Ethically Hunting a Leopard Unethically

Collecting trophies, friends and enemies in the process
by Pierre van der Walt 

Their’s not to make reply, Their’s not to reason why, Their’s but to do and die: Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred... Cannon to the right of them, Cannon to the left of them, Cannon in front of them Volley’d and thunder’d; Storm’d at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell...

These words written by Alfred, Lord Tennyson in 1864 to immortalize the Charge of the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava on 25 October 1854, were the first to jump to mind when I was instructed to write this article. I bucked this way and feinted that way, but there was just no way that Richard was going to permit me to “Come thro’ the jaws of Death, Back from the mouth of Hell” on this one.

Leopard hunting is controversial. Do it one way – some people are going to jump on your back. Do it another way, and others will jump. Rest assured – even if you do not hunt leopard you will make enemies! What goes where on the southern African leopard-hunting scene?

Botswana

In Botswana, the law states that you may only hunt leopard from sunrise to sunset, with a bit of common sense leeway either way – thirty minutes. Presently, the use of dogs is not permitted in Botswana – even if the animal is wounded. Prior to about 1990-1991, baiting was not permitted, but according to Bob Rokos, it currently is. 

Strict rules govern baiting: three per concession and there are height restrictions.

I discussed leopard hunting in Botswana with the famous Gordon Cundill. He told me a few amusing tales dating back to the days when he was still active in Botswana, when baiting was not permitted and leopard had to be tracked. This worked well in the southern Kalahari Sandveld when they pursued desert leopard, but logic has always defied the tracking of leopard along the watercourses of northern Botswana. Tracking therefore resulted in virtually no hunting results in those parts, regardless of the time and effort expended. According to Cundill, and Bob Rokos confirmed this, they never achieved success by tracking leopard in northern Botswana. 

Common sense then prevailed, and now controlled baiting is currently permitted in Botswana, and is practiced in the northern parts of that country in particular. Bob Rokos explained that, as is the case with all animals, permits are required for leopard, plus an official from the Department of Wildlife has to accompany the hunting party during the hunt. 

The impression I gained was that a good working relationship existed between the outfitters and officialdom, and that law enforcement was aimed more at achieving the desired conservation results in pursuance of the spirit of the law, rather than senseless blind adherence to the letter of the law – within limits. 

Bob estimated that he was successful with baiting around 65% of the time, whereas human tracking, which is generally considered the most ethical way of hunting leopard, resulted in a success rate around 90% of desert leopard. That may be an eye-opener for many ethics philosophers, but should not be accepted as the norm in most southern African habitats. The Kalahari Sandveld is different from most of South Africa and Zimbabwe.

We all ascribe mystical powers of tracking to the Bushman, and in the Kalahari Sandveld, tracking is a quite feasible method, but even so, Bushmen are human and tracks can be lost, although it does not often happen. Bob did not claim a preference for any specific kind of leopard hunting, but he was very enthusiastic about the tracking of leopards in the Kalahari Sandveld. According to him, you normally find the leopard around noon. If it has eaten, its full stomach makes it lazy and you catch up with it in reasonable time.

Hungry leopards tend to go further than well-fed ones, before they make a stand. As the leopard is pushed further and further by human pursuers, and as its escape circle is continually invaded, it becomes increasingly angry, up to the point where it is either tired enough or infuriated enough to make a stand, thus permitting its pursuers to enter its attack circle. This invariably results in a charge, often granting the hunter very little reaction time, and a number of Bushman trackers have been hurt in such situations. It obviously is a very exciting form of hunting – especially if it results in a charge.

When discussing ethics, I believe few people fully consider the potential downside of humans tracking leopards, which Bob pointed out to me. As the leopard finds itself subjected to human pursuit, it keeps fleeing when its escape circle is penetrated. It uses its energy to evade its pursuers, and if the hunt becomes a protracted one, it becomes exhausted, with a probable drop in blood-sugar levels. This lengthy, non-stop pursuit eventually leaves the leopard weak and vulnerable. If at this point its spoor is lost by its hunters, the chances of its survival are not improved. It is a well-known fact that you can push game long enough and hard enough for them to die from what we will refer to here as exhaustion. Bob does not claim that the leopard will necessarily die, but he feels that the risk of its dying has been introduced into the equation – in this condition it cannot defend itself against attack from other animals as well as when rested, or it may simply be over-exhausted. 

Generally this does not appear to be the case, but anybody on the ethics bandwagon should be very careful before he identifies this method as the one-and-only, most-ethical-to-be-prescribed form of leopard hunting. Clearly the Botswana wildlife authorities have realized this some time ago, and have accepted baiting as an alternative. 

South Africa

In South Africa there are nine provinces – each dealing with hunting the way it sees fit. In its northern provinces (the old Transvaal region) leopards may not be hunted without a permit, except by a landowner and in the vicinity of a carcass. When a permit is issued for the hunting of a leopard it may be hunted at night using artificial light and bait. Dogs may not be used unless it is a problem animal and the permit approves of such hunting, or, once it is wounded. Actually, some Ordinances can be interpreted to mean that dogs may be used if the permit is so issued, but no amount of requests by pro-dog hunters have apparently been able to solicit a response as to which criteria would apply. 

Former Mpumalanga Parks Board official, David Sutherland, currently of the Sutherland Hunting Academy, was my next victim. Confronted with Botswana’s rules David conceded that there was no way that a leopard in the Okavango could be hunted and killed by tracking in daylight. Since he favored baiting, David had no problem with the current situation in Botswana. 

His response to my question as to whether he thought it was right to engage in the purest form of fair chase, and track-push a leopard to the point of utter exhaustion, he responded: “Traditionally, leopard are baited.” 

David explained that it is easy to hunt a leopard in daylight in areas such as the Sabi Sands – even without tracking, but said that “Lydenburg leopards have Master’s Degrees in Hunter Evasion. They are a 100% nocturnal, stick to rocky and densely vegetated ravines with their countless dark crevices and little caves, and harbor a paranoid fear of poison, dogs and human beings. From the day they are born they are taught to be on the edge and how to not be caught with their pants down.” 

South Africans will understand him when he said: “I will personally lick any human being until he shines, who can track a leopard down in the mountains around Lydenburg and shoot it in daylight. Man has been doing his damnedest by any ethical or unethical means conceivable to eradicate leopards in that region since the day the first Voortrekkers arrived there, yet that is an area where the most problems are still experienced with leopards. Let me tell you now. One day, when Man is extinct, there will be leopards in those mountains.” 

Leopard baiting is a science. That is no maybe. There are hunters out there who can think like a leopard and prepare hard-to-resist baits, resulting in good success rates. David feels that baiting evens the contest. One does not necessarily succeed with a well-laid bait, but you definitely will not succeed with a poorly-laid one. If the leopard picks up human scent, if it is a wise one it will never return to that bait. The trick is not only to place the bait attractively, but to avoid scents and sounds that will scare the cat off. That is easier said than done.

On the ethical issue of baiting, it is each man for himself. Look at the success rates offered by the supporters of the various methods. But also bear in mind that we are probably not comparing apples with apples as well as we would like to, because of differences in habitat, historic pressure on the animals, etc. 

As I progressed through this exercise I began to wonder whether murder in the Amazon actually is the same as murder in Manhattan. 

The main objections to dog hunting revolve on the issue that leopards have no chance once the dogs have found the spoor. Barry York, one of the greatest lobbyists for leopard hunting with dogs, disagrees. He points out that dogs cannot follow the scent in dry conditions, and the leopard escapes when it moves onto dry areas or during dry periods. Most of southern Africa is very dry. The other aspect he mentions is that the leopard chooses the terrain of confrontation. It can move into dense bush or a cave and then the hunter must have the resolve and the courage to go and meet the leopard face to face on the leopard’s terms. 

He dismisses the argument that the dogs protect the hunter, and invites those who claim it to be the case to engage in this kind of hunting and see for themselves. Barry asked a very pointed question: “Why is the safety of the hunter an issue when dogs are used, but not when baiting is engaged in?” 

There are also other matters confusing the issue. It is generally considered unethical for a hunter to ambush an animal, say a kudu at a water hole, and in many instances there are only one or two water holes on some of the smaller fenced-in farms in South Africa. The pro-dog hunters ask how it can then be ethical to bait a leopard in the area where you have established its presence, and ambush it from a hide over bait, while frowning upon catching a kudu at the water hole? 

What irks Barry most is the philosophical inconsistency when hunters bungle a night shot on leopard over bait. Most hunters would pass up a shot at last light, due to their inability to follow the spoor in the dark, and the distinct possibility of the cat having to suffer throughout the entire night before it can perhaps be dispatched – if predators have not stepped in the mean time. How does this principle apply to the wounding of a leopard at night, bearing in mind that shots often are hurried? 

Barry is often the one called upon to provide his highly-trained dogs to sort out the problem of a wounded leopard, becoming the one who has to face an extremely dangerous situation, while the people who messed up in the first place may or may not have the expertise to resolve the situation equally effectively. Barry says that while his success on wounded leopard is virtually 100%, even his highly trained dogs only achieve success about 85% of the time on untouched leopard. Lesser-trained dogs have a zero success rate. Compare this to the success rate on desert leopard in Botswana. 

Barry told me about a recent incident where a herdsman had been mauled by a leopard. The provincial Department of Nature Conservation approached Barry to assist with his dogs in finding this unwounded feline hazard. Barry obliged and spent ten days in search of the animal, without success. So much for the concern about leopard having no chance when dogs are used. There is some irony for Barry both in the failure and in having been requested to assist with dogs.

It makes you think.

Barry asks: “How can I continue providing a quality cleaning-up service if I am not permitted to hunt leopards with dogs to keep my pack at its peak? What is going to happen to wounded leopards, livestock and people, if the likes of me cannot provide this service any longer? Rather than use dogs, is it better to let a wounded leopard, hunted over bait at night, turn its focus on domestic prey if it even survives, or let it suffer for days and die in agony while we argue about methodology? Is it better to trap and execute problem leopards, rather than hunt them with dogs? 

Barry concedes that it is possible to exert excessive pressure on leopard populations using dogs, but that, he claims, is true for all forms of hunting and all species of game, and is easily resolved through proper management, profit and logic. No dog hunter or farmer would destroy his own business by exterminating leopards... hunting can be structured and financially feasible. 

He further points out that Working Group 1 of the DEAT approved a White Paper on National Principles, Norms and Standards for the Sustainable use of Large Predators in South Africa. In terms of this White Paper, no large predators may be hunted if human-imprinted, lured by sound, scent, visual stimuli, feeding, baiting, the use of other animals, or any other method, because they are then considered canned. No dogs may be used except when the predator has been wounded and needs to be tracked. No such predator may be hunted while under influence of drugs, or at night. The making of rules regarding the hunting of leopards is delegated to the various provincial conservation authorities. Barry feels that this White Paper contrasts with what is actually happening on the ground and the inclusion of baiting may come as a shock to many active leopard hunters! 

Namibia

In Namibia the situation seems both clear-cut and vague. According to the President of the Namibia Chapter of SCI, Pieter Stoffberg, leopard, as a member of the Big Five, may only be hunted by professional hunters, with a special qualification. Even so, normal professional hunters lacking the special qualification are granted leopard hunting permits (correctly so) in terms of specific legal provisions. 

Leopard may be baited in Namibia, but may not be lured with sound or tracked with dogs under any circumstances, and no artificial light may ever be used. This seems very similar to the situation in Botswana, and given the geography of the two countries, actually goes a long way in guiding one to understanding the southern African idiosyncrasies. One piece of Namibian legislation apparently prohibits hunting from half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise, while another permits night hunting provided no artificial light is used. That means that leopard can be hunted under a full moon or with night vision equipment in terms of this legislation. How the conflict is handled on the ground I am not entirely sure, as my deadline did not permit me the time to really come to grips with this. 

In effect it seems that leopard hunting in Namibia is also not entirely different from South Africa, except that artificial light is prohibited and dogs may not be used under any circumstances. The question then arises whether it is a good idea to prohibit the use of artificial light and force hunters to risk poor shots using moonlight. There are some fantastic night vision equipment and telescopes on the market today, and in some instances I wonder whether the hunter is not better off using something like a Hakko NV-2510 rather than artificial light. Point is, the prohibition against artificial light is not only circumventable, but is probably being circumvented.

Zimbabwe

In Zimbabwe, a distinction is drawn between government land and private land. Zimbabweans can apparently shoot a leopard on private land with the permission of the landowner any which way they like to, be it with dogs, over bait, with artificial light and any time of the day or night. According to my information, artificial light may not be used on government land. This distinction may not make sense to many people, but apparently relates to the fact that leopard on private land pose a threat to domesticated livestock, while on government land it mostly is not the case. 

Irrespective of the hunting method preferred from an ethical perspective, no true hunter would ever condone the wanton killing of leopard, but when we dwell on the issue of ethics and common sense, the question cannot but be raised whether there is any truly ethical distinction that can be drawn between hunting on government land as opposed to that on private land. In many instances, private land is occupied by the wealthy, while government land is occupied by the poorest of the poor. Losing five calves may be a blow to the wealthy, but losing a chicken may be devastating to the poor. 

Craig Hunt, who provided me with information on the Zimbabwean situation favors baiting over all other forms of leopard hunting. He did remark that the use of dogs culminated in success about 85% of the time on flat land and during dry conditions, whereas the dog hunters struggled considerably more in kopjes and hilly areas. Compare that with success levels over bait in Botswana. Let us then revert to philosophical consistency and judge that against what we are actually trying to achieve. 

Summary

The white rhino was turned from the brink of extinction through hunting success, not hunting failure. Like elephant, leopard is not endangered in the region under discussion. What is more important – the hypocritical fight amongst ourselves about exactly how we shoot leopard to the satisfaction of distant friends and enemies, or the fight to ensure that every animal on this continent is treasured as a valuable asset by all stakeholders? The properly-managed sustainable utilization of these assets should benefit us all, but foremost the people on the ground with the leopard.

I am posing questions, not presenting answers, as I do not profess to have them. From the rhino perspective, should we moralize to reduce hunting success or should we moralize to improve hunting success? Looking at elephant, should we moralize to complicate hunting success and number reduction, or should we take a different stance? 

From another angle: What should be the predominant consideration – the hunting style and morality, or the collective well-being of the soil, the condition of the vegetation upon it and the entire spectrum of species that can be sustained upon that soil? Geography can have a distinct influence on what constitutes proper or realistic hunting success, and even ethics. Ethics is the one thing I think we should accept that we will never all agree upon.

On the basis of that, I wonder what is truly moral and what will serve nature best – a high-handed, rigid, hunting “morality” condemning different perspectives, which is maintained indefinitely irrespective of the condition of the soil, the plants and animal numbers, in order to appease our enemies and different-thinking hunters, or an accepting “immorality” adapted to facilitate a lightning response to changes in fauna and flora irrespective of popular emotional perception. 

I doubt very strongly if the latter approach will change my personal ethics, because it does not preclude me from doing things the way I want to, or what I consider right and proper for me. It does not prevent me from pursuing the goal of becoming a better hunter while I handicap myself more and more in the way I can remain proud of myself. The rigid approach has not stopped others from doing it their way, how I would not like to, but the rigid approach has divided us without any benefit I can think of. 

“Divide and rule,” they say, and in this regard I refer readers to Appendix 1 to Ron Thomson’s latest book A Game Warden’s Report, where Jim Beers relates exactly this objective of the animal rightists as expressed at the 2001 Animal Rights Conference held in McLean, Virginia. I am not saying that we should not take stances. I am saying that we should not play into enemy hands. 

If you want to hunt leopard in a way that will not offend anybody, make peace with the fact that you will never hunt a leopard. If nobody hunts leopard for fear of offending somebody somewhere, we will do leopards a disservice and we will create another elephant-type problem. 

“Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t,” Bob Rokos says.

I was taught that the best way to lose a battle was to think like everybody had been conditioned to think, and thus think in a way your enemy will expect you to. The second best way to lose is to fail to adapt to the situation as it flows, either timeously or at all. Can we afford to approach nature differently? Ron Thomson refers to this as the difference between first-order thinking (restrained and conditioned,) as opposed to second-order (unrestrained and lateral) thinking. 

To solve Africa’s conservation problems he suggests we break away from first-order Western and colonial thinking. Now there’s a thought for the different leopard-hunting ethics supporters! 

A Game Warden’s Report
by Ron Thomson

Available from Magron Publishers
PO Box 733, Hartbeespoort, 0216, South Africa
Tel: +27 (12) 253-0521
Price of R300.00 is charged in SA Rand (±US$ 46.00) plus shipping.

Subscribe NOW to receive more exciting stories like this, plus many other articles of interest to hunters, every month in The African Sporting Gazette. 

South Africa (Head Office)
     African Sporting Gazette
     PO Box 3355, Rivonia, 2128, South Africa
     Tel: + 27 11 803-2040  Fax: +27 11 8003-2022
     email: subs@africansportinggazette.co.za

USA
     African Sporting Gazette
     c/o CSM, 1700 Tenth Ave. Plano, TX 75074
     Tel: +1 972 424-1466  Fax: +1 972 423-8211
     email: info@csmtx.com

United Kingdom
     African Sporting Gazette c/o GB&W Safaris,
     New Barn Farm, Water Lane, Albury,
     Nr. Guildford, Surrey, GU5 9BD
     Tel: + 44 1483 20090  Fax: + 44 1483 203854
     Cell: + 44 7976 689024
     email: gbwsafaris@btinternet.com

hosted and maintained by www.access-interactive.net