Outrage over Cecil the lion slaying three years ago left little in its wake
July 29, 2018 4.28am EDT
Author
Muchazondida Mkono
Research Fellow (Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow), Business School, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement
Muchazondida Mkono receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

Partners
University of Queensland

University of Queensland provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Republish this article
Republish Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons license.


Cecil the Lion shortly before he was killed. Vince O'Sullivan/Flickr
Email
Twitter7
Facebook56
LinkedIn
Print
It’s just over three years since a lion was shot in Zimbabwe by Walter Palmer, a dentist from Minnesota in the US, in a drama that became known as “Cecilgate”. The lion’s death sparked heated debates around the world about trophy hunting. And the fallout was hailed as a turning point for the wildlife tourism industry because trophy hunting was shown to be morally untenable for many people, particularly those living in developed countries.

The incident became a teachable moment. People were made aware of Africa’s wildlife conservation crises and the declining lion numbers – from over 200 000 a century ago to about 20 000. The issue of canned hunting, where wild animals are bred on farms to be shot by rich foreign trophy hunters, became a topic of contention. Poaching was highlighted as another huge problem.

To understand the full impact of the incident and its fallout I conducted research looking at Cecil’s legacy – in other words what’s happened since he was shot.

I found that the outcry led to some policy changes in developed countries. For example, the UK demanded that African countries improve their hunting practices as a condition for continued support while France banned lion trophy imports altogether. Companies also took action: a number of airlines, led by Virgin’s Sir Richard Branson, pledged not to carry hunting trophies from Africa.

But the Cecil movement didn’t lead to any deep-seated changes. The sad reality is that trophy hunting persists in many parts of Africa, as does the even more abhorrent practice of canned hunting. In the southern Africa region, Botswana is the exception. But its ban on trophy hunting was imposed well before Cecilgate. Hunting companies are still thriving, offering a long list of “safari specials.”.

The Cecil movement has not resulted in any tangible contributions to wildlife conservation in Africa. Conservation remains under-funded, poaching is rife, and lion numbers are still on the decline.

There are a few reasons for this.

Lack of understanding
The Cecil movement showed a lack of understanding —- or disregard —- of the different perspectives in countries that are home to lions.

Professor David MacDonald, Director of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Oxford University and his co-authors recently pointed out that there are very divergent views about lions in the wealthy West compared with communities that live in close proximity to them. They asked:

Who has the right to make decisions about trophy hunting? How should the weight of opinions held on lion hunting in countries without lions, such as the US (which has a thriving domestic hunting market), be ranked against the opinions held in African countries where lions occur (and where the financial consequences of a cessation of trophy hunting might bite the hardest)?

These divergent views played out in the weeks and months after Cecil’s death when it became apparent that there was simply no grassroots support for a hunting ban.

In response to the Western media frenzy around Cecilgate, Africans felt that the West cared more about animals than they did about people. This undermined the Cecil movement’s moral authority. It didn’t help that the lion was called Cecil – the name of one of Britain’s great imperialists, Cecil John Rhodes.

Zimbabwean born Goodwell Nzou, then a PhD candidate at Wake Forest University, put this aptly in the New York Times.

In Zimbabwe we don’t cry for lions. In my village, surrounded by wildlife conservation areas, no lion has ever been beloved or granted an affectionate nickname… We Zimbabweans are left shaking our heads, wondering why Americans care more about African animals than about African people…

Crucially, the Cecil movement also failed to propose an economically viable alternative to trophy hunting. Suggested alternatives like photographic tourism has not generated enough revenue to match the USD$200 million that Africa receives from trophy hunting annually.

In addition, hunters remain unrepentant about their sport. Walter Palmer himself still posts defiant tweets:

I just wanted to say I killed “a frican lion”.

Way forward
Unless the West is prepared to devise a new funding model for conservation, calls to ban trophy hunting are futile. African governments need stronger support in finding alternative revenue streams.

Crucially, the people who live alongside wildlife must not be forgotten. The Cecil movement can strengthen its moral authority by demonstrating equal compassion for people who live in poverty. They might then have a chance of shifting attitudes and advancing their conservation cause.

With a new funding model, and grassroots support, the movement might one day be able to say that Cecil, as a symbol of all of Africa’s beautiful megafauna, didn’t die in vain.

As a final note, Xanda, one of Cecil’s cubs, was shot in 2017, and the incident went largely unnoticed. For now, nothing has changed.

Typical that the West needs to give money for conservation, instead of earning the money for conservation because a group does not like how they earn it. Progressives are the same everywhere.

I wonder what country he is from?

A rather apt article in a way.

The author is a graduate student in a business school.

We all know that the real point of the anti movement is to make money, not to actually improve wildlife numbers or habitat. Hunters want to improve the ecosystem so that they can continue to get out there and hunt. The high level antis want to continue the fight as it ensures they will be able to continue their paychecks. As long as they can package it to draw the emotional response and get donations, this will continue. The hunters will always be at a bit of a disadvantage because it is a logic based argument that is necessarily constrained to those who both want to hunt, and are not invested in an emotional reaction that has been packaged and ingrained into society from childhood by the entertainment conglomerates.

Face it, there are no more relatively fact based shows that don’t anthromophize the animals like the old Mutual of Omaha wild kingdom shows- the current crop are giving lions names and such.

quote:

Muchazondida Mkono

Here she is:

https://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/9277

The African edition of The Conversation is a good site, but there is a preponderance of commentary from First World researchers, which, whether they are African or not, has varying degrees of relevance to what's actually happening in Africa.

BTW, "Cecilgate" is a whole new one to me.