I posted a copy of this article thinking as it didn't actually mention a anti-hunting agenda was I over-estimating what I think its real agenda will be.

But I see those who have posted on it agree.

I think its praise of Kenya's "Conservation" programmes are dangerous - as most know - there is no sport hunting in Kenya nowadays - and they harp on removing conservation from governments and putting it into the funds hands. How this works in practice would be interesting - but if they offered to replace sport hunting fees with payments from the funds (and suitable backhanders) how long do you think sport hunting would continue?

What happens in Uganda really isn't important as there is no sport hunting there anyway but hopefully oneday they can develop something. But Tanzania - what a loss of a hunting paradise that would be! So I guess a moral would be to get there and experience it before it is gone (and maybe by doing so make it just that much harder for anti-gunners to interfere).

A strategy to combat this sort of fund would be for hunters to compete for the $$$ donations and government handouts. Not from hunters like a lot of hunting organisations do, but from Joe Public watching some wildlife programme and advertisements. Cut off or reduce the amount of funds they have as receipts and we lessen the damage they can do. And if the "hunters" fund was involved in meaningful conservation projects - eg black rhino programmes - then it would do some good as well.