Original von pippa

these professional hunters , which presently act as hunting guides in tanzania and southern africa but live in kenya mostly having camps or lodges in kenya, propose wildlife to become considered privat assets on their ground so that they can make even more money of kenya's natural resources.
pippa

Pippa,
I know you have strong feelings against hunters, but in the context of your above phrase, would that be a problem if the hunting of wildlife in an area were sustainable and as a result of it making even more money it ensured that "natural resource" to be preserved?

The great thing about wildlife is that it is a renewable resource. If we can make it earn money we will ensure its preservation.

I totally agree that there is a solution that fits all. Different locations need to be looked at in different ways and different solutions should be applied.

I guess, what Pippa is refering to are Camp/Lodge owners that make large profit from photographic tourism on their land. To be honest, I don´t see any reason why they should make even more profit through hunting, either. They are interested in wildlife conservation and they are taking care of it for their own sake already.

The situation changes, when you talk about land that is not owned or made use of at all in this sense. If there is no option of photographic tourism, the wildlife is due to suffer from farmers/poachers/impact with locals etc.

But, if those areas are not suitable for photographic tourism, I guess the main reason is remoteness or harsh conditions. If so, who is going to control the hunting activities? Obviously nobody is able to control poaching there, so why should they be able to control hunting?

BTW: Please enlighten me, how the same land can be suitable for hunting, but not for photographic tourism? Is it because the hunting industry has so much money, they can afford to build their own infrastructure, whilst Government/NGOs/private ventures can not?

Wildlife in general is a "renewable resource", but some genetic pools have suffered so severely that I am very sceptic about the killing of even a single animal of this type. If I am not wrong, tourist hunters are interested in shooting for example large elephant bulls with huge tusks rather than those with small tusks that threaten to dominate the genetic pool already. In that case, hunting would make the situation even worse.

Lions have suffered serious problems due to inbreeding in some areas in the past. How can you verify that you don´t happen to kill one of those from a different root hence increasing inbreeding even more? Unless you breed them yourself and end up with canned hunting I guess you can not.

All in all the solution you suggest seems to me like changing the situation from uncontrolled killing to controlled killing of smaller numbers. Hence, it is an improvement to the situation as it is, but not the best.

Abstract thought:
Why not have KWS itself conduct "hunting safaris"? They have plenty of occasions where they need to kill animals. Let them take tourist hunters to kill those specific animals and all money would go straight back to KWS. (I hope KWS will not stone me for this suggestion :-O ).

One thing at a time:

1- You ask why should photo operators make even more profit?: Are you serious? Its a capitalist economy. If you can make more profit you do. And why not.....

2- who is going to control the hunting activities?: The operator. Any outfitter with a bit of brains will ensure their offtake is sustainable or else they would be cutting off the hand that feeds them. In addition, there are Gov Game Scouts present the whole time to ensure just that. You will argue that they are corrupt, etc in which case the former applies.

3- how the same land can be suitable for hunting, but not for photographic tourism?: There are multiple reasons some of which have been mentioned before (and its not about having money or not for infrastructure) but I will summarise a few:
- Innaccessibility of the area for long periods of time particularly during the wet season. Many such places are innaccessible for up to 5 months of the year! A photo operation cannot survive on such a short season. A hunting operator can due to the high rates they charge to make up for that.
- Distances involved in getting large numbers of tourists in and out by road can be prohibitive involving 2-3 days one way trips or a 3 hour charter at high $$$. Photo operators will not be able to compete price wise with other destinations. Hunters are higher spenders.
- Much fewer wildlife in dispersal areas than in a National Park. Again photo operators will have a hard time competing with others in terms of wildlife viewing opportunities.
- Dense vegetation such as forest reserves, swamps, etc where game is difficult to view. Majority of photo operators have to rely on regular and close game sightings.
- Game migration where game is only present in important numbers for a few months of the year.
Pls note that I understand that most of the above examples "may be conducive to photo activities but not attractive enough to Gov in terms of revenue they may generate compared to what hunting operators may generate.

4- Hunting of large tusked elephants: you make it sound so easy Out of the total elephants shot throughout Africa by tourist hunting, I would hesitate to say that the average tusk weight would be closer to 25 - 30 pounds per tusk. That is NOT large tuskers! The damage to the large tusker populations, IMO, was done back in the 30's through to the 70's by commercial ivory hunters and then through to the early 90's by commercial ivory poachers. Nowadays, if someone shoots an elephant over 80+ lbs it is world news and those of us in the hunting world would hear about them. I don't claim to hear of every report but my guesstimate would be that fewer than a dozen 80+lbs are shot every year. Elephants of this size will normally be very old animals on their last set (6th) of molars and will very quickly die of starvation after that. No economic gain if they die of natural causes but large economic gains if a hunter shoots one. Besides, at that age they are also much less reproductive and will have passed on their genes several dozen times over already. Hunting is not making the situation worse.

5- Lions: How can you be sure that a different root lion doesn't get killed by one of the other lions? The Ngorongoro crater is the perfect example; they are having problems with the lack of genetic diversity and yet there is no hunting there or anywhere near the population that exists inside the crater floor. It is a well known fact that if a dominant male dies or for some reason leaves its territory, another male will take its place very quickly. Hunting some of these males, for example, would achieve the desired effect of having other younger males with different genes come in and take their place. I don't know of any other place where this is a problem to be honest.....

6- KWS doing hunting safaris?: Absolutely! Selling PAC (Problem animal control) animals to tourist hunters is a successful venture in Zimbabwe for many years. Tanzania is discussing on allowing it. there are millions of hunters who are begging for these opportunities. The private sector in Kenya have been crying for this to be allowed for a decade now.

Original von bwanamich
One thing at a time:

1- You ask why should photo operators make even more profit?: Are you serious? Its a capitalist economy. If you can make more profit you do. And why not.....

2- who is going to control the hunting activities?: The operator. Any outfitter with a bit of brains will ensure their offtake is sustainable or else they would be cutting off the hand that feeds them. In addition, there are Gov Game Scouts present the whole time to ensure just that. You will argue that they are corrupt, etc in which case the former applies.

When you allow hunting in dense bush or swamps, I doubt anybody will have a clue what the hunting operator is doing in there. All you would have to do is to pribe the Game Scout and off you go.

4- Hunting of large tusked elephants: you make it sound so easy Out of the total elephants shot throughout Africa by tourist hunting, I would hesitate to say that the average tusk weight would be closer to 25 - 30 pounds per tusk. That is NOT large tuskers! The damage to the large tusker populations, IMO, was done back in the 30's through to the 70's by commercial ivory hunters and then through to the early 90's by commercial ivory poachers. Nowadays, if someone shoots an elephant over 80+ lbs it is world news and those of us in the hunting world would hear about them. I don't claim to hear of every report but my guesstimate would be that fewer than a dozen 80+lbs are shot every year. Elephants of this size will normally be very old animals on their last set (6th) of molars and will very quickly die of starvation after that. No economic gain if they die of natural causes but large economic gains if a hunter shoots one. Besides, at that age they are also much less reproductive and will have passed on their genes several dozen times over already. Hunting is not making the situation worse.

6- KWS doing hunting safaris?: Absolutely! Selling PAC (Problem animal control) animals to tourist hunters is a successful venture in Zimbabwe for many years. Tanzania is discussing on allowing it. there are millions of hunters who are begging for these opportunities. The private sector in Kenya have been crying for this to be allowed for a decade now.

i won't ever understand how a human being which assumingly has got feelings, being able to think and comprehend how animals feel as well, being it the killed or the observing buddies, can extinguish a life of another animal by simply pulling a trigger from a hide or raised hide and calls this SPORTs or RECREATION.
promise: last posting regarding this topic - for sure!
pippa

Carsten,
1- If a photo operator is already operating successfuly in an area that is fine. Let them continue. But if wildlife is declining there at the same time as a result of poaching, maybe they need to look at the added advantages that a hunting operator will bring to the area; policing it against poachers. If indeed that is the problem.

2- Trial and error. Good apples are public knowledge in most cases. Being a new law as you say, the governing arm of Gov will need to monitor even more closely and shut down an operator at the first sign of foul play. Alternatively, an independant, neutral body can be set up involving players from Gov, anti-hunting community, hunting community, local community, etc in the form of a "watchdog" that reports straight to the Minister....

4- Re-read my post. It answers your concern I believe?

6- Of course the private sector needs to earn money if it is part of it. That is not money going astray. If KWS is going to run it entirely, that is also fine if they have the knowledge and set-up. I´m all for it!