Some interesting points of view. I would respectfully suggest that the fundamental cause of Kenya's depressing wildlife management problems is the high birth rate and consequent pressure upon all wilderness areas. All other problems, incompetence, greed, corruption, ethical illiteracy etc such as you discuss are contributory but not fundamental. Hunting is irrelevant to the root cause, and would merely cause more wildlife suffering without addressing the real problem. Solving the real problem is a political issue far outside the scope of wildlife NGOs whose contributions can by my definition only ever be superficial.
Sorry to sound un-positive but until there is effective control of human population numbers, the fate of the wildlife is to be squeezed into ever-decreasing protected areas.

Very interesting to hear the words...

Hunting is irrelevant to the root cause, and would merely cause more wildlife suffering without addressing the real problem.

I would love to hear your opinion whether hunters can be taken serious as conservationists. Of course I do not mean the wrotten apples that we will find on all sides.

Bonbon (Chris):

Thank you so much for jumping in with your opinion (with which I heartily agree).

The big problem is, how do you get African governments to start dealing with their over-population? Their people are already starving and they don't seem to care a whit! With another twenty million people added to the population in 15 - 20 years, there won't be a free square inch of land left for wildlife of any kind. Someone, somewhere has got to get information to the people that if you can't currently afford to feed, clothe and educate your children, you don't have more!

I hope you'll become a regular poster. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Of course hunters will always protest that they themselves are 'ethical' hunters, whilst pretending to be reasonable by disparaging 'unethical' hunting. Actually there is no such thing as ethical hunting and therefore there is no difference between ethical and unethical hunting practices. The infliction of suffering and death upon unoffending animals for fun is not only unethical it is also un-Christian, un-Islamic, and contrary to other major religions and philosophies. When hunters talk about 'ethics' they are actually referring to the rules of their hunting associations which are designed to foster an illusion that hunting is sport. For example take the rule that a hunter should not shoot an animal unless he has stalked it on foot for at least 300 metres from the motor vehicle. Such rules are simply meaningless to all relevant perspectives. The loss of biodiversity is the same. The animal still bleeds and suffers.
In most countries it is a criminal offence to beat a dog or a donkey. If we are to be consistent surely it should be criminal to do much worse to lions and elephants. Or do hunters maintain that lions and elephants do not feel pain like dogs and donkeys?

In my view all hunters are environmental terrorists whose activities can and should be criminalised both in Africa and in their own countries. To argue that African wilderness can only be protected by systematic hunting is as absurd as arguing that it is only whaling that can save the whales.

It is because the hunters wiped out the continents wildlife that many species were brought to the edge of extinction and others made extinct. Since then the misery of the wild animals has been increased by habitat loss, but that does not mean that we should revert to hunting. Along with habitat loss and persecution by livestock farmers, hunting represents a grave and continuing threat to wildlife populations in Africa.

chris, i really appreciate your postings here!
being honest: I HAVE MISSED YOU and i appreciate your point of view!
hope to see more from you soon as your statements provide even more insight views because as european i have got my - emotionally biased - feelings regarding africa and its wildlife, made some observations during trips and therefore i welcome your valued statements even more to receive some more qualified parts of the whole puzzle! it's somehow strange but i don't differentiate between people killed by animals and animals killed by people!
but what you say in view to the supposedly reach banned canned lion hunting????????????????? i think there should follow some clarifications......

Bravo!

I think personally the only way I could condone hunting is if the hunter joined the problem animal control team and went after a rogue that was going to be killed by the authorities anyway for having caused human deaths. Yes, the suffering to the animal would be the same, but there are occasions when it has to be done to prevent further damage. Or he could join a veterinary team that was going to have to euthanize a suffering animal. Those might be considered positive contributions to society and at the same time the hunter would have the thrill of his accomplishment.