In addition to the problem of those that don’t appreciate lions enough, there is the challenge of those who appreciate this big cat too much. One example of the latter is trophy hunting. I am not anti-hunting. With just 20,000 lions left, however, targeting one of the last 4,500 male lions on Earth with a high-powered rifle merely to serve the pleasure of ego, sport and power, seems inappropriate right now.
Each year an average of about 500 lion trophies or skins enter the United States from trophy hunting in Africa. If you do the math, you quickly see that this is not sustainable. Because male lions operate in coalitions of two or three, each male lion that is shot leaves the remaining male outmatched in the next territorial fight, and he is expelled. There is no future for expelled lions, so one license effectively kills two males. At the same time his eight females (on average) and their 24 cubs are left without defenders. The new alpha males are genetically wired to kill all cubs and start the breeding process again with their genes. So one license is really cleaning out between 20 and 30 lions each time—and if Americans are responsible for 500 of those licenses, they are effectively killing lions at an enormous rate.
edit: and how was Tim Knights piece a propaganda piece? Because you don't agree with him? Give your head a shake polaris, you are way out of line on this one
dude ... first of all - stop presuming you are the know all on this subject ... because clearly you aren't ... you posted an opinion piece by some journalist who offers at the end an open-ended question ... secondly, you also posted a piece that basically takes into consideration only the viewpoints of this conservancy who's primary function is to make money ... sure ... monsanto loves to talk about feeding the world but we both know what their end game is really ...
i find your debate method piss poor also ... you first rely on the viewpoints of the organization that profits from this hunt (on both articles as tim knight's article also is based on information from the conservancy) ... and then you ask if people eat meat and that their viewpoints are somewhat less meaningful if they do ... then you comment on the dolphin slaughter - calling it emotional but don't actually have any foundation to counter it ... then you want me to give MY head a shake and call me out of line ... horrible ...
edit: you can't even answer any of my questions
I don't see how dolphins have anything to do with this. A completely different topic. I'm not arguing anything about dolphins. You are baiting polaris, poor form.
In addition to the problem of those that don’t appreciate lions enough, there is the challenge of those who appreciate this big cat too much. One example of the latter is trophy hunting. I am not anti-hunting. With just 20,000 lions left, however, targeting one of the last 4,500 male lions on Earth with a high-powered rifle merely to serve the pleasure of ego, sport and power, seems inappropriate right now.
Each year an average of about 500 lion trophies or skins enter the United States from trophy hunting in Africa. If you do the math, you quickly see that this is not sustainable. Because male lions operate in coalitions of two or three, each male lion that is shot leaves the remaining male outmatched in the next territorial fight, and he is expelled. There is no future for expelled lions, so one license effectively kills two males. At the same time his eight females (on average) and their 24 cubs are left without defenders. The new alpha males are genetically wired to kill all cubs and start the breeding process again with their genes. So one license is really cleaning out between 20 and 30 lions each time—and if Americans are responsible for 500 of those licenses, they are effectively killing lions at an enormous rate.
possibly extinct by the year 2020
So to counter you post an article written by a movie/television producer.
Edit: I have to go but I will be back.....flame away.
I don't see how dolphins have anything to do with this. A completely different topic. I'm not arguing anything about dolphins. You are baiting polaris, poor form.
So to counter you post an article written by a movie/television producer.
Edit: I have to go but I will be back.....flame away.
Dereck Joubert and his wife, Beverly, are award-winning filmmakers from Botswana. They have been documenting and researching the African environment for nearly three decades, resulting in 20 films, six books and many articles for National Geographic and other publications.
Some scientific papers on lion conservation. About the dangers that effect the lion populations and some possible solutions. Whatever you think about people's motivation to hunt, the scientists agree that controlled harvest is sustainable and necessary for a lot of species. Not really light reading.
In most species, sport hunting of male trophy animals can only reduce overall population size when the rate of removal of males is so high that females can no longer be impregnated1. However, where males provide extensive paternal care, the removal of even a few individuals could harm the population as a whole2, 3. In species such as lions, excessive trophy hunting could theoretically cause male replacements (and associated infanticide4, 5) to become sufficiently common to prevent cubs reaching adulthood. Here we simulate the population consequences of lion trophy hunting using a spatially explicit, individual-based, stochastic model parameterized with 40 years of demographic data from northern Tanzania. Although our simulations confirm that infanticide increases the risk of population extinction, trophy hunting could be sustained simply by hunting males above a minimum age threshold, and this strategy maximizes both the quantity and the quality of the long-term kill. We present a simple non-invasive technique for estimating lion age in populations lacking long-term records, and suggest that quotas would be unnecessary in any male-only trophy species where age determination could be reliably implemented.
Large carnivores inspire opposition to conservation efforts1, 2 owing to their impact on livestock3, 4, 5 and human safety6, 7. Here we analyse the pattern of lion attacks over the past 15 years on humans in Tanzania, which has the largest population of lions in Africa8, 9, and find that they have killed more than 563 Tanzanians since 1990 and injured at least 308. Attacks have increased dramatically during this time: they peak at harvest time each year and are most frequent in areas with few prey apart from bush pigs (Potamochoerus larvatus), the most common nocturnal crop pest. Our findings provide an important starting point for devising strategies to reduce the risk to rural Tanzanians of lion attacks
Some scientific papers on lion conservation. About the dangers that effect the lion populations and some possible solutions. Whatever you think about people's motivation to hunt, the scientists agree that controlled harvest is sustainable and necessary for a lot of species. Not really light reading.
In most species, sport hunting of male trophy animals can only reduce overall population size when the rate of removal of males is so high that females can no longer be impregnated1. However, where males provide extensive paternal care, the removal of even a few individuals could harm the population as a whole2, 3. In species such as lions, excessive trophy hunting could theoretically cause male replacements (and associated infanticide4, 5) to become sufficiently common to prevent cubs reaching adulthood. Here we simulate the population consequences of lion trophy hunting using a spatially explicit, individual-based, stochastic model parameterized with 40 years of demographic data from northern Tanzania. Although our simulations confirm that infanticide increases the risk of population extinction, trophy hunting could be sustained simply by hunting males above a minimum age threshold, and this strategy maximizes both the quantity and the quality of the long-term kill. We present a simple non-invasive technique for estimating lion age in populations lacking long-term records, and suggest that quotas would be unnecessary in any male-only trophy species where age determination could be reliably implemented.
Large carnivores inspire opposition to conservation efforts1, 2 owing to their impact on livestock3, 4, 5 and human safety6, 7. Here we analyse the pattern of lion attacks over the past 15 years on humans in Tanzania, which has the largest population of lions in Africa8, 9, and find that they have killed more than 563 Tanzanians since 1990 and injured at least 308. Attacks have increased dramatically during this time: they peak at harvest time each year and are most frequent in areas with few prey apart from bush pigs (Potamochoerus larvatus), the most common nocturnal crop pest. Our findings provide an important starting point for devising strategies to reduce the risk to rural Tanzanians of lion attacks
Assuming that you posted the relevant points of your articles in this post. I'm not sure what relevance your second point is - we should support trophy hunting because lions kill people? That makes no sense whatsoever when the reality of the decline of these populations are all largely connected to humans (through habitat loss, global warming, etc.).
As to your first point - your argument is based on a section of an article that pretty much says that trophy hunting males of large carnivores doesn't work but that potentially if you apply this model - it just might work. It even says excessive trophy hunting will lead to further declines. Does the model take into consideration the way lions organize themselves? And ultimately, who's regulating this at all? This model requires strict regulation and the shooting of males of a certain minimum age.
The lack of protection of CITES Appendix II species and the, in my view, very high annual national export quota for CITES Appendix I species, begs the question whether the trophy hunting industry is sustainable.
A peer reviewed paper “Effects of trophy hunting on lion and leopard populations in Tanzania” by Prof Craig Packer et al. (2010) highlights the fact that trophy hunting indeed appears to have caused large-scale declines in African lion and leopard populations.[/b]
Lions have complex social systems in which males play an important role to ensure survival of cubs. The hunting industry specifically targets the adult males in their prime and each male replacement has in return a profound impact on the reproduction of multiple females and therefore can dramatically affect a whole lion population.
Prof Craig Packer et al. conclude that there is a need in Tanzania to limit the annual hunting quotas in most areas from 1.67 lions and 1.33 leopard/1000 km2 of hunting area to at least 0.5 lions and 1.0 leopard/1000 km2 of hunting area. They also suggest a minimum age restriction for male lions of 6 years and older in order for the trophy hunting industry to become more sustainable.
Is Trophy Hunting Ethical?
The trophy hunting industry does provide additional employment and supplements countries’ GDP, although both are pretty minimal compared to the more conventional tourist industry that promotes photographic wildlife safaris.
Whether the trophy hunting industry is sustainable is highly debatable, as the study by Prof Craig Packer has already shown. However the number of scientific, large scale studies seems to be limited to substantiate the unsustainability claim more widely on other species and in different locations, and the potential impacts of trophy hunting on animal social systems.
Is trophy hunting ethical? This is a rather emotive and personal question, but in my opinion there are some serious issues that we need to consider.
Is it ethically and morally right to allow trophy hunting of CITES Appendix I listed endangered species?
Are we still measuring with colonial double standards by allowing rich foreign (mostly white) hunters to go home with a rhino horn trophy, but not the traditional healer and dagger handle carvers? (Yes, controversially CITES allows both the white and black rhino to be hunted in South Africa and Namibia, albeit in very small numbers.)
Can we trust the trophy hunting industry to regulate their own affairs, as most African governments lack the resources to enforce and regulate the industry?
Is it ethical and natural to take the strongest & healthiest specimen in its prime out of an ecosystem, not even for food, but to decorate your home or office?
The lack of protection of CITES Appendix II species and the, in my view, very high annual national export quota for CITES Appendix I species, begs the question whether the trophy hunting industry is sustainable.
A peer reviewed paper “Effects of trophy hunting on lion and leopard populations in Tanzania” by Prof Craig Packer et al. (2010) highlights the fact that trophy hunting indeed appears to have caused large-scale declines in African lion and leopard populations.[/b]
Lions have complex social systems in which males play an important role to ensure survival of cubs. The hunting industry specifically targets the adult males in their prime and each male replacement has in return a profound impact on the reproduction of multiple females and therefore can dramatically affect a whole lion population.
Prof Craig Packer et al. conclude that there is a need in Tanzania to limit the annual hunting quotas in most areas from 1.67 lions and 1.33 leopard/1000 km2 of hunting area to at least 0.5 lions and 1.0 leopard/1000 km2 of hunting area. They also suggest a minimum age restriction for male lions of 6 years and older in order for the trophy hunting industry to become more sustainable.
Is Trophy Hunting Ethical?
The trophy hunting industry does provide additional employment and supplements countries’ GDP, although both are pretty minimal compared to the more conventional tourist industry that promotes photographic wildlife safaris.
Whether the trophy hunting industry is sustainable is highly debatable, as the study by Prof Craig Packer has already shown. However the number of scientific, large scale studies seems to be limited to substantiate the unsustainability claim more widely on other species and in different locations, and the potential impacts of trophy hunting on animal social systems.
Is trophy hunting ethical? This is a rather emotive and personal question, but in my opinion there are some serious issues that we need to consider.
Is it ethically and morally right to allow trophy hunting of CITES Appendix I listed endangered species?
Are we still measuring with colonial double standards by allowing rich foreign (mostly white) hunters to go home with a rhino horn trophy, but not the traditional healer and dagger handle carvers? (Yes, controversially CITES allows both the white and black rhino to be hunted in South Africa and Namibia, albeit in very small numbers.)
Can we trust the trophy hunting industry to regulate their own affairs, as most African governments lack the resources to enforce and regulate the industry?
Is it ethical and natural to take the strongest & healthiest specimen in its prime out of an ecosystem, not even for food, but to decorate your home or office?
As was stated in the original article I posted and what Craig Packer and others have proposed, the idea is not to trophy hunt the strongest and healthiest specimen, they want to kill a older lion who was just thrown out by another younger stronger male, having no effect on the population as a whole. That is what these game ranches do, it would be bad for business to kill all of your product.
As to the peer reviewed papers I posted, if you would have read them you would have gotten my point. I maybe did a bad job in posting the quick summaries of those 2 nature articles. In summary Craig Packer and other scientists, who know more about this than you or I, want to build fences around huge reserves to protect ranchers from the lions and lions from the ranchers. The ranchers are the reason for the true decline of these lion populations, not the trophy hunters.
Trophy hunting within these reserves would be used to kill off no longer viable male lions as a cash cow to help pay for fences and to staff people to protect these reserves from poachers. Do I think that this is a perfect answer, no. In a perfect world there would be a ton of money to fund projects like this, but it seems that is not the case. If we need to get in bed with the devil to protect these animals from extinction, I'm in.
Here is a quick article with Craig Packer talking about the event in question.
As was stated in the original article I posted and what Craig Packer and others have proposed, the idea is not to trophy hunt the strongest and healthiest specimen, they want to kill a older lion who was just thrown out by another younger stronger male, having no effect on the population as a whole. That is what these game ranches do, it would be bad for business to kill all of your product.
As to the peer reviewed papers I posted, if you would have read them you would have gotten my point. I maybe did a bad job in posting the quick summaries of those 2 nature articles. In summary Craig Packer and other scientists, who know more about this than you or I, want to build fences around huge reserves to protect ranchers from the lions and lions from the ranchers. The ranchers are the reason for the true decline of these lion populations, not the trophy hunters.
Trophy hunting within these reserves would be used to kill off no longer viable male lions as a cash cow to help pay for fences and to staff people to protect these reserves from poachers. Do I think that this is a perfect answer, no. In a perfect world there would be a ton of money to fund projects like this, but it seems that is not the case. If we need to get in bed with the devil to protect these animals from extinction, I'm in.
Here is a quick article with Craig Packer talking about the event in question.
i actually started reading some of those articles but they mostly don't focus on what we are discussing - trophy hunting ... the author you are using for your argument has already said that trophy hunting will contribute to the decline of the species ... same thing with other researchers such as the ones I posted ... your author only hypothesizes that population's can thrive under a simulated model based on strict conditions ... how realistic do you think those conditions are met when you are advocating for a for-profit industry ... studies show that these dollars do very little for the conservation of these species ... you think a fence is gonna save a lion from poachers and ranchers? ... from what i can gather like ... only 3%-5% of the fees actually go towards conservation efforts ... most of that money goes to the operators most with foreign bases ...
Recent studies have shown that areas in which trophy hunting has been permitted by government authorities, lion populations have severely declined even in the absence of other threats.
Commercial utilization of wild lion populations is a highly political issue with many proponents and dissenters, but is largely allowed by governments as a venture to deliver capital. Despite some scientific efforts to ameliorate rates of offtake and (doubtful) guidelines for hunters to identify “post reproductive” males, trophy hunting has never been shown to be a sustainable venture, and is known to have many abuses. These include luring lions out of protected areas, exceeding and influencing quota systems, ignoring consequences on reproduction of lion populations by destroying pride males, and taking young males out of the future reproductive pool.
If we assume a continent-wide lion population of 25,000, this means that there are about 3,000 adult trophy males in Africa. If we estimate that 40% occur in strictly protected areas, this leaves a “huntable” total of around 1,800 male lions. Trophy harvests have averaged 665 exports per year, an unsustainable off take.
Proponents of trophy hunting have used three main arguments to continue the practice:
By giving “value” to lions, of which African rural communities receive a share, they will be more amendable to conserve them;
By generating revenues trophy hunting makes the maintenance of large tracts of land for wildlife viable;
Considerable revenues are generated for African nations and as such, consumptive use of lions is part of an overall conservation strategy for wildlife.
Various analyses have shown that these arguments are largely fictitious in practice. African rural communities receive a pittance from turning over their land to hunting operators. In Zimbabwe, a community household (average 10 people) will intermittently receive $1 to $3 per annum. In Tanzania communities receive $4 per annum per square kilometre whilst the hunting operators receive $110. The average contribution to GDP from hunting is 0.06% for 11 Africa nations that participate in trophy hunting, whilst 15% of their land is set aside for the practice.
Of seven countries that engage in trophy hunting, 696,708 km2 of land is set aside for the practice but employs a total of just 9,703 people, and most of them for six months only. Given such weak returns for communities the incentive to stop poaching is little. The bushmeat trade in Ghana alone is estimated at $250 million per annum.
*******************
and your latest link really doesn't support trophy hunting ... i'm not sure how raising an animal in a private reserve so it can be shot is considered a good thing ...
The outrage in this thread is a little much. Maybe you guys should look into this story a little more.
And I do believe that the meat from these lions is also used.
And the reserve will have an extra $20,000 to help look after its animals, many of them rare and endangered.
That it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice some animals for the good of the others?
What would you do?
Wow, using this logic, we should set up guns in places like the Philipines, Haiti, etc. since the population is more out of control then the lions, we have ourselves a human hunt, then the money spent on shooting a person would be used to fix the cluster fuck that some of the country has become. What's a couple of human lives when we have so many in the world? And hey that head would look great on my mantle. Use the meat as mentioned above. I'm sure that if you are hungry enough that you'd eat anthing. A human is just an animal too!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
humans always interfer with nature. it is a fucking bullshit move 99.9% of the time.
so these assholes shoot a old male lion so he doesn't suffer when the hyenans come to eat him. the old male lion has been physically removed by his pride by a younger stronger male & now the old male is alone & dying
bring in the bitch melissa bachman with her big gun & her heavy ass dollars
how about leave the animals alone?
it is only a excuse to kill something
if someone told this murderous stupid woman she could buy a license to shoot frogs who will be eaten by these big ass bass & catfish, she sure as shit would be shooting frogs
humans always interfer with nature. it is a fucking bullshit move 99.9% of the time.
so these assholes shoot a old male lion so he doesn't suffer when the hyenans come to eat him. the old male lion has been physically removed by his pride by a younger stronger male & now the old male is alone & dying
bring in the bitch melissa bachman with her big gun & her heavy ass dollars
how about leave the animals alone?
it is only a excuse to kill something
if someone told this murderous stupid woman she could buy a license to shoot frogs who will be eaten by these big ass bass & catfish, she sure as shit would be shooting frogs
loop holes are for assholes
That line applies is so many aspects...
I like that line
humans always interfer with nature. it is a fucking bullshit move 99.9% of the time.
so these assholes shoot a old male lion so he doesn't suffer when the hyenans come to eat him. the old male lion has been physically removed by his pride by a younger stronger male & now the old male is alone & dying
bring in the bitch melissa bachman with her big gun & her heavy ass dollars
how about leave the animals alone?
it is only a excuse to kill something
if someone told this murderous stupid woman she could buy a license to shoot frogs who will be eaten by these big ass bass & catfish, she sure as shit would be shooting frogs
loop holes are for assholes
That line applies is so many aspects...
I like that line
There is truth to it.
Most reasonable human beings understand the intent of laws and regulations and abide by them. But the asshole is not to be deterred from circumventing such policy and will seek out the 'loop hole' to fulfill their selfish desires- justifying their actions afterwards to anyone who challenges the poor behaviour.
Whether they actually comprehend that they are acting poorly is a matter for debate: do assholes know they are being assholes... or are they so narcissistic that they are incapable of thinking objectively about their behaviour? In other words... do assholes know they are being assholes and simply not care... or do they not realize they are assholes and incapable of caring given their mentality?
I can't stand those trophy hunters that boast that they are 'conservationists', doing good work.
Example of killing this old male - doing him a favour. And that the meat will be used... idiots. They do not know what the impact is killing this male, the circle of life, etc. They have absolutely no understanding of the animals, their environment, the eco-system they are part of, etc.
Not many old/sick animals are killed by trophy hunters. On the contrary - the 'brightest' animal is the challenge.
Comments
possibly extinct by the year 2020
I don't see how dolphins have anything to do with this. A completely different topic. I'm not arguing anything about dolphins. You are baiting polaris, poor form.
So to counter you post an article written by a movie/television producer.
Edit: I have to go but I will be back.....flame away.
you calling me out for baiting now!? ... :fp:
Dereck Joubert and his wife, Beverly, are award-winning filmmakers from Botswana. They have been documenting and researching the African environment for nearly three decades, resulting in 20 films, six books and many articles for National Geographic and other publications.
http://www.cbs.umn.edu/sites/default/fi ... ongoro.pdf
https://www.conservationforce.org/pdf/L ... VATION.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 02395.html
In most species, sport hunting of male trophy animals can only reduce overall population size when the rate of removal of males is so high that females can no longer be impregnated1. However, where males provide extensive paternal care, the removal of even a few individuals could harm the population as a whole2, 3. In species such as lions, excessive trophy hunting could theoretically cause male replacements (and associated infanticide4, 5) to become sufficiently common to prevent cubs reaching adulthood. Here we simulate the population consequences of lion trophy hunting using a spatially explicit, individual-based, stochastic model parameterized with 40 years of demographic data from northern Tanzania. Although our simulations confirm that infanticide increases the risk of population extinction, trophy hunting could be sustained simply by hunting males above a minimum age threshold, and this strategy maximizes both the quantity and the quality of the long-term kill. We present a simple non-invasive technique for estimating lion age in populations lacking long-term records, and suggest that quotas would be unnecessary in any male-only trophy species where age determination could be reliably implemented.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 6927a.html
Large carnivores inspire opposition to conservation efforts1, 2 owing to their impact on livestock3, 4, 5 and human safety6, 7. Here we analyse the pattern of lion attacks over the past 15 years on humans in Tanzania, which has the largest population of lions in Africa8, 9, and find that they have killed more than 563 Tanzanians since 1990 and injured at least 308. Attacks have increased dramatically during this time: they peak at harvest time each year and are most frequent in areas with few prey apart from bush pigs (Potamochoerus larvatus), the most common nocturnal crop pest. Our findings provide an important starting point for devising strategies to reduce the risk to rural Tanzanians of lion attacks
Assuming that you posted the relevant points of your articles in this post. I'm not sure what relevance your second point is - we should support trophy hunting because lions kill people? That makes no sense whatsoever when the reality of the decline of these populations are all largely connected to humans (through habitat loss, global warming, etc.).
As to your first point - your argument is based on a section of an article that pretty much says that trophy hunting males of large carnivores doesn't work but that potentially if you apply this model - it just might work. It even says excessive trophy hunting will lead to further declines. Does the model take into consideration the way lions organize themselves? And ultimately, who's regulating this at all? This model requires strict regulation and the shooting of males of a certain minimum age.
http://baobabtravel.wordpress.com/2011/ ... stainable/
Is the Trophy Hunting Industry Sustainable?
The lack of protection of CITES Appendix II species and the, in my view, very high annual national export quota for CITES Appendix I species, begs the question whether the trophy hunting industry is sustainable.
A peer reviewed paper “Effects of trophy hunting on lion and leopard populations in Tanzania” by Prof Craig Packer et al. (2010) highlights the fact that trophy hunting indeed appears to have caused large-scale declines in African lion and leopard populations.[/b]
Lions have complex social systems in which males play an important role to ensure survival of cubs. The hunting industry specifically targets the adult males in their prime and each male replacement has in return a profound impact on the reproduction of multiple females and therefore can dramatically affect a whole lion population.
Prof Craig Packer et al. conclude that there is a need in Tanzania to limit the annual hunting quotas in most areas from 1.67 lions and 1.33 leopard/1000 km2 of hunting area to at least 0.5 lions and 1.0 leopard/1000 km2 of hunting area. They also suggest a minimum age restriction for male lions of 6 years and older in order for the trophy hunting industry to become more sustainable.
Is Trophy Hunting Ethical?
The trophy hunting industry does provide additional employment and supplements countries’ GDP, although both are pretty minimal compared to the more conventional tourist industry that promotes photographic wildlife safaris.
Whether the trophy hunting industry is sustainable is highly debatable, as the study by Prof Craig Packer has already shown. However the number of scientific, large scale studies seems to be limited to substantiate the unsustainability claim more widely on other species and in different locations, and the potential impacts of trophy hunting on animal social systems.
Is trophy hunting ethical? This is a rather emotive and personal question, but in my opinion there are some serious issues that we need to consider.
Is it ethically and morally right to allow trophy hunting of CITES Appendix I listed endangered species?
Are we still measuring with colonial double standards by allowing rich foreign (mostly white) hunters to go home with a rhino horn trophy, but not the traditional healer and dagger handle carvers? (Yes, controversially CITES allows both the white and black rhino to be hunted in South Africa and Namibia, albeit in very small numbers.)
Can we trust the trophy hunting industry to regulate their own affairs, as most African governments lack the resources to enforce and regulate the industry?
Is it ethical and natural to take the strongest & healthiest specimen in its prime out of an ecosystem, not even for food, but to decorate your home or office?
As was stated in the original article I posted and what Craig Packer and others have proposed, the idea is not to trophy hunt the strongest and healthiest specimen, they want to kill a older lion who was just thrown out by another younger stronger male, having no effect on the population as a whole. That is what these game ranches do, it would be bad for business to kill all of your product.
As to the peer reviewed papers I posted, if you would have read them you would have gotten my point. I maybe did a bad job in posting the quick summaries of those 2 nature articles. In summary Craig Packer and other scientists, who know more about this than you or I, want to build fences around huge reserves to protect ranchers from the lions and lions from the ranchers. The ranchers are the reason for the true decline of these lion populations, not the trophy hunters.
Trophy hunting within these reserves would be used to kill off no longer viable male lions as a cash cow to help pay for fences and to staff people to protect these reserves from poachers. Do I think that this is a perfect answer, no. In a perfect world there would be a ton of money to fund projects like this, but it seems that is not the case. If we need to get in bed with the devil to protect these animals from extinction, I'm in.
Here is a quick article with Craig Packer talking about the event in question.
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/1046 ... nting-lion
i actually started reading some of those articles but they mostly don't focus on what we are discussing - trophy hunting ... the author you are using for your argument has already said that trophy hunting will contribute to the decline of the species ... same thing with other researchers such as the ones I posted ... your author only hypothesizes that population's can thrive under a simulated model based on strict conditions ... how realistic do you think those conditions are met when you are advocating for a for-profit industry ... studies show that these dollars do very little for the conservation of these species ... you think a fence is gonna save a lion from poachers and ranchers? ... from what i can gather like ... only 3%-5% of the fees actually go towards conservation efforts ... most of that money goes to the operators most with foreign bases ...
**********************
http://lionalert.org/page/trophy-hunting
Recent studies have shown that areas in which trophy hunting has been permitted by government authorities, lion populations have severely declined even in the absence of other threats.
Commercial utilization of wild lion populations is a highly political issue with many proponents and dissenters, but is largely allowed by governments as a venture to deliver capital. Despite some scientific efforts to ameliorate rates of offtake and (doubtful) guidelines for hunters to identify “post reproductive” males, trophy hunting has never been shown to be a sustainable venture, and is known to have many abuses. These include luring lions out of protected areas, exceeding and influencing quota systems, ignoring consequences on reproduction of lion populations by destroying pride males, and taking young males out of the future reproductive pool.
If we assume a continent-wide lion population of 25,000, this means that there are about 3,000 adult trophy males in Africa. If we estimate that 40% occur in strictly protected areas, this leaves a “huntable” total of around 1,800 male lions. Trophy harvests have averaged 665 exports per year, an unsustainable off take.
Proponents of trophy hunting have used three main arguments to continue the practice:
By giving “value” to lions, of which African rural communities receive a share, they will be more amendable to conserve them;
By generating revenues trophy hunting makes the maintenance of large tracts of land for wildlife viable;
Considerable revenues are generated for African nations and as such, consumptive use of lions is part of an overall conservation strategy for wildlife.
Various analyses have shown that these arguments are largely fictitious in practice. African rural communities receive a pittance from turning over their land to hunting operators. In Zimbabwe, a community household (average 10 people) will intermittently receive $1 to $3 per annum. In Tanzania communities receive $4 per annum per square kilometre whilst the hunting operators receive $110. The average contribution to GDP from hunting is 0.06% for 11 Africa nations that participate in trophy hunting, whilst 15% of their land is set aside for the practice.
Of seven countries that engage in trophy hunting, 696,708 km2 of land is set aside for the practice but employs a total of just 9,703 people, and most of them for six months only. Given such weak returns for communities the incentive to stop poaching is little. The bushmeat trade in Ghana alone is estimated at $250 million per annum.
*******************
and your latest link really doesn't support trophy hunting ... i'm not sure how raising an animal in a private reserve so it can be shot is considered a good thing ...
Wow, using this logic, we should set up guns in places like the Philipines, Haiti, etc. since the population is more out of control then the lions, we have ourselves a human hunt, then the money spent on shooting a person would be used to fix the cluster fuck that some of the country has become. What's a couple of human lives when we have so many in the world? And hey that head would look great on my mantle. Use the meat as mentioned above. I'm sure that if you are hungry enough that you'd eat anthing. A human is just an animal too!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
so these assholes shoot a old male lion so he doesn't suffer when the hyenans come to eat him. the old male lion has been physically removed by his pride by a younger stronger male & now the old male is alone & dying
bring in the bitch melissa bachman with her big gun & her heavy ass dollars
how about leave the animals alone?
it is only a excuse to kill something
if someone told this murderous stupid woman she could buy a license to shoot frogs who will be eaten by these big ass bass & catfish, she sure as shit would be shooting frogs
loops holes are for assholes
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
That line applies is so many aspects...
I like that line
There is truth to it.
Most reasonable human beings understand the intent of laws and regulations and abide by them. But the asshole is not to be deterred from circumventing such policy and will seek out the 'loop hole' to fulfill their selfish desires- justifying their actions afterwards to anyone who challenges the poor behaviour.
Whether they actually comprehend that they are acting poorly is a matter for debate: do assholes know they are being assholes... or are they so narcissistic that they are incapable of thinking objectively about their behaviour? In other words... do assholes know they are being assholes and simply not care... or do they not realize they are assholes and incapable of caring given their mentality?
Example of killing this old male - doing him a favour. And that the meat will be used... idiots. They do not know what the impact is killing this male, the circle of life, etc. They have absolutely no understanding of the animals, their environment, the eco-system they are part of, etc.
Not many old/sick animals are killed by trophy hunters. On the contrary - the 'brightest' animal is the challenge.
Makes me mad.