setting of snares were low education level, large family size and ethnic origin (with
Congolese immigrants particularly involved in snaring and hunting).^79 The total propor-
tion of the population setting snares was found to be 12%. Wire for snares was obtained
illegally from Kinyara Sugar Works and was found around the old, defunct sawmills.
Wild meat was considered by those involved to be of importance not just to their diet but
also to their livelihood, indicating a clear economic aspect (sale of meat at markets and
along the main road) to snaring.
All this hunting is being done illegally since all hunting and killing of animals except
vermin is illegal in Uganda. But here is a case where the law has no teeth at all. Bannon
(1997) interviewed hunters, non-hunters and local officials in and around Budongo and
found that knowledge of hunting laws was limited or non-existent, laws were not
enforced and were not policed, immigrants from Congo were skilled hunters who took
hunting of wild animals for granted, and there were no facilities for education of the
population on the law as related to hunting of wild animals. In addition there was a
chronic shortage of resources and low morale among Forest Department staff so that
wildlife issues remained a low priority for them. Since that time things have improved;
there is now a move to bring local communities into forest management schemes, an
Action Plan to protect chimpanzees is being hammered out, and there is a District
Wildlife Management Unit based at Masindi. The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)
has the responsibility of protecting all wildlife in Uganda, including in the Forest
Reserves, and whereas staff of UWA used to have difficulty working with staff of the
Forest Department in field situations, things are now improving. Initiatives in wildlife
legislation need to be well publicized and explained to up-country farmers; in the past
confusion was rife at all levels (Bannon 1997).^80
Local attitudes to the forest
It was clear from Johnson’s study that around 90% of respondents valued the forest.
Only 5.4% thought it should be cut down for agricultural purposes. It was highly valued
for firewood (60.5%), for building purposes (52%), timber (51%), employment
(pitsawing) (19.5%), animal resources (17.5%), attraction of rain (17%), water collection
(12.5%) and medicines (11%). Many further uses were valued: wood for furniture, craft
materials, charcoal production, fruit collection, soil fertility maintenance, mushroom
collection, tuber collection, air cooling, scientific research, tourist attraction, prevention
of soil erosion, seed collection, boat construction, wind protection, electricity poles and
even fishing (there are fish in forest streams).
Johnson asked specifically about people’s attitudes to chimpanzees. She notes that
her link with the BFP may have inclined people to say nice things about chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees were not thought to be destructive, were thought of as highly intelligent
and admired by many: 65% of respondents supported chimpanzee protection; 43.8%
Local attitudes to the forest 197(^79) It is to be hoped that Congolese immigrants will not introduce the eating of chimpanzee meat to this area.
(^80) Some information on the history of Uganda’s wildlife legislation can be found in Kamugisha (1993:
28–37), but this only covers the period to 1990.