Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Cecil the lion - Possible cull required now

  1. #1
    Loyal Member

    User Info Menu

    Default Cecil the lion - Possible cull required now


  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #2
    Loyal Member

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Thanks for the link. Interesting article to read for sure.
    I haven't really been able to wrap my head around all of the numbers. But there are a few things that stand out to me.
    Cecil was killed in July, the outcry didn't happen with well after that (as far as them losing customers from the "Cecil effect" it wouldn't have happened immediately the day Cecil was shot) So let's say it's been 6 months (and i feel that's an overly generous length of time that the "cecil effect" existed for)?
    HOW, in 6 months of "lower customers" could their lion population balloon from 300 to 500??? It sounds to me like they're loosing money, and this is their PR attempt at getting hunters back.
    They obviously have issues within the conservancy that have nothing to do with low hunter numbers if they have a 200 lion overpopulation in 6 months time. It's not like they would have normally had 200 hunters take 200 lions in the last 6 months, that would never be a sustainable model for a park that normally has 300 lions.

    So i'm not sure what this ONE conservancy is doing so wrong (contraceptives and other issues are mentioned, in the article, and if you look them up they're fairly universally loathed for things like "kill a lion" raffles) but i can pretty well guarantee that losing hunters is not the major culprit in their overpopulation issue. Although i would believe they've lost a lot of money, and this is their attempt at publicizing the "we need to hunt lions, for the sake of the lions" stake in the game...

    anyways, no judgement either way. just looks like a PR move to me, because even some basic math (and i will agree my math skills are always basic) pokes tons of holes in their assertion that "The "Cecil effect" is creating their overpopulation" propaganda."

    Obviously we all believe in hunting. this is just an odd article, from an odd source, so i take it with a grain of salt.

  4. #3
    Has all the answers

    User Info Menu

    Default

    How much are they paying per lion. What about airfare.

  5. #4
    Loyal Member

    User Info Menu

    Default

    1500$ per raffle ticket. 100 tickets were being sold per lion. that's for an 18 day safari. no airfare included i don't believe.

    they're a hunting reserve. and they're hurting for money.

  6. #5
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    How can the numbers increase that fast? Each pride in the park has a few lioness and each lioness will have four or more cubs, so in a year the numbers of lions forming new prides and looking for territory means that the park is too crowded to hold them and they move into the surrounding farms and other places outside the park. There are also more lions in the country then just the ones in the park.
    Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.

  7. #6
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowwalker View Post
    How can the numbers increase that fast?
    I think it may be a matter that it didn't decrease that fast...hunters are required to cull the herds annual to keep the numbers balanced and if 200 hunters don't come to hunt, then that is 200 lions they have add to the next years target total.

  8. #7
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    I wouldn't discount,out of hand, that this isn't about the lack of hunters. The over-the-top pubicity and international vilification of the hunter would absolutely have an adverse affect on others. People would be bat-shyte nuts to walk into that. The average African Safari can cost between $75K-$100K per hunter. No doubt,there's safaris that can be done on the cheap,but,I'm not aware of any. Now,if,for arguments sake,even 100 hunters pass up these areas and go elsewhere,that's a bucketload of loot out of the local economy which doesn't amount to much at the best of times.
    If a tree falls on your ex in the woods and nobody hears it,you should probably still get rid of your chainsaw. Just sayin'....

  9. #8
    Has all the answers

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Four cubs or more per lioness.
    Wow. Better bring a semi auto.

  10. #9
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glen View Post
    Four cubs or more per lioness.
    Wow. Better bring a semi auto.
    When the first litter of cubs are weaned, the lioness can again enter estrus and a second litter is born before the surviving cubs of the first litter reach the age of 24 months and are forced out (males) or leave because of low social rank (females). So as long as the pride male is not driven off by an other male, a lioness can have two litters of cubs. One being weaned and the older one learning to hunt. Makes for a lot of lions coming down the pipe.
    Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.

  11. #10
    Getting the hang of it

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Not sure how everyone else feels but thats not really "hunting" as much as it is "skilled killing"...not sure anyone who has been on these hunts is actually eating lion... seems like only for a trophy for the egotistical kill crazy lunatic that just wants to shoot stuff to hang on the wall...I love hunting but killing for fun and hunting are definately different ideas. Anyone who pays to go on these adventures is rediculous. That being said if you live there and hunt lions for more than just a trophy thats great but doubtful the majority are. And if they need to do a cull to protect other species thats great...but fail to see why they should commercialize it and promote to outside the commumity/country. Its this type of "hunting" that makes us look bad in the public opinion...if they have an overpopulation than hire locals to get rid of them...its just a money grab because people pay so why not take their money..they could easily enough train or hire people to do this without the commercial aspect. If they need the money its a poor excuse for income IMO and its obvious the government under Mugabe is corrupt and not promoting wildlife managment...lets kill lions and charge tons of money to save the antelope and call ourselves wildlife conservationists...it may work but its not right.
    Last edited by GrizzlyAdams; February 24th, 2016 at 05:26 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •