A Hunt For Gold Colour Variant Animals To Hunt Or Not

[BRICKBURN]

………………..


Hi Brickburn

I initially wanted make this the focus of my study, from what some farmers said (unverified) it seemed that colour did influence sexual selection, unfortunately it was very difficult to study because of the high degree of management on game farms, where only the animals with the desirable traits are allowed to breed whilst the other animals are sold at auction or hunted. So on many occasions just as I thought this or that herd of bachelor springbok are now getting to be a nice size and will soon compete with the dominant males I would go back to the farm for my next period of fieldwork and all of those rams would be gone, leaving no competition for the existing males.

Thanks for all your inputs, I really enjoy it and find that seeing things through different eyes makes one think a bit further than just the obvious stuff.

It is the same in the wild. Hunters are always screwing up the research by removing animals from the study.

 

[Hank2211]

Not sure if we want to bring this issue back to life, but on my recent safari in South Africa, I saw a number of "golden wildebeest" on a high-fenced property. They were mixed in with a larger number of "regular" blue wildebeest.

I asked the owner how he bred the animals, and he said he didn't. The bull was put in there, and he just breeds, as do other bulls. Every so often one of the calves is golden. He said the trait was never common, but it was natural, and the odds of a golden wildebeest with a mating of a golden bull and regular female were low, but they improved in the second and subsequent generations.

This is often the case with naturally recessive genes, as this colour seems to be. That means it will occur in the wild, from time to time, but will likely never be common, without human intervention. But to call it "unnatural" or a "freak" would be a mistake - it is natural. You do not need to genetically modify the animal in order to create this colour variant.

The question is this. So many people - including, I think, PHASA - are saying that these colour variants will destroy the hunting industry in South Africa. Peter Flack has stated:

"the intensive breeding and domestication of wildlife to produce animals with exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variations is, along with canned killing, causing overseas hunters to avoid South Africa."
​

Has the breeding of large springbok by Jules of the Karoo, for example, caused anyone to avoid hunting in South Africa? Has the existence of these colour variants cause anyone to avoid hunting in South Africa?

 

[caddman]

I find some of the variants rather interesting to look at. That is it for me however, I have no desire to hunt any of them.
I really can't imagine gazing at a mount or photo and thinking what?

Some breeder sure did a great job with the genetic manipulation on this specimen! Not for me, thanks.

I expect the market will take care of the vast majority of these oddities in due course. If not it will certainly account for the money men. The global market for these price inflated animals is not large enough to justify the input costs over time. Much less, enough money to satisfy those 'investors' of such schemes. Sure, tHe few in early will make a few bucks, but the vast majority will be left short.

 

[Hank2211]

I find some of the variants rather interesting to look at. That is it for me however, I have no desire to hunt any of them.
I really can't imagine gazing at a mount or photo and thinking what?

Some breeder sure did a great job with the genetic manipulation on this specimen! Not for me, thanks.

I expect the market will take care of the vast majority of these oddities in due course. If not it will certainly account for the money men. The global market for these price inflated animals is not large enough to justify the input costs over time. Much less, enough money to satisfy those 'investors' of such schemes. Sure, tHe few in early will make a few bucks, but the vast majority will be left short.

Caddman, I agree with you completely. I have no desire to hunt one of these "extra special" animals, although I will admit to getting the four springbok on one hunt, and a white blesbok on another (while all were reasonably priced - not sure what's happened to copper springbok). In addition, I think these types of things are self correcting, as you say - if there is no end user who will pay, the house of cards will come down, and the last ones in will be hurt the most.

But I don't see the existence of these things as destroying hunting in South Africa.

 

[caddman]

Caddman, I agree with you completely. I have no desire to hunt one of these "extra special" animals,
But I don't see the existence of these things as destroying hunting in South Africa.

Hank2211 - I don't see it 'destroying hunting in South Africa' either. Flip side - I doubt it is enhancing it. The endeavour may destroy a few bank accounts of those late in the scheme though.
As for your 4 color Sprinbuck hunt - I don't condemn anyone for taking these types of animals, it's just not for me. As stated, I believe the issue will be sorted out in due course. Good hunting !

 

[CAustin]

I wouldn't mind having a Golden Wildebeest on the wall!
The folks at the lodge I stayed at last year had one in the herd.

 

[ActionBob]

@Hank2211 I think you point out very well that from a realistic understanding of breeding and genetics, there is not any harm being done. From the exasperated claims of some, you would think genes are being spliced in a lab, rather than controlled and selective breeding of existing genetics. Some would make it sound like they are crossing Texas Longhorns with buffalo!

As for the concerns of this causing overseas hunters to avoid South Africa, from my perspective there are plenty of other things contributing to that! Such as dishonesty and misrepresentation of what they are selling. Of course there are many good operators but even some with outstanding reputations can get a little "careless with the truth" to quote one such outfitter. And I think the high fences, especially when represented as "real wild hunts" tend to turn some off. Of course RSA does not have a monopoly on such things! The hunting industry World wide seems to be plagued by a few bad operators.

On the other hand I suspect RSA still sells more hunts than any other country in Africa, and possibly more than all the others combined. And probably has more upstanding outfitters than most places! Good honest representation of what is being sold, fair and honest accounting from pricing to receiving payments, standing behind what they represent, avoiding collusion such as between outfitters, taxidermist, shippers, etc. All these things can work to sustain and grow business... trying to make the quick buck whether from color variants, bred up trophies, or unsavory business practices will always catch up sooner or later.

 

[Hank2211]

@Hank2211 I think you point out very well that from a realistic understanding of breeding and genetics, there is not any harm being done. From the exasperated claims of some, you would think genes are being spliced in a lab, rather than controlled and selective breeding of existing genetics. Some would make it sound like they are crossing Texas Longhorns with buffalo!

As for the concerns of this causing overseas hunters to avoid South Africa, from my perspective there are plenty of other things contributing to that! Such as dishonesty and misrepresentation of what they are selling. Of course there are many good operators but even some with outstanding reputations can get a little "careless with the truth" to quote one such outfitter. And I think the high fences, especially when represented as "real wild hunts" tend to turn some off. Of course RSA does not have a monopoly on such things! The hunting industry World wide seems to be plagued by a few bad operators.

On the other hand I suspect RSA still sells more hunts than any other country in Africa, and possibly more than all the others combined. And probably has more upstanding outfitters than most places! Good honest representation of what is being sold, fair and honest accounting from pricing to receiving payments, standing behind what they represent, avoiding collusion such as between outfitters, taxidermist, shippers, etc. All these things can work to sustain and grow business... trying to make the quick buck whether from color variants, bred up trophies, or unsavory business practices will always catch up sooner or later.

ActionBob, I think you are entirely accurate. There are very reputable outfitters in South Africa, but there are many - too many - who play fast and loose. And in many cases those charged with policing the industry - and I include PHASA in this - seem unable or unwilling to do what is needed. By all means go after canned lion hunting, or breeding of colour variants, or whatever, but none of those is a reason anyone avoids hunting in Africa in general or South Africa in particular.

 

[AB2506]

Not sure if we want to bring this issue back to life, but on my recent safari in South Africa, I saw a number of "golden wildebeest" on a high-fenced property. They were mixed in with a larger number of "regular" blue wildebeest.

I asked the owner how he bred the animals, and he said he didn't. The bull was put in there, and he just breeds, as do other bulls. Every so often one of the calves is golden. He said the trait was never common, but it was natural, and the odds of a golden wildebeest with a mating of a golden bull and regular female were low, but they improved in the second and subsequent generations.

This is often the case with naturally recessive genes, as this colour seems to be. That means it will occur in the wild, from time to time, but will likely never be common, without human intervention. But to call it "unnatural" or a "freak" would be a mistake - it is natural. You do not need to genetically modify the animal in order to create this colour variant.

The question is this. So many people - including, I think, PHASA - are saying that these colour variants will destroy the hunting industry in South Africa. Peter Flack has stated:

"the intensive breeding and domestication of wildlife to produce animals with exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variations is, along with canned killing, causing overseas hunters to avoid South Africa."
​

Has the breeding of large springbok by Jules of the Karoo, for example, caused anyone to avoid hunting in South Africa? Has the existence of these colour variants cause anyone to avoid hunting in South Africa?

I don't agree with Flack. I for one will not avoid South Africa because of the above listed issues (except for canned hunting). However, I am concerned that breeding to promote the recessive colors and marketing these virtual mutants cannot be construed as conservation of the species. It is simply breeding to promote a relatively rare animal and derive a higher profit.

Breeding for horn length is slightly less offensive to me, but I ask is it really necessary? Is it truly successful outside the pen? I hunted on a farm in the Eastern Cape that had whatever springbok were common in the vicinity. The farmer brought in some rams from the Kalahari or Namibia (can't remember exactly) that had larger horns. He said horn size was increased in the first generation, but unless the offspring ewes were bred back to the father, or another similar ram, the increased horn size was pretty much dissipated within 2-3 generations. He came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the effort or the expense. I think I agree with him completely.

Now why I am I saying this? I have not been a big Shane Mahoney fan in the past, but I saw a recent speech of his where he advocated that we as hunters and a hunting industry have to be better and change behaviors, terminology ( should be no "sport" "trophy" "meat" adjectives etc, we hunt, period). I'm not sure I can explain it better than Shane, so here it is:

I have a new found respect for him. I believe that he is more right than wrong in this speech.

The hunting world needs to change and be aware of how we look to the non-hunters. Breeding for recessive colors, or for size, does not pass the stink test with the general public. I could also throw lions raised for hunting in there also. The optics are bad, so why do it? Just my thoughts.

 

[Hank2211]

AB2506, I think we agree on the main points. Where we might differ is with respect to the non-hunting public's interest, or lack thereof, in the breeding of colour variants or for certain attributes like long horns.

I think the informed public's interest - and mine - is in the 'domestication' of wildlife. I have no desire to hunt a cow (if such a thing is even possible - it just stands there most of the time), nor do I really want to hunt animals that are to a great extent equally domesticated. This is to a great extent the inevitable result of small breeding pens or enclosures, selective breeding, etc., which all require a degree of control over the life of a wild animal that is 'unnatural.'

I used the term "informed public" intentionally. To much of the public, normal wild animal behaviour is what they see on safari drives in one park or another. That may be true in Kruger, but it may not be true in many safari parks. Is is normal leopard behaviour to hunt during the day? Is it normal for animals to have no, or little, fear of man? I'd say not, except in Disneyland.

A couple of years ago I spend three days on a large game reserve in South Africa. To reduce animal populations and make some money, the reserve sold some quotas to outfitters and mine wanted me to give it a try and let him know what I thought. These animals were not used to being shot at by people, and had little fear. I could walk to within 150 yards of zebra on open plains. There were lots of animals, and lots to shoot at, but nothing to hunt.

That's my concern with this breeding, not the colour or the horn size.

 

[ActionBob]

I am concerned that breeding to promote the recessive colors and marketing these virtual mutants cannot be construed as conservation of the species. It is simply breeding to promote a relatively rare animal and derive a higher profit.

Good post @AB2506 , we all have our own thoughts on these issues and even change our minds as we go sometimes....

Obviously the breeding for color varients it is strictly trying to fill a niche market for more profit... However I don't think it is on the anti's radar like pen raised lion hunting. At least not any more than high fenced hunting in general. Strictly IMO. I fully understand the "perception" issues. However from a practical point I just don't see the limited and controlled breeding for color having an impact either way on real conservation.

 

[Zambezi]

To revive an old thread... I don't have a hard opinion on this subject either way. What I will say is that I'd love to come across a NATURALLY occurring colour variant and shoot that. The trophy on the wall will be one of a "once in a lifetime" in the right place at the right time trophy. Not many people have those trophies. BUT if there are millions of animals bred for the colour it cheapens the colour trophy. Now every Tom, Dick or Harry has one on his wall.

 

[Firebird]

White ducks in a park are called tame white park ducks.
Then one joins a flock of wild mallards and gets killed along their migration and he is somehow a trophy which must be mounted.
we saw white lions in a game park and I thought they were stupid and the brochure even pointed out that they had to be integrated into a natural pride as their color prevented them from hunting effectively.
Then at lunch other visitors at the park went bonkers to see the white lion-literally the reason they were at the park. And I had gone out of my way not to have them in my pictures!
I love the colored springboks but think the colored wildebeests look retarded. To each their own, and with all things including white lions, if it pays it stays

 

[Hank2211]

To revive an old thread... I don't have a hard opinion on this subject either way. What I will say is that I'd love to come across a NATURALLY occurring colour variant and shoot that. The trophy on the wall will be one of a "once in a lifetime" in the right place at the right time trophy. Not many people have those trophies. BUT if there are millions of animals bred for the colour it cheapens the colour trophy. Now every Tom, Dick or Harry has one on his wall.

I’m curious why you only want a color variant if no one else (or very few) has it? And why the fact that these animals are being bred cheapens the trophy?

Understand that while I’m not a big fan of game breeding (though I understand its value), I’m even less of a fan of breeding for colour variants (and for horn size for that matter). I have to wonder though if you’ve hunted hard for a golden wildebeest, is it a less impressive trophy than, say, someone who shot a sable after a 10 minute walk through the bush?

My best trophies aren’t necessarily the rarest ones I’ve taken, but rather the ones For which I’ve had to work the hardest. (But I admit that when the two combine, well, don’t get me started on my Mountain Nyala!)

No hard-won trophy is cheapened, in my view, by the fact that Tom, Dick or even Harry has one, or that the animal was bred. It’s only cheapened when it wasn’t taken ethically or, in certain circumstances, if it came too easily as a result of something I’ve done, like having the animal put there to be shot (Artemis looking favorably on me and putting a nice trophy in my sights never cheapens anything).

 

[tigris115]

I have my concerns with color variants due to a similar fad in zoos with white tigers.

All the white tigers in the world can be traced back to one individual caught in Central India so as you can imagine, all but a few in Indian zoos are as inbred as Habsburgs. It didn't help that people would purposefully cross siblings and children with parents for higher chances of rare color morphs. In fact, the AZA (The accrediting body for NA zoos) told all their members to put the kibosh on breeding white tigers and lions for the sole reason that they're of no conservation benefit as they can't survive in the wild and their genetic records are dubious to the extreme.

 

[R.M.C.]

If it's a naturally occurring wild animal it's one thing but I don't like the idea of guys breeding for high dollar profits. And I can't afford a golden anything lol. I don't mind anybody shooting whatever they want but it's not for me.
But I would and have shot pie bald and albino whitetail but I put them in a different category than a golden wildebeest
Just my two cents lol

 

[chonk34]

I am mostly concerned with ensuring that the animals are fairly hunted and that breeding for color variants does not harm the herd genetically. We saw color variations of Impala, Springbok, and Wildebeest during our time in South Africa, and they seemed just as wild as their conventionally-colored counterparts. Trophy fees now are reasonable enough that I might someday desire to hunt a Golden Wildebeest (they are certainly beautiful animals) or the Springbok slam (you can get all 4 for under $3k total currently), but another part of me feels like it is all a bit of manufactured hoopla that the industry could do without. I guess that makes me wishy-washy overall. Part of that feeling comes from my perception that some outfitters push the color variations as something more special than it really is, given that they can always order another one to place on their ranch once someone bites on the offer to hunt one. Of course they can also replace a 'regular' animal in the same way, but the sales game on the color variations feels a little less authentic to me.

 

[WAB]

Color variants are not something that interest me in the least. I have no problem if someone wants to hunt an animal bred for specific characteristics. At the prices charged for some of these animals you could go on a proper buffalo hunt in a wild area!

 

[jacques smith]

Flippie—- I would shoot the one in your opening comments and picture

 

[R.M.C.]