Steve

Yes and hopefully reason and long term sense prevails. If Tanzania keeps up a balanced wildlife conservation programme and applies earnings in a sustainable way then that is a great hope.

But animals don't vote nor lobby their local pollies.

With over-population it always seems the wild places suffer and the human population "wins" out (in the short term only). But compare say foreign exchange earnings from safari hunting in wildlife areas to demands for more land to be available for subsistence farms probably means everyone looses out in the long term.

I will always remember a cook during a safari in the Maasai Mara stating emphatically the park should be ploughed up for food for people not used for animals. Yet his livelihood and employment depended on the very animals he wanted to displace!

Hopefully sensible middle ground can be found where locals in poverty can continue to benefit from wildlife and sustainable hunting is the answer of the article above.