Our Burning Planet


Government trying to slam through plan that will result in massive exploitation of wildlife

Government trying to slam through plan that will result in massive exploitation of wildlife
A herd of elephants at the Numbi Gate of the Kruger National Park in Mbombela, Mpumalanga. (Photo: Gallo Images / Daily Maverick / Felix Dlangamandla)

By Friday, 22 March, the public is expected to have commented on a detailed plan by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to massively exploit and monetise South Africa’s wildlife. The public was given just 14 days to respond.

This story has been updated to reflect the environment minister’s decision to extend the period for comment.

The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) has released a 48-page plan to create integrated “mega landscapes” on land and sea encompassing extensive areas where hunting, bioprospecting and tourism would monetise wild animals and plants for “consumptive use”.

To do this, the government will attempt to mobilise state and private resources, starting with an indaba in Gauteng from 24 to 26 March. The Birchwood Hotel and OR Tambo Conference Centre have been hired for the event at a cost of R3,698,859.

The plan was released on 8 March and gives the public until 22 March to comment, a 14-day deadline that many see as a box-ticking exercise to claim that the public has been consulted before the plan goes on show at the indaba.

wildlife exploitation government plan

Schematic for a government plant for the creation of mega-landscapes. (Image: Supplied)

The proposal is to grow areas under conservation — called mega living conservation landscapes — from 20 million hectares to 34 million hectares by 2040, an area equal to seven Kruger National Parks. Five mega landscapes are suggested, with proposals including:

  • iSimangaliso/Ezemvelo/uMkhanyakude in KwaZulu/Natal;
  • Waterberg/Limpopo River/Makapan Valley in Limpopo;
  • Lekgalameetse/Wolkberg/Thabina in the Tzaneen area;
  • Addo/Camdeboo Corridor and Grasslands National Park in the Eastern Cape;
  • North West; and
  • Northern Cape.

What happens within the new areas, however, would be nothing like Kruger’s wilderness but would involve “biodiversity business”.

“Consumptive use” of wild animals within these landscapes is predicted by the plan to increase from R4.6-billion to R27.6-billion by 2036, bioprospecting and plant trade from R1.85-billion to R11.6-billion and marine and freshwater exploitation to rise by 10% a year. This represents a massive monetisation of South Africa’s wild ecosystems.

wildlife exploitation government plan

Areas for displays at the upcoming indaba on mega-landscapes. (Image: Supplied)

Included in the figure of R4,6 billion is R1,8 billion from 6,242 international clients who killed 36,500 animals in 2022 Since the local hunting market is unlikely to grow, the planned increase would need to come from international hunters. This will require an increase of 155% more international hunters to 15,900 hunters killing 93,000 animals. Where these animals will come from is not explained.

The strategy envisages an increase in the number of Big Five animals available for fair-chase trophy hunting, an expansion of recreational and traditional hunting, wild meat harvesting and fishing, and the increased use of indigenous plants, and of insects for food.

The plan says that until the international sale of ivory and rhino horn is favourable (though it’s unclear why the department thinks this will ever happen), domestic trade could be stimulated.

“For example, health clinics to administer traditional remedies using rhino horn for health tourists from the Far East or ivory carving done locally for sale and export for personal use.”

What is being suggested appears to be linked to the Game Meat Strategy published in 2022 which seeks to agriculturalise wild animals.

A document supporting the plan that was supplied following a request to the DFFE this week says game meat has not been efficiently utilised for livelihood and economic growth, and has been identified as an alternative, cheap and readily available source of protein, especially for rural communities.

“The implementation of the strategy will ensure safe and sustainable harvesting of game meat, job creation and rural economic development… There will be new business, investments, jobs and value chain opportunities that will have secondary benefits related to the commercialisation of this commodity. These benefits far outweigh the costs.”

Alarm bells

The plan puts forward a form of extractive conservation, based on the idea that what you consume you will conserve. This type of thinking is essentially a farming ethic, ranging from sacrificial animals being hunted to provide funds for the conservation of a species or biome, to cattle feedlots and chicken and pig batteries.

It makes sense in relation to a puzzling proposal in 2019 when there were attempts to list more than 30 species of wild animals, including lions, giraffes, white and black rhinos, lions and cheetahs, under the Animal Improvement Act. This would have effectively rendered them farm animals subject to manipulation and consumption. It was overturned following a court challenge by the Endangered Wildlife Trust.

Shortly afterwards, 98 more species were proposed to be listed under the Meat Safety Act, including rhinos, hippos, elephants and crocodiles. According to the Act, they could then be “slaughtered for food for human and animal consumption”. At the time, the reasons for these reclassifications by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development were unclear, but they are now obvious.

The plan has rung alarm bells at environmental NGOs.

According to Dr Ross Harvey, the director of research at Good Governance Africa, a plan to commodify wildlife “ignores the biological reality that trophy hunting removes prime males (never ‘surplus’ males, which is a convenient myth). It also ignores robust research which shows that the opportunity costs of trophy hunting in SA render the practice unsustainable.

“All this comes on top of providing no proper time for public participation. This makes the whole thing look like a foregone conclusion that the government wants the public to rubber-stamp without really engaging.”

Taylor Tench, a policy analyst at the US Environmental Investigation Agency, said the idea of developing a market for domestic trade in animal parts such as carved ivory or rhino horn as traditional medicine for Asian tourists was particularly shocking. It would stimulate the export of objects and substances illegal under Cites regulations and which are merely aspirational and have no discernible medical value.

“If such markets and products were to take hold in South Africa,” he writes, “it would result in severe negative impacts for rhinos, elephants and potentially other species. The proposed creation of domestic markets for rhino horn and ivory targeted at international tourists contradicts — and would undermine — South Africa’s reputation as a destination for sustainable wildlife tourism.”

The environmental lawyers Cullinan & Associates, acting for the EMS Foundation, have served notice on the DFFE for a 45-day extension to submit comments on the plan, failing which it will take legal steps.

“A comment period of at least 30 days, but more often 60 days, is accepted as being the minimum to allow meaningful and effective public participation,” the notice says. “No reasons are given for deviating from accepted practice.”

The timeframe has also been questioned by Wildlife Ranching South Africa.

Trophy hunters

The plan appears to favour the conservation of wildlife and massively extends areas under a form of protection, which is a definite plus. But by embracing consumptive use it seems to cut across the considerable advances made by Environment Minister Barbara Creecy and her department regarding the welfare of wild animals, her stand against captive-bred lions, the progressive findings of the high-level panel on lions, elephants, rhinos and leopards, and the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity.

It would also make South Africa one of the world’s top destinations for trophy hunters at a time when that practice is coming under increasing disapproval internationally. This could have a negative impact on brand South Africa and international tourism.

There is also a problem with expecting hunting revenue to increase within the new mega landscapes when it is declining as a sport.

An article in Africa Geographic quoted research showing that between 1991 and 2016 the number of hunters in the US fell by 18.5%, from 14.1 million to 11.5 million. In France, it dropped by half in 40 years.

South Africa saw a 60.5% drop in eight years, from 16,594 in 2008 to 6,539 in 2016. The number of trophies exported fell from 5,049 in 2014 to 1,993 in 2018. Lion trophies during this time dropped from 1,160 to 259.

According to the EMS Foundation, “South Africa will be attempting to turn the country into a trophy hunting destination … for a privileged few trophy hunters.”

The plan also raises questions about the future of captive-bred lion farming, which Creecy has vowed to close down and has appointed a team to plan this. There are an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 lions on these farms. Will they be euthanised or offered to hunters within the new mega landscapes?

The proposal may be a reaction to huge pressure from the hunting fraternity, or incongruity between her department and the Department of Agriculture, which has been accused of dragging its heels on a draft Animal Welfare Act. There have been suggestions that it’s the wrong department to be doing this, particularly with regard to wild animals.


Much is made in the plan about ecosystem connectivity, the halting of species extinction and leveraging natural systems to alleviate rural poverty among formerly disadvantaged people. This would be funded, it says, through tourism, hunting, bioprospecting and funds from the government plus local and foreign grants.

It would also leverage public/private partnerships linked to communities for the rehabilitation of degraded land. The plan also envisages a Biodiversity Trust Fund for community conservation and development of resource use.

To do this, it says, would require the removal of barriers to entry into game ranching for emerging black entrepreneurs and an expansion of benefits to previously disadvantaged individuals and rural communities.

Unfortunately, the redistribution and protection of reclaimed areas and redistributed land has not fared well in South Africa and often devolves into squabbles between claimants and rural groups. It tends to be insufficiently policed and is often plundered.

A big problem with hunting — as many countries in Africa that allow it have found — is that it permits poaching to be laundered within the legal framework. As for bioprospecting, South Africa doesn’t have a police force knowledgeable or large enough to prevent it from leading to rare plant poaching. There has also been poor performance in the curbing of marine poaching. DM


Following public pressure, Environment Minister Barbara Creecy has extended by 14 days the period for comment on a plan to massively exploit and monetise South Africa’s wildlife.

The extension means any comment or objection to the plan must be delivered to the Department Forestry, Fisheries and Environment by April 12. 

According to a departmental notice, “the extension is in recognition of the fact that some stakeholders are requesting more time to comment, and we welcome this interest.”

Public comment can be submitted to the Director-General: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, attention Mr Khorommbi Matibe, Private Bag X447, Pretoria  0001, by hand to Environment House, 473 Steve Biko Street, Arcadia, Pretoria, 0001, or by e-mail to  [email protected]

To access the link to the Gazette notice, click on the following link:


Read the impact assessment document 

Absa OBP

Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Luan Nel says:

    This will be the selling off our last bit of truth, integrity and riches to the lowest punters in a market of shame.

    • jennifer slutzkin says:

      Exactly…well said .I am ashamed and disgusted with our government for even entertainng such a plan….but then why should I expect any better from them.
      As a tour guide mostly in the Kruger area I can only cry the fate of tourism and more distruction of our country to feed the fat cats….

    • Wendy Dewberry says:

      Smacks of Chinese ethics

  • George (Mike) Berger says:

    If implemented as stated it is an utterly reprehensible attempt to monetise our unique heritage to enrich a privileged few. It will do nothing to develop South African society and will predictably be badly run opening avenues for exploitation by criminals of all stripes. But it’s in keeping with the general morality displayed in South African public life and politics.

  • Helen Lachenicht says:

    DM please advise, WHERE DO WE OBJECT?

    • Cheryl Siewierski says:

      Agreed. And how can any environmental groups reasonably be expected to gather enough information and do their own calculations to object within 14 days? This really does look like the desperate efforts of the few to milk the last, precious resources of a country already horribly plundered. We need to vote for change. Unanimously.

    • Julie Carlisle says:

      Would also like to know.

    • Ted Bartlett says:

      Visit Dear South Africa and look for wildlife plan. This is an online forum for the public to comment on proposed legislation.

  • Garth Spencer-Smith says:

    This sounds like a disaster about to be unleashed. @Don Pinnock: please would you supply the link to the place where members of the public can comment on this bill?

  • William Kelly says:

    All I can comment on is that aquaculture makes a mention in the proposed layout. If we strip away abalone, the nett contribution by aquaculture to the economy is measured only in the number of government jobs created ‘for the sector’ that dwarfs the actual number of jobs in the sector. Result? More and more legiation to justify these positions in a non existent industry. Even the crown jewel, abalone, has zero support (poaching and theft) from government, but they have been given a 500% increase in the costs of doing business thanks to the red tape regulations dreamt up by ‘officials’ supposedly ‘benefitting’ the sector.
    This proposed lunacy is exactly the same thing, but take heart in that the eminent aquaculture bill proposed. In the late 2000’s has STILL not been passed. 15 years and counting….

    • Cheryl Siewierski says:

      My head is spinning just from your ‘small’ but key example – if we gave experts from the various areas enough time to evaluate the potential impacts of this, I can only imagine the horrific image they would paint.

  • ian hurst says:

    When I saw the name of the author of this article, my heart sank, There would be no chance of a balanced article. I was right. Just one example: He states “The plan says that until the international sale of ivory and rhino horn is favorable (though it’s unclear why the department thinks this will ever happen)”. Here is why the department thinks it will happen: A rhino poached for its horn is dead, a rhino farmed for its horn is alive. Government is unable to protect its rhinos, farmers are able, and should be rewarded for the enormous costs involved. Lefty “Conservationists” would rather let the rhinos go extinct, than allow detested farmers to make a few bucks.

    • Jameel A says:

      Your losing the forest for a tree my friend. While some farmers would make money we would lose the entirety of our ecological systems.

      • ian hurst says:

        “lose the entirety of our ecological systems” A bit over the top? Simply allowing rhino horn trade would not mean that we ” lose the entirety of our ecological systems.”

  • Jane Crankshaw says:

    Those few trying to make themselves a quick buck before the May elections! So pathetically transparent – with no embarrassment! Wow!

  • rosemary janches says:

    This reeks of desperation by a flailing and desperate government combined with the interests of BRICS countries in the complete exploitation of South Africa’s resources.

  • Lynda Tyrer says:

    This SA govt has now hit the lowest of low they show their greed at every turn. Unfortunately the majority in this country do not care for looking after our heritage they have nothing to show from the past and will have nothing to show in the future.

  • Gavin Hillyard says:

    I find it incredible that in the 21st century, after centuries of slaughter of animals, we are talking about ramping this up. Trophy hunting. An unequal contest so that the hunter can put the unfortunate creature’s head on his wall. Sickening. All life matters. Truly, the sooner the human race becomes extinct the better for the planet.

    • Douw G. Swart says:

      Shot, Gavin – excuse the pun! This whole exercise serves zero purpose except to line the pockets of the few and they are all ANC and their cadres. Disgusting to say the least…

    • Heinrich S says:

      Somewhat agrees – but then after centuries of slavery and genocide, the world has generally changed and seems to be getting slightly better in some areas. Why can the hunting and consumptive use of wildlife be improved according to scientific principles to provide a benefit to humanity, and not just be over exploited? I agree that trophy hunting is not good scientific use of wildlife and has no real place in future plans, but well managed consumptive use of wildlife can protect biodiversity and benefit humanity. The harder part is managing humanity – it’s unchecked growth and over exploitation of resources needs to be addressed if we still want a liveable earth in 20/50/100 years.

    • Samuel Ginsberg says:

      Yes! Shooting a lion a few hundred metres away isn’t sport because the fight is so far from even. If you want to hunt lion for sport then go into the bush with a knife and take your chances with fair odds.

  • Rae Earl says:

    The ANC is thrashing around in desperation before losing the election in May. They are merely unleashing the usual locust syndrome where impoverished black communities will have free reign to slaughter and consume wild life in the face of total neglect by their own government. The ANC is now beyond disgusting. Time to go.

  • Simon Evered says:

    This is a thoroughly shameful proposal by government against all current trends. Trophy hunting is a perversion which must be opposed. Similarly the farming of wild animals for hunting. Our wildlife should be encouraged and grown without thought of monetary gain. If we need more meat for the poor, do the land reform process properly and make sure farms taken over continue to produce.

  • Michele Rivarola says:

    What do you expect from a minister that not only allows but also supports and promotes oil and gas prospecting both offshore and inland under some ridiculous pretence of enhancing energy security and even worse job creation. These are fundamentally dishonest and morally corrupt persons so don’t expect anything different from them

  • rowan mentis MENTIS says:

    This scheme is perfect for what the government has shown itself excellent at:


  • Mark B B says:

    The comments generally indicate a DM commentariat a little out of step with realities in rural SA, the massive pressures on the protected area estate, the minimal support and underinvestment in conservation by the state (<0,05% of budget goes to conservation) and the fact that private conservation has only been successful (there is more game in SA now than anytime since 1830's) by adopting exclusive ecotourism, hunting (all stripes) and game farming. DFFE has to do something to encourage the biodiversity economy – even if some of its ideas are nuts – but the real issues are being ignored/avoided. Hunting is no threat compared to the resource stripping promoted by DMRE and the Oil & Gas sector – and the collapsing state institutions responsible for protected areas. The BioEconomy Strategy wont be successful unless substantial increase in state support for Protected Area management, conservation extension services (hopeless unfunded) and increased compliance monitoring and enforcement. For a sector that creates as many rural jobs and brings in as much forex as conservation, the state investment in maintaining it is the real shame.

    • Heinrich S says:

      Agreed – some commenters might not be aware of the real on the ground situation. In an ideal world there should not be any hunting and animals can proliferate as needed to fill the earth… But in reality space is limited, animals are controlled by humans, human population growth is unlimited, and a new way of thinking is needed to preserve biodiversity. To feed all humans, and preserve the environment, scientifically sound consumptive practices is the only way forward, especially since concervation is not nearly adequately funded by goverment (state or local). Over exploitation by damaging industries, combined with mismanagement and corruption is a far bigger threat than scientifically based consumptive practices. The first abatoir that can process elephants will be a good step – reducing the destructive overpopulation (current estimates vary between 1400 and 14000 excess elephants in SA alone depending on who you believe) will feed a lot of hungry mouths, and provide vital income for biodiversity preservation.

  • Claude Baissac says:

    Until nothing is left.

  • Change is good sa says:

    Questions I would like answered. Who is behind these proposals. Who was involved in drafting the proposal. We need to know the names of those involved, so that it creates a level playing field for the protectors of wildlife and the environment to fight their case.
    Commercialising plants has been done for centuries and needs good planning, legislation and policing.
    The suggestion that rural communities will benefit is laughable as we know the top dog ANC cadres would have no intentions to spread the spoils.
    All we have to do is stop the malfeasance and theft and there will be enough money to build the rural areas into thriving economies that do not destroy the environment or exploit wildlife.
    DM – Write about this and bring it to the public’s attention as hard as you can.
    Another hideous ANC legacy – no care for the environment in the 21st century when we all know better.

  • Johan Buys says:

    Comments can be sent to [email protected]

    One should be careful about not cancelling some of the good things for fear of the likely bad things.

    For example we should be doing a lot more with sustainable harvest of some very unique plants. For me there is nothing wrong with allowing say 50 hectares of cultivated XYZ plant that would do well inside a National Park, doubly so if we then process and extract domestically instead of shipping it to Swiss labs.

    We probably have the same fears about who gets to own what and what happens if they mess up. Land use should be subject to leases only and strict lease conditions : not sold ever. The tenant messes up, the land immediately reverts. Nobody should be able to secure 10 hectares for game lodge with traversing rights and then on-sell the land a few months later having done nothing but front and flip.

    If you traveled the southern Karoo over decades, one thing that quickly became crystal clear was the difference between adjoining farms where one brother still carried on with goats, cattle and sheep but the other went back to relying on game meat, hunters and tourism. The game side farm is pristine, the other looks like a war zone of erosion.

  • Graeme J says:

    For those readers that do bother to go wildlife parks, many will have noticed the incredible damage caused by elephants to vehetaion. But they have been breeding out of control. Just have a look at the environmental damage caused in Madikwe. I am guessing that Mr Pinnock hasn’t been to Madikwe.

    We all think of elephants as being cuddly and very smart (me too). But perhaps it is time for us to realise that herd culling should be back on the program again?

    • Ritey roo roo says:

      Culling has never been removed from the program. Where have elephants been breeding out of control? It is humans who have been and are breeding out of control, encroaching on wildlife and forcing them out of their natural habitats.

      • Patricia Beukes says:


      • Patricia Beukes says:


      • Patricia Beukes says:

        I an truly LIVID with this government and their insatiable GREED, their desperate attempts to push these things through, all for their OWN GAIN! People need to gather and PROTEST this with vigour and NOT give in until the whole thing is scrapped! I am DISGUSTED, REVOLTED at the whole concept of leaving our beautiful animals open to slaughter for a quick buck!!! I DESPISE greed in all forms, makes me sick to the stomach!!

        • Heinrich S says:

          @”Ritey roo roo” or @”Patgricia Beukes: Have you ever been to Madikwe, or most of the smaller state reserves that received elephants since 1994? All of these are now extremely over populated since elephant populations double each 8-10 years. This is causing significant biodiversity issues.
          I do agree with the comments on humans – we as a species is the biggest threat to biodiversity and the future of the earth…

  • Mike Wiggill says:

    Sounds like another typical ANC “plan” at “Radical Transformation” for the benefit of “the connected” and “tradition al leaders”.
    In other words, a last gasp wealth grab while they can still bulldoze it through the “parliamentary process” to rubber-stamp their theft ahead of needing to share the proceeds with “coalition partners” after the elections.
    That is why there is such a sudden big rush …. possibly the fastest they have ever moved in their entire history.

  • Mike Wiggill says:

    Sounds like another typical ANC “plan” at “Radical Transformation” for the benefit of “the connected” and “tradition al leaders”.
    In other words, a last gasp wealth grab while they can still bulldoze it through the “parliamentary process” to rubber-stamp their theft ahead of needing to share the proceeds with “coalition partners” after the elections.
    That is why there is such a sudden big rush …. possibly the fastest they have ever moved in their entire history.

  • Julie Carlisle says:

    This is yet another human and animal rights violation. Our seas have been sold to the highest bidding multi-national fuel companies and now our wildlife and indigenous plants are up for sale. DEFF needs a shake-up. The voices of the people and interests of our wildlife and habitats are not being considered.

  • John Nash says:

    South Africa is a dry country and getting drier. What can you grow on dry land? Traditional crops need water. Traditional farm stock need water. Both need government subsidies during droughts.
    Indigenous plants and animals grow well in that same dry land. So, farming those plants and animals makes sense, but only if you have a market. Trophy hunting, meat and live sales supply that market for animals. Bioprospecting finds markets for plants. Done sustainably, they make sense. Ban them, and lose control and you give criminals a monopoly.
    Game hunting farms already cover more than twice the area of the National Parks and give homes to billions of animal and plants that are not hunted, while those that are hunted are all increasing in number. That’s why the government wants to do more.
    This is all extra to the National Parks. Pinnock, an animal extremist, in common with all extremists, makes a good living out of winding up South Africans over consumptive wildlife management. They are prepared to give SA a bad press because their ideology comes before the economic and conservation good of the country. They write about their human feelings, as do many commenters here. They are of course entitled to do so, but the necessities of wildlife management and farming are something entirely different..
    It is not necessary to pick his rant apart – Ivo Vegter did that well enough in his article, “Calling out Don Pinnock’s fatuous fallacies” in The Maverick on 26 June 2016.

  • Douw G. Swart says:

    I think it is reprehensible what this government is doing – particularly the ANC and its cadres. R3,698,859 that has not been budgeted for or approved by the only contributor – the South African taxpayer. It is more reprehensible what the international community has allowed the ANC to do. Compared to international sanctions because of a cricket tour… shame on you. As for this debacle – when is the international community going to wake up and realise that everything the ANC does is to the detriment of South Africa and its people and serves no purpose except for the lining of top official pockets?

  • Sven Leisegang says:

    Feel free to use this as a basis of your email to [email protected] for your objection:

    This email strongly opposes proposal #4492 (wildlife monetization).

    Please take note that I, the undersigned, object in the strongest possible terms to all or any of this proposal being passed, as advertised as No 4492 in the Government Gazette of 8 March 2024.

    – Selling our wildlife (hunting, bioprospecting) hurts our heritage and environment.
    – This will only benefit the rich and lead to more crime.
    – Hunting messes with animal balance and hurts future generations.
    – Allowing trade in things like rhino horns is bad science and hurts endangered species.
    – Sharing scraps of meat with communities is insulting. They deserve better.
    – Sustainable tourism is the real moneymaker, not hunting.
    – This hurts South Africa’s image as a wildlife destination.
    – Listen to the people who love South Africa. Stop this bad plan!

  • Victor Botha says:

    Please post a link to where objections can be made.

  • James Webster says:

    What do you expect from a culture whose only appreciation of animals is if its members can eat them or wear them ? This ia a culture that embraces witchdoctors and sangomas who poison and poach endangered animals, who bark-strip endangered trees, who kill and mutilate children for their genitals and people who will gleefully exterminate iconic species for a buck and a BMW all the while claiming to cherish their heritage and condemning the west for its exploitation. It’s not surprising though when you consider that sub-saharan Africans lived side by side with a vast number of species for thousands of years but never developed the natural sciences or even made an effort to catalogue and understand the life around them.

  • Amadeus Figaro says:

    Who will run the rhino horn health clinics for Asian health tourists?

  • Amadeus Figaro says:

    Sounds like parts of this was drafted by David Mahlobo’s favourite masseuse

  • Colleen Pedersen says:

    We need to preserve our animals for our children and grandchildren . There are many ways to increase productivity in our nation that involve integrity and not the exploitation of our wildlife . We will not agree to this greedy , corrupt , short sighted plan

  • virginia crawford says:

    Rhino horn prescribed at health clinics? When it has no medical benefits at all? Just when you think you’ve heard everything….

  • Elma Holt says:

    The ANC has not managed to build or improve any ground level poverty in 30 years. They just exploited what was already there and enriched the elite. Effective use of wildlife can be done and has been done (Dinokeng north of Tshwane) is a good example. However is has been built over meny years with the buy in of the local community, farmers and everybody working together.
    This bill might have some(?!) good or positive ideas however rhino horn clinics alone is so incomprehensibly stupid that it negates any other suggestions that sense or even basic science was used. If they need that market so badly, get people to donate their toenail and fingernail clippings which is the same thing anyway. I will send a comment to the government e-mail as well.
    As a side comment the only time our local municipality does anything at all is in the months running up to the elections so we are trying to think up a scheme to get them to think we will do this anually. Some of our roads are being fixed, grass cut, rubbish picked up and the rubbish truck came past. No streetlights in most of the Vaal though.

  • Janine Scorer says:

    This is a bad April 1st Joke. This is typical of persons who have no education or knowledge in a sector in which they have been given a task, and have had to thumb suck to come up with whatever their brief was. Which I assume was to do with sustainable wildlife, fauna and flora, with the inclusion of local communities that would benefit all. I can understand that kind of thought, have no issue with that thought line, but a lot more would have to go into this, than what has been proposed and presented here. This kind of thing can never be rushed through, it takes a lot of careful consideration and research with regards to sustainable implementation and longterm impact on the fauna and flora, etc etc., prior to drafting a proposal that may work using the above ideals.
    Far more research would have to happen, these deadlines do not seem to be in line with the norm for public participation legislation changes? The mention of use of parts of endangered and trafficked species is a concern and another indicator of some one who has to come up with the goods without having had time to do any proper research. This whole proposal needs to be stopped and re thought and re written.

  • Peter Dexter says:

    Looks as though this was written by the ANC’s Chinese masters.

  • Tima B says:

    This is absolutely HORRIFYING!!! Creecy should be thrown out of office for adding her name to this exploitative agenda. We need to block this at all costs.

  • Totally unbelievable, the more I ready the more I am horrified at this proposal. Is money and the making thereof the only motivation our government has. You cannot seriously contemplate destroying one of the beauties of our land. We have lived with our beautiful wildlife and rejoice at their magnificence and now you want to destroy them. Shame on all of those who dared to hatch this despicable idea.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options