Is anybody familiar with the Bhejane Trust and the work they do in Zimbabwe?

It appears to be a good operation that is neither pro-hunting nor anti-hunting but is definitely pro-conservation.

http://www.bhejanetrust.org/


From their newsletter:

http://www.bhejanetrust.org/Ne...L15_Newsletters.html

PUTTING CECIL INTO PERSPECTIVE
There was a media storm around the illegal hunting of Cecil the Lion which took everyone by surprise
at the volume and intensity of it. Then came the false rumour on Jericho, which created another media
frenzy. With the hype now dying down, it is time to take a look at some of the good and the bad that
has come out of this whole saga.
1) THE GOOD
a. Exposed corrupt hunting practices in Zimbabwe – conservationists and ethical hunters
have long complained about the corrupt and unethical practices of a few operators in
Zimbabwe. The issue of Cecil has finally brought them to light, and hopefully the
hunting industry will get a major cleanup, and Parks will realize that they have a duty
to fully enforce the law, as failure to so to date has allowed the problem to blow up.
b. National Parks have come out with an immediate and forceful reaction, and have
vowed to clean up the illegal elements in the hunting sector. Parks are now realizing
(as we all are) the power of the social media and have been quick to react to the
problem.
c. Landowners abusing their land rights have been exposed and hopefully will either
lose the land or have a full hunting ban imposed on them. This will send out a strong
signal to any other transgressors.
d. Has highlighted the value of the research work being undertaken by WILDCRU, and
similar research units, and hopefully highlights the need to support all those striving
to keep our Parks functional.
e. Publicity for Zimbabwe – under the theory all publicity is good publicity, but the
incident has brought much attention to the wildlife situation in Zimbabwe. The influx
of journalists visiting Victoria Falls and Hwange, and seeing for themselves the true
wildlife situation on the ground and interacting with Parks staff, conservationists and
hunters can only be beneficial for the country.
f. It has brought together the photo operators, hunting operators, NGO’s and National
Parks with a spirit of cooperation not seen for a while.


2) THE BAD
a. Cecil has portrayed the hunting industry in a bad light, and this might lead to a hunting
ban. Although this will be great news to many, the reality on the ground is a funding
replacement need to be found if hunting is to be stopped, otherwise a destitute Parks will
not be able to function in the current hunting areas, and it will open the door to massive
poaching, both commercial and subsistence, which will eliminate far more animals then
hunting ever would. This is the harsh reality and could precipitate a wildlife disaster far
greater the anything seem so far
b. People trying to cash in on it – I do not agree with people or organisations trying to cash
in on the demise of Cecil. WILDCRU have deservedly benefitted, but not through trying
to cash in, but as an unintentional spin-off. There is no problem with genuine
conservation bodies benefitting from those who wish to help, but some dubious “fund
raisers” have reared their heads with schemes including golf days, engraved cell phones,
statues, etc which might not benefit the proposed intended target!
c. Power of media – the media frenzy which surrounded this story took everyone by
surprise, and has showed up the power of the social media as never seen before, but it has
also highlighted how this could be very dangerous if misplaced – it can be judgemental
and damming, and ruin lives.
d. Publicity for Zimbabwe – this issue has highlighted some of Zimbabwe’s hunting
practices in a poor light but I think overall the publicity, with Parks strong reaction, has
been good rather then bad.


As a follow up, at a couple of meetings held between Safari Operators, Hunting Operators, various
NGO’s and wildlife bodies, National Parks and the Ministry of Environment, the following major
points were agreed to :
a) Photo safari operators support hunting operators provided a Code of Conduct and ethics are
adhered to
b) Parks agreed there will be no more “quota swopping” tolerated
c) Parks agreed there will be no more commercial hunting in any Park
d) The issue of hunting bans and buffer zones around Hwange to be finalized – a deadline of one
week given to resolve these issues
e) Clients names and identities to be protected at all costs in future

Looks very well balanced!

quote:

e) Clients names and identities to be protected at all costs in future

This if it happens will restore a lot of good faith!



.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

2) THE BAD
b. People trying to cash in on it – I do not agree with people or organisations trying to cash
in on the demise of Cecil. WILDCRU have deservedly benefitted, but not through trying
to cash in, but as an unintentional spin-off. There is no problem with genuine
conservation bodies benefitting from those who wish to help, but some dubious “fund but some dubious “fund
raisers” have reared their heads with schemes including golf days, engraved cell phones,
statues, etc which might not benefit the proposed intended target!
.


As a follow up, at a couple of meetings held between Safari Operators, Hunting Operators, various
NGO’s and wildlife bodies, National Parks and the Ministry of Environment, the following major
points were agreed to :
a) Photo safari operators support hunting operators provided a Code of Conduct and ethics are
adhered to
b) Parks agreed there will be no more “quota swopping” tolerated
c) Parks agreed there will be no more commercial hunting in any Park
d) The issue of hunting bans and buffer zones around Hwange to be finalized – a deadline of one
week given to resolve these issues
e) Clients names and identities to be protected at all costs in future

Some good thoughts in the paper.


Any paper that attempts to "Out" Johnny Rodriguez as corrupt is a good paper however. Wonder what percent of the funds that ZCTF raises ever makes it into the field?

I do like the fact that they post photos of their work on Facebook. People can see where their money is being spent.

https://www.facebook.com/bhejanetrust

Their Facebook page has quite a few wing nuts on it, the typical armchair conservationist.

However the Trust itself seems to be balanced.

Trevor Lane is overall a good fellow. He may lean a little left from time to time but I think the good far out weighs the bad.

He is good friends with my good friend and PH Nigel Theisen.

Many people will remember Trevor Lane from years ago when he headed up NGAMO SAFARIS, a division of the Forestry Commission.

Bhejane Trust is one of the best of the local Zim conservation efforts. Exact opposite of ZCTF in terms of credibility and on the ground contribution.