bwanamich,
your point eliminates your point regarding ivory trade allowances as this surely doesn't benefit "joe average"!

as soon as one opens the door a little bit the money barely goes to the right people and for that trade will never stop so not the poaching!

bwanamich:

You are correct that things have been smoothed over. I heard from Iain today.

I think you are probably also correct on the park/reserve fees going to a general fund. I was told back in 2001 that Amboseli fees went to the general fund with a certain amount distributed to KWS to run the park.

I still have a problem understanding that. Lets say you take the gate receipts of 3 million two hundred forty thousand, deduct a small amount for road upkeep, etc. If that amount were divided among those families living closest to park/reserve borders (lets say 2000 families - probably high) each family would get approximately $16,000 per year - a heck of a lot better than the average Kenyan salary of $200.00 per year. That money to the family would be income and thus taxable - so the government would get a lot of it back anyway! The people living closest to the parks would be happier and less inclined to go after wildlife or yell when their garden is eaten, wildlife would be better off and I think tourists would feel happier also knowing that the money they paid for gate receipts was actually helping the people. They could see the improvements.

The drawback would be that everyone would want to move near the parks/reserves, but if something like this were grandfathered in so that only the people CURRENTLY living in the area would receive the benefits, that might take care of this problem.

Original von pippa
bwanamich,
your point eliminates your point regarding ivory trade allowances as this surely doesn't benefit "joe average"!

as soon as one opens the door a little bit the money barely goes to the right people and for that trade will never stop so not the poaching!

Please order and read this book. MANAGING OUR WILDLIFE HERITAGE by Ron thomson. It is explained very simply by one of the world's authority on natural resource Management. Its been an eye opener ofr me and the booklet is available direct from magron@ripplesoft.co.za; or from Tel/Fax +27 12 2530 521 (South Africa). The cost, inclusive of postage in South Africa, is R80,00. The cost for people living anywhere in the world outside South Africa, inclusive of airmail postage, is R 100. (approx. US $ 15.).

The principles and practices explained are universally applicable.

Then let's re-discuss this topic on a separate thread.

Very interesting points by all -

Please note that Park Fee taken in one gate does not mean that all the fee taken in one National Park is for that park only; a very large amount then gets placed into one big pot and gets re distributed to smaller and less popular parks in the country.
This is for Kenya as well as TZ; Bwanamich has correctly stated that the ruling government usually controls this and directs the funds where necessary.
This is why it is hard to stop more lodges being build as it has a small snow ball effect; - which effects the wildlife in the long run negatively if no VERY strick rules are implemented and constantly forced into action.
The funds get "divided" ...... where needed (most of the time not too well; if you know what I mean) - more lodges & camps means more local labour, more income, more tourists - this is all positive for the economy however compelete negative impact on local wildlife - fauna and flora.
If we take Amboseli - during season, at some stages with all (in the Park and on the outskirts) camps & hotels working at 80% occupany, there will be over 120 vans & 4x4 driving around 392 square kms in one day.... I named this project "Driving towards and open Zoo....".

Kipper, thank you for bringing up the issue of private interests and hidden agendas. Of course when you get one conservationist cum hotelier, like Mr Hamilton, suddenly becoming vocal about new developments, you must stop and ask yourself what his personal interests are. No doubt, there are environmental risks involved in any such development but one must also remember there are the relevant authorities, both governmental and private organisations that are in place to assess these risks.
Similar conflicts between the so-called conservationists and private investors have erupted in the past regarding the development of new camps/lodges in Masai Mara. A moratorium was put in place yet a number of small "temporary" private camps were erected. As long as the camps belong to a select few individuals, the conservationists remained silent. Now that their developments are almost complete, the conservationists are once again vocal claiming over-crowding, natural habitat desturction and so on and so forth as reasons why the moratorium should now be enforced. These temporary camps are far from temporary, remaining open for the most part of the year, having permanent structures in place and not fully abiding by the guidelines set out by both the governmental and private environmental protection agencies.
The toursim industry in Kenya is a complicated industry with many influential parties having their own agendas. Thanks to the way the systems work here, you can even buy out the media to suit your personal interests. The whole issue of Mr Hamilton being originally asked to vacate from the Samburu has more to it than what you read. Its what you hear whispered in certain circles that really shows you what is truely going on in this country. Don\'t be deceived by what you read. Its a whole lot more complicated than you think!

Taz - relating to your last paragraph; does this have to do with business competition and / or Mr Hamilton being well set in the industry which could upset other camp / lodge owners?
It has been mentioned in the past in the private hotel / lodge sector where conservationists who are in the same business are pushed away as their ideas may upset other private lodge / hotel owners.