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”? 

Source: GO Media - Written by Rhishja Larson - Image from Flikr user smilykt