kind of position statement from an industry body may result in public revulsion. That is the issue against indiscriminate controls such as gin traps (or whatever newspeak term you wish to apply to these cruel tools), poisons, hunting dogs, denning, helicopter hunting etc. The methods are indiscriminate, and unethical, and they have widespread and devastating impact on biodiversity, never mind being ineffective. Some of the latest research by Harrison-White has clearly indicated that territorial jackal and caracal keep non-territorial animals not belonging to the same family groups, and/or dispersal animals out of their territories, and this occurs even in the presence of excess food supply during lambing. It is also evident from this research that territorial animals cause a dramatic reduction of reproduction of subordinate and non-territorial animals. The best way to encourage a decrease in jackal and caracal numbers is to have stable and established family groups in areas. Controls should focus on livestock protection, and only as a last resort to ethically remove a damage-causing individual, as the resultant disturbance may yet cause more damage.
The simple difference is that predation is a natural process, and the use of the barbaric tools of production that we advocate against is acts of financial expediency. There is a vast difference therein. Further too, we do not believe predators act with malice or a profit motive. Many predatory processes in nature may appear vicious, but they are natural processes. Are you suggesting that predators be exterminated because of human emotions to their natural behavior? I hope you can understand that we cannot comprehend this logic. "The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creatures that cannot." (Mark Twain) This is a question often raised. Livestock are important to the farmer economically and in some cases emotionally, in which case YES, they do deserve protection. The biology of livestock offers little protection and they lack defenses from indigenous predators. Therefore, protective collars, guarding animals and other deterants will offer more protection from predators than lethal control means.
There are several illogical associations in this argument. What has the predator debate have to do with the issue of protein production? If non-lethal controls which we advocate leads to better production, that is, more produce to market, then perhaps you should direct this question at the lethal control lobby and not at us, as it is their practices that results in reduced protein production, not our methods. What correlation does protein production have on socio-economic benefits? Please provide the correlation thereto. This loose association in the discussions is indeed curious as to their origins and associations. It seems more to be associated with cheap political shots than proven cause and effects. Frankly if your concerns are around socio-economic benefits it would be more appropriate to promote and employ the use of shepherds as predator controls, as is done in sophisticated societies such a Switzerland, and thus promote employment and economic development thereby. The skill and practice of shepherding has been largely lost in this country, and I have no doubt the resistance against this suggestion is driven by an undeclared political agenda thereto from some in the agricultural sector. Shepherding, through a national shepherding body, would easily resolve the problem of predator losses on farms across this country, and at the same time promote job and skills creation. Attempts at getting support for such a movement, perhaps funded through the state Extended Public Works Programme (Poverty Relief), and perhaps driven by one of the industry bodies, has been met with a stony silence. Therein lays an opportunity to solve the predation problem and to contribute to socio-economic development, not in unfounded and aberrant notions that non-lethal controls somehow jeopardize food security. I dispute that South Africa has protein shortage anyway, please provide the verifiable proof thereof. Lamb and meats are premier products, as are wools and mohair. Lamb often cost between R50 – R90 per kilogram in the shops, this has no bearing on the plight of the nutritional status of the poor, and certainly linking the use of barbaric tools of production to this debate smacks of illogical desperation for political relevance. Please provide for me the verifiable evidence that the promotion of non-lethal controls in any way has bearing to protein intake and malnutrition of any portion of the population, we contend that such notions are gobbledygook.
What is true is that this is not a popularity contest, and that people feel uncomfortable with the issues being brought into the open after decades of it being an underground issue. We work happily with those that choose to benefit from the methods we promote, and we will continue to do so. We cannot help those that do not like the debate and resort to anger and abuse, or are unwilling to engage the inevitable change that will come to this market. It is also regrettable that when you belong to different sides of the ethical divide and one remains principled that you are described as antagonistic and aggressive. We just see the world differently, and hold true to our principles. We remain forthright in our opposition to methods that are ethically unacceptable, ecologically ruinous, and do not make financial sense. It is important that people do not confuse the debate on ethics with their emotions related with the debate. If ethics, ecology and the rationale behind these aspects of the debate cannot convince people that it is in their best interests to support non-lethal and ethical predator management on farms, we have no doubt that the economy will force them to change. If our message is unpalatable in this regards we are sorry for hurt feelings, but we will without fear or favor continue to drive the ethical, ecological and market debate.
We have conducted work and research with the Rhodes and now Oxford Universities. A recent thesis was peer reviewed and graduated with distinction. Our data is rigorous and fully subject to peer review. If people question the research credentials of two of the world's top universities, then I am afraid I cannot help them. We currently also have a further PhD underway and will shortly have a second PhD commencing at a third university. All our research is done by researchers who are independently supervised by the universities where they register and unhindered by us, and all scientific methods, analysis and interpretations are peer reviewed. Thus the claims of unscientific methods and subjectivity are rejected with contempt. All of our research is peer reviewed by independent reviewers at an international level.
We have no opinion on the quality his research, as most of the publications attributed to Professor de Waal deal with livestock nutrition and mineral assessments, and bare little relevance to the work we do. No actual ecological research, particularly on black backed jackal, could to our knowledge be attributed to the professor. As with any professor, there is an assumption of peer respect and credibility as a researcher, we afford him such. We are told that the Professor is currently doing telephone interviews to get data on the scope of predator damage on farms. As yet we have seen no peer reviewed publication of the results of this research. We however hear all sorts of figures from industry bodies quoting amounts ranging from R1.1 billion to R1.4 billion due to losses from predation, mostly in support of the continuation of and the escalation of lethal predator controls. Such research findings are attributed to Professor de Waal's research. We have been unable to get the peer reviewed publication of this information, despite requests from those quoting the outcomes of this research. We are awaiting its publication with anticipation. All we do know is that reportedly telephone interviews are being used as a means of data collection. It is generally accepted that such methods and its data is a highly problematic research methodology, subject to much doubt on its veracity and repeatability. This concern is especially so as the results are being reported widely in this case (even in your publication) while the research is still underway amidst emotive debates, and this before peer review is available of the methods, results and conclusions. In our view this is a problematic method of conducting research. We are aware that Professor de Waal is contracted with industry bodies such as the National Woolgrowers and the RPO, and he has also in the past indicated that he is a special advisor to the Mohair industry also. He is reported to be scientific advisor to the National Problem Animal Policy Committee and other such forums, which as you know, is an exclusive lobby group of the production industry groups. As such, Professor de Waal is associated with groupings that promote the use of methods we believe are ethically compromised, ecologically ruinous and not effective, as such we have strongly differing views to those promoted by the professor and his associates. Inclusive of (Farmers' Weekly, 3 July 2009) his call for more lethal control experts to be trained and employed, and the continuation of methods we advocate against. Such sentiments fly in the face of our strategies, the data that guides us and the logic we apply.
The common ground should be about the production of ethical produce and its brands development, which includes the ethical care of animals (wild and domestic) and the ethical care of our biodiversity and people. At this stage there is a wide ethical divide between us and some industry groups, however we will work with the many producers, and any industry players who have seen and understand this new direction. We will support them in production and through market mechanisms where we can. Sadly we have only seen obstruction from industry bodies, despite repeated approaches for more conciliatory collaboration, but we will continue on our declared approach, without fear or favor, and we will endure. We welcome any change of heart from any parties willing to collaborate and bury the hatchet, but our principles are not up for negotiation.
The Landmark Foundation is a conservation and sustainable development NGO. We strive to build the conservation economy so that Southern Africa's natural landscapes can effectively be conserved. We recognise that the intact natural landscapes of Southern Africa region are under threat from irresponsible human activities. These landscapes are now amongst our most treasured landmarks. The threats to these places are the result of land-uses that have degraded the aesthetic value of the areas and the biodiversity patterns and processes contained in them, and in most cases for short-term financial gain. What is required is a landmark change of thinking and behaviour, whereby biodiversity and landscape conservation provides investment returns and benefits to people, that in turn creates incentives for its conservation. The Landmark Foundation strives to build the conservation economy so that these landscapes can effectively be conserved. We work in tourism development, renewable energy, recycling, protected area development, species conservation, and focus on local economic development as it relates to conservation. The Landmark Foundation registered as a Charitable Trust, as a Not-for-Profit Organisation, and as a tax exempted charitable entity. The NGO is audited annually and is governed by a Board of Trustees. We see the environment in general and the greater public good as our constituency as governed by our founding documents and mission. We have worked with and engaged all sectors of the supply and value chain with respect to this debate, inclusive of government, civil society bodies and private sector entities. We have been directly supported by two of the major retail groups and major corporations. We have the support of ethical producers and many donors, and additionally large amounts of money for our efforts come from our own pockets. | |
| Issued by: Dr Bool Smuts, Director Landmark Foundation bool@landmarkfoundation.org.za | www.landmarkfoundation.org.za | +27 (0)83 324 3344 unsubscribe Having trouble unsubscribing? Please contact us directly and we will manually remove you from our records |
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.20/2249 - Release Date: 07/19/09 17:59:00
No comments:
Post a Comment