Whitworth,

You are entitled to your opinion and only I know my reason/s for being here.

Chuck is a term of endearment over here and honestly i think you're being a little sensitive. Sheesh you wouldn't last two minutes here in my shoes if being called chuck offends you ;-)

Edited to add :-

When we say 'you dropped a ball clanger' it means you just put your foot in it basically.
So when you said personal insults mean you're losing an argument, you basically said all those who have insulted me only did so because they were losing their argument.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Anyone care to comment on this :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...ame-hunting-tanzania

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_the_maasai_b/

I haven't been here enough to have read previous "debate" so hopefully we can be friendly.

What do YOU think about it?
Are Maasai tradition more important then conserving the migration and probably that ecosystem?

If you don't like animals being killed that is fine and if you don't like hunting or hunters then that is OK too. Maybe you do have the moral high ground?
But firstly, all edible animals that are shot for trophies are also eaten. They are not wasted so does it matter if they are shot for the meat or for the horns?.
Second, isn't it great that some people are so crazy that they, for what ever reason, will pay so much money to go and hunt that it pays for most of the conservation?
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing eh?

[/QUOTE] So you are telling me that they have not managed the land in some form or other?
They have ruined it then?
And yet this company is still interested in using ruined land?

Tell me why have hunters and those involved with hunting not got saint-hoods yet?
As the way you (generic)make it all sound you all sure are angelic.

The Maasai may not have a god given right to the land but neither does this company or anyone else. It is not one rule for one and another for hunters et al.

Off the top of my head i cannot tell you who it was i read was working with the Masaai and other tribes etc across Africa but i will try to get back to you on this as soon as i have time to locate the articles.[/QUOTE]

JLB:

You said they managed the land - I asked in what way? You chose to answer with a question because you don't know.

A "thousand" years ago the Maasai were a pinch in numbers to what they are today (and so were their herds) but the land hasn't increased in size to provide for this dramatic increase in grazing land that they have to share with the wildlife.

Don't just protect the Lion - think of the entire ecosystem.

Maybe you should get these "Charitable Organizations" that you have failed to identify to educate the Maasai in holding less stocks - these "walking bank accounts" have gone with the times.
Their herds of cattle have now become an unsustainable commodity as they pose a serious threat of over-grazing which has its repercussions, the worst being soil erosion (the grass won't be back in a hurry)and many an empty stomach for the migratory animals.

You mention the lack of "saint-hoods" within the hunting fraternity - why, have the anti hunting groups been sanctified? If the example of Kenya qualifies the bunny-buggers for saint-hood, God help us all!

The government has leased the land and I'm sure if the Maasai were to come up with those figures, the govt. would lease it to them as well to "manage".

The UAE company as do most other hunting companies, plow funds back into the venture; these funds can be identified as anti-poaching activities and related equipment, schools and dispensaries, boreholes to provide clean water for villages with a view of keeping them away from natural waterholes and food aid (expressed in tons) during periods of drought.

Out of curiosity - do you know where Loliondo is? Please don't answer Tanzania.

The recipients of these provisions include the Maasai, rest assured there is no discrimination.

JLB:

Dunno about "dropping a ball clanger" but I know the phrase of "dropping a clanger" - you a ball fetish perhaps?

Patience is a virtue, being premature is ....having a short fuse perhaps?

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:


Chuck is a term of endearment over here and honestly i think you're being a little sensitive. Sheesh you wouldn't last two minutes here in my shoes if being called chuck offends you ;-)

Lady, you don't have a clue as to what I have been through in my life, so save the sensitivity analysis for someone who is thin skinned -- that would not be me. The fact of the matter is that you engage in these threads knowing good and well you are going to get worked over, so why is it really that you do it? What do you seriously aim to gain? This is an honest question, with no sarcastic undertones -- I promise.

Fujotupu

quote:

You said they managed the land - I asked in what way? You chose to answer with a question because you don't know.

I most certainly did and honestly no i can't answer your question in any major detail. When i said they managed the land, well they must have however well or bad. I manage my land as little as it is, just a garden and honestly i'm no gardener and sont do it well but i do it. Surely everyone who has land manages it in some way or another.

quote:

You mention the lack of "saint-hoods" within the hunting fraternity - why, have the anti hunting groups been sanctified? If the example of Kenya qualifies the bunny-buggers for saint-hood, God help us all!

God forbid anyone gets a sainthood in this day and age. For me sainthood equates to being selfless and not one person on this earth is selfless.

quote:

Out of curiosity - do you know where Loliondo is? Please don't answer Tanzania.

I didn't but after a quick browse will ask do you mean in referral to it being the site of the 'miracle cure'?

Snowhound,

quote:

What do YOU think about it?
Are Maasai tradition more important then conserving the migration and probably that ecosystem?

I'm not entirely sure what i think yet as i don't think i have enough info to make a judgement.
My concern at present is what happens to the Maasai?

quote:

If you don't like animals being killed that is fine and if you don't like hunting or hunters then that is OK too. Maybe you do have the moral high ground?
But firstly, all edible animals that are shot for trophies are also eaten. They are not wasted so does it matter if they are shot for the meat or for the horns?.

I don't believe i have the moral high ground.
With respect to animals being hunted for meat and trophy i have no problem providing that animal is sustainable.

quote:

Second, isn't it great that some people are so crazy that they, for what ever reason, will pay so much money to go and hunt that it pays for most of the conservation?
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still doing the right thing eh?

I've yet to find any evidence that hunting pays the most for conservation but nor have i found evidence against that so i'll go with you on this one and say if true the bad has its good.

quote:

Lady, you don't have a clue as to what I have been through in my life, so save the sensitivity analysis for someone who is thin skinned -- that would not be me. The fact of the matter is that you engage in these threads knowing good and well you are going to get worked over, so why is it really that you do it? What do you seriously aim to gain? This is an honest question, with no sarcastic undertones -- I promise.

Whitworth,

And the posters of AR know nothing about me and really shoould save their insults for someone thin skinned but they don't.

I accept that i will get chewed by a select few here and it really doesn't bother me. The gain far outweighs the negative to be honest.

I don't aim to gain anything other than the other side of the story and many of the posters here are extremely helpful with that.

Take the maasai eviction in tanzania, i have learnt much from fujotupu regarding that and can now go away and do some more research for myself and decide where i stand on this issue.

Despite popular belief here that i am a bunny hugger and completely anti-hunting i really haven't made my mind up where i stand on some of the hunting debates.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
JLB:

Dunno about "dropping a ball clanger" but I know the phrase of "dropping a clanger" - you a ball fetish perhaps?

Patience is a virtue, being premature is ....having a short fuse perhaps?

No lol,i'm an arctophile (sp). Ball clanger is a saying often used here. Could be a Yorkshire deviation of dropping a clanger.

I really had to scratch my head reading the part Jo is siding with the Masai

Aren't the Masai traditionally the arch enemy of the lion?

Imagine how many lions you can find in an area supposedly occupied by 30,000 Masai and God only knows how many cattle?

Just typical of the fringe eco-terrorists.

It won't be long before she starts screaming "SAVE THE CLAY PIGEON"

quote:

You said they managed the land

JLB: The Maasai do not manage the land, they never have done. If your perception of land management is driving herd after herd of cattle to graze then your line of thought is a little askew.
Don't compare the cattle ranchers in the UK with their dairy or beef herds in a pasture to the ones reared by the Maasai - its a world apart.
The Maasai in recent times decided they would grow their own staples and other than destroying tracts of land through deforestation to create plots for farming, failed to achieve their goals. They were simply not born to be farmers and farming a semi arid area like Masailand one needs to have the proverbial "balls" of a farmer.

You being a prim and proper English lady have you little veggie patch which receives due TLC for some home grown lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, etc. for your personal consumption; not so with the Maasai - they can't even grow cucumbers!

However these half-hearted attempts at being self sufficient have only aggravated the situation because the same tracts of land they deforested and ploughed are today barren tracts of land where prior to their misguided endeavors was actually suitable grazing land.

Coming back to the article, the second paragraph says it all.
I would like you however to tell me how 20 Maasai can live within the confines of 1 sq. km. or as stated in the article 30,000 of them squabbling over 1500 sq. kms.

The main reasons for keeping them out of the Loliondo corridor have been illustrated - it is basically a buffer zone to keep the hordes of humanity and domestic animals away from the park borders (a) to prevent 'mismanagement' of the land and (b) to prevent introduction of cattle-borne disease from afflicting wildlife.
I hope you will appreciate that the Parks and Reserves in Tanzania are without fences and you cannot keep the wildlife from moving about in search of grazing - that being what the migration is all about.

It might just be of interest to you in knowing that the migration has been seriously affected over the past 10 years - it is a shadow of what it used to be!

I find it strange that the remaining buffer zones of Serengeti and other parks and reserves where the Maasai are established are not being so vociferously attacked by the activists.

There are many members on AR who will testify that what I have stated is not something I dreamed about over the last 24 hours and while the folklore surrounding the Maasai is an awe-inspiring attraction to Western cultures, we should all step down from our sentimental perches and start facing reality.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
With respect to animals being hunted for meat and trophy i have no problem providing that animal is sustainable.

I've yet to find any evidence that hunting pays the most for conservation but nor have i found evidence against that so i'll go with you on this one and say if true the bad has its good.

Then perhaps that is where we should start.

1. What is the greatest threat to a chosen species? Regulated hunting, unregulated hunting (bush meat), loss of habitat, other?

2. What does practical experience tell us about the solutions to these threats? What has been tried and how did it work?

Conservation is to important to let feelings get in the way of uncomfortable facts.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I really had to scratch my head reading the part Jo is siding with the Masai

Aren't the Masai traditionally the arch enemy of the lion?

Imagine how many lions you can find in an area supposedly occupied by 30,000 Masai and God only knows how many cattle?

Just typical of the fringe eco-terrorists.

It won't be long before she starts screaming "SAVE THE CLAY PIGEON"

Telling lies about me again Saeed. I at this moment in time am defending noone, see my post from earlier.

And i quote :-

Snowhound asked -

'What do YOU think about it?
Are Maasai tradition more important then conserving the migration and probably that ecosystem?'

And i replied -

'I'm not entirely sure what i think yet as i don't think i have enough info to make a judgement.
My concern at present is what happens to the Maasai?'

Ok playtime over, down to the serious stuff.

I browsed the other thread on the Maasai eviction and came across this :-

quote:

It is a hunting concession like any other though in this case it has been allocated to a UAE company which is duly registered in TZ.
The difference here is that the owners are Arab Royalty who have leased the area for their own personal use, and to the best of my knowledge has no commercial orientations.
I do not believe UAE citizens (generically) will have any such privilege.

As a member of that royal family Saeed perhaps you could enlighten me / us all how it will work? What will happen to the Maasai etc etc?

Fujotupu,

quote:

You being a prim and proper English lady have you little veggie patch which receives due TLC for some home grown lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, etc. for your personal consumption; not so with the Maasai - they can't even grow cucumbers!

There is nothing prim and proper about me i'm afraid. I'm not an aristocrat, nor royalty :-)
I can't even keep a house plant alive, never mind grow veggies.

quote:

Coming back to the article, the second paragraph says it all.
I would like you however to tell me how 20 Maasai can live within the confines of 1 sq. km. or as stated in the article 30,000 of them squabbling over 1500 sq. kms.

I'm sure you would but unfortunately i have never been to Tanzania, never mind the area we are discussing.

quote:

The main reasons for keeping them out of the Loliondo corridor have been illustrated - it is basically a buffer zone to keep the hordes of humanity and domestic animals away from the park borders (a) to prevent 'mismanagement' of the land and (b) to prevent introduction of cattle-borne disease from afflicting wildlife.

I found no articles referring to this but i will look again now i know what it is you were referring to.

Now, for the sake of discussion let's say you are entirely right and that the Maasai have ruined the land and need to be moved on.

My questions would be :-

1. What will happen to the Maasai who are evicted? Will the government / hunting company help them?

2. If as the other thread states the land will take several years to bring back to the state it should be in :-
a) What will be done to the land to help it recover?
b) Will hunting commence straight away or will they wait the two years or so it takes for recovery?

I have more questions and concerns but lets not have a question and information overload here :-)

Just to get things straight:
Can we agree upon that the Maasai are not being evicted to make room for hunting?
They are being evicted to make room for wildlife.
The hunting has nothing to do with it but is a different matter.
Wildlife and hunting are a viable combination but wildlife and cattle are not. Bringing in hunting in the area between the Maasai and the park does two things, it protects the Maasai from the effects of the park and brings in money for management.

quote:

Originally posted by snowhound:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
With respect to animals being hunted for meat and trophy i have no problem providing that animal is sustainable.

I've yet to find any evidence that hunting pays the most for conservation but nor have i found evidence against that so i'll go with you on this one and say if true the bad has its good.

Then perhaps that is where we should start.

1. What is the greatest threat to a chosen species? Regulated hunting, unregulated hunting (bush meat), loss of habitat, other?

2. What does practical experience tell us about the solutions to these threats? What has been tried and how did it work?

Conservation is to important to let feelings get in the way of uncomfortable facts.

1. It is my belief that whilst some threats may be bigger to wildlife than others, it is the combination of them all that we should be looking at. The greatest threat removed does not automatically equate to the survival of a species.The lesser threats may easily equate to a higher offtake.

Every species also has different threats at different levels.

The lion for example :-
a) a much sought after trophy for hunters
b) thought to have medicinal value
c) a pest to farmers
d) has suffered loss of habitat
e) has suffered an increase in diseases
f) natural death
g) territorial fights

The elephant :-
a) a trophy for hunters
b) used for religious icons
c) has suffered loss of habitat
d) a pest to farmers
e) natural death

The rhino :-
a) a trophy for hunters
b) thought to have medicinal purpose
c) suffered a loss of habitat
d) natural death

I'm sure there are more i haven't listed but you get my gist.

2. Practical experience would tell me that so far nothing has worked with any great impact. Small areas have been improved but still the overall offtake of these animals places them in great danger.

quote:

Originally posted by snowhound:
Just to get things straight:
Can we agree upon that the Maasai are not being evicted to make room for hunting?
They are being evicted to make room for wildlife.
The hunting has nothing to do with it but is a different matter.
Wildlife and hunting are a viable combination but wildlife and cattle are not. Bringing in hunting in the area between the Maasai and the park does two things, it protects the Maasai from the effects of the park and brings in money for management.

No i don't agree. A hunting company has bought the lease on this land. It would not have purchased the land if hunting was not viable.

The hunting has everything to do with it and is not a different entity. We have already established over time that the hunting is the main priority and conservation secondary.

Wildlife and hunting may well be a viable combination in this area, time will tell. However it isn't protecting those Maasai being evicted is it?

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:


A hunting company has bought the lease on this land. It would not have purchased the land if hunting was not viable.

Really? You know this how? Can you show us a wildlife census study for the area?

If a totally poached out area has good feeder zones with abundant wildlife bordering it and poacher and other over use such as grazing is controlled the game will repopulate the area quite rapidly.

Here is an example for your reading pleasure.

JLB:

This very company has been leasing this area for almost 20 years!!

Leases on hunting concessions have a limit of 5 years with first option of renewal to the lessee.

There is no freehold on land in Tanzania - it belongs to the Government.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:


A hunting company has bought the lease on this land. It would not have purchased the land if hunting was not viable.

Really? You know this how? Can you show us a wildlife census study for the area?

If a totally poached out area has good feeder zones with abundant wildlife bordering it and poacher and other over use such as grazing is controlled the game will repopulate the area quite rapidly.

Here is an example for your reading pleasure.

Dambit Jim! Don't ya just hate it when facts get in the way of a good emotional argument!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:


A hunting company has bought the lease on this land. It would not have purchased the land if hunting was not viable.

Really? You know this how? Can you show us a wildlife census study for the area?

If a totally poached out area has good feeder zones with abundant wildlife bordering it and poacher and other over use such as grazing is controlled the game will repopulate the area quite rapidly.

Here is an example for your reading pleasure.

Dambit Jim! Don't ya just hate it when facts get in the way of a good emotional argument!

Maybe JLB would want to organize a fund raiser to pay for one of the boreholes mentioned in the article. I'm sure Andrew would be happy to name the spring in her honor and the game would relish a cool drink of water year round.

Originally posted by jolouburn:


A hunting company has bought the lease on this land. It would not have purchased the land if hunting was not viable.

Posted by Todd Williams

Really? You know this how? Can you show us a wildlife census study for the area?

If a totally poached out area has good feeder zones with abundant wildlife bordering it and poacher and other over use such as grazing is controlled the game will repopulate the area quite rapidly.


Todd,

I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify what it is in my original statement you are questioning.

Are you questioning that a hunting company has the lease on this land?
Are you questioning that hunting will be viable at some point?
Either one has been confirmed in this thread and the other Maasai eviction thread.

Or are you questioning that the company bought it for the purposes of hunting in the future?

If you are your article about a PH who brings the Royal Kafue back to health and then starts hunting on it is not really a way to convince me otherwise is it?

There is no doubting Andrew Baldry has done something wonderful there but i do not support lion hunting whilst the population is so unstable. So for me its a double edged sword, one side good, one side bad.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
JLB:

This very company has been leasing this area for almost 20 years!!

Leases on hunting concessions have a limit of 5 years with first option of renewal to the lessee.

There is no freehold on land in Tanzania - it belongs to the Government.

Ah so it was still them that tried unsucessfully to evict the Maasai previously.

Now, for the sake of discussion let's say you are entirely right and that the Maasai have ruined the land and need to be moved on.

Any chance of you answering the questions i asked before? I've reposted them below for your ease of answering.
If you don't know the answers, just say, i do.

My questions would be :-

1. What will happen to the Maasai who are evicted? Will the government / hunting company help them?

2. If as the other thread states the land will take several years to bring back to the state it should be in :-
a) What will be done to the land to help it recover?
b) Will hunting commence straight away or will they wait the two years or so it takes for recovery?

I have more questions and concerns but lets not have a question and information overload here :-)

quote:

Maybe JLB would want to organize a fund raiser to pay for one of the boreholes mentioned in the article. I'm sure Andrew would be happy to name the spring in her honor and the game would relish a cool drink of water year round.

It would be my pleasure to help raise money for bore holes except that it would be hypocritical to support a reserve with lion hunting.


I have said many times that i believe at least a temporary ban should be placed on lion hunting, the population is too low to withstand the offtake.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jolouburn:

...but unfortunately i have never been to Tanzania, never mind the area we are discussing.


So, in other words, you only know what your read and what others tell you. And could it be possible that some of what you read and what others tell you is said by people like yourself who have, in fact, never been to Tanzania or the Loliondo? Perhaps they have never seen the Masai, where and how they live, as well?

I have been to Tanzania, more than once, and Kenya as well. I have visited with the Masai and Samburu, spent time in both their permanent - a recent phenomena - and their true nomadic villages. I have been in their mud and dung huts and drank the blood and milk from their cattle - I am looking at one of their drinking gourds as I write this. I have traveled across the Masai Mara and the Serengeti plains and have crossed the Mara River and the border between Tanzania and Kenya, illegally as the Masai are allowed to do, while searching for and tracking the Wildebeest and Zebra migration. I have seen them with their cattle as they graze them in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) at the bottom of the crater. This is a UNESCO World Heritage Site but no one has ever given me a valid reason why the Masai are allowed to do this. I know the answer, but it is not, IMO, a valid one.

I believe the Masai to be a politically incredibly astute people who have the wealth to be influential and hire appropriate PR firms to handle their interests. They are well educated and consciously choose to live their traditional nomadic herdsman lifestyle. I like them, but I also know what uncontrolled nomadic grazing of free range cattle can do to the ecosystem if not managed correctly and that cattle and wildlife will not coexist together. The Masai, as has been pointed out, are also not inclined towards the preservation of the african Lion. Perhaps you could convince the Masai to ban Lion killing, but I doubt they'll listen to your drivel anymore than I.

I had a Masai once tell me that they believe they own all the cattle in the world. He went on to say he needed to visit Texas.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Originally posted by jolouburn:


A hunting company has bought the lease on this land. It would not have purchased the land if hunting was not viable.

Posted by Todd Williams

Really? You know this how? Can you show us a wildlife census study for the area?

If a totally poached out area has good feeder zones with abundant wildlife bordering it and poacher and other over use such as grazing is controlled the game will repopulate the area quite rapidly.


Todd,

I'm afraid you're going to have to clarify what it is in my original statement you are questioning.

Are you questioning that a hunting company has the lease on this land?
Are you questioning that hunting will be viable at some point?
Either one has been confirmed in this thread and the other Maasai eviction thread.

Or are you questioning that the company bought it for the purposes of hunting in the future?

If you are your article about a PH who brings the Royal Kafue back to health and then starts hunting on it is not really a way to convince me otherwise is it?

There is no doubting Andrew Baldry has done something wonderful there but i do not support lion hunting whilst the population is so unstable. So for me its a double edged sword, one side good, one side bad.

For all your criticism of Saeed and your perception of diminished English skills when driven by emotion then I have to wonder, are you drinking right now and confused, or has something other than emotion been the creation of this garbled post?

It was I, not Todd that authored the post you quoted and the article contained within.

As far as sustainable Lion off take at Royal Kafue specifically, Andrew had one Lion only on quota. I personally witnessed two other mature Males in the same hunting coalition I removed my Lion from.

The money spent on my Safari (plus later plains game/Buffalo Safaris) brought Royal Kafue to the stable financial ground the operation enjoyed at the end of 2012. At this point in time there is no legal hunting there due to the moratorium in Zambia.

Andrew is not only out of work as a PH, but in order to try and keep Royal afloat with continued staff including most importantly the anti-poaching patrols, he is using personal funds in the hope hunting returns to normal in 2013. He is also continuing to personally financially compensate the community of Kaindu for any cattle lost to Lions. He knows otherwise, without the revenue stream Lion hunting has brought the community, the locals will not tolerate the Lion in their back yard.

The leading Lion scientist with boots on the ground in Zambia believes well controlled offtake of Mature Male Lions to have no negative effect on the local population as long as they are not a pride holder.

You can paint with any broad brush your emotion dictates, you can even believe a PHD with primarily scholarship in the study of Clams (Dr. Kat) knows more that Dr. Paula White who studies only the African Lion in Zambia, that is your choice.

I will stick with the opinion of the accepted local Lion expert.

I am glad my hard earned money went to help with the creation of Royal Kafue and I am also glad to have experienced a successful Lion hunt and felt the gratitude of those locally that actually benefitted.

Jesus, guys, when are you going to stop feeding the troll and let this bullshit die??? you can never win a fact-based debate when the opponent is mired in emotion.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Jesus, guys, when are you going to stop feeding the troll

It's snowing pretty good here right now, I'm done working out, and I don't have a Facebook account.

quote:

For all your criticism of Saeed and your perception of diminished English skills when driven by emotion then I have to wonder, are you drinking right now and confused, or has something other than emotion been the creation of this garbled post?

It was I, not Todd that authored the post you quoted and the article contained within.

So i addressed my post to the wrong person, shit happens, sue me!!

quote:

Andrew is not only out of work as a PH, but in order to try and keep Royal afloat with continued staff including most importantly the anti-poaching patrols, he is using personal funds in the hope hunting returns to normal in 2013. He is also continuing to personally financially compensate the community of Kaindu for any cattle lost to Lions. He knows otherwise, without the revenue stream Lion hunting has brought the community, the locals will not tolerate the Lion in their back yard.

Why is Andrew out of work? Are you seriously trying to tell me that one lion kept him afloat and now that that lion is gone he has no work?

quote:

You can paint with any broad brush your emotion dictates, you can even believe a PHD with primarily scholarship in the study of Clams (Dr. Kat) knows more that Dr. Paula White who studies only the African Lion in Zambia, that is your choice.

Dr paula White only studies lion? Are you sure about that?

http://carnivoreconservation.info/

Paula White has studied and is currently studying other wildlife.

quote:

I will stick with the opinion of the accepted local Lion expert.

Your accepted lion expert.
Good for you, you have every right to do so.
Just as i have every right not to support the hunting of lions whilst they are in such a decline.

By the way i still have no idea what your original question was based on. So i'll ask again

Are you questioning that a hunting company has the lease on this land?
Are you questioning that hunting will be viable at some point?
Either one has been confirmed in this thread and the other Maasai eviction thread.

Or are you questioning that the company bought it for the purposes of hunting in the future?

Lionhunter,

quote:

So, in other words, you only know what your read and what others tell you. And could it be possible that some of what you read and what others tell you is said by people like yourself who have, in fact, never been to Tanzania or the Loliondo? Perhaps they have never seen the Masai, where and how they live, as well

Yep and that is why instead of believing everything i read i come here and ask questions and quite often get some pretty good replies which alter my perception of things.

quote:

I believe the Masai to be a politically incredibly astute people who have the wealth to be influential and hire appropriate PR firms to handle their interests.

Let's be honest here everyone says this about those who oppose in hunting.
'Hunters have deep pockets'
'Antis have deep pockets'
'The maasai have deep pockets'

According to people in a hunting debate every tom,dick and harry has deep pockets!

quote:

Perhaps you could convince the Masai to ban Lion killing, but I doubt they'll listen to your drivel anymore than I.

And there we were getting on so well, shame on you.

Seriously, thank you for your post. It is nice to hear from someone who has actually spent time with the maasai.

Jerry-

Although I usually do ignore her, I just got incensed when she admitted she hasn't even been to Tanzania! The unmitigated gall of this woman!

Yes, she qualifies as a troll, but Saeed tolerates her because he enjoys the conflict she entices and that her silly statements expose her cult-think for what it is.

JoJo - Who says the Masai oppose hunting? Don't believe that is the case. What they are objecting to is being evicted from traditional grazing land. The Masai were traditionally Lion hunters of great skill and each young man was required to track and kill a Lion using only his spear, sword and club as his ascension to adulthood. That changed sometime ago so that a group of young Masai men would hunt and kill one Lion. Even the Masai realized the need for Lion conservation!

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

quote:

Originally posted by snowhound:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
With respect to animals being hunted for meat and trophy i have no problem providing that animal is sustainable.

I've yet to find any evidence that hunting pays the most for conservation but nor have i found evidence against that so i'll go with you on this one and say if true the bad has its good.

Then perhaps that is where we should start.

1. What is the greatest threat to a chosen species? Regulated hunting, unregulated hunting (bush meat), loss of habitat, other?

2. What does practical experience tell us about the solutions to these threats? What has been tried and how did it work?

Conservation is to important to let feelings get in the way of uncomfortable facts.

1. It is my belief that whilst some threats may be bigger to wildlife than others, it is the combination of them all that we should be looking at. The greatest threat removed does not automatically equate to the survival of a species.The lesser threats may easily equate to a higher offtake.

Every species also has different threats at different levels.

The lion for example :-
a) a much sought after trophy for hunters
b) thought to have medicinal value
c) a pest to farmers
d) has suffered loss of habitat
e) has suffered an increase in diseases
f) natural death
g) territorial fights

The elephant :-
a) a trophy for hunters
b) used for religious icons
c) has suffered loss of habitat
d) a pest to farmers
e) natural death

The rhino :-
a) a trophy for hunters
b) thought to have medicinal purpose
c) suffered a loss of habitat
d) natural death

I'm sure there are more i haven't listed but you get my gist.

2. Practical experience would tell me that so far nothing has worked with any great impact. Small areas have been improved but still the overall offtake of these animals places them in great danger.

Do you suggest that the decrease in lions during the last 50 years is largely due to hunting?
Hint

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:

Are you questioning that a hunting company has the lease on this land?
Are you questioning that hunting will be viable at some point?
Either one has been confirmed in this thread and the other Maasai eviction thread.

Or are you questioning that the company bought it for the purposes of hunting in the future?

Three answers in order.

No

Unknown, but if properly managed there is precedent for success.

No

Quid Pro Quo....

Do you think it is better for the wildlife on that Tanzania land to have Grazing Cattle and goats present that offer disease and deplete the grazing (needed by the wildlife) or to have well controlled hunting and anti poaching patrols?

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:


Why is Andrew out of work? Are you seriously trying to tell me that one lion kept him afloat and now that that lion is gone he has no work?

No, I'm seriously telling you that at this moment hunting on the Kaindu Trust Land is illegal thanks to a blanket moratorium on hunting in Zambia. In plain understandable English for you. No hunting, no work as PH.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Are you seriously trying to tell me that one lion kept him afloat

I really don't know what Royal Kafue's total gross revenues were in 2012 but my uneducated guess is that all the other hunts combined did not equal the financial reward to the Kaindu Community derived from my one 21 day Safari.

Absolutely amazing how utterly STUPID this bitch is. Guys, this is what we are up against. Very similar to the legislator in Denver this past week stating publicly that banning high capacity magazines would get them off the streets because they are ammo and once it is shot they will all disappear.

When, where, and HOW did it ever become the fashionable thing to claim liberals are the more educated of the ideologies. Must be that "repeat a lie often enough and it will become the truth" thing.

Jo,

You do realize that almost all of the current National Parks in Africa (non-hunting areas)at one time had indegenous people living on them. They were moved out (resettled) when the parks were formed.

465H&H

jolouburn - You are caught up in the mass hysteria of do-goodness that too many liberal organizations depend on. People supporting made-up "good causes" feel like they are doing something noble. The more they contribute, whether money time or talk, the more noble they feel. It all becomes one big group hug with a lot of patting one's self on the back. Meanwhile, those behind the scenes manipulating the stupid supporters get riches, power, or both.

Now about the Maasai -

Because of overgrazing, education, and western influence many Maasai have taken up agriculture. Others have moved to urban areas where they work in various jobs, trades and crafts. However, some Maasai maintain the traditional lifestyle. There is no Maasai government, Maasai organization or official Maasai hierarchy. The traditional Maasai live in family units. Their world is small and their thinking concerns today and not tomorrow. Nor do they consider the long term effects of what they do to the land.

Traditionally, their wealth is based on the number of cattle they own. They use the cattle for sustenance. The traditional diet consists primarily of a mix of milk and cattle blood. They bleed an animal (not enough to kill it) into a gourd then mix that with milk and consume it. But they maintain far more cattle than they need to survive. The greater the number of cattle a man owns the greater his wealth and status. As a result, more cattle than needed are grazed on more and more land. Because the Maasai only thinks of the here and now, he will take his cattle wherever he needs to keep his herd going and growing. If the grazing area becomes decimated by the practice he just takes the herd elsewhere till that area becomes decimated. Various groups with different herds compete for whatever they can take in the way of grazing. There is no large scale coordination or organized effort nor concern regarding conservation or long term adverse effects of what they are doing.

Contrary to popular belief, the Maasai are not the indigenous people of East Africa. Forced out by the expansion of the desert, the Maasai migrated south to Kenya from North Africa in the middle of the 15th century. As the years went by, the Maasai population grew further south. They reached Tanzania in the late 1800s. As they expanded their range, the Maasai displaced the true indigenous peoples they encountered by killing them and/or running them off. The Maasai believe that all of the cattle on earth belong to them. They stole all the cattle from the people they conquered. By end of their migration and expansion, the Maasai had taken almost all of the Rift Valley and adjacent land from Mount Marsabit to Dodoma. To say that the Maasai are the traditional people of Kenya would be like saying Europeans are the traditional people of North America, both arrived in the 15th century. To say the Maasai are the traditional people of Tanzania would be like saying the French are the traditional people of Tahiti. Both arrived around the end of the 19th century.

So let's be clear about what is going on. The Maasai represent approximately 0.7% of the populations of Kenya and Tanzania. They are invaders who arrived in recent history, and a bloody history of invasion it was. Since their arrival, the Maasai population has grown till their destructive lifestyle can no longer be supported by their environment. Blocking Maasai access to land so it can return to its original state, including both vegetation and wildlife, is a good effort. It is equivalent to setting aside the USA National Forests, Yellowstone and other National Parks, and most of the BLM land the USA sets aside for managed use. The governments of both Kenya and Tanzania have been trying to minimize the effect on the Maasai. The Maasai's territorial expansion and overgrazing of lands they seized had to stop at some point and a sensible rollback makes good sense for the environment and the remaining 99.3% of the people of Tanzania and Kenya.

But Maasai wear bright colors, live in cow dung huts, smile, dance, and make a good subject for the kind hearted and well meaning ignorant westerners who finance NGOs.

Regarding your sarcastic quote:

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
It is nice to hear from someone who has actually spent time with the maasai.

Well I have. Have you?

Why don't you choose something you know about when you decide you're going to condemn righteous actions as damnable?

Otherwise - Quit yer bitchin

~

Jo,

I have asked you this question several times before, and you seem to conveniently forget it.

How much money have YOU donated to ANY conservation cause In Africa?

How much has lionaid donated to African conservation?

Where do Masai tolerate lions amongst their cattle?

And lastly, where did the pork chop you had for lunch yesterday come from?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Where do Masai tolerate lions amongst their cattle?

We know the answer to that. Moreover, lion killing was a right of passage for Maasai men. Lion killing still remains an important part of Maasai culture.

quote:

Why do the Maasai warriors hunt lions?

The Maasai tribe sees lion hunting experience as a sign of bravery and personal achievement. In the past, when the lion population was high, the community encouraged solo lion hunting. However, over the last ten years, due to the decline of the lion population, mainly because of rabies and canine distemper virus, the community has adapted a new rule that encourages warriors to hunt in groups instead of solo lion hunt. Group hunting, known in Maasai as olamayio, gives the lion population a chance to grow.