Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 406051,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/406051/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 154,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Tobiko",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1663,
        "legal_name": "Peris Pesi Tobiko",
        "slug": "peris-pesi-tobiko"
    },
    "content": "Those people had been incapacitated and they had not been compensated by KWS. They had hospitals bills that had not been taken care of and they could no longer work for their families. So, I would also urge that hospitals costs for those who have been injured by wildlife must be taken care of. Again, it is very punitive that the wildlife finds you in your own farm and injures you and finally you get to meet the cost. Our areas, particularly group ranches, and even individual ranches around the parks provide a dispersal area for wildlife. If this Bill says that you must take measures to protect your crops or your livestock, I think a wedge is being driven between the communities and the wildlife. If we fence our areas, then wildlife will not find space to move out of the parks. Actually, our communities have been living for years with this wildlife. If you go to my home today, and I think a number of Members were there not long ago, it is like you are going through a park. We live with wildlife. We appreciate them, but if you say that we must be seen to have taken measures to protect our crops--- In fact, in my community we do not do farming. Not because we do not want to do it, but it is because elephants would not allow. We never cultivate crops like maize. We would have wanted to do that for the sustenance of our people, but we cannot because of the wildlife. The people around parks cannot do farming because of wild animals. Those communities around the parks must be encouraged. The law must be done in such a way that there is mutual benefit. We should live amicably with these animals. I think we might create laws that will encourage communities to even eliminate these animals. I have also seen that KWS does not employ local people. I would say that the law should specify that game rangers and others, 80 per cent should come from the communities that are preserving these animals. It is the only way for these people to look at the animals as an asset. This is the only way to look at wildlife as benefiting every Kenyan and particularly those who have kept the animals. I liked what hon. Angwenyi has said; there are communities that have lived with these animals. There are communities that have preserved this good heritage. There are communities that have wiped it out. Why do you not do well to those who have kept this wildlife? Why do we not put a law that will then appreciate the role that these communities have been playing? I would also say that during drought, we find our animals moving into parks. It is not the wish of these people to move into parks, but at that time it is really survival. I would say that penalties must not be punitive. After the drought, the animals move out of the parks to our ranches. So, both do visit each other. If we put penalties that cannot be afforded by the communities, people will not appreciate this resource. I would say that the law is good, but a number of things must be corrected. A number of things must be amended so that we then continue keeping the wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity and I support the Motion."
}