eviction

Royals at it again?

Saeed is this true??

Never heard of an African Government backtracking on a promise !!!

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:
Saeed is this true??

I only know what you know.

But, this areas has been a hunting area for so many years - I think Cotton used to hunt it in the past.

These tribes have been pushed, and supported, by anti-hunting NGOs from Europe.

They are using them as a tool to stop hunting in that area completely.

I am glad the government has finally come to their senses and left the area as it was - a hunting area.

I wonder what we would all think if some tribes started a campaign to stop hunting in the Selous?

I hope that it's not true

Will be interesting to see what the Tanzania PHs have to say about this situation. It would not surprise me, however, to hear that what Saeed is saying is true. They try the same thing collaring animals. The collaring has less to do with being able to track and monitor wildlife than it does with the collar being used to discourage the hunting of the animal. In fact, I would not be shocked to learn that many collars are in fact facades that contain no electronic gear. Do not underestimate the forces behind and funding of groups opposed to hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Do not underestimate the forces behind and funding of groups opposed to hunting.

Could not agree more.

Having strategic governments/royal families involved is actually a positive.

They act as a counterbalance to very well funded and very narrowly focused anti-hunting groups.

The PH, professional hunting associations, outfitters are to a large degree irrelevant if a anti-hunting billionaire offers x mil. dollars to stop hunting. Hunting may generate more money but it is spread over many more parties than a narrow direct payment to stop hunting.

The strategics (government/royal families) act as a counter balance to this focused anti hunting crowd.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Having strategic governments/royal families involved is actually a positive.

They act as a counterbalance to very well funded and very narrowly focused anti-hunting groups.

The PH, professional hunting associations, outfitters are to a large degree irrelevant if a anti-hunting billionaire offers x mil. dollars to stop hunting. Hunting may generate more money but it is spread over many more parties than a narrow direct payment to stop hunting.

The strategics (government/royal families) act as a counter balance to this focused anti hunting crowd.

Mike

I understand this is the ONLY hunting block in Tanzania that pays 100% of trophy fees - and I know for a fact that they hardly shoot a small % of that each year.

In addition, a lot of social infrastructures are free provided free of charge to Tanzania because of this hunting block.

The anti-hunting NGO's are furious about this, and are trying it from another angle, " The poor Masai are being displaced because of hunting".

Of course, Joe Public is as ignorant of the facts as usual, jumps on the bandwagon.

One does need to look very far.

Avaaz.org claims to have taken 210,634,932 actions since They were established 5 years ago!!!???

I wonder what good has come out of any of these!

I just look at how the Save has been treated relative to Bubye in Zim.

Strategic government/players matter in Africa.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

this areas has been a hunting area for so many years - I think Cotton used to hunt it in the past.

I am led to believe that there have been commercial safari ops by the Emirati OBC in that area for over 20yrs,
but what has brought greater attention to the situation is that the gov. has now increased the exclusive access
area of land to be leased....thus effecting the Maasai who have been grazing on that previously unleased area.

The company said to be involved in the purchase of this new hunting ground is supposedly owned by
Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdulrahim al Ali, the deputy defense minister of the U.A.E.

Maasai elder, Lekakui Kanduli told CNN:

"The British moved us 50 years ago from what is now the Serengeti park, and subsequent governments have consistently restricted our grazing rights,"

The masai don't "depend" on their cattle. If they did, they would starve. Those are the sorriest looking cattle I've ever seen.

They like their cattle and they are important to their culture, a symbol of wealth -- I get that, but they do not "depend" on them. And, it should not give them the right poison cats.

Next question, just how long have these been their "ancestral lands" and who owned it before?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
The masai don't "depend" on their cattle. If they did, they would starve. Those are the sorriest looking cattle I've ever seen.

They like their cattle and they are important to their culture, a symbol of wealth -- I get that, but they do not "depend" on them. And, it should not give them the right poison cats.

Next question, just how long have these been their "ancestral lands" and who owned it before?

Those sorry looking cattle are worth a great deal of money and are used to pay debts, barter and buy women (amongst other things). Their traditional diet is a mixture of blood and milk drawn from those sorry looking cows. They depend on them in the same way as westerners depend on their accrued wealth in bank accounts etc.

to them, killing lions is nothing more than protecting their wealth and as much as we westerners might detest the idea, they'll never be stopped from killing lions at every opportunity and all means possible all the while a lion roams the plains and they own a cow and/or have breath in their body.

That's the reality of the situation.

Mixing up to separate issues is not helpful:
- Anti hunting attitudes
- Cultural conservation (Masai)

I can understand the latter.

40 000 Maasai told to leave homeland as hunters move in
Posted by News Desk in Hunting, News and the News Desk post series. — 4 Comments ↓

Posted: November 19, 2014

EXTRACT FROM THE FOLLOWING THIRD PARTY SOURCE: Written by David Smith, Africa correspondent for The Guardian

Tanzania has been accused of reneging on its promise to 40 000 Maasai pastoralists by going ahead with plans to evict them and turn their ancestral land into a reserve for the royal family of Dubai to hunt big game.
© Alamy

© Alamy

Activists celebrated last year when the government said it had backed down over a proposed 1 500 sq km “wildlife corridor” bordering the Serengeti National Park that would serve a commercial hunting and safari company based in the United Arab Emirates.

Now the deal appears to be back on and the Maasai have been ordered to leave their traditional lands by the end of the year. Maasai representatives will meet the prime minister, Mizengo Pinda, in Dodoma today to express their anger. They insist the sale of the land would rob them of their heritage and directly or indirectly affect the livelihoods of 80 000 people. The area is crucial for grazing livestock on which the nomadic Maasai depend.

Unlike last year, the government is offering compensation of 1 billion shillings (£369 350), not to be paid directly but to be channelled into socio-economic development projects. The Maasai have dismissed the offer.

“I feel betrayed,” said Samwel Nangiria, co-ordinator of the local Ngonett civil society group. “One billion is very little and you cannot compare that with land. It’s inherited. Their mothers and grandmothers are buried in that land. There’s nothing you can compare with it.”

Nangiria said he believes the government never truly intended to abandon the scheme in the Loliondo district but was wary of global attention. “They had to pretend they were dropping the agenda to fool the international press.”

He said it had proved difficult to contact the Ortelo Business Corporation (OBC), a luxury safari company set up by a UAE official close to the royal family. The OBC has operated in Loliondo for more than 20 years with clients reportedly including Prince Andrew.

Activists opposing the hunting reserve have been killed by police in the past two years, according to Nangiria, who says he has received threatening calls and text messages. “For me it is dangerous on a personal level. They said: ‘We discovered you are the mastermind, you want to stop the government using the land’. Another said: ‘You have decided to shorten your life. The hands of the government are too long. Put your family ahead of the Maasai.’”

Nangiria is undeterred. “I will fight for my community. I’m more energetic than I was. The Maasai would like to ask the prime minister about the promise. What happened to the promise? Was it a one-year promise or forever? Perhaps he should put the promise in writing.”

This will be the last time the Maasai settle for talks, he added, before pursuing other methods including a court injunction. They could also be an influential voting bloc in next year’s elections.

An international campaign against the hunting reserve was led last year by the online activism site Avaaz.org, whose Stop the Serengeti Sell-off petition attracted more than 1.7 million signatures and led to coordinated email and Twitter protests.

Alex Wilks, campaign director for Avaaz, said: “The Maasai stare out from every tourism poster, but Tanzania’s government wants to kick them off their land so foreign royalty can hunt elephants there. Almost two million people around the world have backed the Maasai’s call for president Jakaya Kikwete to fulfil his promise to let them stay where they’ve always lived. Treating the Maasai as the great unwanted would be a disaster for Tanzania’s reputation.”

A spokesperson for Tanzania’s natural resources and tourism ministry said : “It’s the first I’ve heard of it. I’m currently out of the office and can’t comment properly.”

Situation:

Ruling power-elite from one country doing exclusive business deals with the ruling power-elite of another,
that in this case disregards the cultural subsistence existence of native people like the Maasai...

Is there anything new or unbelievable in that?

There are reports the Maasai were not permitted to water their cattle on the existing exclusive access hunting lease during drought conditions,
(which is a restricted fenced area), resulting in the loss of their valuable livestock.

Shakari,

I fully understand the situation, as ridiculous as it seems. And I know it is not ridiculous to them. They are an interesting people. Hunted with a few and they were good people. They live in what is perhaps the most beautiful place in the world -- save their scrawny cattle. And they poison lions, worth more than the whole herd in monetary terms.

Tanzania has a real quandry here.

They poisoning everything.

Lions, hyaenas, jackals and any other predators that eat the p[poisoned meat.

And vultures too, eat the tainted meat and die.

While I am not up on the whole situation...I have not a lot of sympathy for the Masai. They are the scourge of the lion for sure as Steve has stated. They cause a lot of problems for wildlife in general.

Not taking sides...just pointing out the Masai are not friends of wildlife.

For the sake of wildlife and that part of the Serengeti ecosystem, instituting a non human activity zone except low impact tourism is a great idea.

Having a wealthy investor manage that low impact tourism activity and carry out conservation work is also a good idea.

On the first point, one can argue that the Serengeti ecosystem is well over 8000 sq km in size and so how much more land does a Gov need to set aside for wildlife protection and habitat when population pressure is hitting such high levels?

On the second, I'm not convinced OBC is the right "partner" for the Gov in that endevor. Certainly their track record in wildlife abuses is a concern. But so long as they continue to fund presidential elections, they will remain the chosen one.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
... I'm not convinced OBC is the right "partner" for the Gov in that endevor.
Certainly their track record in wildlife abuses is a concern.
But so long as they continue to fund presidential elections, they will remain the chosen one.

Interesting that a track record of wildlife abuse is acceptable by commercial parties associated with heavy foreign money influences,
but Maasai effects on wildlife need to be stamped out, because the Maasai can't offer substantial sidekicks to their corrupt gov.

AND:
I just find it somewhat bizarre that Saeed, who has continually expressed his disregard/disdain for low life politicians and the worlds
widely corrupt political systems , would now ask someone to go talk to the Tanzanian gov. for truthful-honest-clarification answers,
regarding their exclusive hunting deal with a foreign rich power-elite ruling class from the M.E.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
... I'm not convinced OBC is the right "partner" for the Gov in that endevor.
Certainly their track record in wildlife abuses is a concern.
But so long as they continue to fund presidential elections, they will remain the chosen one.

Interesting that a track record of wildlife abuse is acceptable by commercial parties associated with heavy foreign money influences,
but Maasai effects on wildlife need to be stamped out, because the Maasai can't offer substantial sidekicks to their corrupt gov.

On another note:
I just find it somewhat bizarre that Saeed, who has continually expressed his disregard/disdain for low life politicians and the worlds
widely corrupt political systems , would now ask someone to go talk to the Tanzanian gov. for truthful-honest-clarification answers,
regarding their dealing with a foreign rich power-elite ruling class from the M.E.

Well, the Tanzanian government are the ones who make the decision.

If you don't like it, go and tell them so!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Well, the Tanzanian government are the ones who make the decision.
If you don't like it, go and tell them so!

Saeed,

It takes 'Two to Tango',The Emirati Royals are just as involved as the Tanzanian gov.
Since its their exclusive private personal baby deal with that African gov.

Are you trying to give the impression that Emirati MONEY MONEY MONEY did not adversely influence
the Tanz gov. decision?

Moving the Maasai out to please foreigners with power and influence, is not much different
to when white settlers came to the Americas and Australia and just shifted/forced the indigenous out
of their long established hunting and gathering lands...[just shows the world has not changed much]

The Emirati Royal family instead of doing the rough job of shifting the natives themselves, are just paying
the Tanzanian gov. to deal with the problem/hindrance of Maasai on the land they want for their exclusive recreational
hunting luxury lifestyle retreat.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Well, the Tanzanian government are the ones who make the decision.
If you don't like it, go and tell them so!

IF thats your genuine attitude, why do you then have an ARPF where people discuss political issues?

why not just shut the ARPF down and tell AR members to go discuss their issues with their respective governments?

Next time you post some issue about Israel, America or SCI, would you prefer we just advise you to go tell those governing bodies
rather than raise and discuss them on AR-?

and I'm just wondering why you are fine to see a 500++ page thread of mind obsessed nonsense by Edmond about Ukraine,
but don't want to talk much about the Maasai issue, instead rapidly diverting, by suggesting forum members talk to the
Tanzanian gov.instead.........Seems very much like two totally contradictory attitudes held by you.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Well, the Tanzanian government are the ones who make the decision.
If you don't like it, go and tell them so!

Saeed,

It takes 'Two to Tango',The Emirati Royals are just as involved as the Tanzanian gov.
Since its their exclusive private personal baby deal with that African gov.

Are you trying to give the impression that Emirati MONEY MONEY MONEY did not adversely influence
the Tanz gov. decision?

Moving the Maasai out to please foreigners with power and influence, is not much different
to when white settlers came to the Americas and Australia and just shifted/forced the indigenous out
of their long established hunting and gathering lands...[just shows the world has not changed much]

The Emirati Royal family instead of doing the rough job of shifting the natives themselves, are just paying
the Tanzanian gov. to deal with the problem/hindrance of Maasai on the land they want for their exclusive recreational
hunting luxury lifestyle retreat.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Well, the Tanzanian government are the ones who make the decision.
If you don't like it, go and tell them so!

IF thats your genuine attitude, why do you then have an ARPF where people discuss political issues?

why not just shut the ARPF down and tell AR members to go discuss their issues with their respective governments?

Next time you post some issue about Israel, America or SCI, would you prefer we just advise you to go tell those governing bodies
rather than raise and discuss them on AR-?

and I'm just wondering why you are fine to see a 500++ page thread of mind obsessed nonsense by Edmond about Ukraine,
but don't want to talk much about the Maasai issue, instead rapidly suggesting forum members talk to the Tanzanian gov.instead.
...Seems very much like two totally contradictory attitudes held by you.

Because everything we do here, regarding what governments do, comes to exactly one big fat ZERO!

Scream your head as much as you like, do you think ANY government is going to pay attention to what you say??

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Because everything we do here, regarding what governments do, comes to exactly one big fat ZERO!

and wealthy influencial families and/or corporations from the M.E. (or any other part of the world),
do much to facilitate/instigate/procure cultures of endemic gov. corruption and highly questionable policies.

Trax, Shootaway or whoever you are,

Why don't you go away? You don't add anything constructive to the conversation.

As the old saying goes: "a picture is worth a 1000 words!"

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
While I am not up on the whole situation...I have not a lot of sympathy for the Masai. They are the scourge of the lion for sure as Steve has stated. They cause a lot of problems for wildlife in general.

Not taking sides...just pointing out the Masai are not friends of wildlife.

They only have concern for their miserable cattle.

While there are members here having some "fun" at Saeed's expense, the facts remain that the Masai are a pack of poisoning bastards and they have copped a big dollar for the concession...........

Saeed,
In light of this announcement all of your rhetoric about what the the Evil Jews are doing to your beloved Palestinians is now 100%, undiluted, PURE HYPOCRACY!!

How does it feel to be a occupier??

quote:

Not taking sides...just pointing out the Masai are not friends of wildlife. They only have concern for their miserable cattle.

Hear Hear!

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:
Saeed,
In light of this announcement all of your rhetoric about what the the Evil Jews are doing to your beloved Palestinians is now 100%, undiluted, PURE HYPOCRACY!!

How does it feel to be a occupier??

I am not really sure what your problem is.

You have posted the same topic on both here and the Political Forum.

Why?

I think I speak for everyone on these forums that we would rather keep politics to the Political Forum only.

from Al Jazeera:

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blo...s-maasai-gaming-land

quote:

It is easy for outsiders to be romantic about the Maasai. The proud herders, dressed in traditional "shukas" and extravagant beaded earrings and necklaces,
drive their livestock across the vast open grasslands of southern Kenya and northern Tanzania.

The community lives with their animals in thorn-bush compounds, shunning most modern luxuries (apart from the ubiquitous mobile phone). The young warriors –
the Moran – protect their animals from savannah predators like lions and hyenas with spears and clubs.

They have been part of this landscape for such a long time that they - and researchers who've been studying the savannah - say it is a mistake to think of
the ecosystem as natural without the Maasai and their livestock.

The scientists say the cattle, goats and sheep occupy an otherwise vacant niche in the environment. They keep the grass low for antelope and gazelles that
welcome both the tender shoots and the space to see predators coming. At the same time, the Maasai have a traditional aversion to hunting eating wild animals.

In their own eyes and the view of many researchers, they are the ultimate conservationists, at once a part of the environment and its protector.

But there is a population explosion on the savannah. Both the Maasai and their livestock are growing fast, and the Tanzanian government says they are literally
eating the ecosystem to death.

The Maasai lands occupy a crucial gap between the Serengeti National Park and the Ngorongoro Crater. Together they form an extraordinary ecosystem that migrating
animals such as wildebeest and zebras cycle between in a constant search for fresh grass.

The gap is known as the Loliondo Game Controlled Area – a 4,000 sq km conservation zone where the Maasai have been allowed to continue grazing their animals,
as well as licensed hunting for six months of the year.

It is a system that seems to have worked relatively well for most of the past forty years – a Dubai-based hunting company, the Ortello Business Corporation,
has brought in wealthy clients mostly from the Gulf to bag trophies, while the Maasai grazed the land among the wildlife.

But because the government now believes the Maasai goats and cattle are over-grazing, it has de-gazetted 2,500sq km of the GCA to allow the herders the space
to farm, graze and live as they please. The remaining 1,500sq km is to be left to the wildlife, and the hunters.

And that is the crux of the issue. The Maasai argue that they are the ultimate conservationists (and point to scientific papers to prove it). They also say they
can not survive without those 1500 sq km, and crucial water-sources contained within them. To shut the Maasai out and leave only hunters is the ultimate hypocrisy,
they say.

It is hard not to feel sympathetic to the herders. As traditional owners, they agreed to give up the vast Serengeti Plain (four times the size of the Game
Controlled Area) for the sake of the wildlife, and they say the national park’s grasslands have suffered because of it. Now, they are being squeezed out once again,
while rich shotgun-wielding foreigners roam the land without having to see a local.

But watching their goats gnaw at low-hanging thorny acacia trees, it is also easy to see why the government is convinced it is time they leave.

from AlJazeera:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...515185518112735.html

quote:

Nairobi, Kenya - Trouble is brewing in northern Tanzania, where the government has recently designated a wildlife protection zone that threatens to displace tens of thousands of Maasai tribespeople, who live and graze cattle across the grasslands.

In a rush to protect elephants, rhinos and other endangered animals from gun-toting poachers, governments are fencing off swathes of territory that have been inhabited and used by small ethnic groups for generations.

Samwel Nangiria, who represents several Maasai groups, said his people have repeatedly lost out in the name of animal welfare and insisted it will not happen again.

"If they enforce this eviction, blood will be shed," he told Al Jazeera.

Human rights groups warn the Maasai are not alone. Hunter-gatherers, nomadic cattle-herders and other distinct African tribes routinely face eviction and violence when their ancestral lands are selected for conservation.

Estimates of the number of evictions vary. One study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison described expansions of Africa's protected areas in recent decades that have displaced anywhere from 900,000 to 14.4 million people.


Tanzania tribe evicted from ancestral land


In Tanzania, elders of the semi-nomadic Maasai, best known for their vibrant shuka fabrics and beaded jewellery, seek to overturn a decision in March to declare a 1,500-square kilometre wildlife zone on the eastern fringes of the Serengeti.

"We are scared because we know we are fighting the government," said Nangiria. "The memories are fresh in our minds of previous evictions. People were shot, houses were burned. But this time round the Maasai are not leaving. We have compromised so much for the sake of conservation."

Ministers say the Maasai have been granted alternative land and stress the importance of animal breeding grounds along the "iconic great migration" route of wildebeest. Critics say officials seek bigger safari tourism revenues, including from an Emirati-owned hunting lodge in the area .


'Not prepared'

Tanzania's northern neighbour, Kenya, has its own rifts between ecologists and native peoples. Samburu pastoralists from the central highlands say their ancestral terrain has been chipped away by years of successive wildlife protection schemes.

The latest project at Eland Downs, in Laikipia, was a 171 sq km national park that was designated on land purchased by two US-based environment charities, the Nature Conservancy and the African Wildlife Foundation.

Richard Leiyagu, chairman of the Loiborkineji Self-Help Group, said 25,000 Samburu families had been shunted off land that their semi-nomadic forefathers had used for grazing cattle, the lifeblood of their community.

"These people have not been prepared for another lifestyle. The only way to sustain their way of life is through livestock," he said. "It's a time-bomb. They will be forced to demand more space and they will clash with the private conservationists."

The pattern is repeated across Africa. In southeast Cameroon, Baka pygmies bemoan beatings at the hands of government-backed eco-guards when they are caught using traditional hunting skills under the canopies of Boumba Bek National Park, according to Survival International.

Likewise, the Bushmen of the Kalahari reserve in Botswana have reportedly been beaten and arrested for killing antelopes on protected land, despite tribesmen winning court battles that upheld their right to live and hunt on their ancestral terrain, the indigenous rights group said.

Conservation has climbed up the political agenda in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in response to a surge in poaching for elephant tusk and rhino horn, feeding demand for traditional medicines in Asia's growing middle-class.

The conservation group WWF ranks wildlife contraband as a comparable global threat to drug trafficking and gun-running. Last year, poachers slaughtered nearly 700 South African rhinos and as many as 30,000 elephants.

But in their effort to halt animal extinctions, conservationists clash with indigenous groups. Pastoralists are pushed off land to make way for national parks, and hunter-gatherers are arrested for traditional bush-meat hunting in the forests.

"Over the past decade, tribal groups of hunter-gatherers and pastoralists across Africa have tapped into the global indigenous movement as a force for funding and advocacy," said Andrew Erueti, an expert on indigenous rights for the UK-based rights group Amnesty International.

"There is a real concern now about people being displaced as a result of conservation, and there needs to be a way of reconciling the needs of indigenous groups and conservationists."

Mohamed Matovu, a spokesman for Minority Rights Groups, said creating national parks ranks alongside other threats faced by rural African groups, such as valley-flooding dam projects and land-grabs for farming, mining and logging.

"Conservation is also business, when you look at it," Matovu said. "With revenues shrinking, tourism is an easy way to spruce up your economy. And the money that comes from tourism is almost never shared with those who are evicted from the lands."

Jo Woodman, a campaigner for Survival International, said Western conservationists wield "vast influence" over African officials. Rather than embracing native peoples, who understand rural terrain and have lived alongside animals for generations, lobby groups typically design "people-free" reserves, under the control of government ministries, she added.

"Tribal communities could have really done with the conservation groups to help fight off encroachment by loggers and poachers, but instead they are dragged out of parks and dumped on the edges, made into the enemies of conservation," Woodman said.



Sinister undertone

Her colleague, Fiona Watson, said there was also something more sinister going on.

"There's a deep element of racism throughout Africa against hunter-gatherers," she said. "Many members of government see hunter-gatherers and semi-nomadic pastoralists as backwards and that they have to drag these people into this century."

New wildlife protection schemes are moving with the times. The state-backed Northern Rangelands Trust brings together 19 conservatories in northern Kenya that are managed by the region's 100,000 residents, mostly rural cattle-herders.

One of the biggest global conservation groups, WWF, said it works to protect Africa's gorillas, elephants and other endangered beasts - while also ensuring that "local communities maintain their ability to provide for their families".

Tanya Saunders, CEO of the Tsavo Trust, is designing a conservancy in eastern Kenya that will be managed by semi-nomadic Orma pastoralists, an impoverished group that has faced repeated inter-tribal clashes along the troubled Tana River.

"We need to address wildlife conservation through the people who live alongside the wildlife, who are expected to be its guardians," she said. "Nothing short of ownership of conservation projects by the people themselves has any chance of viability in the long term."


Albert Barume, an expert in tribal groups for the UN's International Labour Organization, has monitored conflict between conservationists and tribal peoples throughout his career, and has noticed two recent reasons for optimism.

In March, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights in Arusha, Tanzania, ordered Kenya to temporarily stop forcing Ogiek hunter-gatherers from the Mau Forest, marking another legal victory for native groups.

He has also noted a growing awareness among conservationists that those living on lands destined for national park status should be co-opted into conservation, rather than forced to the peripheries of protected zones.

"The old-fashioned concept of conserving nature was that humans harm nature, but that school is phasing out to a new generation of activists," he said. "Nowadays it’s about creating a partnership between indigenous groups and conservation.

"Instead of being portrayed as anti-conservation, I think they'll be allies of conservation."

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:
Saeed,
In light of this announcement all of your rhetoric about what the the Evil Jews are doing to your beloved Palestinians is now 100%, undiluted, PURE HYPOCRACY!!

How does it feel to be a occupier??

I am not really sure what your problem is.

You have posted the same topic on both here and the Political Forum.

Why?

I think I speak for everyone on these forums that we would rather keep politics to the Political Forum only.

What is MY problem??

I did not start this thread. Excluding mine, there are 27 reply's here from other members.

I simply joined the thread like everyone else.

Address the issue on the Political Forum...I would enjoy hearing your comments regarding your family evicting 40,000 people from their homeland.

Well if one day the Tanz. gov. sees fit to run visiting recreational hunters of the same land to
make exclusive way/room for the priority interests of large mining or logging giants,
I hope Saeed and others will support thAT decision, the same they support the Maasai being run off.
cause if its in the best economic interests of the Tanz. gov to do so, who would argue against it?

iF Emirati money can talk, so can the money & influence of other more powerful giant corporations,
that have much more to offer/entice the gov. with.

Just remember, it don't take much for the shoe to be on the other foot one day,
recreational hunters can easily end up like the Maasai herders and native hunter gatherers, i.e.; 'on the outside looking in',
on areas they will no longer be permitted to go.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:




As the old saying goes: "a picture is worth a 1000 words!"

Agreed the colour white tends to disadvantage the hunter.

Well I was watching a cable show the other week, where a rich Arab was displaying and describing
his expensive bird for the activity of Falconry.
He explained that the natural area he was in was sadly, now totally devoid of any live natural game for the bird,
because the Arab people had utterly f*cked up their own natural environment/habitat.
He had to tow a dead bait via remote controlled airplane, so as to give the bird something to pursue.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:




As the old saying goes: "a picture is worth a 1000 words!"

Agreed the colour white tends to disadvantage the hunter.

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Leopardtrack:
Saeed,
In light of this announcement all of your rhetoric about what the the Evil Jews are doing to your beloved Palestinians is now 100%, undiluted, PURE HYPOCRACY!!

How does it feel to be a occupier??

I am not really sure what your problem is.

You have posted the same topic on both here and the Political Forum.

Why?

I think I speak for everyone on these forums that we would rather keep politics to the Political Forum only.

What is MY problem??

I did not start this thread. Excluding mine, there are 27 reply's here from other members.

I simply joined the thread like everyone else.

Address the issue on the Political Forum...I would enjoy hearing your comments regarding your family evicting 40,000 people from their homeland.

No.......your mate posted up the thread and you posted 15 minutes later

quote:

iF Emirati money can talk, so can the money & influence of other more powerful giant corporations, that have much more to offer/entice the gov. with.

Has already happened and the mining companies involved have most certainly got nothing to do with either the Saudi, Emirati or Omani Arabs.

As far as the Loliondo concession is concerned, yes there was talk of some alleged deal having transpired but you or others for that matter would have to come up with some concrete evidence to substantiate any accusation.

As far as the Masai grazing their cattle or "bags of bones", as some might prefer to describe them as being, you need to know that it is not so much the cattle being grazed as much as the bomas being built; trees being felled, water rights being contested (read claimed) even when the leaseholder went to the expense of building the dam/s and putting in boreholes at his expense.

One of the more prominent farmers was obliged (forced) to fence his farm, all of 12,000+/- acres, an effort which after a short while proved futile in keeping them out until he electrified the entire perimeter.

Other than causing overgrazing and in a number of cases forcing the wildlife to change its migratory patterns, these thousands of scattered mini-herds of cattle, goats and sheep are probably one of the main contributing factors to soil erosion; aint no more grass going to grow in an area once they've been through it.

Just for the sake of interest, the Masai and their cousins (Wakwavi) have shifted their attention to areas far beyond their "homeland", so far south have they wandered that Ruvuma River is the only hurdle that keeps them from wandering into Mozambique.

Another very major issue that people ignore is the massive amount of (illegal) tree felling & charcoal burning that's been going on in recent years.

Mto Wa Mbu being a prime example. There was a time that the area was known as one of the best hunting areas in Africa.

Even when I first hunted there, it was bloody good but the last time I hunted there, it was barely recognisable and large parts had been turned to desert.