|
ALBERT
AGAINST LION BREEDING
AND ECOLOGICAL RE-INTRODUCTION TOURISM
A CON-CONSERVATION CAUSE?
THE CONSERVATION ANGLE
The main argument against the ALERT project is that leading lion researchers have united to state that they see no conservation merit in reintroducing lions into the wild - see their joint statement (Aug 2006) and statement by Dr Sarel van der Merwe (Dec 2007).
Wild populations are limited by human pressures, both directly through hunting and persecution, and indirectly through habitat loss. Given adequate habitat and prey species, wild lion populations are quick to recover in the wild (as has been shown with recent studies in Hwange National Park), and there are many reasons why it is not desirable to relocate or release lions into areas with existing natural populations – male displacement and resulting infanticide being one.
Dr Sarel van der Merwe, Chairman of the African Lion Work Group, affiliated with the Cat Specialist Group and also the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, made the following statements - see LIONSCAM! Statement by Dr Sarel van der Merwe (Dec 2007).
1 - ‘Rehabilitated’ captive-bred lions can only be released into relatively small areas, such as properly fenced-off game farms and private nature reserves. In such case, invasive management will always be necessary, such as removing of the breeding males to prevent inbreeding, replacing them with younger, non-related males.
2 - In such case the older males will have to be placed elsewhere – and where will that be? I’m of opinion that such males will have to be hunted for trophy purposes. Trophy hunting, if scientifically managed, is not a negative, though it will always be controversial.
3 - Rehabilitated lions do not have natural fear or respect for humans, and, as was the case with the Born-Free lions of George and Joy Adamson, they will become man-eaters. Few people are aware of this, and I’ve always wondered of this fact remains untold because it may suit some people’s philosophies. Such lions also become livestock raiders.
4 - There are no vacuums left in Africa where free-ranging lions can be reintroduced. Human encroachment will have to be controlled, and to achieve that, we will have to convince African governments to cooperate – please refer to the Regional Lion Strategies of IUCN.
The ALERT Project has no conservation value at all. Wild, free-ranging lion populations cannot be saved from extinction through this method. We should rather spend our money and expertise to find ways of protecting existing wild lion populations.
Dr Sarel van der Merwe
Chair: African Lion Working Group
Associated with the Cat and Conservation Breeding Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC
Over a year prior to this, Dr Craig Packer (founder and chief researcher of the Lion Research Centre, Tanzania), Dr Luke Hunter (Global Carnivore Program Coordinator for the Wildlife Conservation Society) and Dr Paula White (of the Center for Tropical Research, University of California and Luangwa Lion Project, Zambia), all put their names to a statement against the aims of the ALERT project (see LIONSCAM! Joint Statement) in August 2006 which stated:
"The claim that releasing captive bred lions into national parks and wild areas will serve any conservation purpose by augmenting lion numbers is wholly unsubstantiated. Further, it fails to take into account the genetic structure of lion subpopulations. Far from proving advantageous, the released animals may, in fact, introduce deleterious genes or diseases into established wild lion populations, or otherwise alter the local adaptations of the naturally occurring genetic stocks."
"Given reasonable protection from excessive mortality and sufficient food resources (e.g., game species), wild lions have the capacity to naturally repopulate a depleted area. In addition to conserving local genetic adaptations, the advantages of natural recovery versus introductions include greater stability to pride structure and movements, and greater predictability as to distance and direction of dispersers. Moreover, a naturally recovering predator population will exist at a density that is appropriate for both game populations and available habitat, thereby reducing the risk of conflict with humans and livestock."
"It is emphasized here that Walking with Lions has no conservation value."
The ALERT project has the support of no recognised international conservation organisations, nor is it affiliated with any internationally recognised academic universities or scientific researchers. The IUCN does not recognise the need for lion captive breeding or reintroduction as part its lion conservation strategy.
Wild lion populations have been shown to be quick to recover if left un-persecuted and with suitable habitat and prey populations - there is no need for the ALERT re-introduction programme, the captive breeding or the lion walking, and their project should therefore be viewed simply as a profiteering business which uses the name of conservation for its own benefit in attracting the finances of unsuspecting tourists and volunteers. The main threats to lion populations are conflict with local human populations (especially in relation to domestic livestock predation) and habitat destruction - and this project does little to address either issue. If fact it could be argued that this project, through its proposed multi-stage captive holding programme, and establishment of large fenced areas, is actually harming conservation efforts.
There are also many, more direct ways to address the problems facing our lion populations; more accurate population surveys and demographics; more accurate 'sustainable' quotas for trophy hunting; more education and research into ways to reduce human-lion conflict; more effective conservation management of lion habitat; more research into lion ecology... but no-one suggests reintroductions as an answer - except of course the captive lion breeders looking for a justification for their tourism and volunteer projects.
Dr Andrew Loveridge, of the Hwange Lion Research Project, who has been studying lion populations in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe for eight years, supports this view:
"Reintroductions are not the appropriate intervention for halting declining lion populations. The issue is not that there are too few lions, there is too little safe lion habitat and this is declining rapidly. Small scale, highly expensive reintroductions are not dealing with the problem and I believe that efforts and funding should be focussed on securing and protecting existing habitat."
Dr Laurence Frank, of the Laikipia 'Living with lions' Predator Project in Kenya and a well respected scientific researcher on lions, asks the following questions - "What evidence is there that reintroduction of captive-bred lions into the wild produces a viable breeding population?", and "If a population needs to be re-established, why not use wild-caught lions"?. Here he is referring to wild lions which come into conflict with human populations, and which often become livestock raiders. Current methods to deal with such animals are often limited to one option – extermination.
Dr Loveridge and Dr Frank has since also given their names in support of the joint statement issued by Dr Packer and colleagues.
Therefore this is not a ‘conservation’ programme in any common sense of the word. Perhaps it could best be described as a ‘captive management’ programme. Do we really want an Africa with its magnificent wild animals contained behind fences? These areas will be cursed with ongoing management interventions, as in the example of elephant populations in many National Parks, where culling is again being discussed as the only viable method to control over-populations. This takes us back to the likelihood that lions kept in these fenced areas will ultimately be managed through trophy hunting. Whilst this may be more desirable than hunting wild lions, conservationists should surely be taking down the fences, not helping putting them up!
The one African country whose conservation management policies and lion populations could perhaps be supplemented by a 'reintroduction' policy is South Africa, where major protected areas, such as Kruger National Park, are already fenced. However, South Africa also has a policy "to reintroduce only wild caught lions into National Parks" (SANParks Veterinary Wildlife Services, personal communication). South Africa is also already cursed with the reputation of the unethical 'canned hunting' industry, where captive bred lions are released on private game farms specifically for the hunt – often in contravention of acceptable hunting practices. So the one country where the ALERT project would perhaps, on a small scale, be effective has policies which will prevent it from ever releasing captive bred lions into wild areas or its national parks. We understand that previous attempts by the Antelope Park / ALERT Lion Encounter project to expand into South Africa were met with firm opposition from within the country.
Yolan Friedmann, CEO of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, based in South Africa, has stated "we only support breeding programmes for species where captive breeding has been identified as a conservation priority and where successful reintroduction is both possible and achievable. This is not the case with any of our local carnivore species. The issue with all threatened carnivores relates to human-wildlife conflict, persecution and loss of viable and secure habitat/ranges. This forms the basis of all of our carnivore conservation programmes which address the threats to carnivores in the wild and the need for public education."
In another southern African country, Namibia, captive breeding of large carnivores is strictly regulated, and guests or visitors are prevented
from coming into contact with captive animals as part of 'interaction experience' such as lion walking. Like South Africa, Namibia has a policy of not releasing captive bred lions into National protected areas. In fact we believe there are no southern African countries who would currently accept lions from ALERT for release into wild areas, raising issues over the genetic suitability of their lions if they propose to be release them outside of the region.
All these questions raise serious doubts over the validity of the ALERT 'rehabilitation' and 'reintroduction' project, their self-claimed conservation merit and therefore their whole 'conservation volunteer' programme - as well as the UK charitable status of ALERT (see UK Charity Commission) – achieved on the basis of its conservation work with the Africa lion…
Leading lion researchers misrepresented
There is also good reason to believe that the ALERT project has repeatedly and intentionally miss-represented leading conservation individuals to try and encourage a more sympathetic view of their project.
For example, in presentations in support of their expansion into Zambia (see LIONSCAM! Lion Project Give Their Side), they have quoted Dr Sarel van der Merwe to give the impression of his support. As is clear from the above statements, he does not support the project in anyway and has stated that whilst he has been quoted correctly, it is presented completely out of context.
Norman Monks, Senior Warden for Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Management Authority is also quoted in support of the project - when we contacted him he had no idea his name or words had been used in this manner. Again he is not in support of the project.
ALERT have also regularly claimed the support of Dr R Taylor of the World Wildlife Fund's Southern Africa Regional Program Office - however again the reality is slightly different. Dr Taylor's name and WWF support are directly implied in the same presentations in Zambia (LIONSCAM!), and also in discussion on the travel forum TripAdvisor in which David Youldon uses WWFs name in support of their lion project.
In fact Dr Taylor's letter, from which this 'support' arises was written before the ALERT project even started operating, and refers only to the animal health and safety issues relating to the captive lion breeding centre at Antelope Park, and not the 'rehabilitation' and 'reintroduction' stages of the ALERT project. Dr Taylor has since confirmed that his comments have again been miss-represented (see also No-go NGOs under 'Ethical Perspectives').
Can you help?
If you have any comments, advice or information which can help us in our work to highlight the issues relating to the ALERT project, please email - emailquentinjones[at]yahoo.co.uk
| | |