Lion slaughtered by "hunter" (1 Viewer)

[string boozel]

I would suggest that signing petitions, donating to favoured charities and even sounding off on internet forums all play a part in modern conservation. Once the initial and in my opinion justified outrage died down this particular thread has been informative and interesting. The delicate balance between managed hunting and species protection seems a fine one and one I had not considered before. I still abhor hunting but accept it may be a necessary evil in some cases. I'd love it if we could have some of those surplus Minnesota wolves here in the UK though, alive of course.

James.

 

[Coronatus]

Saluki. Not diminishing the Deer stats but my mind's eye was on Red Deer sized Deer such as White tailed. I assume the UK figures include all the smaller Muntjac type stuff that came from escapes and introductions.
Red Deer are certainly a right P I A in the north of Britain. We could do with a few hundred Wolves. It would save me having to go to Europe to see them.

Rosbif. Can't argue with wiki.
Ruderat. <saw 3 wolves were following me.> If it was cold they maybe fancied coming home with you to share the Fireplace? Lucky you!
Should we leave wolves and revert to topic now?

 

[^monet^]

"Cecil the Lion researcher opposes hunt ban"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33807477

"Can trophy hunting actually help conservation ?" An article from "Conservation" an independent science magazine dedicated to changing the conversation about what it means to be “green.”
http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/

"The Significance of African Lions for the Financial Viability of Trophy Hunting and the Maintenance of Wild Land"
"If lion hunting was effectively precluded, trophy hunting could potentially become financially unviable across at least 59,538 km2 that could result in a concomitant loss of habitat. However, the loss of lion hunting could have other potentially broader negative impacts including reduction of competitiveness of wildlife-based land uses relative to ecologically unfavourable alternatives. Restrictions on lion hunting may also reduce tolerance for the species among communities where local people benefit from trophy hunting, and may reduce funds available for anti-poaching."
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029332

"In Zimbabwe, We Don’t Cry for Lions"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

[locustella]

It is difficult to believe, that help in the trophy hunting is the only possible source of income for locals not damaging for the environment. Maybe the easiest, but rather not the only one.
And who's that trophy ? The hunter's or helper's ? That is not even the trophy. Maybe a trophy bought in the shop is also the trophy ?

 

[Jos Stratford]

It is difficult to believe, that help in the trophy hunting is the only possible source of income for locals not damaging for the environment. Maybe the easiest, but rather not the only one.

It is not the only source of income, landowners can easy revert to cattle ranching. So instead of a small number of lions being lost each year, we simply lose the habitat for them.

In the face of banned hunting, even if these land owners wished to preserve the land as a wildlife reserve, where would they get the funds to do so? Management of land, anti-poaching patrols, boundary fencing, etc, etc, are not cheap. If hunting were banned and thus funds removed, most conservationists in the region concerned believe it would only be a few years before most of these areas were poached out.

And, before simple wildlife tourism is suggested as an alternative, it is unrealistic to believe that this will ever have the potential to totally replace the hunting reserves. Across southern Africa, there are already numerous national parks and private game viewing reserves - the vast majority of tourists wanting to see wildlife go to a fairly limited number of these, and will always go to these. Many of the hunting reserves, especially those in fairly remote areas or lacking the attraction of the 'Big Five', etc, will simply not attract enough usual tourists to make the ventures financially viable.

 

[locustella]

Telling the truth lions are not nice example, because they are bloody murders, disabling even walking Africa. Much better would be defending something eating grass.

 

[Coronatus]

Telling the truth lions are not nice example, because they are bloody murders, disabling even walking Africa. Much better would be defending something eating grass.

Not really. I have done many long walks and camping out in Africa. In National Parks you must take an armed ranger (it looks good) but it is not compulsory outside Parks. Most Lions do not recognise man as prey and will run away if given the chance. You sometimes have to run after them to catch up for a photo.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Not really. I have done many long walks and camping out in Africa. In National Parks you must take an armed ranger (it looks good) but it is not compulsory outside Parks. Most Lions do not recognise man as prey and will run away if given the chance. You sometimes have to run after them to catch up for a photo.

Mana Pools in Zimbabwe is fairly unique as, although it is a National Park, you are allowed to leave the car/walk as much as you want, no ranger required.

Spent six very happy months in this national park, on foot every day, and completely agree that Lions generally (*) avoid you. Similar experiences in the Okavango during research/travel there, and elsewhere in Africa, many a time a Lion encountered whilst on foot, never a problem.

* naturally, you only need one exception to the 'generally' and you have a bit of a problem

 

[Nutcracker]

Most Lions do not recognise man as prey and will run away if given the chance. You sometimes have to run after them to catch up for a photo.

Suspect it may be a different matter at night, without lights?

 

[Coronatus]

<Suspect it may be a different matter at night, without lights? >
Well without lights the photographs are cr*p anyway!
@ Jos. Yup. Generally. Still on the occasion it does not work out the statistic stays the same as the unfortunate victim's trip is not included in the data base.:-O

 

[string boozel]

Sadly the recent horror in Tunisia demonstrated just how fragile a tourist based economy can be. A few isolated atrocities in any country could destroy both the industry and the livelihoods of those who depend on it. Hunters seeking a once in a lifetime opportunity may be more likely to ignore advice from their Foreign Office then casual tourists, many of whom are not dedicated naturalists.

If we accept that hunting is one of the motivating factors for protecting African wildlife then we may just have to put up with it unless a viable alternative can be found. As long as hunting activities are conducted within the law and are not to the detriment of a species long term survival we have to recognise its seemingly vital role in African conservation. I can't afford to spend fifty odd grand on a lion photographical safari, can you?

James.

 

[Coronatus]

<I can't afford to spend fifty odd grand on a lion photographical safari, can you?>
No. but 25 of us can spend £2000 each and leave with the lion still alive for others to enjoy and 25 bed nights is way better than one for the local accommodation providers.

 

[rosbifs]

Walking around in these areas or 'chasing' a lion for a photo is really down to a personal choice of risk reward.

At the end of the day there are very few on this forum who would agree with the concept of hunting 'big game' for fun but on a different forum I'm sure most are up in arms that this dentist has been singled out in this instance. For us it defies logic that anyone can get pleasure from killing Cedric. On the other hand if you didn't take a picture after you had shot something or hang it on a wall or brag to your mates (in the right circles) isn't that worse? If whoever was hunting didn't get pleasure isn't that worse?

I don't live in the UK but have hunting groups diminished after fox hunting ban, have villages dissappeared, people lost their jobs, dogs been put down, more foxes shot, fewer copses, more foxes in the countryside rather than towns or were the protests in vain? As I say I dont't know as I'm not there, but it would be interesting to know what has changed.... I don't mean to protaginise just be interested to see/know some of the facts and if they there is sole corrolation here...

 

[Farnboro John]

period 1362–1918, nearly 7,600 people were killed by wolves, of whom 4,600 were killed by non-rabid wolves

from wiki....

And what happened to (a) the human population and (b) the wolf population during that period?

John

 

[Coronatus]

Rosbif! The animal's name was Cecil (not that I approve of giving names to wild animals.)
<is really down to a personal choice of risk reward.> Or, I respectfully submit, opportunity.
FJohn. Rosbif's extract from wiki does not give the whole story. Those figures were disputed as highly exaggerated later in the last century.
As you say a burgeoning human population soon ensured the wolf numbers declined to the point of extinction in many countries..

 

[Mike Richardson]

I don't live in the UK but have hunting groups diminished after fox hunting ban, have villages dissappeared, people lost their jobs, dogs been put down, more foxes shot, fewer copses, more foxes in the countryside rather than towns or were the protests in vain? As I say I dont't know as I'm not there, but it would be interesting to know what has changed.... I don't mean to protaginise just be interested to see/know some of the facts and if they there is sole corrolation here...

The only similarity between fox hunting in the UK and legal trophy hunting in Africa is they're both blood sports carried out by sick and twisted individuals. While all the evidence suggests that legal and sustainable trophy hunting greatly benefits the conservation of biodiversity, I don't think anyone can argue that the same is/was true for fox hunting.

When fox hunting was banned there were no detrimental consequences to conservation, people, villages etc, partly because the hunts still go ahead (both legally in the form of drag hunts and illegally). Even if they didn't, UK conservation and the rural economy etc. would be no worse off. The same would not be true if trophy hunting was banned across Africa for a plethora of reasons, many outlined in the posts above.

On the subject of wolf fatalities I would seriously question the reliability of statistics gathered between the period of 1362-1918. I wonder how many death by dragon or sea serpent were recorded in the same time frame!

 

[Sangahyando]

The only similarity between fox hunting in the UK and legal trophy hunting in Africa is they're both blood sports carried out by sick and twisted individuals. While all the evidence suggests that legal and sustainable trophy hunting greatly benefits the conservation of biodiversity, I don't think anyone can argue that the same is/was true for fox hunting.

When fox hunting was banned there were no detrimental consequences to conservation, people, villages etc, partly because the hunts still go ahead (both legally in the form of drag hunts and illegally). Even if they didn't, UK conservation and the rural economy etc. would be no worse off. The same would not be true if trophy hunting was banned across Africa for a plethora of reasons, many outlined in the posts above.

True enough, unfortunately. The economic realities make it seem probable that controlled, legal trophy hunting may be the only solution for the present.
On the subject of economic damage, this guy (himself a hunter; article in German) wrote that traditional mounted fox hunts and similar practices were abandoned in Germany in the 19th century and later on banned, less out of concern for animal welfare and more because of the peasantry that demanded an end to the trespassing and the trampling of their crops. Haven't researched the matter myself, but it sounds plausible.

On the subject of wolf fatalities I would seriously question the reliability of statistics gathered between the period of 1362-1918. I wonder how many death by dragon or sea serpent were recorded in the same time frame!

The numbers may be questionable, but the general argument is that healthy wolves aren't "harmless", they're just relatively unlikely to attack people, particularly when compared to boars or feral dogs (just to stay with animal examples). There's biological reasons for this, of course, such as the general aggressiveness of humans towards other predators, or the fact that even an unarmed adult human may be too much to handle for an individual wolf. I think that the exaggerations we sometimes see on this board and in other places ("wolves are entirely harmless and never attack people") are doing nobody a favour, least of all the wolves in case something does happen - because then, conservationists may lose public support for appearing untrustworthy or incompetent.

 

[Farnboro John]

FJohn. Rosbif's extract from wiki does not give the whole story. Those figures were disputed as highly exaggerated later in the last century.
As you say a burgeoning human population soon ensured the wolf numbers declined to the point of extinction in many countries..

Indeed. The old idea that it doesn't happen is well and truly gone. There was a recent case in Alaska in which two wolves ran down and killed a jogger. Wolf predation on humans is at a level that cannot compete for numbers of fatalities with using stairs, or road accidents. I have not recently however heard of culls of multi-storey buildings or cars.

As the world is not zero-risk, predation of humans should never be permitted to exclude the presence of large animal predators. Anywhere.

John

 

[Mysticete]

The numbers may be questionable, but the general argument is that healthy wolves aren't "harmless", they're just relatively unlikely to attack people, particularly when compared to boars or feral dogs (just to stay with animal examples). There's biological reasons for this, of course, such as the general aggressiveness of humans towards other predators, or the fact that even an unarmed adult human may be too much to handle for an individual wolf. I think that the exaggerations we sometimes see on this board and in other places ("wolves are entirely harmless and never attack people") are doing nobody a favour, least of all the wolves in case something does happen - because then, conservationists may lose public support for appearing untrustworthy or incompetent.

Well said. I am in complete favor of giving wolves complete protection and reintroducing them back across their range wherever a viable population can be maintained. But I am strongly against romanticism of wolves and other animals, because I think it

A) puts animals on a pedestal they can't stay on forever, and makes things worse when they do something "unexpected".

B) Results in dumb people getting hurt and leads to a sort of "Zoo-ification" of wildlife by the public

 

[SteveTS]

This one is quite a good illustration of the real world :
http://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Most-Lethal-Animal-Mosquito-Week