Ok, let´s stop hunting completely in South Africa and Namibia hence forth. Let us remove all the fences around game ranches, parks and conservancies and see what happens to the wildlife. I give it 10 years.
Let´s do the same in Tanzania, Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, etc. No more hunting. Open the flood gates to photographic operations only. It ain´t gonna work I promise you. Game will remain ONLY in the National Parks that earn big revenue for the Gov. Even the smaller, more remote Parks will be excessively poached and wildlife will decline.

We talk about population growth being out of control. It is and will continue to be for the next few decades. And while National Parks can prevent the encroachment of people due to the economic value to State coffers, other areas simply cannot. In Tz, about the same numbers of wildlife exist outside of protected areas as inside. Right now, these populations are being "protected" by the hunhting industry. What is your solution to preventing the extermination of these to make way for settlement and agriculture if we close hunting tomorrow?

Greetings one and all.
Hunters have succeeded in persuading African Governments, usually by sugar coating the argument with large sums of money, that hunting is both poverty alleviation and habitat protection. Neither of these arguments bears close analysis. Actually it is simply colonialism. When areas adjacent to National Parks are given over to hunting, as they are in S.Africa, then the wild animals who roam from protected land onto hunting land are killed with little or no benefit to surrounding communities. So in effect what the hunters do is the asset stripping of our National Parks. The same thing is happening on the border between Kenya and Tanzania where the migrations are protected by the Kenyans and the animals crossing into Tanzania are then killed by hunters mostly of Middle Easten origin. In this way, the Tanzanian hunters are asset-stripping Kenya's wildlife heritage.
As a temporary measure one could allow the fencing off of sufficently large areas of private land in order to provide protection and to support eco tourism but there is no conservation benefit in hunting in any form.
To raise the argument to a more important level than the sordid and fallacious hunting propaganda of "if it pays its stays" I am pasting below a short description of a Christian Theologian's attitude to sport hunting.

Tony Campolo is a theologian and I quote from his writings:
"I am sure many people will agree with me that killing animals for fun is a questionable activity for Christians. But probably most of them will not see the issue as one warranting serious attention. However, I am convinced that there is more involved in making hunting into a sport than first meets the eye.
First of all, hunting for the "fun" of it does not take seriously the claim that life is sacred. For some there is a necessity to kill animals for food or in self-defence. But there is a big difference between sacrificing the lives of animals in order to support the lives of humans and killing animals as a form of entertainment.
Who can deny that God has created animals or that His eye is on each and every sparrow that He has made (Matt. 10:29-31) And who can deny that it is God's spirit that sustains the life of animals and that by His grace they have been put here on this planet? I am convinced that thoughtful reflection will lead most people to realize that all God creates gives Him pleasure and that the destruction of what He loves brings Him pain, especially when that destruction is made into a sport. Why is it that when we destroy something humans have made we call it vandalism, but when we destroy something God has made we call it a sport?
I know that many hunters justify what they do by claiming that getting out in the woods enables them to get away from the highly artificial routines and environments that are so much a part of their urban technological lifestyles.
But why is it necessary to hunt to have these experiences? Why must animals be killed in order to enjoy nature? Why not use cameras instead of guns, making photographs that will record that the animals thus captured on film are still alive and free?
There may be some need for "male bonding" that is satisfied on a hunting trip. Being together on a hunt may create a wonderful feeling of oneness among the guys. Perhaps hunting gratifies some kind of Nietschean "will of power". I am sure that the psychological motivations for hunting must be complex. But I do not think that I am being overly simplistic when I argue that one of the reasons that Christ came into the world was to make us into new creatures whose basic psychological needs can be met in ways that are non destructive and harmonious with all the creatures with which He willed for us to share this earth.
One warm summer day many years ago, I was sitting in a park in Philadelphia. It was during the noon hour, and I was on a lunch break from my job. Sitting on a park bench just a few yards away was a young mother whose preschool children were playing on the sidewalk in front of me. As they played, one of them discovered a group of ants crawling in and out of a crack in the cement. The little girl who made this discovery called to her sister to come and join her. These two children proceeded to gleefully stomp the ants to death. After they and trampled as many of them as possible, the two little girls got down on their knees and began to pick up the remaining insects and squeeze them between their fingers. Their laughter at the killing of those ants had a demonic quality to it. To be frank, I think it was demonic; I could sense the Evil One working through them, destroying life. To them, killing was FUN - and I find that extremely disturbing.
I believe, therefore, that those of us who are committed to expressing the lifestyle of God's kingdom in this present time should learn to live in harmony with nature and to love the animals. Those who do not think that animals have a place in God's kingdom should note that when the Bible says "God so loved the world", it is using for the word World the Greek word cosmos, which embraces not only humans but all the creatures in God's creation. In the eighth chapter of Romans, the vision of God's salvation includes not only those who trust in Jesus, but all that is in God's world.
Each year a special church service is held in St. John's Cathedral in New York City. The pastors of the church pray a special blessing on the animals, and the fellowship which God has willed between humans and beasts is affirmed.
Sometimes when I tell people how meaningful this church service can be they laugh at me. They say that I am being childish. I accept that judgement as a compliment, for I remember that my Lord once said that only those who have become as little children would enter His Kingdom. Perhaps part of what He meant was that unless we, like children, believe in the possibility of a special friendship with the animals, we will miss out on many of His blessings.
Woe unto those who kill God's creatures for sport!

thank you mori for your thoughts and your posting which is very much valued by me!
i am not a christian by belief but i strongly beliefe in humanity and hunting for fun has nothing to do with humanity at all - or everything depending on interpretation!
have a wondeful 2007!

- Edited by pippa on 03.01.2007, 00:02 -
- Edited by pippa on 03.01.2007, 00:02 -

There are two sides to the debate on wildlife law

By Imre Loefler

Mr James Isiche, the regional director of International Fund for Animal Welfare in East Africa, in his essay "Hunting for sport isn’t as good as it is made to be" (The Standard 13.12.06) reacts sharply to my commentary on Wildlife Policy (The Standard 29. 12. 06).

Indeed it would be strange if I, a proponent of dialogue and rational argument suggested that NGOs should be excluded from the wildlife policy debate. The headline under which my contribution appeared, "Keep NGO-s out of the new Wildlife Policy" would fully justify Isiche’s wrath. But the headline is not from me, headlines are added by editors and sometimes are out of tune with the text.

There is no suggestion of exclusion in the text of my commentary. I do not want to exclude anyone, I want to convince people, in this particular instance convince them of the wrong-headedness of IFAW. IFAW has, unquestionably, made positive contributions to conservation but its overprotective attitude to wildlife is counterproductive.

Current wildlife policy a failure

Having duly reprimanded me, Isiche is shifting the focus to sport hunting and implies that the re introduction of sport hunting is the core of the wildlife policy debate. It is not. Sport hunting is a side issue and a thorny one and I fully agree with the title of Isiche’s essay (whether it is his making or not).

The essence of the suggested new wildlife policy is to conserve species and restore habitats by means of husbandry, to legalise trade in wildlife, in game meat, skins and trophies, to recognize that in some regions of the country "wildlife farming" would be the best land use.

It should be obvious to everyone that the present policy is a failure: wildlife is disappearing fast.

The bush meat trade thrives for two reasons: there is a demand for game meat and wildlife in the non-protected areas, be it private or communal land is increasingly looked upon as a nuisance and is resented.

To reverse the trend, the people have to have a benefit from living with wildlife. Tourism alone cannot be relied upon for it is too fickle, practicable in selected places only and does not distribute wealth among the people who suffer most from wildlife.

Sport hunting is a side issue. Isiche tries to portray me as an arch advocate of hunting. I am not. I am not a hunter even I am apprehensive about sport hunting for a number of reasons among them my dislike for killing for pleasure and the knowledge that sport hunting is open to multifarious abuses.

Notwithstanding my reservations, in line of my responsibilities in the conservation arena, I have undertaken to learn about sport hunting as much as I could. I have accompanied hunters, I studied the hunting arrangements in several countries and I familiarised myself with the thinking of hunter and anti-hunter.

Anti–hunters believe that individualised, platonic ethics apply to animals as well as to humans and hence the killing of animals is unethical.

The anti–hunting front is not monolithic, however, and not all anti–hunters are vegetarians, yet their thinking, at least with regard to wildlife is strongly anthropomorphic. In contradistinction to platonic ethics, utilitarian ethics seeks the maximum benefit for the maximum number, be it people, or, indeed as in this case, species.

Sport hunting can create wealth

Hunters contend that were it not for hunting many species of wildlife would be extinct or would have disappeared from places where they are presently thriving. This is certainly true for certain species in Europe and in America, nevertheless the contention of the hunting lobby, that sport hunting would be the savior of wildlife in Africa is a gross exaggeration.

Some anti–hunters claim that sport hunting is responsible for the decline of wildlife on the continent. This is an assertion without base. There was no sport hunting in Kenya for the last 30 years during which time wildlife declined by half.

Sport hunting, properly organised and regulated and free of corruption can create wealth in rural areas but in order to do so, a number of conditions need to be met and they are not easy to meet. In utilitarian terms sport hunting can benefit people and wildlife but not just everywhere.

The debate on sport hunting should not be allowed to derail the wildlife policy review. Discrediting the rational discussion about the wise use of wildlife and discrediting the proponents of wildlife husbandry is a tactic animal welfarists and animal rightists often apply, one fine example being Isiche’s essay.

Yes, there is a paradox in the notion that the saving of species may depend on the killing of individuals. A Paradox, by definition, is an apparent contradiction, not a true one.

Those who may have difficulty in comprehending the paradox may consider the status of the humble goat. Goats are everywhere. They are bread, attended to, traded and cherished because they have a value.

If goats were declared wildlife, under the present policy they could not be owned, killed, eaten and their skin would be worthless too. The bush meat trade would quickly decimate goats and within a few years we would have to establish goat sanctuaries to save the species.

Wildlife husbanding would align conservation with development.

The writer is a surgeon based in Nairobi

loefler@swiftkenya.com

How depressing...again. Hunting is all we\'ve got? And what a surprise it is praised and encouraged in nations where sport hunting is equated somehow with masculinity in white communities. Isn\'t it rather convenient that it is loudly proclaimed to "work" there, where you appear to be a wussy tree-hugger and probably a bed-wetter if you are concerned about culling or hunting for any other reasons than mathematical or economic ones. Hmmm

I understand the argument and there may be something in it, but I just don\'t trust the afficiandos. Giving gentlemen their jollies might provide a band aid in some places and even a long-term solution in others but if it\'s a major part of a conservation policy will the end result be nature and wilderness, or carefully managed wildlife... lion numbers are down... money running short..... no problem, let\'s clone some. And why not? What is the difference if the "market" can be manipulated to accept it? Canned hunting (more subtly done) is eventually the rule, not the exception in this case. Do the tourists really care, as long as it the packaging is right?

Hunting is surely just a drop in the ocean compared to education and broader tourism potential? There are really no possibilities there? The countries Bwanamich mentioned can certainly do better. Many tourist destinations around the world do fine without hunting safaris and really a lot of African countries should be able to as well. Sure competition is high, but look at what they have got to offer. Their marketing sucks. They don\'t even always reply to email enquiries, for Pete\'s sake. There is SO much room for improvement all over Africa... and especially in Kenya. Money pours out of the country to overseas operators quite unecessarily because of this and a mere pittance of what we spend goes back to conserving what we paid to see, whether paid to local or overseaas operators. I have to go out of my way to shop at the KWS shop, stay at KWS properties where they provide what I\'m looking for, and to ensure my park fees are paid. Waaah! Do they want to generate income or not? (Answer: They do but they just don\'t seem very committed to it yet). Offering such facile solutions just lets everyone off the hook.

So let\'s allow hunting but let\'s not dress greed up as concern for the environment and preach it as a conservation virtue and definitely let\'s not sit smugly on our fence saying that if they allowed hunting they could resolve the problems and pretend that\'s a good or even successful solution rather than (mostly) being just another lie told by politicians to garner some more votes and line their pockets at the same time.

And I\'m glad I got that off my chest..... I reserve the right to put any part of this tirade down to early male menopause and am ready to listen now.....

kimburu, i really appreciate what you posted but the last sentence is just marvelous - and sooo true!
unnecessary to stress that i agree to each and every word!
all the best for you in 2007!