Their propaganda is going more mainstream it appears.

Lion Lies


It doesn't surprise me anymore that the liberal media buys into this crap, but it makes my stomach sink every time "scientists" like the Jouberts are able to perpetuate their cause. Unfortunately, these lies will become fact to an increasingly brainwashed public....and our fight will become incrementally more difficult.

Better go hunt a lion before it's too late.

Regards,
Scott

I went ahead and copied the text that appears below. There is a clip of their fictional movie on the CNN page that isn't included here.

________________________________________________


-- As you will see in our TED talk, Beverly and I have spent enough time in the bush with lions to understand that we have a problem -- rapidly declining big cat populations.

This much time alone in the wild makes us socially inept, but there is no substitute for doing the time.

As we've delved into this more, we have learned more about the problems facing these extraordinary creatures. All the problems focus on human-predator conflicts, from the collection of hunting trophies as sport -- an activity that is terribly damaging to wild populations of cats -- to flashpoints between the cats and cattle cultures.

Watch the Jouberts' TED Talk on the lives and futures of the big cats

The real miracle is that we do still have this last remnant of lions at all. Just 50 years ago there were 450,000; today there are possibly as few as 20,000. These are the last lions.



Life lessons from big cats Just 50 years ago, there were 450,000; today, there are possibly as few as 20,000. These are the last lions.

--Dereck Joubert
RELATED TOPICS
Big Cats
Africa
National Geographic Society
Nature and the Environment
Wildlife
As Beverly points out in the TED talk, the death of one male lion can have drastic effects on the whole pride. A new male comes into the area and takes over the pride, killing all the cubs and possibly some of the females defending their cubs.

So we've estimated that from 20 to 30 lions are killed when one lion is hanging on a wall somewhere in a far-off place.

TED.com: The roots of plant intelligence

If we don't do something, collectively, within the next few years, we will be seeing the last of the lion populations in Africa. That is why we have produced a film for theatrical release, in theaters in the U.S. in February, called "The Last Lions."

We're hoping that our work will galvanize a movement to save them -- but it is going to take a universal effort and action on an emergency basis. In association with National Geographic we founded the Big Cat Initiative to roll up our sleeves and save cats, right now.

So who cares? Well, the first thing to appreciate is that the world's large predators, like lions, are not just a luxury for us to look at, to photograph, or to shoot. They are the most vital center point in many ecosystems. If we lose them, we can anticipate eventual collapse of whole environments, right down to the water systems, as prey shifts or migrations stop, and species overgraze and destroy the integrity of important vegetation, especially along rivers.

Erosion follows, rivers silt up, and fish die, all because we took out a few lions.

There is as great an economic need to preserve lions. In Africa an $80 billion-a-year business in ecotourism feeds parks, airlines, safari businesses, and local crafts and helps pump up economies important to the entire continent.

TED.com: How bacteria "talk"

Communities thrive on this cash, and it keeps them above the poverty line, gives them dignity and hope, and alleviates the need for aid. It gives people resources to better educate their kids. Better education breeds health and less exposure to diseases such as AIDS.

Also, within those communities there is a deep spiritual connection to the land and its wildlife. When creatures such as lions disappear, a destructive ripple effect weakens our care for the planet and our understanding of who we are.

Everything hinges on people being connected to a planet that is whole; and predators, although scary to live with, actually glue all this together. It's something we've known and lived with for 3 million years.

We have to decide if we are a part of the planet and its life forms or if we want to try to live apart from it all. With the specter of The Last Lions will come, and not that far behind, the potential sequel -- The Last Humans.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dereck Joubert.


________________________________________________

Dereck Joubert is a prat.

quote:

Erosion follows, rivers silt up, and fish die, all because we took out a few lions.

Yes, and Chicken Little said the sky was falling~

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Dereck Joubert is a prat.

Andrew,

Since DJ is a prat, and we KNOW Jack(B)-the-prat is a prat...what...exactly is a "prat".

Slang for someone really stupid

"Basically someone whos a major idiot, or is delusional and dumb. Acts against logic and thinks hes self-righteous. AKA: Major dumbass."


urban dictionary

Yeah...I had looked it up...was just ribbing Mr. Baldry a little...have not had cause too lately.

quote:

Just 50 years ago, there were 450,000; today, there are possibly as few as 20,000.

So, now that we know that anyone who wants to curtail lion hunting is a "prat", how many lions are there?
Seems to me that if there were plenty, the govererments would allow us to shoot more and the trophy fees would be a lot less.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

Just 50 years ago, there were 450,000; today, there are possibly as few as 20,000.

So, now that we know that anyone who wants to curtail lion hunting is a "prat", how many lions are there?
Seems to me that if there were plenty, the govererments would allow us to shoot more and the trophy fees would be a lot less.
Peter.

Mr. Joubert is AGAINST hunting period. And...I think that the 20,000 number has been shown to be inaccurate.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:

quote:

Just 50 years ago, there were 450,000; today, there are possibly as few as 20,000.

So, now that we know that anyone who wants to curtail lion hunting is a "prat", how many lions are there?
Seems to me that if there were plenty, the govererments would allow us to shoot more and the trophy fees would be a lot less.
Peter.

One more note...poison and loss of habitat...not...sport hunting is the enemy of the lion...not to mention natural hate of them by native Africans

quote:

One more note...poison and loss of habitat...not...sport hunting is the enemy of the lion...not to mention natural hate of them by native Africans

I certainly agree with that!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Dereck Joubert is a prat.

Andrew,

Since DJ is a prat, and we KNOW Jack(B)-the-prat is a prat...what...exactly is a "prat".

a foolish or contemptible person - slang (probably from prat (buttocks))

They doth protesteth too much.

But too many are too willing to believe.

Hunting is a problem with lions, but it's far from the cause of that problem.

The six year old rule, ruthlessly enforced, is the hope of lion hunting, and therefore, of lions.

As I recollect from my childhood days, the term "prat" was used by us to refer to female genitalia. Therefore, when used to describe a male, it was considered insulting, using any of the words described above.
Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
As I recollect from my childhood days, the term "prat" was used by us to refer to female genitalia. Therefore, when used to describe a male, it was considered insulting, using any of the words described above.
Peter

Not confusing yourself with "Twat"?

Damn, you have a good memory. I believe we used both interchangeably! Young boys are not that picky about language!
Peter.

So, back to lions and lion hunting. We have had repeated threads on this topic, with, as near as I can tell, no real resolution. So, can someone tell me how many lions are killed each year by hunters? presumably these numbers, by country, are available? These should be "hard" numbers. Then there are estimates of the number of lions killed by poachers, and, if available, estimates of lions killed by "natives" to protect their property and lives ie. not for profit.
Peter.

We need to be careful not to fall into the anti-hunters “numbers” trap we don’t need 100 000 lion for the species to survive. For those interested you can watch this video. http://www.safarinewsreel.com/...rproudfoundation.htm

Below is part of a script that was written for a DVD that we did for Conservation Force in 2002 for the CITES meeting that year where Kenya tried to move the lion from Appendix II to Appendix I. The motion was defeated and has not been brought up again since then. BUT you can be sure the reason that Joubert is putting out these constant lies on all the available media outlets that he has available to him is because the anti-hunters will be bringing it up again at the next CITES meeting.

This is an extract from that script:

To get an exact lion count is not practically possible as lions are notoriously difficult to count. Even with extensive and expensive research an approximation using theoretical modeling, estimates and projections, is the best that can be hoped for. The first comprehensive attempt to evaluate continental lion populations was only undertaken in 2002 by researcher Chardonnet. It is therefore impossible to know how many lion there were 100 years or even 10 years ago.

The Kenyan authorities admit that a 1996 population figure for the continent was considered to be an educated guess, and that many of the current figures are also guesses.

Using these guesses it estimates that minimum population size today is 45 percent less than that estimated in 1996 (16,500 down from 30,000), while the estimated maximum population size today is 70 percent less than that estimated in 1996 (30,000 down from 100,000).

These are nothing more than speculative guesses and not the results of methodical surveys. The figures cannot be used as a suitable benchmark on which to evaluate lion numbers and it is therefore not possible to draw any conclusions regarding any shifts in lion numbers over the last decade.

The two recent lion surveys by Bauer and Van der Merwe in 2004 and Chardonnet in 2002, suggest that the lion population in Africa is currently about 16 500 – 47 000, with 30 000 being the likely actual number. Bauer & Van der Merwe results are widely recognized as being an underestimate as many areas in East and Southern Africa were not reported on. An example is in the case of Tanzania, home to the largest population of lion in Africa, where a major omission was made. In their survey the only areas that were included were Manyara, Ngorongoro, Selous, Selous buffer zone and Serengeti giving a countrywide estimate of 7,073 (minimum 5,323 and maximum 8793). Every other area in Tanzania where lion occur was excluded.

The report of Chardonnet is more comprehensive and more reliable. Under the auspices of the International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife (IGF) and Conservation Force this survey drew on the expertise of over 40 researchers and authorities through a network that covered the continent. This involved people that had many years of field experience in wildlife conservation and management. His estimates for Tanzania, based on a compilation of research results, are 14,432 (minimum 10,409 and maximum 18,215). In the regions that were covered by both surveys the results were within the same range. The disparity between the two countrywide surveys is 7359 lions. Chardonnet figures show that there are twice as many lion in Tanzania alone compared to Bauer and Van der Merwe’s results. Some field wise authorities such Packer and Rolf believe that Chardonnet’s figures are conservative. They believe that there may be more lion in Tanzania alone than Kenya acknowledges in all of Africa.

But how many lion should Africa have?

It is obvious 200 years ago there may have 500 000 or more lions in Africa but a lot has changed since then. A human population explosion along with expanding agriculture and livestock has forced lion populations to shrink into national parks and other protected areas. According to Kenyan wildlife authorities lion today occur only in 9-12 percent of their former continental range. This may be so but the days of 500 000 or even 100 000 lions in Africa are gone. The continent can no longer accommodate those numbers. Instead of being obsessed with numbers the conservation effort should focus on protecting and maintaining the current range and habitat of the lion and its prey species.

The Kenyan proposal attempts to put a monetary value on individual lions, a radical departure from the normal protectionist philosophy. Using an undisclosed formula, the proposal calculates the tourist value of a male lion in Kenya's Amboseli National Park to be $128,750 annually while claiming that a 21-day lion-hunting safari in Tanzania is only worth about $35,000.

The choice of the Amboseli National Park in Kenya is a good one. In 1990 the total lion population of Amboseli was 2. Systematic poisoning by local communities, apparently in response to a failure by the government to react to stock killing lions, combined with habitat changes and prey availability were the main reasons for the scarcity. Between 1991-1993 the lion population was zero. In 1994, 2 lions entered from neighboring areas, followed later by others. The population has since recovered somewhat and there are presently around 40 lions in the park. They are, however, by no means safe and could be wiped out again for exactly the same reasons which have nothing to do with trade.

The value of a lion whilst resident in the park may be $ 128,750 and 35 cents but the minute it steps out of the park its value is zero as are its chances of survival. There is one positive aspect that Kenyans can take from this and that is the total value of the remaining lions in the park goes up with each one that leaves.

A gross amount of around US$ 27 million is generated annually by the hunting industry across the border in Tanzania of which approximately US$ 10 million is paid to the government Wildlife Division. Lion hunting is a crucial component, one of the main draw cards in bringing tourist hunters to the country. It is difficult to put an exact value of lion to the industry because without lion on quota many hunters would not go to the country to hunt. Without lion hunting the industry would not be as viable.

The loss of revenue to a poverty stricken country such as Tanzania would be significant. Tourist hunting is one of the few industries that brings economic incentives to the remote rural areas of the country. It is the major source of revenue that sustains the game reserves and game controlled area network in the country. These represent 70% of the protected area network with an area of over 200,000 km2. It pays for the conservation of the lion and other species, and it works.

Hunting and photographic tourism are not competitive but rather complementary forms of wildlife use. Lions are important to the photographic tourist industry but most are never even seen by tourists. Hunting safaris normally take place in areas with little or no tourism potential. Hunting is comparatively more lucrative than photographic tourism and has a lower impact on the ecology of the area, as little infrastructure is required. Camping in the bush is part of the experience, so large tourist hotels and extensive road networks are not necessary. As a result, negative environmental and cultural impacts associated with more intensive forms of mass tourism are minimized.

A crucial aspect to tourist hunting is the concept of buffer zones. In most of Africa’s major hunting destinations such as Tanzania the national parks are surrounded by or have boundaries with hunting areas. Some of these areas are government controlled safari areas where others are traditional tribal areas. These areas are vitally important, as not only is an extended habitat for the wildlife afforded, but also a buffer zone is created between the people and the national parks. Human encroachment on protected wilderness areas is held in check. In these tribal areas, wildlife has a value to the community and pressure on the individual not to poach is increased tremendously. This is in stark contrast to an area such as the Amboseli National Park in Kenya where there is zero value to a lion outside of the park and it’s chance of survival, minimal.

The Kenyan proposal charges that there is an over hunting of lion by tourist hunters. It is generally accepted that a 2-4% per annum off-take of trophy male lions has little overall effect on populations. If Tanzania’s lion population is 14 000 a 2% off-take would be 280 lions and 4 % would be 560. If there were only 10,500 lions then the comparable figures would be 210 and 420. The actual number of lions taken and exported between 1992 and 2002 was 2,791 lions or 254 lions per year. Between 1996 and 2003 only 51 % of the quota, on average, was taken annually in the Selous game reserve. The proposal insinuates that quotas and the number of animals taken are one in the same, deliberately clouding the issue.

Tanzania has more lions than any other country in the world, and the majority of these animals live outside the national parks. If lion trophy hunting were stopped, they would have no economic value and there would no longer be any incentive to conserve them. Opponents of trophy hunting have provided no alternative mechanism for equal funding of the large-scale conservation efforts required to protect not only lion but also other wildlife species.

Lions are deadly adversaries to the rural African and his livestock and confrontation is inevitable. Lions are trapped, speared or poisoned with agricultural chemicals in order to protect life and limb as well as livestock. Sometimes they are killed simply on principal. The number of lions killed in this way each year is far greater than from any other cause. Where there is no lion-derived income for local people, there is little incentive to tolerate lions or to adopt expensive and time-intensive protection strategies.

Snaring is another major cause of lion fatalities. Wire snares set by meat poachers for other animals sometimes catch lion. This is generally unintentional as there is no significant market for lion products although the body parts are sometimes sold for traditional medicines and witchcraft.

The Kenyan proposal claims that lions are being decimated by FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus) and distemper. Extensive studies in the Serengeti, by far the most exhaustive investigations on lion health, found no evidence that FIV causes significant health effects. A wholly unrelated Canine Distemper Virus did cause a 35% decline in the Serengeti lions in 1994/95. Their numbers dropped from 3000 to under 2000. But lion are prolific breeders and have a potential growth rate of over 20% per year. Within 5 years the population recovered completely and today the population is back to an all time high of around 3,800 in that ecosystem.

The reasons which have led to a decline in lion populations in Kenya or in West-Africa are not connected to international trade or tourist hunting. To upgrade the lion to CITES Appendix I as proposed by Kenya would not address any of the issues that adversely affect lion populations., i.e. loss of habitat to agriculture, problem animal control, poaching and killing of lions by pastoralists. It would however, make the hunting of lions by tourist hunters more difficult or even impossible in most instances. Controlled tourist hunting is sustainable. Giving a value to a species is one major element in a range of conservation tools that has and must continue to be successfully applied to protect the future of the lion.

The Kenyans have manipulated statistics to reflect a desired result. Through omissions, additions along with a portion of double-speak, their hypothesis is presented as fact, served up to an uninformed and unsuspecting public and devoured by a sensationalist media. Unfortunately this is a process that is all too common in the ideological disputes that occur in wildlife conservation.

Kenya, rather than leading the way in lion conservation, provides a perfect example of how not to manage lion and indeed any wildlife population. There has been no trophy hunting of lion in Kenya for 27 years. Outside of protected areas lions are considered worthless which has led to high levels of lion-human conflict and the ultimate demise of the species.

CITES brief is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. There is no substantial international market for lion or lion products as with elephant ivory.

Banning the imaginary trade in lion is not going to kill any black market. All that this proposal sets out to do is to give exposure to Kenyan wildlife authorities as the supposed leaders of African wildlife conservation. This is a fantastic way to generate money for their various organizations and agendas, much as the burning of the ivory scam was. The Kenyan proposal is a direct attack on the tourist hunting industry and is aimed squarely at undermining it with little regard to the damaging effects to genuine conservation efforts throughout the continent.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
They doth protesteth too much.

But too many are too willing to believe.

Hunting is a problem with lions, but it's far from the cause of that problem.

The six year old rule, ruthlessly enforced, is the hope of lion hunting, and therefore, of lions.

We (as is all hunters and outfitters of Africa) definitely need to be very conservation minded in the future.

quote:

The six year old rule, ruthlessly enforced, is the hope of lion hunting, and therefore, of lions.

please define "ruthlessly", and I would like to know who feels comfortable enough with someones aging of a wild lion to let them "ruthlessly" enforce something?

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:

quote:

The six year old rule, ruthlessly enforced, is the hope of lion hunting, and therefore, of lions.

please define "ruthlessly", and I would like to know who feels comfortable enough with someones aging of a wild lion to let them "ruthlessly" enforce something?

Those were NOT my words...I'll let the fellow who wrote them respond. I am just an advocate for good management.

Going from 450,000 50 years ago down to 20,000 today...

...How in the heck can anybody hope to come up with an accurate lion census today much less base that number against one from 50 years ago.

Don't know what the metric is for obtaining these numbers, but it needs to be seriously scrutinized before we can determing what course of action to take regarding the African Lion.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Wemmer:
Going from 450,000 50 years ago down to 20,000 today...

...How in the heck can anybody hope to come up with an accurate lion census today much less base that number against one from 50 years ago.

Don't know what the metric is for obtaining these numbers, but it needs to be seriously scrutinized before we can determing what course of action to take regarding the African Lion.

Exactly! That is why projects like that of Texas A&M's needs funding.

If you are at SCI...go to:

Seminar: "Empowering Professional Hunters in Wildlife Conservation Genetics"
>
> Thursday, January 27, 2011 | 11:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
>
> A-Rooms | Room A4

Zig, I enjoyed reading your post above, now, I have a few questions:
1. You singled out the Kenyans specifically. What do the Kenyans have to gain by the proposed changes in Cities? I don't understand their motivation.
2. We should still be able to get the numbers of lions killed by sport hunters in the various African countries in which this is still allowed. Do you have these?
Thanks, Peter.

quote:

This may be so but the days of 500 000 or even 100 000 lions in Africa are gone. The continent can no longer accommodate those numbers. Instead of being obsessed with numbers the conservation effort should focus on protecting and maintaining the current range and habitat of the lion and its prey species.

Seems to sum things up pretty well!
Peter.

My buddy Nigel's saying:

"Lane...one thing I can tell you for sure...lions and cattle don't mix."

Does anybody know the number of lions taken per year by sport hunters?

I am going to venture that it is a very, very low number.

I'd bet that the majority of lions are killed as a result of poisioning / shot by cattle interests. A number that can not be accurately determined, thus a wild-assed guess is most likely the only option - we know that there is no way to accurately determine the numbers not killed for sport.

Given the aforementioned, the only viable statistic is the numbers being taken by hunters, thus our being put under the miocroscope.

Either way, lion hunting will be unfairly vilified in the years coming unless we get some accurate data on populations, and non-sport hunting kills.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Wemmer:
Does anybody know the number of lions taken per year by sport hunters?

I am going to venture that it is a very, very low number.

I'd bet that the majority of lions are killed as a result of poisioning / shot by cattle interests. A number that can not be accurately determined, thus a wild-assed guess is most likely the only option - we know that there is no way to accurately determine the numbers not killed for sport.

Given the aforementioned, the only viable statistic is the numbers being taken by hunters, thus our being put under the miocroscope.

Either way, lion hunting will be unfairly vilified in the years coming unless we get some accurate data on populations, and non-sport hunting kills.

Again...spot on! Got to Dr. Derr's talk. Then visit with him. Tell him I sent you.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Wemmer:
Does anybody know the number of lions taken per year by sport hunters?

I am going to venture that it is a very, very low number.

I'd bet that the majority of lions are killed as a result of poisioning / shot by cattle interests. A number that can not be accurately determined, thus a wild-assed guess is most likely the only option - we know that there is no way to accurately determine the numbers not killed for sport.

Given the aforementioned, the only viable statistic is the numbers being taken by hunters, thus our being put under the miocroscope.

Either way, lion hunting will be unfairly vilified in the years coming unless we get some accurate data on populations, and non-sport hunting kills.

While I agree with you completely, I don't believe that we can be successful in this argument by laying any blame on the native human population. The public will (and does) feel empathy for impoverished peoples and their plight for subsistence and killing predators that threaten them by any means possible is justified in their minds.

On the other hand, successful folks who can afford to hunt lions are becoming vilified to an extent that is frankly quite frightening in this age of "socialism". It makes me mad as hell, but the have-nots are the heroes in this day and age.

I'm convinced that the only path towards justifying and protecting our passion (and let's be clear; the Jouberts and their ilk are obviously anti-hunting)to those that wish to stop us is to be able to effectively attribute wildlife survival to hunters and their dollars, and the lion is the perfect example. If we can do this, in an eloquent and objective manner, then we might stand a chance, but frankly it doesn't look good. In short, they're passionate about stopping us and we're just passionate about hunting.

Unfortunately, I truly believe that this feature film that the Jouberts have managed to put together is going to have a real impact.

Regards,
Scott

quote:

While I agree with you completely, I don't believe that we can be successful in this argument by laying any blame on the native human population. The public will (and does) feel empathy for impoverished peoples and their plight for subsistence and killing predators that threaten them by any means possible is justified in their minds.

It is still the reason...like it or not.

An example: In Uganda...there is NO lion hunting of any kind. Last year...natives were grazing cattle close to a park (read in the park). Two cows...again....two cows were killed by lions. The owners poisoned the carcass and wiped out the whole pride. Thirteen lions...poof gone. Hell...I would have bought them 2 cows!

This IS the problem. We discuss age of a few males...they discuss how to get the whole pride!!!

Peter,

Thanks for the compliment. Kenya is the HQ of the anti-hunter movement in Africa. A book well worth reading is "At the Hand of Man" by Richard Bonner. He goes into great detail about their operations in Kenya. Botswana, through the likes of Joubert and Khama, is going the same way. I don't have the numbers of lions shot in Africa but if we use Tanzania's average of 254 per year or less than 2% it gives some idea. If between 2 and 4% are taken per year it has no effect on the total population. Trophy hunting of lion is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

While I agree with you completely, I don't believe that we can be successful in this argument by laying any blame on the native human population. The public will (and does) feel empathy for impoverished peoples and their plight for subsistence and killing predators that threaten them by any means possible is justified in their minds.

It is still the reason...like it or not.

An example: In Uganda...there is NO lion hunting of any kind. Last year...natives were grazing cattle close to a park (read in the park). Two cows...again....two cows were killed by lions. The owners poisoned the carcass and wiped out the whole pride. Thirteen lions...poof gone. Hell...I would have bought them 2 cows!

This IS the problem. We discuss age of a few males...they discuss how to get the whole pride!!!

I am applying for a quota of Lion in a new area of the Kafue purely because of the conflict the community has with Lions.

Lions are a problem here. And bloody elephants.

quote:

It is still the reason...like it or not.

An example: In Uganda...there is NO lion hunting of any kind. Last year...natives were grazing cattle close to a park (read in the park). Two cows...again....two cows were killed by lions. The owners poisoned the carcass and wiped out the whole pride. Thirteen lions...poof gone. Hell...I would have bought them 2 cows!

This IS the problem. We discuss age of a few males...they discuss how to get the whole pride!!!

Poisioning: always the most effective means of predator control, but as we have learned here in the states the consequences are very dire if improperly implemented. Meaning that there is a serious potential for collertal damage to species other than those targeted. In the case above I am sure that some Hyena, Jakal and Vultures were also exterminated.

This is why I have banned any sort of poisioning on my acerages - the risk very much outweighs the benefits.

In the Uganda case above had PAC permits been issued (along with collection of fees for issuance) then a couple of Lions would have been shot, the pride would have moved out and the local economy would have benefitted far more than that of keeping a cattle heard safe from a pride of lions.

Apparently poisioning is in vogue again - as recently as last year a large number of wild birds dropped from the sky up in the NEast - sanctioned poisioning was the culprit.

God forbid we shoot a pest, but indescriminate poiisioning is OK - that apparently is the new metric and the libs never mention it because poision doesn't go boom!

communities can only benefit if moeny is paid directly to them..... and in sufficient amounts! That there still remians the main problem where hunting occurs. Its not enough to make a difference to employ 15-20 staff on each hunt!

quote:

n the Uganda case above had PAC permits been issued (along with collection of fees for issuance) then a couple of Lions would have been shot, the pride would have moved out and the local economy would have benefitted far more than that of keeping a cattle heard safe from a pride of lions.

So Jeff, why was this not done? Could it be that we decided that the locals are too stupid to understand this and hence keep all the money ourselves? I can't help but think that we, and the "take no prisoners" attitude of Ledvm are not helping ourselves at all. It seems to me that every time someone says "X animal is endangered" hunters immediately label them as anti hunting liberals, pinko commies, Kenyan jackasses, bunny huggers etc. etc. In the end, whether we like it or not, we must understand that if we do not make common cause with the conservationists WE WILL LOSE! We can piss and moan about how stupid everyone else is (because by definition hunters are the only ones with brains) but we will lose.
Just MHO, Peter.

quote:

the "take no prisoners" attitude of Ledvm are not helping ourselves at all.

Peter,

How did I get that label???

Certainly in Uganda...the situation could have been handled differently.

The lions were NOT actually a problem here...the people were. They had moved cattle for sure into the buffer zone and maybe into the park. I mean...a lion is going to be a lion...why Nigel always says: "cattle and lions don't mix." They don't. Put a group of cattle in front of lions...dead cattle...always.

Case-in-point...it was loss of habitat in this situation.

In Uganda...if this repeats itself too many times...game over...not many lions there now.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwanamich:
communities can only benefit if moeny is paid directly to them..... and in sufficient amounts! That there still remians the main problem where hunting occurs. Its not enough to make a difference to employ 15-20 staff on each hunt!

Agreed!

That is how it works too in Uganda. If they ever get all up and running properly.

Mich,
Good to see you back on list. I missed you at DSC. Did I hear there was an addition to the family???

Are you at SCI?

ledvm, if I have mischaracterized you I sincerely apologize!
Now, somone needs to tell us how many lions were on quota last year or this year! The silence is deafening (but it could be that folks that know are out hunting (for clients))!
Peter.

Well, I don't want to hog this thread but please look here:

http://www.zoochat.com/65/does...conservation-152686/

While the article argues against sport hunting as contributing to the survival of lions, it DOES provide facts about lions killed using CITIES statistics. I will leave it to others to challenge the numbers or the logic:
"Between 2002, when those latest surviving wild lion numbers were estimated, and 2008, when best reliable data from CITES export data for the continent ends, a total of 4249 “wild” lion trophies were exported.
Few wild lion males born reach adulthood – a difficult journey involving confrontations with resident pride males during their nomadic phase for example. In Botswana, about 15% of lions in an area are adult males – the prize trophies.

Where were these lions shot? From 2002 to 2007, 1112 trophies were exported from Tanzania, 935 from South Africa, 459 from Zimbabwe, 283 from Zambia, and 97 from Mozambique as the top five exporting countries. According to the population numbers provided by Mr Bauer and Mr Van der Merwe, that would indicate that Tanzania exported 13% of their estimated 2002 population, South Africa 33%, Zimbabwe 32%, Zambia 14%, and Mozambique 11%. Lions simply cannot reproduce fast enough to maintain this level of offtake of adult males, meaning that the resource is being mined rather than sustainably utilized."
I am interested in any comments.
Peter.