A Hunt For Gold Colour Variant Animals To Hunt Or Not

[ActionBob]

Wow;
I have a lot to say here. Especially in trying to separate fact and science from emotion.
First off, Flippie... Great thread (obviously) and all the best in your research! You could probably make a lifetime career out of it if you really wanted to.

The issues in question will work themselves out. Lots of comments to that effect but Hank2211 summed it up when he said it will be self limiting.

Obviously the comments about paying the extreme high prices to hunt these animals is the exception and not the rule... Those extreme prices are obviously going more towards breeding stock and any trophy fees are taken as opportunity and/or residual.

Dairy cow genetics were brought up by Sable123 and that is a topic in which I am very involved and can speak to with confidence. It is highly unlikely that any dairyman bred cows specifically for "bigger udders" as that is not, as you assume, correlated directly to milk production. Cows can have large udders, produce a lot of milk, and live a long time if managed properly and if they also have strong center ligaments, etc. to carry the weight. But they can also have very nice tight udders if the udders are full and high in the rear and wide but well supported in the front. Genetic advancement can be made here as well together with higher production. The average increase in production of dairy cows due to genetics has been impressive. However, in the USA at least, production increases have far outstripped genetic improvement and it is routinely estimated that dairy cow production is attributed about 20% to genetics and 80% to better management. The large udders and failure after 1 lactation is more likely to management shortcomings. As cows produce more, their management requirements also increase... This is logically as well as scientifically explained.

The average dairy cow that I am familiar with produces at least twice as much milk today as it did say 4o years ago and from much better/tighter udders. Genetic progress is a very good thing. Hell without it we might all be looking at baboons in the mirror! .... On second thought, maybe we don't want to go down that road... Ha Ha

I will post again on color variation more specifically.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Sorry for my ignorance but are these colour variation African species naturally occurring are they a product of human intervention/manipulation for profit?

John

Answer: product of human intervention/manipulation for profit.

 

[enysse]

I think the whole color variation is pure greed and has nothing to do with wildlife conservation. It's about making different products that are essentially the same thing with a different coat of paint. I think the prices are crazy and I don't support it financially.

I'm for breeding animals with bigger horns and culling the inferior genetics.

 

[ActionBob]

Ok with Brickburn' s reply it may be appropriate to further discuss genetics and color variation.

So back to dairy cows as they are a prime example of genetic manipulation by human selection processes, and successfully so for the goals set out. The progress in milk production has really benefitted the consumer the most long term as it has increased milk supply and held down prices.. You may not believe this when you go to the store lately, but it is true. Imagine what prices would be with less productive/efficient cows!

Holstein Dairy cows are black and white, but there are color variation of red and white ones. Some people really like the red and whites and have bred for that as an interest. And of course that could be said that it was commercialized as for a time at least, they would bring a premium for breeding purposes... Probably 20-30 years ago...... However it became apparent by the results that when you concentrate on one trait (i.e. red color) you need to make sacrifices on other traits. So there were and are some very high quality red and white Holsteins, however that is more the exception than the rule.... As all the production and health traits and/or type traits have had to take a second seat to the selection for color... So I am biased against red and white Holsteins as they tend, on average, to have poorer feet and legs, poorer quality udders, and lower production. These are natural and reasonable expectations as when breeding black and whites, absolutely no emphasis needs be put on color so emphasis can be placed on traits that represent true financial incentive. Today in my World, red and whites are worth less.

However with hunting, we are not "paying" for reproduction efficiency (well indirectly we are), milk or meat production. The big market is for trophy quality so breeders will naturally do what they can to breed for bigger horns and color variation or whatever pays! Now if breeding for those traits cause an animal to be less efficient at reproduction or less healthy, and therefore they are more expensive to attain numerous specimens of sufficient quantity and quality to supply the market for them... The price will rise. If they reproduce, grow well, don't get sick, etc. and the supply increases to satisfy or surpass demand.. The market value will drop.

In the mean time, with anything new or different, there is at least a temporary increase in value just for breeding stock... This will eventually level off as either supply is increased or demand reduced... This is capitalism and it is alive and well in the hunting industry in RSA! This is a good thing. It increases options available to consumers (us hunters) and likewise if we do not like it, we don't have to buy it. I for one am looking forward to completing my Springbuck Slam... I don't like the cost of the copper ones, but it is my "choice" as to whether I take one or not. And I can shop around for good deal if I want to ... This is an example of how the market is reacting to supply and demand... And it is my choice as a consumer participating in this market to buy or not. I can take that same money and put it towards a Vaalie or Klipspringer or whatever instead... But I have the choice! This is where I as a consumer win! Because someone is putting their effort and money into breeding these color variations it increases consumer choices and I just don't see how that is bad. I can also choose to not participate in this.

As stated several times by others, this will work itself out.

 

[cmc]

I'm likely not educated enough to participate in this conversation but I will try. My son is really into snakes and I know a lot about the color variations of ball pythons and I see this as no different. We are hunting the animals and the python owners are keeping as pets but the breeding for color is the same. Years ago a pie bald ball python would sell for $10,000 today they can be had for less than $1,000. The more there are the less they are worth, same has been said above, it works itself out but in the reptile industry there's always something new. I have no idea how many variations of ball pythons there are now but these snakes are not genetically inferior they were simply bred to show a dominant gene that consumers wanted. These are not wild snakes but the overall population of ball pythons has to be as high as its ever been. As for calling an animal with say smaller horn size inferior I don't think that's true. Bigger horns doesn't make it a better animal in every ones mind. I like big critters as much as the next guy but to me an inferior gene would not have anything to do with what we think looks good but more the health of the animal.

 

[Rainer Ling]

If one wants to quantify the success of any project, institution or individual- the rate of success depends on three key questions:

1.) In the nucleus, the essence of the project, is the question <why?>

2.) in the second sphere around that nucleus is the question <how?>

3.) and within the next sphere, the outer layer, the question will be : <what>

If we project these three key indicator question on to the wildlife sector, I am convinced that the conservation of wildlife, to maintain our natural heritage, should definitely form the nucleus.

Now let us look at the second question, the how:

To my interpretation the how should be answered with : the sustainable utilisation of wildlife . This should be practised in an environment as similar as possible to the original biotope and in the most natural state ( colours). We all know that civilisation and the ever increasing human population urges us to find compromises in this regard. The times that we should leave everything to nature to sort itself out are gone for good. The terminology of sustainability should not be reduced to simply answer to the economic rule what pays stays- but should rather consider all relevant contributing factors.

The third question is what to do .

So often reference is made to the success story of wildlife numbers recovering in South Africa & Namibia.

Yes , during the initial stages of this success story high fenced game farms were a very important and indispensible stepping stone, with all its known advantages and disadvantages. However if we look into the future we should think in terms of bigger units to address especially the negative ecological impacts of small confined areas, in order to reach our goal to imitate the natural state as closely as possible . In this context conservancies could play a very important role.

What not to do: Therefore we should not be guided by economics only. The statement that serves as justification to breed colour variations, that the hunting sector demands these, is nothing else than a myth. To my understanding the hype to breed colour variations is a pyramid system, very similar to the so-called Kubus pyramid system in SA some 30 years ago- the connection to a living creature makes this pyramid scheme look much more acceptable and viable.

The breeding of colour variations in extremely small breeding and management camps is not answering to the philosophy of wildlife management on bigger areas as outlined above. The artificial breeding of wildlife can lead to a high degree of domestication of wild animals. A negative example is the so-called captive lion breeding lobby, that became economically so strong, that neither the SA government nor the SA professional hunting association could oppose them anymore. Are we goind to talk in future also of captive bred Springbuck – or Impala hunting ? From the results of intensive inbreeding in domestic animals we also know that the eventual physical condition of the respective specie may deteriorates.

 

[ActionBob]

Rainer;
Very good points you make. However, this seems to forget the people and businesses involved and starts to sound like you are taking a position from the perspective of someone who is way outside looking in and forgetting that people have money and time invested in their own businesses. And from being a small business owner my whole life... I take real issue when others who think they know what is best for my business want to take control of it. Honestly this starts to sound like you would endorse simply forcing smaller high fenced operators to tear down their fences and join into a larger conservancy... Although I agree the conservancies are a great model and seem to work very well (from my outsiders viewpoint).... There would be no way I would suggest to a small business owner that he is to be forced into one if it is not something he wants to do.

The way I read what you posted, sounds like you take almost collective or communist stance on this.

I can agree that some crazy breeding of domestic dogs for example have gone off in odd directions..... But if you are referencing production livestock such as cattle and more specifically dairy cattle... You are completely wrong. They are more productive and hold up better today than ever before in history.

 

[ActionBob]

Answer: product of human intervention/manipulation for profit.

Brickburn;
Further clarification on this please.... When you talk about these color variations not occurring in nature and that they are a result of human manipulation.

Do you mean that technology such as gene splicing is taking place? Basically that the color variation is being inserted into the animals in a lab?

Or do you mean that humans are searching out and identifying animals with naturally occurring genetics for color variation and then controlling the mating of those animals to each other to intensify the color variation? To an extent that would not likely happen in nature?

Bob

 

[Sable123]

Sjoe this is a busy thread, i'll reply bullet form

I firmly believe that finer research should be done as should you Jono having studied at the centre for wildlife management in PTA, and being a biologist myself, I for one would like to know what hereditary issues might come up down the line as you know allot of line breeding have taken place in establishing the numbers of these freaks, herein lies the problem.

In all actuality there use to be a law that prohibited any movement of such COLOUR variants from the area it was located on, this has been conveniently swept under the carpet due to the obvious financial reasons.

I thirdly and very strongly have an extreme dislike in the commercial game breeding industry, all of which claim to do so in the name of conservation.... LIE! Terrible LIE.

1.) proper Eco systems are broken up into non viable 10 - 40 acre camps, most trees are poisoned, to establish palatable grasses in certain areas or to be able to monitor the species relocated to the camp easier, animals are fed on a continual basis to ensure maximum weight/condition, and breeding potential.

2.)human interaction is on an extreme level, animals are tame = completely un natural

3.)all breeders are claiming to conserve some genetic ironically for some reason it is a Zambian (sable) or East African (buff) apart from this if we are claiming conservation how does poisoning every single predator within a demarcated block fit into the picture I am unsure as to how UFS teach conservation but I believe it should be to the advantage of all species within an Eco system and not a select few with the appropriate price tag attached to it.

TO ME IT SEEMS THAT BREEDERS WANT THEIR CAKE AND THEY WANT TO EAT IT AS NO OTHER SPECIE IS ALLOWED TO WORK IN A VERY UNBALANCED AND ARTIFICIAL CAGE NOT EVEN AN ECO SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN ARTIFICIALLY CREATED.

I don't know Jono, to me it seems off, I believe that the special species breeding industry as some might call it should be seen for what it is and would refrain from hanging a conservation label around its neck.

With the utmost respect and only my very best .... As always

Thanks Jaco, you made some valid points. Definately something new to think about.

Wow;
I have a lot to say here. Especially in trying to separate fact and science from emotion.
First off, Flippie... Great thread (obviously) and all the best in your research! You could probably make a lifetime career out of it if you really wanted to.

The issues in question will work themselves out. Lots of comments to that effect but Hank2211 summed it up when he said it will be self limiting.

Obviously the comments about paying the extreme high prices to hunt these animals is the exception and not the rule... Those extreme prices are obviously going more towards breeding stock and any trophy fees are taken as opportunity and/or residual.

Dairy cow genetics were brought up by Sable123 and that is a topic in which I am very involved and can speak to with confidence. It is highly unlikely that any dairyman bred cows specifically for "bigger udders" as that is not, as you assume, correlated directly to milk production. Cows can have large udders, produce a lot of milk, and live a long time if managed properly and if they also have strong center ligaments, etc. to carry the weight. But they can also have very nice tight udders if the udders are full and high in the rear and wide but well supported in the front. Genetic advancement can be made here as well together with higher production. The average increase in production of dairy cows due to genetics has been impressive. However, in the USA at least, production increases have far outstripped genetic improvement and it is routinely estimated that dairy cow production is attributed about 20% to genetics and 80% to better management. The large udders and failure after 1 lactation is more likely to management shortcomings. As cows produce more, their management requirements also increase... This is logically as well as scientifically explained.

The average dairy cow that I am familiar with produces at least twice as much milk today as it did say 4o years ago and from much better/tighter udders. Genetic progress is a very good thing. Hell without it we might all be looking at baboons in the mirror! .... On second thought, maybe we don't want to go down that road... Ha Ha

I will post again on color variation more specifically.

A fellow dairy man, brilliant! My father and I had a dairy farm for ages and bred some beautiful looking Holsteins. I merely used the example "lightly" as a means of comparison and also A) it isn't a Dairy Forum and B) I never knew you @ActionBob would know so much on the subject We were a pasture based dairy farm and our cows walked along way to and from the parlour so we really bred our cattle according to the conditions, hence the reference on legs. There were guys in the area, less clued up on the finer details of breeding that did not and they suffered in the long run!

To my interpretation the how should be answered with : the sustainable utilisation of wildlife . This should be practised in an environment as similar as possible to the original biotope and in the most natural state ( colours). We all know that civilisation and the ever increasing human population urges us to find compromises in this regard. The times that we should leave everything to nature to sort itself out are gone for good. The terminology of sustainability should not be reduced to simply answer to the economic rule what pays stays- but should rather consider all relevant contributing factors.

A valid good point, but the next quote is how i feel on the matter! Most people are in it for the money (unfortunately) and if they not making money, they moving on to something that will.

Rainer;
Very good points you make. However, this seems to forget the people and businesses involved and starts to sound like you are taking a position from the perspective of someone who is way outside looking in and forgetting that people have money and time invested in their own businesses. And from being a small business owner my whole life... I take real issue when others who think they know what is best for my business want to take control of it. Honestly this starts to sound like you would endorse simply forcing smaller high fenced operators to tear down their fences and join into a larger conservancy... Although I agree the conservancies are a great model and seem to work very well (from my outsiders viewpoint).... There would be no way I would suggest to a small business owner that he is to be forced into one if it is not something he wants to do.

As mentioned by @Jaco Strauss it needs to be accepted for what it is. But that doesn't mean that it can't aid in the process of what they make it out to be, which should be conservation and preservation!!

Hell im done and getting chowed by mosquitos.

Cheers all
Jono

 

[enysse]

Or do you mean that humans are searching out and identifying animals with naturally occurring genetics for color variation and then controlling the mating of those animals to each other to intensify the color variation? To an extent that would not likely happen in nature?

I believe that is exactly is what goes on.

 

[ActionBob]

So I agree that is human intervention. However it also means that these genes do occur in nature... So really the answer is both.

I guess I have to go back to the whole "let it sort itself out" opinion. The genes are naturally occurring so cannot really do harm to the species or alter the species from what it really is or what it's gene pool contains.

If you read my input, you may think I am for this... I am really neutral. I do not see any Pandora's box in it, yet I am not out to promote it. I'm just encouraging understanding and tolerance.... And I am totally against taking away the freedom of these African farmers to do what they think best for their business... I am very pro-capitalism and against over-regulation beyound logic.

I'm sure it is like brown eyes and blue eyes. Brown eyes are the dominant gene and blue is recessive... This is the most basic genetic lesson and was taught in high school way back when I attended...

I understand that there may be some line breeding (yes that is inbreeding) taking place to concentrate the genes.... The old registered cattle breeders did this to concentrate good traits in cattle way back before computerized data could sort this stuff out... They would also occasionally get offspring that had concentrated bad genetics. And so would subsequently cull those... Simple enough solution.

If they breed two unrelated (not line bred) animals that both have a color variation recessive gene, they should reproduce that color variation with absolutely no negative effect other than might have happened anyway without the color variation. And it is a reasonable assumption that this would be completely possible in nature, as is line breeding... And in nature any severely negative traits, such as a crooked leg, would soon be "culled".

If they are line bred, odds are in a first generation there is little chance of negative effects... If good records are kept and someone who understand this all and can do the math, there should be very low risk of anything negative. It is very likely in the breeding circles they do understand this and it is also likely that if a color variation animal is identified who is unrelated to a larger pool of them who may have, say 6.25% common parentage... This particular animal would logically command a much higher price. At least this is how it would work in domestic livestock breeding. I suspect this has something to do with some of the exorbitant prices.

The way genetics work, you have a bell curve of positive and negative genes that can be passed on and it is completely random for each trait at each mating, within the range and odds of the bell curve... So the best you can hope for is to move that bell curve to the positive and that actually happens very successfully in controlled breeding programs.

So yes color variations, horn size, etc. can be concentrated over time.... And with a recessive gene like blue eyes, it can be done very easily and quickly.

However these are not science experiments... They are not transgenic. It is not gene splicing. What I understand we are talking about are naturally occurring genes that are already in the population....

On the other hand certain bacteria have been altered or engineered to make or grow artificial insulin and this has saved countless lives. Technology exists to go much farther..... This color variation and breeding for larger horns is not that advanced.

Sorry, I get going on this stuff.... But I would like to add that if you are against this, don't participate. Don't buy. Express your opinion with how you spend your money. And be grateful for having the choice to decide for yourself... But please try to understand it... or at least be understanding and tolerant. Don't protest it just to protest it. That is what the anti hunters do. And please don't try to come up with reasons to take away the freedom for entrepreneurs to do business... Or worse yet come up with grandiose plans to collectivize individual game farmers' property....

 

[enysse]

For sure a lot of it is about business. If the product didn't sell they would not be doing it. I have nothing gainst anyone hunting for color, its not high on my list, but many people enjoy it.

 

[KWALATA SAFARIS]

I beg to differ, these "genes" do occur on a very limited basis...

Breeders are and use to be guilty of line breeding, and the obvious complications with regards to the latter is no secret. Hence the astronomic rise in Impala (true) ewe prices on game auctions this season...as they themselves have realized this.

I do not fear for the original species at all, but rather have a dislike in the practice of game breeding (includes most buff (super duper horn length breeders) Sable(super duper horn length breeders) Livingston Eland (super duper horn length breeders, and all the color variants.
The reason for my dislikes are for the exact reasons mention in my second post, which stand without contestation .......and all and all is to the detriment of multiple other species that would or had previously occurred in a now sterile (apart from a couple if Sable) style land scape .....and this practice in itself has very little to do if any with conservation which gives it a double black patch IMO.

I don't participate, I don't buy but let's try convincing CIC of that. This is going to hurt the hunting industry.

My best always

 

[Rainer Ling]

Rainer;
Very good points you make. However, this seems to forget the people and businesses involved and starts to sound like you are taking a position from the perspective of someone who is way outside looking in and forgetting that people have money and time invested in their own businesses. And from being a small business owner my whole life... I take real issue when others who think they know what is best for my business want to take control of it. Honestly this starts to sound like you would endorse simply forcing smaller high fenced operators to tear down their fences and join into a larger conservancy... Although I agree the conservancies are a great model and seem to work very well (from my outsiders viewpoint).... There would be no way I would suggest to a small business owner that he is to be forced into one if it is not something he wants to do.

The way I read what you posted, sounds like you take almost collective or communist stance on this.

I can agree that some crazy breeding of domestic dogs for example have gone off in odd directions..... But if you are referencing production livestock such as cattle and more specifically dairy cattle... You are completely wrong. They are more productive and hold up better today than ever before in history.

 

[Rainer Ling]

Action Bob,


My surname might sound Chinese but this does not imply that I am a follower of the communist philosophy- on the contrary. If you read my thread carefully you would have noticed that I talked about the future and “should”- so there can be no doubt that I had but no intention to sound or to be prescriptive to anybody.

People invested in a ( small ? ) businesses, the breeding of colour variations , for the only reason to gain large profits –without implementing the measuring stick of sustainability regarding the environmental and other consequences- this can also be expressed as greed. Greed was the single reason that brought the financial system of the world on the rim of a catastrophe!

In several threads the arguments were already made that conservation and the demand from the hunting sector are but useful tools to conceal these practices for what they really are.

My opinion is that the large scale artificial/superficial breeding of colour variations is a tremendous threat not only to ecology, more specifically to the gene pool but also to the hunting sector. With the same right that you try to defend the existence of small businesses, I want defend the right of existence of the complex eco tourism, the business variation that provides not only my livelihood but the livelihood for thousands of people, especially in Africa.

There are multiple examples where the physical condition of domestic stock were affected negatively by inbreeding ( line breeding) One example is the breeding of white Karakul lamb skins for the international fur market. Through intensive inbreeding the pure white lambs (A) developed a genetically deficiency ,the sub-lethal factor, where the transmission from the milk rumen to the rumen that digests roughage is problematic and even leads to up to 25% mortalities!

Probably the fur trade bears a few more illustrating examples- the breeding of colour variations in mink, foxes and other fur species lead to large scale captive breeding operations all over the globe. Eventually the consumer, the public, condemned these practices- the fur trade shrunk by 80 % but the real sad side of the story is that the trappers and shippers of sustainably utilized wild furs went out of business. Probably now you understand better why I take a definite stance against the captive artificial breeding of wild species.

 

[ActionBob]

Jaco;
I really appreciate your solid honest opinion and your flat out stating that you dislike the practice. I don't really know enough about how these practices are carried out in Africa to have an opinion whether I like it or not. Right now there are plenty of species and variety for me to hunt that I feel no need to go after a golden colored wildebeest or whatever.... I do intend to take a white and probably copper springbuck to add to my black and common.

Are these color variations of springbuck included in this discussion? Other than thre copper, I saw lots of white and black ones running around what looked to be free range.

Rainer;
It was not your name that inspired the comments directed towards you. Rather it was the context of what you were saying overall.

 

[KWALATA SAFARIS]

Actionbob, funnily enough no, neither are White Blesbuck, for some reason their numbers have always been more plenty full, my 2 semesters of genetics is by no means enough to explain why or why not, this has occurred...

As for golden wildebeest, kings wildebees, black impala they have been very rare... All the saddle back thing are almost black or brown (Blesbuck) but not quite enough and so on..

My biggest issue is pretty much the extremely lob sided conservation theory or rather facade...

Ps. Myself and my old man and many friends bump heads on this subject quite often it is like politics and church talk in my house...

My best always

 

[Sable123]

@Jaco Strauss Can you see the government introducing some sort of legislation against this?
I know there is already talk of preventing animals that did not "originally" occur in a certain province from being introduced. Also at present this type of breeding practice in SA falls under the Environmental and Tourism Department where it should really fall under the Agricultural and Forestries Department. So in that fact alone, does it provide guys with more opportunities to really take this thing to new extremes, even past colour variations?

 

[KWALATA SAFARIS]

The problem with placing it under agriculture is where will we differentiate game ranching from intensive game breeding, there has to be a difference? ?
Is there a difference?
I believe there is.

As far as legislation goes I do not see any in the nearby future the money is just to good.

I simply don't believe I have the knowledge to accurately answer your questions.

Sorry.

My best always.

 

[spike.t]

Ps. Myself and my old man and many friends bump heads on this subject quite often it is like politics and church talk in my house...

My best always

jaco looking forward to a bit of headbumping, as after being at the pilansberg auction i would be in there buying and selling if i had some spare loot