What Drives Illegal Hunting with Dogs? Traditional Practice in Contemporary South Africa
Abstract
Illegal hunting with dogs in rural South Africa converges around issues of conservation, resource use, and livelihood. Hunting with dogs has a long cultural history, tethered to tradition and subsistence. Today, it is tightly regulated but practiced outside the law. Academic literature and mainstream media alike paint a multidimensional picture of the phenomenon. Some sources portray disenfranchised people practicing a culturally significant livelihood strategy; others emphasize illegal hunting’s destructive nature, severed from traditional context. The drivers of illegal hunting in rural South Africa sit at the nexus of multiple gaps of scholarly insight, linked to a history of widespread stratification of land use, prohibition of traditional hunting, and systematic control of African possession of dogs. There is a need for ethnographic work rooted in environmental history to grapple with the complex connections underlying this issue.
References
Couzens, E. 2007. Is Conservation a Viable Land Usage: Issues Surrounding the Sale of Ivory by Southern African Countries. In Land Use Law for Sustainable Development, edited by N. Chalifour, P. Kameri-Mbote, L. H. Lye, and J. Nolon, pp. 27–44. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Couzens, E., and A. Blackmore. 2010. A Millennium Overturned: The Long History in England and South Africa of Laws against Hunting with Dogs, and Recent Statutory Changes in the Province of KwaZulu-Natal. In Stella Iuris: Celebrating 100 Years of Teaching Law in Pietermaritzburg, edited by M. Kidd and S. Hoctor, pp. 298–321. Juta, Claremont, South Africa.
Dlamini, Z. 2005. Creating Stakeholders in Community-Based Natural Resource Management Through Traditional Hunting: A Comparative Study of Inhluzani Farm and Mpembeni Community Game Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal. Master’s Thesis, School of Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. Available from University of KwaZulu-Natal Research Space.
Duffy, R., F. St John, B. Büscher, and D. Brockington. 2016. Toward a New Understanding of the Links between Poverty and Illegal Wildlife Hunting. Conservation Biology 30:14–22. DOI:10.1111/cobi.12622.
Grey-Ross, R., C. T. Downs, and K. Kirkman. 2010. An Assessment of Illegal Hunting on Farmland in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Implications for Oribi (Ourebia Ourebi) Conservation. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 40:43–52. DOI:10.3957/056.040.0104.
Hebinck, P. 2018. Poaching: Between Conservation from Below, Livelihoods, and Resistance. In Nature Conservation in Southern Africa: Morality and Marginality: Towards Sentient Conservation?, edited by J. B. Gewald, M. Spierenburg, and H. Wels, pp. 257–292. Brill, Boston, MA.
Holmes, G. 2007. Protection, Politics and Protest: Understanding Resistance to Conservation. Conservation and Society 5:184–201.
Infield, M. 1988. Attitudes of a Rural Community towards Conservation and a Local Conservation Area in Natal, South Africa. Biological Conservation 45:21–46. DOI:10.1016/0006-3207(88)90050-x.
Kaschula, S., and C. Shackleton. 2009. Quantity and Significance of Wild Meat Off-Take by a Rural Community in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Environmental Conservation 36:192–200. DOI:10.1017/s0376892909990282.
Kaschula, S., and C. Shackleton. 2012. How Do HIV and AIDS Impact the Use of Natural Resources by Poor Rural Populations? The Case of Wild Animal Products. South African Journal of Science 108:1–9. DOI:10.4102/sajs.v108i1/2.549.
Kepe, T., B. Cousins, and S. Turner. 2001. Resource Tenure and Power Relations in Community Wildlife: The Case of the Mkambati Area, South Africa. Society & Natural Resources 14:911–925. DOI:10.1080/089419201753242814.
KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Management Amendment Act (No. 5 of 1999). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAOLEX Database [web page]. Available at: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/saf93097.pdf. Accessed on November 30, 2019.
Manqele, N. S., J. A. Selier, T. R. Hill, and C. T. Downs. 2018. Drivers of the Illegal Hunting of Serval (Leptailurus Serval) and Oribi (Ourebia Ourebi) in the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands, South Africa. African Journal of Wildlife Research 48:023004. DOI:10.3957/056.048.023004.
Pasmans, T., and P. Hebinck. 2017. Rural Development and the Role of Game Farming in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Land Use Policy 64:440–450. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.010.
Snijders, D. 2012. Wild Property and Its Boundaries – on Wildlife Policy and Rural Consequences in South Africa. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39:503–520. DOI:10.1080/03066150.2012.667406.
‘t Sas-Rolfes, M. 2017. African Wildlife Conservation and the Evolution of Hunting Institutions. Environmental Research Letters 12:115007. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/aa854b.
Tropp, J. 2002. Dogs, Poison, and the Meaning of Colonial Intervention in the Transkei, South Africa. The Journal of African History 43:451–472. DOI:10.1017/s0021853702008186.
Van Sittert, L., and S. Swart, eds. 2008. Canis Africanis: A Dog History of South Africa. Brill, Boston, MA.
Warchol, G., and B. Johnson. 2009. Wildlife Crime in the Game Reserves of South Africa: A Research Note. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 33:143–154. DOI:10.1080/01924036.2009.9678800.
Copyright (c) 2020 Jaime Chambers
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.
