Clearly, both authors are the mouthpieces of the animal rights movement. Both articles and subsequent letters of objection from animal rights groups, including the NSPCA, to the President and the Democratic Alliance, are very similar. We believe Cruise, Pinnock and these animal rights groups were in discussion with each other strategizing how best to stop the replacement of the former Minister.
On the appointment of The Honourable Minister Willie Aucamp, the Daily Maverick published another article by Don Pinnock criticizing the appointment and highlighting the various letters of objection to Minister Aucamp’s appointment. What has been a glaring omission is any reference to a recent article published on 10 November 2025 in Business Day; an article by their political editor Hajra Omarjee: “The Real Story Behind Dion George’s Sacking”.
Social media has been ablaze with messages by the anti-hunting, anti-sustainable use groups, accusing both the Leader of the Democratic Alliance Minister John Steenhuisen and Minister Aucamp of having been “captured” by the wildlife sector. If this is any indication of the mindset behind animal rightism, we can’t help but wonder if the former Minister was “captured” by the animal rights movement.
Unfortunately, Daily Maverick didn’t think it was relevant or good journalistic practice to publish any articles on why the former Minister should be replaced. They also didn’t think it was ethical to ask SUCo-SA and others for comment, even though all three recent articles make mention of SUCo-SA in unfavourable terms.
As I was polishing the final draft of this opinion piece, the Daily Friend published an article by Ivo Vegter: “Why Dion George had to go”. What a refreshing read after the past few days of conspiracy theories and mudslinging.
Sustainable Use is not a new, untested concept that has been dragged out of the backwaters by the wildlife sector. It is the tried and tested wildlife policy that is enshrined in both national legislation and internationally ratified policies. Sadly, the oft-championed animal rights “preservationist” policy that the former Minister wanted to take South Africa down has been tried, tested and found lacking in Kenya, when Kenya banned regulated hunting in 1977, resulting in the loss of between 75% to 95% of their wildlife.
The undermining and rot crept into South African conservation with the untimely death of Minister Edna Molewa, who from 2010 to 2018, with the wildlife industry’s input through the Minister’s Wildlife Forum, took the South African conservation model to greater heights, and we became the envy of many other countries. “Ma Edna” was briefly replaced by Minister Nomvula Mokonyane, who, out of her depth, trod water briefly, to be replaced by the animal rightist-broom of Barbara Creecy.
Creecy from the outset aligned herself with animal rights thinking, and through the Minister’s Wildlife Forum, tried to force animal rights organizations upon the wildlife sector, without understanding one of the core tenets for membership of the Wildlife Forum. As per the Wildlife Forum terms of reference, an applicant must embrace the principle of “sustainable utilization”.
Her champion was the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA), whose Chief Executive Officer until 30 June 2025 was a long-standing Board Member (more than 15 years) of the UK-based animal rights organization, World Animal Protection (WAP). The NSPCA does not subscribe to the principle of sustainable use or hunting, among others. Their membership was rightly rejected by the Minister’s Wildlife Forum members. As this was not the former DFFE Minister’s agenda, she forced their membership on to the Wildlife Forum. As the ideological differences were too great, the relationship lasted for half a meeting ,as the new member walked out.
A group of animal rights organizations under the banner of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA) approached Creecy and asked her to form the “Wildlife Well-being Forum”. Sadly, this is the legacy, contrary to South African legislation, that former Minister George chose to pursue. As with many, the two former Ministers couldn’t tell the difference between animal welfare, animal rights and animal well-being. Animal welfare is of paramount importance for any business involved with domestic or wild animals. If for no other reason, it’s linked to your bottom line.
A bit disingenuous
For former Minister George to claim he was carrying out the DA Resolutions from 2023 is a bit disingenuous, as from the same resolutions, “The DA reaffirms our support for the hunting industry in South Africa, recognizing the industry’s positive impact on the economy and on employment in rural communities in particular”. The former Minister did not engage with the wildlife sector or uphold the legislation he was tasked with. Dion George, as well as Barbara Creecy, clearly didn’t understand their mandate. With their personal policy and beliefs, either the Minister of Agriculture, livestock farming, abattoirs, butcheries and the eating of meat would have been banned with or without the help of the “High level panels”.
The Daily Maverick has been complicit in promoting this anti-sustainable use, anti-conservation and anti-hunting narrative by only showcasing the failed preservationists’ side of the argument. The opinion piece below is one of many articles the Daily Maverick decided not to publish.
Will Minister Dion George’s departure see the return of science-based conservation?
The replacement of Minister Dr. Dion George as South Africa’s Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment would mark the end of a brief but damaging chapter for conservation in our country. His tenure, though short-lived, was marked by an alarming drift away from not only South Africa’s globally respected sustainable-use model, but also a blatant deviation from the Democratic Alliance’s policy. The South African conservation model is grounded in science, pragmatism, and the lived realities of those who coexist with wildlife, not a shallow ideology driven by foreign animal-rights interests and personal bias.
South Africa exports millions of creatures great and small in shadowy global wildlife trade
Rural economic development
The DA has always supported a sustainable wildlife economy and views the wildlife sector as a significant potential source of job creation and rural economic development in South Africa. The DA’s policy is consistent with the general principle of using biological resources sustainably and minimizing adverse impacts on biological diversity.
Some key aspects of the DA’s approach to a sustainable wildlife economy include:
Community Empowerment: The DA emphasizes that local communities should be central to developing the biodiversity economy. This approach aims to provide economic opportunities that encourage conservation and reduce conflicts like poaching and illegal harvesting.
Combating Illegal Trade: The DA supports strong measures against environmental crimes, including the illegal wildlife trade.
Sustainable Use: The DA recognizes that the sustainable use of wildlife resources (including nature-based tourism and hunting tourism, where legally and sustainably managed) can be a powerful economic engine, especially in rural areas where jobs are scarce.
The “DA policy on natural resources: environmental affairs, fisheries, water management and mineral resources” even brushes on the potential of a legal sustainable rhino-horn trade, something Minister George has opposed and has been very outspoken about. The policy states:
“Legalising the trade of rhino horn is one suggested policy response that could be instituted as an attempt to reduce the illegal killing of rhinos. It would have the added benefit of earning revenue for both state conservation authorities and private rhino owners that could be used to improve the protection of rhinos and for the expansion of the rhino population. If the legalisation of trade was pursued the mechanisms and legal framework that would be required to support this would have to be of the highest order.”
Emotive, unscientific narratives
Minister George, like his predecessor, the ANC’s Barbara Creecy, has surrounded himself with radical animal rights activists and organizations whose emotive, unscientific narratives have repeatedly undermined conservation across Africa. Instead of consulting with our nation’s ecologists, wildlife economists, or communities who depend on wildlife-based economies, he chose to pander to activist dogma, undoing years of progress, costing South Africa millions in lost revenue, jobs, and endangering wildlife that our Constitution obliges us to protect.
In a media statement of 30 October 2025, “South Africa reaffirming opposition to the ivory and rhino horn trade”, Minister Dr. Dion George declared that “our duty is to protect our wildlife, not to profit from their destruction.” He revealed precisely the problem, a complete misunderstanding of how conservation works in Africa. Wildlife must pay its way to survive. The Southern African model, a global success story, has proven that sustainable utilization, including regulated hunting, trade, and wildlife ranching, not only protects species but restores habitat. Over 21 million hectares of former agricultural land have been rewilded in South Africa alone under this model.
One of the most egregious examples of this ideological blindness is the war against South Africa’s captive lion industry. The closure of this sector, announced by Dr. George as if it were a triumph of morality, is in fact a devastating blow to both conservation and economics. If the Minister wasn’t so emotionally hamstrung by the false animal rights rhetoric of “canned hunting”, an immoral practice he of all people should know is illegal in South Africa, we should be celebrating and congratulating ourselves on a conservation success story.
South Africa’s captive-bred lions represent the most genetically diverse and healthiest population of lions on Earth. Their existence ensures that lions, one of Africa’s most iconic predators, will not vanish on our watch. Yet activists and their political allies have vilified this success because it offends their emotional sensitivities.
Captive lions
We are constantly told that captive lions hold “no conservation value.” If that were truly the case, why then do these same activists and organizations spend so much time, money, and media effort attacking the sector? Why does the international animal rights lobby raise millions each year on the back of these so-called “worthless” lions?
How many have berated the captive breeding and hunting of Scimitar-horned Oryx, a species that became extinct in the wild in 2000? The same hunting estates in Texas that kept the species alive are now instrumental in the reintroduction of Scimitar-horned Oryx into their former-range countries. The 2000-strong White Rhino herd of John Hume is being used to supplement White Rhino populations in Africa as well as seed stock to establish new populations. Will today’s defamed lion breeders be Africa’s champions tomorrow, at a time when disappearing habitat, poaching, TB and human wildlife conflict reduce the number of Africa’s lions?
South Africa’s animal welfare laws are robust and among the most stringent in the world. Yet despite thousands of lions being bred and farmed responsibly, there have been very few prosecutions for animal cruelty. Isolated incidents of poor management, which exist in every industry, should never be the basis for outlawing an entire, valuable, sustainable farming sector. If that were the standard, then livestock farming, pet ownership, and even parenting would be at risk of prohibition, since all have regrettably seen cases of abuse.
Minister George’s Rio de Janeiro address on 4 November 2025, likely his swansong, was emblematic of the problem. Delivered in lofty moral tones, it spoke of “poacher’s moons,” “shared duty,” and “hope in darkness,” yet ignored the harsh realities faced by rural Africans living alongside dangerous game. His speech, full of poetic flourish, offered nothing of substance for the people or the wildlife of Africa.
While Dr. George was grandstanding on global stages, real conservation on the ground was suffering. Communities lost income, private reserves lost incentives to maintain wildlife, and South Africa’s reputation as a leader in sustainable use was eroded, all to appease Western donors and foreign NGOs who have no stake in our ecosystems.
Sustainable use
In light of this, we would warmly welcome the appointment of Willie Aucamp as the minister designate. Should Willie Aucamp be appointed as the new Minister, we can only hope he takes inspiration from the legacy of the late Minister Edna Molewa, whose leadership, integrity, and understanding of sustainable use earned South Africa international respect.
Minister-designate Aucamp has an opportunity, and indeed a duty, to rebuild what ideological posturing has damaged. He must restore science-based policy, re-engage with communities, and reaffirm South Africa’s sovereignty over its natural resources.
South Africa’s wildlife is not a Western moral project, it is an African heritage. Our lions, elephants, rhinos, and all our wild creatures exist today not because of bans, but because of use. They survive where they are valued. They thrive where they bring benefit.
We would urge Minister-designate Aucamp to reject the failed moralism of his predecessors and to embrace once again the principle that made South Africa a global conservation leader. When wildlife has value, it lives, when it does not, it dies.
The time has come to put aside rhetoric, to silence the slogans, and to return to what works; science, sustainability, and sovereignty.
Trevor Oertel is a South African businessman, conservationist and wildlife enthusiast. His passion is falconry, a pursuit he has followed since childhood, specifically hunting ducks and partridges under peregrine falcons. Oertel has served various ministers of environmental affairs as a member of the Minister's Wildlife Forum. He is an executive committee member of the Sustainable Use Coalition of Southern Africa (SUCo-SA) and has represented SUCo-SA at CITES meetings in Panama and Geneva.
