Next time you’re out hunting lions, look out for a radio collar.
That and other matters of hunting ethics were debated by hunters, anti-hunting activists and people who knew nothing about it when a big-game hunting story went viral last week.
Most of us weekenders can’t afford an African safari. But the ethical issues are the same as those confronting local hunters, and safe, sound and fair hunting practices are important on any continent.
The latest media cause celebre was Cecil the lion, a favorite of photo-tourists and subject of a radio-collar study. Hunting guides allegedly lured the lion off Zimbabwe’s 3.6 million-acre Hwange National Park to be shot by their client, Minnesota archer and dentist Walter Palmer, and later killed with a rifle shot. It is unclear whether Palmer was aware that luring the animal off the park and the questionable designation of the farm as a hunting ground were illegal, but those are relatively minor game law violations punishable by fines. If after the fact Palmer assisted in or was aware of his guides’ removal, destruction and hiding of the radio collar and later denying it, as alleged, under Zimbabwean law he could face a federal charge of conspiracy to commit a crime and prison.
In talks with reporters, Palmer denied he had committed a crime. At publication time authorities had not been able to find him.
The story took on a local angle when archer Jan Seski, a doctor from Murrysville, was accused of game law violations associated with the killing of another lion on a private conservancy designated as a legal hunting ground just outside the same park. Questions emerged about vital aspects of the accusation, however, and the Zimbabwe government was still investigating its charge against Seski. He is not taking interview requests.
While African wildlife officials and law enforcement agencies look into the legality of Palmer’s hunt, many hunters and members of the safari-hunt industry have serious questions about the way it was conducted.
“No hunter who hunts in an ethical manner would condone this hunt in the way this dentist is accused of doing it,” said Bob Kern, an international big-game hunter and president of the Virginia-based Hunting Consortium, which advocates for and books international hunts. “Those professional hunters are not members of the Zimbabwe Professional Hunters and Guides Association. It looks like this was one of a very few [safari] hunts where the person acted illegally and unethically. No one shoots a collared animal.”
Animal rights supporters suggested the radio-collar killing of an “endangered species” was evidence of widespread lawlessness and lack of conservation concern among hunters. In fact, habitat loss due to human population growth is largely responsible for reduction of the lion’s range, and Panthera leo is not listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The 180-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora places no restrictions on the hunting of African lions, but regulates the export of live lions and hunt trophies.
It was not widely reported that the University of Oxford radio-collar study tracking the park’s lions was funded by hunting organizations in a long-term effort to learn how to prevent illegal hunts.
“In this case, the hunting community has funded from the inception the study collaring the lions in Hwange as recently as this year,” said John Jackson, leader of the Conservation Force. Based in Louisiana, the group has helped African nations to develop lion programs for some 20 years. “The goal is eventually to collar all the lions and track them to see what causes their death when they leave the park. The death of this lion is actually part of the study, recording that the animal died from an illegal hunt.”
Ethics run both ways. Conservation experts bristle when laymen give names to wild animals. Photo-tourists are said to have loved getting a glimpse of 13-year-old, black-maned Cecil, but their affection had minimal impact on helping to conserve the species. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman said wildlife management plans are usually designed at the species level. When people name individual wild animals as if they were pets, they often grow overly attached and want to make exceptions to the management plan in order to help that specific animal. Just as the Pennsylvania Game Commission doesn’t want to give names to Pittsburgh’s bald eagles, African biologists generally resist giving special treatment to individual animals despite the public’s fondness for it.
“Photographic tourists named this lion. Naming is not considered sound science,” said Jackson, a past president of Safari Club International and representative of additional groups that promote or organize African photo tours. “You’re not supposed to get attached to one animal. On one hand, it’s good that people take an interest, but then they get emotionally involved and want to take that animal out of the study group or conservation plan, which messes everything up.”
Most of Africa’s lucrative illegal wildlife harvest is done by well-funded professional groups — Kern said many are based in China and Russia. Most African governments, however, have few law enforcement professionals or soldiers to put on anti-poaching duty.
“The governments don’t invest enough to prevent it, and money that is paid to organizations such as governments is subject to fraud and misappropriation,” said Kern. “So, millions and millions of sportsmen’s dollars are given to safari companies. That’s where the rubber meets the road — 100 percent is spent on anti-poaching units funded by the owners. They are well armed, although killing poachers is now frowned upon, and they stay in those hunting blocks all year. Some are professional hunters assigned as team leaders for those squads. They’re the most effective anti-poaching tool in Tanzania and other African nations.”
Hunters following guides across vast African hunting conservancies are subject to the same trespass restrictions as deer hunters closer to home. Intentionally intruding on another hunter’s hunt and the inability to make a good, clean kill are unethical anywhere.
“There’s a way to do this, and most hunters and safari operators go to great lengths to conduct their hunts in a legal and ethical manner,” said Kern. “Professional hunters don’t like it when someone takes shortcuts or breaks the law. They know they’re under a microscope. Hunters are the conservationists. Hunters are the good guys here.”
First Published: August 9, 2015, 4:00 a.m.