Yesterday’s decision [Thursday 27th November 2015] by Justice Francis Legodi to lift the six year moratorium on the internal sale of rhino horn in South Africa has placed me in a dilemma. I am totally conflicted. Tellingly the ban on the sale of rhino horn in terms of CITES has not produced the intended result. Instead the killing of rhinos for their horns has increased explosively. A growing chorus of dissension against this ban especially from legitimate rhino owners and breeders in South African has ultimately resulted in this court case. How can the rhino be saved from this scourge especially in the light of the fact that the cost of protecting the remaining animals is too prohibitive?
Some suggestions are considered
Main picture: For how much longer will this be seen?
According to John Hume, the largest private owner of rhino in the world owning in excess of 1100 animals & wild life rancher Johan Kruger, they claim that they can no longer afford the cost of security to protect their animals. Already Mr Hume has lost 37 rhinos to poachers. Hence their application to the court to lift the moratorium. They claim that there is sufficient domestic demand to support their continued existence through legitimate local sales.
John Hume with part of his huge herd of rhinos
In my belief this assertion falls under the rubric of wishful thinking! Maybe in the case of unfettered unregulated sales would this happen as the demand would in effect be satisfying overseas and not local demand. To forestall this from happening, the Department of Environmental Affairs has already categorically stated that such sales would only be permitted in terms of a permit to legitimate local users only.
Knowing South Africa, I would go out on a limb and proclaim that unless a whole raft of measures were enacted to prevent the siphoning off of horns to the illegal trade, these sales would be laundered through the existing illegal channels to the existing market – the Far East.
I would like to recount my experience last year whilst hiking through the Kruger National Park. We questioned the Rangers whether they knew who the perpetrators were. Tellingly the guards admitted without being put under duress, that some of the culprits were fellow Rangers. It did cross my mind that perhaps even some of our mild mannered unassuming obsequious protectors could be providing information to the kingpins in this baleful chain.
At one extreme, should South Africa not recognise the inevitable and discard the feeble, worthless but oft-repeated mantra, “Save the rhino” and let the rhino be shot out? How can good intentions alone without rigorous enforcement prevent the continued massacre of the beloved rhinos? If this were the long-eared Amazonian killer toad that was on the brink of extinction would there be this level of concern? The rhino is a member of the mega-fauna and hence deemed more worthy of saving. From a cynical perspective, I consider most of the pious statements in support of the anti-poaching campaign the mere assuaging of that person’s conscience. No more, no less!
What is the outlook for the rhino on other African countries? With the lack of finances, it is dire in the extreme. My conjecture is that by 2025, the rhino will be extinct in the rest of Africa. Without significant government support, the rhino’s demise in South Africa will follow within another decade.
What about relocation? Within Africa this is not a viable solution. Perhaps establishing a huge park in the USA would be feasible. With its immense resources, a sustainable herd of say 3000 animals would prevent the rhino’s extinction.
None of the hi-tech – read costly – solutions will have any meaningful impact. Apart from its impracticability, dehorning the rhino population would prevent the rhino from being a rhino. Inserting tracking device in rhinos or dying their horns all fall into this category.
Other proposed solutions are the use of drones monitoring rhino herds on a 24/7 basis and the stationing of armed guards beside all rhino herds.
Hence we need to exercise caution when proposing solutions. Most fall into the category of “too costly” or alternatively “too impracticable.”
There is another solution. I will paraphrase the flippant comment by my running friend Nigel, “Apparently it is illegal to kill either the illicit users or the poachers.” It is another of those solutions which can be effective but are impracticable, or in this, definitely illegal.
Instead I propose an alternative solution which will surely also be mired in controversy but possesses the real possibility of finally removing this scourge once and for all time.
As the horn comprises nothing more than keratin, the same substance in human nails, why not develop a manufacturing process to produce horns on an industrial scale in a manner which makes them totally indistinguishable from naturally grown horn.
Then, after revoking the CITES ban, flood the world market with artificial rhino horn.
Prices would plummet. In all likelihood, demand would paradoxically shrink, as it would no longer be a sought after product, and the rhino herds would again flourish.
Talk about killing two problems with one solution.
Product of the rhino horn
Will this alternatively be seriously entertained let alone implemented?
No! Never!
If so, let me bid the rhino a premature adieu.
The eulogy should include the fact that man’s greed and lack of determination to eliminate poaching, placed the rhino on the path of extinction.
Adieu.