Exotic game breeding sparks debate

Red Oryx...Colour Variant or adaptation...?

Study into the effect on biodiversity commissioned

(article by Monja Viljoen: AgriForum, Volume 25, August 2012) agriforum@agrinamibia.com.na

The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANB) has commissioned the University of Stellenbosch (US) to conduct a study into whether or not the breeding of colour-variant game poses a threat to biodiversity.

This comes amidst an international debate about whether or not these variations are man-made and constitute genetic modification or is an act of God. Opinions on the matter differ vastly. While some say these game ranchers are breeding for recessive genes which are rare in the wild for a reason as they come with weaknesses and problems, others say the issue is unnecessarily over-exaggerated and sensationalised.

Dr Louw Hoffman from the US Department Animal Sciences is looking at how and where these colour-variant animals evolve from. He and his team are also trying to determine what the risks are, if any at all, in the event that these animals escape from game farms and are bred with normal variants. “We are also trying to see how these colour variants inherit their colours. It is quite difficult actually, as we do not know much about colour inheritance in African wildlife. Some look like single gene inheritances, while others are more complex,” he explained.

Dr Hoffman invited Namibian farmers to contribute to the study by sharing any knowledge they have on colour-variant game. “Unfortunately we do not have the time to, for example, mate a golden gemsbok bull with a traditional gemsbok cow, so we will have to base our study on whatever information farmers can assist us with. Keep in mind that the golden gemsbok and the black-nose impala come from Namibia and we therefore welcome the contributions of Namibian farmers. I can be reached at lch@sun.ac.za or telephone +27 21 808 4747 or fax +27 21 808 4750.”

The breeding of colour-variant game, or CV game, is currently one of the most lucrative forms of land use in South Africa. Prices have over the past few years shot through the roof, in some cases even increasing a hundredfold. The value of black Impala, for example, is reported to have increased from R160 000 in 2005 to a staggering R360 000 per animal in 2012. A normal impala fetches about R1 400.

Gerhard Damm, president of the Applied Science Division of the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC), wonders whether these prices reflect the market from the supply and demand side where the demand side is defined as users such as hunters, and not other game ranchers. “I suspect that these inflationary prices rather represent a pyramid system where the initial investors make big money and those who come later are struck down when the system collapses."

Like paging through a cattle stud book

Gerhard, who is also the editor of the African Indaba e-newsletter, says it appears that the increase in intensive breeding operations and the total focus on economic gain creates a precarious similarity to the intensive lion breeding and canned shooting of lion, which led to the conservation and hunting world frowning upon SA. He referred to recent issues of a SA specialist magazine, in which advertisements with photographs of African buffalo, as well as photos of “pure-line cows in calf by denominated sires” resembled something out of a cattle breed studbook. That some of these sires apparently "reside" overseas, he added, points towards an international trade in semen straws.

“New antelope ‘subspecies’ are ‘discovered’ and named and golden wildebeest are now in good company with golden gemsbok, copper springbok, black impala, king wildebeest and whatever else. In many cases, these ‘subspecies’ are mixed and matched to achieve an ever-increasing ‘trophy quality’, irrespective of their origin. If you ask why, you are told it is because the hunting market demands quality trophies or the breeders aim to restore animals to a trophy quality which has been lost because of indiscriminate hunting. Haven’t we heard that already from the lion breeders as an apology for excesses in lion breeding and canned lion shooting? I am certainly not against controlled ex-situ and in-situ breeding of wild animals to eventually restore them or their offspring into the wild where they can eventually reproduce and be subjected to sustainable harvesting, but can you imagine that buffalo, acquired at the cost of several million rands each, will ever be released into an eco-system with lions present? The same applies for antelope colour phases,” he says.

According to him, some game breeders in SA are now using practically all methods of artificial manipulation, including artificial insemination and embryo transfer, but also hormone treatments and specially formulated booster diets. Some also source breeding material on the international market to achieve the desired objectives. “These domestic livestock production methods do not only exponentially speed up the selection processes, but also influence fertility, growth rate, food conversion efficiency and even behaviour. Therefore the danger is great that these until now largely uncontrolled activities may eventually lead to polluting or even losing wild local phenotypes or regionally significant wildlife populations. I am very much in favour of free market systems, but we are in dire need of compartmentalisation and some sensible regulation.”

Gerhard added and quoted Phillipe Chardonnet, Director of IGF and co-chair of the IUNC Antelope Specialist Group as saying “...the problem for biodiversity integrity comes from [mixing] compartments and from the proactive creation of freaks by some of the stakeholders for business only, [with negative] impact on conservation...”

Gerhard continued that the game industry has done a lot of good for the South African conservation revolution. Game ranching does have many proven advantages that rest on economical, ecological and socio-cultural pillars. “The sensible interaction of the three pillars makes out the conservation revolution of South Africa. There is enough space for economic growth without having to resort to artificially manipulating the wild heritage of Southern Africa.”

He also refers to an article by David Mabunda, CEO of South African National Parks, published in Peter Flack’s book The South African Conservation Success Story. David makes some very important observations and right in his first sentence says: “Despite the benefits hunting and wildlife ranching have brought to SA, the future of wildlife and its conservation in this country may well be at crossroads.”

David then sketches two possible scenarios which could emerge from the status quo. The status quo is the fact that SA does not have a land and wildlife conservation model that enfranchises large numbers of previously disenfranchised people, that new entrants to SA game ranching have brought with them methods from the domestic livestock industry, and that a significant rise in "canned" and "put and take" killings has tarnished the image of hunting in SA. Breeding methods have raised concern and controversy and game ranching has been accused of doing nothing to biodiversity conservation, while at the same time demeaning the lives of wild animals and recreational hunting itself. He then asks: "Is SA’s quiet conservation revolution still on track? Is it a business model with conservation as a by-product or is it a conservation model which also provides economic benefits to the stakeholders?" Two different scenarios eventually emerge from David’s observations: a worst case, where cause and effect will drastically reduce the land under wildlife and reverse all the successes of the past five or six decades, and a more optimistic scenario likened to a three-legged stool where the public and private sectors and the dynamism of the markets combine as driving forces for conservation, and wildlife and habitat flourish.

Over-sensationalised

Meanwhile, Peter Oberem, deputy president of Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA) and Managing Director and Chairman of the Board of Afrivet, says the issue is being over-emphasised. “Firstly, colour-variant game is not a ‘new species’ or ‘subspecies’, but simply normal genetic variations in a normally diverse genetic pool. Also, referring to the practice as ‘genetic modification’ is pure sensationalist as it is just a normal process as seen in all animal and plant populations. In principle I believe the broader picture of the conversion of millions of hectares of land from marginal domestic stock ranching to a flourishing game-ranching industry is really where the emphasis should be and not on one or two of the smaller issues which seem to be more sensational. Natural free-market systems will limit any of these latter issues to a small part of the whole wonderful story.”

As for the alleged embryo transfer breeding practices, he added that the WRSA has a clear statement that these techniques should be limited to a genuine attempt to save species from extinction and should only be permitted with approval from the SA Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). Moreover, stating that colour-variant breeding activities, if uncontrolled, may eventually lead to polluting or even losing wild local phenotypes, he says, is pure speculation. “These so-called uncontrolled practices do not occur in our national parks, which are responsible for the preservation of our genetic diversity. Also bear in mind that the huge areas of land now used for private conservation previously had only domestic animals on them."

With regard to the issue of disenfranchising people, Peter added that WRSA has a clearly defined transformation policy and is in the process of establishing a transformation fund to contribute to the cause.