A Cape buffalo bull. On 3 August, a US trophy hunter was killed by a charging Cape buffalo at a reserve in Limpopo.
(Photo: iStock) 
On Sunday, 3 August, a US trophy hunter was killed by a charging Cape buffalo at a reserve in Limpopo. Asher Watkins (52) was a Texas millionaire and rancher – a demographic that, combined with his status as a hunter, makes him a barn door-sized target for vilification by animal rights activists.
“Is there a picture of the buffalo standing behind his trophy,” was one of the many disparaging comments made on the Facebook link to the Times’ story.
“Sounds like poetic justice,” read one. “What the phrase tough shit was invented for,” was another. One person posted: “The comments section is renewing my faith in humanity.”
These are just a few samples, and it boils down to a celebration of “poetic justice” because a reviled trophy hunter was gored to death by an animal he was hunting.
A lot of people simply detest hunting, and a lot of people who don’t mind hunting in general dislike trophy hunting. This is fuelling campaigns to ban the import of hunted trophies – with Africa the main focus – in countries such as the UK.
Read more: UK trophy hunting import ban - some animals more equal than others
Distaste for trophy hunting is understandable. But many of the campaigns against it are rooted in misinformation and conceal the spoor of the vital role that hunting plays in conservation.
Such campaigns ignore the demonstrable conservation benefits of hunting and in a misleading manner often say things like “endangered animals can still be hunted”, implying that charismatic species such as elephants and lions are “endangered” by trophy hunting.
No species of African animal is being driven to extinction because of trophy hunting – I have yet to find a peer-reviewed article in a reputable scientific journal making that case – and there are countless examples of how the revenue raised provides incentives to landowners and communities to protect and conserve dangerous wildlife.
If you don’t like trophy hunting, fine. But base your opposition on facts. If it comes down to revulsion at images of hunters standing over animals with rifles, fine. Just keep in mind that this is the vein of emotion that NGOs mine when they ask for a donation beneath an image of “Cecil the Lion”.
Also keep in mind the role that trophy hunting plays in conservation. It is true that the hunting industry can inflate its economic and conservation contributions. But the ecological value of alternatives such as photographic wildlife tourism are also often inflated.
Indeed, there is a mountain of evidence that “non-consumptive” wildlife tourism has a massive ecological footprint and can disturb animals. Take the mad stampede of vehicles so tourists can take pictures of the Serengeti wildebeest migration.
Safari guide Nick Kleer expressed his outrage last month when he witnessed more than 100 vehicles converging on a river crossing point in Tanzania, causing mayhem and confusion for humans and wildebeest alike.
“This morning in Serengeti National Park, I witnessed some of the most shocking behaviour I’ve ever seen. Not from the animals, but from the people meant to protect them,” Kleer wrote on Instagram.
“Guides and rangers were allowing, and even encouraging, their guests to block wildebeest river crossings. Guests were out of their vehicles. Hundreds of people were crowding the banks. The wildebeest tried again and again to cross, but access was cut off repeatedly.”
This may be an extreme example, but non-consumptive wildlife tourism has a bigger negative ecological impact than hunting on many fronts: reserves to accommodate game watchers tend to have more roads and amenities than hunting lodges and because many more people “shoot at” animals with a camera than a rifle, the carbon emissions linked to the sector are far larger.
It is also revealing to note that tourists who want to explore Big Five country on foot are almost always guided by armed rangers trained to shoot to kill a dangerous animal if it charges. And yet it is somehow acceptable to risk an encounter with a large animal that might prove fatal to it so that tourists can seek the thrill of walking in a dangerous game country.
That does not mean non-consumptive wildlife tourism does not have an important place in conservation – it does. It’s simply to point out that it is not a panacea and can have questionable environmental outcomes.
I’m also not trying to “greenwash” the hunting industry. Trophy hunting, for example, can negatively impact local populations of species such as lions and there is legitimate debate about things such as the “six-old-year” rule for harvesting males.
Watkins, the Texan killed by a buffalo in the Limpopo bush, would have been aware of the risks of stalking Cape buffalo on foot. Part of the allure of trophy hunting potentially menacing game, is the same thing that attracts many of the people who embark on walking photographic safaris in big-critter country – the element of danger.
Would anyone make sarcastic social media comments about a tourist killed on such a walking excursion by a charging buffalo? I would guess not, but that animal was probably shot dead moments later, or tracked down and killed later – and it is only dead because humans chose to walk in its terrain.
Watkins paid for his passion with his life, but even if trophy hunting makes you see red, that is no reason to celebrate the death of a human with mocking commentary.
I have also seen this when a suspected rhino poacher has been killed by lions or elephants in the Kruger National Park – glib mockery along the lines of “the bastard had it coming to him”.
For rhino poachers, their motive is not the pleasure derived from killing protected animals – it is usually poverty, which underscores the point that the Kruger is hardly generating sufficient jobs and revenue for its surrounding communities.
In Watkins’s case, he was a visiting overseas tourist making a small but positive legal contribution to South Africa’s economy and conservation efforts. And that Cape buffalo probably would not have been in that area if it was not for the hunting industry.
Celebrating Watkins’s death sheds light on the dark side of animal rights activism, and the callousness and ignorance that drives much of it. DM