African Outfitter is an independent international bimonthly publication promoting
fair hunting and ethical business practices within the hunting industry.
From a hunting perspective, the preservation of biodiversity on the
African continent is the first and foremost priority. The emphasis
is however also on the sustainable utilisation of wildlife.

Herman Jonker

On a scientific note...

I've been doing some research.

Not the serious, scientific kind; the gathering of facts aimed at producing a voluminous report sporting Latin and a long list of sources. No, just the ordinary kind. Like sitting on a rock and checking things out or doing some scheming around the campfire whilst nursing a jar of Jack.

My research has brought me to the conclusion that there are two sides to scientific research. Yes; I can reveal that research in the field of natural science – the serious, moth-chasing kind – has both a positive side and a downside.

Chief amongst the benefits of research is of course the fact that it brings pretty postgrad student girls to the African bush where lonely PH's can assist them in their understanding of natural processes. As a rule PH's are quite interested in such matters. I have seen a beefy PH on his knees, carefully helping a blonde Dutch girl out of her sweater so that she could more accurately measure the belly of a tortoise.

Research reveals interesting things yes, things that some of us never new. Did you for instance know that the Drosophila gibberosa fly does not mate in darkness? Or that you have 10 000 000 bacteria on every square cm of skin under your armpit, but only 1 000 000 per square cm on your scalp? No? For us working in nature it's important to keep up to date with such things and to discuss any findings.

Just the other day I was telling a grizzled outfitter how a German research institute had discovered that large cats sometimes develop stomach ulcers. They believe this to be the result of a lion or other large feline eating a human with an ulcer some 200 000 years ago, thereby ingesting Helicobacter pylori bacteria.

My friend the outfitter said he could well believe it, but since he hadn't personally known the man he had no idea the poor fellow was suffering from an ulcer.

He also suggested that further research be done to determine if it's not therefore hereditary disgust with human bacteria that causes even fully grown male lions to turn tail and abandon their charge when a man simply stands still and acts like dead meat. He said the scientists should also figure out how a mere microbe from a human could make a lion sick, whilst the cat seems to show no ill effect after devouring the reeking carcass of a mongrel terrier that had died of stupidity whilst playing with a cobra.

This particular outfitter wasn't really into science, I gathered. He told me that since he'd got older, and especially after that paternity charge on DNA evidence, he didn't really appreciate scientists wandering around his concession, nursing rats and fleas and pulling tufts of hair out of his capes. He'd taken to rather doing his own research, he said. That's how he discovered that amongst wildlife professionals, scientists rank 3rd when it comes to departing from a dangerous situation in a hurry, narrowly beating video photographers.

Invaluable, I'm sure, the findings of research. Unfortunately, as my own research has shown, there are also the detrimental effects of scientific research.

Foremost and most critical of these is that research has proved to be a serious threat to the survival of species. For yillions of years, while no research was done, living things survived. But ever since research was carried out on them and all sorts of reports and findings made public, species have been dying out or have become threatened.

Another drawback is the negative effect science has on language.

Where one would for instance say, "I smell a rat," science tells us that the memory trace has been localised to the reciprocal dendrodendritic synapse between mitral cells and granule cells in the accessory olfactory bulb. An increase in noradrenaline reduces inhibitory transmission of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) from the granule cells to mitral cells and induces an olfactory memory.

Science takes the fun out of English, I'm afraid. Hear, for example, what palaeoanthropologists (that's a kind of job) studying Neanderthals (that's our forefolks) say about hunting.

It was the most learning-intensive foraging strategy practised by humans, they say. Or, as a certain Dr et al puts it, "Unlike most animals, which either sit and wait to ambush prey or use stealth and pursuit techniques, human hunters use a wealth of information to make context-specific decisions, both during the search phase of hunting and after prey is encountered. Specifically, information on ecology, seasonality, current weather, expected animal behaviour and fresh animal signs are all integrated to form multivariate mental modules of encounter probabilities that guide the search and are continually updated as conditions change."

What Dr et al is actually trying to say – I think – is that human hunters ain't stupid.

But an interesting aspect of scientific research is that findings are readily challenged. Hardly has someone proved something, or someone else yells "bullshit" in Latin. The difference is usually resolved by presenting papers. (Not to be confused with showing your driver's licence or hunting permit). According to the papers it is then decided whether flies officially mate in the dark or not.

Of course shouting bullshit is much easier than observing flies at night, so the scientific community is constantly pirated upon by opportunists trying to find grounds for their own schemes, usually of a money generating nature. Often these also carry the title of "Foundation", thereby suggesting a certain air of scientific approval, even though the scheme may have very little substance or moral merit.

That, presumably, is how it comes about that obscure foundations barking up dead trees can make such outrageous statements about conservation and other scientific matters without getting laughed out of the lab.

Check their papers first, we all know. Because – like that wise doctor so laboriously struggled to point out – hunters ain't stupid.