Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
COSMIC RHINO

well funded and managed reserves can support 4 times lions

13 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

a recent study showed that if a protected reserve was well managed and funded it could support 4 times the lion population

Edited by COSMIC RHINO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

this link woks ok

 

please see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170221130713.html

 

21 feb sciencedaily.com PRIDES,PROTECTION AND PARKS AFRICA'S PROTECTED AREAS CAN SUPPORT FOUR TIMES AS MANY LIONS

Edited by COSMIC RHINO
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wish that all those conservationists who feel that you trophy hunting of lions is needed to preserve lion populations would take a look at this survey. Then again they undoubtedly would compete with each other just who would be the last one to bag a lion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read @@COSMIC RHINO's link, as suggested by @@optig.

 

As a statement of the "bleeding obvious", it's hard to beat. The conclusion, that lion numbers would respond positively to the elimination of the bushmeat trade and direct poaching, is clearly correct. There is next to no discussion on the economic costs of providing the levels of protection needed, nor how these should be met (other than a hand wave at photo-tourism). There is no discussion of catering for the competing nutritional needs of the burgeoning population and, often, their attendant "walking banks", aka domesticated livestock. Furthermore, there is nothing in the report to allow @@optig to draw his palpably false solution in respect of trophy hunting. (Virtue signalling comes to mind.)

 

I'm also concerned that no mention has been made of guild of predator effects (more lions, less cheetahs and wild dogs). Lions, by dint of their size, will require a greater biomass of prey. Optimisation of lion density is quite probably going to reduce density of lesser predators. Admittedly, eliminating the bushmeat trade might, to an extent, compensate for this at the expense of more hungry or protein-deprived local humans.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@douglaswise As I'm sure that you know African fertility levels are falling. I can remember very well when Kenyan had the highest fertility level in the world at 8.2 childen per woman,even

Uganda, Tanzania and other African counties have seen their fertility levels fall. It's hard to meet a Kenyan lady today who wants to have more than 2 children,thus eventually there will be less competition between people and the local population for resources.

 

My point is that lion populations are simply too small in countries such as Mozambique, Ethiopia,Namibia and Zambia to sustain hunting. There are estimated to be only 500 desert lions in Nambia; is this a population that should be hunted? Do you support canned hunting in South Africa? There are many other examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really mean fertility levels @@optig ?

 

Your post suggests that it is the choice of Kenyan women to have less children which would suggest it is contraception/ abstinence which is reducing the birth rate.

 

And if you did mean fertility levels it would be interesting to read the research article that demonstrates this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@wilddog please excuse my foolish error. I've been recovering from dysentery. I meant to say the birth rate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@optig:

 

Falling birth rates will only lead to stable or falling populations many decades later. I suspect, too, that the birth rates of urban Kenyan women have been falling faster than those of women from rurally-based communities, particularly pastoralist ones. I only read the other day that population growth in areas contiguous to the Mara was increasing at 8%/annum (though one shouldn't necessarily always believe what one reads). A continued growth of this rate would lead to a doubling of the population in less than a decade.

 

Trophy hunting should, in theory, cause no declines in lion populations if conducted responsibly (the correct quota of suitably aged males). You may wish to argue that is generally not conducted responsibly, but, in these circumstances, we're back to corruption - without which there would be far less problems for wildlife conservation.

 

You ask if I support canned hunting in South Africa. I come from a UK shooting background and, until recently, gained a lot of my winter recreation from shooting driven lowland game birds, the vast majority of which are farm-reared and then released. We have a code of conduct that requires that we release birds a minimum of 6 weeks before we first attempt to shoot them. By this time the birds should be behaving similarly to wild ones. However, from the birds' perspectives (as opposed to the aesthetic sensibilities of the marksmen) I don't suppose that it would matter if they were shot immediately upon release. I don't know much about canned lion shooting, but it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to try to get it banned unless there were clear issues of sustainability and animal welfare - which there need not be. Thus, one is not considering a conservation issue - rather a moral one. If I'm happy to eat farmed meat, then any moral grounds for opposing canned hunting would appear weak. That said, I'd have neither the money nor inclination to do it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@douglaswise - you cannot compare hunting on birds released six weeks before hunting with canned lion hunting. Many released birds survive 1or 2 years in free nature. Lions is released in small areas a few days before the 'great' hunter arrives and have no chance of surviving. Furthermore it takes 6-7 years to make a trophy lion in a small enclosure compared to 3 month for a pheasant. Big difference. I do not mind hunting for the pot.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@douglaswise Please see the documentary: Blood Lions because it's close to being the most shocking video which I've ever seen. Lions aren't hunted in South Africa;they are slaughtered.

They are kept in the worst conditions and totally lose their fear of humans-thus they're easy targets for trophy hunters. The ranches take advantage of young volunteers who come to these lodges naively believing that they are working for the conservation of lions. I thought that the most powerful voice against canned lion was an American big game hunter who was just horrified after he went undercover to discover the truth about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@Africalover:

 

You say that I can't compare shooting of game birds with canned hunting of lions - an odd statement considering my post #8 in which I did precisely that. I made clear that, from a personal perspective, I find the former acceptable and the latter, if conducted as you describe, to be unacceptable. There will, of course, be plenty of readers here who would consider all forms of shooting live quarry to be morally unacceptable. I suspect that @@optig would be among them. You, yourself, admit that you don't mind shooting for the pot. In so doing, you are imposing a moral qualifier, suggesting that you, too, are addressing the comparison purely on the basis of human motivation. However, I was endeavouring, obviously without success, to point out that, as far as the animal is concerned, the human motivation attending its death would be irrelevant. If, hypothetically, it were equipped with reflexive consciousness, it would probably opt for a sudden and painless death, something most unlikely to occur without human intervention - and, even then, there would be no guarantee. I then tried to explain that, in my opinion, moral attitudes should not necessarily drive conservation policy.

 

It is certainly obvious to me that there are circumstances in which hunting can confer conservation benefits and, I think, most professionals working in this field would agree. I also suspect that many safari-goers would disagree because they either let emotions trump logic or prefer to disengage from uncomfortable choices. Let's take a few (hypothetical) examples:

 

1) Wasn't a male giraffe - or some other herbivore - quite recently shot at a Danish zoo and fed to big cats? There was a public outcry. Why? The animal had completed all the breeding it could do short of causing inbreeding in its own zoo and no other zoo wanted it. I, personally, admired the zoo's officials for their open and educational approach to the problem. They could, possibly more conveniently, have swept the whole affair under the carpet.

2) An elephant sustains a severe snare injury. Do you spend scarce resources on immobilising and treating it (rather than shooting it and taking its meat) when, for an equal sum, you could have employed a game ranger for a year to undertake anti- poaching patrols and collect snares?

3) You are going on safari and, because you delight in watching and photographing baby elephants, you visit an elephant orphanage and are so captivated by the experience that you elect to pay extra to "adopt" one. Do you seriously consider that you are contributing anything remotely useful to wildlife conservation? Could your contribution have done greater good by having been spent elsewhere - e.g. given to African Parks?

4) A fenced wildlife reserve of, say, 250 sq km is providing a "big 5" experience to photo-tourists. However, its lions will quickly become too numerous without human intervention and the population will also risk becoming inbred without the occasional introduction of new stock. What to do if no other reserve wants to accept or swap? One could shoot the surplus in situ (hoping it wouldn't spook the remaining animals to the detriment of the photo-tourists). One could consider very expensive surgical or chemical methods of birth control in an attempt to avoid giving offence to one's punters. One could move the surplus to an adjacent fenced area and find someone prepared to pay thousands of dollars to take a pot shot at "a trophy animal" (though it wouldn't be shooting for the pot in @@Africalover's thinking!) Is it totally wrong to suppose that the last course of action could do the greatest conservation good?

5) Let's take the thought experiment one stage further. Our reserve managers find that demand for "trophies" exceeds the surpluses that their reserve naturally generates. Would it be wrong to take in the surpluses of others or to consider a bit of lion farming to meet this excess demand? This could, theoretically, allow them to devote even greater funding to wildlife conservation. Of course, they may decide, instead, to enrich themselves. Is lion farming necessarily associated with animal suffering and poor welfare? if so, is welfare likely to be worse than that in the wild (where life can be natural but still nasty)? How does a lion farm producing "trophies" necessarily differ from those much visited and generally admired destinations in Namibia such as the "Africat" reserve?

 

I think that I've tweaked enough tails for now! I am really only trying to make the point that the issues surrounding conservation are seldom as cut and dried as many here appear to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@@Douglas Wise I'm not opposed to all hunting. I respect and admire you because you find canned lion hunting simply barbaric. I'll admit that in the

absence of tourism quota hunting is better than nothing. The problem is that so many countries have failed to develop safari tourism or they have

continued to rely on hunting income.

Edited by optig
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@optig:

 

I'm aware of this video. I have repeatedly made clear that I don't condone the keeping of any animal in bad conditions. There should be some welfare regulations associated with lion farming and it is perfectly possible to farm this species under conditions of good welfare. However, I'm not concerned that the lions are tame and have no sporting chance of escape. If there are those out there who are prepared to pay good money to do the killing and if I were to believe that a significant portion of said money was ploughed back into wildlife conservation, I'd certainly not wish to ban the practice.

 

Employing volunteers under false pretences is clearly morally wrong, but I can't help thinking that ,if things are as conveyed in the video, said volunteers must be incredibly naive. More likely, the film maker has manipulated his audience. I suspect that "Africat " volunteers are probably doing the same sort of thing, the difference only pertaining to the subsequent fate of the farmed animal. As a meat eater, I don't find the slaughter of an animal with no chance to escape to be a problem. I'm not surprised that the American hunter you refer to was horrified by canned hunting. At a personal level, I also find the practice to be extremely distasteful.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


© 2006 - 2017 www.safaritalk.net - Talking Safaris and African Wildlife Conservation since 2006. Passionate about Africa.