Picture: SUNDAY TIMES
Picture: SUNDAY TIMES

Related articles

THE trouble with talking about rhinoceroses is that there appears to be a generally held belief in the necessity to save them from extinction, that somehow the virtues of the rhino family are self-evident beyond their usefulness in quackery.

It makes a mess of discussions about the High Court in Pretoria ruling last week overturning the government’s moratorium on trade in rhino horn. Neither side in the debate appears prepared to countenance the idea of allowing the animals to lumber off into extinction. Instead, central to the arguments presented by the antagonists-in-chief is their claim that they hold the key to the survival of the rhino, even though neither side has adequate supporting evidence.

It is clear, also, that vested interests and material gains are the organising principles driving the scrap. Consider how saving an iconic endangered species would retard the fundraising at those organisations whose interests are vested in its continued endangered status.

Of course, looking after one’s interests and seeking material gain are sacred values in a free market, but misrepresentation undermines it.

Take the 10 good reasons for saving the rhino given by Save the Rhino, the UK-based charity since 1994. At the top of the list is a redundancy stating that rhinos "are critically endangered". So they are, some of them anyway, which must come as a relief to the organisation. The second reason, that "rhinos have been around for 40-million years", is stranger still. Really? Certain people have cheese in the back of the fridge older than that.

It continues in that vein, with some reasons more erudite than others, such as rhinos’ role as mega herbivores (apex consumers), though other grazers and browsers on the savannah could perform the ecological service just as well. The truth is revealed when the reasons given for saving the rhino are conflated with the reasons donors should support Save the Rhino ("We all have an opportunity to get involved!" etc).

The parties calling for an end to the moratorium on the horn trade present an equally spurious argument, saying stockpiled horn would flood the market and collapse the price, wiping out the poaching business. Nonsense. It is not in the interest of anyone with a stockpile of horn, or those with their horn still on the hoof, to sell their commodity into a collapsing market. That would be daft. Besides, there is no way a horn harvest from 20,000 or so rhinos will saturate a market that potentially numbers in the millions.

John Hume and Johan Kruger, the litigants in the case to overturn the moratorium, have a legitimate commercial interest in being allowed to sell their stockpiles and they should be encouraged to find the best possible price for their goods. If anything will curb poaching, it is the protection of the privately owned commercially exploitable parts of rhinos against theft. Sheep, for instance, vulnerable as they are to stock thieves, are not endangered.

Save the Rhino director Cathy Dean’s concern that the lifting of the moratorium is being considered for financial rather than conservation reasons suggests that she views commerce and conservation as contradictory concepts. What she does not say is that SA’s universally acknowledged success notwithstanding, the country has been unable to resist commercial demand. It may be unattractive, but that’s the way of the world.

Neither Dean nor the litigants can guarantee the survival of the rhino, and neither can they show a universal benefit arising from its survival. We do know, however, that if the horn trade is legalised worldwide, all of mankind would benefit from the removal of the criminal incentive. And so would the rhinos.

• Blom is a freelance journalist. He likes to flyfish