• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Zimbabwe Park to Cull 200 Lions, Cites Lack of Hunters"

Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
625
One of Zimbabwe’s largest wildlife reserves, the Bubye Valley Conservancy, recently announced that it was considering culling up to 200 lions as the cats have become increasingly overpopulated. The wildlife reserve said its current population of around 500 lions is unsustainable due to the dramatic decline in hunters, possibly caused by the controversy over Cecil, a lion killed near Hwange National Park last year. Bubye officials say that without hunters to help manage the lion population, they are considering either hiring marksmen to shoot some of the animals, or capturing them and donating the cats to other reserves. Bubye has historically held one of the largest lion populations in Zimbabwe.

“I wish we could give about 200 of our lions away to ease the overpopulation,” Blondie Leathem, the conservancy’s general manager, told the National Post. “If anyone knows of a suitable habitat for them where they will not land up in human conflict, or in wildlife areas where they will not be beaten up because of existing prides, please let us know and help us raise the money to move them.”

Leathem explained that the lions are a big threat to the park’s other denizens, which included antelope, giraffes, leopards, and a number of other native species. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the conservancy is trying to recover from one of the driest summers on record.

unters traditionally helped to keep lion numbers in check, as well as bringing a much needed financial boost to the park. However, officials are now blaming something they call the “Cecil effect” for the lack of hunters. In 2015, the hunting of a black-maned lion named Cecil by an American dentist, Walter Palmer, drew international outrage after the Zimbabwe government accused Palmer of poaching. The charges were later dropped, but activist groups continued to target big game hunters in Africa and urged many governments, including Zimbabwe, to close their borders to hunters. This is despite the fact that many conservationists have long agreed that hunters are needed to not only manage wildlife populations, but also provide the funds to protect the same species they hunt.

Game species are not the only wildlife that hunters benefit. According to the Bubye Valley Conservancy, it is funds from sportsmen and women that allowed it to create its rhino conservation project, which manages the third largest population of black rhinos in Africa.

“Today, the hunters’ legends live again in the Bubye Valley, where populations of animals have had the time and the space to grow to maturity,” Bubye stated on its website. “Thriving herds live in balance on the open savannah, the mopani woodlands and in the dense riverine forests. The diverse habitats found in the Bubye Valley Conservancy now support an astonishing 35 species of wild, free-ranging game animals including the classic Big Five.”

The conservancy spans roughly 850,000 acres.

http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/02/23/zimbabwe-park-to-cull-200-lions-cites-lack-of-hunters/

I am deeply suspicious of the claim that trophy hunting is needed to "control" the lion population. After all, how is hunting certain individuals (the biggest, most impressive male lions) supposed to control the whole population. It remains me of the claims made by hunters that their hunting of a selected few large antlered bucks is somehow "controlling" the deer population.
 
What is the natural way that lion populations are controlled? Hyenas eating the young, or in times of drought did the males murder their offspring? And can we encourage the natural method? ot have they been controlled for millenia by indigenous paople with spears and the need to have a rite of passage?
 
What is the natural way that lion populations are controlled? Hyenas eating the young, or in times of drought did the males murder their offspring? And can we encourage the natural method? ot have they been controlled for millenia by indigenous paople with spears and the need to have a rite of passage?

Yep...from the Maasai (Kenya) to the Mycenaeans (ancient Greeks), poking a lion with a spear has always been seen as a "rite of passage". In Central and South America, it was the Jaguar. In the Asian Steppes it was the Tiger. And on....and on...

Big Fun! Lots of Danger!


Mycenaen Lion Hunt depicted in Ancient dagger (notice the poor soul who has been struck down by the Lion....I guess he passed the test posthumously):

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/bodyshield06.jpg
 
Last edited:
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/02/23/zimbabwe-park-to-cull-200-lions-cites-lack-of-hunters/

I am deeply suspicious of the claim that trophy hunting is needed to "control" the lion population. After all, how is hunting certain individuals (the biggest, most impressive male lions) supposed to control the whole population. It remains me of the claims made by hunters that their hunting of a selected few large antlered bucks is somehow "controlling" the deer population.

Trophy hunting directly helps reduce the population because it kills lions. Those lions could otherwise consume resources and reproduce. The hunts also contribute significant revenue that can be used for conservation efforts. If lions have economic value, the locals are more likely to take care of them. Lions are very expensive.
 
Trophy hunting directly helps reduce the population because it kills lions. Those lions could otherwise consume resources and reproduce

Again, how is killing the most impressive male lions reduce the population? You know that lions are polygynous? You may change the male:female ratio and the gene pool but that doesn't mean the population is being reduced.
 
Again, how is killing the most impressive male lions reduce the population? You know that lions are polygynous? You may change the male:female ratio and the gene pool but that doesn't mean the population is being reduced.

The problem is they're eating the herbivores and killing off the other predators. The place is out of balance.
 
Again, how is killing the most impressive male lions reduce the population? You know that lions are polygynous? You may change the male:female ratio and the gene pool but that doesn't mean the population is being reduced.
Keep in mind that some male lions do exist outside of the pride. (They get tossed out as young ones and have to survive on their own until they can take over a pride of their own.) And those lions do consume at least some prey animals. In theory hunters could target solo males (or those males that are not part of a pride) which would reduce competition for resources.

Might have some unintended consequences though... (a lack of challengers for existing males running a pride might mean less intfacide that occurs when a male is deposed.)
 
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/02/23/zimbabwe-park-to-cull-200-lions-cites-lack-of-hunters/

I am deeply suspicious of the claim that trophy hunting is needed to "control" the lion population. After all, how is hunting certain individuals (the biggest, most impressive male lions) supposed to control the whole population. It remains me of the claims made by hunters that their hunting of a selected few large antlered bucks is somehow "controlling" the deer population.

Agreed. I got no problem with shooting Lions, but I do have a problem with shooting the biggest, healthiest males.

On the family farm, we have an antler collection that goes back nearly 100 years. What is really sad is how much larger the deer racks were from the 1920s, 30s and 40s than they are today. And although there are lots of deer on the farm, the last nice rack was taken in 1980 (by me) - which was a nice rack by today's standards, but it absolutely sucked compared to what they were getting 40 years before. This state of affairs convinces me that shooting the "Biggest and Best" from generation to generation has taken its toll.
 
Might have some unintended consequences though... (a lack of challengers for existing males running a pride might mean less intfacide that occurs when a male is deposed.)

But the infanticide may the power behind why trophy hunting controls the population. The new alpha male might eradicate ummm dozens? of youngsters? I don't knw how many breeding females there are in a pride, or size of litters.
 
But the infanticide may the power behind why trophy hunting controls the population. The new alpha male might eradicate ummm dozens? of youngsters? I don't knw how many breeding females there are in a pride, or size of litters.

You usually have one or more creche mothers, nursing lionesses that take care of the cubs while the pride is off hunting. They are the most recent breeders, and the number of females control the number of adolescent lions in the pride. Hungry and hard hunting females go into estrus less often than well-fed lionesses.
 
Zimbabwean game parks need to cull lions for the same reason Japanese whaling ships need to research whales.
 
Agreed. I got no problem with shooting Lions, but I do have a problem with shooting the biggest, healthiest males.

On the family farm, we have an antler collection that goes back nearly 100 years. What is really sad is how much larger the deer racks were from the 1920s, 30s and 40s than they are today. And although there are lots of deer on the farm, the last nice rack was taken in 1980 (by me) - which was a nice rack by today's standards, but it absolutely sucked compared to what they were getting 40 years before. This state of affairs convinces me that shooting the "Biggest and Best" from generation to generation has taken its toll.

Is there any reason to believe that this is anything other than a sampling effect? That is, the deer being hunted now are being killed at a younger age, but are otherwise identical to the deer hunted in the 20's, 30's and 40's?
 
Is there any reason to believe that this is anything other than a sampling effect? That is, the deer being hunted now are being killed at a younger age, but are otherwise identical to the deer hunted in the 20's, 30's and 40's?

If you look at Yellowstone post-wolf (c. 1920s) you see a decline in the health and quality of the deer there. Too many, too lazy, not weeded out. The reversal of that trend came when the wolves were reintroduced in the '90s.
 
If you look at Yellowstone post-wolf (c. 1920s) you see a decline in the health and quality of the deer there. Too many, too lazy, not weeded out. The reversal of that trend came when the wolves were reintroduced in the '90s.

Sure. And that doesn't surprise me. But it's a bit of a tangent, since the issue I had with his post was whether or not a decline in the quality of deer that he's suggesting was even real. It's not quite as obvious what the correct answer should be since the deer were not without predators (humans in this case), but the predator dynamic isn't quite the same (human hunters don't have a marked preference for the weak). So I can't firmly state that there was or should be no decline, I just know that the data he presented (trophy antler size) is subject to a sampling bias that prevents it from being reliable.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom