The irony of life

A bit of a quite thread this one.


A Zimbabwean game reserve has warned that it may have to cull 200 lions because of what it calls “the Cecil effect.”

Under normal circumstances, the rights to shoot those lions would have been sold to big game hunters.

Off course that would have brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local economy.

That in turns provides livelihoods to people helps the conservation budget.

Will the Cecil effect cost the lives of 200 lions? See Cecil the lion effect.

To a Westerner, it might seem a huge tragedy when a lion gets shot by some fat German trophy hunter.

I still battle with the irony in life that to a starving African villager, that lion hunter is a lifeline.
So that lion has really no value to him. It only gets a value when a professional game hunter comes along and tells you that that the animal is worth $10,000 to your community. Then suddenly you’ve got a reason not to kill it.

Any insights / opinions on this?

Chris

This is a question that has no answer.  It's an individuals opinion of right versus wrong or actually how we perceive what is 'right' or 'wrong'.

I agree to the villager and the community the animal may be worth $$$$ but in reality do they see the $$$$ I very much doubt it.  Corruption is everywhere and the villagers rather like the actual poachers don't see the money, it's the fat cats and the corrupt officials who benefit.

My opinion only!

Lai

Yes a difficult one. There does need to be a benefit to the communities from the wildlife in their area to give them a reason not to kill them. If tourism is not an option at the moment, or relocation to areas of Africa that are desperately short of Lions, then I can understand using the professional hunter option, as it does bring $$, and other benefits to the communities in the area. However there should be some rules that all hunts should be led by professional hunters who must ensure that the kills are as clean as possible, and the animals do not suffer more than is needed. Also they should not allowed just to shoot the prime members of the prides, this will only affect the gene pool in the future, so a percentage of the lions with the strongest genes must be identified and not allowed to be shot. It's something I don't like, but can understand, and perhaps a percentage of the money paid could be put on one side to hopefully create more tourism in the area which would bring more jobs, and a longer term future for the people in those areas

WS

PS Chris do you have a views comments on the Lions that got into Niarobi from the park recently

It's a difficult and I think insoluble problem Chris. I agree that we in the west sit in our ivory towers and pontificate about what should be done with very little thought about the people living (and dying) at the sharp end of the problem.

As you say Chris that to a starving villager the hunter can provide a lifeline but you can also say that the same applies to a poaching boss he is also providing a lifeline to a starving villager. In both case the animal has no value to the villager. Who decides which one is legitimate and one is illegal? Somehow a way has to be found to give the villager a legitimate way of earning a living and providing a future for his family without having to rely on the senseless slaughter of wildlife.

Perhaps if it is ok to hunt lions the logical follow-on from that is also to create game farms for elephants and rhinos to allow the hunters to do their thing and at the same time make additional money by feeding the ivory and rhino trade market. That way the truly wild areas could perhaps be left alone!!

I think it also confuses the situation when the UK Royals come out in favour of hunting and at the same time try and cash in on the "save the rhino or save the elephant" bandwagon.I think as I have said many times before on this forum that for me there is no moral difference between hunting for sport and poaching.

SM

Hi everybody,

Firstly - WS regarding Nairobi lions - The lions were later spotted back in the park, having made their own way back. My comments: I certainly hope these lions don’t develop a habit of doing this because they will most certainly be killed if they do. If they ever attack people or people’s livelihoods i.e. goat herds etc. they will end up dead very soon.



Back to the Cecil effect: All of you have valid reply's mostly informed by your own filters and perspectives (like you should).

Being from Africa I have learned that when it comes to confusing debates like this we need to turn to the experts on the subject matter for the best possible answer.

In the case of lions the experts that I would look to are the Joubert's (Beverly and Derrick)

Derek’s comment was that what is confusing about this particular report is the apparent ‘explosion’ of lions since the Cecil incident. That incident was only in July last year. Lion hunting targets male lions not female so the sudden increase after the Cecil incident to an over production of 200 lions doesn’t seem believable to him.

He then said expertly how if lions breed at a rate of 5% a year the host population would have needed to be 4,000, which is more than the entire population of lions on Botswana. He then went into a lot of detail pointing out all kinds of flaws in the report i.e the suggestion is also then, that they were taking off over 200 lions a year by hunting but that the quota there is probably closer to 20-30 a year.

He concluded that the article is flawed in its logic and that he would not take it too seriously.

The bigger debate is the one I wanted to highlight.

Question: Hunting - good or bad?
Answer: It depends


Chris

Well that throws a whole different light on it. I totally agree about using experts especially people like the Joubert's who I would trust much more than the authors of the report, from what he's said its not feasible that the numbers of Lions is correct, and needs looking into.
Question: Hunting - good or bad?
Answer: It depends
I agree, depends on the circumstances

WS