1.3 The Hunting Industry in the Colonial Period

The advent of colonialism on the African continent had a profound impact on, among other things, traditional hunting rituals of most pre-colonial societies in the region. Local hunting communities of Tanzania were not an exception to this general rule. The pre-colonial hunting industry that had hitherto maintained an equilibrium between the human-wild animal relationship during that era was adversely affected by policies and legislation governing wildlife and land that were designed by the colonial powers. The hunting industry during the colonial period was radically transformed. In essence the colonial regime devised strategies that favored colonial settlers who indiscriminately shot wild animal populations occasionally as a sport but mainly to supply the international trophy trade with wild animal products.

The German colonial administration introduced the first legislative provisions to control hunting in 1891. The legislative provisions were basically in the form of regulations that provided for, among other things, procedures for permitting hunting activities and methods of hunting. Another development in regulating the hunting industry during the Kaiser years was the enactment of the Wildlife Decree in 1896. This was amended periodically to control the hunting of certain species of wild animals and to cater for changes in the running of the hunting industry in 1898, 1900, 1903, 1905, 1908 and 1911.

Most of the German legislation and rules regulating the hunting industry were generally segmented and uncoordinated until the British took control of the colony. Indeed, for the thirty-five years that the country was under German rule, no comprehensive statutory instrument was ever made to govern the wildlife sector (hunting industry) except for the fragmented 1907 Decree that sought to regulate hunting in the Serengeti-Ngorongoro Wildlife Area.

By the time the British took control, Tanganyika (as Tanzania was referred to then) was already famous for the variety of big game. This attracted a steady stream of wealthy hunters who, like the German colonial settlers, hunted various wild animal species for both trade and sport. The British colonial administration established a Game Department and other supportive institutions that were charged with controlling and regulating the hunting of wild animal species. Despite these efforts, the overall institutional mechanism that the colonial regime put in place to regulate the hunting industry was not effective in controlling the indiscriminate slaughter of wild animals.

Although most colonial governments of Africa had ratified major international agreements that sought to regulate hunting of endangered wild animal species, the wanton destruction of wild animals in the region continued unabated.⁵ British colonial settlers in Tanganyika, like elsewhere, mercilessly slaughtered wild animal species, including endangered ones, to supply the international trophy market. Realizing the impeding danger, the international community put pressure on colonial regimes to stop the wanton destruction of the region's wildlife resources. This led to the promulgation of a number of wildlife legislation by the British colonial government after ratifying wildlife conservation-related international conventions.

Partly due to the international pressure, the colonial government in Tanganyika enacted the Game Preservation Ordinance in 1921. The Game Ordinance of 1940 followed this. These were the main pieces of legislation that sought to regulate the hunting industry at the inception of British colonial rule in Tanzania.⁶ The Game Ordinance was later repealed and replaced by the Fauna Conservation Ordinance of 1951.⁷ It should be emphasized here that the colonial hunting laws were enacted basically to reflect the colonial government's "compliance" with the obligations under the international wildlife conservation and management agreements it had assented to or ratified and not local peoples' interests. Most of the provisions of the laws developed to reflect the colonial governments' commitment to the international agreements were generally gauged in a manner that ensured a continued exploitation of the country's wildlife resources. However, it should be acknowledged that there existed provisions that sought to control the depletion of wild animal species through controlling the hunting industry. At the end of the day, however, it was the colonial regime and not local people who benefited from these.

Some of the provisions, for example, prohibited hunting with the use of guns in national parks. On the other hand, hunting in game reserves was permitted only where the Governor had issued a license. Such license only permitted people to hunt for purposes of research and for the collection of specimen for scientific research. Also, the law generally prohibited settlement and hunting in parks and reserves.

Contrary to general criticisms leveled against the colonial legislation for not taking into account local people interests, the British colonial hunting laws, to some extent, took on board local hunting communities' interests. The underlying objectives of the colonial administration in taking into account the interests of local community members could be the subject of another voluminous report by itself. It would, however, suffice to point out that some provisions of the colonial hunting laws permitted local community members to hunt any animals for purposes of acquiring food supplies. The very provisions, however, prohibited the local communities from using arms of precision and they had to get special permits to hunt certain wild animal species. Also, the provisions did not take into account the fact that some community members had to hunt specific species to fulfil cultural and traditional rituals.⁸

The provisions of other laws permitted specific local hunting tribes to hunt without the requirement of licenses. These could hunt those animals that ordinarily required licenses. The tribes in this category comprised of the Tindiga, the Bahi and the Wanderobo who lived with wild animals and were predominantly hunters.⁹ There existed numerous other tribes in Tanganyika that were predominantly hunters but the law did not apply to them. The selectivity in having in place legal provisions that permitted some community members to practice their cultural and traditional rituals pertaining to hunting while denying others reflects the application of the "divide and rule" concept. This strategy was constantly applied by colonial administrative regimes to divide local inhabitants in order to ensure their continued control while using their labor to plunder the economies for the benefit of the Metropolis.

It should be noted that the provisions of both the Game Ordinance of 1940 and the subsequent Fauna Conservation Ordinance permitted hunting, albeit controlled, outside Game Reserves in settled areas. These were referred to as Controlled Areas under the provisions of the Fauna Conservation Ordinance. It should also be pointed out here that in a move to generate revenue in otherwise isolated areas, the colonial regime had introduced tourist hunting on a formal basis in 1946. This kind of hunting was generally allowed under permit from any administrative officer of the Game Department or the Governor in Council.¹⁰ Save for minor changes, the laws and institutional frameworks governing the hunting industry that were laid down by the colonial regime were adopted wholesale by the independence government.

5. Some of the major Conventions ratified were the 1900 London Convention Concerning the Preservation of Wild Animals, Birds and Fish in Africa and the 1933 London Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State. (94 B.F.S.P. 715 and 17 L.N.T.S 241, respectively)
6. Nos. 41of 1921 and Cap. 159 of the Laws of Tanganyika, respectively.
7. Cap. 302
8. See for example section 28 of the Game Ordinance of 1940.
9. See for example section 12 (ii) of the Fauna Conservation Ordinance.
10. See Part III of the Game Ordinance, Cap. 159