The false notion of lion conservation

The decision to list lions on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) from the Obama Administration marks a continued attack on American sportsmen and women. As we have seen many times before, this Administration and its appointed Agency heads seek out facts that fit with their ideological view, and choose to ignore science.  While the administration tries to spin the entire listing as a victory for the conservation of lions, a closer examination tells a different story.

To understand what happened, we must first understand the listing itself.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed African lions as two separate subspecies – Panthera leo leo, found in western and central Africa, and Panthera leo melanochaita, found in southern and eastern Africa.  Lions in western and central Africa will be listed as “endangered,” while southern and eastern Africa lions will be listed as “threatened.”  With the listing of southern and eastern African lions as “threatened,” the administration has sided with animal rights extremist groups that falsely sell themselves to the public as conservation groups.

{mosads}Dan Ashe, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, claimed that his service “is doing everything it can with everything it has to set a new course for the conservation of the African lion.”  As a wholesale statement, nothing could be further from the truth.  In reality, Ashe has aligned the Fish & Wildlife Service with groups that are not focused on conservation, but groups who oppose hunting for any reason.

Ashe further stated, “It is the responsibility of the hunting industry and the American hunter in particular to do better,” he continued. “If we are going to recover lion populations and ensure that lions continue to live on the savannahs of Africa and the forests of India, then it’s going to be important to do better.”

Yet he missed an essential part of the equation.  Both he and the administration are calling for hunters to “do better,” but don’t recognize that the majority of conservation efforts and funding come from hunters such as the members of Safari Club International (SCI).  Were it not for lion hunting, both subspecies of lion could well have gone extinct long ago. 

As dedicated hunter-conservationists, we understand that lion hunting brings economic value to the lion itself, encouraging local communities to conserve their lions rather than allow them to be poached because of the damage they do to livestock, and the danger they pose to villagers.  Even the Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that big game hunting is important to conservation.

Hunters have invested millions of millions of dollars in conservation of African species, working directly with local governments and regulatory agencies through our various forums, such as or annual “African Wildlife Consultative Forum.”  This meeting of stakeholders is sponsored by the SCI Foundation for discussion and adoption of best practices by nations in the lion range, and it wouldn’t take place without the vital funding provided by U.S. hunters. 

Anti-hunting groups, by contrast, have invested nothing but pious outrage in their zeal to end all hunting everywhere.  The media is making a flat-out mistake when it identifies anti-hunting groups as “conservation” groups.  The primary conservation practiced by anti-hunting groups like the Humane Society of the United States is the cultivation and manipulation of their fundraising list.  Make no mistake, while their focus is currently lions in Africa these groups have stated publicly they want to end all hunting everywhere.

Listing the lion on the ESA will not change whether lions are hunted or how many lions are hunted; it simply changes the nationality of the hunter and the manner in which the lions are taken.  U.S. hunters will be unable to import lions into the United States without permits, some categories of which are nearly impossible to obtain.  While the import permit limitations may discourage U.S. hunters from hunting lions, they will hurt lion conservation by taking away revenue.

This truism is already proven on the frozen tundra to our north in Canada.  The U.S. banned imports when it listed the polar bear under the ESA, but it didn’t change the number of bears that are hunted every year.  It simply changed the nationality of the hunters and the amount of money going towards polar bear conservation.  

As with polar bears, lion hunters from other nations will replace U.S. hunters but pay less for their hunting opportunities.  But lions will continue to be killed by locals in retaliation for livestock killings and for the mortal danger they pose to villagers – neither of which brings revenue to local communities.

The ESA listing brings an equal number of — or perhaps even more — lions lost, with much less revenue for lion conservation and local community participation in conservation. This is just another example of this administration irresponsibly throwing around added regulations without understanding their detriment to show allegiance to groups that share their ideological bent.

Higgins is president of Safari Club International.