BY JOHN NASH
A couple of weeks ago, I commented on a deceitful article about giraffes written by Don Pinnock—affectionately known as Dumb Pillock—regarding the 40 million acres of South Africa’s legitimate and economically significant US$2.5 billion sustainable game hunting industry. I concluded that piece with the remark: “It would be difficult to pack more deceit into one article.”
I must admit, that wasn’t entirely accurate. There are countless examples of the rat-like cunning employed by eco-chuggers and clickbait parasites who run a particularly nasty—and lucrative—green shakedown by demonising farmers, field sports enthusiasts, and hunters. It’s a profitable left-wing industry that, alas, thrives in wealthy Western democracies.
The reason it targets prosperous Westerners is best explained by Sutton’s Law, named after the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton. When asked why he robbed banks, he supposedly replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” The green shakedown operates on the same principle—it goes where the cash is, not where the wildlife is. Affluent Western nations have deep pockets and populations who, thanks to their high consumption (enabled by vast, efficient industries), are generally decent people—well-fed, well-protected, well-civilised—but soft, completely detached from reality.
The explanation is simple: over four billion years, evolution (Darwinian, of course) has progressed on two legs. The first, competition, is about surviving long enough to gather resources for the second: reproduction and nurturing. Then the cycle repeats. In human civilisation, the second leg is facilitated by our highly effective “cave,” where we raise our young.
Yet even now, civilisation still depends on that first leg—security and resources—provided by primary industries and the military, who “hunt” in the wild and bring supplies to the cave’s entrance. This is the supply side of civilisation. Inside, secondary industries convert raw materials into useful goods, which then move deeper into the cave to sustain us, allowing comfort and kindness. This consumptive side relies entirely on the less civilised work happening outside. If you’re enjoying a hearty Western omelette, rest assured—someone, somewhere, is cracking a lorry-load of eggs.
As Western societies became more efficient at securing resources, living standards and consumption soared. Safe and well-fed citizens now demand more civilisation—higher living standards for everyone: the elderly, the young, the sick, the poor, animals, birds, nature, the environment, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all—even boat people and medieval goat-molesters.
Wealthy urbanites, flush with cash but divorced from reality, can afford such grand gestures.
Eventually, this ultra-civilised behaviour—well-intentioned but utterly detached—crosses a line and turns toxic. Overconsumption breeds dissatisfaction, anxiety, and eco-angst, transforming these do-gooders into the world’s worst hypocrites—a point perfectly made by John Dutton in Yellowstone:
You ever plough a field? To plant quinoa or sorghum or whatever the hell it is you eat? You kill everything on the ground and under it. You kill every snake, every frog, every mouse, mole, vole, worm, quail… you kill them all. So I guess the only real question is: how cute does an animal have to be before you care if it dies to feed you?”
Combined with their disposable income, their hypocrisy and eco-anxiety make them easy targets for eco-chuggers. Take The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting (CBTH), a tidy little earner set up by “Honest Eddy” Gonçalves in the UK. Ask any virtue-signalling celebrity airhead, and they’ll insist CBTH “protects animals from trophy hunters”—it says so right on the (donation) tin. But in reality, it protects nothing. It simply collects money to push for a global trophy hunting ban. Honest Eddy whips up urban outrage by portraying trophy hunters as psychopathic colonial brutes hellbent on exterminating wildlife. His scaremongering loosens purse strings, promising “a world where animals are safe from trophy hunters.” Yet it has nothing to do with conservation—it’s pure fear profiteering.
On 28 July, The Daily Maverick published an op-ed by Adam Cruise titled “Communities near Kruger Park reject trophy hunting, embrace ethical alternatives.” Cruise cites a Biological Conservation study surveying 1,500 rural Africans who supposedly “hate hunting and love animals,” declaring wildlife “part of our heritage” and opposing killing for profit. Really? Having spent years trading in the African bush, I know rural Africans’ main wildlife concern (outside parks) was whether I’d shot the tastiest animal for supper—and if it was cooked properly over the fire. Horns and skins? Just inedible leftovers. “Do you like kudu?” “Yes, but I can’t eat a whole one.”
Undeterred by reality, Cruise grandly claims, “The findings debunk the narrative that rural communities depend on trophy hunting to survive and instead highlight a growing desire for coexistence and respect for animal sentience.” Blimey—who knew rural Africans were secretly obsessed with animal sentience, especially when those same animals raid their crops and maul their relatives? Where’s the cruise control when you need it?
A gullible urban reader might swallow this sanctimonious green drivel, but a few key facts are conveniently omitted. For starters, Dr Cruise holds a PhD in Philosophy, not zoology. He’s also the same chap who peddled the Cecil the Lion story—a heavily embellished tale that sparked global outrage and fuelled the anti-hunting hate machine. Unsurprisingly, in 2023, he was acting CEO of CBTH—Honest Eddy’s little money-spinner. Apples don’t fall far from the tree, especially when they’re worm-ridden.
He goes on, constructing his grand green fantasy: “These findings offer governments a blueprint for ethical conservation… In 2023, over 6,000 international hunters killed 34,000 animals in South Africa. These figures reflect a system built on profit and entertainment for an elite few, not preservation.” He forgets to mention that most of those animals were eaten, that the survey didn’t cover the areas where hunting actually occurs, and that South Africa’s wildlife numbers have soared under sustainable hunting. He sneers at “profit” and the “elite” but can’t explain how his “preservation” would match the 20-fold increase in wildlife on private hunting reserves.
The report’s authors include T.P. Moorhouse, who coincidentally found that rural Africans support his idea for a “Lion Tax” on tourists to replace hunting revenue. A quick back-of-a-fag-packet calculation suggests $227 per visitor—good luck getting that past ANC President “Squirrel” Ramaphosa, who’d lose those funds faster than you can say “Ker-ching!” Another author is Neil D’Cruze of World Animal Protection (donate now!), which rakes in £30 million a year to fight “animal cruelty”—while doing nothing to actually conserve wildlife.
In truth, the “research” merely surveyed desperately poor people living near Kruger Park. Unsurprisingly, they want a slice of the tourism pie—the Greater Kruger area draws 2 million visitors a year. But dig deeper: only 200,000 are foreign tourists who could feasibly pay a “Lion Tax.” The rest are locals who can barely afford a biltong snack, let alone a $12,000 conservation levy.
And what about the 100,000 rural South Africans who rely on hunting for jobs? Or the 10,000 private game reserves (covering 160,000 km²) where wildlife thrives because of hunting?
Soon, this nonsense will be presented to the UK Parliament as “proof” that “Africans hate trophy hunters.” In reality, rural Africans love hunters—they pay well, do the dangerous work, and leave the meat behind.
But in Britain, African wildlife and people are just props in a shakedown. It’s enough to make you lose the will to live—or at least face-plant into your morning porridge.
John Nash grew up in West Cornwall and was a £10 pom to Johannesburg in the early 1960’s. He started well in construction project management, mainly high-rise buildings but it wasn’t really Africa, so he went bush, prospecting and trading around the murkier bits of the bottom half of the continent. Now retired back in Cornwall among all the other evil old pirates. His interests are still sustainable resources, wildlife management and the utilitarian needs of rural Africa. John is the co-author of Dear Townies with the Editor.