South Africa’s Wildlife Under Threat: Minister’s Personal Bias Sparks Controversy in Hunting Regulations

A response to the article in the Mail and Guardian

by Stephen Palos – CHASA CEO/SUCo-SA Vice-chair

And in other news today it seems that the minister at the helm of the environmental portfolio, Dr Dion George believes that personal whims are all that is required in determining the scope of his legislative “powers”.

As ridiculous as it would be for the minister of sport to write the rules of any game, so it is for an environmental minister to enforce his own, very biased and naïve personal views, into the manner and means by which the very complex practice of hunting is done.

And not just the hunting, but the entire gamut of management actions necessary for the continuation of the thriving and proven model which is the South African private wildlife ranching and production success.

In an opinion piece written by George appearing in the Mail & Guardian of 27 Oct 2025 (strangely not an official output of the DFFE itself it seems) he waxes lyrical in saying “Captive-bred animals, such as lions, rhinos and antelope, are not the wild spirits roaming the savanna’s endless expanse.”

Does he have the starry eyed view that our streets have wild roaming animals wandering about?!

And where are these savannas of endless expanse pray tell?

In South Africa the fence at the minimum is the only way to have any form of asset kept safe, and in particular, lions who would otherwise eat people and rhinos which would soon enough be slaughtered for their horns.

The private ranching and game farming sector has expanded wildlife numbers from around half a million head in the 1960s to an estimated 20 million today, and not with much government assistance along the way.

By contrast, the landscapes which George himself should be concerning himself with, our formal protected areas, face numerous major problems not least of which is directly a result of shocking leadership and pandering to foreign driven rhetoric based on animal-rightist dogma. But I digress…

He espouses his own “philosophy” of what “true” hunting is whilst it is clear that he in fact has a personal distaste for any hunting.

He speaks of fair chase as though he has practiced it himself, and he speaks of the hunter’s personal emotion at the end of the hunts he so disparages as if he, himself, has personally experienced these feelings so knows better.

He is there to “save us from ourselves” it seems, lest we fall foul of hunting by a method we will not be able to live with once done. He espouses the AR term of canned hunting, a practice effectively illegal in South Africa by virtue of legislation, regulation and confirmatory court orders which collectively make the hunting of lions in South Africa a very structured and challenging affair (unlike elsewhere where setting a hide over a bait is allowed and waiting for a lion to arrive, in South Africa a lion may only be hunted on foot, walk & stalk, in daylight)

As minister he should be the first to declare that the notion of canned hunting is illegal here, as Edna Molewa resolutely did. Not be a choir boy of the AR narrative.

NO SIR. You are the minister charged with creating the enabling regulatory environment upon which the wildlife sector’s past successes can be further expanded, enhanced and through growth become more inclusive for the rural people who stand to gain most from its furtherance.

There is nothing broken of which you are the white knight sent to fix, save for the capacity and leadership within your own department which has failed to enable long-standing strategic plans and conclude certain required processes such as quota setting.

You are well-armed with existing animal protection legislation and an extensive national and provincial framework to enable proper enforcement of animal welfare regardless of the degree of intensity or size of the breeding operation.

All of these Must be registered already. Any failure in terms of animal welfare is a direct reflection of the relevant authorities, and the buck stops with the minister.

The rules by which hunters hunt, and judge one another, are Not the purview of any minister.

His role is to determine that the meta-populations of indigenous and exotic species occurring in the country are appropriately managed across multiple different ownership, management and utilisation regimes in a manner which cannot pose substantial risk to wild populations whilst at the same time, particularly where on private property and privately owned, allowing the owner to maximise his/her returns and remain incentivised to remain in the wildlife business rather than capitulating to a sea of red tape and taking up commercial agriculture instead.

The manner by which a person chooses to hunt and the source of the game thus hunted are a matter for the paying hunter to determine.

No animal accepts his demise more so because there was more “cat & mouse” in it. This is a human emotion irrationally projected in a manner as written by this minister to suggest that an animal “properly hunted” is somehow better off.

No, this element is a human matter of personal beliefs no different from political beliefs, chosen religion, sexual choices or whether you are a “dog person” or a “cat person”. Your choice to make and should others choose to judge negatively, they should still hold their tongues…

Let it be said that well over a year after taking office and notwithstanding many attempts to engage with this minister, he has steadfastly avoided any industry dialogue whilst preaching in detail from his pedestal to us.

His reference point as evidenced from his writing is clearly the narrative of the “Humane World for Animals” organisation (formerly Humane Society of the US/International/Africa as they morph their shadowy structure)

There are indeed some within the hunting sector who would welcome these utterances, yet that is simply because all hunters hold, legitimately, their own personal views and biases. That “some hunters” applaud does not make the principle right though.

The minister must govern with blind judgement regarding personal ethics, he must use the existing and adequate tools at his disposal to ensure welfare matters are addressed, but he must keep his personal ethics to himself.

He does Not need to hunt a captive bred lion. He does not need to hunt anything at all. He could choose to follow a vegan diet. And he can do as he pleases within the confines of his own home.

But as a minister in the cabinet he must know his mandate, and its limits…