Was it worth the Investment?

Much donor money and has been spent on lion research. And still the lion numbers decline at an alarming rate. Let us explore the issues.

In the 1960’s when there were still probably about 200,000 lions remaining in Africa, two unrelated books brought the species to international attention. The first was about George Adamson who shot a female lion in Kenya and then brought home her three small cubs, one of which he called Elsa. His wife Joy immortalized this little female by writing books about Elsa’s upbringing, including a bestseller with the title “Born Free”. The second book on lions, while not attracting the attention of Hollywood, was possibly more important. This was titled “The Serengeti Lion” by George Schaller, and constituted the first scientific study of the species. The contents of that publication are still relevant and often quoted in current scientific literature.

George and Joy Adamson were later murdered in Kenya in separate events, Elsa is long dead, and George Schaller moved on to conduct research on other species in other places. But lions were on the map. The Serengeti lion study has continued largely uninterrupted since Schaller’s day, and many more lion studies were launched especially in South Africa. These days, lions are being researched in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Senegal – the list is long and more studies are on the way.

But those scientists had better hurry. 180,000 other lions have joined Elsa since the 1960’s, their former roars silenced on the African savannas. Current population estimates stand at less than 20,000 for the whole continent.

This loss of lions is attributed to many factors. Conflict with expanding human and livestock populations is considered the primary factor. I can believe that as I have seen first-hand the poisoning and shooting of very many lions in Botswana. For example, I there encountered a man whose father had shot almost 300 Kalahari lions in his lifetime while yearly driving herds of cattle to a slaughterhouse located over 350km away from his ranch. His sons added another 150. This must be a record for a single family, but is indicative of what people will do to protect cows.

Diseases introduced to lion populations by domestic dogs (canine distemper) and cattle (bovine tuberculosis) are also responsible for declines. Very many lion populations are highly infected with a lion version of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) that leads to immuno-compromised individuals. Virtually all adult lions in populations like Kruger Park in South Africa, the Serengeti in Tanzania, and the Okavango in Botswana are FIV-positive, rendering them susceptible to introduced diseases. Unfortunately, these populations living in protected areas also represent the best hope for future survival of the species.

Trophy hunting, while touted as a conservation tool by the hunting industry, is actually highly destructive of lion populations. Over 4,200 lion trophies were exported from Africa between 2002 and 2008. The rapidly declining population cannot sustain this number of additional losses, but the hunters continue to hunt.

Meanwhile, the scientific research community has largely failed to make an impact on the conservation of the species – in fact, it can be accused of studying lions to death. Thanks to their efforts, we now know a huge amount about lion ecology and behaviour, home ranges, what prey they eat, pride dynamics, male movements, female movements, cub survival rates, why male lions have manes, why lions are at least semi-social cats (an oddity in the cat group), how many times a day they groom each other, the impact of new males coming into a pride, how many times males copulate with a female while she is in estrus – the list goes on.

Doubtless important information for an understanding of the species, but the endless repetition of such studies in different countries is not really necessary. A lion in Zambia is not different from a lion in Zimbabwe or Uganda or Kenya. Do we really need to know after many conservation dollars spent that prides might have different diets in different ecosystems?

Where are the studies that contribute meaningfully to the actual conservation of the species? For sure, there have been attempts. For example, an estimate of total lions remaining on the continent was attempted by Hans Bauer of Leiden University and Sarel van der Merwe of the African Lion Working Group in 2002. They arrived at a conservative estimate of between 16,500 and 30,000. Simultaneously, Philippe Chardonnet, supported by funds from the Safari Club International, a vigorously active pro-hunting lobby, proposed a total of 47,000.

A scientific paper was published in 2004 based on computer models to indicate that if hunters restrained their activities to shooting males over six years old, trophy hunting could be sustainable. How to judge the age? A fanciful proposition was put forward that lion noses slowly darken with time, so that by age six, 50% of the lion nose would be black – and therefore that lion could be shot sustainably. The study was supported by hunting organizations. In 2009, the same author indicated that lion populations declined faster in areas with hunting than areas without. Is this science?

Another scientist assured that lions and livestock could live together. If only the cattle farmers would create secure enclosures for their cows at night, lion livestock raiding would be minimized. Others proposed insurance schemes for cattle owners and incentive systems – keep lions alive and you will earn a bonus every year. Programs doomed to failure by a lack of understanding of African realities, but many more conservation dollars expended.

As for the disease issue, yet another researcher stated unequivocally that lions had learned to live with FIV over many thousands of years, and thus that the infection was inconsequent. His long-term denials of the consequence of FIV infection among lions went both against previously published information and considerable knowledge of how the virus works among domestic cats. Lately, he seems to have changed his mind and admits that infection with FIV could have a negative effect on lion immune systems. In fact in a recent seminar he acknowledged those who were resolute in maintaining that FIV infection among lions had immune consequences while he and others were insisting that it was apathogenic. This is a positive step forward in accepting an additional fragility among remaining lion populations and designing careful programs to deal with the consequences.

The pendulum of scientific information thus continues to swing erratically, and the lions continue to decline. Scientists can be prejudiced, influenced by the demands of their sources of finance, and can be far from truthful in reporting their findings. Scientists these days need to be politicians to gain their funding, and it reflects.

It is easy to criticise from hindsight, so where could future research actually be constructive in ensuring conservation of remaining African lions?

1. Research needs to address the realities and relevances of African nations and their lions. That means that future research needs to address local priorities and ensure that results are meaningful to the wildlife departments and governments of the range states. It also means that those range states need to prioritise what research they want to see happen and pay attention to their lion populations.

2. The range states need to decide where they want lions, and then commit to their conservation. If national parks and similarly protected areas are to be prioritised, then research needs to contribute to sound conservation programs for lions contained within, and if necessary, contribute to re-establsihment of lost populations.

3. Range states need to recognize the spin put on trophy hunting as a conservation measure. Otherwise, along the same lines as the ivory trade was eventually defeated, importing countries need to deny the flow of lion trophies. Those same countries impose strict laws on the hunting of domestic species and so should impose them as well on permission to import of trophies from abroad. If the USA would do this, it would have saved 2182 wild male lions being shot between 2002 and 2007.

4. Disease issues need to be addressed carefully and objectively. FIV among lions needs to be taken seriously as a threat to the health and reproductive potential of remaining populations, and measures put in place to protect those from exposure to domestic animal diseases. Disease research remains a neglected issue in the overall conservation program for lions.

5. Conservation bodies and researchers need to evaluate how effectively money is spent on research programs. Does the program address the decline of lions? Are the funds well-spent to ensure lion conservation? Is the program relevant and useful to local conditions? Will the results of the program be durable and useful?

6. Above all, will range state governments consider and implement research results?

Much donor money is and has been spent on lion research. Now it is time to have a realistic evaluation of deliverables. The research community owes this to the subjects of their studies, the range states need to be more realistic in terms of establishing their needs, and the international community needs to pay better attention. If all work better together, African lions do still have a chance of survival. 

Comments