https://allafrica.com/stories/202008110658.html



Tanzania: Lions Face Extinction If Not Protected, Says Report


11 AUGUST 2020
The Citizen (Dar es Salaam)
By Paul Owere

Tanzania has the largest number of lions in the world with other countries such as South Africa and Kenya following in distant second and third position.

But as the world marked World Lions Day on Monday August 10, World Animal Protection has warned that the King of the Jungle may soon be extinct if urgent measures are not taken.

According Edith Kabesiime, the campaigns Manger at World Animal Protection , African lions are facing human and nature induced threats hence the need to prioritize their protection.

"We have witnessed the population of lions in Africa declined in the last decades as human beings occupy their habitat."

Statistics from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) indicate that Africa's lion population declined from 200,000 in the last century to the current 20,000. Lions exist in 26 African countries.



The continent has lost about 90 percent of the carnivore from its original habitat.



According to the statistics, climate change, removal from their habitats for entertainment and poaching to satisfy the traditional medicine industry are some of the contributing factors to decline in wild lion populations.

The report also shows that shrinking of prey base linked to massive hunting has increased their risk of death by starvation.

"Captive breeding of lions that has intensified in some parts of Africa is also a threat to their survival. Animal welfare is often not a priority,".



The report adds: Lack of adequate basic animal welfare conditions, such as enough water, food, space, shelter and medical care, is sadly a stark reality in most commercial breeding farms. This has been propelled by the urge to make profits through wildlife trade.

African lion has been categorized by IUCN as a vulnerable species amid international trade in its claws, bones and jaws to meet a rising demand for traditional medicine and jewellery.

Wildlife trade is not sustainable. If anything, it is recipe for ultimate extinction and possible outbreak of a future pandemic like what we are experiencing currently.

It is essential for an immediate action to be taken to protect and save lions from future extinction. A ban on international trade in lion's products coupled with enforcement of laws to deter poaching will help reverse their declining numbers in Africa.

"Policy makers need to consider a total ban on wildlife trade. There is need for a coordinated global action to advocate for it as a way of saving Africa's wild Populations.


At individual level one should distance themselves from wildlife trade ultimately making it socially unacceptable. If we learn anything from the current situation, it is that we need to leave wild animals where they belong - in the wild. We all have a responsibility to make a shift in our behaviour and attitudes towards animals that could save the lives of lions, other wildlife species, millions of people and our economies," Says Tennyson Williams, World Animal Protection Country Director.

This year's World Lion Day is marked with keen interest in three objectives; The first is to raise awareness of the plight of the lion and the issues that the species faces. The second is to find ways to protect the big cat's natural environment. And the third is to educate people on how to prevent human-wildlife conflicts. Humans and large species like cats can live in harmony together, but only if they understand how to do so.

I suppose the good side of this pandemic is the rabid animal rights activists can no longer blame evil hunters for the decline in the lion population. I would image there will be more cats lost this year than in the previous years.

Maybe they can convince the locals to stop killing all of them. Good luck with all that.

Oh well...

The solution is simple, kill off the human population thus giving back the land to the lions.

Dave

The best protection is legal hunting, scientifically, ethically and honestly regulated and administered.

It gives value to the animals, it disincentives poisoning and it funds communities and anti-poaching efforts.

It was once done that way. I hope but don’t expect to see that happen again.

It sure worked in Kenya in 1977 now didn’t it?

How does captive breeding of lions endanger wild lions?

So, hunting is bad...

Yet hunting is the only source of revenue for borderland to keep it from becoming populated.

That’s the elephant in the room that the big cat scientists will quietly admit privately, but refuse to publicly support - and tell the media and governments openly.

They have some nivarna that they imagine where government will somehow have an infinite amount of money to spend on wildlife while keeping people off the land.

They have been too busy trying to get control and not enough with the practical way of protecting the resource.

Well damn...that means I need to go to Tanzania to hunt a lion, before they're all gone!?

I'm booked for 2021. The only way lion go extinct if we are required to quit hunting them.

I agree. That has been applicable to other species as well.

Name one single species that has gone extinct due to sport hunting?

I can name several species saved from extinction by sport hunting!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So, hunting is bad...

Yet hunting is the only source of revenue for borderland to keep it from becoming populated.

That’s the elephant in the room that the big cat scientists will quietly admit privately, but refuse to publicly support - and tell the media and governments openly.

They have some nivarna that they imagine where government will somehow have an infinite amount of money to spend on wildlife while keeping people off the land.

They have been too busy trying to get control and not enough with the practical way of protecting the resource.

Aaron and I brokered a deal to bond hunting with the scientists to unite the two and end the above occurrence.

It was rejected by SCI...the rest is history.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So, hunting is bad...

Yet hunting is the only source of revenue for borderland to keep it from becoming populated.

That’s the elephant in the room that the big cat scientists will quietly admit privately, but refuse to publicly support - and tell the media and governments openly.

They have some nivarna that they imagine where government will somehow have an infinite amount of money to spend on wildlife while keeping people off the land.

They have been too busy trying to get control and not enough with the practical way of protecting the resource.

Aaron and I brokered a deal to bond hunting with the scientists to unite the two and end the above occurrence.

It was rejected by SCI...the rest is history.

That's true! In a nutshell, most of the scientists were willing to set aside their egos, stick their necks out in favor of conservation minded / limited legal hunting...and SCI flatly refused to meet em half way. And it wasn't even like "negotiations" failed...SCI just flatly refused to even listen or try to partake in anyway. That wasn't the case with DSC however...but SCI was regarded by the science community as the "big dog", and they really wanted the leader in world-wide hunting to participate.

When SCI did not...it was then that I believe a lot of the lion scientists lost faith in not only SCI, but the hunting community as a whole. It was a real shame, and a huge permanent stain in the minds of the science community...IMO. Like em or not...they swing a big stick, and influence a lot of influential people. It was a grave error in judgement on SCI's part!

I realize this is just rehashing old news, but the results of that interaction are still having profound (negative) effects today. But...that's just my opinion!

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So, hunting is bad...

Yet hunting is the only source of revenue for borderland to keep it from becoming populated.

That’s the elephant in the room that the big cat scientists will quietly admit privately, but refuse to publicly support - and tell the media and governments openly.

They have some nivarna that they imagine where government will somehow have an infinite amount of money to spend on wildlife while keeping people off the land.

They have been too busy trying to get control and not enough with the practical way of protecting the resource.

Aaron and I brokered a deal to bond hunting with the scientists to unite the two and end the above occurrence.

It was rejected by SCI...the rest is history.

That's true! In a nutshell, most of the scientists were willing to set aside their egos, stick their necks out in favor of conservation minded / limited legal hunting...and SCI flatly refused to meet em half way. And it wasn't even like "negotiations" failed...SCI just flatly refused to even listen or try to partake in anyway. That wasn't the case with DSC however...but SCI was regarded by the science community as the "big dog", and they really wanted the leader in world-wide hunting to participate.

When SCI did not...it was then that I believe a lot of the lion scientists lost faith in not only SCI, but the hunting community as a whole. It was a real shame, and a huge permanent stain in the minds of the science community...IMO. Like em or not...they swing a big stick, and influence a lot of influential people. It was a grave error in judgement on SCI's part!

I realize this is just rehashing old news, but the results of that interaction are still having profound (negative) effects today. But...that's just my opinion!

True Story.

A radical approach, but should we not consider creating reserve populations of Lions, Tigers etc in parts of the world that are much more politically stable. Parts of North America or Northern Australia come to mind and in the latter there is already a good population of water buffalo, banteng and feral scrub cattle and camels that provide prey.

These would form a wild population that could transferred back at some point in the future. And hunting would be the principle way of managing and preventing their movement into farming areas where not wanted.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So, hunting is bad...

Yet hunting is the only source of revenue for borderland to keep it from becoming populated.

That’s the elephant in the room that the big cat scientists will quietly admit privately, but refuse to publicly support - and tell the media and governments openly.

They have some nivarna that they imagine where government will somehow have an infinite amount of money to spend on wildlife while keeping people off the land.

They have been too busy trying to get control and not enough with the practical way of protecting the resource.

Aaron and I brokered a deal to bond hunting with the scientists to unite the two and end the above occurrence.

It was rejected by SCI...the rest is history.

That's true! In a nutshell, most of the scientists were willing to set aside their egos, stick their necks out in favor of conservation minded / limited legal hunting...and SCI flatly refused to meet em half way. And it wasn't even like "negotiations" failed...SCI just flatly refused to even listen or try to partake in anyway. That wasn't the case with DSC however...but SCI was regarded by the science community as the "big dog", and they really wanted the leader in world-wide hunting to participate.

When SCI did not...it was then that I believe a lot of the lion scientists lost faith in not only SCI, but the hunting community as a whole. It was a real shame, and a huge permanent stain in the minds of the science community...IMO. Like em or not...they swing a big stick, and influence a lot of influential people. It was a grave error in judgement on SCI's part!

I realize this is just rehashing old news, but the results of that interaction are still having profound (negative) effects today. But...that's just my opinion!

True Story.

You guys keep stating this.

I don’t know what SCI did or didn’t do, but regardless- if one nongovernmental organization that does not represent even a majority of hunters keeps people who are supposed to be operating from a position of fact from acknowledging the facts, they have a serious problem.

I know you two.

I certainly have no issue with what I understand you to have brokered- but I also think a guy from a small (in terms of US businesses) hunting resale business and a Veterinarian who while he is a big deal in equine orthopedics is not a player in global conservation is going to have a very hard time even getting their foot in the door- like I would have a very difficult time getting a shooting group to deal with a change (been there, done that myself) because of outsider status.

Would things have gone differently if this would have been brought forward by someone like John Jackson or Jim Shockey on the hunting side?

Frankly, my biggest issue with the scientists is that it has been my professional opinion that I follow the evidence, even when it’s not what I thought originally or if it’s unpopular. That’s part of the job.

Dr. Easter, you know and live that as well. It seems that the animal science folks are getting an ethical pass in this situation.

Dr. Butler,
At the time...while not a major player on the ground in conservation...I did personally know all the major players in lion conservation at the time. Craig Packer and Luke Hunter (President of Panthera at the time) remain personal friends to this day...can reach both on their personal cells any time.

We (Aaron and I) brokered a deal with the scientific community of the day to endorse lion hunting as a valid conservation tool and to voice that opinion to USFWS and along with an effort to keep Lion delisted and importable if both major Orgs, SCI and DSC, signed off on and put forth as best practice the Definition of a Huntable Male Lion.

After meeting with DSC officials, they signed off on it. SCI kept promising a meeting and then just blew us off. The rest is history. Craig was instrumental in getting the lion listed as Threatened and stopping import for a while and making it more difficult for eternity.

Didn’t have to be that way. There was a deal to be had.

PS: Whether true or not...the Scientific Community at the time...viewed SCI as the voice for hunters.

Your point on Dr. Packer is kind of the point.

Hunting drives preservation of the habitat. That is job 1... habitat.

Yet Packer drove the uplisting.

Despite that.

He did for sure...albeit, he is squarely in the camp that hunting preserves habit and when managed properly is a good conservation tool.

Suffice it to say that we disagree on many things but there is common ground.

Exploiting that common ground “then” would have damn sure put us in a better place than we are today. It likely would have prevented the Cecil blow-up.

PS: When Packer did not get the compromise he wanted on male lion offtake...he saw the uplist as the lesser of evils.

I didn’t/don’t agree...but that was his thought process...in a nutshell.

I don't see Packer as a bad/evil man... just that he was willing to use his influence improperly.

Don't get me wrong- if SCI had seen this as a reachable moment and gotten it done, we would have delayed this end point by some significant amount of time; but as you well know this is more driven by emotion on the US side than science.

Science follows the hunting method of sustainable offtake (or is it vice versa), and has been shown in North America and Europe to work wonders. Unfortunately, we are in the process of decoupling science and logic for political and emotional reasons.

quote:

I don't see Packer as a bad/evil man... just that he was willing to use his influence improperly.

Craig Packer seems to be a decent human being to me. He has a different point of view on the above. I disagree with it as I have discussed it many times with him. But, in his mind he did the best thing for the lion based on data.

Most of this took place almost a decade ago now and I certainly don’t want to argue his side...just pointing out...there are 2 sides to the coin.

quote:

Don't get me wrong- if SCI had seen this as a reachable moment

Make no mistake about it...it was not only reachable...it was on the table to be had.

There are areas in Africa that have learned how to balance and maintain predator populations through the coordination of government quotas, local communities, conservation/research organizations and hunting operators. When all three work together, then wildlife proliferates.

Problems only arise when one of the four entities above goes off the reservation - typically the local community. The biggest threat to predator populations is Human-Wildlife Conflicts and reprisal culling. One poisoned carcass can wipe out an entire pride of lion, cheetah, leopard, hyena, vultures, badgers, etc, etc. My guess would be we easily lose five to six times more lion to reprisal culling than sport hunting. Of course these numbers are never recorded or considered in population loss - just easier to blame it all on hunting.

In regards to the influence that SCI plays on any of this is beyond my experience. I have never seen or met a SCI representative in any NGO or government meeting discussing quotas, conservation, research, or community cooperation. But sounds like there have been some missed opportunities. Maybe SCI needs to be reminded Conservation first, Profits second.