Reinstate Hunting in Kenya?
Apr 22nd, 2007, 07:32 PM
#65
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nyama, i agree and would not have had any complaints IF what was represented on their slick brochure was the same that I encountered while there. IF I knew what it was really like and still chose to go, I would have enjoyed it more, but to me it was false advertising. The scenery itself was beautiful in it's contrasts, colors and starkness, but the lack of wildlife was not what I was led to believe our stay there would be like. Yes, nothing is guaranteed but I have a hard time believing that the # of animals they quoted in their brochure could have all gone to Angola at the same time as our guide informed us. Would I do it again? IF we were informed that where we were going was to help stop hunting and the game viewing would be iffy, Yes I would but I would like to know that ahead of time. (it wasn't a total wash as we did see a python eating an impala, some red lechwe and an albino hippo)
Apr 22nd, 2007, 08:27 PM
#66
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
matnikstym - That python must have really full after all that!
Seriously though - thank you - I did realise that i had made broad statements in part answered by Pred. I guess that what happens when likeminded folk get to talking.
Afrigalah - I love being in the Australian wild places - and go there as often as we can. It is the presence of megafauna that pulls us to Africa, we are as equally delighted by the skink or honey-eaters that inhabit our backyard!
Nyama - Re: Santawani Lodge - we have our itineray set for our 8 week 2008 trip abut do intend in 2010 (!) to design a self-drive that is largely based on self-catering and camping, concentrating too on community owned and operated operations - so thank you for the information have read their website and added to our "Trip After Next" favorites folder. You make a good point about lobbying the lodge while there to cease hunting on the neighbouring concession.
Seriously though - thank you - I did realise that i had made broad statements in part answered by Pred. I guess that what happens when likeminded folk get to talking.
Afrigalah - I love being in the Australian wild places - and go there as often as we can. It is the presence of megafauna that pulls us to Africa, we are as equally delighted by the skink or honey-eaters that inhabit our backyard!
Nyama - Re: Santawani Lodge - we have our itineray set for our 8 week 2008 trip abut do intend in 2010 (!) to design a self-drive that is largely based on self-catering and camping, concentrating too on community owned and operated operations - so thank you for the information have read their website and added to our "Trip After Next" favorites folder. You make a good point about lobbying the lodge while there to cease hunting on the neighbouring concession.
Apr 22nd, 2007, 11:21 PM
#67
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jude (Thembi),
Yes, I confess it's the megafauna that drew me to Africa in the first place, too... but as you know, since then I've enjoyed just being in its wild habitat even if the critters are a bit thin on the ground. A lot of the magic is just being where they exist, with as little human management and interference as possible. To know that not far away, somebody is trying to kill the best specimens to satisfy their conceit...well, that's hard to take, whatever the motives of those who allow it to happen.
Like you, I'm delighted by the little critters of the backyard...the antics of the lorikeets, the marauding brushtail possums which wreak havoc on our plants at night, and the occasional visiting blue tongue lizard (saw a baby BT in the leaf litter a few weeks back; I suspect mum gave birth in one of my hollow logs, and I hope the litter survived).
Nyama...thanks are not necessary. We disagree on some things, strongly sometimes, but that shouldn't bar mutual respect.
John
Yes, I confess it's the megafauna that drew me to Africa in the first place, too... but as you know, since then I've enjoyed just being in its wild habitat even if the critters are a bit thin on the ground. A lot of the magic is just being where they exist, with as little human management and interference as possible. To know that not far away, somebody is trying to kill the best specimens to satisfy their conceit...well, that's hard to take, whatever the motives of those who allow it to happen.
Like you, I'm delighted by the little critters of the backyard...the antics of the lorikeets, the marauding brushtail possums which wreak havoc on our plants at night, and the occasional visiting blue tongue lizard (saw a baby BT in the leaf litter a few weeks back; I suspect mum gave birth in one of my hollow logs, and I hope the litter survived).
Nyama...thanks are not necessary. We disagree on some things, strongly sometimes, but that shouldn't bar mutual respect.
John
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:14 AM
#68
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the article is about Kenya and there seem to be peculiarities there (e.g. sheer volume of tourists; relatively small wilderness areas; high population concentrations; serious corruption; seemingly high concentration of land ownership in a few private hands; long histories of land conflict, etc.) perhaps the issue should be discussed in context as well as generally?
I am definitely not the person to do that but in the news report it says:
"Opponents have denounced any moves to re-introduce the blood sport and accused elitist hunters of colluding with wealthy local landowners."
"Every time they try to count our animals there are fewer and fewer. I am against hunting because we don't have the capacity to enforce any rules on it. Maybe later, but not now."
AND INTERESTINGLY:
"Opponents say locals want a bigger share of tourist revenues from the parks and reserves, which go mostly to the service sector, and compensation for loss of property or crops caused by wildlife -- but not hunting."
So I guess in the Kenyan context I am an opponent 'for now' too. That seems quite a reasonable position for anyone to take... and the one which the KWS took in the end (whether it was for the same reasons of course, who knows).
Questions ...... not answers.... relevant to Kenya where there are very few game fences... if the same animals which populate the parks are hunted when they move out of those parks isn't that going to significantly impact on how they react to humans; causing damage to non-violent tourism? I've seen reference to Selous and the Serengeti in this context, but wonder whether the protected areas in Kenya might not generally be much too small to have hunting "around the edges" without seriously affecting the Kenyan tourism model. I have been to areas where there is culling to prevent overgrazing, where there was recently heavy poaching and where there is ongoing human-animal conflict... and noted in all cases that the animals are very easily spooked and difficult to approach. That would be common I assume? Personally I don't mind it so much but Kenya's tourism model depends on mosts tourists seeing something exciting in a few days out 'on safari' and preferably close enough for their pocket cameras.
However, if the hunting areas are to be fenced off where is the increasing number of animals going to be of any benefit to conservation? Aren't the animals then just private property behind their fences? There is a tremendous incentive for landowners to support this initiative because what is currently something of a drain on their resources immediately becomes a valuable asset. That's the point of course, but when there are such huge estates involved shouldn't it be necessary to question the motive? This is as much a debate about private property rights as it is about conservation and might both sides of this very emotive issue be using 'conservation" as a smokescreen? Might "sustainable wildlife management" not quite mean what I used to imagine it meant? At least in the Kenyan context? Or is it always a very knotty and deceptive problem?
Anyway, I would imagine the Kenyan "land use" debate is not exactly Conservation 101. Sounds like you'd need PhDs in Economics, Biology, Kenyan Politics, Kenyan History and Rural Development even to understand what's going on.
I am definitely not the person to do that but in the news report it says:
"Opponents have denounced any moves to re-introduce the blood sport and accused elitist hunters of colluding with wealthy local landowners."
"Every time they try to count our animals there are fewer and fewer. I am against hunting because we don't have the capacity to enforce any rules on it. Maybe later, but not now."
AND INTERESTINGLY:
"Opponents say locals want a bigger share of tourist revenues from the parks and reserves, which go mostly to the service sector, and compensation for loss of property or crops caused by wildlife -- but not hunting."
So I guess in the Kenyan context I am an opponent 'for now' too. That seems quite a reasonable position for anyone to take... and the one which the KWS took in the end (whether it was for the same reasons of course, who knows).
Questions ...... not answers.... relevant to Kenya where there are very few game fences... if the same animals which populate the parks are hunted when they move out of those parks isn't that going to significantly impact on how they react to humans; causing damage to non-violent tourism? I've seen reference to Selous and the Serengeti in this context, but wonder whether the protected areas in Kenya might not generally be much too small to have hunting "around the edges" without seriously affecting the Kenyan tourism model. I have been to areas where there is culling to prevent overgrazing, where there was recently heavy poaching and where there is ongoing human-animal conflict... and noted in all cases that the animals are very easily spooked and difficult to approach. That would be common I assume? Personally I don't mind it so much but Kenya's tourism model depends on mosts tourists seeing something exciting in a few days out 'on safari' and preferably close enough for their pocket cameras.
However, if the hunting areas are to be fenced off where is the increasing number of animals going to be of any benefit to conservation? Aren't the animals then just private property behind their fences? There is a tremendous incentive for landowners to support this initiative because what is currently something of a drain on their resources immediately becomes a valuable asset. That's the point of course, but when there are such huge estates involved shouldn't it be necessary to question the motive? This is as much a debate about private property rights as it is about conservation and might both sides of this very emotive issue be using 'conservation" as a smokescreen? Might "sustainable wildlife management" not quite mean what I used to imagine it meant? At least in the Kenyan context? Or is it always a very knotty and deceptive problem?
Anyway, I would imagine the Kenyan "land use" debate is not exactly Conservation 101. Sounds like you'd need PhDs in Economics, Biology, Kenyan Politics, Kenyan History and Rural Development even to understand what's going on.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:22 AM
#70
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the TA's who get them there? And the camp staff? And the people providing food for the camp? And the mechanic who fixes the Land Cruiser/Rover? Who else should be shot?
All economics happen locally. These people have a right to decide what happens in their own country. If you want to protect something so badly, make it pay for the locals to do as you wish. Anything less is just another form of colonialism.
All economics happen locally. These people have a right to decide what happens in their own country. If you want to protect something so badly, make it pay for the locals to do as you wish. Anything less is just another form of colonialism.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:55 AM
#71
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see more participation arriving to this important discussion. Kavey & Lynn you make good points about people reading but not feeling they have anything to add by posting, I wish this board showed views for threads. I really hope no one is ever hesitant to post thoughts because they feel they lack expertise. A fresh point of view can sometimes bring a creativity that is missed by those who tunnel into what we think we know. I welcome all points of view and I hope that I am not somebody who belittles anyone for a lack of knowledge or difference of opinion -- If I do play 'expert' at someones expense please call me out on that. I value the free flow discussion and want to always be evolving my thoughts. I have seen some emotional attacks on these boards but we do have a relative anonymity behind the keyboard so what better place then to hone your controversial discussion skills. Typically regulars on this board put a quick stop to rudeness and protect other posters which is one reason I like it here.
I'll get back to the topic in my next post.
I'll get back to the topic in my next post.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:05 AM
#72
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Kimburu makes some great new fresh points. My biggest concern with hunting is I don't like tourism to habituate the animals when they can easily wander into the 'hunting zone'. As Kimburu says it can definitely make the wildlife more skittish and that can impact the tourist experience, although I worry more about the ethics of making animals comfortable with people and vehicles when they can be hunted next door. For this reason I really object to the hunting of predators near any area that they are habituated. I do not have data, just personal observation but predators (especially lions) have little to fear but usually have an engrained caution when it comes to humans. In tourism areas over time that caution is relaxed and as is typical with the predator mindset they are on the prowl not the defense which makes them particularly vulnerable to hunters. On the other hand prey species have a weariness that is always present for they can be in danger at anytime. What I have seen in the USA is prey species like elk and deer know exactly where they can be hunted and where they are off limits. They will have one demeanor in a national park and a different one in a national forest during hunting season. Thus I think they are largely capable of knowing they can relax inside of the Mara but not on the adjoining hunting concession if one were established whereas the lion will not know the difference as he prances right into danger.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:10 AM
#73
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a person who would NEVER hunt for sport, I went to Kenya with the firm belief that hunting in Africa is abhorrant. However, after staying in several bush homes, and hearing many Africans stand on the issue of hunting, and meeting Tony Dyer, I am thinking differently about this. As so many have said here, controlled hunting IS NOT the same as poaching. Hunting is not my thing, and I wish it didn't have to be this way, but I am one person who has completely changed her views about this subject after hearing another side.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:25 AM
#74
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 14,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nyama,
I have always considered you very fluent in English and I am always a bit jealous of those who are so fluent in more than one language.
The other site that has been brought up on occasion (mostly just be Predator and me) would probably be apart from Fodors. It could contain discussions on nature destinations, wildlife sightings, pictures, outdoor gear, ecological issues, etc. Plunge pool talk might be banned. It would probably be something more narrowly focused than the broader based travel sites such as this.
Maybe such a thing even already exists and I just need to do some more scouting. The problem is, you get too narrow and then you have no participants. I know of other travel sites that have very little activity in the areas I'm interested.
Anyway, back to the question at hand...
I have always considered you very fluent in English and I am always a bit jealous of those who are so fluent in more than one language.
The other site that has been brought up on occasion (mostly just be Predator and me) would probably be apart from Fodors. It could contain discussions on nature destinations, wildlife sightings, pictures, outdoor gear, ecological issues, etc. Plunge pool talk might be banned. It would probably be something more narrowly focused than the broader based travel sites such as this.
Maybe such a thing even already exists and I just need to do some more scouting. The problem is, you get too narrow and then you have no participants. I know of other travel sites that have very little activity in the areas I'm interested.
Anyway, back to the question at hand...
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:40 AM
#75
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cindysafari, these are exactly the kind of experiences that I made, and which changed my views.
Also learning about parks where wildlife is flourishing in adjoining hunting concessions whereas the park itself is suffering from poaching. Kafue is a good example. Obviously hunting operators here are more successful in anti-poaching measures than the park authorities.
And common sense. I quoted that post by safariex about hunting areas (above). Have you ever seen photos of the huge southern part of Selous? Is anyone here who really thinks that one can protect such areas with photo tourism?
Also learning about parks where wildlife is flourishing in adjoining hunting concessions whereas the park itself is suffering from poaching. Kafue is a good example. Obviously hunting operators here are more successful in anti-poaching measures than the park authorities.
And common sense. I quoted that post by safariex about hunting areas (above). Have you ever seen photos of the huge southern part of Selous? Is anyone here who really thinks that one can protect such areas with photo tourism?
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:04 AM
#77
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a little research and it quickly became clear why this is such a big issue facing Kenya and why they may be forced into the desperate choice of using hunting as a conservation tool. It's no surprise that their wildlife population is depleting at such a high rate because they haven't dedicated hardly any space for habitat! Let's go inside the numbers.
From the World Resources Institute, 2003 data for Protected Areas by percent of total land area
Kenya 12.3%
Tanazania 39.6%
Zambia 41.4%
Botswana 30.2%
USA 15.8% -- keep in mind that Kenya is only the size of 2 States of Nevada and the USA is the 3rd largest land area in the world
Number of protected areas greater than 1 million hectares -- this is especially important because only in large areas can you maintain fully functioning systems.
Kenya 1
Tanzania 6
Zambia 4
Botswana 3
USA 20 -- anybody think there may be some good places to visit here too.
Percent of the protected area that is considered Category 1 (National Park, Nature Reserve, Wilderness Area -- these are core areas that would typically be non-consumptive of wildlife)
Kenya 5.9%
Tanzania 4.3%
Zambia 8.4%
Botswana 7.8%
USA 5.8%
The amount of protected area that is 'Managed for Sustainable Use'
Kenya 6.3%
Tanzania 25%
Zambia 33%
Botswana 12%
USA 7.4%
Botswana and Kenya are almost the same exact size but Botswana has almost 4 times the protected area. Tanzania and Zambia are much larger and still protect much higher percentages. Interesting for this discussion is Tanzania has the lowest percentage for the core protected areas but has a huge amount of 'sustainable area'.
I think it is obvious that Kenya needs to protect more land. Tanzania and Zambia are operating under the 'sustainable use' model with large areas that continue to provide wildlife value but allow for hunting, forestry and other uses that supplement the core park holdings. Kenya is at a cross roads where they need to find ways to up the acreage available to wildlife.
As I detailed in a post somewhere above there are a few known tools to conserve land:
1) Government action, set aside parks
2) Non Gov't Organization
3) Find a sustainable use
Ideally #2 would work as donors provided enough money to buy preserves or at least conservation easements that allow locals to continue to own the land but managed under conditions in the easement for which they receive compensation. This may work in some select areas but donors funds are in demand everywhere and I'm not sure how high Kenya ranks for these limited funds. Many like to invest their limited amounts to projects in their own country, areas that are huge diversity hot spots in ecosystems without as much protected acreage as African savanna and woodland systems, or in countries that have demonstrated better management/more commitment than Kenya.
I think Kenya needs to pursue all strategies available and protect what habitat remains and pursue other sustainable programs that allow for rehabilitation of habitat. To me its at that point.
From the World Resources Institute, 2003 data for Protected Areas by percent of total land area
Kenya 12.3%
Tanazania 39.6%
Zambia 41.4%
Botswana 30.2%
USA 15.8% -- keep in mind that Kenya is only the size of 2 States of Nevada and the USA is the 3rd largest land area in the world
Number of protected areas greater than 1 million hectares -- this is especially important because only in large areas can you maintain fully functioning systems.
Kenya 1
Tanzania 6
Zambia 4
Botswana 3
USA 20 -- anybody think there may be some good places to visit here too.
Percent of the protected area that is considered Category 1 (National Park, Nature Reserve, Wilderness Area -- these are core areas that would typically be non-consumptive of wildlife)
Kenya 5.9%
Tanzania 4.3%
Zambia 8.4%
Botswana 7.8%
USA 5.8%
The amount of protected area that is 'Managed for Sustainable Use'
Kenya 6.3%
Tanzania 25%
Zambia 33%
Botswana 12%
USA 7.4%
Botswana and Kenya are almost the same exact size but Botswana has almost 4 times the protected area. Tanzania and Zambia are much larger and still protect much higher percentages. Interesting for this discussion is Tanzania has the lowest percentage for the core protected areas but has a huge amount of 'sustainable area'.
I think it is obvious that Kenya needs to protect more land. Tanzania and Zambia are operating under the 'sustainable use' model with large areas that continue to provide wildlife value but allow for hunting, forestry and other uses that supplement the core park holdings. Kenya is at a cross roads where they need to find ways to up the acreage available to wildlife.
As I detailed in a post somewhere above there are a few known tools to conserve land:
1) Government action, set aside parks
2) Non Gov't Organization
3) Find a sustainable use
Ideally #2 would work as donors provided enough money to buy preserves or at least conservation easements that allow locals to continue to own the land but managed under conditions in the easement for which they receive compensation. This may work in some select areas but donors funds are in demand everywhere and I'm not sure how high Kenya ranks for these limited funds. Many like to invest their limited amounts to projects in their own country, areas that are huge diversity hot spots in ecosystems without as much protected acreage as African savanna and woodland systems, or in countries that have demonstrated better management/more commitment than Kenya.
I think Kenya needs to pursue all strategies available and protect what habitat remains and pursue other sustainable programs that allow for rehabilitation of habitat. To me its at that point.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:09 AM
#78
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lynn: I know a site like that is under construction but busy field season is making it slow going. Matt's Safari Talk site is getting excellent interviews to stimulate this kind of discussion too but thus far I think his pieces get read and then discussed here but perhaps it will blossom over time as the content is very good.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 11:15 AM
#79
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been reading through this thread and I just wish that quality debate would be brought over to Safaritalk: I thank PredatorBiologist for mentioning it here - I would not have otherwise.
He is right about the interviews - I have received some really positive feedback from the field so far, as can be seen from those who have provided interviews thus far. Further to these future interviews to be published include, amongst others the following persons:
Dr Richard Leakey.
Dr Laurie Marker. (Cheetah Conservation Fund)
Prof Craig Packer. (Serengeti Lion Project)
Rebecca Klein. (Cheetah conservation Botswana)
Alison Nicholls (noted wildlife artist)
I have also been in contact with Nick Nichols (National Geographic photographer) and Simon Trevor (Wildlife documentary film maker and feature film cameraman - Out of Africa, Gorillas in the Mist, White Hunter Black Heart to name a few).
I hope to be meeting Simon King (Big Cat Diaries) later this year in England.
Safaritalk has no commercial backing and is independent of any outside entity - I pay for and run it myself. It will never make money and it's ultimate aim is to invite donations for the various entities I work with.
What has been said here about the type of dicsussions on Fodors is right: these are typically travel related issues and therefore I do not plan to have talk of lodges and plunge pools and cuisine and rack rates etc alongside conservation issues. For instance my donation of 50 UK pounds changed a girl's life in Zambia - how could such talk of 1000 dollar a night lodges be alongside such issues? In my opinion travel related issues belong to such a site as Fodors whereas conservation and community issues have a place in other relevant forums as well as here.
I don't want this to be an advert for Safaritalk, it is no competition for Fodors but for true conservation issues to be discussed where input is received from people involved in the field it is a viable alternative.
The more content within the site, whether provided by me or ultimately led by discussion such as this means a greater interest for new members coming in. Then as well as having a place to discuss issues such as the Kenya hunting debate perhaps they might feel willing to make a small donation. If ten people like myself donated 50 pounds each to for instance Anna Tolan at Chipembele think how many chidlren's life that could change. And any of them could grow up to become another Hammer Simwinga, encouraged by a small donation via Safaritalk.
So I invite you to at least take a further look at <b>www.safaritalk.net</b> and please, if you wish to, become involved.
Thankyou again Pred for bringing it everyone's attention, take care,
Matt
He is right about the interviews - I have received some really positive feedback from the field so far, as can be seen from those who have provided interviews thus far. Further to these future interviews to be published include, amongst others the following persons:
Dr Richard Leakey.
Dr Laurie Marker. (Cheetah Conservation Fund)
Prof Craig Packer. (Serengeti Lion Project)
Rebecca Klein. (Cheetah conservation Botswana)
Alison Nicholls (noted wildlife artist)
I have also been in contact with Nick Nichols (National Geographic photographer) and Simon Trevor (Wildlife documentary film maker and feature film cameraman - Out of Africa, Gorillas in the Mist, White Hunter Black Heart to name a few).
I hope to be meeting Simon King (Big Cat Diaries) later this year in England.
Safaritalk has no commercial backing and is independent of any outside entity - I pay for and run it myself. It will never make money and it's ultimate aim is to invite donations for the various entities I work with.
What has been said here about the type of dicsussions on Fodors is right: these are typically travel related issues and therefore I do not plan to have talk of lodges and plunge pools and cuisine and rack rates etc alongside conservation issues. For instance my donation of 50 UK pounds changed a girl's life in Zambia - how could such talk of 1000 dollar a night lodges be alongside such issues? In my opinion travel related issues belong to such a site as Fodors whereas conservation and community issues have a place in other relevant forums as well as here.
I don't want this to be an advert for Safaritalk, it is no competition for Fodors but for true conservation issues to be discussed where input is received from people involved in the field it is a viable alternative.
The more content within the site, whether provided by me or ultimately led by discussion such as this means a greater interest for new members coming in. Then as well as having a place to discuss issues such as the Kenya hunting debate perhaps they might feel willing to make a small donation. If ten people like myself donated 50 pounds each to for instance Anna Tolan at Chipembele think how many chidlren's life that could change. And any of them could grow up to become another Hammer Simwinga, encouraged by a small donation via Safaritalk.
So I invite you to at least take a further look at <b>www.safaritalk.net</b> and please, if you wish to, become involved.
Thankyou again Pred for bringing it everyone's attention, take care,
Matt
