It’s devastating to know that at this rate South Africa will lose about 600 rhinos to poachers this year, and hard not to feel very despondent, but the past two days have given me more hope than I have felt in a long time.

Sure, it was a media tour meant to impress (which it did), but it is hard to consistently fake dedication. That is what I saw: dedication.

I am not sure I am as optimistic as some, although I would like to believe SANParks wildlife veterinary services head Markus Hofmeyr that we are “not at the point of no return (and) can still see a turnaround in South Africa”.

The consequences of not seeing that turnaround are very, very sad – Dr Hofmeyr says we’ll see species decline by 2016 if the rate of escalation in rhino poaching does not abate; if that happens, says his boss, SANParks CEO David Mabunda, there won’t be rhinos in the wild in South Africa by 2050.

If there is anything I learned these past two days, during which members of the media were taken to the Kruger National Park and shown how rhino-poaching crime scenes are “processed”, the fence that runs along the border with Mozambique and the “buffer zone” that is being established in that country (among other things), it is this: we have a fighting chance.

Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa believes we can win this thing; so does Ken Maggs, head of the SANParks wildlife crime investigation unit .

“We have no option,” he says. He’s right. The consequences of not winning this war are infinitely sad.

Standing at the site of the latest rhino poaching in the Kruger park, which has lost 95 rhinos to poachers this year, Mr Maggs told the gathered media “there is nothing more effective (against poaching) than a well-equipped, well-trained, dedicated game ranger”.

The men who are out there patrolling our parks are spending up to two weeks out in the bush, enduring temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius and down to 0 degrees Celsius, wind, rain, dangers from predators and snakes, and emotional stress.

“Rangers get notes on the carcasses (of poached rhinos) saying, ‘We know where you live, where your kids go to school,’” says SANParks spokesman Rey Thakhuli.

Despite this, men like Bruce Leslie and his team, introduced to the media only as Freddie, Robert and Edward because they do intelligence-gathering work in communities close to the park, go out into the bush to track, trace and arrest poachers.

When the media met them they were gearing up for the full-moon period, when poachers use the moonlight to aid them in their search for rhinos. They are to be commended as heroes.

The poachers are simply the footsoldiers in an organised crime industry driven by East Asian demand for rhino horn. Mr Maggs separates the industry into five levels: the poachers, their recruiters who can “run” several groups of poachers, those who trade in the horn in South Africa’s larger commercial centres, and those who operate at national level, selling horn on to the fifth level – the international consumers or buyers.

To win the war, South Africa must attack rhino poaching at all levels. We are.

“The day I wake up feeling like that (despondent) is the day I should leave … I am just getting more and more determined,” says Mr Maggs.

Strength to his arm.

So, apparently there’s no reason at all for any further oil, gas or coal prospecting — up to 80% of declared reserves across the globe may have to stay just where they are, in the ground, if we are to stave off the damaging effects of climate change.

When you think of it, and its implications, that’s Major Wow.

I know it’s just what UK-based non-profit company Carbon Tracker says in its research report titled “Unburnable Carbon: Are the World’s Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble?”. It is quite possible someone somewhere can counter the argument (climate-change denialists aside).

It is for that reason I was really disappointed that the South African companies mentioned in the report (or companies with a strong presence here) that I asked for comment chose to ignore my request, said there was not enough time to comment on it, or said they would not be commenting “at this time”. I asked Sasol, Anglo American, Total SA, Shell SA and the Mining Industry Task Team on Climate Change. I would have liked to have heard what they had to say, and to be able to convey it to those who read my news feature on this research.

Is it because they are not thinking of these things? I hope not. In fact, I doubt it. Even ignoring the United Nations’ target of keeping greenhouse gas emissions below a rise of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average global temperature, there is evidence these commodities are running out. (And they were always going to run out at some time.)That is one of the reasons why Shell et al have been so interested in probing the Karoo’s untapped shale-gas resource.

Ja, they say that natural gas is more “green” than oil, and that may be so, but it’s still a fossil fuel and let’s not get into the controversial method they would use to even determine how much of what is estimated to be the world’s fifth-largest pocket of shale gas is an economically exploitable reserve.

According to Carbon Tracker, peer review journal Nature printed calculations of global greenhouse gas emissions that show the world can only emit a further 565 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon dioxide before our “budget” is gone. We emitted 321Gt over the past decade, so it is easy to see that something’s got to change very soon, if not right now, or we’re headed for climatic disaster.

I’m not a total pessimist. While I believe that global warming that exceeds 2 degrees Celsius will cause widespread misery, especially in the world’s economically poorer areas, and many, many deaths, I do not believe it predicts the end of humankind. People are adaptable and, if it comes to that, those few left will find ways of surviving. Life, however, will be very, very different.

Hell, it might even be better on many scores.

In the meantime, better take a good look at those investment portfolios and think hard about both the economic and the moral prudence of investing in catastrophe.

What a sad day. Colleague Livhuwani Mammburu and I went out to Gauteng’s Rhino & Lion Nature Reserve to watch vets insert a red dye, parasiticides and microchips into a rhino horn in a bid to make the horn less attractive to poachers. The rhino that was treated died.

If it wasn’t for the massive escalation in poaching, “Spencer” would not have died. When all is said and done, Spencer was lost to poaching.

At a cost of R15000 a rhino (less if more rhinos are treated simultaneously), the treatment — if you can call it that — is not a viable solution for SA’s total rhino population. SANParks does not have that kind of money, and my money’s on better patrolling rather than dyes and microchips.

The good rhino news this week is the news that Mozambique is “pondering” legislative changes that will elevate the crime of wildlife poaching to a category of offence that carries heavier sentencing than the current offence of “damage to property”.

This emerged after Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa and Mozambique’s Tourism Minister, Fernando Sumbana Jnr, held an urgent meeting in Pretoria on Monday.

World Wide Fund for Nature African rhino programme co-ordinator Joseph Okori says he hopes he sees “words translate into action” on this.

So, obviously he’s not holding his breath, then.

Still, much of the rhino poaching that saw a record 448 rhinos killed in SA last year has taken place in the Kruger National Park, which borders Mozambique. While it is a factor of proximity, it is reasonably safe to say that many rhino poachers are Mozambican.

However, let’s not forget the vets and rhino owners that are involved in the illegal trade, quite a number of them South African. These are not poverty-stricken people. (Not that I am condoning any poaching.)

Today’s exercise was sad from beginning to end. I felt immensely sad to see Spencer lying in the grass, under sedation. I was shocked to hear the animal had died.

Such a needless loss, and, as someone who commented on photos I posted on Facebook said, “and the real poachers probably having a good laugh, too”.

There are several reasons why the papers filed by Mineral Resources Minister Susan Shabangu in the North Gauteng High Court on Tuesday make interesting reading, and a statement by a group calling itself the Graaff-Reinet Shale Gas Community Forum is one of them.

The anti-fracking lobby is active, but until now I had heard nothing of, or from, this group, which comprises the Camdeboo Council of Churches, the Graaff-Reinet Youth Forum, the African National Congress’s Graaff-Reinet branch, the “local structures” of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Camdeboo Minister Fraternal, the Karoo Centre for Human Rights, the Small Farmers’ Association, the Camdeboo Youth Forum and the Camdeboo Sports Forum.

I am going to quote extensively from their founding statement, which was part of one of the emails filed with the court as annexures to the Department of Mineral Resources’ papers, after the forum met Petroleum Agency of SA CEO Mthozami Xiphu in June last year.

(As an aside, I am not sure why the forum met Mr Xiphu, or the ethics thereof, if they met with him as the chairman of the task team Ms Shabangu established to investigate fracking, given that the task team has not allowed other groups to meet it. However, this view, from people who live in the Karoo, is not often heard, and as such I believe it merits attention.)

“We the community of Graaff-Reinet, coming from the sector of the predominately historically disadvantaged population faced by high unemployment and daily hardships have gathered … to make our view known on the subject of energy groups’ applications to study the feasibility of extracting natural gas from shale rock formations beneath the Karoo area …To let people of our South Africa know that the opinions expressed by the so-called representatives of the Karoo communities are certainly not a reflection of the majority of the population represented by our forum.

“Several companies, including oil major Royal Dutch Shell and petrochemicals group Sasol*, are queuing for rights to explore for shale gas in the Karoo … There has been a public outcry over Shell’s and other companies’ applications, and the opposition to hydraulic fracturing is mainly centred on the following three areas:

“a) huge amounts of water required for both the drilling and hydraulic fracturing, and at the same time it is known the Karoo is semi-arid;

“b) it is alleged that the little fresh water that is available underground will be contaminated during the drilling and fracking processes; and

“c) It is alleged that the drilling and fracking processes are also harmful to the environment.

“Our Karoo is a breathtakingly beautiful place. We love it not less than others. Its heavenly fauna and flora and terrific aesthetics have created a lifestyle that defines all of us as its inhabitants. Our love for our Karoo would dictate to us that its immaculately clean environment must be protected, and that protection does not suggest that we must be utopian and believe it is a pristine place. Any insistence that suggests any activity that has the slightest risk to the beautiful environment of the Karoo must not be allowed to imply that the ’pristineness’ of the area must be maintained. The Karoo is no longer pristine. That is not practical, it is also not desirable. Man’s activities in the Karoo and in all other places of our universe have an environmental price. The key question here is to weigh the environmental and social costs of the fracking and determine if it is worth paying the price.

“In this context the forum welcomes the decision of our government to impose a moratorium on the granting of exploration licences while a multidisciplinary investigation of the environmental implications of such exploration is carried out.

“We trust that the investigation would enable our government to soberly assess the potential environmental risks, and this should be done in a scientific manner and in accordance with the process laid down in law, and not to succumb to the emotional and one-dimensional outbursts that have been made in the media and on other platforms. We believe that the potential environmental impacts are manageable and we are confident that our belief shall be supported by the investigation.

“The importance of preserving fresh water in our area cannot be overemphasised. We were therefore extremely concerned about the alleged contamination of water that normally occurs during the drilling and fracking process, but our concerns were adequately addressed by Shell in this case, that its technology does not allow any contact with fresh water during the process.

“The forum nevertheless remains concerned about the huge amounts of water required for drilling and fracking and this is against the background of the serious scarcity of water in the Karoo. We are told that one stage of fracking would require 2,3-million litres of water, and a well can have up to 14 fracking stages, which would mean consumption of 32-million litres of water. … We would want to be given a compelling and convincing strategy by Shell on how they intend to import the water, as it is clear that the Karoo cannot afford to compete with Shell and other applicants for water. We would also like to note that there are also other opportunities, such as recycling water.

“The demand for energy continues to increase in our country and there is no doubt that natural gas has a growing role to play in building a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy future. Natural gas could also provide South Africa with a stable, sustainable energy source, supporting economic growth and bringing needed employment and economic opportunity to the Karoo. We do not believe the jobs created would come at the expense of others, mainly in the agricultural and tourism sectors. We have no jobs right now!”

* Sasol has subsequently said it will not pursue a licence to explore the Karoo for gas extraction.

Quite frankly, I am beginning to lose patience. How difficult is it, really, for government to get logistics right?

Water and Environmental Affairs Minister Edna Molewa’s tyre recycling plan, which she launched last week despite outrage from a sizeable part of the tyre fitment and manufacture sector, has been withdrawn. How embarrassing.

First, it’s embarrassing for the minister and her staff; second, it’s embarrassing for South Africans in general. Yet another piece of legislation or regulation added to the “sent back because it wasn’t done properly or drafted well enough” list. I can almost imagine Cabinet ministers lined up on President Jacob Zuma’s carpet like naughty schoolkids in the headmaster’s office. Almost, because I am not sure that does happen. It should.

It’s also embarrassing that it took legal action from the South African Tyre Process Company (SATRP) to stop Molewa forcing through the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa (Redisa) after SATRP told her (this appears most evident from the affidavit filed in the South Gauteng High Court) its gazetting was not legal procedurally.

Yes, procedure is important. There’s a reason why we require that new legislation be released for comment, and the government should not see this as a tedious exercise (which, I admit, it can most probably be at times), but should keep in mind the aim of this rule: better legislation. No one person or committee knows best. Collaboration is tedious at times, but better.

However, if the withdrawal is only to “attend to procedural requirements” without properly looking at what the legal requirements are for a tyre recycling plan, without looking at what South Africa has promised to international bodies regarding this issue and without — now that permission for resubmission has been given — taking another, objective, look at the SATRP plan, then all this is just posture. It is not just the letter of the law that we must attend to, but its spirit.

Otherwise it’s just smoke and mirrors.

Here’s a suburban scene that makes my blood boil: someone using a garden hose to “sweep” a driveway. In fact, it’s not only in suburbia that you see this — I saw an employee of a top Rosebank hotel doing the same this morning.

Perhaps the reality is this: water is just not expensive enough in South Africa.

We have had endless government campaigns about saving electricity, but I have yet to see much, if anything, on saving water. We ignore water at our peril.

Poor-quality water “was of limited use and added to society’s economic burden through treatment costs and secondary impacts” on the economy, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research said in its a 2011 report on water in South Africa.

The country’s National Water Resource Strategy calls for “appropriate and timely corrective measures” to mitigate the effects of industrialisation and urbanisation on its water resources.

The CSIR report notes that in 2005, 95% of South Africa’s freshwater resources had already been allocated. The country’s average annual rainfall, at 450mm, is less than half the global average (850mm) and 10 of the water management areas in South Africa could not fulfil demand in 2000, according to the report.

South Africa is about to spent nearly R1bn fixing the Witwatersrand’s acid mine drainage problem, and there is the enormous additional problem of eutrophication — the addition of artificial or natural substances, such as nitrates and phosphates, to natural water through fertilisers or sewage. The most common symptom of eutrophication is an increase in microcystis — blue-green algae producing toxins that rob water bodies of oxygen, making water sterile. Since 2005, it has caused toxic cyanobacterial “blooms” every year in Gauteng’s Hartbeespoort, Roodeplaat, Klipvoor and Rietvlei dams and in KwaZulu-Natal’s Shongweni Dam, according to the Department of Water Affairs.

To add insult to injury, tap water in South Africa could be undrinkable in future. Already, some of the country’s tap water contains poisons.

Poor-quality water will negatively affect the economy, curbing the manufacturing sector directly and indirectly, says limnologist Bill Harding. Limnology is the study of freshwater bodies.

Despite Water Affairs Minister Edna Molewa promising a turnaround in the parlous state of wastewater treatment almost two years ago, it does not appear much has been done to rectify an ever-worsening problem. The Department of Water Affairs is enormously understaffed.

The 2010 Green Drop (wastewater quality) report showed that only 32, or 3%, of South Africa’s estimated 850 wastewater treatment works complied with requirements for safe discharge. The report noted that only 449 of the works had been assessed, with the rest either ignoring, or being unable to comply with, the call to submit to scrutiny.

Only 32 (7%) complied with the Green Drop criteria after being measured for E coli bacteria, nitrates, phosphates, ammonia and other nasties.

The national Green Drop Programme was launched in 2008 and was meant to cover all wastewater treatment works to ensure they did not harm the water bodies into which they discharged their products.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. We do not have a lot of water. We are using almost all the water we have. We are “killing” a fair bit of our water, and still we use potable water to “sweep” driveways.

That’s just stupid.

For the animals’ sake it is good to know that the 150km of fencing that SANParks is putting up to help combat rhino poaching will not affect the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park that straddles South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

The fencing will be in the south of the roughly 20000km² park (35000km² with the Zimbabwean and Mozambican parks added), from the Olifants River to the Crocodile.

Of course, if the fence pushes poachers northwards — which it may — that will be sad. Very sad.

SANParks says 20 rhinos have been killed by poachers this year. We are halfway through January.

Last week, several people made strong arguments for the commercialisation of rhino horn. Before you screech “No!”, consider that what we are doing is, patently, not working. While educating people away from demand for rhino horn is probably the most sustainable solution in the long run, it’s a very, very long run. I hope their arguments will be printed in full in Business Day soon.

Peace Parks CEO Werner Myburgh and Kruger Park GM Rey Thakuli tell me the fencing that is to go up, at a cost of R200m, will start at the Olifants River and go southwards. It will be electrified.

“The fence (that is there) is in a very bad state. It (the new fencing) will act as an early warning system,” says Thakuli.

“Fences,” says Myburgh, “have never stopped people moving across them. Their benefit is as a warning signal — if the lines are cut, we will know.”

According to one source, the park’s security bill leapt from R160m to R450m last year, when 448 rhinos were killed, 252 in the Kruger.

What the carnage in the park has done, says Myburgh, is to expose graphically the risk in letting down fences between countries. It has also highlighted the need for cohesive cross-border policy.

“We need to harmonise policies and implementation (between South Africa and Mozambique). We need them to be the same on both sides of the border. South Africa and Mozambique have to have the same deterrents and penalties. There is no use in a 10-year sentence in South Africa and a six-month one in Mozambique,” says Myburgh. “We have to harmonise policy very urgently.”

TRAFFIC East and Southern Africa director Tom Milliken says that, generally speaking, “there is no parity between South Africa and Mozambican laws and regulations. Further, it is my understanding that wildlife prosecutions in Mozambique seldom result in prison sentences, while South Africa is now imposing some significant jail sentences, like the 12 years a Vietnamese national recently received for smuggling rhino horn.”

It certainly makes sense for criminals to know that, should they get caught, they face similar sentences regardless of what side of the fence they are on. The Kruger park is employing an additional 150 rangers, to add to the 500 it already employs. It says it needs 1600 more to patrol the area properly.

Patrols, nabbing poachers, prosecuting them, ensuring penalties are similar across South Africa – none of these is good enough alone, but they all help.

Is it bad to feel a sense of satisfaction that two suspected rhino poachers were killed in a shoot-out with Kruger National Park rangers on Thursday morning? The thing is, I do. I certainly don’t feel any sadness for them, just sadness for the eight rhinos it is suspected they killed and dehorned, for the 448 rhinos South Africa lost last year and for the hundreds we have lost in recent years.

The two gunmen, if they are rhino poachers, are the foot soldiers of something far more fearsome: the crime kingpins who run the industry. That industry is highly organised and it saw “a minimum of 470″ rhino poached in seven African countries between January 2006 and September 2009, according to the latest Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites) report, dated November 2009.

Since 2009, South Africa has lost 911 rhinos to poachers.

That, as one rhino owner pointed out to me this week, is the known number of rhinos killed by poachers. There may be more.

So far, officially, this year, South Africa has lost eight rhinos, in the southern section of the Kruger National Park. Rangers following up on Tuesday’s gruesome find (the eight rhinos) became embroiled in a shoot-out with suspected poachers on Wednesday night and two Mozambican men were killed, said park GM Rey Thakhuli. It is suspected the two were connected with the deaths of the eight rhinos because they were found in the same general area. No horns were found, and park staff were on Thursday morning conducting an aerial search.

Poaching has reduced the commercial price of rhinos so that a rhino cow now fetches less than a buffalo cow, says Private Rhino Owners’ Association chairman Pelham Jones. Private owners don’t want them any more. Again, as he said, “Would you want criminals in your house? They don’t want poachers on their land.”

It is tough to look at rhinos as commodities that can be bought and sold, but it is how they can be saved. Private ownership was integral to the return of the white rhino, hunted almost to extinction, says Endangered Wildlife Trust rhino project manager Kirsty Brebner.

SANParks has responsibility for about 4-million km² of land, not all of it suitable for rhinos, and private ownership has added 22270km² to that. Hunting happens on some of that land, yes, but without that land South Africa would have to have a far smaller rhino population than its approximately 22800.

For some there are problems with our certainty over the number of rhino we have. There is debate over the census method used, and they argue that, without knowing for certain how many rhinos we have, we cannot even allow any legal hunting, whether on private or parks land.

The arguments for and against hunting are complex and emotional, but what really struck me this week when I was speaking to conservationists was that almost every one I spoke to, including Brebner and International Union for the Conservation of Nature rhino expert Richard Emslie, called for calm, rational dialogue over how to reduce the black-market price of rhino horn.

“It is often difficult to disassociate the emotions from the practical, but we have to have the debate,” said Brebner.

Even rhino conservationist Ian Player, credited with saving the white rhino from extinction in the 1970s, has made suggestions on this. In an opinion piece for Business Day last year, he wrote:

“I believe the time has come to sell the rhino horn South African conservation agencies and game ranchers have accumulated as a result of natural mortality. There is much opposition by the animal rights movement, with which I sympathise because of the “global swarming” of our own species — 7-billion people and rising, desecrating the earth. However, the increased killing because of the high price of rhino horn — R400000/kg — means we have to devise other means of ensuring the rhinos’ survival. Conservation agencies are desperately short of money. Surely it is in the interest of both the rhino and conservation economics that we legalise the sale of rhino horn accumulated through natural mortality? Our main task must be to protect the rhino populations inside national parks, game reserves and game ranches.”

Dr Player has also defended conservation agency Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife’s decision to sanction the hunting of a white-rhino bull at the Makhasa Community Reserve near Mkhuze, for which the hunter paid R960000. He said legal hunting had made a significant contribution to the recovery of the formerly critically endangered species. The species had recovered rapidly in the early 20th century through intensive protection and a ban on hunting, followed by controlled hunting from the 1970s.

“The rhino population began to explode because of financial incentives and because ranchers started to buy land for wildlife. They (hunters) have played a big role in the recovery of the white rhino,” Dr Player said in a piece printed by the Cape Times.

The hunting and the reduction of the black-market price of rhino horns are two separate, albeit related, topics. The crux is to save the rhino.

As Jones said yesterday, we are “dealing with a runaway bushfire” regarding the poaching of the rhino.

South Africa is home to almost 90% of the world’s estimated 22800 rhinos. If things continue this way, the rhino will be lost to humanity — another magnificent beast eradicated due to our stupendous greed.

The time has come for rational debate over what to do, because, as Brebner said yesterday, “We are doing a lot, but it isn’t working.”

If those in Cape Town who are outraged that SANParks has allowed a portion of its land to be handed to a private company — Entilini, the concession company that upgraded Chapman’s Peak Drive — for its offices do go to court over the matter, that will be fascinating.

Since the upgrading of Chapman’s Peak Drive began in 2003, the scenic route has been embroiled in controversy. That seems set to continue.

It would be good to have a definitive answer on whether SANParks land can be handed over in this way. Not that this is unprecedented, at least on the surface — there are private concessions and hotels in various game parks. All are controversial. In a sense they should be — each development should be hotly debated. Our national parks must be kept in as pristine a condition as possible. In fact, “as possible” is not good enough because it is too vague. They must be kept pristine. For a large part they and all they contain are all we have left of our fantastic heritage. We cannot allow ourselves to lose it.

However, there is also the ugly question of money. Once again we juxtapose the need to protect our wonderful flora and fauna for posterity with the need for SANParks to raise funds. Over the years, the operational grant given to SANParks has been progressively dwindling. SANParks itself generates about 80% of its operational funds, said David Mabunda, its CEO, last March.

The question, then, is: how does the entity raise the funds needed to keep our flora and fauna safe? Someone, somewhere described Table Mountain National Park as a “cash cow” for SANParks, and no doubt it does bring in large revenue; as does the Kruger National Park. That’s a cynical view, one I hope is mistaken.

There is a tough line to tread for those running the parks, between keeping them sacrosanct and raising the funds needed to keep sacrosanct the pockets of our heritage that we still have. Reasoned debate is good — I hope we can come up with good ways to raise funds, ways that will be best for South Africa and its parks.

I seriously doubt everyone will be pleased, but one thing is certain: every development in every national park needs to be squeaky clean, and to be shown to be so. South Africa’s citizens have every right to question SANParks’ every step.

I have no idea what it is, these days, that would incite someone to shoot a rhino in a trophy hunt.

The fact is, however, that there are people who are keen to do this, and they are also happy to pay large sums of money to do so. That being the case, it is tough to say that conservation should not gather funds from controlled hunting activities.

I know saying that will bring me enemies. There are idealists out there who believe any rhino hunting is bad, especially now that our rhino are under such severe threat. There is no doubt the mounting crisis — 13 rhino poached in 2007, 333 in 2010, more than 430 last year — is alarming and distressing.

Given the crisis, I can see why Outraged South Africans Against Poaching’s Simon Bloch can argue that allowing a hunt sends the wrong message. He has a point, but, much though I hate the idea of rhino hunting, I disagree. A controlled hunt, undertaken under the watchful eye of Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife, is not the same as poaching a rhino for its horn. Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, better known as Cites, the trophy horn cannot be sold. It will hang on the hunter’s wall, or reside in his safe.

The furore that has erupted over the R960000 the KwaZulu-Natal businessman paid Ezemvelo for the hunt has revealed the reality that South Africa’s conservation authorities have to deal with daily. The hunt is to take place on the Mduku community’s Makhasa Community Game Reserve, and reserve chairman John Mathenjwa says using the some of the money raised from it for community upliftment will “calm” some community members who are resentful that the community has not benefited directly from the reserve.

Some will argue that nothing justifies rhino hunting; others who will argue against any hunting at all. They have my sympathy, but so do South Africa’s poor rural communities. It is wonderful that Makhasa exists at all.

In 1997, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, with assistance from the privately owned Phinda reserve, fenced 2800ha of tribal land on the edge of its reserves and stocked the area with most of the game species found in both Phinda and Mkhuze, according to Wildlife and Ecological Investments’ website. The objective was to create a community-owned reserve with direct income benefits to the local community.

The funds will go to repairing damaged reserve fences, employing more field rangers, building markets for the community to trade with tourists, education and health, all for the community.

One of the most telling quotes in this debate came from Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife CEO Bandile Mkhize: “The animal rights groups have been quiet throughout the year when 23 rhino-hunting permits were issued to private game reserves, but are up in arms when such permits stand to benefit the poor black community.”

Mike Knight, chairman of the Southern African Development Community rhino management group, says between 45 and 70 rhino have been legally hunted in recent years, with the money paid for the right to hunt going into conservation, and 1-million hectares of private land put under conservation as a result.

Personally, I wish no one wanted to hunt, especially to hunt an endangered animal that is under severe stress, but South Africa still has a growing rhino population (thank goodness, seeing we are home to 90% of the world’s estimated 22800 rhino). Knee-jerk reactions to controlled fund-raising activities such as this rhino hunt will neither save the rhino nor help the people who live most closely with them.

It is all very well for middle-class South Africans to get all het up about the pending hunt, but emphatic statements made without consideration for the realities of South African life will only raise the hackles of the very people we most need to help us fight poaching: the communities that live on the edges of game reserves, and the conservation staff who work with these people, and with the game.

If people like Bloch really want to save the rhino — although I have not spoken to him, I have no reason to mistrust his sincerity — then they need to remain calm and take a considered view of things.

Last year was awful for the rhino — and if you think things were bad here, take a look at Mozambique’s rhino poaching figures. We need to turn the tide. Work is being done. The police are arresting poachers all the time. What is being done is not enough, certainly, and it is sad that the on-the-ground henchmen are caught far more often than the real kingpins of this disgusting trade. However, it is not helpful to attack a conservation body for a practice that has history and is proven to have gathered funds for conservation aimed at saving the rhino and other species.