Amel, there are many reasons for the bush meat crisis. It became a crisis long before the EU boats started fishing off Senegal.

Hunting and eating bushmeat is a tradition in Central and West Africa. That was fine when there was a smaller population and
bows and arrows etc were used, it was small enough to be sustainable.
But with ever growing populations in Africa, AK47s etc now easily
available, the construction of roads through many of the forests,
various armies and refugees from other overcrowded areas of
growing population etc, its just become one big slaughterfield,
so forest after forest is being hunted out until nothing that
moves is left, then they move on to the next area.

Consumer demand for meat continues, bushmeat is what they offer
at various markets, so thats what people buy and actually like.
Its even smuggled into Europe for Congolese etc. living in places
like Brussels and London. Once they have shot the last of the
primates, what then? They won't even have tourism as a potential
anymore.

Are condoms really effective at mitigating the AIDS crisis? Well, I thought I would take a look at some figures on the effectiveness of condoms at this url:

http://www.medinstitute.org/health/questions_answers.html#listitem1766-7467

Technically, condoms reduce the risk of aids by between 96 to 99 percent, but practically, with 100 percent consistent condom use (which does not even happen in first world countries, by the way, with an estimated consistent use of less than 50 percent), the actual figure is 85 percent - and let's not go near the figures for other STDs! That means you have more than one chance in ten of contracting AIDS!
So, lets start with a population which has, say, one third of the population with aids (say, Botswana, for example). If half the population use a condom once a year, then after only 3 years, another 7.5 percent of the population has AIDS (50 * .15 * 3 / 3)
Admittedly, the figures are quite contrived (for example, it is unlkely that those who are sexually active will have sex once a year - or that they will be with only the one sex partner). However, 'one chance in ten' ... is anyone seriously suggesting this as a solution? Even at only one percent fatality, no medicine would ever be released on the market the way condoms have been released, especially when you consider the cumulative effect. Don't be conned by condoms! They can only cover up the problem.

Yabby,you want people to believe the major population in Africa are the reason for the "Bushmeat Crisis".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4003859.stm

http://www.seaaroundus.org/OtherWebsites/2004/Newstudylinkslowfish.pdf

Some African governments are acting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3314529.stm

Amel, if you read the bbc link, you will see that experts agree that its more complicated then fish, which are just one issue, perhaps closer to the coast. In places like the Congo, its demand for meat
by a rising population, without livestock industries to produce that
meat. Go to Kinshasa restaurants and markets, its everywhere, openly sold. Good on Cameroon if they do something about it, but the problem is far larger then that.

Paulb, your link is to a website which promotes George Bushes radical religious right solution, the founder even advises George.
So I question their agenda. Condoms work better then abstinence alone, read up some more objective data. If the founder was so concerned about teenage pregnancy and STDs, the fact that people know little about them, perhaps he would realise that the Dutch solutioin, with only 10% of the American problem, actually works,
although it doesent fit any religious agenda.

Abstinence only is a dismal failure, as when people break their
pledges, they know nothing about stds or contraception, so bingo,
they have a problem.

Yabby, sure, question their agenda ... but when condom manufacturers themselves admit a breakage rate of 1-2 percent you have to really wonder whose agenda needs to be questioned. Maybe you have to be a mathematician to appreciate the cumulative effects of 2 percent. Let's disregard the articles effectiveness rate of 85 percent in practice for the purposes of making this point. The breakage rate alone will get you the same reduced effectiveness after using condoms only 8 times!

How is this for a scenario? If you used a condom every month for a year with someone who has AIDS, then you have one chance in four of being exposed to the HIV simply based on the breakage rate alone ... of course, in practise, after a year you would be a very lucky person to not have contracted the HIV.

It is the condom manufacturers that, maybe rightly so, claim a permability factor which is so low as to be not noticeable. When the permability is actually not the issue ... Who is conning whom?

Paulb, you'll find that when most scientific studies talk about
condom failure rate, they refer to % of couples using a method over 12 months, where she lands up pregnant, not use per time. For condoms thats around 12%.

http://sqzm14.ust.hk/condom-ratings-95.HTML

Lots of problems with condoms are in fact due to people not having a clue how to use them properly. They open the packet with their teeth, they pull them on like a sock, etc. Proper education could solve most of that.

They did a test in a Sydney brothel, where girls knew what they were doing I presume. Out of 1269 condoms, 6 broke.

http://www.embarrassingproblems.com/condoms_b.htm

Next thing, size is an issue. Penises come from tiny to huge and one size does not fit all lol. If all these things were addressed in kids sex education programmes, condoms would be a great way to reduce both hiv and stds. With preaching abstinence, the failure rate is over 50%! Keeping your legs crossed for Jesus, doesent work
in the real world.