Jan, I personally agree with you in most points but not in the connection you put them.

I agree that some of the prices charged in the camps are obscene and that workers are being treated unfair but I doubt that a fair way of treating the employees would help the attitude towards wildlife.
Example: I don´t know if anyone else has seen the documentary of the famous bushman from the film "The Gods must be crazy". A bushman from the Kalahari dessert played the main figure in the film and made (from his point of view) a fortune. After the film he was "dismissed" back to his old life with pockets full of money. He didn´t need to keep animals anymore as he had enough money and hence he was "jobless". He shared most of his money with his social surrounding to hold up friendships and avoid loosing respect. He drowned his new conflicts in alcohol and as his pockets ran empty, he was stranded. A very sad development especially when the film itself shows how perfect their life is without western influence.

What I mean to say is, if the locals were given a fair share of the money being made in the tourism industry, you would have plenty of disasters like that.

Also, I believe there are limits to how much money can be utilized by the communities for themselves. They can invest into education, compensation for loss of cattle through wildlife etc. but how much? What are they going to do with all that education? Yes, some will find a job in the tourism industry and wildlife conservation, but the rest? There is no infrastructure to hold all those educated people and if there was, there would be even less space for wildlife. It sounds cruel, I know, but think this thought through and tell me what you come up with in 10 - 20 years time.

We need to remember that the Masai Mara National Reserve was created by a deal where the Masai agreed to stay out of one part of their territory and in return would receive some of the profit made on it.

Those reserves and national parks were created to provide "green islands" for the protection and conservation of wildlife.

Today we realize that wildlife doesn´t stick to those islands but migrates from one to the other and on the way it trespasses those areas we once "gave" to the locals in return for staying out of the reserves. Hence we cannot ask them to disappear from there, too because then we would con them in a way. If we ask them to stop their agricultural activities and increasing urbanisations in those areas, we basically send them into a well paid unemployment situation.

I believe we can only ask them to lift their fences and compensate them for damage made by wildlife. On the long run we can also try to shift them to areas which are not migration paths and compensate the costs for moving there. I fully agree with you that there must be more than enough money in someones pocket to do so and it is high time we get a look into the books to cut down the defalcation and corruption taking place in all levels and scales.

I must admit that I believe bwanamich´s system is a system that works. It works because it is a "one man show". One person buys large areas of land to utilize the wildlife. This person makes so much money from it, he will make sure, it remains intact and nobody else puts his fingers on it. No poacher, no PAC, no what ever else.

But I also believe there are other solutions that exclude hunting. But these other solutions are more difficult to finance because then we face corruption and defalcation of big money. Yes, the solution is to get rid of this defalcation and corruption, but how? The Government seems to be incapable of doing so. So who can, and how?

I read your post on the MIKE project and it is very honorable what he is doing. But if I understood it correctly, he is only counting the deaths to collect scientific research material. The ranches you mention are agricultural / cattle ranches. They are not hunting ranches, so this is not what bwanamich was talking about. They have an interest of getting rid of the wildlife not increase it because it causes damage.

About your last sentence: "What makes us think that we are so much better that we should control their destiny?"
We are by no means any better than animals but we should be smart enough to fix the damage we have previously made. We have reduced the ecosystem to such an extend that it can not exist on it´s own without risking to loose some of it´s species. Take an aquarium, if you don´t change the water on a regular basis, feed the fish and controll the population of some dominant species, you will loose all. It is up to us to put the fish back into the lake we took them from.

Unfortunately we can not simply appeal to everybody to leave wildife alive. Humans are greedy as you correctly stated. We need to understand this and hence find a carrot that we can hang in front of those greedy noses that will make them leave wildlife alive. Be it revenue from hunting, photographic safaris, compensation for damage or what ever else. I think, on the long run we can look for the perfect solution, but we need to also consider how fast it can be implemented or else we risk loosing some species.

Hence we need to control their destiny, but in a positive way

Carsten:

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. I am still discouraged though.

The "if it pays, it stays" - and I'm not speaking of hunting necessarily, just doesn't hack it in many places. In the article of the MIKE worker from Laikipia, there are many group ranches/cattle ranches with lodges on them in the area (Tassia, Lekerruki, Loisaba, Il Ngwesi) plus Kuki Gallman's Mukutan Lodge. They are making money, and yet the elephants are still being killed. Thus the people are financially benefiting from wildlife, and yet the carcasses of 700 elephants were found in Laikipia. That would imply to me that despite benefitting financially from wildlife, the killing continues which would mean that even if they benefit from wildlife they still don't give a damn for their wildlife!

Your statement of education is unfortunately so very true. But again that is mostly the fault of lack of governing, creating organizations, industry, etc that the educated people can be absorbed into. For instance, the world desperately needs nurses, as does Kenya. Are people being encouraged to get their nursing degrees? I am sure that if Kenya had all the nurses it needed, UK, US and Europe would be ecstatic to get these qualified people.

Yes, we should try to right the wrongs done to wildlife over the last 100 years, BUT unless we address the people problem at the same time, trying to educate them to do things differently, there won't be any land at all left for wildlife.

Just think, the population of wildlife has dropped preciptously over the last 50 years, from 100,000 elephants in Tsavo down to about 10,000 and many other species are heading toward extinction due to humans. Yet the human population has probably tripled in that period of time. The people have to be educated that having more kids than they can afford to feed, clothe and educate is no longer the right thing to do. I read an article in the Nation last year about a man from the Taita-Taveta area who had 11 wives and 67 children -- and the paper was celebrating this!!! In my book this puts him in the same boat as an animal who just does his thing at rutting time with no thought at all to the consequences. It is disgusting. Even if this man were rich, there is no way he could spend individual time loving and caring for all those kids. Many African families still have large families. If there are shortages of land and other resources now, imagine what it will be like 20 - 30 years from now. There will be no land at all for wildlife! Indeed the people are now clambering to have parts of Tsavo turned over to them to live in. Most of the rest of the world has learned to control their populations, but Africa hasn't.

That is why I feel that we who are in favor of helping conserve wildlife don't also encourage tackling some of these other issues, then wildlife doesn't really stand a chance in the long run. But how can this be done with corrupt governments who really don't care about the people they are supposed to care for and only care for the money they personally earn?

True, but again not easy, Jan. Many Africans still see in their children the only "old-age provision". When they are old and can´t work anymore (look after their animals and crop), the children need to look after their parents. Nothing else keeps them alive. Since no one can guarantee them that if they only have one child this child will actually survive and be able to feed them, they need to make more children. I am not saying you are on the wrong track, family planning and education in this context is the right way, but it is a veeery difficult and long process. It probably needs generations to actually have an obvious effect. Hence I see the requirement for an intermediate solution.

I really wish some of the NGOs we have contacted would jump in here and let us know about some successful projects to shed some light on this matter, but so far none of them bothered to contribute.

Jan,

You have expressed a very realistic situation about the lack of value many natives give to wildlife. As you state, even areas that derive good sums of money from wildlife, the numbers are dropping. However, there are areas were the opposite has occurred. Why this? Not sure of the answer myself. It seems to work in some areas and not in others. I expect it to be easier for it to work in areas that have naturally lower populations than in those that are currently over-populated. Let's face it, there are areas that are just not conducive to human settlement and never will be. These areas contain important populations of wildlife whose value may simply be that of reserve breeding stock for the greater ecosystem.

I don't for one minute proclaim that hunting is the ONLY answer. It is one of the options to consider. I have yet to hear of an area that has chosen consumptive utilisation over non consumptive utilisation. In most cases that I know off where hunting occurs, the area in question is not conducive to photographic tourism due to several factors including, remoteness, inaccessability for many months of the year, relatively few numbers of game sightings making it uncompetitive with National Parks, etc.

One thing is sure, once an areas has been designated a protected wildlife area, it needs to be PROTECTED! Whether this is done by the state dpt concerned, the photographic operator or the hunting concessionaire or any combination of these is irrelevant.

OK so lets see how hunters could become real conservationists. Well, instead of contributing to the carnage, they could form a ranger group, and spend all that money on patrolling effectively in protected areas. We all agree that protected areas must be protected, so why are hunters not interested in patrolling against poachers rather than stalking poor animals? It is the most obvious way to protect wildlife and its habitat.
So why do hunters not create anti poaching units? The only reason I can think of is that they are afraid: poachers shoot back. Hunters would never do anything constructive like that not only because they just might get shot at, but also because they enjoy killing animals too much, have a huge booze up and go home with ridiculous tales of their amazing feats in the African jungle.

oops mori - that is a good one!
hunters form anti poaching units indeed mean hunting poachers. i could bet them haven't thouroughly thought about that otherwise they might have changed altready the target