Kenya: Sport Hunting Can't Be Justified


The Nation (Nairobi)

OPINION
8 May 2007
Posted to the web 7 May 2007

Richard Njeru
Nairobi

Those who favour hunting wildlife for sport obviously did not get an opportunity to read the September 2005 issue of National Geographic magazine that had Africa as its main point of focus.

The author, explaining why the large animals still exists in Africa, says: "Ironically, the long human presence in Africa is probably the reason the continent's species of big animals survive today.


African animals have co-existed with human beings for generations even when hunting skills progressed from rudimentary to the use of modern weapons that we have today. This has given man time to appreciate the importance and the difference between wild and domestic animals.

In contrast, the last few thousand years have seen a large influx of modern humans into the Americas and Australia. The big animals of those continents - the woolly mammoths, the sabre-toothed cats, and marsupials as big as rhinos disappeared soon after these humans arrived with entire species being exterminated..

It is these 'moderns' who are today clamouring to be allowed to shoot Africa's wildlife for sport. Where is the challenge and, or, thrill in shooting an animal?

It is also outrightly cruel and has no tangible reward other than for decorative purposes - perhaps to glue the stuffed head of the slaughtered beast on a wall, or perhaps to use the hide as a carpet or some other aesthetic aspect.

What those who are queuing for a shooting licence should be told is that if you really feel you need to shoot something, the cows, the goats and the sheep on your farm will do. And even then, we know that in many parts of the world, you cannot just kill any domestic animal at whim.

There are, in many countries, state sanctioned legal methods (and locations) for killing animals that are the only allowed methods of slaughter. So when the ethical and moral issues of killing of animals come into play then the conclusion obviously skews towards keeping the sport hunting ban.

Tourism menu

Various recent comments in the media have argued that we ought to add sport hunting to the tourism menu to 'diversify' our wildlife tourism experience, ostensibly because there's very good money in it. Or because the wildlife are a nuisance to the communities living near wildlife protected areas. But do you allow things just because someone is willing to pay you a good enough price?

Do we uproot our tea bushes and plant opium because it is more lucrative? And while the human-wildlife conflict is an important point, the solution certainly does not lie in allowing the shooting of the wildlife.

That evidence has been provided from some countries to show that wildlife numbers have risen exponentially since a re-introduction of sport hunting is to show that the benefits of other revenue steams such as tourism have not been properly exploited and, or, distributed.


Only poachers and trophy hunters can benefit from a lift on the shooting ban. One answer may lie in the practice of culling. But the jury is still out on this one and, perhaps, the best way to control animal populations is by relocation - there are many zoos and parks across the world that can be happy to receive the wildlife.

There was outcry when the Thai prime minister was supposed to receive animals for a zoo in his country early in the present administration's term. But actually, if the conditions under which they are kept are good there is scientific proof that animals in captivity live longer and better lives than those in the wild where they have to fend for their own food.

There is another angle to this issue. During the recent CITES meeting held in Nairobi, Kenya backed a 20 year extension of the ban in ivory trade. Which begs the question: what happens to the ivory from the jumbos that die of natural causes in the wild? What happens to the valuable hides from other animals that pass away in similar circumstances? The best direction is that trade in wildlife items ought to be controlled and the war against poachers and poaching be intensified.

Idiots.