WEAKNESSES IN THE HUNTING QUOTA SYSTEM

One of the fundamental requirements of consumptive utilization is a well thought out and scientifically based system of quota setting. Any country wishing to follow this model should have a system that mandates how many animals should be hunted in a particular area (Overton: 22). In addition, the system should be able to show what animals should not be hunted - for reasons such as low population, immaturity, pregnancy, or protection under national law and international treaties like CITES.

In Tanzania, however, the actual situation does not match up to these requirements. This is because the country has no overall trophy monitoring system capable of providing the Wildlife Division with reliable information. As a result, quota setting is based solely on anecdotal reports from game officers in the field and hunting companies. In some instances, quotas have been issued that exceed the population of animals in a particular hunting block. As the Warioba Commission commented:

Such allocations run contrary to the spirit of Tanzania's policy on wildlife protection and management and raise serious questions about the credibility of the Wildlife Division. Given this state of affairs, it seems fair to say that the wildlife population of Tanzania is not protected - not even by the people entrusted by the citizens of this country and the international community.

Along with quota setting, another area of concern has been the creation and subdivision of hunting blocks. A hunting block is an area where an outfitter or hunting company carries out hunting activities. A block should be large enough to accommodate each specie population and to satisfy their permanent demand for water. An ideal, well-demarcated hunting block should allow up to six hunters to hunt without intruding on each other (Tanzania, 1996: 406).

Again, actual practice has deviated from these ideal requirements to an alarming degree: While the country's wildlife population has been declining over the years, the number of hunting blocks has been increasing - with quotas for each block remaining at the same level. In 1965, when the country's wildlife population was higher than it is today, the country had only 47 blocks. By 1997 this number had increased to over 140. A major factor contributing to the subdivision of hunting blocks has been the increase in the number of companies: In 1984, when private companies where allowed to carry out tourist hunting, there were nine in operation. By 1988 this figure had risen to 21 in 1988, by 1993 to 31 (TAHOA 1998a: 10), with a further increase to 33 taking place, by 1996 (Tanzania, 1996: 436).

TAHOA consultants welcomed this trend, stating that it, "gave a better leverage to make the industry more productive than before, as the number of private hunting companies continued to increase rapidly forcing the Wildlife Division to increase the number of blocks by subdividing large blocks" (TAHOA 1998a: 33). However, this increase has not been in the interests of Tanzania's wildlife population because, while the blocks have been reduced in size, the quota for these new blocks has been maintained, with the ultimate result of increasing the quota for many areas two or threefold (Overton: 23). If this trend goes unchecked, tourist hunting could soon become a forgotten industry.

This trend also has the effect of bolstering the arguments of those who are opposed to hunting. Anti-hunting campaigners have often cited the abuses in Tanzania as one of the reasons to prohibit hunting in Kenya:

This kind of adverse publicity in the conservation media seriously affects the hunting industry in Tanzania.