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. 

A sea change of attitude among leading researchers about the importance of FIV infection among lions? Yes it was, and will now perhaps lead to a better investigation of the effects of this pernicious disease that could significantly influence conservation priorities of remaining lion populations.  

In a recent article Emerging Viruses in the Felidae: Shifting Paradigms in the journal Viruses (7 Feb 2012, v4, pp 236-257) Steve O’Brien and his colleagues indicated a rather big shift in their previous paradigm about the effect of FIV on lions. For many years, O’Brien had been a foremost proponent of FIV infection being inconsequential among lions – after all, his research group had shown that the virus had most likely infected lions for many thousands of years, and despite high infection rates in places like the Serengeti and the Okavango, lions did not seem to be displaying negative effects. This view ignored some important pathological data gathered from an Italian zoo lion infected with FIV (Poli et al, 1995, J. Wildl. Diseases 31(1): 70-74) and immune system information from lions provided by Kennedy-Stoskopf since 1994. Basically, those studies contested what O’Brien and colleagues had been saying and were repeating, and indicated similar pathologies and consequences of infection to those among domestic cats that should have been taken seriously.

Niels Pedersen, a friend at the University of California School of Veterinary Medicine, was the first to discover the Feline Immunodeficiency Virus in 1986. He was able to isolate this “new” virus from a domestic cat brought in to the Veterinary Hospital presenting symptoms and signs he recognized from monkeys infected with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. Once the cat immunodeficiency virus was described, it became clear that the infection showed a similar progression of immune system compromise as had been noted among humans affected with HIV. Consequently, with an animal model, a great number of experimental protocols could and were designed with domestic cats to determine outcomes of infection with an immunodeficiency virus. Niels never believed that infection with such a virus could be inconsequential among lions.

Meanwhile, O’Brien and his co-workers (including virologists and veterinarians) seemed unaware of the very many journal articles detailing a great diversity of consequences of infection with FIV among domestic cats. Instead of using such information as a possible model of infection consequence among lions, they felt that lions had worked out some sort of “truce” with the virus. Why did they take this track?

First, O’Brien and his colleagues looked at the divergent genetic sequences of the FIV strains infecting lions, and came to the conclusion that this was an old association between this virus and a big cat (perhaps over 300,000 years?). Making another leap, they decided that all long-term associations between a virus and host inevitably resulted in a compromise – and used examples like measles and smallpox for example. There are of course elements of truth in this, as selection works on host immune systems to become better resistant to viruses and also on viruses to diminish the lethal effects on their hosts so the viruses have the opportunity to spread. But that is not the way immunodeficiency viruses operate – they mutate rapidly, shuffle parts of genomes among co-infecting FIV strains, and are not in themselves immediately lethal. Selection on an immunodeficiency virus has more to do with better avoidance of immune responses than accommodating longevity of the host. That is already built into the virus modus operandi (see below).

Second, O’Brien et al were looking for an immunodeficiency virus/host association that was not greatly negative to the host to perhaps decipher genetic mechanisms for resistance. This would then lead to a better understanding of how HIV infection among human populations could perhaps be mitigated. Direct studies of human populations had already led to an understanding that western Europeans had higher levels of resistance to HIV infection than, say, African populations. O’Brien and colleagues attributed this to possible effects of exposure by Europeans to a great diversity of pathogens in the past – for example the numerous outbreaks of plague in the Middle Ages that perhaps fortuitously selected for a particular genetic makeup among survivors -  that then provided a better chance of surviving the future challenge of HIV centuries later. But any hopeful level of accommodation with FIV was not to be found among lions.

Third, researchers wrongly interpreted the way immunodeficiency viruses actually affect their hosts. Proof of infection via antibody analyses proved to be at very high levels in some populations – close to all adult lions in the Okavango and the Serengeti for example. But lions were not dying in huge numbers, and infected individuals seemed perfectly healthy for years after they had been diagnosed positive. Surprise, surprise?  Not really, as that is the way the virus works. After an initial illness following infection, the virus then settles down to work slowly (it is after all a lentivirus) but inexorably to erode the immune system. Animals and humans can indeed seem apparently healthy for years after first infection as the immune system remains largely functional and is perhaps supplemented by a variety of secondary defence mechanisms (e.g. hormones, B-cell activation mechanisms independent of T-cells). FIV infection among lion populations thus did not present as an epidemic. This should have been expected, but instead it was used as evidence for co-adaptation and justification for misplaced hypotheses.

In hindsight, it was compromised science. After negating the consequences of FIV infection among lions for many years, and therefore significantly supporting the hopeful view that the infection was inconsequential, O’Brien and his colleagues finally acknowledged some cracks in the façade. In the paper mentioned above, O’Brien admitted that their past conclusions were premature and oversimplified. He refers to a study undertaken by Melody Roelke (a veterinarian in his group) among Botswana lions and added the following remarks:

a) “A marked depletion of CD4 bearing T-lymphocytes was apparent in FIV infected lions, a prelude to immune collapse in well-defined AIDS [Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome];

b) In addition, there were multiple elevations of opportunistic infections… further, spleen and lymph node biopsies from nine free-ranging lions revealed evidence of lymphoid depletion, a hallmark of AIDS in human[s], cats, and macaques [a primate] … these findings strongly suggest FIV is contributing to the loss of immune competence among these lions;

c)  These observations would suggest that infection with FIV … might have increased the risk of mortality upon secondary CDV [Canine Distemper Virus] infection [during the CDV outbreak in the 1990s];

d) … the striking influence of FIV on lion immune function … clinical disposition, and a potential ancillary role in CDV mortality … affirms that FIV is likely pathogenic among lions … FIV is a potentially harmful agent in free-ranging lions, as for housecats, and deserves further scrutiny in the other free-ranging species afflicted with FIV.”

While this is good news for a belated recognition of the importance of FIV infections among lions and their resulting fragility, it also places FIV back in the mainstream of concerns for the future survival of lions. There are perhaps five or six populations of lions that number over 1000 individuals of all ages. On these populations rests the hope for the future survival of the species in Africa, and they largely occur in protected areas. Such populations are not protected from disease, and cannot be cured of FIV. Future conservation and management of the species can now move on to incorporate disease components with the brave admission from O’Brien’s research group that what they said in the past about the consequences of FIV infection among lions was “premature and oversimplified”.

We now need to move forward in a united determination to design the best conservation plans for this greatly threatened species. The threat from disease can finally unanimously be taken seriously among FIV compromised populations (basically all the five or six large populations mentioned above), and must be included in all conservation programmes as now there can be no more distractors.

 Picture:  Science Photo Library

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

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