bwanamich,
you are right life is life threatening....but one can also jeopardize luck! if you cross a roundabout in nairobi you might make it but if you start running back and forth the possibility that you get kicked over increases.

a "de-naturalised" european or american tourist who does hardly know how to behave if attacked by a cattle when crossing a lawn cannot estimate the danger involved in a game walk in the african bush.

the camps i promote provide a propper briefing of how to behave while on a game walk. but i doubt that a tourist remembers what to do if a buffalo charges or when approaching a pride of lions.
i could bet they just start running....................because the environment, the situation itself and the panic won't let them think logically and they won't remember any briefing at all!

e.g. when we (just my husband and myself plus the guide and the driver) were on a game walk in tanzania our guide (once a professional hunter when he was younger) wore these snake protection and a rifle, went in front asking for single file, shot our mouth, and explaining what to do if a sole buffalo startes charging : laying flat on the ground, head down and without any movement. that sounded very logically and we were really relaxed but alert when we started the walk. we finished in a lugga where we waited for the driver approx. 30 mins.- he was sent back in order to get us the car. all of a sudden there appeared a buffalo on the scene maybe 30mts away on the edge of that lugga. we watched that guy carefully and the adrenalin was pumping our system to the finger tip. i was thinking of the guide's advise but at the same time i was very sure that if the buff starts charging i would run for my life! despite the advice we got! it's strange but i doubt that any european would be able to lay down and wait for the buffalo to approach................

and the waiver form the tourist sign when arriving at the camp assuring the management that it won't be liable for anything which might happen to the guest is just an attempt to get rid of the responsibility but won't stand a trial - as jan also assumed.

carsten, regarding your walks in the shimbas: i understand waht you mean because i did several walks myself. and maybe it's a matter of age. now i wouldn't do it again. the remaining time is just too precious to play games

jan, regarding the article:
it's really a shame because zim loses so many elphants to poaching these days and i guess when mugabe finally gives way for democracy there is nothing much left behind.................

Jan,
I had seen that article already. I don't think the incident with the tourists being killed is being used as a justification - maybe to bring the topic back to the front so to speak. The underlying reason Zimbabwe wants culling of elephants to start again is the excessive population they have. 100,000 against a nationwide carrying capacity of 45,000. Of course animal rights group say the numbers are wrong and they are probably right but even if you were to be conservative on the 100,000 figure the over-population would still be cause for grave concern form a conservationists' point of view.

Pippa,
Poaching in Zim is very high due to the failed land reforms but despite that and taking into consideration other individuals killed as PAC animals, killed for food during election celebrations, etc the total number of elephants killed would unlikely exceed 500 annually for the whole country. That would still be well below the annual reproductive rate of 5%. No, the elephant population in Zim is not threatened at the moment.

Pippa, I would be interested in knowing who your Tz guide (Ex ph) was and where you were walking if you don't mind?

A general 1 minute briefing will not get any client out of trouble if a dangerous animal is charging. The most important part of the briefing is instructing the clients how to behave on the walk to reduce the risks of a dangerous encounter. Getting out of the dangerous encounter is up to the guide. In Zim, a photo guide that kills an elephant as "self defence" when the elephant is further than 10 metres from him or his clients, will have an inquest and is considered "guilty" until proven "innocent"! Consequences for the guide are severe! 10 metres might as well be 10 cm if you don't "brain" or "turn" a charging elephant. Trying to hit the brain of a charging elephant, even at 10 metres, is a feat noone can claim with a 100% success rate. And if you don't hit the brain, then you are history.

As to the comment that "we are intruding into their territory" I don't agree. I love nature and wild places with wildlife. I feel I have as much right as the animals to be in that land and accept the consequences. I understand the need to have designated wildlife areas, parks, etc for the protection of wild animals but I should have the right to access to that land as well.

bwanamich,
i don't know the hunter's name but can find out easily! come back to you later!
it was in tarangire, we were staying at oliver's/asilia.

regarding the right to enter wildlife's territory:
i guess after we have reduced wildlife's territory dramatically we should leave them alone. wildlife is not allowed to enter human's territory or it will be punished. based on that rule we should respect theirs as well!

No Pippa,
Wildlife is not encouraged to leave its protected area for its own protection!

bwanamich,
i would like to watch when you explain that to a leopard or lion or elephant which was used to travel ancient migration routes which have been cut off by humans for their own selfishness

Pippa,

That leopard or lion or elephant will just have to take its chances. Not all animals that leave "protected areas" get killed do they? Most of them don't and some even kill humans on their forays without ever getting harmed in return. Its the same for humans that live amongst wildlife; whenever they go fetch water, collect firewood, travel to another village, etc they risk being killed by wildlife. Most don't complain. that's life, as they know it.

You seem to think by your arguments that humans have NO RIGHT to exist on this earth. We do! As much as any other - however, "survival of the fittest" coupled with greater "intelligence" dictates who does what to other species and what territory they "command". We cannot equate human intelligence - as we define it - with animal intelligence. Humans destroy other living things for the same evolutionary/genetic reason a leopard will raid a boma and slaughter a dozen goats. Its evolution, genetics, instinct, whatever you want to call it. If humans had NO intelligence (as you seem to think ), then other species would be far worse then they are now.

all land at the beginning belonged to all living creatures. there were no boundaries so to say that this area or that area was their territory is misleading IMO. Hypothetically, if there were as many lions as there are people and they had no enemy - not even man - they would probably have done more damage to other wildlife populations than what us humans have done!

I am not saying that humans have not harmed nature, on the contrary, convicting evidence is there for all to see. What I am saying is that we can not condemn a group of people whose basic means of survival depends on the same land that wild animals share. In a perfect world they have as much "right" to resources on that land and to self protection of limb and property as the animals. But of course, as humans are at the top of the food chain, if left unchecked by regulations and laws set by other people, all wildlife on that piece of land would slowly be wiped away. Hence we have "protected areas" to safeguard wild animals. We can't just set aside all land for this purpose as there will be a conflict over resources other than wildlife required by us humans. So by default, some boundary will have to demarcate where these protected areas begin and end. Animals don't know boundaries and those that venture across it the wrong way are at greater risk. We can't keep adding land to existing protected areas if there is no land to add! We can't move entire rural villages from their "traditional" lands just because wildlife exists there. Where are you going to move them to? I am generalising here.

There has been progress.