- The Washington Times - Wednesday, April 25, 2007


For the farmers of Kenya, life is a constant contest for grass and water between their herds and the wild animals that share the land.

Now they are waging a new struggle, this time against the international animal-welfare lobby. Pleading poverty, the farmers want to open their land to wealthy fee-paying hunters. The advocacy groups are firmly opposed.

The standoff has made Kenya the latest and perhaps most dramatic arena for the international debate over hunting and its role in financing conservation.

One million tourists a year spend more than $580 million to see and photograph lions, elephants, gazelle and other wildlife in this East African country. But the revenue isn’t enough to protect the animals.

Only 8 percent of land in Kenya — a country twice the size of Nevada — is set aside for wildlife. The rest is privately or communally owned, and studies show that most of Kenya’s wild animals live there.

By some estimates, wildlife numbers have dropped 60 percent since the mid-1970s and continue to plummet because of human encroachment and illegal hunting for food.

Landowners say they can continue to maintain animal sanctuaries only if they can sell hunting rights. No one is suggesting killing endangered species or hunting in protected areas. Only common animals on private land would be hunted — in a controlled way that would sustain their numbers, advocates say.

“The losses we are getting from livestock predation — or even medical bills for people who have been injured by elephants, buffaloes and lions — is quite high,” said Yusuf Ole Petenya, secretary of the Shompole Community Trust, a tribal foundation in animal-rich southern Kenya.

The trust opened a luxury wildlife lodge to help lift Mr. Petenya’s Maasai clan out of poverty, but “it’s not working,” he said, because the cost of conservation outstrips the profits from tourism.

Kenya has poor health care, low education levels and a government that barely functions outside of the capital, Nairobi. There is no money to buy land or pay people to protect wildlife. Kenya banned sport hunting in 1977 but allowed limited hunting to cull animals and harvest game meat until 2003, when animal rights groups managed to stop all hunting.

Now Kenya’s government has reopened the debate over hunting by setting up an advisory group to thrash out the pros and cons. In favor are hunting groups such as Safari Club International. Opposed are the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Born Free Foundation and ActionAid International.

James Isiche, the East Africa director for IFAW, said his organization seeks a blanket ban on what it calls “consumptive use of wildlife.”

“I don’t think bringing back hunting … will enhance wildlife management,” said Mr. Isiche. “If you look at wildlife from the point of view that wildlife can bring in money, you begin to get into trouble.”

Mr. Isiche, a member of the government advisory committee on hunting, agrees that land is dwindling and wildlife is suffering. But he said the answer is for donors to buy more land for conservation, strictly limit development in rural areas, and compensate people for losses caused by wildlife. He concedes that funding for this is scarce.

Opposing him is Andrew Enniskillen, also a Kenyan and a leader among private landowners. He has combined land rehabilitation, wildlife conservation and commercial cattle breeding on his ranch on Lake Naivasha. He says the wildlife corridor that he provides to a nearby national park is costing him money and the resulting boom in the zebra population is destroying his ranch.

A zebra drinks four times as much water as a cow.

If he can’t profit from the wildlife on his property, “then my operation cannot be sustained,” Mr. Enniskillen said.

He said revenue from hunting would provide more money for conservation and help fight the poaching problem. When hunting was allowed, he said, he could control the zebra population by hiring a hunter to kill up to 100 a year and sell the skins and meat.

Farms such as Mr. Enniskillen’s once employed anti-poaching patrols using hunting income, but he no longer can afford to pay them. Some organizations estimate that as much as 30 percent of the meat consumed in Kenya is from wild animals such as gazelle, zebra and buffalo.

Hunting “has to be scientific — what we take off must be ethically done and minimize the suffering of the animal,” he said.

He could make more money by using his land for housing, but if all landowners did that, wildlife “would be virtually exterminated outside the protected areas in five years,” Mr. Enniskillen argued. “National parks will become zoos.”

The involvement of international nonprofit organizations in the debate has bred resentment among some.

“It is not appropriate for foreigners to tell us what kind of laws or policies we should have,” said Mr. Petenya of the Shompole Community Trust in southern Kenya.

But IFAW had revenues of more than $89 million last year and donates millions to Kenya, which entitles it to advise the government on policy, Mr. Isiche said.

At a ceremony in November, where IFAW donated $150,000 toward protecting elephants, Vice President Moody Awori insisted that the government would maintain the hunting ban, no matter what an advisory panel determined.

Mr. Petenya questioned whether the anti-hunting lobby’s donors fully understand the consequences.

“We want our friends to continue donating their money,” Mr. Petenya said. But “it doesn’t make sense that someone from Connecticut can come here and say to me: ‘Let me show you how to conserve wildlife,’ when my people have managed this land since time immemorial.”

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide