Not that it matters…but:…Is it safe to say that Cecil would have been killed by poachers had Walter not slayed him? Perhaps the local guides knew this…
Well maybe.
But also remember the man paid I believe $50,000 for the right to shoot this animal. That $50,000 goes a long way in a country like Zimbabwe which has 80% unemployment.
In fact many Zimbabwaehttp://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/8/cecil-who-zimbabweans-ask.htmlns see this more as a 1rst world problem: Link to story. “Cecil Who?”
You bring up a good point because Zimbabwe control its wild animal population just like any other country and lions are culled when their numbers get too high.
Lions can and will be killed by locals who know damn well their is no difference between a good and bad lion. Both are dangerous to humans and livestock.
LINK -“What lion”?
A quote
"For most people in the southern African nation, where unemployment tops 80 percent and the economy continues to feel the after-effects of billion percent hyperinflation a decade ago, the uproar had all the hallmarks of a ‘First World Problem’.
“Are you saying that all this noise is about a dead lion? Lions are killed all the time in this country,” said Tryphina Kaseke, a used-clothes hawker on the streets of Harare. “What is so special about this one?”
As with many countries in Africa, in Zimbabwe big wild animals such as lions, elephants or hippos are seen either as a potential meal, or a threat to people and property that needs to be controlled or killed."
Also
"“Why are the Americans more concerned than us?” said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father-of-two cleaning his car in the center of the capital. “We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange.”
So think about this while you 1rst worlders are sipping your lattes and your only worry is your internet connection.
But you see the difference, right, between controlled, regulated, sustainable hunting and what this guy did?
Game hunting is a valuable part of the Zimbabwean economy, for sure. But those revenues (and tourism revenues) rely on vibrant game parks, and vibrant game parks need to be actively managed to stay that way. These parks are maintained by well-trained professionals (I’ve met some of them.) They have rules for a reason.
This guy felt like those rules didn’t apply to him. Maybe his individual impact isn’t a game changer, but if enough people do it, it will be. And at the very least it is disrespectful and arrogant to walk into another country and break their rules.
Then that is an issue for the local law enforcement. Its not like this American just swooped in, shot a lion, and left without paying. He was part of what he thought was a legal guide.
However, his own actions have brought so much bad publicity to trophy hunting that it will likely decrease that revenue stream for Zimbabwe in the future. So, no, this guy hasn’t actually had a positive effect on conservation in Zimbabwe considered over the long run.
My thought initially, but in fact he has a conviction for deliberately violating hunting regulations here in the US, so I don’t accept that he was acting in ignorance in this case. It is those regulations that make this kind of hunting acceptable at all. The permissible hunting is intended to fund conservation efforts, but he was acting like the poachers who would have killed very lion, elephant, and rhino in Africa by now without the conservation effort.
Bolding mine. Or what he says he thought was a legal guide. His past actions cast doubt that he’s telling the truth.
People sometimes … what is word … prevaricate when they are “in trouble”.
Ya think?
I don’t imagine that the trophy-seeking big-game hunters of the world will be much dissuaded from pursuing their particular “hobby” over this.
Yeah, I do, actually.
Some won’t, but some will. And I think at least some countries may place more restrictions on it.
This event certainly isn’t going to improve the acceptability of trophy-hunting.
It you are the type of person to spend tens of thousands of dollars hunting animals, I doubt you are just going to up and quit because of this.
What you will likely go is pay a little more attention to the law. Since the law is there to ensure that hunting and ecotourism is sustainable, that’s not a bad thing.
Likewise, countries that use hunting revenues to fund conservation activities aren’t just going to stop. What they might do is step up their enforcement (though this capacity is already stretched by commercial poachers). Again, not a bad thing.
A couple of airlines have stepped up to the plate, banning the transportation of big game trophies on their flights. Congress could fix this in 10 minutes, just pass legislation banning the importation of big game trophies.
Except that most trophies are not lion heads or jaguar skins. I suspect most trophies are like antelopes and such. I’m (obviously, I think) opposed to trophy hunting. But I can imagine villagers (or the guides) pointing to the carcass as the hunter is walking away with the head and pelt, and saying ‘Um… You gonna eat that?’ As distasteful as it is, I don’t see a justification to ban the importation of prey animal trophies.
You could argue that you said ‘big game’ trophies. But what’s ‘big game’? Isn’t it defined as a large animal that is hunted? I think caribou count, and few people complain about people shooting them. Bison no longer cover the Great Plains, but they’re not on the verge of extinction. Congress would have to define ‘big game’ for legal purposes. Once they did that, they’d have to come up with a list of big game animals, including ones analogous the the domestic ones I mentioned. And then it would be pointed out that many or most of the animals on the list are not endangered. If they did ban the importation of big game trophies, it would certainly take more than ten minutes!
But with Republicans in charge of the House, and with Democrats who are sympathetic to hunting, it isn’t going to happen.