Dale Doré and Ivan Bond 321suspected offenders. Rather than curtailing poaching, this high-handed
approach by officials generated resentment towards the state and a greater
determination by the people to rid their area of wildlife. In order to achieve
this, Kanyurira residents, secretly acquired guns and snares. They also started
fires in order to kill animals as well as destroy the environment upon which
wildlife depended. Moreover, Kanyurira residents encouraged immigrants to
settle in the area. The additional human presence, they believed, would
displace wildlife from the area (Dzingirai 1996).
In 1989, the people of Kanyurira were understandably suspicious when
they were invited to participate in CAMPFIRE and benefit from wildlife
management. Despite scepticism from within certain groups, members of the
community elected a Ward Wildlife Committee, which marked the inception
of CAMPFIRE in Guruve district. In 1991 Guruve Rural District Council was
vested with the right to benefit from the management of wildlife in the district
when it was granted Appropriate Authority status under the Parks and Wild
Life Act. Thus, while the council was the legal manager of the wildlife resource,
it was obliged, under CAMPFIRE, to devolve some management authority to
the Ward Wildlife Committee. This committee, elected by registered households
within the community, is governed by a constitution that was adopted by the
community in 1992 (see Taylor 1998, Appendix 9.3). By 1998 it consisted of
eight elected representatives who were responsible for the wildlife
management activities of 15 staff members, including wildlife fence minders
and game guards.
With the change from subsistence to sport hunting, and the adoption of a
new constitution, new local rules emerged, which have tended to supersede
any traditional rules that may have governed hunting. The new wildlife
management rules, which make it illegal to hunt wildlife without Appropriate
Authority and a licence (quota), appear to be widely respected in the
community, as there have been few reports of local hunting by Kanyurira
residents (Dzomba 1997). (Anecdotal information suggests, however, that some
hunting is still being carried out by certain members of the community.)
The constitution stipulates rules for the conservation and management of
trees, fish and wildlife that households are obliged to follow if they wish to
benefit from wildlife revenues. Those members of the community who violate
rules against poaching are excluded from receiving a reward for managing
wildlife. These rules are enforced by a team of game scouts employed by the
Ward Wildlife Committee. Although the legal rights of community members
have diminished with respect to their individual right to hunt animals for their
subsistence needs, they have increased with respect to their right to benefit
from their collective management of wildlife under CAMPFIRE. On balance,
this benefit appears to outweigh the benefits from subsistence hunting for
most households. In terms of elephants, this transfer of rights has been of
undoubted benefit to all households.
As the benefits from wildlife clearly outweigh the costs, many migrants
have been attracted to Kanyurira. In an effort to forestall the ‘free-rider’
problem, the Ward Wildlife Committee’s constitution specifies that households
must have lived in the study area for at least five years to qualify for revenues
earned from sport hunting. At the time of the World Wide Fund for Nature18sporthunting.P65 321 22/12/2004, 11:05