Name ID 1199
The first professional hunters came in 1913. They found the wildlife plentiful, especially the lions, but saw no elephants. Seven years later, an American arrived in a strange new contraption known as a Ford motor-car and news of the wonders of the Serengeti had reached the outside world. Because the Hunting of lions made them so scarse (they were considered 'vermin'), it was decided to make a partial Game Reserve in the area in 1921 and a full one in 1929. With the growing awareness of the need for conservation, it was expanded and upgraded to a National Park in 1951. Eight years later the Ngorongoro Conservation Area was established in the south-east as a separate unit.
Arusha: A Brochure of the Northern Province and its Capital Town
Page Number: 13-15-17
Extract Date: 1929
It is safe to say that Tanganyika holds a front place among our East African Colonies for the number and variety of its game animals. The belt from Tanga through to Lake Victoria is where game is most numerous. There is an abundance of the commoner antelope, and in certain parts the rarer species such as the Greater and Lesser Kudu, Gerenuk, etc., are still fairly plentiful. Big game like the Elephant, Rhinocerous, Lion and Buffalo, all of which hold for the hunter a new thrill and experience, are to be found in this area in such a variety of country and cover that the Hunting of no two animals is ever alike.
Here the hunter passes through most interesting country; Kilimanjaro with its snow-capped dome, running streams and dense forests, across the plains to the Natron Lakes and the Great Rift Wall with its volcanic formation and on to the great Crater, Ngorongoro. In his travels he will come into contact with some of the most interesting and picturesque tribes that inhabit Africa such as the Masai, Wambulu, etc., each with their own quaint customs and histories.
The Ngorongoro Crater, the greatest crater in the world, measuring approximately 12 miles in diameter, seen from the Mbulu side, is a delight to the eye with its teeming herds of game ; Wildebeest alone running into tens of thousands. This scene conveys to one the idea of a great National Park. Nature has provided the crater with a precipitous rock fence for tns most part and with lakes and streams to slake the thirst of the great game herds which inhabit it. The unalienated part of the crater is now a complete game reserve in which a great variety of game is to be found such as Rhinoceros, Hippopotamus, Lion, and all the smaller fry. The Elephant although not in the crater is to be found in the forests nearby.
The Serengetti Plains lying away to the northwest of the crater holds its full share of animal life and here the sportsman has the widest possible choice of trophies. The Lion in this area holds full sway and is still to be seen in troops of from ten to twenty. Recently, Serengetti and Lion pictures have become synonymous. The commoner species of game are here in abundance and the plains are second only to the crater for game concentration. The country lying between the Grumeti River - Orangi River and the Mbalangeti from Lake Victoria to the Mou-Kilimafetha Road has recently been declared a game reserve.
Game animals that inhabit the northern area are well protected an'd their existence is assured to posterity by the great game sanctuaries and regulations which govern the Hunting or photographing of game.
In the Northern area there are six complete reserves and two closed areas. These are as follows:
(2) Mount Meru.
(3) Lake Natron
(4) Northern Railway.
The closed areas are :
Pienaar's Heights, near Babati and Sangessa Steppe in the Kondoa district. The boundaries for these are laid down in the Game Preservation Ordinance No. 41 of 1921. There are, however, vast areas open to the hunter and the abovementioned sanctuaries do not in any way detract from the available sport which the Northern Tanganyika has to offer.
The following game licences are now in force (Shillings)
:Visitor's Full Licence - 1500
Visitor's Temporary Licence (14 days) - 200
Resident's Full Licence - 300
Resident's Temporary Licence (14 days) - 60
Resident's Minor Licence - 80
Giraffe Licence - 150
Elephant Licence 1st. - 400
2nd. - 600
To hunt the Black Rhinoceros in the Northern Province it is now necessary to hold a Governor's Licence, the fee for which is 150/-. This entitles the holder to hunt one male Rhinoceros. Elephant, Giraffe, and Rhinoceros Licences may only be issued to holders of full game licences.
Now that the Railway is through to Arusha it is not too much to hope that with the assistance of a healthy public opinion the Sanya Plains may become restocked with game which would be a great source of interest and an attraction to the traveller visiting these parts.
Extract Date: 1931
Herne, Brian White Hunters: The golden age of African Safaris
Page Number: 375
Extract Date: 1965
Safari Hunting in East Africa was forever changed by the masterly blueprint of Brian Nicholson, a former white hunter turned game warden. The disciple and successor of C.I. P. Ionides, the "Father of the Selous game reserve," Nicholson conceived a plan for administering Tanzania's expansive wildlife regions. In 1965 he changed most of the vast former controlled Hunting areas, or CHAs, into Hunting concessions that could be leased by outfitters from the government for two or more years at a time. Nicholson also demarcated the Selous game reserve's 20,000 square miles of uninhabited country into 47 separate concessions. Concessions were given a limited quota of each game species, and outfitters were expected to utilize quotas as fully as possible, but not exceed them.
Nicholson's plan gave outfitters exclusive rights over Hunting lands, providing powerful incentives for concession holders to police their areas, develop tracks, airfields, and camps, and, most importantly, preserve the wild game. When the system was put into effect, it was the larger outfitting organizations - safari outfitters who could muster the resources to bid and who had a clientele sufficient to fulfill the trophy quotas Nicholson had set (done in order to provide government revenue by way of fees for anti-poaching operations, development, and research) - that moved quickly to buy up the leases on the most desirable blocks of land. Smaller safari companies who could not compete on their own banded together and formed alliances so that they, too, could obtain Hunting territories.
Herne, Brian White Hunters: The golden age of African Safaris
Page Number: 389
Extract Date: 1973 Sep 7
By the end of 1973 Kenya was the sole remaining tourist destination in East Africa. While the neighboring country of Uganda was still in the throes of military anarchy, Tanzania surprised the world on September 7 by issuing an overnight ban on all Hunting and photographic safaris within its territory. Government authorities moved quickly to seize and impound foreign-registered Land Cruisers, supply trucks, minibuses, aircraft, and equipment.
The stunned collection of safari clients as well as sundry mountain climbers, bird-watchers, and beachcombers who had been visiting the country at the time of the inexplicable edict were summarily escorted to Kilimanjaro airport outside of Arusha to await deportation. The residue of tourists stranded without flights were trucked to the northern town of Namanga where they were left on the dusty roadside to cross into Kenya on foot. All tourist businesses, including the government-owned Tanzania Wildlife Safaris, were closed down. No government refunds were ever made to tourists or to foreign or local safari outfitters
Africa News Online
Extract Date: 2000 June 5
Panafrican News Agency
Frequent acrimony, currently depicting the relationship between game Hunting companies and rural communities in Tanzania, will be a thing of the past after the government adopts a new wildlife policy.
Designated as wildlife management areas, the communities will benefit from the spoils of game Hunting, presently paid to local authorities by companies operating in those areas.
The proposed policy seeks to amend Tanzania's obsolete Wildlife Act of 1975, and, according to the natural resources and tourism minister, Zakia Meghji, 'it is of utmost priority and should be tabled before parliament for debate soon'.
She said the government would repossess all Hunting blocks allocated to professional hunters and hand them over to respective local authorities.
In turn local governments, together with the communities, would be empowered to allocate the Hunting blocks to whichever company they prefer to do business with.
'Guidelines of the policy are ready and are just being fine-tuned,' she said.
Communities set to benefit from this policy are chiefly those bordering rich game controlled areas and parks. They include the Maasai, Ndorobo, Hadzabe, Bahi, Sianzu and Kimbu in northeastern Tanzania.
Members of these communities are often arrested by game wardens and fined for trespassing on game conservation areas. As a result, they have been extremely bitter about being denied access to wildlife resources, which they believe, naturally, belong to them.
Under the new policy, Meghji said, the government will ensure that people undertake increased wildlife management responsibilities and get benefits to motivate them in the conservation of wildlife resources.
The East African
Extract Author: John Mbaria
Extract Date: February 4, 2002
KENYA COULD end up losing 80 per cent of its wildlife species in protected areas bordering Tanzania to hunters licensed by the Tanzanian government.
The hunters have been operating for about a decade in a section of the migratory route south from Kenya to Tanzania's Serengeti National Park.
They shoot large numbers of animals as they move into the park during the big zebra and wildebeest migration between July and December.
There are fears that the Maasai Mara National Park and most of Kenya's wildlife areas bordering Tanzania could lose much of their wildlife population, threatening the country's Ksh20 billion ($256 million) a year tourism industry.
Kenya banned Hunting in 1977 but the sport is legal in Tanzania, where it is sold as "Safari Hunting."
"The product sold is really the experience of tracking and killing animals, the services that go with this and the prestige of taking home the trophies," says a policy document from the Tanzania Wildlife Corporation (Tawico).
Tanzania wildlife officials said wild animals that cross over from Kenya are hunted along their migratory routes in the Loliondo Game Controlled Area in Ngorongoro district of Arusha region, 400 km northwest of Arusha. The area was designated by the British colonial power as a sports Hunting region for European royalty.
The officials said the area is now utilised by a top defence official from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), trading as Ortelo Business Company (OBC), through a licence issued in 1992 by former Tanzania President Ali Hassan Mwinyi. The permit allows the company to hunt wild game and trap and take some live animals back to the UAE.
Safari Hunting earns big money for the Tanzanian government, which charges each hunter $1,600 a day to enter the controlled area.
A hunter is also required to pay fees for each kill, with an elephant costing $4,000, a lion and a leopard $2,000 each and a buffalo $600. The document has no quotation for rhinos.
The sport is organised in expeditions lasting between one and three weeks in the five Hunting blocks of Lake Natron Game Controlled Area, Rungwa Game Reserve, Selous Mai, Selous U3 and Selous LU4.
For the period the hunters stay in each of the Hunting blocks, they pay between $7,270 and $13,170 each. Part of this money is shared out among the many Ujamaa villages, the local district councils and the central government.
Although Tawico restricts the number of animals to be culled by species, poor monitoring of the activities has meant indiscriminate killing of game.
"Some of the animals are snared and either exported alive or as meat and skins to the United Arab Emirates and other destinations," local community members told The EastAfrican during a recent trip to the area.
They claimed the hunters were provided with "blank Hunting permits," giving them discretion over the number of animals to be hunted down. Kenya wildlife conservation bodies are concerned that big game Hunting in the Ngorongoro area is depleting the wildlife that crosses the border from Kenya.
"Kenya is losing much of its wildlife to hunters licensed by the Tanzanian government," the chairman of the Maasai Environmental and Resource Coalition (MERC), Mr Andrew ole Nainguran, said. MERC was set up in 1999 to sensitise members of the Maasai community in Kenya and Tanzania to the benefits of wildlife conservation.
Kenya and Tanzania wildlife authorities have regularly discussed the problem of security and poaching in Arusha. However, the KWS acting director, Mr Joe Kioko, said legalised Hunting has never been discussed in any of the meetings.
The hunters are said to fly directly from the UAE to the area using huge cargo and passenger planes which land on an all-weather airstrip inside the OBC camp. The planes are loaded with sophisticated Hunting equipment, including four-wheel drive vehicles, weapons and communication gadgets.
On their way back, the planes carry a variety of live animals, game trophies and meat. Employees at the camp said the hunters are sometimes accompanied by young Pakistani and Filipino women.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare regional director, Mr Michael Wamithi, said Kenya and Tanzania should discuss the negative impact of the sport Hunting on Kenya's conservation efforts.
"The two neighbours have a Cross-Border Law Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding where such issues could be dealt with."
Kenya seems to be alone in adhering to strict protection of wildlife, a policy famously demonstrated by President Daniel arap Moi's torching of ivory worth $760,000 in 1989.
Although the country has made significant progress in securing parks from poachers, it is yet to embrace a policy on "consumptive utilisation" of animals advocated by Kenyan game ranchers and Zimbabwe, which wants the international trade ban on ivory lifted.
The animals in the Hunting block have been reduced to such an extent that the OBC camp management has been spreading salt and pumping water at strategic places to attract animals from Serengeti and the outlying areas.
"We will not have any animals left in the vicinity unless the Hunting is checked," a local community leader, Mr Oloomo Samantai ole Nairoti, said, arguing that the area's tourism economy was being jeopardised.
Mysterious fires in the area to the south of Serengeti have also forced animals to seek refuge in the Hunting blocks.
Locals said the camp is exclusively patronised by Arab visitors. The camp is usually under tight security by Tanzanian police.
The permit granted by Mr Mwinyi has raised controversy in Tanzania and was at one stage the subject of a parliamentary probe committee because members of UAE's royal family were not entitled to the Hunting rights in the country.
"Only presidents or monarchs are entitled to hunt in the area," an official said, adding that the UAE royal family had abused their permit by killing animals outside their given quotas or specified species.
The government revoked the licence in 1999 after realising that OBC was airlifting many wild animals to the Middle East, only to renew the permit in 2000. The current permit runs until 2005.
The withdrawal of the permit followed the recommendations of a 1994 parliamentary probe commission set up to "investigate the Hunting behaviour" of the UAE company.
Sources said permanent Hunting is prohibited in the Loliondo Game Controlled Area for fear of depleting animals from the four parks, which host the bulk of the region's tourist resorts.
The area is in a natural corridor where wild animals cross while roaming between the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and Serengeti National Park in Tanzania and Maasai Mara Game Reserve and Amboseli National Park in Kenya.
The late founding president of Tanzania, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, took to himself the powers to issue Hunting permits for Loliondo when Tanzania became independent in 1961, but he never granted any.
After obtaining the permit, the UAE hunters created Hunting blocks in the area covering over 4,000 sq km.
No other Hunting companies have been granted permits, the source said.
The UAE royal family has donated passenger aircraft to the Tanzania army and a number of vehicles to the Wildlife Division.
The 1974 Wildlife Act set up five categories of wildlife conservation areas.
These are national parks, game reserves, partial game reserve, open areas and Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Hunting is prohibited in the national parks and Ngorongoro Conservation Area, but allowed in other areas during the seasonal Hunting period from July to December.
Additional reporting by Apolinari Tairo in Dar es Salaam
Tomlinson, Chris Big game hunting threatening Africa
Extract Author: Chris Tomlinson
Extract Date: 2002 03 20
Loliondo GAME CONTROL AREA, Tanzania - At a dirt airstrip in rural Tanzania, a desert camouflaged cargo plane from the United Arab Emirates air force taxis up to pallets stacked with large coolers full of game meat, the harvest of a successful Hunting season.
As Tanzanian immigration and customs officials fill out documents under a thatched shelter, brand-new, four-wheel-drive trucks and dune buggies drive to and from a nearby luxury campsite, the base for one of Tanzania's most expensive - and secretive - game Hunting operations, Otterlo Business Corp.
Hundreds of members of Arab royalty and high-flying businessmen spend weeks in the Loliondo Game Control Area each year Hunting antelope, lion, leopard and other wild animals. The area is leased under the Otterlo name by a member of an emirate royal family who is a senior officer in the UAE defense ministry.
While neighboring Kenya outlawed big game Hunting in 1978, the Tanzanian government says Hunting is the best use of the land and wildlife. But villagers and herders say big money has led government officials to break all the Hunting rules, resulting in the destruction of most of the area's non-migratory animals and putting East Africa's most famous national parks under threat.
Loliondo is on the main migratory route for wildlife north of Ngorongoro Crater, east of Serengeti National Park and south of Kenya's Masai Mara National Reserve. The summer Hunting season coincides with the migration of wildebeest and zebra through the area, where they eventually cross into the Serengeti and the Masai Mara. Predatory animals follow the migration.
During the colonial era, Loliondo was set aside for European royalty as a Hunting area. Since independence, Loliondo has remained a Hunting reserve, but it is supposed to be managed by area residents for their benefit.
Local leaders, who refuse to speak publicly because they fear retribution, say they have not been consulted about the lease that was granted in 1995 by national officials in Tanzania's political capital, Dodoma. They say government officials have tried to silence criticism.
"The lease was given by the government and the Maasai landowners were not involved," said one Maasai leader. "All the resident animals have been killed ... (now) they carry out Hunting raids in the Serengeti National Park, but the government closes its eyes."
Maasai warriors told The Associated Press that hunters give cash to anyone who can lead them to big game, especially leopards. They also said that Otterlo officials have begun pumping water into some areas to attract more animals and that what the warriors call suspicious fires in the Serengeti have caused animals to move into Loliondo.
An Otterlo manager, who gave his name only as Khamis, initially agreed to an interview with AP but later did not return repeated phone calls.
In an interview with the newspaper, The East African, Otterlo managing director Juma Akida Zodikheri said his company adheres to Tanzanian law, and he denied hunters killed animals indiscriminately. He said the owner of the company is Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdulrahim al Ali, deputy defense minister of the UAE.
While Tanzania has strict rules on game Hunting, Maasai who have worked at the lodge say guests are never told of the limits and hunt as much as they want. Tanzanian officials deny that.
Col. A.G.N. Msangi, district commissioner for Ngorongoro District, said all applicable rules are enforced. He accused the Maasai of rumor-mongering in an effort to discredit Otterlo.
The company "is following the system the government wants," Msangi said. "OBC has invested more money here than any other company in the district."
Msangi said Hunting companies request permission to kill a certain number of animals. Once the request is approved by wildlife experts at the Ministry of the Environment, the company pays a fee based on that number whether they actually kill the animals or not, he said.
"We have police and ministry people making sure they don't exceed what they have paid for," Msangi said. The tourists are also required to employ professional hunters to ensure no female or young animals are killed, he added.
Compared to the numbers in Serengeti National Park, very few large animals were seen during a three-hour drive through Loliondo. But without any independent survey of the animal population, it is impossible to know whether Msangi's conservation efforts are working.
Msangi described his main duty as balancing the needs of people, animals and conservation. He said not only does Hunting revenue finance wildlife conservation, but Otterlo, like most tourism companies, also makes charitable donations to help pay for schools and development projects and it provides badly need jobs.
Also appeared in http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020801-22110374.htm
1 Aug 2002
Internet Web Pages
Extract Author: Lifer
Extract Date: April 16 2002
Posted - April 16 2002 : 20:53:22
The East African Newspaper of 4-10 February 2002 carried an article titled "Game Carnage in Tanzania Alarms Kenya", written by John Mbaria with supplement information from Apolinari Tairo of Dar es Salaam. The article was on The Ortello Business Hunting Company, which started to hunt in the Loliondo Game Controlled Area in 1992.
The following are issues raised in the article:
a) Hunting activities carried out in Liliondo Game Controlled Area near the Tanzania / Kenyan border causes loses of 80% of the Kenyan wildlife.
b) Hunting is conducted in the migratory route in the south between Kenya and Serengeti National Park. The animals are hunted during the migratory period as they move to Kenya and on their way back to Tanzania in July to December.
c) Hunting is threatening the Kenyan tourism industry, which earns the country USD 256.0 annually.
d) The Hunting kills animals haphazardly, without proper guidance and monitoring of actual number of animals killed and exported outside the country.
e) Airplanes belonging to Ortello Business Corporation (OBC) carry unspecified type of live animals and birds from Loliondo on their way back to UAE. Further more, the air planes fly directly in and out of Loliondo without stopping at Kilimanjaro International Airport (KIA).
The following are responses to the issues raised:
2.0 Conservation of wildlife in Tanzania
Tanzania is among the top ten countries in the world rich in biodiversity. Tanzania is also leading in wildlife conservation in Africa. It has 12 National Parks, including the famous Serengeti National Park, 34 Game Reserves and 38 Game Controlled Areas. The wildlife –protected areas cover 28% of the land surface area of Tanzania. In recognition of the good conservation works, Tanzania was awarded a conservation medal in 1995 by the Safari Club International whose headquarters is in the United States of America.
Tanzania has a number of important endangered animal species in the world. Such animal species are: Black Rhino, Wild Dog, Chimpanzee, Elephant and Crocodile (Slender Snorted Crocodile).
In 1998, the Government of Tanzania adopted a Wildlife Policy, which gives direction on conservation and advocate sustainable use of wildlife resources for the benefit of the present and future generations.
3.0 Tourist Hunting
Regulated tourist Hunting or any other type of Hunting that observes conservation ethics does not negatively affect wild animal populations. This is because Hunting ethics is based on selective Hunting and not random shooting of animals. Hunting was banned in Tanzania from 1972 to 1978. The resultant effect was increased poaching and reduced government revenue from wildlife conservation. Low revenue caused low budgetary allocations to wildlife conservation activities and the lack of working gear and equipment. When the tourist Hunting resumed Elephant population increased from 44,000 (in 1989) to 45,000 (in 1994). Elephant is a keystone species in the Hunting industry and is a good indicator in showing population status of other animal species in their habitat.
In 1989 to 1993 the government revenue from the Hunting industry increased from USD 2,422,500.00 to USD 7,377,430.00. The government earned a total of USD 9.3 Million from tourist Hunting in the year 2002. Increased revenue and keystone species such as Elephant are the results of efficient implementation of good plans and policies in conservation and sustainable use of wildlife resources.
4.0 Response to the issues raised in the article
4.1 Hunting against the law by OBC
OBC is one of the 40 Hunting companies operating in Tanzania. The Company belongs to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Different from other Hunting companies, OBC does not conduct tourist Hunting business. The Kingdom of UAE has been the client Hunting in the Loliondo Game Controlled Area since 1992.
In conducting Hunting in Loliondo Game Controlled Area, the Company adhere to the law and regulations governing the tourist Hunting industry, namely:
4.1.1 Payment of concession fee amounting to USD 7,500.00 per Hunting block per year.
4.1.2 Requesting for a Hunting quota from the Director of Wildlife, before issuance of Hunting permit.
4.1.3 Payment of game fees as stipulated by the Government.
4.1.4 Hunting only those animals shown in the Hunting permit.
4.1.5 Contributing to the development of the Hunting block, local communities’ development projects and anti-poaching activities.
The following is what OBC has done so far:
· Contribution towards the development of the Ngorongoro District of USD 46,000.00
· Construction of Waso Primary and Secondary Schools, six bore holes and cattle dips and has purchased two buses to enhance/local transportation. Furthermore, OBC contributed TSh. 30.0M to six villages in the Hunting area, for providing secondary school education to 21 children.
· Purchased a generator and water pump worth TSh. 11.0M for provision of water to six villages. It has also constructed all weather roads and an airstrip within Loliondo area.
4.1.6. Different from the rest of the Hunting companies OBC Hunting period is very short. Normally the Hunting season lasts for six months, but OBC hunts for a maximum of four months. Few animals are shot from the Hunting permit.
4.2 Animals hunted in migratory routes.
The Government of Tanzania has permitted Hunting in the Loliondo Game Controlled Area and not in the migratory route between Masai Mara and Serengeti National Park. The Loliondo Game Controlled Area is a plain bordering the Serengeti National Park to the east.
4.3 The right for Tanzania to use wildlife in the Loliondo Game Controlled Area
The wildlife found in Tanzania is the property of the Government of Tanzania. The notion that these animals belong to Kenya is not correct. The wild animals in Loliondo Game Controlled Area do not have dual citizenship . Since some animal species move back and forth between Tanzania and Kenya it is better understood that these animals would be recognised to belong to either party during the time they are in that particular country. Animals in Masai Mara, Serengeti, Loliondo and Ngorongoro belong to one ecosystem namely, Serengeti ecosystem. However, Tanzania being a sovereign State with her own policies has the right by law to implement them. The same applies to Kenya, which has the right to implement its no-Hunting policy basing on the administration of her laws. Tanzania has therefore, not done anything wrong to undertake Hunting on her territory.
4.4 Hunting is threatening Kenyan tourism
Migratory animals move into Kenya during the rainy season. After the rainy season they move back to Tanzania. Animals that are hunted in Liliondo Game Controlled Area during this time of the year are very few. In the year 2000, only 150 animals were hunted, and in the year 2001 only 139 animals were hunted. It is therefore, not true that 80% of the animals in the border area were hunted. Based on this argument, it is also not true that Hunting conducted by OBC is threatening the Kenyan tourism industry. Tanzania does not allow Hunting of elephants 10 kilometres from the Tanzania/Kenya international boundary. (CITES meeting held at the Secretariat Offices in Geneva in 1993). This is an example of the measures taken to control what was erroneously referred to by the East African Paper as “haphazard Hunting of animals of Kenya”.
Furthermore, it is not true that the Wildlife Division does not know the number of animals that are killed. Control of Hunting is done by the Wildlife Division, District Council and other Law Enforcement agencies. The OBC does not capture and export live animals since it does not possess valid licence to do so.
4.5 OBC airplances export assorted number of live animals from Loliondo to UAE
Capture and export of live animals and birds is conducted in accordance with the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 12 of 1974 and resolutions of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The live animal trade is also conducted in accordance with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) regulations, with regard to the size of the boxes/containers allowed to transport specific animal species in order to avoid injuries or death of the same. The principle behind the live animal trade is sustainability. CITES may prohibit exportation of animals whose trade is not sustainable. On these grounds it is obvious that CITES and therefore, its 150 members recognise that the Tanzanian live animal trade is sustainable.
Live animal traders who exports animals, birds and other live specimens are obliged to adhere to the following procedure:
i) Must hold valid licence to trade on live animals.
ii) Must hold a capture permit and thereafter an ownership permit./certificate. The number of animals possessed and the number of animals listed on the ownership permit must be consistent with the number of animals that were listed in the capture permit and actually captured and certified.
iii) Must obtain an export permit for animals listed on the ownership permit/certificate.
iv) The Officer at the point of exit must certify that the animals exported are those listed on the certificate of export. The number of animals to be exported must tally with the number listed on the certificate of export.
Verification of exported animals is conducted in collaboration with the police and customs officials.
v) The plane that will carry live animals is inspected by the Dar es Salaam and Kilimanjaro Handling Companies’ Officials.
vi) For animals listed under CITES, appropriate export and import certificates are used to export the said specimens. If there is any anomaly in exporting CITES species, the importing country notifies CITES Secretariat, which in turn notifies the exporting country, and the animals in question are immediately returned to the country of export.
4.6 Other specific isues
4.6.1 Hunters are given blank permits
Companies are issued Hunting quotas before they commence Hunting activities. Each hunter is given a permit, which shows the animals that he/she is allowed to hunt depending on the quota issued and the type of safari. There are four types of safari Hunting as follows: 7, 14, 16 and 21 days safari. Each Hunting safari indicates species and numbers of animals to be hunted. When an animal is killed or wounded the officer in-charge overseeing Hunting activities signs to certify that the respective animal has been killed. If the animal has been wounded, the animal is tracked down and killed to ensure that no other animal is killed to replace the wounded animal at large. This procedure is a measure of monitoring of animals killed by hunters.
4.6.2 Good Neighbourhood Meetings between Tanzania and Kenya
There are three platforms on which Tanzania and Kenya meet to discuss conservation issues as follows:
a) The Environment and Tourism Committee of the EAC.
b) The Lusaka Agreement. In the Lusaka Agreement Meeting conservation and anti-poaching matters amongst member countries are discussed. The HQ of the Lusaka Agreement is in Nairobi.
c) Neighbourhood meeting. Experts in the contiguous conservation areas meet to discuss areas of cooperation between them, for example, in joint anti-poaching operations. Based on the regulations that govern the Hunting industry animals are not threatened by extinction since the animals that are hunted are old males for the purpose of obtaining good trophies. Trophies are attractions in this Hunting business. It is on this basis that tourist Hunting is not discussed in the said meetings, because is not an issue for both countries.
4.6.3 OBC airplanes flies directly to and from Loliondo without passing through KIA
The Tanzania Air Traffic Law requires that all airplanes land at KIA before they depart to protected areas. When the airplanes are at KIA and DIA the respective authorities conduct their duties according. The same applies when airplanes fly to UAE. They are required to land at KIA in order to go through immigration and customs checks. The allegation that OBC airplane does not land in KIA is therefore false. Furthermore, Tanzania Air Traffic Control regulates all airplanes includingly, OBC airplane at entry points.
4.6.4 OBC sprays salt in some parts of the Loliondo Game Controlled Area in order to attract animals from Serengeti National Park.
These allegations are baseless since the Tourist Hunting Regulations (2000) prohibit distribution of water and salt at the Hunting site in order to attract animals for Hunting. Besides the Game Scouts who supervise Hunting had never reported this episode. Furthermore, there are no reports that OBC is responsible for wild fires that gutters the south of the Serengeti National Park.
4.6.5 Cancellation of OBC block permit in 1999 since it was involved in the exportation of live animals.
This allegation is not true. The truth is that Hunting blocks are allocated to Hunting companies after every five years. The allocation that was done in 1995 expired in 1999. The next allocation was done in year 2000 and the companies will use the allocated blocks until 2004.
4.6.6 The UAE Royal Family contributions to the Wildlife Division
This is true. The Wildlife Division had received support from the UAE including: vehicles, transceivers and field gear in 1996. This was part of the fulfilment of the obligation by all Hunting companies to contribute towards conservation and anti-poaching activities.
Records in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism show that there is no other District in Tanzania with Hunting area, other than Ngorongoro District, that receives enormous funds from Hunting business for community development. OBC contributes up to TSh. 354,967,000.00 annually for community development in Loliondo.
The Government of Tanzania has no reasons to stop the Hunting activities in Loliondo Game Controlled Area. The government sees that local communities and the Ngorongoro District Council benefit from the Hunting industry.
Edited by - lifer on 04/16/2002 20:57:41
Extract Author: Yannick Ndoinyo
Extract Date: 17 august 2002
ISSN 0856-9135; No. 00233
A rejoinder to the Ministry’s press release on Loliondo and OBC
We are replying in a critical analysis to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism Press Release in the East African paper of April 1-7 2002 regarding the "Game Carnage in Tanzania Alarms Kenya" in the same paper (East Africa February 4-10 2002). Special reference was given to Hunting activities by OBC and our analysis base to same Company.
As it appears in the Press Release, OBC is the property of the UAE, but in reality some top influential people in Tanzania have some shares in the company. The OBC has been in Loliondo since 1992, even though ever since the whole local community in Loliondo refused to accept its presence and goes to the present day. OBC, to us, is not a normal Hunting company. It seems as if the Company has the right of ownership over land and other natural resources like water and wildlife. OBC has constructed expensive and luxurious houses, airstrip and big godowns on water source without the local people’s authority while they depend on such water for dry season grazing. Our surprise is that the government has always denied this fact and defended the Company. Why? The Company may be adhering to regulations and laws governing the tourist Hunting business in the books only and not practically. There are no monitoring schemes to make sure that the Company adheres to the said regulations.
It is true that OBC contributes 30 million to six villages, which is 5 million per village, and it was initially 2.5 million per village. The amount was raised two years ago. The issue here is that the amount was determined by OBC alone and therefore paid when they feel like doing, no binding mechanisms to endure payment on regular basis. The former OBC director was once quoted as saying, "I am paying this money as this money as a goodwill only because the government does not wish me to do so". The amount however does not compensate or match the resources extracted from the land of six villages. The implication is that OBC has entered into agreement with the government only and not with the villages. The provision of education to 21 children as indicated the Press release, is basically not true or correct.
The 30 million is the annual goodwill contribution from OBC to the six villages and not purposely meant for education only. The plan to utilize this money is upon the villages themselves.
It is also true that OBC has constructed Wasso secondary school but not Wasso primary school. The secondary school, which was built for the six villages in which OBC operated and the whole of Ngorongoro district has been taken by the government thus limiting the number of children hailing from these villages and Ngorongoro district an opportunity to obtain education from the same school.
In regard to bore holes, there are only four known boreholes and all these are built in Wasso and Loliondo townships. There are no any boreholes existing in any of the six villages, except only that a water pump machine, which currently does not work, was purchased for Mondorosi hamlet (Kitongoji) of Soit-Sambu village. Again, there is no virtually any cattle dip that OBC did dig or rehabilitated in six villages as mentioned in the Press Release from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. The information that OBC purchased a generator and water pump worth 11million is to six villages for water provision is false and misleading. Most villages in Loliondo have water problems and it is impossible for a generator to sustain a single village leave alone six villages. No single village has received such service from OBC.
In regard to transport, the two buses were either bought or just brought as second hand vehicles. These buses are expensive to run and spares are not easily obtained. At present they are just grounded at Ngorongoro district workshop/garage. There was a time the councilors debated whether or not to sell because of difficult management. At present the people of Loliondo use an extremely old SM bus for transport.
Again in the aspect of transport, there are no all weather roads in Loliondo that OBC constructed as it was said the Press release. Roads in most parts of Loliondo are murramed roads and mostly were constructed by Ngongoro district council using money from TANROADS and not OBC.
It is indeed true that OBC Hunting period is very short. There is a lot that can happen in short period especially if the team of hunters is composed of professional hunters. Our concern here is the interference and interruptions that OBC causes to the life systems of the people in Loliondo. The Maasai cannot resume their grazing patterns and often are forced to move by OBC. Where should we graze our cattle while our grazing land is occupied and by the Hunting company and protected by the gun? In six villages of Loliondo, five operate non-consumptive tourism that gives them more earnings except one which is dominated by OBC. The villages can now send children to school, construct basic infrastructure like health centers, classrooms, teacher houses water supply and food security ultimately eradicating poverty. This is all done using the money from the non-consumptive tourism. The OBC constantly interrupts this system and agreement between in the villages saying that the villages have no right to operate such tourism on ‘his land’. Is it his or our land? The other major problem besides the Arabs is the constant reprimand from the government, as it discourages this kind of tourism business that benefits the local people in the villages more. We favour this kind of tourism because it does not disturb our normal pattern of life system. At the same time it does not kill wild animals, they just camp and go to the Serengeti Park. The allegations that OBC airplanes fly directly from Loliondo to UAE without passing KIA and whether it exports live animals have existed and many people have spoken and written about it. However, we cannot confirm anything about without much scrutiny. We do not know much now.
Also in the Press Release the spray of salt to attract animals was referred to. The distribution of water in a certain site to attract animals was applied sometime ago. We are sure of this as it happened some years ago. What we are not exact is whether the practice continues to the present day.
In the Press Release, the records in the Ministry show that OBC pays annually 354,967,000/= for community development in Loliondo? We have some reservations in regard to such records. First of all they are just records and anything can be written. Secondly, how is it that the Ministry has such records while we in Loliondo, the base of OBC operation, do not have?
Thirdly, where is the provision in the agreement that forces OBC to annually pay to the district such amount of money? It may be that the amount is used to be paid annually but to individuals only and not to the district as it said.
In its conclusion the Ministry sees no reason to stop Hunting activities in Loliondo simply because the local community and Ngorongoro district council benefit from the Hunting business. We strongly feel that there is every reason to stop the Hunting activities in Loliondo for several reasons. First, the local community did not consent to the granting of their land to the Hunting company to the present day.
Secondly, the local community and Ngorongoro district council do not benefit in a way it should be from this Hunting business in Loliondo.
Thirdly, the presence of OBC has interrupted and interfered with our life systems including grazing, culture and other alternative means of business to the local community.
In our conclusion we feel that even though the government operates under the law set in Dar es Salaam and Dodoma without the involvement of the local people, it is very important to respect the localpeople.
Someone in the ministry who has never been to Loliondo, we firmly conclude, either wrote the Press Release, or the story was made. We suggest that the villagers or OBC people be contacted for more definite facts. Please feel free to contact us for any queries you might have regarding this article.
Tel: 0744 390 626
Extract Author: Arusha times Reporters
Extract Date: Aug 17 2002
ISSN 0856-9135; No. 00233
The Hunting plot controversy reigning within the Longido Game Controlled Area in Monduli district two weeks ago threatened the life of the American ambassador to Tanzania, Robert Royall who was Hunting in the block .
Riding in a Toyota Land Cruiser Station Wagon with registration numbers TZP 9016, owned by Bush Buck Safaris Limited, Ambassador Royall found himself being confronted by 16 armed men.
The incident took place on Saturday the 27th of July this year, at about 13.00 hours, in the Hunting block which is under the authority of Northern Hunting Enterprises Limited.
It is reported that, while Royall and his family were driving in the area, another vehicle, Land Cruiser with registration numbers TZP 3867, drove toward them and blocked them off.
Sixteen men, armed with traditional weapons including spears, machetes, doubled edged swords (simis) and clubs jumped out, ready for an attack.
However, both the ambassador, his team and driver Carlous Chalamila happened to be fully equipped and likewise drew their weapons.
Seeing modern weapons, the mob got frightened and decided to flee. But the ambassador’s driver, Chalamila followed them to find out what they wanted. Contacts were subsequently made with the wildlife department of the Ministry of Tourism and Natural Resources. Some wildlife officers were dispatched to the scene from Arusha and when they arrived, they found the attackers already gone.
Regional Police Commander for Arusha, James Kombe admitted that the incident did take place but declined comments on the issue. However, already five people have been arrested in connection with the incident, these are: Omar Mussa, David Bernard, Salimba Lekasaine, Kiruriti Ndaga and the only lady in the team, Nuria Panito Kennedy.
This week, Arusha Times learned that, the five suspects are out on bail.
Speaking by phone from Monduli, the Monduli District Commissioner (DC), Anthony Malle said there was indeed some controversy regarding the Hunting bloc of Longido Game Controlled Area (LGCA) in which two Hunting companies of Kibo Safaris and Northern Hunting Enterprises (T) Limited, were at logger heads.
Captain Malle added that, even the residents of the Singa village in the area, have been divided into two groups each supporting either companies.
The District Commissioner however, pointed out that only the Ministry will decide which of the two parties have the right to the 1,500 square kilometre Hunting bloc.
DC Malle also said that he and other district officials have already held various meetings to address the issue and together have signed an official letter which was sent to the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism and Natural Resources in order for the office to settle the matter once and for all.
Efforts to contact both Kibo Safaris and Northern Hunting Enterprises ended in vain.
The East African
Extract Author: John Mbaria
Extract Date: December 2, 2002
The East African (Nairobi) Posted to the web December 4, 2002
.. .. ..
Unlike in Kenya, the law in Tanzania promotes commercial wildlife utilisation activities such as safari Hunting and actually prohibits photographic tourism in areas declared as Hunting zones.
Under the WCA of 1974, the wildlife division can only regulate the capture, Hunting and commercial photography of wildlife.
The report adds that the director of wildlife can issue Hunting licences on village land, but he "does not have the power to give a hunter or Hunting company authority to hunt on village land without the permission of the village government."
On their part, the licensed persons are expected to seek the permission of the village government before engaging in any Hunting. However, reports indicate that the practice of safari Hunting has so far ignored this law. The report says that most Hunting companies put up facilities on village lands without the permission of the village government and the respective village assemblies.
The report gives the example of the Loliondo GCA, in Loliondo division of Ngorongoro district, where a Hunting company associated with a United Arab Emirates minister, "has built an airstrip and several large houses without the permission of the relevant village governments."
"Such actions are contrary to the VLA which, under section 17, requires any non-village organisation that intends to use any portion of the village land to apply for that land to the village council, which will then forward that application and its recommendation for approval or rejection to the Commissioner for Land."
In January, The EastAfrican published an exclusive story on the manner with which the Hunting company conducts Hunting activities in Loliondo.
.. .. ..
Extract Author: Indigenous Rights for Survival International
Page Number: b
Extract Date: 2/1/03
[click on the link to see the original MS Word document]
Indigenous Rights for Survival International
P.O. Box 13357
Dar Es Salaam.
Alternative E-mail: email@example.com
The United Republic of Tanzania
P.O. Box 9120
Dar Es Salaam.
If it pleases the Honourable President Benjamin Mkapa
Re: Stop the killing fields of Loliondo
I am a Tanzanian citizen, a strong believer in social justice. Under the same spirit I am the Co-coordinator of an informal group called Indigenous Rights for Survival International (IRSI). IRSI is a loose network of young people with an interest in public policy issues in Africa. We mainly discuss policy issues through emails communications and ultimately write articles in the press. IRSI as an entity takes no position on any of the discussed issues instead it simply stimulates, steers, and co-ordinates discussions and debates on public policy issues of members’ interest.
Mr. President, I have all along believed that you can stop the crime against humanity being inflicted upon the people of Loliondo, Ngorongoro District of Arusha Region by a no less authority than the Government of Tanzania.
Mr. President, Loliondo Division is located in Maasai ancestral lands in the northern part of Tanzania along the common border with Kenya. It borders the Ngorongoro highlands to the south, Serengeti National Park to the west, and the Maasai Mara Game Reserve in Kenya to the north. The Loliondo Game Controlled Area (LCGA) encompasses an estimated 4,000 sq km. There is no physical barrier separating the LGCA from other protected areas. It is a continuous ecosystem. LGCA was initially established in 1959 as a Game Reserve by the British colonialists under the then Fauna Conservation Ordinance, Section 302, a legal instrument the colonial authorities used to set aside portions of land for wildlife conservation. The legal status of the reserve was later changed to that of a Game Controlled Area to allow for commercial Hunting, a status that defines LGCA today and haunts its wildlife.
Mr. President, Loliondo forms an important part of the semi-annual migratory route of millions of wildebeests and other ungulates northward into the Maasai Mara Game Reserve and Amboseli National Park in Kenya between April and June, and returning southward later in the year. The survival of the Ngorongoro-Serengeti-Maasai Mara ecosystem and the wildlife it supports is linked to the existence of Loliondo and other surrounding communal Maasai lands in Tanzania and Kenya. Similarly, the survival of the Maasai people is dependent entirely upon the protection of their ancestral land for economic viability and cultural reproduction. Land to the Maasai is the foundation for their spirituality and the base for identity.
Mr. President, the people of Ngorongoro District in general and Loliondo Division in particular have suffered for a long time various established pains such as irrational grabbing of their ancestral land for “development”, tourism (consumptive and non-consumptive) and cultivation. While the people of Loliondo have lost much of their ancestral land to cultivation, the Government is evidently supporting private investors to further put Maasai pastoralists of Loliondo at a very awkward corner.
In 1992, the administration of the former president Ali Hassan Mwinyi granted the entire Loliondo Game Controlled Area (LGCA) as a Hunting concession to the Otterlo Business Corporation Ltd (OBC), a game-Hunting firm based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Government issued a 10-year Hunting permit, under the controversial agreement, to the Brigadier Mohammed Abdulrahim Al-Ali, believed to be a member of the royal family of the UAE, of Abu Dhabi in the UAE who owns (OBC). The grabbed land is a birthright land of thousands of villagers of Arash, Soitsambu, Oloipiri, Ololosokwan, Loosoito and Oloirien villages of Loliondo.
Mr. President, a Parliamentary Committee was formed to probe the Loliondo Gate saga. It revoked the dirty agreement. Strangely, a similar agreement was established.
In January 2000, OBC was granted another 5-year Hunting permit in the said area. As usual, without the villagers’ consent. OBC constructed an airstrip. The villagers have been witnessing live animals being exported through the airstrip. OBC constructed structures near water sources. Hearing of the new permit, the Maasai sent a 13-men protest delegation to Dar Es Salaam in April 2000. The intention was to sort out the matter with you Mr. President. Unfortunately, they did not see you.
However, the delegation managed to hold a press conference at MAELEZO, National Information Corporation Centre. The Maasai contemplated a number of actions to be taken against both your Government and the Arab in connection with the plunder of the resources. The Maasai said that before a mass exodus of the Maasai to Kenya the first thing was to eliminate wild animals. Thereafter, the delegation retreated to Loliondo, as gravely frustrated as before.
The general election was scheduled for 2000, so the saga had to be explained away. The official statement was that power hungry opposition politicians were pushing the elders and that all the claims by the Maasai were “unfounded” and “baseless.” To its credit, The Guardian went to Loliondo. It reported the following:
Maasai elders in Loliondo, Arusha Region, who recently declared a land dispute against OBC Ltd, a foreign game-Hunting firm, have accused some top Government officials of corrupt practices, saying the conflict is not political. The Arusha Regional Commissioner, Daniel ole Njoolay, recently described the simmering land dispute between the Maasai pastoralists and OBC, as a political issue.
Francis Shomet [the former Chairman for Ngorongoro District Council] claimed that Njoolay had misled Tanzanians to believe that the allegations recently raised by Maasai elders were unfounded and baseless. Fidelis Kashe, Ngorongoro District Council Chairman maintained, “We cannot stand idle to see our land being taken away by Arabs. We will kill all the animals in the area as these are the ones attracting the Arabs into our land” (The Guardian May 30, 2000).
The next morning Government officials were reported to have said the following:
The Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Zakia Meghji, yesterday assured Ngorongoro residents that no land has been sold or grabbed by Arabs in Loliondo. Flanked by the Arusha Regional Commissioner, Daniel ole Njoolay and the Director of Wildlife, Emanuel Severre, Meghji commented, “There is no clause on the sale of land in the contract signed between OBC and the six villages of Ololosokwan, Arash, Maaloni, Oloirien, Oloipiri and Soitsambu.”
However an inquiry conducted by The Guardian in Loliondo last week established that the Maasai elders were not involved in the re-lease of the Hunting block to the company. According to Megji, her probe established that the building has been constructed about 400 metres from the water source, 200 metres more than the distance recommended by law. But The Guardian investigation shows that the structures are less than 50 metres from a spring. And another spring has dried up (The Guardian May 31, 2000).
Mr. President, underline two points. First, the Minister said the building has been constructed 400 metres from the water source. Second, “The Guardian investigation shows that the structures are less than 50 metres from a spring.” Now unless one’s mathematics teacher at school was daft, there is a huge different between 50 and 400! When did 50 metric metres turn to mean 400 metric metres? Can it be claimed that the Maasai were party to this so-called agreement? I am at a loss why this-well known-Minister has not been made to face the full force of the law.
In the proposal, Brigadier Al Ali outlined the benefits of his operations in Loliondo to the Government, local communities, and wildlife conservation in the Serengeti-Maasai Mara-Ngorongoro ecosystem. Among its important objectives were:
• To conserve an area contiguous to the Serengeti National Park, which is essential to the long-term survival of the ecosystem and its migration.
• To develop a new role and image for the Arab world as regards wildlife conservation, management, and human development.
• To improve locals’ revenue, development facilities, and create employment.
• To generate revenues for the Central and District Governments.
The OBC now stands accused of self-contradiction and violation of legal and moral obligations in virtually all the above areas, resulting instead in environmental destruction; unfulfilled promises and exploitation of the local communities; and direct undermining of the stability of the region’s wildlife and natural habitats.
It has become evident that OBC had a long-term agenda for exploiting the high concentration of wildlife in Loliondo. Its Hunting operations are guaranteed by the continuous flow of wildlife from the Serengeti, Ngorongoro, Maasai Mara, and other areas. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, OBC "was taking advantage of migratory patterns of wildlife coming out of Serengeti."
Mr. President, be informed that the villages in and adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania have no Government-supported infrastructures. Take Ngorongoro District for instance. There is no Government hospital in Ngorongoro. It may take a week to travel from Arusha to Loliondo, just less than 400 km, depending on weather, for there is no road. There is no even a single Government advanced level secondary education school in six (repeat six) Districts in the Greater Serengeti Region. This situation brings to question the legitimacy of wildlife conservation vis-à-vis the right of rural people to lead a decent life given nature endowment in their localities.
Mr. President, the Maasai of Loliondo have for a long time accused OBC of grave human rights abuses. They have described acts of intimidation, harassment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and even torture by OBC staff, Tanzanian police and military in the name of OBC; brazen violations of grazing and land rights; and wanton environmental destruction and imminent extermination of wildlife. They have seen leaders who once opposed OBC’s practices corrupted and bought-off.
The OBC operates like a separate arm of the Government. Many people in Loliondo believe that OBC is even more powerful than the Government. The Maa word for "the Arab", Olarrabui, is often used to refer Brigadier Al Ali, and by extension OBC. The word Olarrabui has become synonymous with power, authority, brutality, fear, and entities larger than life.
Mr. President, you do not need to be a rocket scientist to comprehend that this is the clearest case of abuse of office. It is suggested, for those willing to avert disaster, the Tanzania Government included, that immediate steps be taken to put to an end the violation of fundamental human rights in Ngorongoro. As to lands lost in Loliondo, the Government is advised to return this to its owners. Land should not be grabbed senselessly. The Government, should at once, re-look into the whole matter.
Navaya ole Ndaskoi.
- The International Court of Justice
- The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights
- The United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations
- Human Rights Groups around the World
- Faculty of Law of the University of Dar Es Salaam
- Local and International Conservation Agencies
- Ministry of Tourism and Natural Resources
- The Attorney General
- The Chief Justice
- The Speaker of the United Republic of Tanzania Parliament
- The Press, print and electronic
- Political parties in Tanzania
- Tanganyika Law Society
- Other interested parties.
Navaya ole Ndaskoi
see also Extract 3734
The Maasai protest delegation holding a press conference in Dar Es Salaam in 2000


Journal Issue: Juvenile Justice Volume 18 Number 2 Fall 2008
The Prevalence of Mental Disorders among Adolescent Offenders
Two kinds of studies address questions about the social consequences of the links between mental disorders and delinquency. One type examines the degree of "overlap" between a community's population of youth with mental disorders and its population of youthful offenders. Knowing this overlap gives some notion of the risk of official delinquency for youth with mental disorders and the degree to which mental disorders of youth contribute to a community's overall delinquency. The second type of study examines the proportion of youth with mental disorders within juvenile justice facilities or programs. These studies provide information with which to formulate policy about treating and managing youth with mental disorders in juvenile justice custody.
It is important to recognize that these two types of research begin with very different populations, even though they both address the relation between mental disorder and delinquency. The first typically focuses on all delinquent youth in the community, while the second examines only delinquent youth placed in juvenile pretrial detention centers when they are arrested or in juvenile correctional facilities when they are adjudicated. This distinction is further complicated, as discussed later, by the fact that not all youth in juvenile justice facilities are necessarily delinquent.
Epidemiologic Studies of Mental Disorder and Delinquency
Some studies have identified a significant overlap between the populations of youth served by community mental health agencies and youth in contact with the community's juvenile court.23 These studies are few in number, but they have found that the risk of juvenile court involvement among a community's young mental health clients is substantial. For example, a study in one city found that adolescents in contact with the community's mental health system during a nine-month period were two to three times more likely to have a referral to the juvenile justice system during that period than were youth in the city's general population.24 Youth in contact with a mental health system's services, however, are not the sum of a community's youth with mental health needs because many receive no services. The results of the study above probably represent the proportion of more seriously disturbed youth who have juvenile justice contact. Even so, merely knowing that youth "have contact" with the juvenile justice system tells us little about their offenses or even whether they offended at all.
Very few studies have used samples that make it possible to identify both the proportion of delinquent youth in a community who have mental disorders and the proportion of youth with mental disorders who have been delinquent. The few that have, however, are large studies with careful designs.
One examined a community population (drawn from several cities) that identified youth with persistent serious delinquency (repeat offending) and youth with persistent mental health problems (manifested multiple times).25 About 30 percent of youth with persistent mental health problems were persistently delinquent. But among all persistently delinquent youth, only about 15 percent had persistent mental health problems.
Another recent study examined the relation between mental disorders during adolescence and criminal behavior when those youth became adults.26 Delinquencies and adult criminal arrests were recorded for a sample of youth in a large geographic region aged nine through twenty-one. The youth were also assessed for mental disorders three times between the ages of nine and sixteen. A diagnosis at any one of these three points identified the youth as having a mental disorder "sometime during childhood or adolescence."
In this study, youth who were arrested between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one included a considerably greater share of youth who had had mental disorders in adolescence than those who were not arrested—for males, 51 percent as against 33 percent. This finding does not mean that 51 percent of the arrested group had mental disorders at the time of their arrest, but that they had had a mental disorder sometime in adolescence. It also does not mean that the majority of youth who had mental disorders in adolescence were arrested in adulthood. A different statistical procedure in this study, called "population attributable risk," addressed that question. It showed that the risk of adult arrest among individuals who had mental disorders at some time during adolescence was about 21 percent for women and 15 percent for men.
These few studies suggest the following conclusions, all of which need further confirmation. First, consistent with the clinical research reviewed earlier, youth who have mental disorders are at greater risk of engaging in offenses than youth without mental disorders. It is possible that treating their disorders would reduce that risk. But most youth with mental disorders do not engage in offenses that involve them in juvenile or criminal justice systems. Second, youth with mental disorders represent only a minority of all youth who engage in delinquent behavior, although the share is somewhat disproportionately greater than their prevalence in the general community. If those youth received treatment that reduced their delinquency, it is possible that overall rates of delinquency in the community would fall somewhat, but the majority of delinquencies are not related to mental disorders.
Third, rates of delinquency are higher among youth with certain types of emotional disorders— for example, depression or anxiety co-morbid with substance use disorders— and among youth with chronic and multiple disorders (seriously emotionally disturbed youth). Finally, a few studies have suggested that youth with mental disorders make up a somewhat greater proportion (although still a minority) of youth who were arrested for more serious and violent delinquencies or crimes.27
Mental Disorder in Juvenile Justice Settings
Research on the subset of delinquent youth who enter juvenile pretrial detention centers and correctional programs cannot tell us the relation between mental disorder and delinquency, because most youth who engage in delinquencies are not placed in secure juvenile justice programs. Such studies, however, are extremely important for public policy, because they identify the scope and nature of mental disorder among youth for whom the juvenile justice system has custodial responsibility.
Until recently the precise prevalence of mental disorders among youth in juvenile justice custody was unknown. Estimates varied widely from study to study, largely because of inadequate research methods or differences from one study site to another.28 In the past decade, however, well-designed studies executed in a variety of sites have provided a reliable and consistent picture. Those studies have found that among youth in various types of juvenile justice settings—for example, pretrial detention centers where youth are taken soon after arrest—about one-half to two-thirds meet criteria for one or more mental disorders.29 The prevalence of mental disorders is much higher in juvenile justice settings than it is among youth in the U.S. general population, which is about 15 to 25 percent.30
Across these studies, the rate is higher for girls than for boys.31 The overall prevalence rate does not vary greatly between younger and older adolescents or for youth with various ethnic and racial characteristics, although age and race differences are sometimes found for specific types of disorders and symptoms.32 As described in the earlier clinical review, about two-thirds of youth in juvenile justice custody who meet criteria for a mental disorder (that is, about one-third to one-half of youth in custody) meet criteria for more than one disorder.33
I will focus later on the implications of these statistics for the juvenile justice system's best response to mental disorders among youth in its custody. The high prevalence of mental disorder in juvenile justice facilities does not necessarily define the need for treatment. Some youth who meet criteria for mental disorders are experiencing their disorders temporarily and need only emergency services, while a smaller share—about one in ten—represents a core group of youth with chronic mental illness who can be expected to continue to need clinical services into adulthood.34 Some are functioning fairly well despite their symptoms, while others are barely able to function at all. And some have mental health needs, such as learning disabilities, that were not even included in the recent studies of prevalence among youth in juvenile justice settings.
Reasons for the High Prevalence of Mental Disorders in Juvenile Justice Programs
Why are mental disorders so prevalent among adolescent offenders in juvenile justice settings? Three perspectives—clinical, socio-legal, and inter-systemic—help to explain. They are not competing explanations. All probably play a role, and no evidence suggests that one is more important than the others.
From a clinical perspective, it is likely that the same symptoms of mental disorder that increase the risk of aggression also increase the likelihood that youth will be placed in secure juvenile justice facilities for any significant period of time. When police officers arrest youth, usually those youth are not placed in pretrial detention. Nor is detention reserved for the most serious offenders—in fact, youth arrested for very violent offenses typically do not make up the majority of youth in detention. Those youth who are detained more than a few hours are those who have been more unruly or unmanageable at the time of their arrest, which satisfies detention criteria regarding a risk that they will be endangered, or might endanger others, if not detained.
Youth with mental disorders frequently have symptoms involving impulsiveness, anger, and cognitive confusion that can make them less manageable and a greater risk to themselves or others, especially under the stress associated with their offense and arrest. Thus, among youth who are detained, a significant share is likely to have mental disorders that create unmanageable behavior—more so than for youth without mental disorders and more so than their peers with less severe mental disorders. This likelihood makes it no surprise that youth with mental disorders contribute disproportionately to detention populations.
From a socio-legal perspective, recent changes in laws applied to youths' delinquencies may have increased the likelihood that youth with mental disorders will enter the juvenile justice system. Before the 1990s, law enforcement officers, juvenile probation departments, prosecutors, and judges typically had some discretion regarding whether they would arrest or prosecute youth with mental disorders when they engaged in illegal behaviors, especially if those behaviors involved minor offenses committed by younger adolescents without offense histories. But a wave of serious juvenile violence during the late 1980s caused virtually all states to revise their juvenile justice statutes during the 1990s to rein in this discretion.35 Under the new laws, certain charges or offenses required legal responses based on the nature of the offense alone, not the characteristics or needs of the individual youth. Penalties more often involved custody in secure juvenile facilities, thus reducing the likelihood that youth could receive mental health services in the community after their adjudication. An unintended consequence of these changes in law, therefore, was an increase in the share of youth with mental disorders coming into the system rather than being diverted on the basis of the juvenile court's discretion.
A final, inter-systemic, explanation involves the dynamic relation between systems that serve youth. During the 1990s, most states saw a reduction in the availability of public mental health services for children, especially inpatient services.36 It is possible that less adequate treatment contributed to increased delinquencies among youth with mental disorders. But it is certain that many communities began using the juvenile justice system to try to fill the gap caused by decreased availability of mental health services.
This phenomenon was documented in media articles, the observations of juvenile justice personnel, and government reports beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing into the early 2000s.37 Some parents of children with serious mental disorders began urging police to arrest their children, knowing that courts could "order" mental health services that were becoming nearly impossible for parents to get on their own. Soon the local juvenile pretrial detention center was becoming the community's de facto mental health center that provided emergency mental health services or simply acted as a holding place for seriously disturbed youth who had nowhere to go.
In summary, these three factors—clinical, socio-legal, and inter-systemic—may together produce a prevalence of mental disorder in juvenile justice settings that does not represent the actual relation between adolescent mental disorder and delinquency. That high prevalence does, however, represent a demand on the juvenile justice system to respond to youth in custody who have mental disorders, and the demand is almost overwhelming. Some of those youth are in secure custody because they have committed serious crimes, others because the legal system has widened the door to juvenile justice processing, and many because their symptoms make them difficult to handle and they have no place else to go.
The problem requires a solution, and the multiple causes of the problem as well as the various types of youth involved suggest that the solution will be complex. What have clinicians and researchers learned that can help us determine the appropriate response?38


Note: This lesson was originally published on an older version of The Learning Network; the link to the related Times article will take you to a page on the old site.
Teaching ideas based on New York Times content.
Overview of Lesson Plan: In this lesson, students evaluate current search procedures implemented to fight terrorism and examine constitutional rights to privacy. They then share and defend their opinions about domestic security and civil liberties in an age of terrorism.
Kristen Tepfenhardt, The New York Times Learning Network
Yasmin Chin Eisenhauer, The Bank Street College of Education in New York City
Suggested Time Allowance: 1 hour
1. Participate in a “random search” simulation; evaluate current search procedures implemented to fight terrorism.
2. Consider the New York area mass transit’s response to the terror attacks in London by reading and discussing the article “In New York, It’s Open Bag or Find Exits.”
3. Discuss constitutional amendments that relate to rights to privacy.
4. Share individual opinions on domestic security and civil liberties in an age of terrorism.
5. Justify their stances on this topic in letters to state legislators.
Resources / Materials:
-five index cards with instructions, as described in Warm-Up activity
-copies of the article “In New York, It’s Open Bag or Find Exits,” found online at http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20050725monday.html (one per student)
-four large pieces of paper or poster board, each with one of the following statements written in large letters: “Strongly Agree,” “Agree Somewhat,” “Disagree Somewhat,” “Strongly Disagree”
Activities / Procedures:
1. WARM-UP/DO-NOW: Prior to class, write the words Security Check on the classroom board, place a desk underneath it, and write the following five instructions each on its own index card:
-Please proceed to the Security Check area and list all of the items in your possession on the back of this card.
-Please proceed to the Security Check area, list all of the items in your possession on the back of this card, and take out proper photo identification.
-Please proceed to the Security Check area, remove your shoes and empty all of your pockets on the desk.
-Please proceed to the Security Check area and write your social security number, full name, home address and phone number on the back of this card, and await a search of your personal belongings.
-Please proceed to the Security Check area and await the K-9 Dog Unit, which will search your belongings.
As students enter the classroom, randomly hand an index card to students until all five index cards are distributed. (Based on your class size, you might want to give a card to every fourth or fifth student.) Each student who receives a card reports to the front of the room to the Safety Check area and follows the instructions as indicated on his or her index card.
After a few minutes, ask each student to read his or her card aloud, and have each student share his or her thoughts about being selected for this process. Did all students fully comply with the security check? Why or why not? Did they feel that their privacy was being invaded in any way? Now, facilitate a class discussion: How do other students in the class feel about these types of security checks? Would they feel comfortable with this search procedure if it were applied to them in school? On public transportation? In an airport? While entering a mall? Do students think this type of search procedure is effective in stopping potential terrorists? Do students feel that these types of procedures are a violation of their privacy?
2. As a class, read and discuss “In New York, It’s Open Bag or Find Exits” (found online at http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20050725monday.html), focusing on the following questions:
a. What “new era” has entered New York City’s subways?
b. What new element was added to subway riders’ commuting routines, and why?
c. Where did the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey state it would conduct its searches?
d. Where did the Metropolitan Transportation state its searches were conducted?
e. Who is Michael Chertoff, and according to him, how long will the nation’s mass transit agencies remain on high alert?
f. What did the New York Police Department refuse to disclose after its first day of searches?
g. According to officials, how will the searches be conducted on the weekends?
h. How many subway stations were involved in the initial searches?
i. What was the consequence for commuters who did not agree to inspection?
j. During what hours are the searches focused, and why?
k. How were officers ordered by commanders to stop riders for searches?
l. What did Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg acknowledge on the morning that the searches were announced?
m. What does Mayor Bloomberg hope he has established, as he indicated on his weekly program on WABC-AM?
n. What did Mayor Bloomberg pledge?
o. What has Mayor Bloomberg learned?
p. What has the New York Civil Liberties Union called the searches?
q. What did Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly indicate for officers in the guideline issued on July 21, 2005, to top police commanders?
r. What different types of packages were searched?
s. According to Shauna Murray, how long did the search process take at Woodlawn-Jerome Avenue in the Bronx?
t. When did the “every fifth person” search break down?
u. In addition to searching bags, what steps were taken at Sutphin Boulevard-Archer Avenue by officers?
v. What was the search procedure at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan?
w. By what were selected riders met at Lafayette Avenue in Fort Greene, Brooklyn?
x. What was Amy Lisogorsky’s reaction the second time she was searched?
y. How did the search situation in the suburbs compare to that in the city?
z. What is James Murphy’s view regarding the searches’ ability to prevent a bombing?
aa. According to the Port Authority’s chairman, Anthony R. Coscia, what did the announcement of these searches prompt him to do?
3. Refer back to the statement in the article made by Acting New Jersey Gov. Richard J. Codey: “The two bomb attacks this month on subways and buses in London made it ‘necessary to bring a new level of vigilance to our mass transit system.’” Then, explain to students that privacy is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has ruled that several amendments do establish our constitutional right to privacy. Review and discuss the following amendments, focusing on how they relate to privacy:
-First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
-Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
-Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
4. Explain to students that they will be expressing their views on different statements that you will be reading to them regarding domestic security and civil liberties in an age of terrorism. Hang the four “statement” posters in different corners of the room. Because students will be moving around to stand beneath the statements with which they most agree for different questions related to democracy, be sure that students have clear paths in the room to reach the four corners. For each of the statements below, read the statement aloud and allow students to move to the corners of the room that best express their views on the statement. As students take their places, write the statement on the board. Then, ask at least one student in each group to share his or her choice. Encourage students to support their opinions with reasons, facts, and examples, and allow students to challenge one another’s ideas.
-Sometimes personal rights must be given up in order to protect people from those who could be a danger to all of us.
-Searches should be conducted at the discretion of police officers based only if they have probable cause to suspect someone of a crime.
-The phrase “it is better to be safe than sorry” applies when it comes to fighting terrorism.
-The American government should have the right to investigate to the fullest extent of the law any suspicious person and his or her activities.
-Civil liberties have been granted in the United States Constitution and should be preserved at all costs.
5. WRAP-UP/HOMEWORK: Students respond to the following prompt, written on the board for students to copy prior to leaving the classroom: “As quoted in the article read in class, Port Authority’s chairman Anthony R. Coscia stated that ‘people are willing to endure some level of inconvenience to have a higher level of safety.’ Considering the content of the article and today’s class discussions, write a letter to a senator or representative from our state. What balance can be struck between providing domestic security against terrorism and preserving the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution? What potential terror targets exist in your state, how are they protected in this age of terrorism, and how successful do you think those measures are?” Students can peer-edit their letters and send them to your state legislators. (You can find the addresses of your legislators at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/.)
Further Questions for Discussion:
-Public mass transit systems are currently using a random search method. What other systems might also be subject to searches?
-If current search methods begin to produce fear in the American people and deter them from using mass transit, how can the government restore faith in this system?
-Is it fair to compare mass transit search procedures to those used in airports if these modes of transportation do not follow the same protocol? Is one method more effective than the other?
Evaluation / Assessment:
Students will be evaluated based on participation in class discussions and clear presentation and defense of opinions, in both spoken and written forms.
widespread, yielding, random, conduct, endure, networks, vigilance, alertness, disclose, intrusive, violating, turnstile, profiling, unconstitutional, precedents, checkpoints, intoxication, guideline, retained, probable cause, diverse, notation, detained, emigrated, overzealous, substantial, submitted, optimistic
1. Examine other times in history when the United States government has implemented policies that some would consider to be invasions of privacy or threats to individuals’ civil liberties. Create a political cartoon for your school newspaper comparing that historic situation to the current situation discussed in the article read in class.
2. Research the United States Homeland Security Advisory System. Why was it developed? When and how was it developed? How does it work? What do different people think of this system’s effectiveness? Write a newspaper article sharing your findings, or an editorial piece offering your views.
3. What is the American Civil Liberties Union? What is their mission? What are their goals? What have they done to attain these goals? In what recent situations were they involved, and to what extent did their involvement impact the outcome? Create an informational poster or illustrated timeline with your findings.
Economics/Mathematics- How much has the United States spent on homeland security since September 11, 2001? Create a series of graphs illustrating various angles of answers to this question (e.g., one graph focusing only on New York, another focusing on airline security, another on costs incurred in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, etc.) Then, write an evaluative piece reflecting on your findings.
Media Studies- Identify an issue of privacy related to the news media. Prepare a chart that lists the consequences of maintaining privacy in the situation, and identify these consequences as benefits or costs. Be prepared to explain the issue to your class. Is there a need for legislation related to this issue? What laws currently exist?
Teaching with The Times- Search for headlines in The New York Times that discuss to the London bombings and terrorism in general. What anti-terrorism methods are other countries taking in response to the London attacks? Then, create a chart to compare and contrast methods being used abroad with those being implemented in the United States. To order The New York Times for your classroom, click here.
Other Information on the Web:
The American Civil Liberties Union, or A.C.L.U. (http://www.aclu.org), is an advocate of individual rights.
Center for Civic Education (http://www.civiced.org) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation which provides K-12 programs and curriculum which foster the development of informed, responsible participation in civic life.
Justice Learning: Civic Education in the Real World (http://www.justicelearning.org) is a collaboration between NPR’s Justice Talking and The New York Times Learning Network, with features on various constitutional issues affecting the world today.
Academic Content Standards:
Civics Standard 18- Understands the role and importance of law in the American constitutional system and issues regarding the judicial protection of individual rights. Benchmarks: Understands the importance of the rule of law in establishing limits on both those who govern and the governed, protecting individual rights, and promoting the common good; Knows historical and contemporary examples of the rule of law; Understands criteria for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a rule or law by determining if it is understandable, possible to follow, fair, well designed to achieve its purposes, and designed to protect individual rights and to promote the common good; Understands the basic concept of due process of law; Understands the importance to individuals and to society of major due process protections; Understands why due process rights in administrative and legislative procedures are essential for the protection of individual rights and the maintenance of limited government; Understands current issues regarding judicial protection of the rights of individuals
Civics Standard 26- Understands issues regarding the proper scope and limits of rights and the relationships among personal, political, and economic rights. Benchmarks: Understands what is meant by the “scope and limits” of a right; Understands different positions on a contemporary conflict between rights; Understands different positions on a contemporary conflict between rights and other social values and interests
Civics Standard 29- Understands the importance of political leadership, public service, and a knowledgeable citizenry in American constitutional democracy. Benchmarks: Understands why becoming knowledgeable about public affairs and the values and principles of American constitutional democracy and communicating that knowledge to others is an important form of participation, and understands the argument that constitutional democracy requires the participation of an attentive, knowledgeable, and competent citizenry; Understands how awareness of the nature of American constitutional change gives citizens the ability to reaffirm or change fundamental constitutional values
Language Arts Standard 7- Demonstrates competence in the general skills and strategies for reading a variety of informational texts. Benchmarks: Applies reading skills and strategies to a variety of informational texts; Knows the defining characteristics of a variety of informational texts; Uses new information to adjust and extend personal knowledge base; Identifies techniques used to convey viewpoint; Draws conclusions and makes inferences based on explicit and implicit information in texts; Differentiates between fact and opinion in informational texts
Language Arts Standard 8- Demonstrates competence in speaking and listening as tools for learning. Benchmarks: Plays a variety of roles in group discussions; conveys a clear main point when speaking to others and stays on the topic being discussed
Civics Standard 18- Understands the role and importance of law in the American constitutional system and issues regarding the judicial protection of individual rights. Benchmarks: Understands how the rule of law makes possible a system of ordered liberty that protects the basic rights of citizens; Knows historical and contemporary practices that illustrate the central place of the rule of law; Knows historical and contemporary instances in which judicial protections have not been extended to all persons and instances in which judicial protections have been extended to those deprived of them in the past; Understands why due process rights in administrative and legislative procedures are essential for protecting individual rights and maintaining limited government
Civics Standard 26- Understands issues regarding the proper scope and limits of rights and the relationships among personal, political, and economic rights. Benchmarks: Knows how to distinguish among personal, political, and economic rights; Understands different positions on a contemporary conflict between rights such as one person’s right to free speech versus another person’s right to be heard
Civics Standard 29- Understands the importance of political leadership, public service, and a knowledgeable citizenry in American constitutional democracy. Benchmarks: Understands why becoming knowledgeable about public affairs and the values and principles of American constitutional democracy, and communicating that knowledge to others are important forms of participation, and understands the argument that constitutional democracy requires the participation of an attentive, knowledgeable, and competent citizenry; Understands how awareness of the nature of American constitutional change gives citizens the ability to reaffirm or change fundamental constitutional values
Language Arts Standard 7- Demonstrates competence in the general skills and strategies for reading a variety of informational texts. Benchmarks: Applies reading skills and strategies to a variety of informational texts; Knows the defining characteristics of a variety of informational texts; Determines the effectiveness of techniques used to convey viewpoint
Language Arts Standard 8- Demonstrates competence in speaking and listening as tools for learning. Benchmarks: Asks questions as a way to broaden and enrich classroom discussions


INTEGRATED THEME UNIT: CRUISING THE CARIBBEAN - PART 4 - HONDURAS (ELEM/MIDDLE)
This fun unit features the adventures of Melvin and Morris as they visit Honduras while cruising the Caribbean includes a realistic fiction reading selection, comprehension questions and map reading skills. 6 pages including answer key
Already an abcteach Member?
LOG IN TO ACCESS THIS DOCUMENT...