quote:

If you believe we have a valid point...why don't you advocate for hunting as a good conservation tool.

J. Lane Easter, DVM
DRSS

Where lion hunting is concerned I cannot. I truly believe that the only way to save the lion from extinction is to place a temporary ban on hunting them and then have huge conservation efforts to protect them and raise their numbers.

Whichever angle i look at it from i cannot see how killing approx 500 a year for sport and a trophy is helping them in any shape or form.

I also cannot see how carrying on allowing corrupt practices where lion hunting is concerned can possibly help them either.

Where hunting in general is concerned (non-endangered species) i always after learning the validity of arguments here put forward hunting as a conservation tool.

Back to lions, IF a temporary ban was put in place and a few years later the numbers rise to a level where hunting is sustainable i would not object to hunting being reinstated providing certain standards were met. These standards i believe should apply to any animal to be fair.

There should be harsh penalties for anyone killing an animal that is a pride male, under the allowed age. The 'you are allowed to be a year out' should be abolished, its just a get out of jail free card for some people.

PH's, outfitters should also face harsh penalties for breaking the rules. Especially when they offer quotas they have not been allocated.

There are probably more such as baiting should not be allowed, studying a guide for aging a lion should be a pre-requisite (sp) and the countries governments who recieve a lot of money from hunting should have to carry out regular number checks on the populations.

John,

A letter to Defra may produce interesting results but does it do anything for your cause or just waste precious time you could be using in a productive way to help your cause?

To be honest time has run out for you to do much of use, the lion will be lost to the hunter soon.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
Whichever angle i look at it from i cannot see how killing approx 500 a year for sport and a trophy is helping them in any shape or form.

I can tell you how a moratorium will hurt. It may cause operators of hunting blocks to go bankrupt. With that...the hunting block is left unprotected and it will be invaded by native Africans who will bring livestock and promptly destroy the habitat and exterminate the lion. Your plan, if implemented, could possibly be the beginning of the end for the wild lion.

A better approach would be to continue to work to improve the corrupt government agencies and reform hunting practices.

Jo,

If you don't believe what Lane has said in the comment above take an honest look at the situation in Kenya where there has been no hunting since 1975. Lion, and in fact most game species, do not survive outside of national parks. Botswana is a work in progress, since lion hunting was stopped there, the indiscriminant killing of lion is rampant. I wouldn't be too sure of yourself in saying that you will stop lion hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
...and then have huge conservation efforts to protect them and raise their numbers.

Jo,

No one is stopping you or anyone else from starting such an effort now. Why wait until after a ban?

I would suggest that such an idea is a pipe dream. If you were successful in stopping hunting the land use would change and there would be no opportunity or interest in such an effort. Except you will see the lion used for extensive fund raising as the elephant and polar bear in the recent past (how much of all that money raised was ever actually used for conservation?)

Ah, but Jo would get a badge from LIONAID for her work in "stopping lion hunting". Such honor is it not?

But instead of preventing 500 lions from being killed annually through sport hunting (by the way the number is much higher than that continent wide )YOU will be responsible for the death of 4000 lion annually, including females, young and DEFENSELESS CUBS .

We shall hold all of you ACCOUNTABLE. Your names will be known to our children and their generation as the direct cause for the total decline of lion populations and wildlife in general outside of parks in Africa. In 10 years, when I take my 4 kids through Tanzania's former wild places - now slashed, burned and farmed - and speak to them about what it was like back then, I will mention your name and those like you that were so narrow minded.

In fact, I will inundate your email and LIONAID's FB page with pictures of poisoned, snared and poached lion and wildlife while this tragedy unfolds as a reminder of your work.

They won't care. They will have moved on to some other cause and the fellow with the Phd will move back to continue his lifetimes research on snails and clams.

I wonder why a representative from Zimbabwe wasn't invited.

465H&H

Not sure how they decide who is invited. I spoke to John Jackson and he certainly wasn't invited although he is not losing too much sleep about it.

Ledvm and Zig Mackintosh,

Lets be honest here, Kenya without hunting and with its decreasing wildlife population would appear to be a very good argument for hunting as a conservation tool. But is it really?

We all know that animals are being poached, snared, poisoned, trapped etc etc in both Kenya and other African countries. We also know that certain species are struggling for survival in both Kenya and other African countries.

Now what we don't know is accurate numbers of losses of wildlife due to poaching etc in these countries. There is no data to compare.

Lets take South Africa and Kenya for example. Say 500 lions are lost a year to both countries by poaching etc. Then another 500 are lost to hunting in South Africa. Well that tallys out at Kenya lost 500 lions, South Africa a 1000.

However it could quite easily be a level playing field or even that Kenya loses more than South Africa, we just don't know.

Like you say by banning hunting lion some concessions may be lost and others may move in and that would result in more lion losses. But would it be equal, less or more than the losses due to hunting now? Nobody knows.

You also cannot expect me to believe that without lion hunting all concessions will be lost and go bankrupt. I suspect many would survive on the hunting of other species.

At the end of the day until governments step up and better protect their wildlife and the hunting industry cleans its acts up, you the hunter will suffer. You will be seen as part of the problem as after all you are killing lions rightly or wrongly.

You (generic) can holler at me to do my part to protect the lion fighting disease, poaching etc etc but for all you know i may already do my bit. For all i know many of you do your bit.

The difference between myself and many here is that i am willing to concede that there is no right and wrong here, there is no definite conclusion to the lions fate. We all can only do what we feel is best.

Bwanamich,

I would very much like to see the proof that 4000 lions will die instead!!

You give me way too much credit if my name will be mentioned IF the lion is lost. What sort of power is it you THINK i yield?

I do hope when you send emails to me that you will also email the governments, corrupt hunting outfitters, hunters, complacent hunters etc etc that contributed also.

Would you like my email address or are you going to email the source of my so called power?

Jo,

Forget about Kenya for a second...let's use the USA and the grey wolf, mountain lion and the grizzly bear for examples.

At one time all roamed the entire NA continent.

They were exterminated because they don't play well with cattle, sheep, goats, and people.

Let's specifically focus on the grizzly as it compares well with the lion. They require large...really large...areas to survive as a species...just as the lion. If we (USA) had set aside hunting blocks throughout NA where the bear could be hunted and given that land value for use as a hunting concession...we would still have scattered populations of grizzly in the US today.

Take away the lion's hunting blocks...loose the lion...at least as a wild self sustaining species...simple as that.

Your proof that 4000 will be exterminated will come AFTER the fact and with NO hope of regaining them or the habitat they once inhabited.

Lion must pay their way to stay and they can.

Focus your effort on reforming the Government Wildlife Agencies...including USF&W. Let people like the LCTF help the hunting industry reform. Then...watch the lion win in the end.

quote:

Jo,

Forget about Kenya for a second...let's use the USA and the grey wolf, mountain lion and the grizzly bear for examples.

At one time all roamed the entire NA continent.

They were exterminated because they don't play well with cattle, sheep, goats, and people.

Let's specifically focus on the grizzly as it compares well with the lion. They require large...really large...areas to survive as a species...just as the lion. If we (USA) had set aside hunting blocks throughout NA where the bear could be hunted and given that land value for use as a hunting concession...we would still have scattered populations of grizzly in the US today.

Take away the lion's hunting blocks...loose the lion...at least as a wild self sustaining species...simple as that.

Your proof that 4000 will be exterminated will come AFTER the fact and with NO hope of regaining them or the habitat they once inhabited.

Lion must pay their way to stay and they can.

Focus your effort on reforming the Government Wildlife Agencies...including USF&W. Let people like the LCTF help the hunting industry reform. Then...watch the lion win in the end.

Lane I applaud your efforts and those of Aaron, but reasoning with Jo and expecting positive results is something I do not believe will happen.

Ledvm,

I cannot pretend to know anything of the grey wolf, mountain lion and grizzly bear other than odd wildlife programmes i have seen on tv.

The grey wolf and the mountain lion i would have to say are the two i would know least about, which honestly is a bi fat zero in my bank of knowledge. I did however come across this today about the mountain lion whilst perusing twitter and thought it may be of interest to you if you haven't already seen it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...ts-lion-7488639.html

quote:

The president of a Californian wildlife commission has sparked outrage after an photograph appeared of him online holding the carcass of a dead mountain lion which was illegal to shoot in his own state.

Mountain lions are protected in California and have been off-limits to hunters for 20 years. However, it is legal to hunt them in Idaho, where Daniel W Richards shot the animal.

Democratic lawmakers in the state are attempting to remove Mr Richards from the board of the California Fish and Game Commission, which according to its website oversees the "management and wise use" of the state's wildlife. Over 40 lawmakers and conservationists have called for him to resign, saying his actions do not represent Californians' belief that mountain lions should not be hunted

Mr Richards defended his decision, saying that he did not shoot the animal for pleasure and that he had eaten the lion.

All other issues aside you have to wonder how seriously the wildlife commision in California is taking the conservation of the mountain lion and in turn other species!

Moving on to the grizzly i have some very limited and only picked up from tv programmes knowledge so i very well may be wrong or have been pointed in the wrong 'fact' direction with this one.

It is my understanding that just like anywhere else where wildlife and man have to co-exist it has become harder and harder due to the expansion of mans land and decrease of the wildlifes land for them to co-exist in harmony. Bears etc have less land to hunt / feed upon and begin to move into areas inhabited by man to find food sources.

Assuming i am correct so far i agree with you that blocks of land for grizzlies should have been set aside. I don't necessarily agree they should have been hunting blocks but the essence of agreement is there.

However land set aside for grizzlies is less land for greedy man. Perhaps it is the wildlife commisions / governments who should be turned to in the case of the dwindling grizzlie and asked to answer for their decision not to create havens for these magnificent creatures.

Whilst i can see your comparison that these species in USA are quite similar to the lion of Africa i do not see it entirely.

Hunting blocks are already set up in Africa and at present lions are a part of them. Surely if lion were to be made illegal to hunt they would still be in hunting blocks and still be protected?

Or are you (generic) saying that the hunting community would no longer protect them because it can no longer hunt them?

At the end of the day Ledvm i can very well see that hunting can be an extremely powerful conservation tool and i certainly don't want to see an outright ban on hunting, however emotionally distasteful i find it.

What i do want to see though is the hunting industry clean itself up, the governments take action to protect its wildlife and all species to be abundant.

I do believe that right now the lion cannot withstand the offtake of poachers etc and the offtake of hunters. Unfortunately since the governments and corrupt parts of the hunting industry are not willing to clean up their act, take action it is the genuine ethical hunter who will suffer.

As i have said many times i would like to see a temporary ban placed on lion hunting, one it may force the hunting industry to clean out its corrupt side and two it may force the government to act due to lost revenue. If all this happens and the lion numbers increase then i will gladly stand up and be counted as someone who would lift the temporary ban.

quote:

Originally posted by jolouburn:
It is my understanding that just like anywhere else where wildlife and man have to co-exist it has become harder and harder due to the expansion of mans land and decrease of the wildlifes land for them to co-exist in harmony. Bears etc have less land to hunt / feed upon and begin to move into areas inhabited by man to find food sources.

Assuming i am correct so far i agree with you that blocks of land for grizzlies should have been set aside. I don't necessarily agree they should have been hunting blocks but the essence of agreement is there.

Jo,
Greed is best fought by giving the land worth. WORTH protects it just as the cattle herders protect there cattle. Cattle have worth to them...lion do not...just as grizzly did not have worth the the original Western US ranchers that settle the country. Hunting is dollars is worth.

However land set aside for grizzlies is less land for greedy man.

You made my point for me here. Ethical hunting gives the land worth...with out hunting...no worth...land only good for "greedy man" for livestock grazing...lion eat livestock...then exterminated as vermin...unfortunately...it IS the way it will go if your side wins.

Perhaps it is the wildlife commisions / governments who should be turned to in the case of the dwindling grizzlie and asked to answer for their decision not to create havens for these magnificent creatures.

Actually the grizzly is increasing in number now...but it has limited area to live because none was set aside for hunting blocks...like Africa did...and wisely so.

Whilst i can see your comparison that these species in USA are quite similar to the lion of Africa i do not see it entirely.

It is simple...the grizzly can only expand to fill the land set aside for it. Hunting blocks in Africa increase the habitat...significantly!

Hunting blocks are already set up in Africa and at present lions are a part of them. Surely if lion were to be made illegal to hunt they would still be in hunting blocks and still be protected?

The companies who lease those blocks will cease to exist as they cannot afford to pay what the government ask for them with out lions on quota. It is simple math sorry to say. Take away the lion take away the people that do the protection.

Or are you (generic) saying that the hunting community would no longer protect them because it can no longer hunt them?

I am saying the hunting companies will not be able to bea there anymore...period.

At the end of the day Ledvm i can very well see that hunting can be an extremely powerful conservation tool and i certainly don't want to see an outright ban on hunting,

What i do want to see though is the hunting industry clean itself up, the governments take action to protect its wildlife and all species to be abundant.

On these 2 points...we agree.



I do believe that right now the lion cannot withstand the offtake of poachers etc and the offtake of hunters.

Why not work on stopping the poaching??? The hunting industry is working to reform.

As i have said many times i would like to see a temporary ban placed on lion hunting, one it may force the hunting industry to clean out its corrupt side and two it may force the government to act due to lost revenue. If all this happens and the lion numbers increase then i will gladly stand up and be counted as someone who would lift the temporary ban.

A short (max 2 year) moratorium on lion hunting with an automatic sunset clause has been advocated by some (not necessarily me) in the hunting industry itself. For me to even think about it...it would have to have the iron-clad sunset clause.

Lane in red.

Jo.

What you ask these governments to do costs money. You have lived your whole life in an area where the government has plenty of money. So much so that you have education, roads, health care, police, fire, military etc...
However these governments don't have that kind of money. They can barely afford a military and police much less anything else.

So who pays for these things? You want these governments to pay but with money taken from where?

I would argue that what we are talking about is using land for its highest and best use. Typically what generates the most revenue. Wildlife is lucky in Africa the rich hunter can afford to pay so much that just simply leaving the land wild returns the most money.

You take that away by fiat and the land will go to the next "highest and best use". Typically ranching or farming.

And why rely on altruistic feelings of hunters for the success of lions. You suggest a ban on hunting lion in hunting concessions but you don't account that the lion eats a lot. And if they eat some prized Kudu then you are suddenly providing a perverse motivation for hunters to do away with them as well. Not saying they all would but the motivation is there. That would leave who in the field exactly that wants lions to survive?