Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Tanzanian lion hunting

Always a good idea to allow those opposed to hunting to influence the setting of quotas and seasons through the use of heavily biased "research". My guess is that this fellow knew the result of his "study" before he started. Killing 500 males out of an estimated population of 14,432 can hardly be responsible for dwindling numbers of lions. Then again, if the polar bear can be listed as endangered just because, why not the lion I suppose. The ESA is a joke and fools like this make it more and more obvious to more and more people each day.

http://www.conservationforce.org/resources/resourcesmaneatinglion35people.html

So, which part of his story is flawed? This should be an easy one to disprove. The data can hardly be hidden. So, who's got the real numbers?

I would say the part where he states that hunting lions is of detriment to the sustainability of lion numbers is where he departs from reality - in other words from the title on. You can't possibly believe that killing 500 males (this assumes that all 500 permit holders fill out) could negatively affect a population of over 14,000 animals???

But you really do not have any numbers per se?

Try this link and subsequent posts. It appears the study is flawed which does not surprise me given who commissioned the study:
LIONS IN TANZANIA

jorge,
I didn't see it in that thread - has the number of lions "harvested" NOT decline by 50% over that interval as he claims?

Also, what are the real trends in lion populations in Tanzania?

I do not have any numbers at all, so, if there are better numbers than Packer et al.'s I'd like to see them.

What's at issue is Packer's contention that SPORT HUNTING is causing the decline (if any exists). I didn't see any evidence that supports his position in re: to sport hunting in any but the most tenuous way. He's creating a new avenue of study for himself - lion recovery in Tanzania - the evils of sport hunting created this mess and only a complete departure from all accepted means of controlled utilization in management will fix it - never mind that there are a lot of other variables that don't involve sport hunting. Just like global warming, locate a "wrong", blame it on man, then further your career by endlessly studying it.

Dude, Packer's career is already pretty much a done deal.

Personally, rather than a bunch of speculation, I would like to see data to the contrary. I would like to believe that he is wrong but simply saying it is wrong doesn't cut it.

There are three points, at least, that could be contested objectively
1. Are harvest rates for lions in Tanzania really declining as stated?
2. Are lion populations as a whole in Tanzania really declining as stated?
3. Are the vast majority of lions really being killed by licensed hunters (I think they said 92%).

These are facts for which there should be objective data.

A fourth conclusion could also be examined, but it would not be quite so easy as some may think, and that is whether this level of mortality (#1 and #3) are sufficient to cause #2. That requires some difficult population models, but it is probably quite doable.

Right now, I would like to know if just the bare facts are about right.

The trouble with population estimates is that they are quite likely to be in following with the agenda of whatever group funded the study. The link that I posted states the current lion pop. at roughly 14k. To think that the harvest of 500 males from a population that size is causing a downward spiral in population is ludicrous. Methinks the cause of lower harvest rates is likely due to disease, native kills, or an environmental factor. He really doesn't do a good job of proving that sport hunting is the causal factor in pop. decline/harvest decline. I believe you're a wildlife biologist or professor or something along those lines - wouldn't you agree that even if the entire quota were filled (500 males) from a pop. that large that it shouldn't have adverse effects??

Ah bullshit. If you ain't got numbers, just say so.

I cannot say that a quota of 500 males annually will or will not matter, because, being a population biologist, I know that the issues involved in modeling population dynamics can be difficult. A species with a complex social system like lions, even more so. That's why I'm asking the questions in the first place.

I'm not an armchair expert like so many. I actually have to do, or at least see, the math. I want to see some more of it, preferably from someone that is NOT Packer.

"Sales of the wilderness treks have risen by 60% since 1998. And the hunters probably aren�t deliberately shooting fewer animals either, according to geographer Brian Child of the University of Florida, Gainesville, who was not part of the study. �In general, if they�re paying a lot of money, they�re going to be hunting as hard as they can,� Child says.

This leaves only one reason the hunters are bringing in less game: There�s less game out there to shoot."

Let's examine just this one statement.
Does it take into account the fact that over the last few years PH's in Tanzania have made a very concerted effort to shoot only older male lions. NO So if they are shooting just older lions and not just any male with some hair, would they probably shoot less? Common sense right?

Also, although the number of hunters on 21 day licenses may have increased, do all these hunters want to shoot lions? No way to tell. Hunters on a 21 day safari in Tanz, may be after three buff, a leopard and some of the larger plains game, an an ele, but not lion. Their study seems to "assume" that all hunters on these licenses "try as hard as they can" to shoot a lion and then when not successful, they postulate that they couldn't because there are fewer lions. There is nothing in their study to suggest that. I've been on on two 21 day trips to Tanz and Leo has not been on the menu yet and probably won't be, but that's just me.

Moreover, the study pooh, pooh's the killing and poisoning of lions by the population, although it does agree that if there were no hunting, there would probably be no lions. Which is good.

One last thing, since I hit the send button early. Are there 500 lions in Tanz being killed annually by sport hunters just because that's the quota? They seem to imply that, but at the same time say that hunters are "less successful". I'm curious (maybe I missed it) but where are the actual lions killed v. quota numbers?

Brent, I don't have the numbers you ask for nor the expertise to adequately judge, so I rely on friends in the business that while having a vested interest in the sport of lion hunting, are scrupulously honest. With those parameters in mind and with what I know, I would disagree with the locus of the study that sport hunting is responsible for a decline in lion hunting. Further, sport hunting has dramatically increased numbers of other species on quota so it is not illogical to hypothesize that it also helps lion hunting. Also what 416 Rigby says is spot on; Tanzanian PHs have become completely and totally anal to the point of OCD about not shooting lions younger than six years old and also not all 21 day safaris include lion in their quota so it's bogus to count that as "seeing less game." Lastly, a good friend of mine just returned from a 21 day hunt that did not include lion as there was no quota and they saw no less than thirty nine males. Empirical to be sure, but I just don't by the study's conclusions. jorge

I'd be surprised if there are not very good records of what's being killed by hunting over there. Without reading the original paper, yet, it seems to me that he has a few speculative issues that could be validated or invalidated by hard cold numbers that the Tanzanian wildlife officials would be likely to have on hand. There should also be at least half-assed census numbers both in and outside of protected areas.

I don't rely on any "trust me" observations that are not readily quantified. Not even my own. Humans are damn good at seeing what they want to see and that goes for everyone, not just "the other side".

YES, YOU CAN.Out of 14,000 lions, only about 1260 Male breeding-age lions* in the total population!*The ratio of male Breeding lions to female lions is about 9:100.

They do kill at least 500 breeding-age male lions, some say up to 600 if you include those wounded and those males that were not yet mature enough and were left in the field. There is also one male poached for each legal lion killed.

So 1000-1100+ males breeding-age lions are killed legally and illegally.

So, essentially, 90-95% of all Male Breeding-age lions are killed by either hunters or poachers each year.

Like it or not, we are at least mainly responsible for the lack of growth in the lion populations! We should try to reduce the number of permits issued each year by 1/2 - and increase the price of the Gov't fee by twice (to pay for anti-poaching)--this will help the lions and keep our PRIVILEDGE NOT our RIGHT to hunt them.

Can't disagree with anything you say, but the "trust me" referred to the age of the lions being killed. They are pretty anal about that and also the data on lions killed by trophy hunters is also accurate. Where the math gets fuzzy refers to the numbers killed by the locals and not reported. Right now a lion hunt with no more than a 50/50 chance of taking one is running in excess of 85K and closer to 100 and again with no guarantee. Of course if you kill one the trophy fee gets tacked on.

Brent, read the Conservation of the African Lion Status Survey

I sped through it just now (skipped the materials and methods section) but saw enough to know 5-6 studies over the last 20 years are included.

some "math"

-in 1996, "Wild Cats" SWAG'd a pop of 65K lions.
-in 2002, the very thorough Chardonnay study reported 40K lions.

many tried to say this "proved" a 25K decline...well, um, no.

-of the known lion habitat, 13% is sport hunted, 13% is NP, another 12% non-hunting reserves. that leaves 62% of the habitat not sport hunted, but unregulated (land encroachment, poisonings, et al. blah,blah,blah)

-continent-wide 4% offtake recorded as PAC kills by game depts

-in West Africa 18 cats/year are sport-killed (5% success)
-in Central Africa 17 cats/year are sport killed (6.2% success)

-in Tanzania, quota is 500 with 50% success (250 killed/yr avg)


it's recommended that a 6-8% offtake is sustainable. Taz's sport offtake is 1.7% (concentrated in 13% of the lion's range)



I don't have a dog in the fight, and I did read this quickly, but I can't see hunters causing the lions major problems. (They're killing 1.7% per year and at that only have access to 13% of the lion's range)

first of all I know that Tanzania has a Lion problem that needs attention, a lot of the big males are not there anymore and a big black maned Lion is almost impossible to find and I see a lot of lesser males being shot..Some recent legislation has limited the age of lions to be taken and the number of Lions to be taken, and that should help..Poaching can and has and will always be a problem from neighboring states and local establishment.

Lions are very difficult to manage in that if a big male kills or runs off the Alpha male in a herd then that big male will kill most or all of the cubs, natures way of curtailing in breeding, but I am sure that puts a dent in Lion populations..

I think some measures need to be taken in Tanzania on both Lions and Elephants but that does not include stopping all hunting of the species, perhaps a moritorium would work? dunno, just some better controls if that is possible is needed..I don't know the answers just have some ideas and suggestions. I have attended some privite sessions with a few of the Tanzanian hi-archy of Wildlife and it was somewhat of a Chinese airraid drill IMO..One gets the opinnion that they could do fine without Lions eating their kin! but in the same line of thought, I probably could too if it was my mama!

If you loose 1100 plus males in a year and legal hunters take 500 or more precisely 250 or so IE not all tags are filled, you need to go back to math class because we are not responsible for 90-95% deaths of breeding males... less than 50% by number.. and as low as 25%.... DON"T COUNT POACHERS IN WITH HUNTERS there dude....