Why Tanzania is doubling down on elephant hunting

Martin K.N Siele

Oct 8, 2024, 12:27am PDT

africaAfrica

Monicah Mwangi/Reuters

PostEmailWhatsappCopy link

Sign up for Semafor Africa: A rapidly-growing continent’s crucial stories. Read it now.Your Email addressSign Up

In this article:

The Scoop

Know More

Martin’s view

The View From Zimbabwe

Notable

Title icon

The Scoop

NAIROBI — Tanzanian authorities are keen on issuing more hunting permits despite mounting international pressure for the country to ban elephant trophy hunting in the areas surrounding its border with Kenya.

Legal killings of elephants for sport in northern Tanzania have risen over the last year prompting concerns over a dwindling elephant population. This has led to international conservationist groups calling for a ban on the hunting of cross-border elephants.

While elephant hunting is permitted in Tanzania, it has been illegal in Kenya since 1973. Elephants which roam freely between the border areas have traditionally been protected by a gentleman’s agreement between the two countries, but conservationists say this has been ignored in the past year.

AD

At least five elephants were legally targeted and killed by trophy hunters in northern Tanzania over the previous eight months, according to various conservation groups.

But, in a letter dated Sept. 18, seen by Semafor Africa, senior Tanzanian officials and researchers doubled down on allowing the hunting of elephants in the area. They cited human-wildlife conflicts and the economic benefits derived from hunting.

“Fourteen villagers in the Longido district and more than 500 acres of crops have been trampled,” it reads in part. “At the same time, trophy hunting brings in huge benefits, funding conservation, paying rangers’ salaries, and building water wells, schools and other critical infrastructure for the communities.”

AD

The letter’s authors, who include representatives of the Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority, Tanzania Hunting Operators Association and the MP for Longido, wrote that Tanzania has “transparent hunting regulation” geared towards protecting both wildlife and the communities living alongside them. It was addressed to the executive editor of Science Magazine.

The New York-based journal in June published a letter by more than 20 elephant biologists and conservationists calling for a stop to the hunting of elephants in the borderlands and a harmonized conservation strategy involving Kenya and Tanzania.

Title icon

Know More

The greater Amboseli-West Kilimanjaro elephant population, spanning both sides of the Kenya-Tanzania border, is made up of approximately 2,000 individual elephants. Around 600 are males, of which 10 are super tuskers — elephants whose tusks weigh over 100 pounds each or touch the ground.

AD

In their letter, Tanzanian officials criticized Science magazine for failing to publish various responses submitted by Tanzanian researchers to the call by conservationists to stop elephant hunting in northern Tanzania. They accused the magazine of discrimination.

“The original letter you published, written predominantly by white authors, none of whom come from Tanzania (many instead from the Global North), only told one side of the story,” they insisted.

In response Science magazine told Semafor Africa that it had received numerous letters in response to a published letter calling for an end to elephant hunting in Tanzania and would not have space to publish all but would be publishing a subset of them.

A spokeswoman for the magazine also pushed back at suggestions of discrimination. “The Science family of journals is very focused on elevating the voices and concerns of authors based in Africa, through efforts including research, commentary, and news.”

Title icon

Martin’s view

Unlike Kenya, Tanzania’s embrace of hunters has led to the development of a booming trophy hunting industry in the country. In 2022, Tanzania’s trophy hunting industry generated a reported 63.03 billion Tanzanian shillings ($23 million).

Earnings from hunting permits are a significant revenue source for the government. Hunting licenses cost around $60,000 a year, with additional fees for hunting elephants and lions.

Communities seriously affected by human-wildlife conflict could also be more likely to support hunting. However, the killings of elephants by hunters and the supposed economic benefits may not be sustainable in the long term. according to conservationists. They project that the remaining 10 super tuskers in the area could be dead in three years.

Kenya’s wildlife conservation strategy, anchored on tourism as opposed to trophy hunting, would also be affected by a dwindling elephant population in the famed Amboseli region. It is therefore important for authorities in both countries to devise effective joint strategies for conservation in the borderlands.

Title icon

The View From Zimbabwe

Authorities in Zimbabwe last month decided to cull up to 200 elephants to help feed local communities facing acute hunger after the country’s worst drought in four decades. It would be the country’s first elephant culling since 1988 and take place in Hwange, Mbire, Tsholotsho and Chiredzi districts. Authorities said the culling would help towards decongesting the country’s main parks which can only sustain 55,000 elephants but the country is home to 84,000.

Title icon

Notable

In April, the president of Botswana threatened to send 20,000 elephants to Germany in a dispute over conservation, reported the BBC.

Police hunt suspect who shot and killed 2-year-old sea lion lying on California beach

Police are offering a reward of up to $20,000 for information about the suspect.

ByJon Haworth ABCNews logo

Thursday, October 10, 2024 10:01AM

Sea lion fatally shot on Orange County beach

about:blank

A California sea lion was fatally shot on Bolsa Chica State Beach in Orange County, and a reward is now being offered to find the person responsible.

Federal officials are hunting for a suspect who they say shot and killed a 2-year-old sea lion while it was lying on a California beach, authorities said.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement is now offering a reward of up to $20,000 after the incident — which took place at Bolsa Chica State Beach in Orange County, California, on Aug. 7 — when the male California sea lion was found injured but alive between lifeguard stations 22 and 23 with a “fresh gunshot wound in its back,” according to a statement from the NOAA released on Wednesday.

“The Pacific Marine Mammal Center in Orange County rescued the male sea lion, but it died from its injuries the following day,” NOAA officials said.

Law enforcement is now actively seeking information on the person who shot the animal and any other details surrounding its shooting.

“The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits the harassment, hunting, capturing, or killing of sea lions and other marine mammals,” officials said. “However, the law allows for non-lethal methods to deter marine mammals from damaging private property, including fishing gear and catch, if it does not injure or kill an animal.”

Like all marine mammals, the California sea lion is protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act which has helped their population to continue increasing since at least 1975, after protections were put in place under the MMPA.

“California sea lions are easy to view in the wild, but this puts them at higher risk of human-related injuries and death. Feeding or trying to feed them is harmful and illegal, because it changes their natural behaviors and makes them less wary of people and vessels,” the NOAA said. “They learn to associate humans with an easy meal and change their natural hunting practices-for example, they take bait catch directly off fishing gear. Sometimes they fall victim to retaliation (such as shooting) by frustrated boaters and fishermen.”

Anyone with information about the sea lion shooting should call NOAA’s 24/7 enforcement hotline at (800) 853-1964.

Carbon removal no solution if world overshoots warming target, scientists say

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/carbon-removal-no-solution-if-world-overshoots-warming-target-scientists-say/ar-AA1rYeSN?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ENTPSP&cvid=da65ea348fb448f7bf11af0668db399f&ei=21

Reuters

Follow

898.4K Followers

Story by David Stanway

 • 35m • 2 min read

FILE PHOTO: Smog is seen in this general view of the Upper Silesian Industrial Region from Bedzin, near Katowice, Poland, December 5, 2018. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel/File Photo

FILE PHOTO: Smog is seen in this general view of the Upper Silesian Industrial Region from Bedzin, near Katowice, Poland, December 5, 2018. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel/File Photo© Thomson Reuters

By David Stanway

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Even greater efforts to strip carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will fail to avert climate change catastrophe as rising global temperatures threaten to cross a key threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), scientists said on Wednesday.Kizik Women's Athens - Lilac 5.5 / Standard | Kizik Hands-Free Shoes | Step In Shoes | Slip On Shoes

Kizik StoreKizik Women’s Athens – Lilac 5.5 / Standard | Kizik Hands-Free Shoes | Step In Shoes | Slip On Shoes

Ad

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said carbon dioxide removal (CDR) could help slow warming by reducing greenhouse gas already accumulated in the atmosphere, and even temperatures, especially if 1.5 C is exceeded.

However, even if removing carbon dioxide works, it can do nothing to mitigate other aspects of climate change, from sea level rises to changes in ocean circulation, scientists said in research published in the journal Nature on Wednesday.

“Even if you’ve brought temperatures back down again, the world we will be looking at will not be the same,” said Carl-Friedrich Schleussner of Austria’s International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, one of the paper’s authors.

The research showed cutting temperatures from their peak could also prove harder than anticipated even if CDR is scaled up, particularly as melting permafrost and shrinking peatlands release methane and drive further warming.Related video: The world’s first farm of mechanical CO2 absorbing trees (Innovative Techs)

about:blank

Loaded: 3.99%Play

Current Time 0:00

/

Duration 5:00Quality SettingsCaptionsFullscreen

Innovative Techs

The world’s first farm of mechanical CO2 absorbing treesUnmute

0

View on Watch

CDR refers to a range of techniques that extract and store away CO2 already in the atmosphere, including natural solutions such as forests and ocean algae, as well as new technologies that filter carbon dioxide from the air.

Existing CDR capacity takes about 2 billion metric tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere every year, but that figure must rise to about 7 billion to 9 billion tons to meet the world’s climate goals, a separate research report said in June.

Yet there are limits to how much new forest can be planted and how much CO2 can be permanently sequestered, while current technologies are expensive, said Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College London, another co-author of the paper in Nature.

“If we are starting to use land exclusively for carbon management, this can strongly conflict with the other important roles of land, be it biodiversity (or) food production,” he told a briefing.The Hyundai Palisade SUV Costs Next To Nothing (Take A Look)

VyagerThe Hyundai Palisade SUV Costs Next To Nothing (Take A Look)

Ad

Even the most optimistic emissions reduction scenario in the IPCC’s latest assessment report, published last year, factored in the possibility of a small overshoot of 0.1 C.

Reversing that would require the removal of about 220 billion tons of CO2, while an overshoot of 0.5 C – also consistent with the IPCC’s best-case scenario – would need more than a trillion tons removed, Rogelj said.

“The risks the world exposes itself to (from) an overshoot are much larger than acknowledged,” he said.

“Only through ambitious emissions reductions in the near term can we effectively reduce the risks from climate change.”

Reuters

Follow

898.4K Followers

How Denver Could Become the First City to Ban Slaughterhouses

Activists got a slaughterhouse moratorium on Denver’s ballot — but what are its chances?

Advocate Aidan Kankyoku
Featured: Aidan Kankyoku, Pro-Animal Future. Credit: Paul Miller

Mon October 7th, 2024

Solutions • Food • Food Systems

Words by Grace Hussain

– Share on Facebook– Share on LinkedIn– Share on Whatsapp– Share on X– Copy

– Republish

7 min read

The largest lamb slaughterhouse in the country is located in the Globeville neighborhood of Denver, Colorado. Each year, up to 500,000 young sheep are carted into the facility, and leave as packaged meat. Now, Denver is poised to be the first city in the nation to ban slaughterhouses like this one. Thanks to a campaign spearheaded by Pro Animal Future — a nonprofit organization with tactics backed by research — voters will decide this November whether to allow the facility to continue operations.

Its success or failure could have broad implications for the animal rights movement. While it’s certainly not the first time that animal advocates have sought to leverage ballot initiatives — there’s currently also an initiative to ban factory farms from Sonoma County, California — the Denver campaign could serve as a blueprint for future campaigns in cities across the country.

Pro Animal Future was started to test out the research generated by their sister organization, Pax Fauna. That research suggested that animal rights activists could garner success by shifting the framing of their work to ask for people’s votes instead of personal dietary change — a finding that let to this and another ballot initiative in Denver.

“We had a lot of people sign these petitions, including the slaughterhouse petition, while eating animals,”  Aidan Kankyoku, who worked on the research and is now spearheading the campaign, tells Sentient.

Though the fate of the slaughterhouse still hangs in the balance, even getting the question on the ballot was an uphill climb. Kankyoku embarked on it in hopes of testing the findings of Pax Fauna’s research. So far, those findings are holding up, which may have far-reaching implications for animal welfare groups.

Why Ballot Measures May Be More Effective Than Advocating for Dietary Change

In 2023, Pax Fauna published research, which found that calling meat out as unsustainable or cruel is not very effective for the average consumer — in part because it ignores the large role of corporations and policymakers, and relies too heavily on changing personal choice. Instead, focusing on collective action and civic duty — via voting, for example — appears to be more effective.

Those findings were based upon a series of focus groups, surveys and interviews with over 200 participants, all of whom eat meat. After writing up and publishing their findings, their next steps were clear: the new grassroots framework they had designed needed to be tested. For that testing, they chose Denver.

“This is where we have the most progressive and liberal voters who are going to take the first step and set this precedent to say ‘no’ to slaughterhouses,” says Kankyoku. In November of last year, the team dropped off 10,488 signatures supporting a ballot initiative to ban slaughterhouses from the city — well above the 8,940 needed to get on the ballot. Pro Animal Future ran a fur ban initiative alongside the slaughterhouse ban, which received 11,708 signatures and will also be appearing on ballots in November. Each of those signatures represents a conversation with a campaigner.

A Focus on Deep Canvassing

One of those campaigners is volunteer Alaina Sigler, who runs the nonprofit The Night Sky Garden. “These very meaningful conversations are going to be one of the most important tactics for us to continue to focus on,” Sigler says, referencing the deep canvassing technique at the center of the campaign. Deep canvassing relies on having sincere conversations with voters, and offers space for people to express their concerns without judgment. Though the tactic is great for helping people understand an issue, it is time intensive. “It’ll be anywhere from three to 12 voters in an hour, if you’re walking up to groups,” says Kankyoku.

In addition to these conversations, volunteers have been hosting postcard writing parties in collaboration with other local organizations, including nearby Luvin Arms Animal Sanctuary. While most of those writing parties are dominated by people already involved with the campaign, Pro-Animal Future works hard to ensure a welcoming environment for everyone — whether they eat meat or not.

“If you have friends, family members…and they’re not vegan, we actively are asking folks to bring them to the social events,” Sigler, who has organized several such parties, says.

From Sigler’s perspective, the campaign is cause for “immense hope for these initiatives, after not seeing much change occur locally for animals.” A longtime grassroots activist, Sigler has years of experience as an organizer for Direct Action Everywhere, standing vigil outside slaughterhouses and canvassing.

She and other volunteers have also been active in another facet of the campaign: flyering the city. “We do have this kind of guerrilla marketing component of the campaign as well,” says Kankyoku. In addition to the flyers, volunteers hand out stickers, chalk art and messages around the city and are working with businesses to host events.

Pro Animal Future signs hanging in a window. They say "Denver's last slaughterhouse kills over 1000 baby lambs every day" and "Raising animals for meat is the leading cause of deforestation"
Campaign signage in a downtown Denver shop. Credit: Grace Hussain

The Economic and Political Implications of Banning Slaughterhouses

In addition to being home to the nation’s largest lamb slaughterhouse, Colorado also plays host to Colorado State University (CSU). CSU is home to AgNext, (an agricultural research institute that has come under fire for its connections to animal agriculture), as well as Regional Economic Development Institute (REDI), a research center focused on economic development.

In April of this year, REDI released a policy brief arguing that eliminating the slaughterhouse could result in a maximum loss of 629 jobs and over $861 million. Kanyuko says he doesn’t believe those numbers are feasible, given that the facility has 160 employees and generates roughly $250 million in revenue annually. “It’s just obvious propaganda, if you’re going to dig into it a little bit,” he says, but “they’re using the letterhead of this respected university.”

The processes put into the report are standard within economics, says Dawn Thilmany, PhD, who led the team that put together the REDI brief. Analysis was based upon government data run through an economics software program that calculates likely ripple effects.

The analysis outlines three possible scenarios, based upon how much of the lamb industry exits the state of Colorado. Should the initiative pass, Thilmany is concerned that the most drastic of those is the most likely to take place. “It’s [likely to be] really hard to get investors to build processing capacity in other parts of [Colorado] because they’re afraid the ban is going to get wider than Denver County,” she says.

From her perspective working with small producers, the Denver slaughterhouse is unique in that it allows producers to get back their animals following slaughter — a rarity within the industry. For producers who sell meat locally, getting their animals back is essential.“Anyone who’s selling local[ly], that’s what they have to do,” she says. “For lamb, I think they’re about the only one who can do that, even in the region.”

Even if the report’s worst-case economic scenario does come to pass, points out Kankyoku, the projected impact of shutting down the slaughterhouse represents only a small fraction of the state’s overall economy. In the third quarter of 2023, Colorado’s real Gross Domestic Product — a measure of economic activity — was $529.1 billion.

What Comes Next

“What’s so exciting about the ballot initiative approach is that we’d much rather be talking to voters than to a few city council members,” says Kankyoku. Focusing on voters also means that even a loss is a win, in Kankyoku’s eyes. “If we focus all our attention on engaging with the public and connecting with local businesses and building a really strong community around this objective, [even] if the measure doesn’t pass, we can still feel very confident that all of that work is setting us up to do better next time, whether it’s the same policy or a different policy for the next campaign.”

Pro Animal Future’s partner organization, Pax Fauna, is already gearing up to launch similar campaigns in cities across the country — starting with Portland.

Even with the growing popularity of ballot initiatives as a means of activism, advocates are restricted to the cities and states that allow them. But with roughly three quarters of cities allowing some form of citizen-supported legislation making, the opportunities for animal advocates are numerous.

This story is part of a series called How Food Justice is Made: Stories and Solutions, in which Sentient dives into four different communities, and the unique ways they’re combatting slaughterhouses.