Pieter's Blog

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.

 A few days after LionAid urged greater attention to vulnerable rather than endangered species for conservation attention, an article in the Independent Newspaper posed this question “Is it time to give up on tigers and pandas?”. The online responses to the article range from outrage to lesser rage to acceptance.

The journalist based his article on a published report in the journal Conservation Biology by Dr Murray Rudd, an environmental economist at York University, UK. Unfortunately, the journalist got Rudd’s message all wrong (hence the hype about tigers and pandas). This is an important subject that needs reporting accurately and should not be turned into a piece of sensationalist writing.

 The journalist focused on the concept of “triage” a medical term generally applicable for those wounded in wars, natural disasters, or terrorist events. A large number of wounded people all at once presented to hospitals are “triaged” – basically meaning evaluated in terms of their needs for immediate attention versus being able to wait a bit longer until the most urgent cases have been cleared by the limited number of surgeons and operating rooms available. It does not mean such other patients will not be attended to, only that they must wait a bit while given supportive care.

Perhaps it has to do with this triage word. It has come to take the meaning that patients – or species – with no hope are allowed to die, while those with a better chance of survival are given treatment with the limited resources we have available. In an emergency we cannot save everyone “triage” is meant to imply, and we must focus on those that have a chance. That is the unfortunate consequence of using such provocative words out of context.

The concept of environmental, and indeed species triage has a long history, and has started to take on a completely erroneous meaning. Murray Rudd is certainly not wrong to use the word, but perhaps he should have avoided it. His study asked very good questions, and never really mentioned abandoning tigers and pandas. That was an invention by the journalist.

An article in 2008 by a group of scientists from the University of Queensland in Australia (Is conservation triage just smart decision making? – Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2008 23 (12): 649-654) pretty much said the same thing:

  “Although often used implicitly by conservation managers, scientists and policymakers, triage has been misinterpreted as the process of simply deciding which assets (e.g. species, habitats) will not receive investment. As a consequence, triage is sometimes associated with a defeatist conservation ethic. However, triage is no more than the efficient allocation of conservation resources and we risk wasting scarce resources if we do not follow its basic principles”

They go on to say “In an ideal world, there would be enough money to save everything  but instead we are faced with a growing list of species at imminent risk of extinction, declining habitat extent and condition, uncertainty about the likelihood of our investment success and inadequate conservation budgets. Under these conditions, it is essential that scarce resources are allocated to maximise the persistence of valuable assets (e.g. biological features) that will disappear without treatment, that is, without conservation action”.  They acknowledge that human-induced extinction rates are “are up to 1000 times the natural extinction rate and progress toward the 2010 biodiversity target to reduce significantly the rate of extinction has been limited despite six years of concerted conservation investment and action”.

The Alliance for Zero Extinction took issue with this 2008 report, and said the amount of funding invested in bailouts of the US auto industry (and the later bank bailouts and Greece they were not yet aware of) were sums of money far greater than those needed to achieve zero extinction. But those are sad pipe dreams in terms of what we are willing to spend on conservation.  I cannot imagine the US Congress or the UK Parliament voting equivalent funds to bail out extinction of species?

But let’s come back to Murray Rudd at York University. Conservation organizations do not like economic assessments of effectiveness, but Murray was only trying to inject some timely realism. Basically it means that conservation biologists need to be willing to accept some (unfortunate) truths. In the paper, some of the following statements spring out:

a) Treating species and ecosystems as commodities was generally viewed negatively.

b) We need more rules, better monitoring, increased enforcement, and larger fines. Making damaging human behavior illegal and expensive is central to any strategy meant to protect biological diversity.

c) The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that conservational professionals need to be willing to rethink conservation goals and standards of success.

d) We could be on the cusp of a period of evolution in thinking about how conservation goals might be redefined and realized as the effects of human activities and climate change escalate rapidly.

e) “Trade in wild species and their products can work as a tool for conservation” was one of Rudd’s questions – only 7.6% of scientists agree.  Beware trophy hunters…
 

So there you have it.

In a nutshell, and perhaps belatedly, conservation scientists are asking about money invested in the past versus progress to avoid further losses for endangered species. In that sense, perhaps the Tiger is a good example.

Estimates indicate it will cost $82 million per year now to protect tigers in 42 "source sites" that make up only about 6% of the tiger's current range, or about 0.5% of the area it used to span. John Robinson of the Wildlife Conservation Society (New York) is of the opinion that as tigers breed well in captivity, they can “bounce back” in the wild. That means $27,333 per tiger. They could each have individual bodyguards with that amount of money?

Tigers have been on the conservation agenda by organisations like WWF for at least a decade. All we have seen is declines despite great donor investment. “The need for open and objective dialogue on tiger conservation is pressing. Reputations need to be suppressed in the interests of identifying and testing new strategies to deliver sustainable conservation of the tiger before it is too late for the species” said Hank Jenkins in 2007.

In the same year, the Telegraph reported WWF Tiger projects failing - “The only vaguely silver-lining is that for decades, population figures for India's tigers have been the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics." In the past, a number of bureaucrats and forestry officials faked tiger tracks and colluded to claim that declining populations were stable, and avoid criticism or the sack”.

Grim. Yet more and more Tiger NGOs are now rushing to the fore (Tigers are “in” these days, even rather incongruent people like Vladimir Putin and Leonardo Di Caprio are apparently joining forces) and are calling for new funds. Yet there is still nothing new under the sun in terms of Tiger innovative strategies and solutions. What I would controversially suggest is a triage of conservation organizations based on a forthright assessment of past performance? Investment versus returns?

Conservation effectiveness needs constant assessments, new ideas, and progress?

Picture: http://trialx.com/curetalk/wp-content/blogs.dir/7/files/2011/05/diseases/Intensive_Care_Unit-2.gif

Someone arrested in Johannesburg airport for attempting to export illegal lion bones?

Sent as a “mule” to transport them to an import company in Laos well known for the similar mules sent to transport illegal rhino horns? Is there a link between the illegal rhino horn trade in South Africa and the illegal lion bone trade?

If so, lions are in deep trouble. We have on this site expressed grave concerns about lion bones taking over from tiger bones (in short supply these days) in terms of being used as a substitute for Asian traditional medicine concoctions.

South Africa has long been lauded (by some) for allowing private ownership of many wildlife species. These are placed on game ranches and either trophy hunted and/or hunted for their meat. It is a big industry, and has been hailed as a conservation success – South Africa now has many more previously endangered and vulnerable species like black wildebeest, bontebok, blesbok, and rhinos than before. We have also said on this site that such animals should not be seen as being conserved, as their only purpose on the game ranches is to be commercially exploited.

South Africa allows lions to be bred by private individuals for commercial hunting – the so-called canned hunting. South Africa has also allowed rhinos on private properties to be bred for the hunt. Apparently they did not notice the clamour among Vietnamese hunters to line up for such permits – the rhino horn legally taken to Vietnam and then illegally sold as a concoction was worth many times more than the price for a rhino hunt. It should be pointed out that Vietnamese (and Thai and Laotian) hunters only come to South Africa to shoot rhinos. Alarm bells? Not on your life. Blind eye by SA authorities and many in the international sphere.

Legal rhino exports, in my mind, fuelled a great explosion of poaching in recent years. 333 rhinos poached last year and 341 already this year. The “legal” exports could not keep pace with the demand. South Africa is reviewing whether legal rhino trophy hunting is connected to the increase in poaching and the illegal rhino horn exports. It is clear as day to me, but South Africa dithers and prevaricates, making the occasional announcement that the responsible Minister, Edna Molewa, is “concerned” and just might review “legal hunting” and impose some stricter guidelines. Might she just?

Not a chance Edna. You are as fenced in by the vested interests in rhino trophy hunting as you are by those breeding lions for canned hunting. Read the article above Edna. You might recognize the names of the SA game ranchers already involved with the rhino horn trade and now the lion bone trade?

I believe that history repeats itself. Perhaps because we allow it to. And perhaps we will now see the same pattern that we saw with rhinos – lions increasingly being poached from SA private properties, game reserves, and national parks?  And other places in Africa?

Illegal ivory mainly is exported from Tanzania according to intercepted shipments. Whether all those elephants actually were poached in Tanzania is a moot point. It is a convenient and corrupt facilitator that allows container-loads of ivory to be loaded onto ships for further destinations. It is estimated, as in the drug trade, that only 10% of shipments of ivory are intercepted. Worth the risk of sending a container of ivory at huge profit to an Asian port?

The illegal rhino horns and now the increase in lion bone exports virtually all originate from South Africa. Another convenient country for illegal wildlife exports from Africa? Worth the risk of sending one mule for nine that get through? The importers from Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam certainly seem to think so.

Much to think about South Africa. And do make some right decisions please if you want informed wildlife tourists to spend money on a safari to your country… 

I’ll be the first to admit it, we have been hard on the African hunting operators, their mercenary Professional Hunters, and their endlessly demanding clients. I have told you many times before about the neglected communities and wildlife hunted far beyond sustainable levels in concessions. And the Professional Hunting associations who turn a blind eye to any excess, and the appeals to hunters to mend their ways by so many of their (remaining) supporters. And the sad truth about how sport hunting is being conducted under the guise of conservation - the sham and the shame?

Nothing but a ban on imports will make a difference, as sport hunters will not regulate themselves, despite their claims of being conservationists. To my mind, they only conserve the taxidermy industry and corrupt officials. All feed at the trough of commercial exploitation of wildlife, and pass gas about conservation. Harsh? No, realistic. The more that is exposed about these practices the better, and this is why LionAid is urging for the only possible alternative – an import ban imposed for trophies by the countries where the clients live. In the USA, let the resident hunters shoot, per annum, 16.5 million ducks, 1463 cranes, 12,628 swans, 24,465 bears, 12 million rabbits, 2.5 million raccoons, 3.1 million geese, 35 million doves, 26 million squirrels, 615,148 turkeys, 6.1 million deer and who knows how many cougars, wolves, elk, wild sheep, moose – they claim it is their right, so go at it. That’s your wildlife heritage, but please don’t come to Africa.

I have blogged before about a hunting website run by someone called Safaribwana. He organizes hunts for clients, and says he’s from Zambia while living in the USA. He’s a bit over the top in terms of his pro-hunting “massage”, but occasionally he gets it right. Please read this from his May 2009 post:  

“A good PH friend of mine was out on a hunt, far out in the western sands of Zambia in a vast and sparsely populated GMA. He was covering with another more fancy, flashy PH out of Zimbabwe, after Lion - a safari booked upon last seasons spectacular results. Day in and day out a young male would walk into the bait, big bodied but thin around the ears and shoulders, clearly a 3 or 4 year old boy testing his skills and territory. Other baits had strikes but the big one didn't show and as the safari started nearing its end the inevitable happened - the throw away youngster from day 3 now suddenly started looking like a shooter in the eyes of flashy pants and he started hinting to my friend that it may not be that young a male, perhaps it had a mane-less gene. Now, there are lions that don't grow manes, but you don't need a mane to clearly read the age of a male - it is clear if it is on the young side - and the much talked about black nose is not necessarily the indicator.
Here came the dilemma which we all face as PH's and it is one which is as variable as black and white from PH to PH. Your client has paid top dollar to hunt a lion, he wants success and there in front of you is a lion that is not considered dependant upon its mother, but it is young and is NOT a trophy male, it is merely a lion that will one day become great. What takes priority? Your client and their insistence that any male is OK, the safari operator insisting that the quota must be filled and trophy fee paid, or your gut that says this is not right, I will stick to my principals?
This report and its findings, whatever it may result in, highlights the fact that our hunting industry is far from perfect, it is something which sorely needs rethinking and hopefully a total restructuring! There are many conflicts, pitfalls and viable solutions. Some hunters have started out with the right principals in their areas from day one, some have never held wildlife at the core of their beliefs (almost as if it is not within their culture) and the rest fall somewhere in the middle, all under the same label and umbrella - African Trophy Hunting”.

Correct all “principals” as spelled to principles and you will get the picture. The young male was shot for sure!  And this is from a man who supplies clients to trophy hunting organizations?

Next comes this…

“Up until a few years ago, the principle [correct spelling!] of a community benefitting from the wildlife on their traditional land was but a pipe dream. However since 2003 it was formalized in the GMA lease agreements and now the community had a Resource Board who would represent their needs and see to the efficient and prudent allocation of funds from the hunting revenues. Today 50 percent of the revenue from the trophy fees and 20 percent of the concession fees are allocated to the community for various projects and priorities. The chief for example gets a 5% cut while the majority of funds are allocated to employ local village scouts for anti-poaching work. The problems that exist within this system is the filtering down of funds to the intended grassroots recipients and often the most important ones like salaries for the village scouts is non existent. The process is hindered from the top down starting at the disbursement from the wildlife authority but also gets mis appropriated at resource board level and often scouts wait 6-8 months for their salaries. What do they do to feed themselves and their families during this time? Should they carry on their essential duty to the GMA or should they sit idly by and wait until their salaries are paid?”

So they all know the problem but continue hunting… and the continued message from sport hunters is that they greatly assist African communities?

And then this:

“A couple of years ago existing GMA's [Game Management Areas] were suddenly split into two or three and the existing safari operators were told they had to pay for another hunting concession as well as another quota of animals. Essentially it meant a GMA of 3000 square kilometers with an annual quota of 180 animal species was now split into two 1500 sq km areas each with an annual quota of 180 animal species? In any man’s book, this does not make ecological or conservation sense, in fact it simply does not make sense. However it does make a whole lot of sense numbers wise to certain operators looking for more hunting land that they had perhaps missed during the initial GMA allocation and it makes even more dollar sense to the wildlife authority.”

So there you have it. All in the sport hunting community – the officials, the governments, the operators, the professional hunters – are looking for short-term profits. Not their conservation claims, not their community assistance claims- dollars and euros please. Will we stand up to them?

http://www.safaribwana.com/NEWSLETTERS/2009/May29.htm

Picture credit: BeCK/newtoonsontheblog.info

This is a blog that might be difficult for some of you to take on board, but it is the blunt truth about many highly endangered species in the world. My message is ultimately that we should not have let them become that way, and we still might have the choice to do right for many. But also for many species, we might have to accept, based on our complacency in the past, extinction in the near future because they are already dead as species. They are the ghosts of a world that once was, and while we might catch the occasional glimpse of an individual, we have taken away a defining characteristic of what it is to be a species – their future evolutionary potential.

We have come to accept that conservation is about saving individuals as that is all we have left. We have been led to believe that biodiversity is served by having a few Sumatran tigers and Javan rhinos clinging to individual survival, the hope that a few Ivory-Billed woodpeckers (pictured above) still elude eager spotters, and that we might just find a hidden stronghold among mammals for the Bawean deer, the Namdapha flying squirrel, the Blond Titi monkey and the Blonde Capuchin, the Black-bearded Saki and the Andaman white-toothed Shrew, the Social Tuco-tuco and the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo. Among plants,for the Pokemeboy, Brown’s Pigweed, Troodos Rockcress and the Maltese rock-centaury. Among birds for the Sulu Hornbill, the Honduran Emerald, and the sadly named Medium tree-finch. Among freshwater molluscs for the Ouachita Rock Pocketbook, the Tar River Spiny Mussel and the False Spike, the Shiny Pigtoe and the Cracking Pearly Mussel. Hidden strongholds? Not a chance. Extinction is not about the last individual, it is a process.

Our species, Homo sapiens, now numbers seven billion. We have effectively taken over the planet  some time ago in terms of our demand for natural resources. Those resources include wood from forests in existence for hundreds of years, bush meat, hunting trophies, fragile marine resources, fossil fuels. We have, and will increasingly contribute to climate change as carbon emissions are now ever more accepted as a necessity of economic growth instead of careful consideration of environmental consequences. Due to demand from our numbers, we increasingly and ceaselessly require an array of biological products that cannot (despite their supposedly “renewable” status) keep up with our demands. We destroy forests for wood, to open up temporary fields to grow a few crops, and to plant oil palms to fuel our cars. We believe in the biofuel concept (for those same cars) that fuels the expansion of sugar cane plantations at the expense of natural habitats.

Economic demands at present levels, and at probably increasing levels in the future, are completely out of synchrony with any means of supply from our wild species, whether they be tunas, deep sea corals, leopards, lions, mahogany trees, or any of the increasing number of species on the IUCN Red List of endangered animals and plants. Those of you who own Chippendale furniture are looking at wood from an extinct tree. It has come to the point that anyone who claims that sustainable offtake of vulnerable species is possible should gently be conveyed to an institution specializing in the treatment of delusionals.

Let’s face it. We have eradicated biodiversity on this planet to the extent that we are now faced (or actually have been faced for some time but nobody was paying attention) with a big and growing crisis. And now let me get to some meat some of you might find indigestible, but still needs to be served.

Darwin, a progressive thinker who struggled with his religious issues and potential competition from Alfred Russel Wallace, eventually published his Origin of Species. Darwin, truth be told, had no inkling of how inheritance actually worked, and it is said an unopened letter from Mendel was found on his desk after he died. But nevertheless he proposed a principle that still guides evolutionary thinking 150 years later.

Darwin was a proponent of “evolution by descent”.  That meant variation in species could lead to new varieties, hence evolution. Wallace opined that changing environments could select for new species, by implication again due to genetic variation present among populations.

Genetic variability is accumulated within a species by substantial numbers of individuals over many generations, and relies on a variety of different processes, not only the slow mutation as was once thought. We now acknowledge species “need” genetic diversity to ensure their survival in shifting environments, and also to allow speciation in the future.  Species are dynamic entities, and thus we must realize that we have by our past actions taken the evolutionary potential (at least) away from many species by destroying their numbers. Therefore, many species are now already evolutionarily extinct while some few individuals might remain. 

We do not seem to realize that by the time we classify a species as endangered, or critically endangered, that it is already dead in an evolutionary sense. Perhaps we need to accept that for those species evolution is dead, and that all we can do now is be concerned with the survival of a few remaining individuals. Maybe that is the best we can do given a dire situation. Maybe we should celebrate apparent success stories where numbers of individuals are somewhat resurrected by timely intervention. The black-footed ferret in the USA comes to mind. There are many programmes in zoos to breed animals in captivity either gone from the wild or present in such low numbers to cause great concern. Reintroduction into the wild is a pesky detail for such programmes, but some progress has been made.

Still, we have not learned from our mistakes. Endangered species are given special status by CITES and the IUCN, and once designated, trade and consumption is suddenly subject to a great number of regulations, guidelines, decrees and directives. The same should be best proactively extended to species currently listed as “vulnerable”, as those, in many cases, are still proper species in an evolutionary sense. We tend to wait until it is too late for species by saying “enough is enough”, and then we are down to numbers that cannot sustain evolution. The IUCN criteria to “become” an endangered species are rigid, and strictly speaking they only get on the list and get urgent protection when it is far too late.

A species is not a bunch of individuals in scattered and isolated populations added together. A species needs to be seen as a genetically variable and evolutionarily viable entity. We should put all species now classified as “vulnerable” on the endangered species list – after all, we should be talking about species, not individuals in terms of intelligent conservation.  Lions should not “wait” to become endangered, though those in western Africa and India already are. Time to pay attention to genetics, evolution, and intercede in a timely fashion. What’s more important to maintaining biodiversity - a species that is still viable or a sadly lingering ghost? It will require a sea change in our muddled thinking, but conservation needs to accept Darwinian principles if we are to be truly effective in the future.

Picture credit: http://training.fws.gov/History/Articles/IvoryBilledWoodpecker.html

  In 1994, 1000 lions died in the Serengeti due to canine distemper. The disease still continues to affect lion populations in Kenya and Tanzania, communicated from domestic dogs to lions via intermediate hosts like hyenas.

This clip was filmed in the Kalahari Transfrontier Park between Botswana and South Africa. The young male lion is shown having a "grand mal" seizure typical of a canine distemper infection. The commentary on the clip reports that only one of five lions in the group survived, but that is unconfirmed. But what is confirmed is that canine distemper among lions is not confined to eastern Africa anymore. It is a spreading threat to all lion populations.

LionAid has long cautioned that lion populations are extremely fragile. 95% of lions in many populations are infected with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus that destroys their immune competence over time and renders them susceptible to domestic animal borne diseases like canine distemper and bovine tuberculosis. In South Africa, the latter is threatening to destroy one of Africa's major remaining lion populations in Kruger Park.

Yet lions are still being sport hunted at an unsustainable rate by those who falsely claim they will thus be conserved. When LionAid eliminates sport hunting by disallowing trophy imports into the EU and by corollary elsewhere, disease issues will be high on our following agenda to significantly address the conservation concerns of African lions.

When I get bored, like while sitting around at airports waiting for flights, I seek entertainment by delving into some of the hunting forums available on the internet. One site recommended to me is called accuratereloading.com, and it is stimulating to the pressure of blood to read some of the discussion forums there.

I’ve posted the link to a particularly interesting current topic below. It basically started out by some person called “Zimpatriot” revealing the excesses of South African “Professional” Hunters coming across the border with eager clients and conducting trophy hunts in more than a few of Zimbabwe’s national parks. Aided and abetted, it seems, by at least one warden.  The South African took umbrage at being revealed, and threatened retaliatory action by some of his “black” friends in Zimbabwe.

The fur began to fly, as the Zimbabwe professional hunters (some of whom also seem to have been complicit in this activity) expressed great outrage about what seemed basically about the South African PHs operating illegal hunts. And perhaps operating by dastardly stealing clients away from the Zim PHs. Sabres were rattled and promises made to involve the Director General of Wildlife in Zimbabwe, The Labour Department, and the Immigration Department. A wonderful opportunity enthusiastically seized to tell about confiscated trophies mouldering away in Zimbabwe warehouses while dejected American clients who had trusted South African PHs offered money to have them restored.  But then there was an interesting twist to the conversations.

We have all been told that trophy hunting operators, the professional hunters, and the clients all seek to conserve wildlife. Well, hunting in national parks is not exactly conducive to such aims, but it now appears official hunting areas are similarly exploited. Zimbabwe has some exclusive concession areas (one operator) and then there are others that will auction a quota, where anyone can bid. In those areas, there is also something called a “ration quota” to feed hungry citizens starved by Mugabe’s eccentric land allocation schemes. Ration quotas can also be sold directly  to clients it seems. In addition, operators can also be provided access in these “auction” areas, and often many operate at the same time. One hunter complained of being in one of twelve vehicles carrying eager hunters in one area. Queues on the equivalent of a bush M25 come to mind…

Concern was expressed by the accuratereloaders that hunting quotas, already pegged at “enthusiastic” levels, were consequently doubled or tripled or quadrupled according to the diversity of hunting operators.

Lions were mentioned of course, and a discussion ensued about what had been shot versus what was theoretically assigned on quota. A consensus seemed to be reached that three areas where four lions were on quota actually had harvests of six lions in 2010 and seven in 2011. As with the one remaining Bumi Hills lion baited and shot either within a private photographic area or inches outside it, another contributor told of having seen carcass drag marks well within a photographic area to lure a local male lion out. The same contributor told of a three-year old son of the remaining females now mating with his mother and aunts? Collapse of the lion population in other words. Due to the conservation efforts of the hunting community.

What should be noted is that a US based hunter, Aaron Nielsen of Littleton, Colorado, given all the information above, is still pestering the other members of the forum for information as he wants to hunt a lion in the very areas where lions have been overshot in the past. My advice? Don’t delay Aaron, book yourself onto a hunt for the last lion in those areas ASAP. Or maybe your professional hunter could entice a lion out of a protected area to ensure the effectiveness of the sport hunting conservation message?

Better yet Aaron, book yourself with Safaribwana who is now advertising lion (and leopard) hunts at a cut rate. Basically, the Bwana’s formula is that you pay $10,000 to slog around a shot-out hunting area, and if you do happen to encounter a remaining adolescent lion and leopard, you shoot it and then pay up to $43,000. A budget safari with the possibility of a chance encounter? At least that operator is dealing with the stark realities of hunter conservation efforts in the past. He even says you can work to maintain a few roads while you search for the non-existent cats, and will throw in a sable antelope and a buffalo to keep your spirits up while washing dishes.

Do take the time to read the Accuratereloading entries while sitting at your next airport. And do consider the wonderful world of conservation hunting as is revealed. Thanks to a wonderful LionAid supporter who digs in muck on our behalf, if I was Liz you would have an OBE. 

Sources: http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1411043/m/7981066461/p/1
http://www.safaribwana.com/NEWSLETTERS/2011/April7th.htm

Picture: BECK

You will all have heard by now of the incident in Ohio where a private owner of a great number of wild species opened all cages before taking his own life. An apparently disturbed man who was still allowed to own a large number of firearms including automatic weapons, who had been served many citations for animal cruelty, and who was well “known” to local law enforcement officials. 

The regional sheriff mobilized his forces and shot dead 49 animals including 18 tigers and 17 lions and many bears… He has come under criticism for his actions, but he basically had little choice. You don’t get much advice in law enforcement courses about how to deal with tigers and lions and bears running around neighbourhoods where you are supposed to protect citizens. The animals were released close to dusk, no dart guns were available, and the sheriff took what he felt was the only option open to him. 

So they were destroyed. But one does question that same sheriff and animal welfare associations as to why this man was allowed to maintain his menagerie. Especially since he had been cited for animal cruelty and even imprisoned for illegal firearm possession. Ohio is supposed to have some very lax rules about individuals owning exotic species, but surely having a huge number of lions and tigers and bears on a property might have caused a bit more than casual concern. Apparently and strangely it appears it did not.

Will Travers of the Born Free Foundation commented on the CNN website to correctly point out that such individual and irresponsible ownership of exotic species has no role in our society. His comments were overall good – keep wild species in the wild. But unfortunately you do have to read through an incredible amount of promotional statements for Born Free that frankly distract from what should have been a straightforward message. CNN, for example, allowed this paragraph:

“In Texas, the Born Free USA Primate Sanctuary provides permanent, safe, naturalistic and free-range accommodations for more than 500 macaques, vervets and baboons, many of whom have been rescued from captive lives of stress, deprivation and danger -- danger to both the monkeys and to their "owners." Relevant or self promoting? You decide.

But we agree with Born Free that private ownership of animals kept in often deplorable conditions should be banned immediately. Unlike animals kept in enlightened and progressive zoos, such captives are only there for the entertainment and perhaps commercial interests of their owners. The USA should very carefully evaluate animal welfare guidelines already well established in the UK. Time for the US SPCA and the HSUS to get a bit more active? And for the US and State Governments to pass some very strict laws about possession of exotic species? 

Source:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/19/opinion/travers-escape-wild-animals-ohio/index.html?iref=allsearch
Picture:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/20/us/ohio-animals-on-loose/index.html?iref=allsearch

Last year, 333 rhinos were poached in South Africa, and this year’s latest counts are already up to 324. Shock and horror have been expressed worldwide, and people are scrambling to find means to prevent such slaughter. It is a sad tragedy, but one that has many roots and was in many ways predictable. It is essentially a sad tale of connivance, corruption, complicity, commerce, and complacency.

Rhino horn has been commercially valuable for many years, either finding its way to Yemen where the elite find it attractive to be made into dagger handles and/or to the East Asian Traditional Medicine trade where it was supposed to relieve a number of symptoms such as fever. The Yemeni dagger trade has died down a bit, but the Traditional Medicine trade can only be described as a growth industry. Why? Well, apart from the long-standing ascribed medicinal value of ground horn, some years ago a high official in the Vietnamese Government announced that he had been cured of cancer by regular doses of a rhino horn potion. That single testimonial has now apparently blown the roof off the rhino horn trade, and there has been a great flurry of activity ever since.

Let me back up a bit and tell you about white rhinos. The name derived not from their colour (grey) but because as opposed the black rhino (again not the colour), the white rhino mouth is wide, or weit in German. White rhinos are huge animals, a sort of reminder of what was around in the Pleistocene era. They are grazers (hence the wide mouth) and pretty docile compared to the smaller but stroppier black rhinos that like to charge at anything irritating their day.

Now, because of the dagger handles, traditional medicine, and overhunting, white rhinos suffered great declines. Especially in the case of the northern white rhino, a subspecies now extinct. But the southern whites remained at relatively good numbers in South Africa in mainly Kruger National Park, and a number of game ranches have bought rhinos on auction to breed them. Not for conservation purposes, mind you, but for sport hunting. So, say the trophy hunters, another feather in our cap as there are now something like 20,000 white rhinos in South Africa, and we have saved another species from extinction by giving it a commercial value.

Not so fast boys and girls. The ranch rhinos contribute nothing to conservation, and their sport hunting has indeed contributed greatly to the current poaching drama. Let me explain, and let me also tell you why CITES and TRAFFIC (Mission Statement - TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature) have not been paying attention. And I’ll also let you in on a worrying trend in Russia and Spain…

Vietnam is not known as a country with a great passion for trophy hunting. In fact, trophy hunters there are pretty much nonexistent, with the single exception of going to South Africa and hunting rhinos. CITES duly recorded this trend, and it should have raised some eyebrows among even their most dense staff members. From 2005 to 2009 (when CITES records end) Vietnam imported 207 rhino hunting trophies and 84 horns. Before 2005, there seemed to be no interest at all. Like zero. So why did Vietnam suddenly develop a great interest in rhino trophy hunting? You guessed it. Trophy hunts were sold at much lower prices than the horn was worth. Did anyone pay attention? Did the UK-based charity Save the Rhino International raise a question (in fact they support trophy hunting)? Did the UK-based Tusk Trust? Did the IUCN? No. Is it difficult to get this trade information from CITES? No, just go to the trade website and it is all there.

Sorry, but this level of inattention is just not acceptable. “Legal” hunting spurred the market for rhino horns and spurred the poaching market. It should be noted that a CITES rhino trophy is only allowed to be exported under the legal agreement that it will not be used for trade purposes. I’m sure that contravening that legality must have weighed heavily on the minds of the Vietnamese while they were grinding up the horns for medicine.

South Africa was complicit in the trade, as they knew where the horns were going and should have noticed the sudden influx of Vietnamese “hunters”. The hunters did not even arrive with guns and did not know how to shoot for goodness sake! Most recently, a bit of a scandal was raised when a bunch of Thai women arrived at a game ranch, equipped with the necessary licenses, and then sat and had lunch and tea while a professional hunter shot their trophies…

But now, under international scrutiny, South Africa is taking measures. Yes indeed. On September 30 it was published that Mr. Fundisile Mketeni, Deputy Director General of Biodiversity and Conservation in the South African Department of Environmental Affairs, and Dr. Ha Cong Tuan, Deputy Director General, Viet Nam Forestry Administration, announced technical agreement on promoting co-operation between the two countries to enhance wildlife protection, law enforcement and compliance with CITES.

“We are now on the cusp of proactive law enforcement collaboration that harnesses the political will of both nations to actively combat the illegal trade in rhino horns.  This can only be good news for Africa’s beleaguered rhinos and hopefully leads to a new era of diminishing rhino losses” said Tom Milliken, head of TRAFFIC’s Elephant and Rhino Programme.

And belatedly “the South African government is imposing new rules on hunters. All legal rhino hunts must be supervised by a conservation official or an environmental inspector, and training sessions will be organized for officials who issue permits.

To prevent the illegal export of rhino horns, trophy hunters will be obliged to have microchips implanted in any rhino horn that they want to take home, and the environmental inspectors will be required to register the microchip numbers with the government immediately after every hunt.

If any hunter or hunting operator is under investigation for violations, the new rules will allow authorities to deny them a permit.”

Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? You bet.

In closing, I would like to advise the South African government, CITES, and TRAFFIC of another worrying trend they will perhaps not have noticed from their own data. Russia has suddenly developed an interest similar to the Vietnamese in terms of rhino trophies and horns exported from South Africa. From 2005-2009, Russia imported 113 trophies and 16 horns. From 1995 to 2004, Russia imported 3 trophies. And also have a look at Spain, with 112 trophies and 28 horns imported form 2005-2009. CITES and TRAFFIC - nice to have LionAid do your investigative research for you is it not?

Sources:
http://www.traffic.org/home/2011/9/30/south-africa-and-viet-nam-to-co-operate-on-protection-of-wil.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/south-africa-hardens-its-stance-on-rhino-trophy-hunts/article2199740/
Picture:
http://relivearth.com/wildlifereporter/2011/02/02/technology-against-rhino-poachers/