Calvin

Should wildlife be dependent on tourism for its survival? The Kenya situation

26 posts in this topic

To secure the wildlife around camps in the greater Mara ecosystem, many lodge owners have over the last few years leased land for wildlife conservancies giving them the possibility to better control the wildlife experience for their guests while paying the Maasai landowners to keep the wildlife alive on their land and averting the 'de-wilding' process that normally happens as land is converted to food production...this conservancy movement has shown that leasing land to remain extensive and open, unfenced and inhabited by a wide variety of wild animal species has given the landowners very good alternative to farming and land fragmentation, and it has been good for the local Maasai people, their culture, the wildlife and the tourism industry.

 

However, with the security issues the country has recently had to face and which undoubtedly has the potential to reduce tourism arrivals to the country, some conservancies may not be able to meet their payment commitments to their landowners....The consequences of not having these conservancy payments underwritten and guaranteed is clear; it can result in the loss of trust by landlords, reversal of all the good conservation work that has been achieved and may well prompt the removal of wildlife from these conservancies and conversion of this land to farming.

 

Should wildlife in Kenya - or anywhere for that matter - be dependent only on the sensitive and fickle tourism industry ? What would give the wildlife conservancies more financial resilience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great topic @ . One question though - does your definition of tourism include or excluding hunting? Is it any kind of tourists or is it just the photographic tourism we are talking about?

 

Because depending on that, the discussion would change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Calvin,

 

Are tourists hesitant to come because of what happened in Mombasa recently? or it's just the continued trend post-westgate that puts fear into people?

 

I love the conservancies in the Mara and it's just a fabulous experience as a visitor - I think the tourism industry is a little fickle in the immediate aftermath of global events, but, soon evens out and the main draw (the fabulous wild spaces of Kenya) will bring back the tourists ......... :)

 

Hari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ the growth of private concessions around Maasai Mara has certainly breathed new life into the reserve and the fact that most of them involve local Maasai communities is surely a good thing in getting them to feel they have a stake in the tourism process.

If there is a danger of lease payments drying up if tourism numbers fall would it not make sense to structure the lease around a profit share, rather than just a rent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can revenue from tourism grow at the same rate as the population (if the Kenyan population continue to grow as expected)? If not, tourism revenues will get smaller and smaller in terms of gdp and at some stage, will not be sufficient

Edited by Dam2810

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe that the high end safari tourist industry is over traded, and tourists are spoilt for choice.

 

I also think the industry has over evolved to the point where only the finest destinations offering the finest experience will be able to ask top dollar. In contrast, the costing models of some of these camps do not allow for discounting prices as an option.

 

Considering an economy model of safari camp may be worth while. I imagine that the greatest cost is securing the area to provide an Alice in wonderland experience, the comfort costs are then essential, or you would fall short of what the tourist demands.

 

Picture the economy model, where wildlife viewing isn't that great, and you can compromise on comforts. Who would your market be? Remember people are short in time, long in expectations, and after paying the flights, they may as well pay the extra or shorten their stay so that their expectations are met.

 

We would love wildlife to be dependant on tourism, but its not realistic to imagine that tourism alone will pay the bills and secure the buffer zones in Kenya. That is why Kenya is donor dependant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe that the high end safari tourist industry is over traded, and tourists are spoilt for choice.

 

I also think the industry has over evolved to the point where only the finest destinations offering the finest experience will be able to ask top dollar. In contrast, the costing models of some of these camps do not allow for discounting prices as an option.

 

Considering an economy model of safari camp may be worth while. I imagine that the greatest cost is securing the area to provide an Alice in wonderland experience, the comfort costs are then essential, or you would fall short of what the tourist demands.

 

Picture the economy model, where wildlife viewing isn't that great, and you can compromise on comforts. Who would your market be? Remember people are short in time, long in expectations, and after paying the flights, they may as well pay the extra or shorten their stay so that their expectations are met.

 

We would love wildlife to be dependant on tourism, but its not realistic to imagine that tourism alone will pay the bills and secure the buffer zones in Kenya. That is why Kenya is donor dependant.

 

I agree that the idea of good camps at more affordable prices would be terrific. We need more alternatives to the very expensive high end stuff.

However isn't always going to be the case that if a concession or location is available to lease or buy then the richer outfits will outbid the less rich ones?

You also need to take into account the ego of the lessor/landowner who would in most cases far rather have a high end camp on his concession than a budget one - simply because of his own ego.

Another problem with lower priced camps is size. In order to make a decent return while charging lower rates it would be necessary to bring in more clients - so the camp would have to be larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst high end uber $$$ properties will work in prime locations, what happens to more marginal areas which cannot attract those high dollar clients? For photo tourism to work in said areas does there need to be another model, ie budget accomodation? Self drive campsites etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe that the high end safari tourist industry is over traded, and tourists are spoilt for choice.

 

I also think the industry has over evolved to the point where only the finest destinations offering the finest experience will be able to ask top dollar. In contrast, the costing models of some of these camps do not allow for discounting prices as an option.

 

Considering an economy model of safari camp may be worth while. I imagine that the greatest cost is securing the area to provide an Alice in wonderland experience, the comfort costs are then essential, or you would fall short of what the tourist demands.

 

Picture the economy model, where wildlife viewing isn't that great, and you can compromise on comforts. Who would your market be? Remember people are short in time, long in expectations, and after paying the flights, they may as well pay the extra or shorten their stay so that their expectations are met.

 

We would love wildlife to be dependant on tourism, but its not realistic to imagine that tourism alone will pay the bills and secure the buffer zones in Kenya. That is why Kenya is donor dependant.

well reasoned dik dik

 

when you create places that are so expensive they are much more likely to be badly impacted when there is a downturn for economic or other reasons

 

perhaps the wealthy people more inclined to these places have a higher personal caution with security.

 

not everyone wants or can easily afford very high level luxury accom

 

there are people who are more seeking a wildlife and bush experience and prefer not to be so removed from the elements of nature

 

when you create such experiences it is possible to

 

1 establish a base level of lavish comfort which new lodges/camps will seek to outdo , and the existing operators will have to refurbish to keep cussomers

 

2 some of the guests will be looking for opulent comfort, which means the camp is competing against luxury worldwide wherever it is city, wildlife camp, wine tour ,country hotel etc

 

there are a whole lot of people who want reasonable comfort , a lower level of crowds coming from a community reserve , and cannot afford or do not want to mix it with lavish luxury. they would still help conserve the land and wildlife, thus pay rent to the community, but there is nothing for them in the Mara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback. I guess we are coming to the point...

 

Can we agree first that the real danger to wildlife throughout all of Africa is the loss of land for wildlife in the face of hardening land rights combined with the fact that landowners in Africa need to actually earn hard cash from their land for survival ?

 

Is there any doubt at all amongst us conservationists on this forum that increasing human populations in Africa coupled with the increasing aspirations of these poor rural folk is the main reason that wildlife habitat is being converted to food production, is being deforested and that removal of wildlife is inevitable should this process continue? Ok.

 

Can we also all agree that wildlife has to pay its way for its survival on land where landowners have final decision making power..and that this value has to be in terms that these rural people understand, in ways that actually earn money to pay for their school fees, for their food security and for their development needs into the future...is there any disputing of this fact?

 

Can we agree now that poor rural Africans WILL NOT keep wildlife on their land just because the rich world demands, or because government dictates it to them, , or because of Animal Rights activists making noise in the world media. Ok with this so far?

 

Assuming you agree with the above, does it not naturally follow that wildlife has to therefore be commoditized to earn the required revenue for the renewable resource to outcompete with other alternative resources such as farming, monoculture domestic livestock and others? Assuming this is agreed, let's look at how wildlife can be commoditized, can earn actual cash money, and how can this money be distributed fairly.

 

Wildlife has value. But because of the historic injustice if European royal game laws imposed in Africa it is largely valueless to landowners - but not to specialized operators in other industries ...primarily the hunting and photographic industries. The monopoly of both these wildlife uses and control by non landowners ( operators, agents, government) has had negative effects on wildlife historically because most tourism is focused on tiny areas on state owned protected areas, while In hunting, though it is more widespread and on more arid lands, the operators still largely control the terms as well as l favoring white landowners which doesn't endear the black majorities to the industry ( SA model) , or, in the case of Tanzania, only interacts and benefits government.. Let's agree that both tourism and hunting both add value to wildlife and can be done on a sustainable basis, but are not currently very effective in stopping the loss of wildlands and wildlife in Africa because landowners are last in line to benefit from these industries. Indeed even if these industries were restructured in favor of landowners, the amounts of money generated is way too low to have a meaningful impact on wildlife conservation through out Africa... . Derek Joubert recently put the figure required for this ( for wildlife to outcompete other landuses and to have a chance of survival) to be in the $400 billion per year range! Tourism just cannot touch this, and neither can hunting, but they can both help to finance some areas...

 

My point was that we have to urgently find another way to finance wild land (and wildlife) in africa, and the only way is to start a new dialogue with the rich developed west and eastern populations of the world. The rich have to pay it, pure and simple, or if not, allow wildlife to be truly commoditized with sustainable utilization of wildlife including hunting, tourism, sales of meat, hides, even ivory and rhino horn.. Species and populations that are out of endangered category have to be liberalized and owned by landowners, and wildlife conservation will be the byproduct of developing humans.

 

Some may think that huge amounts of money are being provided by the rich west for wildlife Conservation through donations to wildlife NGO's , but the truth is that very little of this money gets to the ground to make a difference, being used instead for

preservation management strategies ( fencing, drones, equipment, helicopters etc) that are used primarily to secure designated protected areas and private conservancies; mostly areas that are under the obligation of governments to pay (sheldrick trust finances the KWS to operate tsavo national park for instance). Furthermore, this NGO money is , like tourism and hunting , mostly monopolized by outsiders, under the control of outsiders, and ineffective on an Africa wide basis for wildlife conservation. ( of course there are some localized exceptions to this generalization).

 

The big answer to all this is for African governments to come together for a pan African approach for getting the west ( and east) to fund land for wildlife, failure of which the west should not lobby against or otherwise disrupt the political process to liberalize wildlife industries in all these countries...indeed it seems that Congo have already told the west to pay $1 billion to stop them from clear cutting one of their big forests..

 

I advocate some kind of biodiversity value ( at dollar per ha per year rates) to wild land in Africa, the value being arrived at by land use studies done on a regular basis, and the money distributed directly to the landowners under a conservancy management agreement by direct phone banking ( to cut out corruption). These conservancies need to be able to use wildlife on sustainable basis where appropriate, including hunting and meat production..anything to make wildlife pay on a sustainable basis.

 

Government of Africa need to make bi lateral agreements with the countries of the west (and east) developed countries that companies from these countries that leasing land for biodiversity in Africa get a rebate on their tax in their countries. This is one way of redressing the wealth imbalance between the north and south..

 

Much to chew on, much to do....

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

( for wildlife to outcompete other landuses and to have a chance of survival) to be in the $400 billion per year range! Tourism just cannot touch this, and neither can hunting, but they can both help to finance some areas..My point was that we have to urgently find another way to finance wild land (and wildlife) in africa, and the only way is to start a new dialogue with the rich developed west and eastern populations of the world. The rich have to pay it, pure and simple, or if not, allow wildlife to be truly commoditized with sustainable utilization of wildlife including hunting, tourism, sales of meat, hides, even ivory and rhino horn..

 

As you mention, there is no way in many countries that hunting and tourism will generate enough revenues and can save wildlife, Kenya is the first one to come to my mind. (For me Kenya is simply doomed). With the few remaining elephants and rhinos left in Kenya, I don t see how Kenya can generate lots of revenues if ivory and rhino horn are sold

 

 

 

The big answer to all this is for African governments to come together for a pan African approach for getting the west ( and east) to fund land for wildlife, failure of which the west should not lobby against or otherwise disrupt the political process to liberalize wildlife industries in all these countries...indeed it seems that Congo have already told the west to pay $1 billion to stop them from clear cutting one of their big forests..

Such a threat from a country didnt work in Equator (to prevent oil drilling in the amazon) and Equator is a much better managed country than Congo and most african countries. Maybe the African countries should be aware that they will be the first ones to be hit by the consequences if for instance they clear all their forests (the problem of charcoal is well known in kenya). Look at all the donations Africa is getting, it seems it s never enough. There is a new trip report about a unknown (for most of us) park in Tchad. The EU has been financing Eur7Mio for this park for the last 5 years. It s the same story for many NP in Africa. if you add up all the projects the EU and the US are financing in Africa, you will get a huge figure.

 

Let s not be naive, there is no way the rich countries would pay crazy amounts of money to some corrupted african politicians. Do you honestly believe for 1 sec that if we give USD1Bio to Congo, it will go to help the wildlife??? With all the resources in Congo, they should have enough money to be among the 10 richest countries in the world. Where does the money go? To Mobutu and his friends before, Kabila now and in the future it will be to another dictator. The same applies to many african countries. Would you trust politicians in Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe?

 

If you want to save wildlife in africa, population growth in africa has to be reduced (ideally reversed). Wildlife and humans can simply not coexist. No money in the world can save most of the African parks if the population keeps on increasing as it does in africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As you mention, there is no way in many countries that hunting and tourism will generate enough revenues and can save wildlife, Kenya is the first one to come to my mind. (For me Kenya is simply doomed). With the few remaining elephants and rhinos left in Kenya, I don t see how Kenya can generate lots of revenues if ivory and rhino horn are sold

I don't think you get the point - there is no way that you will convert the whole of Kenya back to pristine wildlife, but there is something that can be done. Tourism will be able to justify the national parks and some of the other finest habitat and if land owners see value in wildlife on their own land, and wildlife becomes a commodity, then more land will be reclaimed to wildlife. Perhaps reverse the decline that has happened outside the parks, and at the same time allow the average landowner to generate income from it. This is not purely about rhino horn and ivory, but those commodities could make up he difference between what can be generated from meat value of wildlife and some trophy hunting.

 

The idea is that the economy of it makes sense. You have to convince a landowner that he can generate a better income from wildlife than from cattle, or from crops. Or you can convince him that he can make money from wildlife and cattle. This has been done quite successfully in South Africa, but once again, it needs to involve communities more.

 

I think it is a common mistake to think that sustainable utilisation is just trophy hunting. It involves game capture, game sales, protein supply, income from skins, as well as secondary industries - like skin tanning, taxidermists, and a game meat industry. Of course trophy hunting could form part of the industry, as generally trophy hunters pay more than meat value for wildlife. I honestly support opening up this option, as tourism can't secure enough wildlife habitat on is own. It can support only the best areas, and even so, the buffer zones are being lost, which will soon start detracting from the best tourist destinations.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@@Olivertz in his post in the How to encourage more photo tourists to visit marginal areas? topic talks about working with landowners to secure land on the edge of Tarangire - definitely a case of working with local stakeholders: should and could more marginal areas be "Set aside" through tourism industry funding?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you dikdik, i understand your point but game capture and games sales are very much depending on trophy hunting and tourism. Skin tanning, taxidermists are marginal And how big can game meat become?

 

One of my point is that on the other side of the equation, the demand for safari trips or hunting trips is limited (it seems even more true for hunting where there are less and less hunters in the US and Europe). It s not because you increase lodges by 10 or hunting areas by 10 that you will get 10 times more tourists/hunters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And how big can game meat become?

 

That is a fair topic in itself.

 

The market could be huge. Game meat is high in protein, low in fat, has no added hormones, and is environmentally friendly. To add that wildlife is humanely treated and roams free, as well as humanely killed...

 

Did I forget to mention that it tastes good too.

Edited by dikdik
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it s probably time for a change in Kenya otherwise there will be nothing left in that country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game meat sales would be sensible if it is properly regulated and meets health standards.

 

It could be part of a tourism operation.

 

not everyone wants super luxury accom and the big 5.

 

there would be a market for a wel promoted reasonably priced farm style accom with good home cooking and a bit of pampering.

 

many people would like general plains game with good numbers of zebras and giraffes .

 

if it was predator free people could walk reasonably freely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those talking of “concessions” seem to be referring to a model in Southern Africa where safari operators bid for the right to take over an area for their exclusive use and pay a fee to the landowner - often a government or local authority. This is not the case in the conservancies in Kenya referred to by Calvin, which have been formed by safari operators getting together and leasing hundreds of separate parcels of land from the individual landowners to form a protected area of habitat as a wildlife conservancy.

An example of the Kenyan model can be seen here, describing the conservancies that my own company is involved in together with others in Olare Motorogi Conservancy (Kicheche, Kempinski, Mara Plains, Porini, Virgin) Naboisho Conservancy (Asilia, Base Camp, Kicheche, Mara Encounter, Porini) and Ol Kinyei Conservancy (porini and the budget-priced Gamewatchers Adventure Camp):
http://www.porinisafaricamps.com/ConservancyConceptPoriniCamps.html

In the Mara this land has high potential for cultivation of wheat or for livestock ranching and the lease per acre needs to match or exceed what the landowners could earn from other land use if they are to agree to set it aside for conservation. It all boils down to money. In my experience, the landowners prefer a guaranteed rent (at the highest level to beat any of the alternatives land uses) rather than having a profit share or owning the management company if that is likely to produce a lower income. The problem is that the tourism companies have a big overhead to meet if they are to continue leasing the land and paying the rents when their own tourism income falls if there is an industry slump.

We have seen a huge change in the areas of land that now form these Conservancies with a total recovery of the vegetation in what were once heavily over-grazed group ranches and a big increase in wildlife numbers. The big question, raised by Calvin, is how can we increase the areas set aside as protected habitat for wildlife, owned by communities so that their land generates income for them and employment opportunities, while allowing low-impact controlled grazing of livestock - how can this continue to be funded when safari tourism slumps?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big question, raised by Calvin, is how can we increase the areas set aside as protected habitat for wildlife, owned by communities so that their land generates income for them and employment opportunities, while allowing low-impact controlled grazing of livestock - how can this continue to be funded when safari tourism slumps?

 

That will explain why the landowners prefer to get a lease, rather than a share, thus allowing the operator to shoulder the risk. Sadly, it seems that Kenya is not offering alternatives other than tourism, as a wildlife land use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Th

 

The big question, raised by Calvin, is how can we increase the areas set aside as protected habitat for wildlife, owned by communities so that their land generates income for them and employment opportunities, while allowing low-impact controlled grazing of livestock - how can this continue to be funded when safari tourism slumps?

 

That will explain why the landowners prefer to get a lease, rather than a share, thus allowing the operator to shoulder the risk. Sadly, it seems that Kenya is not offering alternatives other than tourism, as a wildlife land use.

Yes, that makes sense. But is leasing itself even an answer? It is a great immediate solution and I don't mean to suggest it hasn't brought some wonderful results, but if you choose to lease (and I am aware there is often no choice and in other cases maybe the rot has to be stopped before it really sets in) aren't you simply delaying the inevitable, because the more success you have the more the lease will cost to renew, until eventually only people who have no interest in expensive conservation (whose interest is in exploiting rather than conserving) can afford it? And then wasn't all the money spent on the leasing was (from a longer-term conservation point of view, although not mine as a tourist who enjoyed it while I could) effectively wasted?

 

I think it is an interesting point because in the end this is all about the land (ecosystem) and not just the wildlife. But that isn't a blinding revelation - just wonder what people at the sharp end, like @@JakeGC and @@Calvin cotter think (and anyone else for that matter). In the end isn't there only so long conservancies can be worth more than golf courses (not literally golf courses - commodities can see a boom too) regardless of tourism (and even with some other utilization). I mean this in general in Kenya - the current Mara conservancies may be an exceptional case.

 

Sorry about all the parentheses. Just trying to avoid some of the usual pitfalls of these debates.....

 

....well, okay I always write like that, but usually it is because I think in bursts -here not. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pault
Sorry, only just seen this. Yes, you are absolutely right, leasing only works as long as the landowners are content that their parcels of land should be included in the conservancy. Some people may be happy to own a piece of a wildlife conservancy because they are conservation-minded and wish the area to continue to be protected wildlife habitat while others may be content because the rent gives them a satisfactory economic return, provides employment for family members, supports community outreach projects like funding education, health, amenities etc and allows them to earn an income stream while retaining ownership of the land and still being able to do some livestock grazing. But the big challenge is if the value of the land reaches a level where they are better off selling or if there are alternative forms of land use which give a better return than the leases. However so far the lease payments are economically satisfactory for the landowners and the employment / other benefiits make the concept worthwhile for them. With our model, the challenge for the company leasing and managing the conservancy is that sufficient income needs to be generated by small-scale tourism to cover the overheads of the conservancy. But what is the alternative? Someone has to own the land and either a trust or philanthropist can buy it all up and keep it for conservation or else people like us try to do what we are doing, in a commercial arrangement with the landowners.
If we just leave it to others to take on the responsibility of securing vast tracts of land as wildlife habitat outside the existing government-owned parks and hope that some organisation will come along and put everything right then probably you can say goodbye to the wildlife and watch the areas that we have leased become fragmented and turn into patches of cultivated land, fenced ranches, human settlements etc.

If there were other ways of co-operating with the landowners to keep former wildlife areas in Kenya as protected habitat and conserved for wildlife in a way that was satisfactory to the owners then I'm sure many of us would be supportive but we haven't seen it done yet and some of us have come up with our own solutions which have made a big difference in the last few years and reversed the decline. But I'm not saying ours is the only way.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ @@JakeGC - at what stage is the tipping point? When does a land owner see more potential profit/revenue stream from agriculture? Is the important thing only money, or other benefits from leasing for conservation: ie more quality grazing for cattle etc? Once land is leased for agriculture then are all previous landowner rights forfeit for the given time period? Obviously as well it must be extremely difficult to revert to "conservation land", wildlife use from agricultural land use change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@Game Warden
I don't have quick and easy answers to your questions about the profits for landowners - it all depends! Those landowners who have access to capital and who are ready to invest in developing their land for intensive agriculture and to acquire additional land to establish large-scale agribusinesses might find that to be more profitable than owning 100 acres in a conservancy and receiving a monthly rent and some job opportunities for family members. But as long as the conservancy is made up of many small parcels of land belonging to individual owners who are satisfied that the income and benefits described above will give them a better return than some small-scale livestock rearing or other forms of landuse on their plots, then the conservancies will be able to continue. Yes, the landowner forfeits his grazing rights when his land is leased out as a wheat farm or for cultivation. You can't have cows in fields where wheat is growing. The land being used for conservancies was agricultural land - it was formerly used for nomadic pastoralism before it was all sub-divided and parcelled out and there are no particular complications in deciding to use former group ranch land as a wildlife conservancy as it simply means the land is not used for human settlement or other developments and vegetation and wildlife are protected, although there have been recent moves to require conservancies to be registered with KWS and VAT is being charged on conservancy fees.

Did you see this article in the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/africaandindianocean/kenya/10965556/Kenya-the-Maasai-Mara-faces-a-fight-for-survival.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just catching up to this… @ @

 

I agree with Calvin that there is no single answer… hunting or no-hunting… there is no way "nature" in Africa pays for itself in general, as much as we should make it "as profitable as possible". Nature doesn't pay for itself even in America. This is why, for example, land trusts exist in America. Buying activity by these land trusts is simply upfront subsidy for nature.

 

Separately, in order to come up with a basket of land use alternatives in order to make nature as profitable as possible, the game ranching idea espoused on page 1 of this thread needs to be seriously examined.

 

Take Zambia for example… unlike Kenya and Tanzania where there is a percentage of the population that does not eat game meat for religious or cultural reasons, Zambia has 13 million people and 13 million meat eaters (many of whom like game meat). Historically, most of the tribes in Zambia were subsistence farmers/hunters. They relied on protein from wild animals for survival. Enter the colonialists, who directed the gazetting of national parks and reserves. In places like Kafue National Park, Zambians were relocated when gazetting the parks. One day, you are hunting impalas and pukus in your village for your livelihood; the next day you are relocated and if you kill an impala, you are theoretically a criminal. It gets worse… you can establish a game ranch in Zambia, but you need capital to do that, and most of them are white-owned. If you are a community living in one of the Game Management Areas abutting a national park, you cannot create a game ranch under existing laws. Having no ownership of their resources, having been meat eaters all along culturally, having been removed from national parks in some cases, and having little fear of the lackluster law enforcement efforts, the locals poach for meat. NGOs spend millions of dollars trying to stop the locals from doing that, and NGOs are funded by people living in high-rise buildings in New York and London who are completely food-secure and have recently turned vegan. This is absurd. The term FUBAR may have been specifically invented for this particular situation.

 

I apologize for having been too dramatic and sarcastic in the last paragraph. I am simply trying to drive home the point of how absurd this is. Wild animals are much more efficient in converting crude protein into meat than are livestock. We eat venison in America. In South Africa and Namibia, game is readily ranched and game meat is readily sold (there is legal game meat in Zambia but it is limited). It is interesting that those are the two countries in Africa where meat poaching is not really an issue.

Edited by Safaridude
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bushmeat Trade Now Bigger Than Elephant Poaching in Kenya


 

This article follows on from the last post by @@Safaridude

 

>>Trade in illegal bush meat may cripple the ailing tourism sector if not immediately checked, a report by task force on wildlife security warns.

The report, Lifting the Siege: securing Kenya's wildlife, says subsistence bush meat poaching has reached unprecedented levels while the growing commercial bush meat trade is now a multi-million shilling industry.

The problem is now as serious as poaching for ivory.

Bush meat consumption in Kenya dates back to the pre-colonial times when there were plenty of animals to be hunted.

The trend is still going on with the few remaining wild animals getting caught in snares across the country.

According to data from conservationists in the Mara Triangle, a record 5,337 snares were recovered in 2013.

In Kenya poachers mostly target ostriches, dik dik, antelope,Zebra, Impalas and Kenyan endemic species such as the rare bongo and the roan antelope.<<

 

read the rest of the article by clicking here

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


© 2006 - 2017 www.safaritalk.net - Talking Safaris and African Wildlife Conservation since 2006. Passionate about Africa.