At the Hand of Man : Peril and Hope for Africa's Wildlife

Rating:
Summary: On target for support of culling and trophy hunting...
Review: ...off target scientifically and economically. Raymond Bonner, a well respected investigative journalist lived in Kenya for a few years in the early 1990's and he uncovered something. He says that much of the tourism revenue derived from safaris and visits to the big game parks such as Masaai Mara, Tsavo, Amboseli, Serengeti, Kruger, and Etosha was not benefiting the locals in the immediate areas. Further he came to see the dichotomy between how most Westerners view wildlife and how Africans do. Our view is colored by the romantic writings of Dinesen and Markham, and the adventurous hunting life enjoyed by Hemingway. Africans on the other hand see wildlife either as food or something to run away from. He's spot on with the reaction of a typical Kenyan toto who has been taught very early in life that "elephants are bad" because "they kill me." One star to Mr Bonner for his accurate assessment of the inadequacies of tourism development plans and programs for the environmental education of children in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. The book gets another star for its exposure of the cultural biases and narrow self-interest that oftentimes politicizes organizations such as the WWF - the world's largest conservation agency - the World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly the World Wildlife Fund). However Mr Bonner runs out of stars and a persuasive argument when he proposes that it is AT THE HAND OF MAN (read Western white man and his do-good conservation ethics) that there is the greatest threat for the future of Africa's wildlife.

Mr Bonner is strongly opposed to the ban on ivory and he supports culling of elephant herds. Although he is eloquent in saying that he "can't understand" how someone would wish to hunt elephants or other big game, it is obvious from his arguments that he doesn't understand the close connection between culling and trophy hunting. I intend to deal with the book on it's scientific and economic arguments alone, and stay away from polarizing political ideology that sees everything as either cultural or science warfare. (I'm actually quite surprised that this book has not featured more in the debates as it is well written and Bonner certainly isn't shy in offering his opinion). Recent scientific work on the complexity of elephant social life and family structure, particularly the dominant role played by the matriarch, tends to undermine the scientific value of culling. Studies have shown that in times when overpopulation causes degradation of the environment (the main reason for culling) the matriarch utilizes a natural population-regulating system. She simply leads a group of female elephants away from the males in the herd to their eventual demise. Also man-made contraceptives that last for up to a year are now proving somewhat successful. On the economic front, wheras it's true that tourism revenues have not made much contribution due to corruption, mismanagement, or use for things other than community development, this is a double-edged sword argument. There is sufficient evidence to show that the revenues earned from the sale of culled elephant ivory (prior to the international ban) was not going to locals either. Further, when the ban was temporarily lifted in 1997, there was a concomitant increase in poaching. As for the income earned where trophy hunting is allowed as part of a culling process as in South Africa; let's just say "show me the money"! is probably the best analysis. Most of the money does not go to fees paid in Africa but in fact never even leaves the US. The majority is paid to the big US game hunting outfits that equip and organize the African hunting trips.

This book is a genuine attempt by a Westerner, who having lived in Africa, comes to some understanding of the gap between what we think about the continent and what it's really like and seeks to put his insights into words. It's also more than that. It is the work of a bright investigative journalist using his skills to expose some of the complexities of wildlife management and the biases that attend it. Unfortunately the book didn't stop there, it's still more. It's political. Bonner himself makes it so. "It was natural for me to take up this cause. I am a liberal, and a former public interest lawyer; I was a vegetarian for a period in the seventies and still eat very little meat, and I have been opposed to commercial whaling and cutting down forests." Oops there it is! Let the wars begin! and Bonner will desevedly get hit by both sides. Liberals will strike first slamming Bonner for saying that vegetarianism is a qualifying criteria for Liberalism! Conservatives will also go on the attack, when after reading the book, they realize that his real sympathies lie with them, and he makes a hash out of arguments they could defend. Everybody, fire away!