Lions are never thought of as endangered. In fact few people realise they could be facing extinction in the wild. Their official conservation status is 'Vulnerable', and so they come under the umbrella term of being threatened. I would guess that if you asked 100 people if lions were endangered, the majority would say no. However there are a number of challenges facing lions that threaten the species. There are only about 20k wild lions across the continent of Africa. 

I've recently discovered Kevin Richardson's YouTube channel and the work he's doing. If you haven't heard of "The Lion Whisperer", as he is also known I recommend checking out his YouTube and website. He is working extremely hard to spread the message about the plight of lions, and all the problems they face, while looking after a great number of lions and other beautiful Africa animals. Since finding his channel, I have become a big fan and love watching his videos so have a look! The reason I mention him is because he is very vocal about the threats to lions, both in captivity and in the wild and I have learnt of  what I want to talk about from him through his youtube/website/twitter/instagram. I also spent a month this summer volunteering at a wonderful sanctuary with big cats in South Africa and so I learnt a lot there too. 

Conflicts between humans and lions over livestock has caused many problems for lions, and is arguably the strongest threat to lions. Lions that attack both people and livestock nearly always end up being killed. Both pre-emptive killings and retaliatory killings of lions by rural people are colossal threats to lions. 

Another example of human-lion conflict is lions getting caught in snares used for bush meat hunting. Snares are set up for the hope of warthog, antelope or other forms of bush meat. This is illegal and often other animals get caught in them, including lions. It is known as the "Silent Killer".

Another big and important threat to lions in Africa is habitat loss. Habitat loss leads to isolation which in turn leads to genetic isolation and inbreeding between wild lions. Inbreeding between lions is dangerous, and that's why breeding within captivity often results in difficulties genetically for the lions. Lions are being pushed out of their habitats into less and less land. Conflicts between people and lions often lead to increased habitat loss also. 

I can't write a lion post and not talk about Canned Hunting. I've written a whole post about this which you can read so I'm going to try not to repeat myself, or go into too much detail about what Canned Hunting is (if you want to know more, click here). Canned Hunting or captive-bred hunting are obviously threats to captive lions as they are drugged and killed when in their prime. They often don't get to live any semblance of a normal life for a lion, as the cubs are often snatched away from their parents at a young age, and there aren't prides of families of lions in sanctuaries practising Canned Hunting. The cubs are often hand-reared, when they didn't need to be. 

Canned Hunting also threatens wild lions. It is often argued that captive-bred hunting helps reduce the hunting of wild lions. This is not the case. Lions are often taken from the wild to prevent inbreeding of captive lions, and many people would much rather hunt a wild lion because its a fair chase. Therefore, the industry for captive bred hunting was created unnecessarily. Trophy hunters, or people who hunt lions in the wild, are obviously a threat too. Social media is often outraged by this, especially after Cecil was shot in 2015. 

Trade in lion bones threatens the lion population, used in traditional medicine in the far east as lion bone wine, which is also used as a substitute for tiger bone wine. It is legal to sell the bones from a lion, and the thinking is that if the demand can be supplied from captive lions, often the victim of canned hunts, then the wild lions should be left alone. However it is impossible to know whether the bones being sold came from a captive or wild lion. Another major issue with this, is that there is evidence to suggest lions are being smuggled from the wild to captivity which is illegal. This also severely threatens the status of lions in the wild. Unsurprisingly, money is the main driver of this. Bringing in wild lions prevents inbreeding and so fuels the Canned Hunting industry, but a lion skeleton can be sold on top of the price of shooting the lion. A lion skeleton could fetch up to $1,560 without a skull and $2,100 with a skull. This lucrative market means more captive owners are likely to join, and lion poaching also becomes a major threat. 

There are also large discrepancies between the number of wild lions hunted, and the number of lions being exported. Between 2004 and 2010, 1138 more lions were exported from South Africa than were hunted. Lions were also being exported to Laos in 2009, without any record of anyone from Laos hunting lions. This suggests a certain level of corruption happening when it comes to lion breeding, and that people are in it for the money. 

All in all, there are a great number of threats to lions, and to say they are not endangered is wrong. A big issue I have noticed amongst these threats, is that they are extremely interlinked. Therefore, to help protect lions, these threats all need to be addressed, especially creating a world where lions and people can co-exist without conflict. 

"If you are against a legal trade, you are for illegal trade." This is something I see written or heard said all the time and of course, it is not as black and white as that. However there is a lot to be said for this argument. If you are against a legal trade in rhino horn, you are probably not pro-poaching (unless you are a poacher/involved in poaching activity of course), but by preventing a legal trade, we are giving the monopoly on trade in rhino horn to criminals. 

As a general rule, people want to help people. I've been speaking to a lot of people since the debate who are pro-trade and I've learnt even more about the work being done in South Africa to help move the discussions along. What I want to talk about in this post is who benefits from illegal trade and who would benefit from a legal trade in rhino horn. This post is about people. 

In a nutshell, the only people who benefit from illegal trade are people who benefit from the plight of rhinos. This is anyone who makes money from rhinos being endangered. The obvious ones are the poachers and criminal syndicates; the people in Africa who poach the rhinos and sell the horn overseas for lots of money. But it's not just them who benefit. Without being too cynical, some charities and NGOs could be benefitting from the endangered status of rhinos. If rhinos weren't endangered, their existence would be unnecessary. Now I'm not saying that some organisations don't want to help rhinos, because I believe they all do. I'm also not saying that anyone who doesn't support legal trade doesn't want to help rhinos, because again, I'm sure they do. But wanting to help rhinos, and helping rhinos, are two different things. The rhino situation is complex, and too many people are looking for a quick fix, or one sole solution. There isn't one. As I said in my previous post, if the ban on trade in rhino horn is lifted, this is not the end. This is really just the beginning of a long journey to increase rhino numbers. That's just the reality of it; you cannot save an entire species over night. Another thing people seem to do is compare other animals in similar situations, and try and find one solution that can cater to all. This is also not feasible. Every animal and every situation is different and should be treated as such. With rhinos, a legal trade has the potential to allow rhinos to save themselves. That's why, to me, not supporting legal trade is controversial. 

The only other group that benefit from illegal trade, are the people in China and Vietnam who are selling rhino horn products. They are able to sell them at extortionately high prices for the sole reason that they contain rhino horn. Therefore, they are making more money than they would, by exploiting people's beliefs. They even put rhino horn in everyday medicines, such as paracetamol, and up the price, charging people extremely high prices for something no better than your standard pain relief. The governments in these countries, and countries in Africa, are doing little to nothing to improve this situation. Either they don't care about losing rhinos or scamming people, or they have something to gain (probably money) from this too. 

Therefore, my rather short list of those who benefit from illegal trade in rhino horn includes criminals, corrupt governments and salesmen, and perhaps some corrupt charities and NGOs.

On a lighter note, I want to talk about who would benefit from a legal trade. As I said at the beginning, people want to help people. I think by knowing more about what a legal trade in rhino horn can do for people, more people will support it. 

John Hume's model for legal trade encourages rural communities to get involved in the breeding and care of rhinos. By giving rural communities rhinos to look after, they can make money from selling the horns. It also gives them work, and is self-sufficient.  There are organisations in place, ready to do this, but they need a legal trade for it to work. For animals in Africa to survive, the local people need to be involved. There are areas identified for rhino breeding projects to begin, and donors ready to supply the rhinos. A legal trade can instantly begin make a difference, and will help rural communities in Africa. 
Legal trade will also massively help the current rhino owners. Rhinos have the means to protect themselves, but under the current laws they are unable to do this. With a legal trade, rhino owners will be able to sell off the stockpiles they have of horn, and use the money to continue to protect their rhino. The money they make from selling the horn can help fund APUs (anti-poaching units), fund further de-horning, which needs to be done every couple of years (rhino horn grows back!!!) and everything else they are currently struggling to pay for to keep their rhinos healthy, safe and alive.
The last group of people I'm going to talk about, even though there are many more (all good things come in 3s), are the people in Asia who are buying rhino horn products. I'm not talking about the rich, who buy rhino horn as elaborate gifts and a sign of wealth and power (although a legal trade would benefit them too). I'm talking about the poor, who spend ridiculous amounts of money on medicine that doesn't work, because they've been told it'll cure their loved ones. In my previous post I talked about how some people say it's unethical to legally sell this. If it's unethical to legally sell it, it's certainly unethical to continue allowing it to be illegally sold. No one is denying this trade exists. Even the people who don't support legal trade are fully aware that illegal trade exists and on a large scale. If the selling of rhino horn medicines was legal, there would be regulations on it. Again, in my previous post I posed the idea of warnings on the packet, as we have with cigarettes in the UK, to tell people there is no evidence that rhino horn possesses medicinal value. With a legal and regulated trade, we can help to educate people that this medicine is not going to do what they believe it will do; it cannot cure cancer and it's not an aphrodisiac. Education is so important, but with an illegal trade, we cannot control what people are promised and ideas they are sold. With a legal trade, we can try. A legal trade can also regulate the price. By providing competition with the black market, the price will drop and the black markets will crumble. Even if poaching doesn't stop completely, as it probably won't, it will dramatically decrease. Why risk your life to poach a rhino for less money? Why buy a black market product when you can buy the same thing legally? 

A legal trade makes sense. What doesn't make sense, is acknowledging that there is a trade in rhino horn, and allowing the criminals to be the only people to profit from it. 
A lot of people who are against legal trade believe that educating the people in China, Vietnam and elsewhere, that they shouldn't buy rhino horn is a far better solution. If we went down this route and convinced people not to buy it, by the time we got anywhere we would all be dead and rhinos would be extinct in the wild. It's not sustainable or realistic. I'm a strong believer in the power of education and awareness, and believe we should never stop promoting the truth, but this will be so much easier and more successful when partnered with a legal trade. 
Save the rhino, not its horn. 

A couple of days ago my friend and I went to the debate at the Royal Institution of Great Britain on whether the trade of rhino horn should be legalised internationally. It was between John Hume, the largest private rhino breeder in South Africa, and Will Travers, the CEO and President of the Born Free Foundation, and moderated by Craig Packer, a professor of ecology. 

We voted for or against at the beginning and the end. The initial vote showed that 62% were against, 30% were for and 8% were undecided. After the debate, 60% were against and 39% were for, with only 1% undecided. Therefore, more people were against legal trade, but more people changed their mind to support John Hume. I'm sure you all can guess that I voted for both times. I was disappointed that not more people did. 

I don't know much about Will Travers and I do not want to overly criticise him, however I was surprised he won. The audience was very passionate and so the debate was actually an hour longer than expected, because people felt so strongly on both sides. 

To me, Will Travers seemed like a preservationist/protectionist. He talked about how we shouldn't interfere with nature and the wild should be left wild. He talked a lot about the risks associated with a legal trade. I wanted to ask him, although I didn't get the chance, at what point would he risk extinction? He never really acknowledged that rhinos are heading for extinction. We don't live in the ideal world he seemed to want where humans don't interfere with wildlife. Whether you think it's right or wrong, there reaches a point where it is necessary for the sake of the wildlife; conservation vs preservation. It's idealistic and I think it helped win people over. 

John Hume spoke a lot about his rhinos. He spoke with emotion and passion, and used his own life to demonstrate the rhino crisis. Although some people felt he was making too much of a point of his own rhinos, and Will Travers was talking more globally, I disagreed. I think it is so important to listen to the people who are actually looking after the rhinos. No one knows better than them exactly what problems they are facing. I think it is easy for people from London to go and listen to the debate, and hear some facts, figures and stories and then make a decision without fully understanding the issue. John Hume understands it better than anyone. Now I'm not saying to understand rhino poaching you have to go to Africa and live on a rhino reserve, but I think we should take into account what the people who are doing that think. It's their whole lives. When we don't listen to the people who fight this war every single day, then what's the point?

It also worries me because people like John Hume need our support. The results of this debate worried me because it showed that people will listen to a man in a nice suit over a rhino breeder. They are both experts in their field, and I do not doubt Will Travers' research and experience, but John Hume has given his money and life to this cause. He risks everything to help save these animals, and people didn't listen to him. 

What annoyed me about the debate was that Will Travers referred to other solutions that would be less risky and more helpful. As far as I can tell, he didn't name them. The only other solution I heard was to stamp out the demand. Members of the audience were vocal about this as they know that when the buying stops there will be no need for any trade in rhino horn, legal or otherwise. I do not dispute this. Of course I want to continue increasing awareness globally, and particularly in countries such as China and Vietnam that rhino horn has no medicinal purpose whatsoever, for their own sakes just as much as for the rhino's. However, I do not think we have enough time to do this before rhinos reach extinction in the wild. Time is not on our side and the market is too big. I think people who believe killing the market is the only solution, are naive. Will Travers tried to point out the negatives of a legal trade without presenting a realistic solution to replace this. 

Another argument Will Travers made was that it is arguably unethical to sell a product we know does not do what people who buy it think it does. I agree, but how many products do people buy on a daily basis that don't do what they think they're going to? Now this doesn't make it right, but its not as if it's unheard of. Secondly, as I said previously, education should work along side a legal trade. We should continue to tell people that rhino horn does not have medicinal value, even while selling the products legally. An analogy I sometimes use is smoking. When you buy cigarettes in the UK (and possibly elsewhere, I'm not sure) it says in big letters on the packet "Smoking Kills" or something similar, such as a nasty side effect, and a picture of often someone's lungs or arteries that have been effected by smoking. This is a legal requirement to make people aware of the health risks. 

People still smoke!

The moral of the story being, people are going to do what they want. If they like something or believe in it; they're going to buy it. I also think this analogy highlights a good way to package rhino horn products. In the ingredients section on the label I think it should read "keratin" and not rhino horn to remind people it's just hair, and it should even have written that there is no scientific proof that it has medicinal value. Then people know what they're buying, and it's their choice if they still buy it. This doesn't happen with illegal trade because there are no regulations. Legal trade has regulations that can be put in place and controlled. 

Will Travers made a point about a legal trade not necessarily meaning the end of poaching. He pointed out that if the price to buy rhino horn legally is say $30,000; then the poaching syndicates can sell rhino horn at $20,000. Obviously this makes sense at face value, but a legal trade will severely harm the black market. Rhino poaching is a very dangerous job. When you enter a reserve to poach a rhino, you are risking your life. It's appeal is the huge sums of money made (although of course those actually doing the poaching do not receive the bulk of this money, but it's still a lot more than they could make elsewhere). If this prize money gets lower and lower, it becomes less appealing. 

John Hume acknowledged that legal trade will probably not mark an end on all poaching, but it will dramatically decrease it. What John Hume did so well was focus on the fact we are talking about keeping a species alive. There's no easy option; no quick fix; no one solution. We have to do what we can, and fast, to prevent losing this iconic species. 

No one is arguing that a legal trade is perfect. No one is suggesting that we legalise the trade, sit back, relax and let things happen. It does not mark the end of saving rhinos. 

What I believe it can do, is bring the species back from the point of extinction. 

This blog post is my opinion. Obviously, based on the debate results and the opinions flying around the room, it is not the only opinion to have on the topic. I know not everyone will always share my view, but I urge people to consider what could happen to the species if a legal trade is not introduced. 

Trophy hunting is the hunting of wild animals for human recreation. Parts of the animal are often kept as a "trophy", hence the name. Seems pretty obvious, but it shouldn't be confused with the hunting of wild animals for meat, and definitely should not be confused with Canned Hunting. Although Canned Hunting can be described as a form of trophy hunting, not all trophy hunts are canned. 

My sister wrote a wonderful post about trophy hunting in Africa for LRRF's blog following his royal highness, Prince William's interview where he defended the practise. In this interview, Prince William said "there is a place for commercial hunting in Africa, as there is around the world". To put it simply, his argument is that if there is an old, infertile animal who is coming to the end of his life, and someone wants to pay a lot of money to shoot that animal, as long as that money goes back into conservation, then there is a place for it. I agree with this. 
I do not support the trophy hunting of endangered species. Rhinos, elephants, leopards, lions etc. are not trophies. Cecil the lion was a particularly famous case, and made trophy hunting a household concept. Everyone knew about it and everyone was talking about it. What happened to Cecil was a tragedy that should never have happened, and should never be repeated. However the awareness it brought to the issue is invaluable. Of course I wish that awareness was already there and I believe the death of an animal should not have been necessary, but it was and at least the message was spread. 
Cecil, however, was a special case. He was lured away from the sanctuary, and tracked for 40 hours after his initial shot from a bow. This is inhumane to say the least, and was an illegal hunt. Therefore this case was always going to have a backlash, but it led people to attack all trophy hunters, which was misdirected. Not all trophy hunts are like this. There is a rule that if the client does not kill the animal after 2 shots, the guides/local experts must take over to put the animal out of his misery. How much this is enforced, I do not know, but it shows there are humane guidelines in place. 
Prince William also indirectly points out the main difference between Canned and Trophy Hunting. The reason he gives for supporting some trophy hunts, is that if the money goes back into conservation, it's beneficial. This is the only time he supports it, and I support it too. In almost all (if not every single one) cases of Canned Hunting, the money is used to fund Canned Hunting. It does no good for the lives of the animals, or the conservation of the species. It's a money making business at the expense of innocent animals, and I can never support that. 
I would like to point out, that I would never go hunting of any animal myself. It does not appeal to me, and I could never deliberately take the life of another living creature. 
However, I do know that the trophy hunting of some game does bring in much needed revenue for conservation. For example, game such as some antelope species, which are not endangered. When animals of these species are old and infertile, as Prince William said, and people want to pay to shoot them, then it can be beneficial for conservation. 
I would like to point out, as Ricky Gervais often says, trophy hunters are not conservationists. They pay money to the conservationists, who use it to benefit the species. If the rich hunters were true conservationists, they would give the money and not kill the animal. 
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, we live in an economic world. Trophy hunting is not the ideal way to raise money, but it raises a lot of money that conservationists would struggle to find elsewhere. Without economic value, the status of so many animals would plummet. We have to consider the world we live in, and it's driven by money. Do I wish it wasn't? Of course I do, but sadly we have to face facts. This all ties into conservation vs preservation; conservationists know that trophy hunting raises much needed funds and so they will keep doing it until the money can come from other sources. 

There is so much I could say on this. It's such a broad and complicated topic, and so don't be surprised to see more posts on this in the future, but for now I leave you with this... 
I will never support the hunting of endangered species. Under the Conservation Status charts, for me that includes anything that comes under threatened and near threatened. However, IF the money raised from the hunting of non-threatened species is used to benefit the lives of other animals and progression of their species, then I can support it. 

I wanted to include some photos of some Antelope species to show how beautiful they are.

Giraffes are also popular "trophies"

Canned Hunting, or captive-bred hunting, is the shooting down of tamed lions. Lions are raised by humans for the sole purpose of being shot.

They are raised in enclosures of varying sizes, crammed full of lions, and then foreigners are let in to shoot them, or the lions are released as little as 48 hours before being hunted into a larger, but still small and finite, area. Often when this happens the lions are drugged so they are easier to find and the hunters can ensure they'll find them quickly. A hunt also becomes a canned hunt when lions are shot adjacent to other lions in captivity. The lions are raised by people, and so are not frightened by their approach. Canned Hunting is legal in South Africa. 

Before I go on, Canned Hunting is barbaric. It's the laziest form of hunting I can think of, and people will pay vast amounts of money to feel good about themselves, but in reality there is nothing to feel good about. It's an easy hunt; a coward's hunt and an unfair match.

Another message before I continue.. A lot of sanctuaries in South Africa practise Canned Hunting. Where I was, Felidae Centre, does not. This is one of the reasons I chose it. It showed to me that their hearts were in the right place and they were an ethical sanctuary, who put their animal's well-being first.

Canned Lion Hunting was exposed by the media quite some time ago. There was international outrage. People took to the internet and all manner of things to express their anger and frustration, and then there was a feeling as if a lot had been achieved. The buzz died down and people went back to their lives. Blood Lions was a film that came out in 2015 which a lot of people saw, and it educated people on the issue. So that's great, lots of people now knew about it. Sadly, little actually changed, and Canned Lion Hunting is still going on all over South Africa. Now, different provinces and areas have different rules and regulations regarding Canned Hunting, but it is legal to do in South Africa. A lot of people try to argue that is it illegal, however there is no legal definition of canned hunting, and so the lines are blurred and hunting practises that are canned hunts, are called something else and are permitted. The international attention has died down, but this doesn't mean it's over. 

A male lion on a canned hunt can fetch R250,000, which is roughly £12,500 or $16,666 (US). Therefore, the market is fairly lucrative and inviting. Sanctuaries are expensive to own and run, and so adopting Canned Hunting is an easy way to make money. I struggle with this because I can't imagine raising a lion for slaughter. These are beautiful, strong, social animals. To raise them by hand is a lot of work and a huge emotional investment. It must take a particularly cruel and greedy person to raise a lion with no emotional attachment, and then sit back and watch it be killed, in exchange for money.

Lion hunting in the bush can take days, weeks even. Canned Hunting was invented as a way to speed up the process; a guaranteed kill. Canned hunts are set up so the animal cannot evade the hunter. 

It goes without saying that animal welfare does not take a front seat position when it comes to Canned Hunting. The conditions at a lot of the farms who practise Canned Hunting are inferior to farms that don't, and lots of lions can be kept in small enclosures, forced together in artificial prides. A lot of people working, or volunteering at these farms might not even know they practise Canned Hunting. 

A lot of conservationists who have attempted to out the farms who practise Canned Hunting comment on the number of volunteers who go and look after the cubs and think they are making a difference. A lot of the time these cubs were taken from their mothers at young ages, before they are ready. This means the mothers can have more cubs faster and helps keep a constant supply of baby lions. The international volunteers will look after the latest lot of babies. But what happens when the volunteers have gone and those babies are too big now for interaction? They become eligible for hunts. 

If you want to volunteer on a lion farm, do your research! Make sure they do not practise Canned Hunting. If it is unclear, be sceptical. A lot of places against Canned Hunting are vocal about it, and a lot of places practising it try to keep quiet when it comes to attracting volunteers. 

Canned Hunting does not mean there is a decrease in the poaching of wild lions, despite what some say, which is a main reason why, despite any other argument, I could never support it. Firstly, cubs are often snatched from the wild to be raised for Canned Hunting. The adults are shot, purely so the cubs can be kidnapped. Wild lions are constantly being taken to help prevent inbreeding amongst the lions kept in captivity. Therefore, a ban on Canned Hunting would lead to a decrease in wild lion hunting. 

Secondly, a reasonable majority of what I would call trophy hunters, who hunt wild lions and other game, would not go canned hunting because they do not see it as a "fair chase." They would be right of course, it is not a fair chase. Every canned hunt is rigged so that the lion dies and the hunter gets his kill. However a lot of trophy hunters enjoy hunting for the chase and the challenge. They like a more level playing field. Therefore, canned hunting is appealing to certain people, who want their 'trophy' but without the hard work. They are less likely to hunt wild lions and so canned hunting is an industry created to suit these people, who would not be killing lions if it did not exist. Hence, canned hunting is not helping to protect wild lions. 

The situation is pretty bleak. Although banning Canned Hunting in South Africa is unlikely, particularly as President Zuma stated that "Compassion for animals is un-African"; it is not impossible. 

Public awareness is SO important. I say this all the time, and will continue to say it. Whatever you feel about trophy hunting, understanding the difference between trophy/commercial hunting of wild animals, and canned hunting, is of the upmost importance. Public opinion has the power to make a difference (e.g. sea world) BUT make sure you have your facts right; go after the right people. Trophy hunters and Canned hunters are not the same. 

Education is also always important. Do your research. If you want to volunteer at a wildlife sanctuary, make sure that is where you're going, and not a lion farm that practices canned hunting which is posing as a sanctuary. Where I was, is completely against canned hunting, and has saved a number of lions from canned hunting. Volunteering somewhere amazing like that helps with rescuing future lions. 

*disclaimer: all photos in the post were taken by me of happy, healthy lions who are living their lives in safety, and will never be used for canned hunting*