Death of Zimbabwe’s Best-Loved Lion Ignites Debate on Sport Hunting

[Philip Glass]

What strikes me the most is this bit in the article:

From 1999 they (Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Oxford University) began an ongoing ecological study of African lions in Hwange to measure the impact of sport-hunting beyond the park on the lion population within the park, using radio-telemetry and direct observation.

The research found that 34 of 62 tagged lions died during the study period; 24 were shot by sport hunters. Sport hunters in the safari areas surrounding the park killed 72 percent of tagged adult males from the study area. This caused a decline in numbers of adult males in the population.​

The article didn't mention if they tagged only male lions. Is the park so small that the adult males have to wander outside the park, or are the hunters systematically luring the lions out of the protected area? Those numbers (72% of adult males are shot) don't seem very healthy, and will surely affect the pride structures. Is this sustainable?

You are totally wrong. Where there are too many males there are fewer cubs that make it to maturity. You should know that from watching Animal Planet! There only needs to be a very few males to breed. The others are a major hindrance to the overall population. Hunting of old mature male lions does nothing negative to the population. FACT!
Regards,
Philip
P.S. Bleeding Heart animal rights activist types need to be removed from this site.

 

[Royal27]

P.S. Bleeding Heart animal rights activist types need to be removed from this site.

If they are willing to have civil and reasonable conversations in the correct forum and follow the rules of the site then I believe they have just as much right to be here as you or I do.
When different opinion are given someone just might learn something.

 

[Vevew]

The above quote seems to me to support my belief that you will ignore scientific fact and economic information that can and will help the wild lion. To not implement (or be supportive of) a good idea based upon sound principals is nothing but an emotional reaction

Perhaps you are right. However, there are studies that say trophy hunting is not a significant part of tourism revenues in Africa.
http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Ecolarge-2013-200m-question.pdf

How important is the trophy hunting industry?
Trophy hunting advocates present the industry as large, citing figures such as $200m in annual revenue. But in the context of national economies, the industry is tiny, contributing at best a fraction of a percent of GDP. Nature based tourism does play a significant role in national development, but trophy hunting is insignificant. Across the investigated countries, trophy hunting revenue was only 1.8% of tourism revenues.​

Why can't regular nature based tourism replace trophy hunting?

You've been told before, but I will say it again, POACHING AND ILLEGALLY TAKING WILDLIFE IS NOT HUNTING. Hunting is the legal taking of animals and is based upon sustainable harvest and is regulated by governmental authority, almost without exception.

Yes, I do understand the difference, but poaching can be disguised as hunting. And just because a hunt is legal, it doesn't necessarily mean that it always helps conservation and is helpful for the animals. I'm not saying that every hunt is inherently destructive for the animals, but rather that there is the potential for it to be destructive for multiple reasons; bad population assessment, exceeding the quota because the outfitter wants a little more money (it's a business after all).

Yes, 'trophy hunting as conservation' sounds good on paper, but I can imagine ways the hunters might cheat the system. Is the answer more scrutiny and more law enforcement? I don't know. It's difficult to enforce the law out in the bush.

Yes, population assessment is done by a third party, meaning the government of the country in which the hunting occurs, not the hunter. and yes, there is third party review of the data by the international community, meaning CITES. I've also attached their website below as it doesn't appear you are familiar with them.

https://cites.org/

Outfitter - owner/manager of the hunting area
Professional Hunter = PH = guide for the actual hunter. his job is to not only help the hunter to take the animal he wants, but to do so LEGALLY.

Hope this helps.

Thanks!

Nope I'm just saying it is unnatural for those wild animals to have so much familiarity with humans. And if you read some of these recent posts about parks quite a few people have been mauled and killed by these kitties!
Regards,
Philip

Photo tourism can only work if people can get close to the animals. Of course it's unnatural for there to be cars around the lions so often, but there is no other way for the masses to see these majestic animals in the wild.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Photo tourism can only work if people can get close to the animals. Of course it's unnatural for there to be cars around the lions so often, but there is no other way for the masses to see these majestic animals in the wild.

So let's make the vast majority of the land a big national park and criss cross it all with paved roads as you wouldn't want those tourists having to bounce along a dirt path or get stuck in the mud. Who is going to pay for the infrastructure? Who is going to maintain that?

It's just not feasible to make the entire countryside a national park and thus you get Kenya. So how would you conserve wildlife in the countryside that isn't a national park?

 

[Royal27]

Why can't regular nature based tourism replace trophy hunting?

Pretty simple answer really. Regular photo tourism requires large amounts of animals in small areas. You do after all, go there to see and photograph animals, right? So.... We have Parks for this, such as Kruger, Addo, etc... And they are great. and if your only goal is to keep a small number of animals in a relatively confined area so that people can see "how it used to be" then great, that is all you need. Side note: Did you know that some parks give lioness birth control so they don't breed? They don't want to many of them there as they'd eat the other animals and that is bad for business and as you said, it is all about making dollars, right??? People want to see more than just lions after all.

Point being, photo tourists won't go to a place where the animals aren't easily spotted, so that they can take photos. and that is where hunters come in. We're willing to spend money that ends up helping in these remote areas. Let me ask you this. Would you pay $50-80k to go to a remote area of Africa for 21 days knowing that you might not even see a lion, much less get a photo of it? I'm betting not. Hunters will and that is where we come in. We provide value to the animals in places and areas where the photo tourists never can or will.

Yes, I do understand the difference, but poaching can be disguised as hunting. And just because a hunt is legal, it doesn't necessarily mean that it always helps conservation and is helpful for the animals. I'm not saying that every hunt is inherently destructive for the animals, but rather that there is the potential for it to be destructive for multiple reasons; bad population assessment, exceeding the quota because the outfitter wants a little more money (it's a business after all).

Yes, 'trophy hunting as conservation' sounds good on paper, but I can imagine ways the hunters might cheat the system. Is the answer more scrutiny and more law enforcement? I don't know. It's difficult to enforce the law out in the bush.

Here's the problem. You want a 100% guaranteed solution and it doesn't exist. Can you guarantee me that if I donate money to an anti-hunting lion cause that the money won't be embezzled and it will reach the lions, that "animal rights" activists won't use the money to pay themselves a fat salary? Nope! Can you guarantee me that if hunting is outlawed that lions will increase in population? Nope! Go back and check your Kenya statistics for how well that works out.


You want to take hunting off the table as a part of the solution because it MIGHT not work. And yet, you have no other proposed solution. Telling people what might not work is easy. Working with other groups to find a solution that does, now that is hard. I'm all ears as soon as you have a proposed idea, but so far you've shared nothing. And with this post I think I'm pretty much done with this thread. Unless you can come back with a proposed solution, which you haven't been able to do.

 

[Vevew]

All right. You made good points, and have changed my opinion on wild lion trophy hunting.
I'll post here later if I come up with a better argument.

Side note: Did you know that some parks give lioness birth control so they don't breed?

Actually, yes. Here's a good 10 minute long mini documentary about the subject:

 

[Royal27]

All right. You made good points, and have changed my opinion on wild lion trophy hunting.
I'll post here later if I come up with a better argument.



Actually, yes. Here's a good 10 minute long mini documentary about the subject:

Always open to a better argument!

Thanks for listening and I hope you will share with others.

I haven't watched the video yet, but I will as soon as I get a minute.

 

[slad68]

ROYAL SAID: I haven't watched the video yet, but I will as soon as I get a minute.

And that minute won't be soon as I have him occupied on Whatsapp
LOL

 

[Royal27]

Actually, yes. Here's a good 10 minute long mini documentary about the subject:

That's a pretty interesting way to control small area breeding actually. And who knew that females got fat when they don't breed????

ROYAL SAID: I haven't watched the video yet, but I will as soon as I get a minute.

And that minute won't be soon as I have him occupied on Whatsapp
LOL

MUTLI TASKING BABY!!!!!

 

[LivingTheDream]

Royal,

You took the words from my mouth, photo safaris require lots of animals in a small area. Lots of lions in a small area is not a solution to anything.

It also amazes me how everyone wants to see animals in the wild but then wants to get super close to get photos, that's not how wild animals are. I think part of the privilege to hunt is to get close to animals undectected and witness some of the cool things they do in a natural state.

Vevew, I have no problem with you being on here and voicing your opinion in a reasonable way. I appreciate the insight and different view points. Hopefully, you will find most of the members here to have a true passion and love for animals (more so then most antis). I look forward to your future contributions and as long as you aren't some deep undercover spy you will send my hunting pictures to Ricky Gervias, we will never have any problems.

In the meantime, I will continue contributing to the cause of conservation through ammo, license, and permit fees.

 

[jduckhunter]

Why can't regular nature based tourism replace trophy hunting?

Yes, I do understand the difference, but poaching can be disguised as hunting. And just because a hunt is legal, it doesn't necessarily mean that it always helps conservation and is helpful for the animals. I'm not saying that every hunt is inherently destructive for the animals, but rather that there is the potential for it to be destructive for multiple reasons; bad population assessment, exceeding the quota because the outfitter wants a little more money (it's a business after all).

Yes, and the sky might fall too, but it probably won't.

 

[wesheltonj]

Why can't regular nature based tourism replace trophy hunting?

Your Answer:

There is no way economically speaking the Photo safari can contribute as much as the Gun safari can. How many employees are required to guide a Photo verse Gun? It takes more employees to operate a Gun; and more employees on the payroll with money to spend increases the multiplier effect of the money. It also decreases the need for the local population to hunt for food as the foreigner ends up give away the meat.

 

[Vevew]

I look forward to your future contributions and as long as you aren't some deep undercover spy you will send my hunting pictures to Ricky Gervias, we will never have any problems.

Hehe. Ricky Gervais seems to focus on the moral issues of trophy hunting. He doesn't really come from a scientific point of view.
While I do agree with him that it is weird for someone to enjoy killing animals, I don't think arguing about morals is going to lead anywhere. It's like a debate between atheists and Christians about the existence of God; pointless because neither side will change their mind. Still, I'd like to know why you enjoy it (hunting/killing).

In this short clip a professional hunter says "Some people enjoy killing; some people don't":
(from 2:05 forward)

As a non-hunter it is very difficult to get in the mind of a hunter. Can any of you explain why you enjoy it? And tell which is more important; that you get to fire the killing bullet/arrow or that you get to keep the trophy?

 

[TokkieM]

"As I stand with the blood dripping off my hands and slowly seeping into mother earth giving back to her which belongs to her,I have time to reflect. Every drop of blood that explodes into the dust at my feet a heartbeat of the animal I have just killed.Every heartbeata thought on why I do this time and time again.

It's not about the trophy,though it's a part of it.

Neither is it about the clean protein that will feed my body,but it's a part of it.

Neither is it about glory or boasting,or what I wear or drive or how much money I make.

It's not about the rifle I use that has been a friend over more miles than I can remember,it's only metal and wood,but it's part of it.

It's not about the hard miles and even harder conditions,though I relish the challange of it.

It's not about the rush of seeing a animal step out that triggers your heart to race a million miles a minute,even though that is also a part of it.

It's not about spending time alone in God's creation but that is also a part of it.

It's more than the primal urge that beats inside of me like drum,it's more than the killing,even though killing is also part of it.

Testing my skill,abillity and dedication to outsmart,outlast and in the end kill a animal is also a part of it,yes done right it will be the hardest and most exhilarating thing you can do,but it's only part of it.

As the last drop of blood slowly starts it's slippery slide into the dust,I feel sadness,elation and respect.

You will never understand why I hunt,because you don't get ALL OF IT!!!"

 

[Vevew]

hunthardsafaris, But can't a photographer experience all those things except the killing? They have to stalk the animal, spend a lot of time in harsh conditions, and have to act quickly when the time comes, and their trophy is a photo. As I understand it, the only difference is the killing part. I know you wouldn't want to change hunting to photography, so there has to be something special about the actual killing part. Correct me if this isn't logical.

 

[Royal27]

As a non-hunter it is very difficult to get in the mind of a hunter. Can any of you explain why you enjoy it? And tell which is more important; that you get to fire the killing bullet/arrow or that you get to keep the trophy?

What hunthard just posted explains it better than I ever could. It truly is all of it.

For me personally, "the kill" is anti-climatic and in and of itself provides no thrill. Now making the shot? Yes, there is thrill in that, but not in the taking of life.

 

[TokkieM]

Very correct. Anyone can press a button and take a photo,I have several thousand of animals shot that way,but it takes a very special set of skills,knowledge,understanding and nerve to pull a trigger.

 

[Royal27]

And, I just believe that it is in us. We're carnivores/omnivores as a species. We aren't vegetarians. We are genetically ingrained to hunt.

We chase because it is what we were meant to do. Don't believe me, then try this. Next time you are walking down the street and see a policeman walking towards you do this - look at him like you are surprised and then turn around quickly and run like hell!!!! See if he chases you.

 

[Vevew]

Very correct. Anyone can press a button and take a photo,I have several thousand of animals shot that way,but it takes a very special set of skills,knowledge,understanding and nerve to pull a trigger.

In the video above the professional hunter says the kill is the easiest part, and the other person mentions a 7 year old child who killed a warthog.

And, I just believe that it is in us. We're carnivores/omnivores as a species. We aren't vegetarians. We are genetically ingrained to hunt.

But the vast majority of people who live in cities do not enjoy it. Most people don't feel the need to hunt animals, and don't enjoy watching animals die. Most people today don't want to kill animals; that's why we have automated slaughter houses. We enjoy the meat but don't personally want to inflict pain to the animals (at least most of us don't). Sure, every human used to hunt and gather to survive, but now people don't need to do that.

Therefore it can be concluded that, for some reason, only some people still want to hunt/kill. I tried to ask why, and tried to construct a logical reason on why photography is very similar to hunting (excluding the killing), and therefore the killing part must have some special significance to you.

I'm not judging anyone. I'm trying to find the underlying reason for why some people enjoy killing. That's what I mean when I try to get in the mind of a hunter.

 

[TokkieM]

To each his own,some kill,some hunt and some criticise.
Teaching a child to shoot is anyone's right,teaching a child to hunt and respect the game they persue is a privilege.
Anyone can punch holes in any type of hunting if they wish to do so,like just about anything else if you do not do it,grew up with it or have a natural orientation towards it,it won't make sense.