This article appears elsewhere in Bushdrums, but I thought it applicable to this section of the forum so took the liberty to paste it here.

THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO THE DEBATE ON WILDLIFE LAW
The Standard
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

By the way: I have contacted Mr. Loefler and asked him to register on bushdrums but unfortunately he hates computers and tries to avoid them wherever he can

However he kindly allowed us to publish any of his work as much as we wish

of course we can transform the debate from one panel to the next!

Hunting for sport isn’t as good as it is made to be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By James Isiche
The Standard - December 12, 2006

Few weeks ago, columnist Dr Imre Loefler called for the exclusion of NGOs from the ongoing wildlife policy review talks.

This was a baffling and shocking turn-around. Last year, while still at the helm of an NGO, the East African Wildlife Society, Loefler set up a think tank comprising "experts", Government representatives, landowners and non-governmental organisations.

In the same year, Loefler, who was the think tank’s self-appointed chair, announced in the Society’s magazine, Swara, which he used to propagate his ideologies, that its recommendations had been forwarded to the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife for evaluation and preparation of a sessional paper. This, he said, would "form the basis of discussion in amending Kenya’s Wildlife Act in the next few months".

That was then. Today, hardly a year later, the surgeon in a classic case of acute selected amnesia wants NGOs removed from the policy review process. The think tank’s recommendations were strong on wise use of wildlife — a euphemism for the resumption of sport hunting which has been Loefler’s rallying call for decades. Thankfully, the Government chose to ignore the recommendations.

While launching the policy review months later, Tourism and Wildlife Minister Mr Morris Dzoro made it clear that policy formulation was the preserve of Government — not "partisan" groups — although NGOs had been invited to give their views like other players.

This, indeed, is the reason that the so-called "foreign-based animal rightist and welfarist organisations" declined invitations to join the Loefler think tank. But two key questions arise from his latest call: One, do international wildlife groups have a role to play in the wildlife review process?

While some are international, there is nothing really foreign about them as Loefler often asserts. On the contrary, their staff comprises mostly indigenous Kenyans, most wildlife experts with practical experience in Government and the Kenya Wildlife Service.

NGOs have substantial information and research data on wildlife that could rival any Government department or institution of higher learning. They, therefore, bring to the policy review process crucial knowledge, skills and expertise seasoned with a global outlook. It would be vain and self-defeating to ignore them.

NGOs have earned the right to participate. They help to fill institutional gaps, especially where these hurt poor and marginalised groups. NGOs are part of society. In Laikipia, for instance, 3,713 incidences of human-wildlife conflict were recorded between 2002 and last year, with 19 people killed and 21 injured. When the International Fund for Animal Welfare supports the construction of a community electric fence to keep elephants at bay, it cannot be "ignoring the plight of the people, neglecting their interests or hurting people and wildlife".

On the contrary, this is an investment to boost the welfare of the common man and wildlife, not to seek influence and propagate foreign ideology as the doctor would want people to believe. If he doubts it, he should go to Laikipia and speak to the communities.

The second question arising from his article regards the suitability of sport hunting and game farming. Are these modes of wildlife management as good as they sound? It is ironical that Loefler, who rails at NGOs for propagating foreign ideologies, should call for sport hunting when it is as foreign as they come.

I recall of no indigenous community that has ever hunted for sport! As a point of clarification, the fading traditional practice of Maasai morans spearing lions is different — there was neither the exchange of money nor did they do it for fun. No one denies that hunting is worth millions of dollars.

The questions are: Who will earn the millions and is it ecologically sustainable?
If landowners are given user rights over wildlife and the proponents of sport hunting and game farming get their way, who stands to gain? In South Africa, which Loefler and his ilk believe is a role model, the Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism commissioned a panel of experts to evaluate hunting.

Last year, the panel presented its draft report, Panel of Experts on Professional and Recreational Hunting in South Africa. It says: "Current benefits are minor and indirect, including meat from trophy hunts, employment as hospitality staff, hunting guides and trackers, skinners and other forms of menial labour." Is this a worthy aspiration for local communities?

But the critical question is whether sport hunting will provide gains for biodiversity. Pro-hunting lobbyists point to South Africa as the example Kenya should follow. Yet the panel of experts says: "Because of the economic opportunities presented by potential trophy animals, there is a tendency for the economic objectives to override conservation management objectives."

Hunting has spawned gross malpractices such as canned hunting, where lions, leopards, cheetahs and rare wild dogs are bred to be shot in cages. They are not even given a chance to escape — most are often drugged, sedated or conditioned to trust human beings before getting shot like sitting ducks — much to the disdain of professional hunters themselves! Are these Kenya’s aspirations on the future of wildlife conservation?

As Loefler pointed out, Kenya has lost a substantial percentage of its wildlife since independence. Due to research gaps and limited data, we cannot, with the exception of certain areas, state with certainty where the animals are and what their populations are.

If wildlife is being "exterminated, chased, shot, trapped, speared, snared and poisoned in increasing numbers, to send more executioners after them in the name of sport hunting is akin to drilling the final nail in the coffin.

The writer is the regional director of International Fund for Animal Welfare East Africa

this article was posted by jan originally and i hope she agrees that i re-locate it to here!

Thanks Pippa,
I should have copies all three articles so that anyone reading them would understand the order of the conversation. Here is the first article that started this particular debate.

Kenya: Keep NGOs Out of the New Wildlife Policy Talks

The East African Standard (Nairobi)
November 28, 2006

Imre Loefler
Nairobi

Recently, the Vice-President Mr Moody Awori spoke on wildlife policy. The occasion was a ceremony at which IFAW (International Federation for Animal Welfare), as it frequently does, donated gifts to the Government in exchange for influence.

The nation's wildlife policy is being revised and the animal right activists and welfare organisations are distressed lest Kenya follows other East and southern African countries and adopt a new wildlife policy based on "wise use".

Awori, talking about the numbers of wildlife, is reported to have said: "We should allow nature to regulate." The sentiments were echoed by Dr Manu Chandaria, an IFAW trustee and board member. He waxed lyrical and said: "Let us give wildlife freedom to move and survive!"

With these words, he bizarrely handed to the Vice-President Sh10 million to be used to erect a game fence in Laikipia and equipment needed to capture wildlife.

Romantics may talk about the wisdom of nature regulating itself, including wildlife numbers, yet Kenyans do not want wildlife to interfere with agriculture. This is the view held by the farming and pastoralist populations, including their representatives such as Laikipia West MP Mr GG Kariuki, who, in initiating the wildlife policy review process, pointed out that wildlife and agriculture do not mix.

The only people who appear to want wildlife roaming and multiplying freely outside protected areas are Awori and foreign animal welfare organisations, animal rights' activists, Chandaria and groups of urban Kenyans who are not threatened by human-animal conflicts. But Kenyans who suffer the brunt of wildlife invasion and damage, fence, dig ditches and use all manner of deterrents - fires, spotlights, noise bombs and chemicals - to deny habitat to wild animals.

Millions of shillings are spent to translocate animals from areas where wise nature has allowed them to multiply to the detriment of man, their own environment and even their future. The sad thing is that wildlife numbers continue to decline because of the failure of policy, precisely the kind Western animal welfare NGOs have pressed on Government over the years.

Kenya has lost about 60 per cent of its wildlife in 40 years. Lately, the destruction has accelerated. While politicians and NGO chiefs organise workshops and symposia to talk endlessly on nature, our stewardship, biodiversity, heritage and so forth, wildlife is being exterminated.

It is being chased, shot, trapped, speared, snared and poisoned in increasing numbers. The situation is aggravated by the many large game on non-protected land and are at the mercy of landowners. Only a fraction of the non-protected wildlife areas are suitable for tourism.

As long as the people, who presently compete with wildlife, do not have direct legally obtainable benefits, they will continue to destroy it. If the current trends are extrapolated, it is likely that by the time Kenya Vision 2030 is supposed to be realised, there will be hardly any wildlife left in the non-protected areas.

Policy failure is the result of foreign wildlife NGOs, their local acolytes and successive governments, including their agencies such as the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS).

Unless wildlife is well taken care of, it will disappear. Wildlife husbandry means looking after game so that it thrives and only then can it be harvested. The regions suitable for wildlife would be teeming with game if husbandry was allowed on a sound business footing.

Wildlife husbandry would make more money for Kenya than flowers do and at the same time be environmentally sound and help rehabilitate devastated land. Yet the Vice-President, who spoke of nature so warmly and seemed to have made promises in return for gifts, pledges which prejudice the outcome of the ongoing wildlife policy review, also dwelt on management.

Contradicting himself, he called on KWS to "scientifically manage animals". Indeed! What is required is scientific and economic management of wildlife. Having left matters to "nature" for decades, we lost more than half of our wildlife, incurred enormous environmental damage and paid an incalculable opportunity cost.

The wildlife policy struggle is increasingly tedious. What is so galling is that, by ignoring the plight of the people and neglecting their interests, the animal rights' and welfare groups hurt the people and wildlife.

Instead, Kenya promises to continue with a policy that has obviously failed in exchange for paltry gifts. Lake Nakuru is drying up, Lake Naivasha is dying as is Lake Victoria. Silting is rife in Lake Baringo and Lake Turkana is shrinking. The Government excises forests and settles people, allows invasion of protected areas and contemplates destroying wildlife habitat for dodgy sugar business. Turning attention to shortcomings of environmental policies would be more useful than sentimental foreign philosophies .