Saving the Game

Copyright (c) 2000 by Mike Resnick.
Reprinted with permission

There was a time, not so long ago, when Africa was described as "islands of men in an ocean of animals."

No longer.

These days Africa is a few islands of animals in an ever increasing ocean of men.

And if this beautiful wilderness that I have visited so often is to be preserved for future generations to experience and enjoy, it's time to properly pinpoint the problem and unflinchingly apply the only solution that will be effective.

And Africa is running out of time. More than ten million African elephants were killed in the 20th century; less than half a million remain. Rhinos, which were abundant just 30 years ago,
are now the most endangered large species in the world. The quagga, which roamed the South African plains by the millions in 1700, was extinct by 1900 and is unknown to almost everyone in 2000.

The problem is unique to Africa. In America, we encourage hunting because without it, millions of deer would starve to death each winter. But America has killed off almost all its wild predators, so there is nothing but gunfire to hold the deers' numbers in check.

This is not the case with Africa, which abounds with predators. Also, starvation is Nature's harsh but efficient means of keeping animal numbers in balance. For example, it is the destiny of every African elephant that survives predation as an infant and poaching as an adult to starve to death: during its life it will develop six sets of teeth, and when the final set is worn out, it will be unable to chew the 600 pounds of food it needs each and every day, and it will die of starvation. And of course, the annual drought will kill large numbers of animals by starvation and thirst -- but within a relatively short amount of time, their numbers are back in balance.

Well, then, is it hunting that has caused the crisis?

No. Hollywood and Hemingway to the countrary, Africa was never overrun by hunters. Hunting was an exclusive and very expensive pasttime, and licensed hunters killed so few animals, given the number that existed, as to make almost no difference. Besides, if a particular species was in short supply in a given country, then that country would simply not issue a license for it, and would maintain its Protected status until its numbers had
increased.

Poaching? Well, yes, poaching _has_ made a huge difference. Take Kenya, for example. President Jomo Kenyatta outlawed huntingin 1977. At that time, there were 170,000 elephants and 70,000 black rhinos in Kenya. Just twelve years later, there were 12,000
elephants and 428 black rhinos -- and not a single one had been killed legally in the interrim. National parks like Mount Elgon had to be closed periodically so the piles of rotting elephant carcasses could be removed.

The situation was no better in neighboring Tanzania. That country was (and is) so poor that the game rangers not only were years behind on their pay, but were forced to patrol the parks with empty World War II rifles -- empty because the government literally could not afford bullets. (Yes, I've seen that with my own eyes.) Pitted against them were highly trained, well-financed gangs of poachers carrying AK-47s and M-16s, and their guns had bullets.

Uganda? Idi Amin destroyed his country's economy to the point that his army invaded the game parks and shot anything that moved, just to feed itself -- and it was a large and hungry army.

The same type of thing occurred the length and width of Africa -- so yes, poaching certainly cut deeply into the numbers, especially of the two species I just mentioned.

But you know what? Animals can recover from poaching. In the decade since the C.I.T.E.S. Treaty was signed, making the sale of ivory illegal throughout the world, Kenya's elephant population has increased from 12,000 to 21,000. It will never reach its former numbers again, but that is only because there is no longer enough empty land in Kenya for 170,000 elephants.

And that is the problem. Animals can come back from poaching. They can come back from disease. They can come back from drought. They can come back from over-predation.

But they cannot come back from habitat destruction and/or loss of habitat.

Africa is undergoing a war right now. No, not a shooting war. A philosophic war: which is more important -- men or animals?

Easy answer. Men are more important.

Therefore, should the land be used by men or animals?

Same answer. Men are more important.

And Africa is running out of land. For better or worse, the continent has the highest population growth of any in the world. Kenya, which numbered 6 million at independence in 1963, now has 29 million -- an increase of almost 500% in less than 40 years. Malawi is growing even faster. Nigeria, which is barely bigger than Ohio, will have more people than the United States by 2030.

And if that isn't enough, there is the matter of the cattle. Most rural Africans view cattle as currency, and keep as many as they can. The problem is that cattle are not native to most of
Africa, and they destroy wildlife habitat as surely as growing crops does. Put a pair of impala or Thomsen's gazelles on an acre that has a water source, come back in ten years, and a small herd will be thriving; put a cow or goat on that same acre, come back the next day, and the acre will be denuded of grass and nothing will ever grow there again.

What kind of numbers are we talking about? Well, Botswana has a population of just over a million people. The "national herd" of cattle numbers almost four million. The problem? 85% of Botswana is the Kalahari Desert; the cattle are destroying what's left of it.

So how do we preserve the animals? How do we convince a local tribe notto farm the land, but to let elephants and lions and buffalo and impala live on it, unmolested, when the tribe's standard of living is among the lowest in the world?

Tourism is not the answer. Yes, tourists bring hard currency, but most of it goes to the lodges and tented camps, the tour operators, and the hotels in the major cities where the safaris start and finish. Such minimal money as the tourists spend on the game parks -- entrance fees and the like -- usually wends its way into the corrupt pockets of government officials. Meanwhile, the local tribe watches disgustedly as the tourists turn a savannah into a dust bowl by excessive use of 4-wheel-drive vehicles. (So don't use them excessively, you say? Then you won't produce enough income, at a couple of dollars a day for the park entrance fees, to even pay for the rangers and caretakers, let alone the local tribe which is being told not to graze its cattle, which are central to their existance, on the lush grasses that are reserved for the gazelles and elands which have absolutely no value to them.)

There is only one answer. It is a controversial one, just as it is controversial in America (although it is practiced for totally different reasons) -- but wherever it has been tested, it
has worked.

It will seem paradoxical on the surface of it, but Africa can preserve its wildlife only by reinstituting hunting in all those countries that have banned it with the best of intentions and the worst of results.

Why?

Simple. For wildlife to continue to exist, you must prove to the local inhabitants that the land is worth more as a wildlife habitat than as farmland or grazing land for their cattle. You can't do it with arguments about art and beauty and obligation to future generations -- not when they're living in grass huts, going hungry as often as not, and living in a country where the per capita income even among city dwellers is less than a dollar a day. You can't do it by promising that the government will use a major portion of the tourists' revenues to take care of them, because this is contary to their experience. You can't do it by telling them to get rid of their cattle, because the cattle are an integral part of their culture. You can't do it by explaining their country's need for hard currency; their own need is too much greater.

But you can do it by explaining that this elephant -- when he's killed on license -- will pay for a local hospital. That lion, stuffed and mounted, is worth three more rooms on the schoolhouse, and maybe another teacher as well. This kudu will pay for a pump to bring water from the river. Kill them yourself or drive them away and they're worth nothing to you -- but let an American or a Brit or a German shoot them...well, now you're talking about something meaningful.

The safari company will still make money. The lodge will make money. The government will tack on all kinds of taxes for bringing weapons into the country. You'll even bring back an industry -- taxidermy -- that's all but dead.

But they license money will go to the local tribe. How much to shoot an elephant? $20,000. A lion? $12,000. A sable antelope? A kudu? A Cape buffalo? $5,000.

Now, tourism never put $20,000 into any tribe's treasury. Nor did arguments about the glories of nature. But at the same time, neither did any crop they'll grow and sell on the same ground that one elephant or four buffalo will use.

Is a lion becoming a pest? Did he kill a calf? Don't call the game department. Call the local safari company, and charge them $12,000 for the privilege of practicing pest control. An elephant walked through your garden? Make a deal. Okay, he's not the greatest trophy animal anyone ever saw...but for $13,000 instead of $20,000 he's yours -- and the tribe will settle for a new X-ray machine in the old hospital rather than a new hospital itself. At least, they'll settle for it until the next elephant hunter comes down the pike.

Is this just theory?

Not at all. I've spent a lot of time in Africa, and I've seen it for myself.

Kenya banned hunting. They've got less than a quarter of the animals they had 20 years ago, and their game department is financially strapped.

Botswana allowed selective hunting. Their Chobe Park alone has over 75,000 elephants, so many that they're actually going to have to cull some on control, even though they can't sell the ivory to pay for the culling. Fortunately, they've made so much from hunting concessions that the game department doesn't need the money fropm the ivory.

One disclaimer: I am not a hunter. I have no interest in hunting. If hunting is re-introduced, I will not take advantage of it. I'm simply pointing out, coldly and rationally, what needs to be done.

So just as the nature documentaries on PBS and the Discovery Channel are always saying --"Some must die so that others might live" -- the very same principle will work, indeed is the onlything that will work, if Africa wants to have any more wildlife than Boston or Baltimore by the midpoint of our new century.

-end-