Kenya elephant deaths soar as ivory sales debated
By JASON STRAZIUSO (AP) – 5 hours ago

TSAVO EAST NATIONAL PARK, Kenya — Tracking the wounded elephant to its death bed was easy for the ranger. Hit by a poison arrow, the huge mammal could only drag its hind leg, creating a wide gash across the bush.

Poachers' footprints were all around the kill, but the hunters did not have time to remove the valuable ivory tusks before Mohamed Kamanya's team of armed rangers arrived. Instead, the emotional task fell to the rangers, who cut off the tusks so they could not be sold.

Beginning this weekend, the international community will debate proposals from Tanzania and Zambia to allow a one-time sale of ivory to clear out stockpiles. Kenyan officials are warning that if sales are approved in neighboring countries, elephant poaching will soar.

"We totally believe that any experiments to allow partial lifting of (the) international ban in ivory trade stimulates elephant poaching and leads to ivory laundering," the Kenyan Wildlife Service's Patrick Omandi said. "Indeed there has been an increase in poaching across the entire continent, with some countries losing their entire population."

Poaching of elephants has risen seven-fold in Kenya since a one-time ivory sale was approved in 2007 by CITES — the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species — for four African countries, the wildlife officials say. Last year 271 Kenyan elephants were killed by poachers, compared with 37 in 2007, Omandi said.

Tribesmen have lived among wildlife for centuries in Tsavo East, a huge expanse of wilderness where some 6,000 elephants live. But park officials say those locals are increasingly turning to poaching. An average set of tusks can net $2,000 or more locally — a huge sum to an impoverished rural family in an area where seasonal rains have failed the last five years, ruining crops and spreading hunger.

Kenyan officials are particularly angered that Tanzania wants to sell its ivory stocks. Kenya and Tanzania share a long border where parks like Kenya's Masai Mara and Tanzania's Serengeti National Park intertwine. As Omandi likes to point out, elephants carry no passports, and cross the border freely.

At the CITES meeting in Qatar from March 13-25, Tanzania is asking the 175 members to allow it to sell almost 200,000 pounds (90,000 kilograms) of ivory. It noted in its proposal that its elephant population has risen from about 55,000 in 1989 to almost 137,000, according to a 2007 study.

Zambia wants to sell 48,000 pounds (21,700 kilograms) of ivory. Zambia says its elephant population of 27,000 is steadily increasing.

While populations might be healthy in those two countries, Omandi warned that populations elsewhere in Africa are being driven to extinction. Sierra Leone, in northwest Africa, lost its last elephants in December, and Senegal has fewer than 10 left, he said.

In its proposal, Tanzania argues that trade in elephant products is essential to conservation.

"Human-elephant conflicts are growing and the view by the communities is that elephants are a pest. Elephant products such as ivory picked up from the wildlife management areas could increase the value of elephants to those communities and this can only result in the community appreciating elephants more," the proposal says.

Critics of the proposal point to poaching practices that drove down Africa's elephant population from 1.3 million in 1979 to about 600,000 in 1989, when CITES banned the ivory trade, and say that poaching has surged since the 2007 ivory sale approval.

"I believe the risk of the sale is enormous," Samuel Wasser, the director of the Center for Conservation Biology at the University of Washington said. "If the current situation continues unabated, poaching is going to continue to rise. This will negatively affect many countries, not just Kenya and Tanzania. Effort needs to be put into stopping poaching, not arguing over whether we should have more sales."

Omandi said African ivory is used to make rubber stamps and necklaces in Asian countries like China and Japan. Some consumers buy the tusks whole.

Though the majority of the ivory trade ends up in Asia, the United States also has an internal ivory market, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. From 1989 to 2007, the number of seizures of illegal ivory made by the service accounted for about 30 percent of all reported seizures in the world.

The U.S. has not yet said whether it will vote to allow the sales. The Fish and Wildlife Service said it is waiting for a ruling from a CITES panel of experts.

In Tsavo East National Park, three-quarters of the 500 park staff are security personnel trained in paramilitary techniques, said Senior Warden Yussuf Adan. Last month, a team of rangers got into a shootout with six poachers, one of whom died of wounds from the exchange, he said.

"We think if the Tanzanians are allowed to sell their ivory stock, even the poachers in Kenya would be motivated," Adan said. "They would know it's easy to kill in Kenya and cross to the other side and sell."

from what I have seen since the influx of chines business's in Kenya the poaching in Tsavo has increased. several chines nationals where arrested while I was there (Tsavo) last yr. the game rangers where regular visitors to our mine site to see if we have info on poaching in the area. problem was we did not know if the game rangers where doing some of the poaching

If the sales are limited to sale of Gov't stocks, which is what is proposed, poachers would not benefit.

In fact, the legal ivory on the markey would depress the value of illegal, poached and smuggled ivory, reducing the incentive to poach.

Kenya's objection is economically illogical and only ideologically driven.

JPK

Why is it that Kenya, where hunting is banned, has a problem with dwindling elephant populations and increase in poaching, while Tanzania and Zambia, where elephants are hunted, have healthy elephant populations and poaching under control????

Greenies' brains lack some essential nutrients and suffer from some sort of logic-deficiency disease.

This story is a typical example of what happens whenever a CITES COP meeting looms. The antis all go into overdrive with shock horror stories all over the media....... it happens every time.

As Philip says, the legal market has nothing to do with the black market except perhaps to depress it.

History has proved that the best way to stop commercial poaching is to allow legitimate sport hunting, keep the prices high, use some of that money to finance conservation, research and anti poaching measures...... oh and of course, instigate rule .303.

At the end of the 20th Century, the USA’s top hunting, trapping and wildlife conservation organizations recognized that the best way to combat the growing threats to wildlife and hunting traditions was to work collectively on common issues.
From this foundation grew the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) - a network of more than forty organizations that work together to conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat as well as to preserve the traditions of hunting and trapping. The partnership is a loose affiliation with partner organizations retaining their autonomy and respecting each other's difference.

The unifying element of the AWCP is a shared commitment to build unity among partner organizations and increase collective effectiveness, primarily by focusing on policy decisions made at the national level. The partners focus on commonalities in five core areas:
• Habitat Conservation
• Wildlife populations
• Hunting and trapping
• Scientific management of wildlife and habitat
• Sustaining the North American Model of wildlife conservation

The narrative above is from the AWCP website which can be seen at http://www.wildlifepartners.org/index.cfm

I attended one of their conventions and had the chance to interview most of the heads of the different organizations such as Susan Recce, of the National Rife Association, Congressman Jeff Crane, of Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (this foundation does a tremendous amount for the rights of the hunter which goes unheralded) and a number of others.

These organizations rely largely on volunteers. If they did not have these volunteers then they simply would not exist and this is, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with wildlife conservation in Africa. You are not going to get local volunteers for “Lord Derby Eland Forever” because there would be no point, there would be no benefit for the local volunteer. A Ducks Unlimited volunteer knows that the work that he does for the organization allows him the privilege to go out and shoot ducks.

The anti-hunters have a serious influence on African wildlife conservation policies because there is this “Ducks Unlimited” vacuum. South Africa and Namibia and Zimbabwe, to a lesser extent, have local anti-hunter conservation pressure groups but the rest of Africa is in the grip of the Western anti-hunter movement and most of these organizations are in it for the money. R. Bonner wrote a book called “At the hand of man” which looks into how these groups work. It is well worth reading.

So while all of these anti-hunter conservation movements claim success in “saving” Africa’s wildlife, the real saviors are the foreign tourist hunters, without them most of Africa’s wildness areas would be corn fields.

JPK
if you open up sales of any kind goverment what ever you will have corupte govement officals working with the poachers and the problem increases. I prices are high now due to chines demand for ivory.

Corruption is there now, in the poaching, in the smuggling. Allowing gov't ivory sales, of alteady collected ivory, as proposed, will not add to corruption associated with poaching or smuggling. It will reduce it, along with poaching and snuggling, because it will become less profitable as ivory price drops.

And ivory price will drop, because, as in all economics, the price is a result of supply and demand. Prices are high now bcause of Chinese demand on the one hand and the limited supply on the other.

The supply is limited because not every gov't employee is poaching, or on the take, looking the other way, not every customes inspector is smuggling, or on the take, looking the other way...

And the supply is limited because CITIES prevents the gov'ts from selling their huge, huge, stocks of ivory acquired from non trophy hunts, culls, pick ups, illegal poached ivory siezures...

Sell the already collected gov't ivory and prices will decline, regardless of Chinese demand, because supply will have increased.

As far as elephant populations, in most areas there are elephants, there are too many elephants. Yes, there are areas where the elephants are locally endangered, but that is largely because there has been no elephant hunting in those areas. Make game valuble, and you will have game, remove its value and you will have Kenya's situation.

JPK

quote:

JPK

I agree with part of you logic BUT in Kenya corruption is 100% and if you give people any reason to poach no matter how small the profit there going to poach everything they can. If you look at the area of Tsavo west for exsample. game has no value to the locals except as game meet business. They have desimated the game population. game scouts(rangers) and goverment officals all get there share of the money. In the four month I lived in the bush at Tsavo I saw only seven impala. a few rock hyrax 2 kudu. a few elephants that traveled out of the park for water. everything else had been poached completely. for bush meet. if you make any market at all no matter how small for ivory it will spell the doom of them in kenya.UNLESS you open hunting with proper controls and over site.

No one, not even Kenya, is proposing sales of Kenyan ivory. The proposed sale is of some portion of the HUGE, EXISTING stocks of other countries. No paoching of Kenyan or other ivory is going to add ivory to the sale, because it is of existing, legitimate ivory, already in warehouses. There is zero motivation for additional poaching related to the proposed sale.

The gov't internatioanl sales do not make any intra Kenya or intra Africa, or even any international markey for illegal ivory, that market already exists. Gov't sales of existing ivory do not add to poaching, they reduce it by adding supply, legitamate supply, depressing prices of illigitamate supplies and making poaching and smuggling less attractive because it is less profitable.

You want to know why Kenya reallly objects? Because the damn fools burned their ivory and don't have the huge stocks and the burden of storing and protecting them. Boiled down it is leftist envy.

Kenya needs to open to hunting to make the game valuable enough to safegaurd, so that it can be managed to its highest and best use, but that has zero to do with other more responsible coutries - and here even Zimbabwe makes that grade - selling existing, wearhoused stores of ivory internationally.

JPK

as I said earlier you half right. legalized hunting would help with the proper over site and management.Good oversite and management would be doubtful in Kenya

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
as I said earlier you half right. legalized hunting would help with the proper over site and management.Good oversite and management would be doubtful in Kenya

No, I am whole right on this subject.

Good oversight and management would stem from auctioning off concession areas for long terms, like a decade, with options. Then leave the private sector to its own. Not unlike some of the programs in TZ or Zim or anywhere else there is hunting.

JPK

Kenya is not TZ or ZIM Kenya is the third most corrupt country in the world.Things don't work there like most normal thinking people would like to think. Some day if you have a chance check into starting a business there after you get the start up figures add 200% for bribes and you will be half right

Whatever the state of corruption in Kenya, it has absolutely no effect on the sale of ivory already accumulated through lawful means by other countries' gov't's in Africa. And no effect on the positive repercussions of that ivory sale.

The sale of some of the ivory already stored in warehouses will add no incentive for poaching, in Kenya or any other country.

The sale of legitimate ivory will reduce the price of illigitimate ivory, reducing poaching, even in Kenya, because the poaching and smuggling of illigitimate ivory will be less profitable.

What portion of this simple reality of supply and demand escapes you?

As a hopeful potential benfit, those countries that do sell legitimate ivory will pehaps use some proceeds to bolster anti-poaching efforts in their own countries.

JPK

what part of you don't know shit about Kenya don't you understand

As some on here often say you can't fix stupid and the more time I spend in African them more I understand how stupid most americans are when it comes to HOW africa works.

ddrhook

I live in a very corrupt country and I do know Africa and how it works.

It is EXACTTY because there is extreme corruption that the concessions do work. It is because people have VESTED interests in maintaining something of value for themselves.

Quite the opposite: corruption occurs mostly when something that is "public" is given over to an individual or group. There will be bribes as there are bribes in the concessions of Tanzania and Zimbabwe, but will not be high enough to scare the chicken laying golden eggs.

Hunting concession have to have OWNERS and there will be people around them benefiting. And that is why you can use what a good friend of mine used to say: "don´t bet against capitalism"

It would be great if Tanzania, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana would agree with Kenyan pledge not to sell the ivory as long as they re-onpened hunting and got a grip with the vanishing of their animal herds.

This could save the animals and ecossistemas in Kenya (and this is far more than just elephants).

Unfortunately the anti-hunters have total control in Kenya and would not allow it to happen.

It is surprising that there are any elephant left after dip-shit closed hunting way back when.

Ddouble,
I have never said I disagreed with the hunting system in other coutrys if it was not for hunters there would be no animals left in africa. Kenya is a perfect exsample of that. What I said was that if irvoy sales do happen that poaching will increase due to corrutption. What I was trying to get across to the other guy was he did not have any idea how things work in Kenya

According to records, Kenya's elephant population has increased considerably since the poaching pandemic and drought of the '60s/early '70s

And to always state "...hunting adds value to Wildlife, benefits local communities and therefore wildlife is tolerated" is simplyfying the highly complex issue of wildlife conservation by communities. I have seen/read/heard VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY few examples of this actually succeeding in real life Africa!

"Tanzania and Zambia, where elephants are hunted, have healthy elephant populations and poaching under control????"

I dare say, poaching is NOT under control anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa other than perhaps, private land!

I wish I could agree with JPK's assumption on "supply and demand". Unfortunately, all the statistics I have come across indicate that with CITES approved sales of ivory, a coinciding noticeable increase in ivory poaching occurs. Coincidence? I hope so.......

+bwanamich to complex a prblem to settle in a few words on line

Communities may not always tolerate wildlife in or adjacent to hunting areas but I have seen many many examples of how hunting adds value to wildlife and communities across Africa. A few web pages worth looking through, there are many more examples.
http://www.friedkinfund.org/wh...Development.asp?&840
http://www.rhwf.org/rhwfcommunitypro.html
http://www.miombosafaris.com/c...ity-development.html
http://www.conservationforce.org/projects.html

Poaching will always be a problem and certainly has to factored into any conservation equation but elephant populations in both Tanzania and Zambia are growing at around 5% whilst the poaching percentage is less than 1. This is not to say that everything is under control but one thing is for sure there would be a lot fewer wilderness areas in Africa if it were not for hunting.

It is not like Tanaznia, but you cant say there is not poachin in the US either.

Actually the amount of poaching in the US is (proportionaly to the means and education of the public) extremely high!!

However, despite the flaws it is the best system (better than the bans like the one in california or with the wolves (shoot, shovel and shut up).

All of this because we have made the communist Chinese rich....More to come!

It is my understanding that besides the money, the patrols (PHs+client hunter) and the jobs (skinners, trackers, cooks)there is one important reason controled hunting works: it is beacause it respects the african culture.

That culture is one that uses the elephant for meat and hide.

African culture values peasant lives and property (even if only a few ears of maize or a grass hut) over the "aesthetic value of an elephant to a mid-aged wealthy european or american turist".

One can pay 10.000 dollars to see an elephant and WWF can find 10.000 dollars to polititians in Kenya not to shoot an elephant that is causing havouc to a village. But those africans in that village can make a bow and arrows and kill that elephant.

We cannot COMPLETELY separate the little poacher around the villages to the ivory smugller. There are overlaping. To say that the ivory poachers are organized criminmals with highly developed weapons and logistics (as is said by many anti-hunters) is ridiculous. All you need is to see the pictures of the poachers.

I love when Cyntia Moss (the kenyan elephant specialist) looses elephants to the people of Kenya, I just would have liked that it would have been done in organized hunting concessions rather than loosing habitats and animals alike in a stupid war.

Respect for the fact that elephants are "cattle" to them, and the Kenyan ban tries to make elephants be something different, disrespecting the culture.

There are hundreds of african natives rotting in jail accused as poachers, tortured and many leaving orphans. They could be trackers, skinners, etc living from the wealth from hunting elephants. They could continue to eat the same meat they have eaten since homo sapiens arrived exactly in that part of the planet.

And as this discussion goes rages the savanahs where elephants roamed are turned to wheat plantations in the Masai area...

quote:

I wish I could agree with JPK's assumption on "supply and demand". Unfortunately, all the statistics I have come across indicate that with CITES approved sales of ivory, a coinciding noticeable increase in ivory poaching occurs. Coincidence? I hope so.......

Poaching effort doesn't change because of a petition to sell ivory from already dead elephants, already stored in gov't warehouses.

Only attention paid to and reporting of pre-existing, on going ivory poaching issues increases. It increases because of the petition, the pending talks on the subject, the pending vote. And because Kenyas' shananigans.

Because of ideological axes to grind, greater attention is paid to the elephant poaching issue, that it all.

This ia a placebo effect.

Do you really think that the "on the ground" poacher, who doesn't even know what the hell CITES is, is motivated by that petition to sell ivory from already dead elephants already stored in gov't warehouses? No, its doesn't effect his motivation one iota.

But put that legal ivory into trade and he will find that the smuggler he works for will pay him less for the ivory he poaches, because the smuggler will find the wholesaler will pay him less because the dealer will pay him less because the end user will pay less for a comodity with greater supply.

JPK

quote:

"Tanzania and Zambia, where elephants are hunted, have healthy elephant populations and poaching under control????"

I dare say, poaching is NOT under control anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa other than perhaps, private land!

ELEPHANT poaching is under control where elephant populations are growing and there is no threat of local extirpation. That describes vast, vast stretches of southern Africa, including all of Tanzania and Zambia.

Regretably, there is no possibility of eleiminating 100% of poaching. Anywhere their is both game and people, there is and will always be poaching.

So long as populations are stable or growing there is equalibrium, mortality equals recruitment. Reducing poaching mortality is good for lots of reasons, but primarily because it supports greater hunting mortality. (And hunting mortality is the highest and best use of the resource.)

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by ddrhook:
+bwanamich to complex a prblem to settle in a few words on line

The standard leftist cop out.

Too complex (choose insert: {for leftists to} describe, depict or any other word for a leftist to convey his awsome and unique perspective and understanding to non-leftists {for us to} settle, resolve, conclude or any other word for non-leftist opposition to surrender {for you to} understand, grasp, get a handle of, comprehend on any word intended to state outright or imply that anyone other than the leftist can enjoy the leftist's perspective and comprehension... - we'll use "settle" since op did) settle in a few words...

Proprly translated from leftist this reads: I am struggling and unsure that my leftist insults and browbeating will carry the day, so I am going to resort to implying that the complexity of the issue, no matter how friggin' simple, is beyond any of but leftist comprehension. And I am resorting to this implication because mye arguement is revealed as shallow, is failing, defies common sense, defies history, defies human nature or any of the unlimited failure of liberal, leftist thinking...

JPK

JPK, is this clear enough for you.You don't know me or my leanings right or left. so you snotty reply gets you what you deserve. MY statment was for those who have never been to Africa fr more than a few day and think that gives then a total understanding of everything African. normal yankee statment coming you the most liberal part of the USA and again I say If I had time or inclination I would right you a book using small words so you could understand but it would be a waste of time. so I will just place your arrogent ass where it bleongs on the ignor list

Last I checked the Mason-Dixon line is north of here.

But for the Fereral workers here now, MD would be right of Va.

Your leaning is revealed when you ignore economic reality. Just like others who ignore the Laffer Curve, the failure of Keynsian economics, etc, and begin the ending of every discussion with a "yea but, ..."

Risk for reward, greater risk for greater reward is world wide, lesser risk for lesser reward, no risk for no reward is equally ubiquitouos.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Zig Mackintosh:
Communities may not always tolerate wildlife in or adjacent to hunting areas but I have seen many many examples of how hunting adds value to wildlife and communities across Africa. A few web pages worth looking through, there are many more examples.
http://www.friedkinfund.org/wh...Development.asp?&840
http://www.rhwf.org/rhwfcommunitypro.html
http://www.miombosafaris.com/c...ity-development.html
http://www.conservationforce.org/projects.html

Poaching will always be a problem and certainly has to factored into any conservation equation but elephant populations in both Tanzania and Zambia are growing at around 5% whilst the poaching percentage is less than 1. This is not to say that everything is under control but one thing is for sure there would be a lot fewer wilderness areas in Africa if it were not for hunting.

HI Zig,
I am familiar with all of the above mentioned NGOs/orgs so let me clarify my statements.

when we talk about "benefits" to a community, I am referring to direct "real" benefits such as tangible sharing of benefits that will result in a meaningful reduction in poverty for the communities adjacent to or sharing the resources with wildlife.

Sure, safari companies do employ people from local communities but at such a low rate that to me at least, it does not have much of a ripple effect in alleviating poverty within that community. Better than nothing, I agree. In rural Africa, there is a steady migration from rural areas to towns and cities. Your best tracker will follow this route the moment he has earned enough money to migrate to the nearest town. The problem therefore is that the money he would inject in the local economy is not at rural level. And for every one that leaves his rural village in this manner, another 15 or 20 are born there to grow up in poverty to become peasants and/or poachers. Many safari operators distribute a portion of Trophy fees to fund community projects within their area of operations. I personally have been involved in numerous such projects in Tz. So you spend $12K to build a classroom at the local school. Kids go to school there from the local village and receive an education that 9 times out of 10 WILL NOT allow them to find employment or raise their living standards above the poverty line. So has hunting/wildlife benefitted that community? Some of the above NGOs you state have spent 100s of 1000s of $ in the last decade doing such projects but those same villages have not "advanced" one bit from where they were when the benefit sharing started. Nor have the people themselves realized that wildlife benefits them and therefore stopped poaching or reduced it markedly for that matter! Just so one can understand part of the problem I'll state another example; An operator generates $50K from annual hunting for the villages within one of its hunting blocks. There are 20 villages within that hunting block (with another 7 in the process of being formed). So equal sharing by the 20 villages earns each village $2500. 4-8 villagers out of 20,000 - 25,000 people find employment with the operator. You tell me if that amount will bring any real benefit to those villages? At the same time, the same operator is arresting 40 - 60 villagers from those 20 villages a year for various wildllife law infringements. 99% of these are the bread winners for their extended families who now have to rely on well wishers from amongst their already poor community. If you understand African tribal culture, you will understand that amongst those individuals' clan/tribe, that operator will be hated for having brought about, what in their eyes is, unnecessary suffering and hardship to the families of the poachers. There is in this case practically no tolerance to wildlife and they are seen simply as a nuisance and competitor to the sharing of the natural resources (water, land, grazing,etc) found on their land. This sort of scenario is repeated across Tz and probably across many other African states. You can ask the same question to any rural village where wildlife exists a million times and you will get the same answer 95% of the time; "Are you benefitting from wildlife (or hunting) on your land?"....."No"

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

I wish I could agree with JPK's assumption on "supply and demand". Unfortunately, all the statistics I have come across indicate that with CITES approved sales of ivory, a coinciding noticeable increase in ivory poaching occurs. Coincidence? I hope so.......

Poaching effort doesn't change because of a petition to sell ivory from already dead elephants, already stored in gov't warehouses.

Only attention paid to and reporting of pre-existing, on going ivory poaching issues increases. It increases because of the petition, the pending talks on the subject, the pending vote. And because Kenyas' shananigans.

Because of ideological axes to grind, greater attention is paid to the elephant poaching issue, that it all.

This ia a placebo effect.

Do you really think that the "on the ground" poacher, who doesn't even know what the hell CITES is, is motivated by that petition to sell ivory from already dead elephants already stored in gov't warehouses? No, its doesn't effect his motivation one iota.

But put that legal ivory into trade and he will find that the smuggler he works for will pay him less for the ivory he poaches, because the smuggler will find the wholesaler will pay him less because the dealer will pay him less because the end user will pay less for a comodity with greater supply.

JPK

You make some valid points.....

There is a strong belief that with an approved sale of ivory, comes greater loopholes to smuggle illegal ivory at the same time. Don't ask me how but TRAFFIC believes so....

I agree that the poacher on the ground that does the killing is not affected much. But if the above is true, then the ivory "agents" would increase demand preceding such a sale which would increase poaching. At least that is the argument..... and a logical one too.

If we agree that the poacher doing the killing is a poor peasant (not always mind you but for this scenario let us assume so), then getting paid $30/kg when demand is high and $15/kg when demand is low makes little difference to him. He would rather poach at $15/kg than farm for $2 per day!

Now if we talk about the ivory poaching by refugee militia/rebels that have spilled across conflict zones into countries such as Tz, Uganda, etc, well, they poach ivory to "trade" for weapons and ammunition and are not affected at all by CITES regulations nor western world economics.

Hi Bwanamich,

As you live in Tanzania I figured that you knew about the different projects that the various hunting operations have in Tanzania, and had no doubt that you were part of some project. I mentioned them only for the benefit of other AR members.

As you mentioned in a previous post, wildlife conservation and communities is an extremely complex issue in Africa and I agree with you that a better system of sharing the natural resources needs to be found. Safari hunting is a business and there is only so much that an operator is willing or able to put back into community development, after a certain point it is not worth his while however dedicated he may be.

Safari hunting will not solve poverty alleviation in Africa, it is a much bigger issue, but what it will do is offer a much better land use alternative. A lot of hunting areas in Africa are marginal for agricultural or livestock activities and better suited for wildlife and offer a far better return on investment.

An excellent example of this is the Save Valley conservancy in Zimbabwe. Initially wildlife was all but wiped out to make way for cattle ranches, eventually the ranchers figured out that wildlife would give them a better return per acre and got rid of the cattle and reintroduced wildlife. You may say, yes but wealthy white men were behind this but my point is that the land was put to better use both for the environment and the bottom line.

And so how do you get this message across to 25 000 villagers situated next to or within a hunting area who consider safari operators as invaders? I don’t know that there is much more than what the safari operators (not all) are actually doing now anyway in terms of PR, community development etc. But you can’t just give up.

Matupula Hunters in Zimbabwe operate in the Tsholtsho communal area and besides building school etc for the communities they also have a school kid feeding program. Every day a big lunch is served to the school kids which is a big thing in an extremely poor area. The main reason this is done is not for the food, which is obviously appreciated, but to make sure that the kids go to school. If this was not done the parents would more than likely have the kids out in the bush looking after the cattle and missing out on an education.

So yes you will get a 95% no answer if you ask any rural villager if wildlife benefits them but it is still the best alternative, in my opinion, than anything out there at the moment and until a better alternative is found, it is up to us as hunters to promote what is being done for these communities.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

"Tanzania and Zambia, where elephants are hunted, have healthy elephant populations and poaching under control????"

I dare say, poaching is NOT under control anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa other than perhaps, private land!

ELEPHANT poaching is under control where elephant populations are growing and there is no threat of local extirpation. That describes vast, vast stretches of southern Africa, including all of Tanzania and Zambia.

I disagree, sorry. And besides, elephant poaching is just a fraction of the total poaching issue. We too often restrict the meaning of the word poaching to just ivory poaching or meat poaching. But poaching includes other "evils" which often are more severe a scourge than meat poaching, eg timber and charcoal poaching. Ask anyone in the anti-poaching community (at least in Tz) and they will all tell you that habitat destruction is the bigger threat to elephants and wildlife in general. Timber and charcoal are just the catalyst for this. Once the trees are felled for timber or charcoal, agriculture moves in and once that happens, wildlife dissapears quickly - either in the form of food or migration.

quote:

Regretably, there is no possibility of eleiminating 100% of poaching. Anywhere their is both game and people, there is and will always be poaching.

So long as populations are stable or growing there is equalibrium, mortality equals recruitment. Reducing poaching mortality is good for lots of reasons, but primarily because it supports greater hunting mortality. (And hunting mortality is the highest and best use of the resource.)

JPK

At this point in the "cycle of life" we have a good number of ele populations that are growing or stable across various countries. But this scenario is changing quicker than we, as conservationists, are reacting to prevent it! We need stable wildlife populations, but, more importantly, stable human populations or else the scale will, sooner rather than later, tilt in the wrong direction!

quote:

Originally posted by Zig Mackintosh:
So yes you will get a 95% no answer if you ask any rural villager if wildlife benefits them but it is still the best alternative, in my opinion, than anything out there at the moment and until a better alternative is found, it is up to us as hunters to promote what is being done for these communities.

Yes I agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I support the wise utilization of wildlife and natural resources over poor agricultural use on unproductive soils any day. But like everything else, when it comes to satisfying the insatiable demand for land and its resources by humans, a compromise will have to be reached and this will mean that plenty more natural habitats with wildlife will eventually have to fall. An example is Tz where 28% of its land mass has been set aside for wildlife. Today this is still sustainable with a population of 44 million because more than 50% if its land mass (to incl parks, etc) is still unnocupied by humans. But what about in 100 years time from now, when the population might be 400% more and the 28% of wildlife protected land is required to sustain the population??? Of course this is a doomsday scenario that has been exagerated for effect but the point I am trying to make is that there will come a day where TZ will need to give up 10% of the 28%! I think that the long term future of wildlife in Africa will remain just within the network of National parks, like islands across an ocean of human settlements.

Bwanamitch,

As you well know you have to take one day at a time living in Africa. The only way that Africa's poverty problem is going to be half solved is through urbanization of the population through industrialization and the rest of the world will not allow that ,IMO. I think that Ron Thomson sums up the problem with the National Parks system in Africa when he says:

The first national park in the World ‑ Yellowstone in the USA ‑ was established in 1872 “for the benefit and enjoyment of the (American) People for all time to come. ” Its primary attractions are its geothermal phenomena and its scenic beauty ‑which are likely to change ONLY with the efflux of huge periods of geological time. At the time of its promulgation no attention was given to the manage ment needs of Yellowstone’s wildlife ‑ yet the guiding principles that estab lished Yellowstone have set many yardsticks that have cemented the criteria for national park management the world over.

In Africa most national parks were created to protect the continent’s unique wild animals yet the original yardsticks that Yellowstone established are still considered to be incorruptible. This is a strange indulgence because the man agement needs of a scenic park and the management needs of a national park that is essentially a game reserve are chalk and cheese. The principal manage ment needs of a game reserve national park is the maintenance of its plant and animal species spectra ‑ its bio‑diversity!

The international criteria governing national park management include such dictums as:

• ‘Hands‑off management;

• Minimal interference with nature;

• No extractive resource use;

• No hunting in a national park;

• No profit‑making from national park resources ‑ and others.

This has led to public perceptions of nature being something that can be left alone to do its own thing ‑ and that interference by man is something that is undesirable. This latter ideal does not work in Africa. Indeed, applying these dogmas to Africa’s game reserve national parks will destroy them.

The IUCN has admitted that hands‑off management and minimal interference‑ with‑nature criteria, when applied to a national park that is a game reserve, can cause species losses:

“While it may be true that no protected area is large enough to retain its full biological diversity once it becomes isolated from other similar habitats (and it is well to realise this and expect some losses) this does not mean that even small areas will not protect some component species, often with reduced niche competition (which can favour rare species).”

This statement illustrates how the tail can wag the dog! It is a prime example of FIRST ORDER THINKING. It represents raw bureaucratic support for the application of a man‑designed rule to a wildlife situation for the purpose of enforcing the rule. What is the sense in insisting that ANY of the above international management dogmas be applied IF, as a consequence of their application, the purpose of an African national park ‑ maintaining its plant and animal species diversity ‑ will not be possible?

To read more of Ron Thomson's philosophies go to http://www.safarinewsreel.com/blog/?cat=1

He has a number of theories about the poaching pandemic in Africa.

Battle Lines Drawn in Clash over Lifting of Ivory Ban
Gatonye Gathura
15 March 2010



Nairobi — A showdown looms between Kenya and Tanzania at an ongoing international meeting in Doha, Qatar.

At the centre of the controversy is a petition by Tanzania and Zambia to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) to "downlist" the status of elephants so that the two can sell stockpiled ivory on the open market.

Kenya has opposed this position and has enlisted the support of the United States and the European Union to push its opposition to lifting the ban on ivory trade.

Kenya and 22 other like-minded African countries argue that lifting the ban would open a floodgate for poaching that could decimate the African elephant.

As an indication of how seriously Kenya is taking the matter, President Kibaki has exempted the minister for Forestry and Wildlife, Dr Noah Wekesa, from the recent blanket travel ban imposed on ministers and their assistants.

Dr Wekesa is leading a strong Kenyan delegation to the two-week Cites meeting which started on Saturday. He has been deeply involved in lobbying for the Kenyan position which a month ago took him to Brussels, Belgium, to seek support from the EU.



These last few days, a team of Kenyan technocrats led by Mr Patrick Omondi, the head of species conservation and management at the Kenya Wildlife Service, has been camping in the US, lobbying for support from the world's most influential government.

Kenya and Mali co-chair the Africa Elephant Coalition (AEC) which comprises 37 elephant range states. Twenty three of them are opposed to the ivory trade.

The proximity of Tanzania to Kenya, both sharing the Mara-Serengeti elephant range, explains partially why the latter is so aggressive in the campaign. Mr Omondi argues that since elephants carry no passports, they cross the border freely.

Debate in Doha is expected to be vicious and furious, with Botswana having fired the first salvo at the weekend.

The country's minister for Wildlife and Tourism, Mr Onkokame Kitso Mokaila, who will be in Doha, says the position taken by Kenya and her allies is against the spirit of international cooperation.

He says Kenya is undermining all efforts invested by African countries and donors in past meetings held in Mombasa and Gigiri to discuss the elephant, according to the Sunday Standard of Botswana.

Even before the meeting took off, the convener has had to step in and ask the Kenyan allied groups to play fair.

"I was saddened to see that recently this has degenerated into some unwarranted and unjustified attacks upon the objectivity of Cites," a secretariat official says in a statement.

Tanzania wants to be allowed to sell 90 tonnes of ivory, while Zambia is looking to dispose of nearly 23 tonnes. The two states are supported by the 13-member Southern African Development Community bloc, to which they belong. They are also supported by Japan and China.

Although Kenya and her allies may count on powerful local and overseas European groups, which have huge commercial interests in the local tourism sector, they are not leaving anything to chance.

A letter cited by Reuters and alleged to have been leaked by the 23-country group last week, has told the EU to support their elephant position in exchange for similar support for Europe's call to ban trade in the giant bluefin tuna (fish).

"Please do not force our collective hand to cast our 23 votes against the EU on any of the issues it is supporting, such as the high profile proposed ban on bluefin tuna," said the letter seen by Reuters.

The 23 countries argue that despite a nine-year ivory trade ban, poaching has been on a steady increase, including in Tanzania and Zambia, but pro-sale groups claim elephant herds have recovered significantly.

"It is time for our people to benefit financially from this resource which could become a nuisance to local communities," argues the Botswana minister.


Not until last week did the anti-poaching group claim to have hard evidence that indeed poaching is still occurring in Tanzania.

On Thursday a study by researchers at the University of British Columbia and published in the Science journal said the Tanzanian petition should be denied.

The study is indicated to have been carried out by researchers from the United States, Norway, Kenya, Cameroon, the United Kingdom, Tanzania and Canada.

Their DNA-based research indicates that Tanzania and Zambia, the two countries petitioning to downlist their elephants, are among the most significant sources of, and conduits for, illegal ivory in Africa.

"None of the countries involved in this petition are adequately controlling their country's illegal ivory trade," says Dr Sam Wasser, lead author of the paper and director of the University of Washington.

What is interesting here is Botswana's support of Tanzania and Zambia's elephant down listing proposal. Generally the Botswana parks department and wildlife ministry is supportive of hunting whilst the president Ian Khama is a confirmed anti-hunter, influenced to a large extent by film-maker Dereck Joubert.

I had heard that Khama had said words to the effect that the only endangered species in Botswana will be the professional hunter!

Elephant poaching, illegal ivory trade out of control in Tanzania, says report

By ThisDay Reporter
16th March 2010

A new report has exposed large-scale illegal ivory trading in Tanzania and Zambia on the eve of the opening of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) meeting in Doha, Qatar.

Both Tanzania and Zambia have proposed selling their ivory stocks despite intensive elephant poaching activities and illegal ivory trade within their countries.

The report, ‘Open Season – The Burgeoning Illegal Ivory Trade in Tanzania and Zambia’, was released on Friday by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a non-profit group based in Washington, DC and London.

“EIA undercover investigators recently visited Tanzania and Zambia and returned with harrowing first-hand evidence documenting a flourishing trade in illegal ivory in both countries, often exacerbated by official corruption,” says the report.

Tanzania’s elephant population declined by more than 30,000 elephants between 2006 and 2009, primarily from poaching to supply black-market ivory to Asia.

Rampant poaching is concentrated around the Selous Game Reserve, where 40 per cent of the country's jumbos are located.

In 2009, several major seizures totalling some 12 tons of ivory occurred in Asia. DNA studies from earlier seizures of Tanzanian ivory in Asia has shown that much of the ivory originated from the Selous.

“Time after time, CITES actions to allow supposedly limited ivory sales stimulate a massive escalation in elephant poaching and ivory smuggling all across Africa,” said EIA president Allan Thornton.

“The only thing accomplished by these legally sanctioned ivory sales, beyond enriching Chinese and Japanese ivory merchants, is to imperil elephant conservation and provide legal market cover for smuggling and laundering of poached ivory,” he added.

Last month, EIA investigators posing as buyers easily found ivory for sale in the markets of Dar es Salaam, identified hotspots for illegal ivory trading in the southern Selous, and gathered data on recent poaching incidents.

In one village near the Selous reserve, a poacher dug up his cache of tusks and offered them for sale. The investigators were forced to flee when the poachers became aggressive, and were pursued on motorbikes fitted with exhaust silencers, the same vehicles often used to move ivory around the area.

In Zambia, EIA investigators found that despite the ban on domestic sales, ivory is easily obtainable in large quantities, and often purchased by Chinese nationals.

The report also reveals that the country has a thriving illegal domestic market and is at the centre of the international ivory trade, hosting some of the world’s most sophisticated traders and networks – which in some instances use government and military vehicles to transport illegal ivory.

“Every time CITES approves an ivory sale, it translates into an open hunting season on elephants across Africa and a death sentence for tens of thousands of protected elephants,” said Samuel LaBudde, a biologist with EIA.

“It would be a tragedy for elephants and a travesty of conservation principles if CITES were to approve Tanzania and Zambia’s applications to