Pieter's Blog

We had always assumed that Zambia could be following a programme of sustainable trophy hunting of lions. Meanwhile we were concerned about the numbers of quotas issued, the lack of information about the impact of trophy hunting on utilized populations in hunting concessions, and the benefit to communities supposedly involved in sharing trophy hunting profits.

But now we are alerted to something quite alarming. According to the official CITES website, Zambia exported 193 lion trophies in 2010. In the past five years leading up to 2010, Zambia exported an average of 65 trophies each year.  So where did all the trophies representing a 300% increase over past years go?

CITES official records indicate that 42 suddenly went to Canada (average over the past five years = 0.6 lions) and 105 trophy lions to Russia (average over the past years = 1.2 lions).

What is going on here? The IUCN in 2006 estimated that Zambia had between 600 and 1,400 lions of all ages and sexes. There is no way that an export of 193 lion trophies in a single year is by any means sustainable given those population estimates.

Is CITES wrong? Were old skins perhaps mistakenly labelled as hunting trophies by Zambia?  Or was there a Russian and Canadian joint hunting convention in Zambia in 2010? Questions posed to the Zambian CITES authorities have not been answered, but we will keep you informed as to progress. 

South Africa has led the field of “conservation”, or so they say, by placing wildlife species in private hands. With the tremendous growth in game farms (largely as a result of environmental destruction by previous cattle ranching on those lands), there was a significant demand for wild species. These animals were supplied by auctions among the private owners as well as the State selling “surplus” wild animals to private individuals.

In the case of rhinos, this scheme of private ownership has been hailed as a great conservation success. There is frequent mention made of the great increase in both black and white rhino numbers since they were placed on game ranches. Indeed, the overall rhino numbers in South Africa now exceeds 22,000 animals, and a significant percentage of these animals are in private hands.

However, it is questionable to what extent such “private” rhinos contribute to conservation of the species. These animals are virtually all bought, sold and traded much like domestic cattle, and only exist because of the commercial value they represent to their owners. Owners had in the past two main options to profit from rhinos on their land – photographic tourism and trophy hunting.  Now, however, there is the option of selling horns, and there is a move among private owners to call for legal trade in horns given their rising monetary value in Asia.

South Africa already has an established legal trade in rhino horns and trophies;  for example, CITES trade records indicate an increasing trend in SA horn exports (17 in 2007, 16 in 2008, 90 in 2009, and 158 in 2010 – note that 2010 numbers are all preliminary at this stage since records are still being compiled). Where are the horns exported to? Many different countries, but increasingly to Vietnam (2 in 2007, 2 in 2008, 62 in 2009, and so far 93 in 2010). It should also be noted that Vietnam is becoming a major destination for rhino hunting trophies. This is strange as Vietnam (unlike let’s say the USA, Spain, Russia, and France) is not known as a country with many avid trophy hunters. It should have been clear long ago to those who issued the permits that these were all “pseudo” trophy hunts – the price that could be fetched for the horns once they arrived in Vietnam far exceeded the trophy hunting costs. Indeed, it has been reported that many of the “trophy hunters” who arrived to collect their rhinos on permit had never shot a gun before and relied on the accompanying “professional” hunters to shoot the rhino for them.

Basically, South Africa opened the floodgates by engaging in legal commercial trade of rhino horns and hunting trophies with countries like Vietnam. At a very basic level, economic theory involves supply and demand. We all know the situation is more complicated than that, and we can also say that fuel feeds a fire. Indeed, there is a direct relationship between the increased trade in rhino horns and “pseudo” trophy hunting with an increased level of poaching (83 rhinos poached in SA in 2008, 122 in 2009, 333 in 2010, and 448 in 2011). Once a supply is established, the demand grows by whatever means of delivery.

So how does this affect lions?  Well, what we are seeing now from CITES, SA lion export records are parallel to what was seen for rhinos a few years ago. Lion bones are increasingly important to the Asian traditional medicine trade – largely because the tigers that used to supply bones are now a bit thin on the ground. In recent years, South Africa has replied to this demand. In 2009, 250kg of lion bones were exported to Laos, followed by 556 bones in 2010. As these are CITES export records, we cannot tell you how 566 individual bones correspond to 250kg of bones, but only report to you that very few bones were exported to Laos before this date.  In 2010, 14 live lions were exported to Vietnam – why? In 2010 (so far- see above for reliability of these recent numbers) 29 skeletons went to Laos and 19 to Vietnam. Laos received 90 lion teeth and 6 skulls in 2010, and the numbers will increase.

Also worrying and similar to the rhino scenario – Laos has now become a lion trophy hunting country. Yes indeed, Laotians have discovered a very recent desire to go to South Africa to “hunt” lions – 43 trophies so far were exported in 2010 versus zero trophies in all previous years. Reminiscent of the Vietnamese rhino hunters?

The South African authorities at the Department of Environmental Affairs tell us this is all above board and largely represents bones from lions in captive breeding programmes (canned lions). We say the demand has been fuelled, and since history tends to repeat itself, we might begin to see an upsurge of lion poaching incidents parallel to current rhino poaching.

Our message to South Africa? Please do not allow yourself, legal as you might claim it is, to get engaged in exports to Asian countries demanding lion bones and derivatives.  It will stimulate an illegal market involving wild lions in all African range states. It will promote poaching of lions as it has stimulated poaching of rhinos by allowing exports to fuel Asian markets – and that market for African wildlife products is insatiable. It might be said the bones derive from captive bred lions, an industry promoted to satisfy trophy hunters by shooting lions in enclosures. Well done for commerce. 

 Asian markets used to be supplied by Asian species. Those are now gone, lost, poached to extinction, and Asia has turned to Africa. Asian markets put a premium on wild animal products as they are “stronger” than captive raised animals. Remember that the “tiger farms” in China raise animals under deplorable conditions to be killed for the medicine market much like  lions are raised under deplorable conditions to be killed for the hunting market.  And finally, remember that there are as few lions on the African continent as there are rhinos in South Africa alone.

The success of a programme can be measured in two ways: gaining support amongst those who espouse the basic precepts, and a rush to seek compromises for those opposed. In terms of regulating lion trophy hunting, both measures apply. 

Since the UK Parliamentary debate on the conservation status of African lions in November 2010, LionAid has made considerable strides in alerting the public and decision-makers to both the great decline in lion numbers over the past 50 years and the additive effect that trophy hunting has made on these populations. Support is growing in Europe and among African range states to place lions on Appendix I of CITES. This move will not by itself stop trophy hunting, but will place the practice under much more careful scrutiny and impose greater limitations. Also, since import permits are required for Appendix I species, a diversity of countries are now free to make their own assessments of the trade.

In addition, we expect that the IUCN will officially designate western and central African lions as “regionally endangered” in line with their small, fragmented, and declining populations (that are still trophy hunted in Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Benin, and the Central African Republic). The IUCN has been inattentive to this deserved designation, especially now that researchers at Leiden University have conclusively shown that western and central African lions are substantially genetically distinct from those in eastern and southern Africa.

Suddenly, we are perhaps therefore seeing a flurry of calls to persuade that trophy hunting is of benefit to the species. For example, USA Today reported on a recent scientific article claiming that “limited lion hunting [is] better than [an] outright ban”. The article was written by Peter Lindsey, Guy Balme, Vernon Booth, and Neil Midlane.  Peter Lindsey has written a number of articles on trophy hunting since 2006, all of them calling for hunters to amend their ways and make lion trophy hunting more transparent and sustainable.  Lindsey always makes economic arguments, and the recent one is no different.

What is different is that Lindsey now acknowledges a bit of pressure. For one, he mentions that a consortium of what he calls “animal welfare organizations” in the USA has called for a listing of lions on the USA Endangered Species Act, and also mentions that LionAid is progressing towards import bans in the EU.

Lindsey et al’s arguments are based on finance rather than conservation. They threaten that by taking lions out of the equation, trophy hunting would become unviable across 59,538 km2 of currently designated hunting concessions, would result in massive expansion of “ecologically unfavourable” alternatives (livestock and agriculture), and would therefore result in greater mortality than trophy hunting. This is all supposition. Lindsey et al then predictably  produce the worn-out mantra that restrictions on lion hunting “may reduce the perceived financial value of lions, encouraging increased retaliatory killings for livestock depredation”, but then come up with something equally outrageous - “…over-hunting is likely to pose little threat to the long term persistence of lions so long as interventions are made to address excessive quotas where they occur … precluding lion hunting may therefore be a greater long term risk to lions than over-hunting”. So basically, over-hunting is fine according to them; better to over-hunt than not hunt at all.
 
To give Lindsey credit, he acknowledges that lions have been hunted at unsustainable levels (“… current profits from trophy hunting in some parts of Tanzania are probably unsustainable due to excessive harvests of lions”), and that “… a short-term moratorium on lion hunting could be considered to allow lion populations to recover…”. Also, he admits that “The trophy hunting industry is not dependent on lions for viability in most areas…”. The fact that his arguments have not made one iota of difference with the hunting industry does not seem to bother him overmuch.

Lindsey et al place too much trust in an arrogant and corrupt industry working with the support of corrupt government officials. The three major lion trophy exporting countries (excluding South Africa where there is clear evidence that captive bred lions are very significantly substituted for “wild” lion trophies) - Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe - have an average ranking of 2.7/10 on the Transparency International corruption index. Lindsey might be pushing for a kinder and gentler approach by the hunting community, but ignores the fact that such reform has hardly ever come from within the hunting industry -  it has to be imposed. Lindsey should carefully read very critical reports by Nigel Leader-Williams et al (2009) about corruption and trophy hunting and one by Baldus and Cauldwell (2004) on tourist hunting in Tanzania. The latter have this to say about the reasons for conservation failures in trophy hunting concessions:

• Non-effective control by the Wildlife Department;
• A lack of professionalism among the hunting operators;
• A lack of ethics and the absence of standards;
• Disregard of quotas;
• Lack of respect for environmental standards (especially in the camps);
• A decline of wildlife populations in hunting areas;
• Misplaced influence being exercised by the operators and highly placed officials in government;
• Resistance to make positive changes and truly involve communities.

Undaunted, Lindsey et al also drag out once again the magical figure of $200 million per annum that trophy hunters supposedly spend in Africa. He neglects to inform that half that figure applies only to South Africa, where game ranch hunting and captive bred hunting are greatly profitable. Lindsey and his co-authors also (conveniently?) neglect to mention a 2009 economic analysis of trophy hunting by the IUCN entitled “La grande chasse en Afrique de l’Oest: quelle contribution a la conservation?”.

Among many other conclusions, the IUCN report mentions the following:

• On average in 11 countries, 14.9% of the land area has been set aside for hunting, and the average contribution of hunting to GDP is 0.06%. This means they are the least economically productive lands in the country. Trophy hunting does therefore not represent economically valuable land use, especially in the context of the need to abate [rural] poverty and hunger.

• In total, 7 countries (Namibia, Tanzania, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, and Benin) have set aside 696,708 square kilometres (an area 2.8 times the size of the UK) for trophy hunting for a total employment of 9,703 people. It should be noted that for many, the employment does not exceed the six-month hunting season.

• In Zambia, returns from hunting in 2006 to the local population were about $1 million to use 22% of Zambia’s land. In Zimbabwe, each household (average 10 people) intermittently received between $1 and $3 per year. In Tanzania, 42 district councils received a grand total of about $1 million per year for the use of 250,000 square kilometres of land. In Benin, 300,000 people shared $70,000, so about $0.23 per person. The African country in which communities earned the least for land set aside for hunting was Tanzania, with an income of $4 per sq kilometre per year while the hunting companies earned about $110 per sq km/yr.

• Good governance is largely absent from the trophy hunting industry, and those in charge are not ready to share any level of control. Lack of transparency does not serve the State, local communities, or conservation.

While Lindsey et al speculatively contend that removing lions from the hunting menu would cause a collapse in the trophy hunting industry, this should not cause much concern. It is already an industry that functions only for the benefit of the operators and country elites to the disregard of communities, conservation of wildlife, and land management. That small group has until now had a monopoly on dictating how they want to (mis)utilize wildlife resources for their own benefits, but such activities no longer stand conservation scrutiny. To be effective in campaigning for the positive role of trophy hunting, Lindsey and his co-authors, as well as the Panthera Foundation (supposedly supporting the conservation of big cats worldwide, who employ Lindsey and co-author Balme, and who paid for the study) need to perhaps publish fewer vested-interest articles and actively engage in making changes to current trophy hunting malpractices.

Picture credit : http://bit.ly/Ac3aJh

Estimates of the numbers of African lions remaining on the continent have been assembled by a diversity of different methods. There is no estimate for lion numbers before 1950, but
several sources can be cited for estimates in the recent past:

• Myers (1975) wrote “Since 1950, their numbers may well have been cut in half, perhaps to as low as 200,000 in all or even less.”
• In the early 1990s, IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group members made educated “guesstimates” of 30,000 to 100,000 for the African lion population (Nowell and Jackson, 1996).
• Ferreras and Cousins (1996) developed a GIS-based model to predict African lion range and numbers; based on their data sources on extent of agriculture and pastoralism they selected 1980 as the foundation year for their predicted African lion population of 75,800.
• Chardonnet et al (2002) estimated an average total of 39,373 lions.
• Bauer and van der Merwe (2004) estimated an average total of 23,000 lions.
• The IUCN (2006) estimated a total of between 29,995 and 36,495 lions, or an average of 33,245 lions. It must be noted that since those numbers were published, new estimates have reduced IUCN numbers by 60 – 70% in western Africa alone based on actual counts. 

By whatever method of estimation, lion numbers clearly have susbstantially decreased in Africa. There is no doubt that expansion of human and livestock populations, reduction of prey and habitat, and conflict issues have historically contributed to the great declines.

However, despite these declines, lions continue to be trophy hunted in 11 African lion range states (Botswana currently has a moratorium in place, but allowed lion trophy hunting in the past). Over the past ten years ending 2009 when reliable records end a total of 6651 trophies were exported according to CITES. These do not include numbers of lion trophies shot by resident hunters and thus not exported. Lion mortality by trophy hunting should thus be considered a major contributory component to their overall decline in numbers, but this is largely ignored by the IUCN and CITES. In addition, this source of mortality is only peripherally considered by “experts”.

Historical declines in lion populations doubtless were due to all the factors listed above. But we are now at the point where lion populations are so decreased that we should consider carefully the more current relevant threats to their populations. And trophy hunting mortality statistics figure prominently, especially as they include an exclusive percentage of the population – adult and subadult males. Such animals are crucially important to the reproductive potential of lion populations, and high rates of male turnover in lion prides can significantly affect lion cub survivorship. 

So let’s look at some statistics of lion problem animal control versus trophy hunting mortality. This information is based on numbers provided by informed individuals as well as official numbers from wildlife department records. This is the same quality of data used to provide continental and national lion population numbers, and therefore should be as relevant as similar data presently guiding IUCN and CITES evaluations to conclude trade in lions (trophy hunting) is sustainable.

An overview for four countries from which information is available is presented in this table and details of the entries are discussed below:

Past statements about the primary causes of lion mortality:

1. IUCN 2006: Many in the cat conservation community, including the Cat SG and its affiliated African Lion Working Group (ALWG), did not consider the primary causes of this suspected decline to be trade-related (Nowell, 2004), and priorities for lion conservation have been identified as resolving human-lion conflicts and stemming loss of habitat and wild prey.

2. IUCN 2006: Indiscriminate killing of lions and depletion of their prey are the most prevalent and serious threats in Eastern and Southern Africa, followed by small lion population size. Habitat conversion and livestock encroachment also rank as significant threats. This Strategy emphasizes that lion trophy hunting is an important management tool that can provide benefits to local people and revenues to government conservation authorities, but stipulates that best practices should be implemented in the industry to ensure sustainability.

3. IUCN 2006: The top threats identified were indiscriminate killing of lions, hunting of lion prey for subsistence or bush meat trade, small population size, and livestock encroachment. Improperly managed trophy hunting was also considered to be adversely affecting several lion populations. The technical session … ranked a set of factors according to expected impact on the viability of all lion populations in the region. Trophy hunting was excluded from this analysis due to the difficulty of separating potentially negative biological impacts on lion populations from improperly managed offtakes from potentially positive socio-economic impacts on lion conservation. Properly managed trophy hunting was viewed as an important solution to long-term lion conservation.

4. IUCN Red List: A species population reduction of approximately 30% is suspected over the past two decades (= approximately three Lion generations). The causes of this reduction (primarily indiscriminate killing in defence of life and livestock, coupled with prey base depletion), are unlikely to have ceased.

5. Packer 2004: By far the most important threat to lions comes from problem animal control, and by putting lions on Appendix 1, the Kenyans would do much more harm than good. Tanzania has more lions than any other country in the world, and the majority of these animals live outside the national parks. If lion trophy hunting were stopped, they would have no economic value, and there would no longer be any incentive to conserve the lions. Opponents of trophy hunting have provided no alternative mechanism for funding the large-scale conservation efforts required to protect the species.

6. Frank et al, 2006: One report has blamed a local population decline on poorly regulated trophy hunting (Loveridge and Macdonald, 2003), but this problem appears to be restricted to Zimbabwe  and extensive retaliatory killing, snaring and habitat loss in the surrounding area are likely to be the major conservation risks to lions. Our opinion is that retaliatory and pre-emptive killing of lions by rural people, particularly livestock owners is the single greatest threat to lion populations.

7. Lion Conservation.org: The most urgent threat to lions today is the widespread use of poison in retaliation for depredation on livestock.

8. Whitman et al, 2007: Control of problem animals, antagonistic killing, poaching, and loss of habitat are more serious threats to lion conservation than legalized hunting. Control of problem animals represents the single greatest factor responsible for lion decline outside protected areas today.

9. Packer, 2010: Greatest threats to lions: Loss of prey, persecution in retaliation for cattle killing and man-eating and sport hunting.

But to what extent is retaliatory killing a major factor in overall lion mortality? Certainly it occurs, and apart from the actions of official wildlife department problem animal control units, it is illegal in most African countries (though rarely prosecuted  - and a troubling phenomenon in some countries (e.g. Namibia, Zimbabwe)  is the legalization of problem animal hunts sold by trophy hunting operators to clients, an issue that has little to do with problem animal control). Illegal killing is therefore kept secret, and accurate numbers are all but unavailable. Nevertheless, estimates can be made of the scope and extent of such retaliations. There are two means of evaluation – the actual threat lions pose to livestock, and the numbers and estimations of retaliatory and cultural killings from a variety of sources.

Livestock depredation by lions with real data

How important is the threat from lions in terms of cattle depredation that would result in such retaliatory killing? A study by Laurence Frank in the Laikipia region of Kenya where livestock, wild herbivores and predators co-occur is instructive. In 1998, Frank estimated that predator (lions, leopards, cheetahs, hyenas) depredation killed about 0.8% of livestock on large scale ranches, and an average of 1.7% of pastoralist herds. In contrast, disease killed 2.4% of herds on large scale ranches, and 8.9% among pastoralists’ herds. Frank did not mention effects of drought. In another study, Maclennan et al (2009) examined a compensation scheme established on the Mbirikani Group Ranch, also in Kenya. There, 55% of claimants attempted to be compensated by the predator fund for livestock lost in the bush. The pastoral grazers on the group ranch lost an average of 206 cattle, 22 donkeys, and 503 sheep/goats per year to predators, or about 2.3% of the herd. Eighty percent of the kills were attributed to hyenas, leopards and cheetahs, and 7% to lions – equivalent to losses from jackals (7%) and buffalos and elephants (6%). Despite compensation, about one lion was killed in each year of the study, and no mention was made of hyenas, leopards, or cheetahs being killed.

Other studies show similar trends – depredation specifically attributable to lions is low, and is far exceeded by other sources of mortality and loss like disease, drought, stock theft, and just wandering off. In addition, pastoralists are notoriously capricious when identifying sources of mortality. A study conducted by Christian del Valle (MS Thesis, University of Kent) showed that in Botswana, reported attacks by lions rose from 21% to 61% 1995-2003, those by leopards from 11% to 29%, and those by crocodiles from 0.7% to 8%, while hyena attacks declined from 52% to 2%. These increases and decreases were solely based on a decision by the Botswana government in 1997 to exclude hyenas from compensation and only allow payments for depredations by crocodiles, lions, and leopards. The livestock owners took note and significantly altered their reporting to only include “compensatable” predators. Similar over-attribution of livestock depredation to lions in other countries is highly likely.

Overall, better herding practices and the building of stronger night enclosures for livestock (bomas) would alleviate many problems. At present, especially in semi-arid countries like Botswana, the current free-range approach to livestock upkeep is begging for consequential depredation by any predator. In Tanzania, Packer and Ikanda (2008) noted a substantial difference in mortality among livestock herded by children versus adults. Simple and straightforward practices could reduce much predator/livestock conflict and therefore reduce retaliatory killings. However, with increasing human and livestock populations, the long-term viability of any co-existing predator population must be considered slim. 

Human/lion mortality

Much has been made by Packer and others about the estimated number of human deaths in Tanzania from lion attacks. In total, Packer recorded 563 human mortalities from 1990 to 2004, or about 37 per year, translating to about 8 people per 10 million in the Tanzanian population. The attacks were registered from numerous districts in the country. Without diminishing the tragedy of those deaths they have to be put into perspective as they have led to a demonization of lions and a strange justification for trophy hunting – essentially the sport hunters are doing the rural communities a favour by keeping man-eaters under control. Not only is this complete nonsense, but human deaths caused by lions are actually miniscule when compared to other sources of annual human mortality in Tanzania.

For a short list, in Tanzania 193 to 1499 people per year die of rabies-infected dog bites, 600 from snake bites, 1,900 from falls, 4,700 from drowning, 6,000 from asthma, 13,000 from road accidents, 14,000 from violence/homicide, 21,000 from malaria, 23,000 from diabetes, 35,000 from diarrhoea, and 122,000 from HIV/Aids/tuberculosis.  Tanzania ranks 21st highest among 220 countries in terms of an infant mortality at a rate of 6.7 per 1000 live births as of 2010. The number of humans killed by lions in Tanzania per year (37) is equivalent to the number of people killed in the USA per 100,000 inhabitants by lightning strikes. Lion attacks might make the news much as shark attacks do (over the past 50 years, only one person has been killed by a shark each year in Australia compared to 87 people who drown at beaches annually), but in reality the number of people killed by lions in Tanzania is miniscule compared to the hyperbole that such attacks have generated.

Most people killed by lions are out at night and unprotected. Packer and colleagues were able to assign specific times to such attacks – after sunset and between 6pm and 10pm in the evening on moonless nights. People were out at such times protecting their crops from elephants and other herbivores, and were attacked either in the fields (lion were also hunting crop raiding animals like bush pigs at the time) or on their journeys back and forth from their villages. As with livestock depredation, there would seem to be practical solutions available to avoid such mortality. But as mentioned above, the long-term probability of a dangerous predator population continuing to live in close contact with humans must be considered insignificant .  

Cultural/traditional lion killings separate from lion/livestock issues

In Tanzania, Ikanda and Packer (2008) recorded incidences of cultural lion killings (Ala-mayo) by resident Maasai in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Maasai morani (warriors) engage in such killings, though outlawed in the 1970’s, to demonstrate their courage and strength. Ikanda and Packer note that such killings are illegal and therefore not readily disclosed, but were able to document a minimum average of 2.2 lions killed annually for purely cultural purposes in the Conservation Area between 1985-2005. The authors noted an increase in such killings conforming to periods of time when new age classes were inducted as morani.  Such cultural killings not only pertain to the Maasai, and could be widespread across eastern and some parts of southern Africa. These cultural killings have little to do with retaliation, though Ikanda and Packer claim that stock-raiding lions can be killed for both cultural and retaliatory purposes.  They also note that such cultural killings, 2.2 lions per year, are much lower than trophy hunting quotas (24 males per year) in neighbouring hunting concessions.

Problem animal killings of lions – the available estimates

• Mozambique – Chardonnet (2009): 45 lions killed as problem animals 2006-2008, 15 per year.

• Namibia – Stander (2000): 30 lions killed per year as problem animals based on data from 1965-1994 collected by the Etosha Ecological Institute. These data are not particularly relevant to current problem animal offtake and trophy hunting rates as very few lions now survive outside Etosha National Park. Based on skin sales (likely all derived from problem animals), an average of 22 lions per annum were killed 1975-1994. 

• Kenya – Wildlife Extra: 18 lions killed/poisoned in 2010. Kenya has imposed a trophy hunting ban since 1977. Media attention to each death by poisoning is high, but the overall numbers of lions killed in Kenya in recent years for retaliation for livestock depredation is decreasing.

• Tanzania – Ikanda 2008: 73-77 lions persecuted in high human-lion conflict areas in 2007.

• Tanzania – Tarangire lion project: 13 lions killed per year in Tarangire region 2001-2004.

• Tanzania –  Tarangire lion project: 37 lions killed annually January 2004-July 2007 in Tarangire area.

• Tanzania – Personal communication : between 100-150 lions per year

• Botswana –  Rutina 2000: 19 lions killed per year as problem animals 1992-1998 in zones bordering protected areas in northern Botswana, most of them on the southern perimeter of the Delta.

• Botswana – Personal communication: 1999-2000, approximately 25 lions per year in the Okavango region.

Again, a picture very different emerges from that painted by those who feel trophy hunting is a minor source of lion mortality.

In Mozambique, 15 lions are killed as problem animals per year versus a minimum (data suggest several lions shot in Mozambique per year are declared for export in South Africa) of 21 trophies taken each year 2005-2009.

In Tanzania, numbers vary considerably, but 73 -150 lions have been proposed as a yearly problem animal control offtake versus an average of 196 lions taken as trophies taken on average between 2000-2009.

In Namibia an adjusted average of 22 lions is proposed per year for 1975-1994 problem animal mortality versus an average trophy yearly offtake of 25 lions 2005-2009. Lion trophy hunting is increasing in Namibia (by decade, 1975-1984: 12 lions, 1985- 1994: 127 lions, 1995- 2004: 121 lions, 2005 – 2009 (5yrs): 123 lions already and thus a projected decade total of 246 lions ). Few lions now remain outside strictly protected areas in Namibia (Stander 2010). 

In Botswana, 19 lions were killed per annum as problem animals 1992-1998, and perhaps 25 from 1999-2000, but during the same time 59 lions on average were exported as trophies. 

Overall, trophy lion exports exceed problem animal control numbers per annum in all those countries.

Conclusion

On the whole, the decrease in lion numbers in Africa could in past years have been correctly attributed to loss of habitat, loss of prey, and conflict. More recently, however, it is becoming increasingly evident that the remaining lion population has decreased to the point where other sources of mortality are becoming ever more significant. In their current small numbers, lions have negligible effects on actual livestock losses and threats to human lives. Lions, however, are perceived with past prejudices and are still subsequently killed out of proportion to the actual depredation they inflict on livestock. For some countries it is difficult to disentangle cultural killing from retribution.

In summary, sport hunting is now becoming the major source of lion mortality, and as the majority of trophies taken are from adult and subadult males, the practice is expected to have significant consequences on reproduction among hunted populations. The more relevant data becomes available, the more that this increasingly anachronistic practice should cease for the overall conservation benefit of the species.   

References

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lions-poisoned011.html#cr
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4894945.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://bit.ly/w4HedH
 http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/Links-Documentos/Casos%20de%20Estudio/Mammals/WG5%20CS1.pdf
http://www.alessandrasoresina.com/allegati/progetti/updatereport2005.pdf
http://www.lionconservation.org/ScientificPapers/Living-with-lions,Frank.pdf
http://vh2q.com/no2-4.pdf
http://www.lionconservation.org/lion-poisoning.html
http://www.conservationforpeople.org/tarangire-lion-project/
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1989669,00.html
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/07/man-eating-lions-attack-by-the-d.html

http://bit.ly/vu3JnX

 http://www.conservationforce.org/pdf/LIONS,%20CONFLICT%20AND%20CONSERVATION.pdf

http://bit.ly/veepDo
 http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/
http://historylist.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/human-deaths-in-the-us-caused-by-animals/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12075367
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/18-Managing%20HumanLion%20Conflicts.pdf
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=tz&v=29
http://bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/jeh5_05_45-50.pdf
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/27/opinion/australia-shark-attacks/index.html

Image: http://cb3communications.com/?attachment_id=1168

What we thought were protected animals could be and are now fair game. I will discuss two countries here, South Africa and Zimbabwe that have embarked on a slippery slope of condoning trophy hunting in National Parks, and the trend could well spread. It has to do with economics in South Africa and desperation in Zimbabwe, but is nevertheless a worrying trend.

Let’s start with South Africa first, that bastion of wildlife conservation that has given us “canned” lion hunts and white rhino hunts that have doubtless had a tremendous contributory effect on the current wave of rhino poaching. Kruger National Park (KNP) is bordered by four Associated Private Nature Reserves, and with an agreement to create a “Greater Kruger”, fences were taken down and wildlife is now free to move between the APNRs and the Park. Kruger is also bordered by community wildlife areas to the north and in Mozambique by the Sabie Game Reserve. Trophy hunting takes place in APNRs like Timbavati and Klaserie, and in 2009 the following quota was assigned: elephant 55, buffalo 144, impala 5003, lion 2, zebra 7, kudu 19, white rhino 7, leopard 1, etc. A safari operator, Thormalen and Cochrane advertises trophy hunting in Timbavati, mentioning that wildlife flows freely in from Kruger.

South Africa National Parks (SANParks) denies this, or at least attempts to. They would not like to be seen as condoning trophy hunting of animals that one day are protected in the National interest in Kruger and the next available to hunters in Timbavati. Undaunted, Gerhard Damm, board member of Conservation Force, a man highly cherished in hunting circles, and Editor of "African Indaba", a newsletter for sport hunters, recently came up with this solution for the financial woes of South Africa's National Park system:

"I understand that KNP must be run as a profitable business venture, especially in view of ever diminishing government subsidies and should not depend on taxpayer handouts. Hotels are a potential solution but come with an enormous ecological footprint and high capital and running costs. Strictly regulated conservation hunting operations, if conducted in restricted wilderness/remote zones of suitable parks, would probably far surpass the monetary profits of hotels, have negligible ecological footprints and most of all would be sustainable through the years without incurring any significant capital expenditure. David Mabunda, CEO of SANParks said not so long ago that “SANParks needs to find sustainable methods to fund the operations and protection of the entire national parks system and hence SANParks views responsible tourism as a conservation strategy.” Maybe it is time to evaluate conservation hunting as one more option. SANParks could produce sustainable NET PROFITS in the region of 40 to 50 million Rand annually from very limited and strictly controlled hunting without compromising the SANParks Conservation Strategy. The National Treasury could apply the subsidies paid to SANParks in the past to service delivery on many fronts. My proposal will be challenged with all kind of moralistic assertions that hunting simply cannot take place in National Park; but those who argue against should please consider that successful and sustainable conservation strategies rest on THREE pillars: Ecology, Economy and Social Politics."

Already hunted in the APNRs, Gerhard now wants to bring wildlife under the rifles of hunters within the Park as well, as it would add income. Seductive to cash-strapped KNP, but is it justifiable according to the statutes of a National Park? We shall have to see how this develops.

Now let’s consider Zimbabwe. As in South Africa, hunting concessions border directly on National Parks, and no pretence is made about luring animals like lions out of the protected areas with baits. No pretence is either made about shooting within protected areas, although this is “officially” illegal. Zimbabwe condones “ration hunting” in protected areas – the rations being provided to Park staff and perhaps some surrounding communities. Zimbabwe can barely pay their game scouts, but has opted to feed them with the animals they are supposed to protect. Such ration hunts are sold to clients by operators as “non-trophy hunts”, but at least one operator advertises a 5-day buffalo hunt where trophies are listed as non-exportable…but for a 60% additional fee a deal can be made. The company also mentions that the trophies make great photo opportunities.

In addition, and this is particularly worrisome, the wildlife authorities now apparently see the National Parks as a “source area” for the neighbouring hunting concessions. The purposes for which national parks are constituted under the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Act is to “preserve and protect the natural landscape and scenery therein, and to preserve and protect wildlife and plants and the natural ecological stability of wildlife and plant communities therein, for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of the public”. Nothing in there about providing hunting opportunities? But this is what is now happening. Why? One could confidently assume that the hunting concessions have been shot out in the past, so that now they are dependent on an influx of animals (lured, attracted, enticed) from the protected areas to satisfy the hunting clients. Andrew Loveridge of Oxford University wrote about the great impact lion trophy hunting on borders had on populations within Hwange National Park, but this now seems to be condoned despite his observations of highly negative impacts.

Short-term and misguided profit taking is not conducive to long-term conservation programmes. But this is what seems to be happening in South African and Zimbabwean National Parks. We cannot have much influence on national policies in African nations about what is clearly a mining attitude towards their wildlife. But we can do something to prevent trophy imports to our nations, and seek more enlightened alternatives to the present reliance on income from trophy hunting. Gerhard Damm is not wrong to invoke economic factors in conservation. But that does not necessarily have to come from destructive utilization of wildlife resources, especially in their last mainstay of the protected areas.    

Picture credit: Rembrandt van Rijn

Please click on this link to see a country by country assessment of lion trophy hunting for African nations that permit(ted) the practice. This is the most up-to-date analysis, and includes CITES export numbers, threat assessments for lion populations in each country, a summary statement for each country, and a conclusion on trophy hunting offtake.

Please bring this report to the attention of members of Congress, Senators, Members of Parliaments, and Members of European Parliament who represent you. It is a document that all decision makers need to see to end lion sport hunting. We need your active participation to circulate this report. Thank you.

Picture Credit : Chris Harvey

 In preparing an overall trophy hunting report for Africa, I was again reminded of some very strange happenings in South Africa. It has to do with the numbers of “wild” lion trophies exported over the past ten years, and the paltry few lions available to make up such exports. Let me explain.

South Africa, according to various reports, has anywhere between 2130 and 3852 wild lions. In case you should be worried, all these lion populations are behind fences. There have been a number of “private reserves” established, one of them next to the Sun City entertainment resort, where lions have been introduced from Namibia to add entertainment to game drives. Then there are a few National Parks with lions - notably Kruger that boasts over 2000 lions within the very large reserve. And then of course there are “game ranches” that offer lion hunting, but these are all derived from a captive population of well over 4000 lions specifically bred for trophy hunting. CITES (the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora – a watchdog organization that is supposed to strictly regulate trade in endangered and vulnerable species and that is about as effective as an umbrella in a hurricane) therefore has two categories of lions exported as trophies from South Africa: “ranched/captive bred” and “wild”.

Now if you should happen to peruse the CITES trade website (perhaps when there is nothing good on TV) you will see that South Africa exported a total of 2651 “wild” lion trophies between 2000 and 2009 when reliable records end. This is a puzzlement. You see, South Africa just does not have that many wild lions in hunting concessions. Sure, some of the concessions directly bordering on Kruger Park allow trophy hunting (good deal, they took down the original border fence between Kruger and the concession, so wildlife flows in and out – one minute in a hunting area, next in a protected area). Also, some of the private reserves allow trophy hunting of their excess lions (not advertised to the tourists). But that, really, is about it.

There is not much of a price difference between hunting a canned lion versus a “wild” lion, but “real” hunters turn up their noses at any lion that has a sniff of captive breeding – they want what they are promised – a wild one, and not a “wild” one within the past 2 or 3 days. South Africa has fast and loose designations – according to their regulations, any captive bred lion turned loose in a field with a few antelopes is “deemed” to be wild. So last week it was a captive animal and a few days later it is wild. Quite convenient.

But let’s give the hunters the benefit of the doubt. Are there any “wild” lions to be hunted in South Africa? In any truly wild population, about 15% of the lions are adult males, about 35% adult females, and the rest subadults and cubs. So if you take the wildly optimistic figure of 3852 wild lions in South Africa, that means only 578 are adult males. Then say that optimistically that 5% of those males occur in hunting concessions (contiguous with National Parks) -  so 29 males provide an average trophy offtake over the past ten years of 265 “wild” trophies per annum. I should point out that South Africa also exported 3024 “captive/ranched” lion trophies over the past ten years to 2009.

You are by now beginning to get my point. A famous parallel could be made with Burundi, a densely populated country that perhaps had a handful of elephants (some say one). From 1973 to 1982, 300 tonnes of ivory were exported from Burundi to Belgium (before the 1990 ivory ban). Later, Burundi was allowed to export another 89.5 tonnes of stockpiled ivory by CITES. Quite amazing how so few can provide so much.

So where do all those “wild” lions exported from South Africa come from? There are three explanations. The first is that those lions are regularly placed in South Africa by aliens from a distant planet. We can sort of dismiss that possibility with apologies to those who firmly believe aliens walk among us. The second is that the lions are hunted illegally in neighbouring countries like Zimbabwe and Mozambique and declared in South Africa as resident lions. That has some degree of possibility. For example, there is evidence that in 2007 19 lions were shot but official CITES export numbers from Mozambique show only 15 exported from that country. In 2008, trophy fees were paid for 22 lions, but only 18 exported from Mozambique. The third, and most likely, is that captive bred lions are sold to clueless clients as “wild” lions. It’s quite easy really – bring a client to a hunting “concession”, let him slog around for many days, secretly buy a lion from a breeder, set it out in the area, and then lead the client to it. Presto chango and the rabbit comes out of the hat. Virtually every single lion hunted in South Africa was bred in captivity. Going home and boasting you went on a “dangerous game” lion hunt in South Africa and registering your “wild” trophy for the SCI record books is a fallacy and a delusion. 

It is a wonderment that CITES and other relevant authorities have not picked up on this discrepancy. I will surely lose sleep over all those poor clients (71% of South African “wild” lion trophies end up in the USA, a country seemingly stuffed with gullible hunters). South African operators and professional hunters have played you well. Caveat emptor for all you credulous clients who will doubtless flock to the next SCI convention in 2012 and sign up for some more “wild” lion hunts in South Africa. Those of you with “wild” trophies, perhaps consider a lawsuit for having been sold falsely advertised goods, and SCI – take all those “wild” lions hunted in South Africa off your record books, recall your awards and rings and whatever other honours you bestow. You have all been duped.

The past few days have been atwitter (literally) with lion trophy hunting.

It began when LionAid was alerted to an auction to be held at the Gala Dinner for the UK Independence Party. One of the items on auction was Lot 12: The skin, with head, of a lioness shot in Zimbabwe. (Reserve £200). Donated by Geoffrey Clark (who did not shoot it!). Current bid stands at £250.

LionAid jumped on this with many objections, as did our strong supporter, Catherine Bearder MEP. The Independence Party was invited to a BBC Radio interview with LionAid, but Nigel Farage, the Party Leader, declined. A short interview was conducted with Chris Macsween, Trustee, and the BBC put out a report on their website. An Independence Party spokesman (not identified) came back with this statement :

 "We appreciate that such an item is not to everybody's taste.

"The lion head and skin is an antique which was donated to the party by a member. The member in question originally received it as a gift following a stint working in Zimbabwe.
"It is approximately 45 to 50 years old and came into the country long before modern day legislation was in place to halt such imports."

And changed the original wording of the auction item to:

 "Antique skin, with head, of a lioness shot in Zimbabwe. (Reserve £200) Donated by Geoffrey Clark (who did not shoot it!)."

In other words, the Independence Party did some scrambling – by using the word “antique” they hoped to avoid criticism of the legality of the auction item (LionAid would still like to see the paperwork on this trophy and/or a certification that it was indeed shot before current CITES legislation came into force).

We now hear from our sources that the item was withdrawn from the auction and returned to the original owner. To their credit, certain members of the UKIP also voiced strong objection to the sale as revealed by Twitter messages.

The second lion trophy hunting scandal has been brewing around Sir David Scholey. In a major article in the Sun Newspaper

(headline – “Who’s the Bigger Beast – Millionaire banker Sir David Scholey poses by the bloody corpse of a lion after shooting it for fun on a trophy hunting holiday”) Sir David is questioned about his trophy hunting activities.

Sir David was unrepentant, saying:

 "I have been hunting all over the world for many, many years and I have always hunted within the legal arrangements of the country concerned. I regard that as an entirely personal matter.
"All the animals I hunt are wild beasts. And I have felt threatened by them at times.
"The lion I killed certainly wasn't an endangered species where I was hunting it."
"Obviously, if I felt there was anything wrong in it I wouldn't do it.
"The object is to dispatch the animal with a bullet it never hears. That's why it's important to be a very good shot before you even think about hunting. I continue to hunt big game, not as much as I used to but I do continue to do it."

So there you have it. Interesting that both UKIP and Sir David immediately retreat behind the “legality” of their actions? It should be noted that Sir David was mooted as governor of the Bank of England as well as chairman of the BBC, but that was a while ago. You can see a rather scathing resume here.

There is also a rather humorous diatribe by the hunter who guided Sir David to his trophy:

"I recieved from a fellow PH out of Botswana, one of the GoldenBall brigade, about a picture on my website showing a Lion with blood around the exit wound. You see this fellow got involved in a war of words with a facebook site run by a bunch of prancey, ballet shoe wearing poofters who sneak about London and cover the famous Lion statues of London with black shrouds - they are trying to make a statement about what if Lions were suddenly gone form the earth! They used this blood soaked picture from my site to horrify the destruction we are causing to the Lions of Africa, hell you're telling them the truth, Lion actually bleed when you shoot them - DEAD!
“NO this is not the reality we want people to see, so we make rules about it, form committees to police any infringement there of because this is not what we want our hunting to be, this is not what we want the world to see - in our world there's no blood spilt, animals pass away peacefully without any broken bones or horrible death bettercries - in our world we want HOLLYWOOD - the big sun bronzed PH's with gold inlaid doubles, the ones they bought at our convention, we want dead lions with combed manes and crisp mouths, no blood, no tongues hanging out and of course we want well dressed clients sitting behind them in leather gloves and safari gear that we are going to promote at next year's convention!
I wanted to tell this fellow - a well known Botswana outfitter to take his comments and shove them up his backside, but then I would be breaking the rules, don't engage them, just grin and bear it and carry on with what you know!”

At the end of the day, let’s hope the news stories have done some good. The British public is better informed about lion trophy hunting, and let’s all move forward from there. A good friend pointed out that if the UKIP lion trophy was indeed 50 years old, it was taken at a time when there were 200,000 lions in Africa. Thanks in part to people like Sir David, there are now about 25,000 remaining. It is high time for Zero Tolerance for any further lion sport hunting.