An open submission to Minister Creecy (DEFF), and to other government ministers, on the subject:
“Animal Rightists, and sensation-seeking journalists, are bringing our wildlife world to the brink of anarchy.”
HOW MANY TV OR RADIO REPORTS, and/or newspaper headlines, have you seen or heard recently that state: The ‘general public’, or ‘the people’, don’t support the barbaric practice of trophy hunting (or whatever).
The ‘public’ or the ‘people’, of course, are never identified; and that is because, in many cases, they do not exist. In fact, statements like this are fabrications conjured up in the minds of irresponsible journalists for the sole purpose of catching the public’s attention.
Such headlines are then followed by a diatribe of fake news put together by some smarmy journalist with a predilection for sensation-seeking reporting. The perpetrators – the journalists who make these statements – are animal rightists in their own right. In other words, they have negative personal preference opinions about hunting and the sustainable use of wildlife, and they are never hauled over the coals by their editors who are probably of the same ilk.
Indeed, it seems that many of these editors couldn’t care a damn if what their journalists report is true or false. All that matters to them, it seems, is that the stories – as they are written – sell newspapers.
These journalists, who are thus directly implicated in animal rights fraud and racketeering – by reasons of the nature of their reporting – are never charged with any crime even though they have contributed to the animal rightists’ money-making scams. And, if the truth be known, many of them have no idea that they have actually contributed to the campaign success of an organised crime ring. Indeed, many of them think such a suggestion is a big joke. But it is not! It is a very serious matter that affects the safety and proper management of South Africa’s wildlife heritage, of South Africa’s wildlife industry, and the livelihoods of a great many South Africans of all races, colours and creeds.
The reality of the first lie that appears in the animal rights propaganda, starts the ball rolling. Once the authors have convinced their gullible public that trophy hunting (for example; or any other vulnerable wildlife management subject) is a “BAD” thing – they solicit moneys from them (the public) under all kinds of false pretences. The first pretence is that trophy hunting (or whatever) forces wild animal species into extinction. Another is that it is illegal to make money out of wildlife (which, in South Africa, is not true). And they advise their ‘marks’ (their victims) that, with adequate donation funding, they will be able to outlaw the practice of trophy hunting (etc). And the people in the big cities of the world – whose urban living circumstances have completely divorced them from nature; and who, thus, don’t know any better – loosen their purse strings and donate money, and more money, towards what they have been told is “a good cause”.
The legal interpretation of this practice is, however, that when the first lie brings in the first penny, that action constitutes ‘common fraud’ (making money out of a purposeful falsehood). When that same lie is told a second time – and many ‘good news-worthy lies’ get told thousands of times! – the fraud becomes a ‘racket’; and racketeering, according to the American RICO Act (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act), represents ‘organised crime’. Most of the big Animal Rights Organisations in the big cities of the Western World, therefore, fall into this category of criminality. And many of them make hundreds of millions of US dollars every year, by duping the gullible public in this manner.
The ‘general public’ alluded to in these reports – which suggest that the majority of ‘our society’ agrees with the statements made by the fraudsters – most certainly do not come from rural Africa or Asia. People in the Third World – many of whom are living constantly below the poverty line – understand that to obtain meat to eat an animal has to be killed, be it a chicken or a sheep, a cow or an elephant.
The general publics of the Eurocentric countries of the Western World, on the other hand, may well think along these animal-rights-lines – and they may disagree with trophy hunting for whatever are their own personal preference reasons – but they are not in ‘the majority’. And they are in no way accountable for the disruptions in rural societies that will occur when their actions stop legitimate, desirable and sustainable wildlife harvesting in the Third World.
And their complete disregard for this human reality is just as important a crime.
It would help Africa’s cause, however, if more black people began protesting against the criminal activities of those of our animal rightist brethren who threaten to destroy Africa’s wildlife heritage; who work towards denying the legitimate and sustainable harvest our wildlife resources; and who thereby interfere with the legitimate way that the people of Africa earn an honest living. So, those of you who read this article, please remember to encourage our black brothers and sisters to protest about the very existence of animal rightists in our midst. Animal rightists are pariahs and there is truly no place in any civilised society for their doctrine!
The people of Africa should also protest uncaring media reports – sympathetic to the animal rights cause – that threaten to destroy sustainable-use wildlife management programmes that are designed to keep rural people and their families, throughout Africa, alive.
The rural black man in Africa still has to learn that the people in Europe and America – and the minority animal rights groups in South Africa – who involve themselves in scandalous anti-sustainable-use-of-wildlife and anti-hunting protests, actually couldn’t care a damn whether the rural black man in Africa lives or dies; just so long as he doesn’t kill wild animals for trophies, for meat, or for any other sellable wildlife product.
The line is clearly drawn in the sand. On one side of it stand the nature-loving people of Africa who understand and sincerely believe that SAFE and/or EXCESSIVE wild animal populations can and should be ‘used’, sustainably, for the benefit of Africa’s people – provided the harvests are conducted in accordance with science-based wildlife management principles. On the other side of the line, stand the animal rightists who believe that man has no right – no right whatsoever – to ‘use’ animals for his own benefit; and that mankind should live entirely on a vegetable diet.
I wonder: On what side of the line YOU – the reader – will stand? On the ’right side’ of the line? Or the ‘wrong side’? It is your choice; and the choice you make will define the kind of person you really are.
Ron Thomson CEO -TRUE GREEN ALLIANCE