Lion Relationships in the 21st Century

Transcription

Our Shared Kingdom At Risk:
Human – Lion Relationships in the 21st Century
A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of
Yale University
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Laly Laing Lichtenfeld
Dissertation Directors: Professor Stephen Kellert and Professor Oswald Schmitz
Dissertation Committee Member: Professor Alison Richard
2005
© 2005 by Laly Laing Lichtenfeld
All rights reserved.
Abstract
Our Shared Kingdom at Risk: Human – Lion Relationships in the 21st Century
Laly Laing Lichtenfeld
2005
Globally, many large carnivore populations are in decline. In most cases, the
persistence of these species is linked to their relationships with humans. Traditional
conservation approaches tend to focus on the ecological causes of human – carnivore
conflicts without fully appreciating the diverse interplay of social and ecological forces
driving the outcomes. Even in the case of the African lion, arguably the most well studied
large carnivore in the world, little research addresses human attitudes toward lions or the
social factors influencing their actions. I focus on a multidisciplinary study of human –
lion relationships in the Tarangire ecosystem of northern Tanzania. Specifically, I
illustrate the diverse range of ecological and social factors affecting both lions and the
key stakeholders encountering them using structured surveys, interviews, and spoor
counts as the principal methodologies. Within a single landscape, I demonstrate that a
wide variety of attitudes toward lions exist among the local Maasai, professional sport
hunting, and photographic tourism communities based on unique assemblies of
psychological, political, socio-cultural, economic, and ecological factors. In addition, I
evaluate the impact of these groups on the distribution and abundance of lions. From
these studies, I determine the relative positive and negative influences of each
stakeholder on lions indicating the key variables affecting the long-term conservation of
the African lion. Finally, I propose a new, theoretical model of human – lion relationships
that emphasizes the abilities of each “culture,” feline and human alike, to affect one
another via their respective tolerances of each other. This type of study has wide
applications to the global community of humans and large carnivores.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
v
List of Tables
vi
Acknowledgements
viii
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
II.
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD LIONS
AMONG THE PROFESSIONAL SPORT HUNTING INDUSTRY,
PHOTOGRAPHIC TOURISM INDUSTRY, AND MAASAI
COMMUNITIES IN THE TARANGIRE ECOSYSTEM, TANZANIA
17
III.
THE RISK OF LIVING WITH LIONS: THE EFFECTS OF POTENTIAL
AND ACTUAL INTERACTIONS WITH LIONS ON THE MAASAI
LIVING ADJACENT TO TARANGIRE NATIONAL PARK
73
IV.
LIONS LIVING ON THE EDGE: REAL AND PERCEIVED LION
ABUNDANCE IN SPORT HUNTING AND VILLAGE LANDS OUTSIDE
TARANGIRE NATIONAL PARK, TANZANIA
108
V.
CONCLUSION: THE AFRICAN LION ROAMING THROUGH
WILDERNESS AND THE HUMAN MIND
133
Bibliography
154
Appendix One: Sample Interview
162
Appendix Two: Questionnaire
166
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1
A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF HUMAN – LION RELATIONSHIPS
12
2.1
THE TARANGIRE ECOSYSTEM
25
2.2
THE LOCATION OF AGRICULTURAL AREAS IN THE TARANGIRE ECOSYSTEM
28
3.1
PREFERENCES TOWARD WILDLIFE AMONG LOCAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS
85
4.1
LOCATION OF THE THREE STUDY SITES (BOXES) IN THE TARANGIRE
ECOSYSTEM
112
4.2
THE ROAD NETWORK IN LOIBOR SERRIT
115
5.1
A THEORETICAL MODEL OF HUMAN-LION RELATIONSHIPS
143
LIST OF TABLES
1.1
POTENTIAL KEY ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL VARIABLES INFLUENCING THE
13
SURVIVAL OF LION POPULATIONS
2.1
BASIC WILDLIFE VALUES ADAPTED FROM KELLERT (1996)
21
2.2
FACTORS INFLUENCING HUMAN PERCEPTIONS, KNOWLEDGE, AND
21
INTERACTIONS WITH CARNIVORES ADAPTED FROM KELLERT (1992)
2.3
SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEE CHARACTERISTICS
36
2.4
PERCEIVED THREATS TO LIONS IN THE TARANGIRE ECOSYSTEM ACCORDING
49
TO STAKEHOLDERS
3.1
AVERAGE PLOT SIZE AND HOUSEHOLD LIVESTOCK HOLDINGS PER VILLAGE
84
3.2
RANK OF LARGE CARNIVORES CONSIDERED TO POSE A STRONG THREAT TO
RESPONDENTS IN TERMS OF MANIFESTING FEAR OR POTENTIALLY HARMING
HUMANS AND LIVESTOCK
88
3.3
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO RISK PERCEPTIONS OF LIONS
89
3.4
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK PERCEPTION OF LIONS AND DESIRED FUTURE
POPULATION SIZE OF LIONS
89
3.5
RESULTS OF THE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC
89
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARD LIONS AND
RISK PERCEPTIONS
3.6
RESPONDENTS' ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF CATTLE, GOATS, AND SHEEP
TAKEN BY CARNIVORES OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS
93
3.7
MEAN NUMBER OF DAYS RESPONDENTS ENCOUNTERED LIONS OVER THE LAST
TWO YEARS ACCORDING TO ACTIVITY
95
3.8
RESULTS OF THE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR THE RELATIONSHIP
96
BETWEEN SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS AND BENEFITS OF WILDLIFE TOURISM
3.9
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BENEFITS FROM WILDLIFE TOURISM AND DESIRED
FUTURE POPULATION SIZE OF LIONS
97
3.10
WILLINGNESS TO RESTRICT ACTIVITIES FOR LION CONSERVATION
97
Tables vii
4.1
ROAD AND SAMPLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE THREE STUDY AREAS
116
4.2
THE PERCENTAGE OF CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED LIONS FROM THEIR SPOOR
119
INCLUDING DETERMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S AGE GROUP AND SEX
4.3
OVERALL AND SEASONAL SPOOR DENSITIES FOR LION, SPOTTED HYENA,
120
AND LEOPARD IN THE THREE STUDY AREAS
4.4
LION POPULATION STRUCTURE BASED ON AGE GROUPS ACCORDING TO
121
INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIED LIONS IN THE PARK AND SPOOR DATA FOR THE
THREE EXPERIMENTAL AREAS
5.1
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FACTORS INFLUENCING HUMAN – LION
RELATIONSHIPS ORGANIZED BY KEY ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL VARIABLES
140
Acknowledgements
I remember being told once that the pursuit of a doctoral degree can often feel like a
lonely or solitary journey. Happily, that was not my experience…
Throughout this process, I have been supported by a responsive, encouraging, and,
challenging doctoral committee who have always pushed me to excel and give just a little
bit more. The final product has been immeasurably improved by their suggestions,
guidance, and attention to detail along the way. Thank you Steve, Os, and Alison!
In support of my research and the People and Predators Project, I would like to thank
Yale University, particularly the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Swarovski Optik, Safari Club International, and the Jockey Hollow Foundation all
contributed to the project. I am also deeply grateful to the many private individuals and
family members who have generously supported the project. Many thanks to Susan and
Art Babson who responded quickly to a call for help when the Land Rover was ailing!
I would like to thank the Tanzanian Wildlife Research Institute, the Wildlife Division, the
Tanzanian National Parks Authority, and the Commission for Science and Technology
for permission to conduct this study. I am also grateful to the village members of
Lolkisale, Loibor Soit, Emboret, Naraquao, Sukuru, Kimotorok, and especially, Loibor
Serrit who lent their support and, in many cases, time to the project. Thank you to the
professional hunting and photographic tourism interviewees who contributed to this
study. I would like to thank and remember Ridge Taylor for our fireside chats and for
inviting me to experience sport hunting firsthand.
I could not have collected the data without the hard work and skill of my wildlife trackers
and research assistants. In particular, I would like to thank Saitoti for opening my eyes to
the world of paw prints. Driving a dirt track will never be boring again! And to Michael,
for making sure we were all comfortable, well fed, and happy in the bush.
To all my friends, both in Tanzania and otherwise, thanks for the encouragement, emails,
fireside chats, and more! To Charlie and Lynn, thank you for providing me not only with
a very wonderful person in my life (and two great pups!) but for helping me to overcome
the pitfalls of bush logistics, car problems, illnesses, and generally all things unforeseen!
To Mark and Laurie, your love and support have meant so much to me. Thank you for
encouraging my passion and participating in my excitement!
To Buddy, you have been my friend, colleague, and partner through both the most
difficult and most wonderful days. Sharing this with you has been a special gift.
And, most of all, to my mom, who might not have willed that her daughter cavort with
lions, but who has embraced my choices, my love of lions and Africa, and our distance
with the grace, love, and support that are so much a part of her wonderful, giving spirit.
You are always with me and will always be my forever friend!
If the lions are lost forever, it would be a great loss to me.
Because, first of all, the traditions of the Maasai to
celebrate the bravery of lion hunting won’t be seen,
and the children won’t see [the lion], they will only be hearing
in stories that there was something called a lion.
Maasai Elder
[The lion], it’s something from nature that is just absolutely
incredible. To see this huge animal with the power it has
and that majestic appearance, both male and female, you know
when you drive around and you look and you see them and they
are lying there, you know they don’t need us, really.
Professional Sport Hunter
Africa represents one of the last wilderness areas in the world
and the lion kind of is the monarch of that representation.
You know if you have a huge, powerful predator in amidst
its own natural environment, how [much] better can that get?
Its that feeling of, yeah, we are seeing you know the big picture,
the whole sort of wilderness entirety summed up in one animal.
Photographic Guide
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Chapter One
Thirty-five thousand years ago, in what is now known as Chauvet Cave in
southeastern France, our ancestors celebrated their relationship to the natural world by
painting a wildlife mural on the rocky walls of an old cave bear’s den. It is the most
ancient record of rock painting found throughout the world today. And among the red
ochre and charcoal figures, including horses, bison, rhinoceroses, bears, mammoths,
reindeer and more, were lions. Many, many lions.
Indeed, human fascination with large carnivores, and particularly lions, is as enduring
as the earliest known artistic account left by our predecessors. Throughout human history,
we have shared a landscape with large carnivores that has not only shaped our place
within the natural world but has inspired our spiritual and psychological development as
we react to the presence of these extremely beautiful, yet frighteningly lethal animals.
Their power humbles us, their magnificence inspires us, and their sheer presence forces
us to consider our own identity in a world where we are both predator and prey.
Having so captivated the human mind, large carnivores have inspired human culture
and development, apparent in the pervasive representation of these species in mythology,
art, literature, religion, and popular culture. While the lion is perhaps the most widely
represented species, large carnivores affect us wherever they may roam. In terms of
North American species, few animals have had as much influence as the grizzly bear
(Kellert et al. 1996). Native Americans have revered bears, carving their figures in totem
Lichtenfeld – Chapter One 3
poles, and worshipping them to the extent that certain tribes view the hunting of bears as
taboo (Rockwell 1991). Indeed, many cultures have celebrated the beauty and power of
the bear whose physical features and upright stance seem to remind us of ourselves
(Shepard and Sanders 1985). The humanization of bears is evident in the many childhood
stories that feature them, such as Goldilocks and Winnie the Pooh. Popular culture has
embraced the bear, for instance as a guardian of natural landscapes in the image of
Smokey Bear, as the clowning, cartoon character Yogi Bear, and, of course, as the warm,
comfortable childhood companion, the teddy bear (Kellert et al. 1996).
These wholesome, happy impressions are challenged, however, by another vision of
the grizzly bear that is suggested by its scientific name, Ursos arctos horribilis. To some
people, particularly to those living near them, bears are viewed as deadly killers.
Concepts of bears in these cases are more negative given their potential threats to humans
and livestock (Kellert 1992). Protection of the bear and associated land-use restrictions
can transform them into symbols of government control and subjugation (Kellert 1992;
Jope and Shelby 1994). In such cases, the grizzly bear represents the looming, threatening
possibility of change and outside intervention in people’s lives (Mattson et al. 1996).
In this sense, as we continually redefine our place in the world, the nature of human
associations with large carnivores often reflects our changing views toward the
environment. For example, perceptions of the wolf have been powerful indicators of our
shifting attitudes toward wildlife and nature. Early settlers of the North American
continent initially targeted wolves as threats to livestock, settlement, game populations,
and, more generally, to human progress and vigorously persecuted them (Lopez 1978;
Matthiessen 1987; Kellert 1996; Kellert et al. 1996). Wolves were regarded as
threatening the advance of human civilization and their eradication a symbol of the
human ability to conquer nature. These negative perceptions persisted well into the
1900s. Yet, pioneering studies during the 1980s by Kellert (1985, 1986, 1991) and others
(Hook and Robinson 1982; Bath 1989) clearly demonstrated that contemporary attitudes
toward wolves were changing.
For example, Kellert (1985) illustrated that in the late 1970s and early 1980s attitudes
toward wolves were divided, though increasingly positive. Kellert (1991) found more
positive attitudes toward wolves among the young, urban, and highly educated sectors.
Attitudes also varied by livelihoods; individuals who were economically tied to the local
landscape tended to exhibit more negative attitudes (Kellert 1985, 1986, 1991; Bath
1989). Certainly, few individuals have expressed a personal change in the perception of
wolves as eloquently as Aldo Leopold, whose 1949 epiphany anticipated the more
popular transition to come:
In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf…I
thought…that no wolves would mean a hunter’s paradise…Since then I have
lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves…I have seen every edible bush
and seedling browsed, first to anemic desuetude and then to death…I now suspect
that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live
in mortal fear of its deer…Perhaps this is the hidden meaning in the howl of the
wolf, long known among mountains, but seldom perceived among men. (Leopold
1949: 137)
Interestingly, while wolves and bears have been very prominent figures in defining
human – carnivore relationships in North America, the more widely distributed mountain
lion has received far less attention in terms of human culture. Kellert et al. (1996) suggest
that the generally silent, elusive nature of the mountain lion has been influential in
keeping the large cat out of the spotlight despite a consistent record of attacks on humans
and livestock that surpasses that of wolves. Similarly, in South America, pumas were less
prevalent in people’s minds than jaguars despite their elevated likelihood of attacking
humans (Conforti and Azevedo 2003). Individuals appeared to know less about pumas or
mountain lions, and therefore, the latter were overshadowed by the more behaviorally and
ecologically prominent large carnivores.
Certainly, few species, however noticeable they may be, captivate the human mind
and imagination as absolutely as the proud, self-reliant figure of an African lion standing
boldly in the wide-open grassland of East Africa. Or even lazing about in large, social
groups, lions seem to invite our interest while often affecting an air of indifference to our
presence. Yet, the eyes of a lion never truly pass over people without perceiving us, at
best, as a curiosity or, at worst, as a meal.
As an intrepid, even terrifying, yet wholly magnificent species, the African lion has
dwelled in the landscape of our minds since the dawn of human evolution. Early in our
history, the lion was man’s rival, a dominant competitor for food, resources, and space.
As local cultures emerged and expanded, however, human relationships to the lion
became more diversified. The lion became more than just a physical adversary. By a
process of socialization, it became a powerful medium through which various symbolic,
spiritual, political, and cultural beliefs were communicated.
To fully appreciate the intertwining of our histories, we must first consider an age
when man and lion initially walked upon the land together. Lions are believed to have
evolved between 1.8 and 3.8 million years ago along with the other big cats: jaguars,
snow leopards, tigers, and clouded leopards (O’Brien 1996). The first hominids were
thought to evolve around 5 million years ago (Ridley 1993). Originally, they would have
shared a landscape with the lion’s predecessors, the sabertooth cats.
Paleontological evidence suggests that early hominid – sabertooth relationships were
characterized by human avoidance of these species despite a dependence on the
scavenged kills of sabertooths for nutritional requirements. While scientific debate exists
regarding the degree to which hominids actively confronted the toothy beasts, Marean
(1989) hypothesized that as habitats became more and more open, and sabertooths
slipped toward extinction, early man was probably forced to become more
confrontational when scavenging kills. This competitive relationship may very well have
delineated the origins of human – lion relationships. And despite their struggles for
resources and space, both lions and humans established themselves as dominant,
successful predators and scavengers.
The magnitude of competition between early man and lions remains unknown. Eaton
(1979) suggests, in the best-case scenario, man was co-dominant with the lion. Certainly,
more recent accounts of competition, such as the infamous man-eating lions of Tsavo, or
the less well known, yet on-going accounts of man-eating lions in southern Tanzania
(Baldus 2004) indicate the struggle of some modern human communities to share
territories with lions. In Uganda, Treves and Naughton-Treves (1999) revealed that even
in the twentieth century people continued to actively scavenge from carnivore kills,
risking injury for meat. Attacking a lion with rudimentary weaponry is a dangerous
proposition. In the beginning, when weapons were scarcely developed, avoidance of lions
was probably a wiser tactic than direct confrontation.
Nevertheless, a long history of fierce interactions with lions throughout Africa and
other parts of the world developed into a common recognition of the lion as one of the
most significant, non-human adversaries. As such, societies rose up to conquer the lion,
thereby demonstrating their prowess and strength to the rest of the world. Faced with
more technologically advanced, weapon-bearing societies, lion populations dwindled and
were pushed back toward the African continent. Warring societies such as the ancient
Romans were famous for their gladiatorial battles with lions. Egyptian pharaohs coveted
the right to kill lions. And Maasai, Nandi, and other “spear hunting” tribes expressed
their strength and skill by hunting lions. In addition to the practical importance of
protecting livestock and people from harm, the killing of lions emerged as a social
symbol of bravery and domination over nature. Despite its once greater range, it was not
long before the lion became almost uniquely associated with the African continent
(excepting the one remaining population of lions in the Gir Sanctuary of India).
With the advent of advanced weaponry and increasing Western appropriation of
African lands in the late 1800s and early 1900s, symbolic representations of lions
remained bathed in demonstrations of power, although they were dichotomized by
political lineage. For Westerners, the killing of a lion indicated both mastery over the
natural world, and more subtly, control over the African continent and people who were
often at the mercy of hunters to shoot marauding lions. Brian Nicholson, a famous and
well-respected hunter, notes the panic created by man-eating lions in southern Tanzania
and the desperate call for help he received from the district commissioner:
In April 1951, I was walking to a place called Gumbiro, just north of Songea, some
250 miles west of Liwale. Complaints of a lion there were becoming almost
hysterical; repeated telegrams from the district commissioner at Songea reached me
with every mail tarishi (messenger). According to these telegrams, the lion had taken
one hundred people and had evaded all attempts to either hunt it down or trap it, and
the district commissioner demanded my personal intervention in this affair.
(Nicholson 2001: 167).
From this tradition, rooted in colonial intervention in African landscapes, the “noble lion”
evoked symbols of bravery, nobility, courage, and majesty. Not surprisingly, the lion was
taken as the royal emblem of England, perhaps the most successful of the colonial
empires.
On the contrary, symbolic representations of the lion among African communities
often evoked images of murder, violence, and destruction. During the colonial period,
this was a means of political symbolism representing local rebellion against foreign
powers. For example, in Zambia, the Bisa people distinguished between three types of
lions: (1) the ordinary lion (nkalamo) characterized by timidity and minimal interactions
with humans, (2) the spiritual lion (mipashi ya chialo) that acted as a guardian and
monitored the socio-political landscape, and (3) the imperial lion (nkalamo ya kutuma)
that appeared during social crises, attacked pre-determined people, and represented the
exploitation of one by another (Marks 1984). During the colonial period, it is not difficult
to guess who might have been the imperial lions.
Nevertheless, superstitions about man-eating lions went far beyond colonial
influences and were rampant throughout Africa. In Tanzania, many people believed the
man-eater was actually a reincarnation of a person who was wronged in life and therefore
had returned to punish his tormentors. Or, in other cases, families that were persecuted by
individuals or communities were believed to possess magical powers enabling them to
send lions to kill particular people in acts of revenge (Nicholson 2001). In fact, many of
these beliefs remain common in Tanzania.
Today, the eyes of the lion reflect both the past and the future. Local communities
still dwell in that primal and fearsome realm of the lion where loss of human life or
livestock remains a likelihood. Yet, while the lion will always engender a degree of fear
among most clearheaded, life-respecting individuals who come in contact with the
powerful cat, this is tempered by contemporary relationships with lions that emphasize
the more positive aspects of human – lion relationships. For example, the lion was
recently portrayed in popular culture via Disney’s The Lion King as a familiar and
admirable character for children in the cartoon movie and even adults as evidenced by the
hit Broadway musical. All over the world, statues of lions can be found guarding the
entrances of people’s private compounds suggesting that we are now inviting our former
rival into our homes to protect us. And, as world travel has become increasingly
fashionable, tourism has promoted the lion as a key species in both the sport hunting and
the photographic industries.
Certainly, throughout the history of mankind, the African lion has been established as
a powerful cultural and social entity immortalized in art, literature, mythology, religion,
and the individual histories of those human cultures sharing a common landscape with
them. Importantly, in all of these cases, our fascination with lions and the intensity with
which we perceive them are intimately tied to the knowledge that the real, wild animal
still confronts, threatens, terrifies, and astounds us in an everyday sense. In this way, as
both natural and cultural entities, the fates of the lion are irrevocably intertwined. And
from this realization, a difficult question arises. If we benefit so greatly from inviting
lions into the human sphere, deriving from their lives growth, creativity, and inspiration,
how can we simultaneously watch them vanish from the natural world we share with
them?
The lion’s destiny, in an ecological sense, depends on the ability of this large
carnivore to meet its physical and nutritional requirements in a world that is increasingly
carved up by human communities. How well can the lion, a social creature dependent on
large territories and abundant prey, survive in a mosaic of human-altered habitat? The
answer to this question depends as much on the ecological resilience and adaptability of
lions as it does on the tolerance of those individuals interacting with them. This means we
must ensure that the cultural and societal benefits of maintaining wild lions outweighs the
costs of conserving one of the world’s most dangerous cats.
In this manner, the fate of the African lion is intimately tied to a diverse range of
ecological and social factors affecting both lions and the key stakeholders encountering
them (Figure 1). In the field of conservation biology, social factors are referred to as the
human dimensions of lion management and conservation. Broadly defined, human
dimensions refer to the beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors people exhibit toward
natural resources as well as the socioeconomic, demographic, and organizational
characteristics of those individuals (Jacobson 1998). In terms of lions, this includes
dynamic interactions of contextually specific socio-cultural, political, economic, and
psychological factors influencing the persistence of lions in increasingly humandominated landscapes. Understanding these elements and the ways in which they
influence local communities and other individuals interacting with lions is extremely
Figure 1.1 A Schematic Diagram of Human-Lion Relationships.
Ecosystem
Human Dimension
Political
Factors
Socio-Cultural
Factors
+
Stakeholders
Psychological
Factors
Lion
Population
Tolerance for
Lions and Prey
Species
Economic
Factors
Prey
Population
important in terms of predicting people’s actions toward the big cats. Nevertheless,
Saberwal and Kothari (1996) suggest that a focus on human dimensions is particularly
lacking in the developing countries where lions still prowl.
With this in mind, the goal of my dissertation is to evaluate the social and ecological
factors influencing the future of the wild lion by conducting a case study of human – lion
relationships among key stakeholders within the Tarangire ecosystem of northern
Tanzania. In the following three chapters, I define and examine the primary variables
underlying these social and ecological factors (summarized in Table 1.1) in terms of the
degree to which they influence human – lion relationships in the twenty-first century.
Specifically, in Chapter Two, I conduct a comparative analysis of attitudes toward
lions held by the primary human constituencies interacting with and affecting lions in the
Tarangire ecosystem: the professional sport hunting industry, the photographic tourism
Table 1.1 Potential key ecological and social variables influencing the survival of lion populations.
Ecological
Population abundance
Reproductive ecology
Habitat availability/use
Prey availability
Behavioral ecology
Disease
Political
Economic
Property rights
Wildlife benefits
Land use relations
Wildlife costs
Resource use/control Incentives
Wildlife policies/law Market forces
Authority/responsibility
Socio-Cultural
Wildlife Values
Human-lion interactions
Traditions/customs
Knowledge
Psychological
Risk
Fear
Affection
Wonder/Awe
Curiosity
Aesthetic Attraction
Respect
industry, and the Maasai communities living on the outskirts of Tarangire National Park.
Through detailed and comprehensive interviews with key informants, I discover
important similarities and differences in the stakeholders’ attitudes toward lions and the
primary political, economic, and socio-cultural variables influencing their relationships
with the large cats. My emphasis on wildlife values also partially reflects the
psychological dimension by emphasizing evaluative (values-based) psychological
dispositions. And, I highlight important distinctions in people’s relationships with lions,
particularly between the wildlife tourism industries and Maasai communities, that arise as
a result of their relative freedom to experience lions on their own terms.
Given the unique, ecological reality of the Maasai, in comparison to the rest of the
stakeholders, of living with lions, I next explore how daily cohabitation with these
dangerous cats affects the Maasai in a physical and psychological sense. Primarily based
on a large, structured survey of Maasai villagers, in Chapter Three I compare Maasai
perceptions of and interactions with lions that shape their daily awareness of lions and
actions toward them. More specifically, I consider the degree to which the risk of living
with lions, in terms of both perceived and actual losses of livestock or human lives,
affects the Maasai psyche as well as their overall acceptance and tolerance of lions.
Therefore, this study focuses on cognitive (knowledge-based) and affective (emotionbased) psychological dispositions.
Having considered the major social and ecological factors contributing to human
relationships and conflicts with lions in the Tarangire ecosystem, in Chapter Four I shift
my focus to an ecological perspective and consider the lion’s ability to negotiate a matrix
of multiple land uses resulting from Maasai, photographic, and sport hunting activities in
the ecosystem. Using spoor counts as the principal methodology, I estimate lion
population density in three study areas inside and outside of Tarangire National Park and
question whether popular Maasai perceptions of abundant lion populations are correct. In
addition, I determine the primary ecological variables influencing the persistence of lions
in the Tarangire ecosystem and the relative effects of professional sport hunting and
Maasai villagers on lion survivorship.
The concluding chapter focuses on the implications of these studies in terms of the
future of human – lion relationships in the twenty-first century. I return to the variables
provided in Table 1.1 and emphasize those that emerged as having a strong influence on
the future of coexistence between humans and lions. Based on my findings, I provide a
theoretical model of human-lion relationships that pushes Figure 1.1 to reflect a deeper
understanding of the truly interwoven relationships between humans and lions. And
finally, I provide a number of policy suggestions at local, national, and international
levels in an attempt to link the improved management and conservation of lions with
increased human well-being in landscapes dominated by people and lions alike.
References
Baldus, R. 2004. Lion conservation in Tanzania leads to serious human – lion conflicts
with a case study of a man-eating lion killing 35 people. GTZ Wildlife Program,
Wildlife Division, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Bath, A. J. 1989. The public and wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park.
Society and Natural Resources. 2: 297-306.
Conforti, V. A., and F. C. Cascelli de Azevedo. 2003. Local perceptions of jaguars
(Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor) in the Iguacu National Park area, south
Brazil. Biological Conservation. 111: 215-221.
Eaton, R. L. 1979. Evolution of sociality in the Felidae. Carnivore 2: Supplement 82-89.
Harrington, F. and P. Paquet, eds. 1982. Wolves of the world. Noyes Publishing, New
Jersey.
Hook, R. and W. Robinson, 1982. Attitudes of Michigan citizens toward predators. Pages
382-394 in F. Harrington and P. Paquet, eds. Wolves of the world. Noyes Publishing,
New Jersey.
Jacobson, S. K. 1998. Training idiot savants: The lack of human dimensions in
conservation biology. Conservation Biology. 12(2): 263-267.
Jope, K. and B. Shelby. 1984. Hiker behavior and the outcome of interactions with
grizzly bears. Leisure Sciences 6: 257-270.
Kellert, S. R. 1985. Public perception of predators, particularly the wolf and the coyote.
Biological Conservation. 31: 167-189.
Kellert, S. R. 1986. The public and the timber wolf in Minnesota. Transactions of the 51st
North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management
Institute, Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. 1991. Public views of wolf restoration in Michigan. Transactions of the 56th
Kellert, S. R. 1992. Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. Pages 293 – 305
in J. J. Clear, C. Servheen, and L. J. Lyons, eds. Ninth International Bear Conference,
Grenoble, France.
Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island
Press, Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R., M. Black, C. R. Rush, and A. J Bath. 1996. Human culture and large
carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10(4): 977-990.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. Oxford University Press, New York, New
York.
Lopez, B. 1978. Of wolves and men. Charles Scribner’s and Sons, New York, New York.
Marean, C. W. 1989. Sabertooth cats and their relevance for early hominid diet evolution.
Journal of Human Evolution. 18: 559-582.
Marks, S. A. 1984. The imperial lion: Human dimensions of wildlife management in
Central Africa. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Matthiessen, P. 1987. Wildlife in America. Viking Press, New York, New York.
Mattson, D. J., S. Herrero, R. G. Wright, and C. M. Pease. 1996. Science and
management of Rocky Mountain Grizzly Bears. Conservation Biology 10(4): 10131025.
Nicholson, B. 2001. The last of old Africa: Big-game hunting in East Africa. Safari Press
Inc., Long Beach, California.
Nowell and P. Jackson, eds. 1996. Wild cats: Status survey and conservation action plan.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
O’Brien, S. J. 1996. Molecular genetics and phylogenetics of the Felidae. Pages xxiiixxiv in K. Nowell and P. Jackson, eds. Wild cats: Status survey and conservation
action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Ridley, M. 1993. Evolution. Blackwell Science, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rockwell, D. 1991. Giving voice to the bear: North American Indian myths, rituals, and
images of the bear. Robers Rinehart Publishers, Niwot, Colorado.
Saberwal, V. K. and A. Kothari. 1996. The human dimension in Conservation Biology
curricula in developing countries. Conservation Biology 10(5): 1328-1331.
Shepard, P. and B. Sanders. 1985. The sacred paw: The bear in nature, myth, and
literature. Viking Penguin Inc, Toronto, Canada.
Treves, A. and L. Naughton-Treves. 1999. Risk and opportunity for humans coexisting
with large carnivores. Journal of Human Evolution 36: 275-282.
CHAPTER TWO
A Comparative Analysis of Attitudes Toward Lions
Among the Professional Sport Hunting Industry,
Photographic Tourism Industry, and Maasai Communities
in the Tarangire ecosystem, Tanzania
Chapter Two
The relationships of human beings to large carnivores are extremely significant
features influencing the survival of these species. Today, few factors affecting the
persistence of large carnivores fail to have a human component whether the species in
question is a cougar, wolf, jaguar, grizzly bear, black bear, tiger, snow leopard, or lion.
Throughout human societies, large carnivores are a constant source of interest, respect,
and intrigue as well as of fear, aversion, and dislike. For example, tigers are revered as
cultural icons, as one of the pinnacle sport hunting species, as possessing medicinal
properties, and yet, they are feared as relentless man-eaters (Weber and Rabinowitz 1996;
Quammen 2003). Large carnivores are viewed as symbols of wilderness to some and of
destruction to others. They increasingly represent freedom and wildness, although they
still compete with people for game species, livestock, and occasionally take human lives.
Indeed, they are the only group of species for which either eradication or conservation is
a persistent objective of the people interacting with them.
As a result, conservation or management programs involving these species are
complex and often highly controversial; to be successful, they must consider both the
biological and social factors influencing large carnivores. Nevertheless, traditional
conservation approaches to conflicts with these species tend to focus on the ecological
causes and end results of human – carnivore interactions without fully appreciating the
diverse interplay of social and ecological forces driving the outcomes. For example, wolf
reintroduction in Michigan in the 1970s failed when all the released animals were killed
Lichtenfeld – Chapter Two 19
because the attitudes of local residents toward wolves were not considered (Hook and
Robinson 1982). Similarly, the relatively unsuccessful experimental release of cougars in
Florida focused on panther ecology and behavior rather than on developing institutional
and local support for the program (Alvarez 1994). Given this history, policy solutions to
carnivore conservation and management problems often fall short of their mark (Clark et
al. 2001).
Kellert and Clark (1991) provide a more comprehensive model of wildlife policy that
suggests that effective wildlife management depends upon recognition of the interplay
between science, values, and politics. Therefore, they assert that effective conservation
policies depend not only on biophysical or ecological forces but also on a thorough
consideration of institutional, regulatory, social, and valuational forces impacting all of
the involved human constituencies and their goals. Since goals are based on the
individual views of each stakeholder, it is important to evaluate the attitudes of each
stakeholder in relation to the conservation problem (Kellert 1996). Applying this model
to large carnivores suggests that a consideration of the human dimensions underlying
most large carnivore conflicts should be a primary objective of research and conservation
programs focused on these species.
Nevertheless, even in the case of the African lion, arguably the most well-studied
large carnivore in the world, surprisingly little research addresses human attitudes toward
lions or the social factors influencing human – lion relationships. This is partly due to the
fact that many scientists involved with lions have been trained in the biological rather
than the social sciences, and therefore, lack the capacity to thoroughly address this issue.
Yet, it may also reflect the increased complexity of considering the socioeconomic
aspects of large carnivore conservation in developing countries where conservation
objectives must be reconciled with the resource dependencies and practical needs of local
people (Kellert 1985b).
Kellert (1992: 296) defines attitudes toward wildlife as “resulting from four
interrelated factors…[including] basic wildlife values, perceptions of a particular species,
knowledge and understanding of wildlife, and people – animal interactions.” A typology
of nine basic wildlife values was developed by Kellert (1996). Definitions of each value
are provided in Table 2.1. In addition to these wildlife values which broadly influence
how people view a particular species, perceptions of a species are shaped by factors such
as its size, level of intelligence, relationship with humans, and the potential danger or
threat it poses to humans. People’s knowledge of a species may also contribute to the
formation of their attitudes, though more often by reinforcing them rather than changing
them altogether (Kellert 1992). Finally, the nature of human interactions with wildlife
will often affect their attitudes toward a species. A complete list of factors influencing
human perceptions, knowledge, and interactions with carnivores is provided in Table 2.2.
This chapter focuses on attitudes toward lions among the Maasai communities and
wildlife tourism industries utilizing land outside the eastern boundary of Tarangire
National Park. All of these constituencies play important roles in influencing the future of
lion conservation and management in this ecosystem, and more broadly, in Tanzania as a
whole. However, little information exists regarding their attitudes toward lions or the
conditions necessary for lions and humans to coexist in a shared landscape.
Table 2.1 Basic wildlife values adapted from Kellert (1996).
Value
Naturalistic
Definition
Personal pleasure and satisfaction derived from contact with wildlife in natural settings
Scientific
Emphasizes empirical study and understanding of wildlife
Aesthetic
Focuses on the physical attraction and appeal of wild animals
Utilitarian
Practical and material dependence on wild animals and their habitats
Humanistic
Emotional affinity for wildlife species
Dominionistic
Emphasis on the mastery and control of wildlife
Moralistic
Ethical and moral responsibility for conserving and protecting wild animals
Negativistic
Avoidance of wildlife due to indifference, dislike, or fear.
Symbolic
Representation of wild animals as a source of human communication and expression
Table 2.2 Factors influencing human perceptions, knowledge, and interactions with carnivores
adapted from Kellert (1992).
Perceptions
Size of animal
Presumed intelligence
Cultural and historic relationship
Perceived dangerousness
Likelihood of inflicting damage
Morphology
Mode of locomotion
Knowledge
Factual understanding
Ecological knowledge
Awareness of conservation issues
Interactions
Conservation status
Types of conflicts
Types of utilization
Land use relationships
Methods
Study Area
Tarangire National Park is part of an impressive network of protected areas that
encompasses approximately 40% of the total land area of Tanzania (926,283 km2) in
legally protected status (Earth Trends 2003). This system includes several different types
of protected areas including national parks (14; 39,000 km2), game reserves (31; 120,000
km2), game controlled areas (25; 107,000 km2), forest reserves (570; 87,000 km2) and the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (8,300 km2). Additionally, approximately 70,000 km of
unprotected land is designated as tourist hunting blocks in open areas (Baldus 2004a).
National parks and game reserves in Tanzania receive the highest level of protection.
No human settlement is allowed within these areas, and land uses are primarily restricted
to wildlife-based tourism. In the game reserves, sport hunting is the chief land use
(limited photographic tourism is permitted in some cases, for example, in the Selous
Game Reserve). On the other hand, hunting is strictly prohibited in the national parks.
The Ngorongoro Conservation Area receives similar protection, however Maasai
communities also inhabit the area together with their livestock. Game controlled areas
support both professional sport hunting and limited resident and citizen hunting. In
addition, permanent settlements, livestock grazing, and farming are permitted in game
controlled areas. Open areas generally incorporate local villages as well as a wide variety
of land uses including sport hunting, resident and citizen hunting, photographic tourism,
livestock grazing and cultivation.
Ownership of wildlife in Tanzania belongs to the government under the auspices of
the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. All wildlife species are protected under
the Wildlife Conservation Act (1974) and may not be killed without the permission of the
Director of Wildlife. The only exception to this is made in situations where an individual
or his property is threatened by a wild animal. The Wildlife Division, a department of the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, governs all wildlife outside of national
parks. Within national parks, the Tanzanian National Parks Authority (TANAPA), a
parastatal organization, is responsible for wildlife.
Despite central control over wildlife, land law in Tanzania gives significant rights
regarding the management of village lands to local communities. Based on the Land Act
of 1999 and the Village Land Act of 1999, village authorities maintain ownership of
village land and the right to manage the land on behalf of the local community.
Institutional confusion arises when government-authorized wildlife concessions,
particularly in game controlled areas and open areas with hunting blocks, overlap with
village lands. In such cases, jurisdictional conflict occurs as village and central
government authorities compete over land-use allocations (Nshala 2002). The
establishment of the legal right for local communities to manage and utilize wildlife,
thereby eliminating this controversy, is one objective of the revised wildlife policy of
Tanzania (MNRT 1998). However, local authority over community wildlife management
areas has yet to be granted.
In northern Tanzania, the Tarangire ecosystem (12,000 km2) represents a microcosm
of Tanzania’s protected area network (Figure 2.1). It includes two national parks,
Tarangire National Park (2600 km2) and Lake Manyara National Park (330 km2), the
Lolkisale Game Controlled Area, the Simanjiro Game Controlled Areas (West, Naberera,
and Kitangare) and Maasai Open Areas (East and West). The two national parks act as
core protected areas where wildlife find refuge, particularly in the dry season. In the rainy
season, most migratory wildlife such as zebra and wildebeest move out of the parks in
search of better grazing, giving the parks a much needed rest. Wildlife migrating out of
Tarangire National Park predominantly head east where they encounter a mosaic of
hunting and village lands and individuals from the sport hunting and photographic
tourism industries as well as local community members. As such, Tarangire National
Park and the land to the east represent an area where multiple land uses, several protected
and non-protected area designations, dual wildlife authorities, and a variety of private
stakeholders are interconnected within a single landscape inhabited by lions.
Stakeholders
Maasai Communities
While archeological evidence indicates that pastoralists have inhabited northern
Tanzania for thousands of years, the Maasai are considered to have gained a stronghold
in the area during the mid-nineteenth century after driving out the Tatog people (Arhem
1984; Adams and McShane 1996). Historically, their pastoral livelihood, predominantly
centered around cattle, depended on a complex range management system that
necessitated a semi-permanent lifestyle while moving livestock in search of water and
Figure 2.1 The Tarangire Ecosystem
mineral-rich grazing resources (Homewood and Rodgers 1991). During the 1900s,
however, a number of these grazing lands were set aside for conservation areas, including
the Tarangire Game Reserve in 1957. This disrupted Maasai traditional grazing schemes,
for example removing access to important water sources such as the Tarangire River and
was partially responsible for changes in their land-use system, eventually leading to the
settlement of permanent homesteads (LEAT 1998). Other factors creating land pressures
included the post-independence, socialist policies of Julius Nyerere that promoted the
consolidation of human communities within registered villages, overall increases in the
Maasai population, and the immigration of agriculturists into Maasai areas as a result of
pro-agricultural development policies (Muir 1994).
The Maasai living outside the eastern boundary of Tarangire National Park belong to
the Kisongo Maasai, the largest of the twenty sections of Maasai people ranging
throughout Kenya and Tanzania. All of the Maasai villages located along the eastern edge
of the park are located in Simanjiro district, excepting Lolkisale, which is in Monduli
district. Despite increased human immigration into these areas, the villages are
characterized by relatively low population density. In Manyara region, which includes
Simanjiro district, the population density is estimated at 23 people/km2 (Tanzania
Population and Housing Census 2002). However, this estimate includes the entire region
and areas of high human habitation close to the urban center of Arusha. Muir (1994)
estimated the Simanjiro district population density to be 3.4 people/km2 and the average
village population size of Emboret, Loibor Serrit, and Narakauo to be 2400 people/village
based on 1988 census data.
Today, the Maasai in these villages practice a combination of semi-nomadic
pastoralism, moving livestock from their permanent households to seasonal grazing lands
and water sources when necessary, as well as subsistence and small-scale commercial
agriculture (Lama 1998; Muir 1994). The size of household cattle herds has declined over
the last thirty years due to the combined effects of increasing human populations, reduced
grazing land availability, an increase in disease outbreaks among livestock, and the
integration of the Maasai into the cash economy, resulting in more animals being sold at
market. Muir (1994) estimates between 1984 and 1994 cattle herds in Simanjiro
decreased approximately 10.5% from an average of 3.46 cattle per capita to 3.10 mean
cattle per capita. Conversely, small stock herds (goats and sheep) have increased
suggesting an economic shift as a result of declining cattle herds and/or the greater
resilience of these animals under drought conditions.
Reduced cattle herds and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle have prompted the
Maasai to adopt cultivation as a means of providing some food security while reducing
the need to sell cattle to meet their nutritional requirements. A map of agricultural areas
in the Tarangire ecosystem is provided in Figure 2.2. Maize and beans are the primary
crops grown, usually a single rotation per year, but in years of good rainfall, two crops
may be planted in some areas. Today, virtually all Maasai households practice some
degree of cultivation with the majority of plots only large enough to meet subsistence
needs. For example, Lama (1998) determined that by 1998, in the village of Loibor Soit,
84.4% of the population cultivated for subsistence purposes on plots of less than 12
hectares (average 5.6 hectares) for a total of 345 hectares. Larger, commercially-
Figure 2.2 The location of agricultural areas in the Tarangire Ecosystem.
producing plots (ranging from 12 to 1200 hectares) in Loibor Soit were generally
cultivated by a minority of wealthy Maasai, non-Maasai resident farmers such as the
Waarusha, and expatriate farmers, representing 3,994 total hectares. It is notable that 5
expatriate farmers and one non-resident farmer acquired approximately 3600 hectares of
that total. With the village land of Loibor Soit estimated at 75,680 hectares by Lama
(1998), 6% of the total village land appeared under cultivation in 1998. While subsistence
level farming appears relatively low in land area, the increase in large scale commercial
farms, representing 2.5% of Simanjiro district in 1993 in 72 farms (45,000 hectares)
threatens to place even greater pressure on remaining grazing lands, herding patterns, and
access to water (Muir 1994).
Sport Hunting Industry
Since the early 1900s, sport hunting in Tanzania has attracted wealthy clients in
pursuit of wildlife trophies. Over the last century, the hunting industry in Tanzania has
developed into a multimillion dollar trade, earning an estimated $27 million in 2001 with
$10 million accumulated directly by the Wildlife Division (Baldus 2004b). Currently in
Tanzania, 64 wildlife species (not including game birds) are licensed for hunting in over
130 hunting concessions located in game reserves, game controlled areas, and open areas.
Approximately 40 hunting companies are registered in Tanzania. While a number of
game species are also permitted for hunting by residents and citizens of Tanzania,
licenses for trophy species such as lion, leopard, elephant, and zebra are only allocated to
the professional sport hunting industry.
Hunting concessions or blocks in Tanzania are leased to professional hunting
companies for $7500 per year for a period of five years after which the companies must
then bid for re-allocation and/or other blocks. Each concession is given an annual quota
of animals that may be periodically readjusted by the Wildlife Division. The hunting
season is from July through December. Hunting clients are required to be accompanied
by a licensed professional hunter associated with a hunting company and a game scout
provided by the Wildlife Division. Additionally, a gun-bearer, tracker(s), skinner(s) and a
driver may be present, although they are not required.
Lion hunting is an important component of the sport hunting industry. Baldus and
Cauldwell (2004) estimate that lion trophy fees are responsible for approximately 9.4%
of hunting revenue, despite the fact that lion quotas are lower than most other species. In
2004, lion trophy fees were set at $2000 per animal. This is expected to increase by 25%
in 2005. In order to hunt a lion in Tanzania, a client must purchase a 21-day hunting
permit. The trophy fee, permit fee ($600), and a conservation fee of $100 per hunter per
day must be paid to the Wildlife Division regardless of the length of the actual hunt or
whether a lion was eventually shot. While the government sets these fees, individual
hunting companies often set their own rates above and beyond these standards based on
the quality of their lion trophies (e.g. bigger, fuller manes or dark manes). If a lion is shot,
an export permit ($300) must then be obtained to transport the trophy to the client’s
country of residence.
Hunting of lions in Tanzania is regulated by various rules established to ensure a “fair
chase.” For instance, it is prohibited to shoot a lion within 200 meters of a vehicle, 2 km
of a national park boundary, or 500 meters of permanent water. In addition, it is not
permitted to hunt lions at night (½ hour after sundown until ½ hour before sunrise) or
with any type of night-vision equipment or lights. Lions must be shot with a .375 caliber
rifle or greater, and the use of poisons, dogs, horses, or any other aids is not allowed.
While baiting of lions is officially illegal in Tanzania according to the Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1974, it is practiced widely and is sanctioned by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism. In general, the professional sport hunter is responsible
for choosing acceptable lion trophies for his client and for assisting the client throughout
the hunt. If a lion is wounded, it is the professional hunter’s responsibility to pursue it
despite the inherent danger of the chase. Hunting of immature animals in Tanzania is
prohibited as is the hunting of lionesses. Certain, select hunting companies impose
additional restrictions on their professional hunters in terms of suitable lion trophies; for
example, they may set a minimum allowable age or discourage the hunting of males
belonging to a pride.
Outside the eastern boundary of Tarangire National Park and within the area that is
utilized for this study, the Wildlife Division has allocated four blocks for professional
sport hunting within the Lolkisale Game Controlled Area, Simanjiro West Game
Controlled Area, Simanjiro Kitangare Game Controlled Area, and Maasai West Open
Area (the latter three areas and the ecosystem as a whole contain several more hunting
blocks, but they are outside the defined study system). Three companies lease these four
concession areas (one company owns two blocks) within the study area. Among the four
blocks, the total estimated lion quota is 15 lions per year.
Photographic Tourism Industry
The photographic tourism industry has also grown steadily in Tanzania over the last
100 years. Following massive developments in international air travel after the Second
World War, tourism has flourished from an estimated 25 million travelers in 1950 to 450
million world travelers in 1991 (Roe et al. 1997). In Tanzania, as national parks were
created and in some cases converted from game reserves (e.g. the Serengeti Game
Reserve was gazetted as a national park in 1951), the country became increasingly
regarded as an exciting destination for individuals interested in viewing wild animals in
staggering numbers and dramatic landscapes. Today, the Serengeti National Park,
perhaps the most famous protected area in the world, draws tourists from all over the
globe to view its impressive herds of herbivores and their predatory counterparts.
The most common photographic safari in Tanzania today is based on wildlife viewing
experienced in a core circuit of national parks. Parks offer a reasonably good chance of
seeing target species like lions and are attractive to tourists who expect to see predators,
animals in large numbers, and wildlife relatively close-up. In Tanzania, the most popular
tourist circuit involves visiting the Ngorongoro Crater Conservation Area and the
Serengeti National Park, usually complemented by overnights in Tarangire National Park,
Lake Manyara National Park and/or a trek up Mount Kilimanjaro. Within the parks,
visitors must follow strict regulations regarding no off-road driving, adherence to speed
limits, game viewing by vehicle only (i.e. no walking safaris, except in speciallypermitted circumstances and, more commonly, in the less congested southern parks), and
other rules designed to ensure the safety of both the traveler and the wildlife.
Despite the popularity of these park tours, the photographic industry in Tanzania has
diversified considerably over the last decade as tourist numbers flourished. For example,
visitors to Tarangire National Park increased from 15,716 in 1989-90 to 63,031 in 200203, earning the park an estimated $1,528,215 in entrance fees alone (TANAPA
unpublished data cited in Nelson 2004). In response to the rapid growth in the industry
during the ‘90s resulting in the occasional over-crowding of some parks at peak periods
and increasing demand for more active and adventuresome trips, many companies have
established tented camps or lodges on the outside of national parks. In these areas, their
clients enjoy a wider range of activities, for example walking safaris, night drives,
horseback riding, or mountain biking, in an exclusive and often more private setting. In
fact, the growth in commercial tourism ventures outside of parks has been so
considerable that TANAPA has recently begun to permit limited walking in northern
parks (e.g. Oliver’s camp in Tarangire National Park), canoeing on Lake Manyara, and
special night drives in Manyara for an added fee, most likely in hopes of reclaiming some
of the revenue that has been lost to areas outside the parks.
Outside the eastern boundary of Tarangire National Park, two photographic lodges
(one of which is under construction) and three permanent tented camps have been built
based on formal agreements made with the local villages upon whose land the camps
have been located (according to the Village Land Act of 1999). In addition, several
tourism companies utilize seasonal, non-permanent camps in the area for walking and
educational tours. Because some of these camps are also located in the Lolkisale Game
Controlled Area, a concession of the central government where photographic safaris are
prohibited unless authorized by the Director of Wildlife (MNRT 2000), a considerable
degree of institutional confusion surrounds the legality of these camps. As we will see,
this confusion regarding land rights has important consequences in terms of people’s
relationships to lions.
Data Collection
The data presented in this chapter focus on explorations of human attitudes toward
lions among the professional sport hunting industry, photographic industry, and Maasai
communities. Given the inherent complexity of human feelings for and experiences with
lions, often resulting in both positive and negative attitudes toward these animals
depending upon the nature of individual encounters, I use comprehensive interviews as
the data collection tool. A qualitative methodology, interviewing allows for detailed
probing of human feelings, attitudes, and opinions on a variety of subjects. In Chapter
Three, I then complement this data by evaluating the effects of actual and perceived
interactions with lions on the Maasai psyche with a larger, quantitative structured survey.
Together, these chapters provide a thorough understanding of the major social and
ecological factors contributing to human conflicts with lions in the Tarangire ecosystem.
Topics covered in the interview included (1) the importance and meaning of lions to
individual stakeholders, (2) general knowledge of lions and lion conservation, (3) views
on consumptive and non-consumptive utilization of lions, (4) perceptions of local, village
interactions with lions, (5) Tanzanian wildlife policy and lions, and (6) the perceived
compatibility of different land use activities and their effects on lions. While the use of
the same interview questions between all respondents allows for a comparative treatment
of the data, the semi-structured nature of interviewing permits individuals to add their
own emphases and to clarify their responses resulting in an in-depth understanding of the
subject matter. A sample of the interview questions is provided in Appendix One.
Thirty-three individuals from the sport hunting industry (n=11), photographic tourism
industry (n=11), and Maasai communities (n=11) were interviewed between June 2004
and January 2005. On average, interviews were between one and two hours long. All
interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed. Maasai interviews were conducted in
Swahili, so transcription of these interviews also involved their translation into English.
Key informant interviews were conducted with individuals considered to have
extensive insight into, experience with, and/or potential influence on lions in the
Tarangire ecosystem. Criteria for selection among the sport hunting and photographic
tourism industries included active company or individual presence in the ecosystem. In a
few cases, general knowledge of the area and extensive insight into lion conservation
issues in Tanzania were accepted as reasonable criteria for individuals who had a long
history of involvement with the photographic or hunting industries but were not presently
active in the ecosystem. This was particularly necessary in the case of the sport hunting
industry given the small number of companies located within the study area. The majority
of the informants comprised professional hunters or photographic guides and/or company
owners. Additionally, the availability of informants was important in the selection
process; only individuals living in Arusha were interviewed. As most companies working
in the northern sector base themselves out of Arusha, this was considered a reasonable
strategy. Among Maasai communities, the village executive officers and village chairmen
were targeted as key informants. This was partially due to their status as respected,
usually elder, community members. In addition, they were considered knowledgeable
about local interactions with lions as well as recent wildlife policies impacting local
communities.
Table 2.3 summarizes characteristics of the key informants as a whole. To assure
anonymity, interviews are referred to by number and do not necessarily reflect the order
in which they were conducted (SH 1-11: sport hunting industry, PC 1-11: photographic
tourism industry, and M 1-11: Maasai communities). Finally, direct quotes are used to
illustrate general opinions and do not represent extreme views unless so indicated.
Table 2.3 Summary of interviewee characteristics.
Maasai
Communities
Total # of Villages
Chairman
Village Executive Officer
Village/Ward Representative
N
6
5
4
2
Sport Hunting
Industry
Total # of Companies
Owner/Prof Hunter
Professional Hunter
Company Representative
N
8
4
4
3
Photographic
N
Industry
Total # of Companies
10
Owner/Guide
7
Guide
3
Company Representative 1
Results
Values of Lions
Maasai values of lions exhibited strong symbolic, dominionistic, and negativistic
tendencies. The lion was simultaneously described as “shujaa,” a brave man, warrior,
hero, or champion, and as an “adui,” an enemy, foe, or opponent. All respondents
referred to the spearing of a lion by a Maasai murran (warrior) as an event that denotes
great respect and pride among the community, portraying the courage of the individuals
involved in the hunt who “measure [their] strength against the lion” (M5). M1 notes
proudly, “It is not every young man that can wait for a lion until he is close enough to
hunt him with a spear.”
Not only in the killing of a lion does a murran “appear as a brave young man that can
save livestock and can also save humans, if and when there are dangerous animals
attacking them,” (M1), but he also emerges as an individual capable of defending his
community against other humans. In this way, the lion is recast with human dimensions,
personified as a worthy human adversary: “We, as Maasai murranis, take the lion as one
of us to fight and to cause battles with his fellow murrani” (M6).
The hunt of the lion and the celebration if victorious - when both the lion is dead and
no people have been injured in the process - are imbued with symbolic meaning. M3
describes a traditional lion hunt:
So, [the murranis] were going as a group of 10 or 20, they went to search for him, to
search the areas where lions like to hide and areas where they feed….they scare it out,
and if the lion runs, he might only run…let’s say 200 meters. So when he reaches 200
meters, that’s where the lion will wait for the people, they have made him angry, so
now they, the Maasai community, will circle him, and when they have surrounded
him they sing to him. There’s a certain traditional song that they sing to him, and
once they have sung to him, the lion looks for a place to run, he looks for a
place…where there is a coward. He will know because he is a vitisho (an
overwhelming danger, a menace, a terror) that if maybe he goes this way, if this guy
is startled, he could go through there, and break through. But because of the fahari
(pride, glory, magnificence) of the murranis, now, the place that he penetrates, that is
where they will spear him, and [the murran] that is before the others, he is the one
that will receive sifa (praise, commendation, fame), and the second one. Only the first
two get praise. (M3)
Following the hunt, the victorious murranis dance and sing in celebration. The two
individuals who drove the first and second spears into the lion receive the most glory and
are allowed to dance with their weapons in their right hands, and in their left hands, the
first murran carries the lion’s tail and has ashes or lime coated on his legs and back,
while the second murran holds a front paw. They also skin the head of the lion and dance
with it. However, if the lion manages to injure someone, “then it’s the lion that has won,
and there is no reason to celebrate” (M4). Lion manes are collected regardless of personal
injury and worn proudly at the most significant celebration in the life of a warrior, the
Eunoto ceremony. Once a warrior passes beyond into elderhood and considers the
prospects of marrying, he will no longer be permitted to wear the headdress as it is only
associated with the wild and promiscuous days of warriorhood.
While lion hunting acts as a positive means of asserting the dominance and power of
the Maasai murran and is an important source of song, dance, and celebration within the
community, the sheer presence of lions carries with it a negativistic value for the Maasai
who feel both their wealth, in terms of livestock, and their lives to be in endangered by
lions. All the respondents indicated a fear of losing livestock or being harmed by a lion,
and lions were frequently referred to as a destructive, kali (dangerous, cruel, fierce)
animal that brings hofu (fear, apprehension). Lions cause anxiety for herdsman, and M1
notes, “during the season that there are lots of lions, I find I have no sleepiness, I do not
sleep well at night in order to make sure that my livestock are safe.” Some individuals
indicated that this negativism was increasingly countered by an emerging utilitarian value
of lions based on wildlife tourism, since “nowadays the lion is seen as having benefits but
a long time ago the lion was nothing but an enemy” (M5). However, as will be shown,
the actual degree to which local people benefit from lion tourism is unclear.
Individuals from the sport hunting industry exhibited a somewhat different variety of
values of lions than the Maasai including aesthetic, symbolic, dominionistic, utilitarian,
humanistic, and moralistic tendencies. Lions were consistently referred to as beautiful,
powerful, majestic creatures – the King of Beasts - that represent the wildness of Africa:
The lion has got this, its got this turn on, its got this attraction. You know, it’s a
beautiful, it’s a magnificent, it is the King of Beasts. Everybody is attracted by this
phenomenal animal. (SH 4)
To hear [a lion] in the morning, like when you are walking to a blind in early
morning, is the greatest sound there is, for me, I mean that is what Africa is. (SH 2)
Africa without lion wouldn’t be Africa. (SH 7)
Part of the importance of that image, for sport hunters, is related to the danger of
hunting wild animals that triggers a latent, atavistic fear among individuals who no longer
live in constant threat of these species. SH 8 explains that there is a deeper meaning to
hunting than perhaps some individuals might expect, in a sense returning us to our roots
for “we come from wild places.” He continues:
To me, it is important that there are wild places with wild animals and things that are
dangerous to us. There is some value to that, to our psychology, to who we are and
how we operate, to know that we don’t necessarily have to live with the danger
everyday, but to know that there are still wild places out there and that we can
experience those…and I think that is what animal hunting is about. It’s touching
something that is part of who we are and that doesn’t get used everyday. (SH 8)
With respect to lions, SH 9 notes, “I think that is the challenge that brings the tourist
hunter. The possibility that you might be eaten.” As such, the lion is considered “the
ultimate trophy” (SH 10) in people’s quest to master nature. And similarly, it is an
important part of the image of having hunted in Africa, “you know, to classify yourself,
I’m an African hunter, you know you have to have a lion” (SH 2).
The iconic stature of the lion, appointing it as one of the pinnacle species among
trophy hunters, is naturally responsible for the incredible demand for lion hunting.
Economically, lions are an essential component in attracting hunting clients to Tanzania.
SH 2 comments, “Professionally, we need them. We need to be able to hunt them because
[the lion] is probably the number one sought after trophy in Tanzania.” Many individuals
noted their dependency on the lion for part of their livelihoods and expressed concern
over the “importance of being able to hunt in a properly managed environment” (SH 4).
Interestingly, most of the professional hunters actually expressed a personal disdain for
lion hunting, commenting that they would not themselves covet a lion trophy. SH 11
provided his personal philosophy, “I have never ever shot a lion for myself as a trophy. In
all the years I have been hunting…I just refuse to. It’s the least respect I can show to the
animals for what I take out of them.” In addition, most individuals noted that the hunting
of lions was anti-climatic, expressing sadness over the animal’s death. SH 7 poignantly
explains:
Personally, when I am hunting a lion, I hope he doesn’t turn up. But you know, I have
done it for 40 years now, so for me to hunt a lion, yeah, there’s excitement there. But
at the end of the day, when that animal is dead, it looses all its beauty, its charm,
unlike a leopard. You know a leopard still seems to retain its beauty, but a lion, it’s
like when you catch a marlin, the color fades, you know. And that, to me, is how I
feel about lion. (SH 7)
Similarly to individuals from the sport hunting industry, respondents from the
photographic tourism industry exhibited aesthetic, symbolic, utilitarian, and humanistic
values of lion. In addition, they indicated the importance of the scientific and naturalistic
values of lions. Again, the lion was portrayed as a beautiful and powerful predator that
simultaneously induces fear and wonder among his onlookers:
People have always looked at large carnivores and been afraid of them, whether it be
the wolf, whether it be a lion, whether it be a tiger, or a hyena, or whatever it is, but
particularly the large cats, and particularly the social cats like the lions. Everybody is
excited because they represent something free and large and something that could be
threatening. (PC 8)
The people want to see a lion because [he is] a top carnivore. Lions, like I said, they
can kill and eat us, and I think it is a good experience for people to help remember
that we are part of nature, to feel that raw, you know that feeling of we are actually
animals, and a lion is one of those few species that can, that enables that I
think. (PC 6)
There’s a certain kind of tension about being around big cats, and people really want
to get back to that somehow. (PC 7)
Lions were viewed as “synonymous with safari; …synonymous with wilderness” (PC
1), and as such, were considered “a phenomenal icon of safaris in Tanzania” (PC 1).
Portrayed as being “a mystique of Africa, of being wild, and strong” (PC 2), all
respondents noted the importance of the lion to the photographic tourism industry. PC 5
states, “Professionally, [it’s] vital for, I mean it is one of the things that you have to see,
definitely, on a safari.” PC 3 elaborates, “Being on safari is not complete and you cannot
come to Africa, you cannot come to Tanzania or Africa and say, ‘Oh, I went on safari,
and I didn’t see a lion.’ I mean that’s disappointing.” In this respect, lions are directly tied
to respondents’ livelihoods, and there is “a real direct value and meaning [of lions] in
terms of tourism” (PC 6).
Finally, evident in almost all photographic interviews was the scientific notion that
the lion, as a “top predator” (PC 1), is “like a canary in a goldmine, it’s an indicator
species” (PC 6). Photographic respondents referred to the lion’s position at the top of the
food chain as an “indication of the health of the wildlife” (PC 10) Along with these
sentiments, there pervaded an interest in lion behavior, social structure, and hunting
strategies, the observation of which contributed greatly to the individual experience of
being in the wild: “…a lot of the theater of the bush comes from lions, and lions doing
what they do, killing, hunting, playing, biting, living their lives” (PC 10).
Perceptions of Lions
There is no doubt that the Maasai identify with and have respect for the lion because
“it is an intelligent animal, with strength, with know how, and fierceness” (M4).
However, Maasai perceptions of lions varied depending on the likelihood of having
aggressive interactions with these animals. Respondents demonstrated a general tolerance
for lions that were not in direct conflict with people or livestock. M4 explained, “if lions
haven’t caused trouble, then we don’t have anything to do with it…if it hasn’t caused any
destruction at all, then you carry on watching your cows, and the lion will carry on
hunting its animals, wildlife.” Similarly, M2 relates an important moment in his life with
lions:
I remember the lion, because there was a day when I was traveling at night by
motorbike, and I met [lions] on the road, but truthfully, they didn’t harm me or do
anything…I stopped because of the hofu (fear, apprehension), but they went off,
because it was early morning and misting, so they moved off and we carried on our
journey by motorbike. I saw that lions, astonishingly, don’t have any problems with
humans. (M2)
However, many individuals noted that historically these lions would have been
pursued, while contemporarily, government regulations prohibit the killing of animals
that haven’t proved a threat to human life or livestock. M7 estimates that the
transformation is fairly recent, “maybe going back 10 years, the relationship has changed,
because it was that if you encountered a lion, you just hunted it, there was no other
reason, but now the hunting of lions is only if it causes damage to livestock...or it tears up
someone.” Some individuals were resentful of the government “due to the traditions
being lost…because long ago it was anytime, and now due to the parks, events [i.e. lion
hunts] are once in a while or not at all” (M3).
On the other hand, lions that attack cattle or people are considered “evil-minded”
(M5) or to have gone “crazy” (M1). These lions are not tolerated. In such circumstances,
negative perceptions of lions arise because “lions are a bad animal” (M8) that harass
people and their livestock. This will be discussed further in the section on human – lion
interactions.
Among the sport hunting and photographic industries, the strength, intelligence, and
potential danger posed by lions all contributed to positive perceptions of lions. In fact,
contrary to the Maasai, the knowledge that lions possess the capability of wounding or
killing a person appears to be an important aspect of individuals’ enjoyment of the
species, adding a peculiar thrill otherwise lacking in their daily lives. Nevertheless, some
changes in the perceptions of lions were noted to have a historical element to them.
While the historical relationship of lions and sport hunters was not considered to have
changed in overall meaning, ironically, positive perceptions of lions have been
strengthened in recent years by a decline in the overall lion population. Sport hunters
noted that in the past, lions were more abundant, and while they have always been
coveted as important trophies, they were not as difficult to obtain as today. SH 4 explains,
“Right now, lion hunting is, it has more importance than it did. The meaning, I mean the
importance of lion hunting right now is, it’s like you are given a key, but only a few keys
are given out.” Historically, lion were often shot as vermin on large farms: “Fifty years
ago, when I hunted lions, as I say, they were cattle killers on big ranches in Laikipia” (SH
9). This may have lent an additional purpose to the hunt, however it did not alter the sport
hunters’ intrinsic reverence of lions as formidable and glamorous trophies. But today, the
overall decline in lion numbers means that lion trophies are perceived as increasingly rare
and therefore all the more significant.
Photographic individuals indicated that their personal perceptions of lions were
enhanced depending on the environment in which the animal was spotted. Respondents
spoke wistfully of the past when the “whole African continent was extremely wild” (PC
3). Today, many of the guides find the lions too habituated in the national parks that were
often referred to as controlled environments. PC 5 comments:
I think of the experience over the last 50 years, more people now see lions in national
parks where they may be sleeping under a tree then do in days gone by. You would
have seen more in the marginal areas and closer to towns and stuff like that where
they would have been… more alert and would have jumped up and run away. So, I
think that people are seeing lions in an almost unreal environment more because of
the national parks, so the lions are completely relaxed. (PC 5)
Most respondents indicated that they preferred to see lions in a “wilderness experience
over the minibus thing” (PC 11) and commented that seeing lions on foot added more
excitement and pleasure to the overall experience. On the other hand, clients are
perceived to have positive views of the habituation of lions in national parks:
I mean I’ve been for 24 years viewing lions here and seeing just how lackadaisical
they’ve become or tolerant of tourist vehicles…my original viewing of the lion was
very scatty, very piecemeal because back then they weren’t seeing very many people
and they were acting in a very standoffish way, where now certainly in the heavier,
more densely touristed areas, they are more habituated. So, for me that kind of takes
away from the experience, but as somebody coming here as a once in a lifetime
experience, then I guess they probably like it a lot better. You know, that kind of
semi-zoo situation that you have now in the [Ngorongoro] crater floor. (PC 9)
Knowledge of Lions and Lion Conservation
The Maasai and members of the photographic and sport hunting industries described
the basic ecology of lions in the Tarangire ecosystem similarly. Most individuals
recognized lions as social animals living in groups or prides. The majority of respondents
mentioned the movement of prey species, for example buffalo, wildebeest, and zebra, in
and out of Tarangire National Park as an important factor influencing the presence and
abundance of lions in the ecosystem. Resident lion prides were acknowledged outside of
the park where they fed upon non-migratory species such as antelopes and small
mammals, as well as livestock. However, lion abundance was considered to increase
during the rainy season when “park prides” followed migratory prey species outside of
the park. Lions outside the park were considered to prefer thick bush and korongos
(ravines, drainages) to open spaces and to avoid areas of human habitation unless actively
pursuing livestock. Some individuals named specific areas that they felt lions favored
when outside of the park.
Despite similar ecological knowledge, respondents from the sport hunting and
particularly the photographic industries expressed a greater degree of factual or scientific
knowledge of lions than the Maasai. In this respect, they indicated an awareness of basic
ecological and scientific terminology that was lacking, in a formal sense, in the Maasai
interviews. Specific terms such as “home range”, “corridor”, “prey availability”,
“indicator species”, “population dynamics”, and “food chains” were specifically referred
to in their interviews. This was not surprising given the greater likelihood of their
exposure to this information through higher education or access to scientific literature or
lectures. Much of the sport hunters’ knowledge also appeared to be handed down through
generations, and while less technical in jargon, reflected a scientific understanding of
lions as well.
In terms of lion conservation issues, both sport hunting and photographic respondents
initially framed their responses by discussing the overall problems affecting lions in
Tanzania and, at times, Africa, followed by particular threats to lions in the Tarangire
ecosystem. In comparison, the Maasai responded only to local threats to lions. Within the
Tarangire ecosystem, the general opinion was that the overshooting of lions by the sport
hunting industry was the greatest problem facing the lion population, though sport
hunters felt that poisoning of lions by the Maasai was of nearly equal dimension (Table
2.4). Several sport hunters noted that in recent years lions were less likely to feed off of
baits, presuming that the cats had learned to stay away from carcasses based on
unpleasant encounters with poisoned livestock remains. Others had come across the
remains of poisoned lions in the bush. The stakeholders also frequently mentioned loss of
habitat as an important factor affecting lion populations. This was often accompanied by
recognition of human population increase by industry respondents. In Chapter Four, I test
some of these opinions by comparing lion densities in several different land use areas
inside and outside of Tarangire National Park.
Table 2.4 Perceived threats to lions in the Tarangire ecosystem according to stakeholders.
Rank is indicated in parentheses. For each stakeholder, n = 11.
Threat
Overshooting of Lions for Sport
Land Cultivation/Loss of Habitat
Poisoning of Lions
Poaching of Lions
Loss of Prey Species
Human Population Increase
Spearing Livestock Raiders
Drought/Lack of Water
Cultural Killing of Lions by Maasai
Disease
Maasai
7 (1)
4 (2)
3 (3)
3 (3)
2 (4)
2 (4)
2 (4)
-
Photographic
11 (1)
7 (2)
5 (4)
2 (5)
7 (2)
7 (2)
6 (3)
2 (5)
2 (5)
Sport Hunting
9 (1)
6 (3)
8 (2)
2 (6)
3 (5)
6 (3)
4 (4)
2 (6)
1 (7)
Human – Lion Interactions
The conservation status of lions in the Tarangire ecosystem has differing degrees of
significance to the stakeholders and affected their attitudes in unforeseen ways. Similar to
their concepts of conservation issues, Maasai perceptions of lion conservation status were
framed in a local context and were based on their opinions of the population status of
lions in their regional vicinity as opposed to a Tanzania-wide or continent-wide
perspective. While overall, lion numbers were thought to have decreased over time,
responses were divided regarding the perceived abundance of lions outside of the park.
For instance, M7 felt though the overall lion population had increased, “there are lots of
lions throughout this mbuga (steppe, plain) of Tarangire, lots of them, even here at our
place [i.e. village] just lots of them, therefore it is not an animal that is close to being
lost.” Other individuals indicated that lions were seasonally abundant during the wet
season. Despite this lack of consensus on the status of lions outside of the park, the
Maasai indicated that if lions were absent from the ecosystem it would be undesirable for
cultural and economic reasons. M1 summarizes the general feeling:
If the lions are lost forever, it would be a great loss for me because first of all the
traditions of the Maasai to celebrate the bravery of lion hunting won’t be seen and the
children won’t see, they will only be hearing in stories that there was something
called a lion. As well as in the aspect of hunting and photography, it will cause a loss
as [we] will no longer receive benefits from living with these animals, lions” (M1).
While relatively strong support for the persistence of lions was evident, little
willingness to be actively involved in lion conservation measures was indicated by the
Maasai. Rather, respondents viewed the traditional protection of Maasai grazing lands,
utilized by both cattle and wildlife alike, to have positive, though not specifically
intended, consequences for lions.
Photographic and sport hunting respondents couched their perceptions of lion
conservation status in a more global framework indicating an overall reduction in lion
numbers, though occasionally noting that Tanzania maintains the largest remaining
population of lions in the wild. Nevertheless, the majority of respondents felt lion
numbers in the Tarangire ecosystem were also declining. Surprisingly, this local decrease
was of questionable significance in terms of how it affected the respondents and their
attitudes toward lions. Many respondents from both industries noted that while personally
they would be sad to see the lions disappear, their respective industries would be
relatively unaffected.
Photographic respondents noted that the absence of lions from Tarangire National
Park would naturally dilute the experience of visiting the park and perhaps make it more
difficult to sell to clients, however “there are going to be lions somewhere else, so it
doesn’t really affect us from a business standpoint that much” (PC 2). Some individuals
further explained that Tarangire was sold more on the basis of its elephant population and
riverine habitat rather than the promise of seeing lions. Similarly, individuals from the
hunting industry noted, providing there were lions in other hunting areas of Tanzania,
“there will still be other animals to hunt [in Tarangire], and there [are] always people who
want to hunt other species, but if they want cats they will have to go to another area
where they are still available” (SH 11). These attitudes express the potential fickleness of
industry and suggest that as long as other lion populations exist in Tanzania, there is little
incentive for either industry as a whole to actively support lion conservation in the
Tarangire ecosystem.
On the other hand, considerable variation occurs depending on the size of the
business involved, with smaller companies maintaining holdings only in the Tarangire
ecosystem necessarily more dependent on the presence of lions. Furthermore, willingness
to support lion conservation appears to depend on the individual goals of each company
and whether an interest in the long-term welfare of the ecosystem exists as opposed to
short-term gains. Additionally, as will be discussed, the ability of these companies to
become actively involved in conservation efforts is hindered by current government
regulations regarding wildlife.
Attitudes toward direct interactions and conflicts between people and lions also
differed between the wildlife tourism industries and the Maasai communities. Among
both the photographic and sport hunting industries, interactions with lions were sought
after despite awareness of the potential danger involved. In fact, positive attitudes toward
lions among these individuals were fostered by the thrill of a frightening encounter with a
wild animal, otherwise lacking in their daily lives. On the contrary, for the Maasai, direct
human – lion interactions resulted in negative attitudes toward lions associated with the
persistent threats lions pose to people and livestock that often result in undesired
outcomes. Protecting livestock from lions can be a terrifying experience as M3 relates:
We were in the boma (homestead) at night when the lion came. He pounced on and
caught a cow, as he was holding the cow, three of us came out, my friends and I. In
the boma there was nowhere to hide, a place to climb up, to go, maybe to climb on
the huts or to climb a tree. There was only a tiny little tree, that we ran towards, and it
ended up that we were dangling [from the tree] and the lion passed close. So, there as
the lion passed close, as he passed close, we acted and hit him with a spear. The lion
ran and cut into the cows, he went to the other side of the boma, he had gotten one
spear so we had wounded him. But, now as it was, we had survived by our
underpants, if it wasn’t for that little tree we would have been eaten by lions. (M3)
Tolerance of livestock-marauding lions was also related to the manner in which
wildlife officials treated depredations. Most Maasai respondents felt that it was the
responsibility of the government, particularly TANAPA, to respond to human – lion
conflicts. However, wildlife authorities were found to be unresponsive: “Even in the past,
they never helped. If animals are hurt by a lion, they just get eaten and well…it’s the
owner of the cow that has the burden” (M10). Explanations for why the Wildlife Division
or TANAPA did not help were related to perceptions that these organizations “don’t want
to kill lions” (M9). M9 goes on to express his frustration with the government stating,
“Once a lion eats livestock, they act like they haven’t heard, so maybe if you go and get
him, then he comes but won’t shoot, he just scares it away. He says nothing at all, they
come but do nothing at all.” Nevertheless, most respondents indicated that if they
received compensation for animals lost to lions they would no longer need to kill the
predator. M4 explains:
There you would have a good relationship, even if a cow is eaten, well, it would no
longer be a must that the man takes a spear to kill that lion because he knows his cow
has been eaten, but he knows that Tarangire [park] will compensate him something
small for his livestock. (M4)
A third human – lion interaction that affects attitudes toward lions is their utilization
for both consumptive sport hunting and non-consumptive photographic tourism. Among
the Maasai respondents, limited support existed for sport hunting. This was due to an
overwhelming perception that professional sport hunting has contributed to a decrease in
lion populations and a general belief that sport hunting and lion conservation were
antithetical. A photographic company…“the one that keeps” (M10)… and a hunting
company…”the one that kills” (M10) were seen to have opposing goals, and Maasai
respondents tended to identify themselves more with photographic interests:
Now if you compare these photographic companies with the Maasai, you could say
that we are the same because the photographic companies are only looking for the
benefits of pictures, but the lion still lives and we live with the lions. They destroy our
livestock and sometimes we kill them because of the pain of that livestock, but we
don’t just kill lions hovio-hovio (haphazardly, indiscriminately) for no reason. (M10)
Interestingly, this statement suggests that hunters do not have a legitimate reason for
pursuing lions, though their motives for hunting lions, to show their power and mastery
over nature, are very similar to the Maasai cultural value of lion hunting as a
demonstration of bravery. However, his remark also contains resentful undertones that
suggest indirect causes for Maasai antipathy of hunting lions for sport. These appear
related more to Maasai – government relations than they do to lions. The lack of authority
or power to choose whether to permit hunting on village lands has created a resentment
of the government and hunting companies as exemplified by the following statements:
Tourist hunters, they hunt lions by permission of the government. They come with
their quotas and they pass through the village offices, they tell us that they are going
to this particular area to hunt lions. (M7)
The upper government still sends people to hunt animals right here in this village and
we have no strength to not allow them. (M10)
It’s the hunting companies that are assigned the responsibility. It’s the government
that has the responsibility, but if it were the village instead, we would be able to get
rid of them. (M1)
In a sense, this feeling of powerlessness, of which the presence of hunters provides a
constant reminder, compels the Maasai to ally themselves more closely with the
photographic community. In addition, Maasai respondents indicated that hunting was
poorly regulated and that lion quotas were haphazardly determined. M5 suggests,
“Maybe the government should do research to find out how many lions this area has and
what amount is appropriate to be hunted each year."
Within the sport hunting and photographic industries, lion hunting was viewed,
theoretically, as an acceptable consumptive activity that has significant conservation
potential. PC 10 comments, “I think a well run sport hunting company operating in a well
regulated system can play an important role in maintaining areas for wildlife.” However,
limited support existed for lion hunting in Tanzania under the current quota system. In
accordance with views expressed by photographic respondents, sport hunters consistently
remarked that lion quotas were too high, unscientifically determined, and that, in general,
lion hunting was ineffectively regulated by the government.
Individuals who had been hunting in Tanzania for many years viewed the
apprenticeship of young professional hunters today as generally easier and more based on
image than traditional hunting philosophies that commanded respect for wild animals. SH
11 notes:
I feel sorry for young professional hunters who are starting out today…you know
there [are] high hopes, big dreams, just the way they dress, the way they behave,
walking around flashing photographs everywhere…I tell you if we were seen by our
peers, older peers, people we trained under, behaving in such a manner…you were
warned, and if you ignored it, you were out. You would just get cut out and you can’t
get back in. (SH 11)
Respondents also remarked that considerable variability existed regarding the ethics
of individual companies and that quite often young, subadult lions were shot by hunters
unconcerned with the long-term effects of their actions. Some of these individuals were
referred to as “briefcase operators,” temporarily leasing hunting concessions off of
established companies, with short-term incentives to recuperate their expenses quickly
and therefore to shoot lions indiscriminately. However, considerable concern over the
established companies in Tanzania also existed. SH 7 states:
Certain companies…are very concerned about the type of lion. Presently, we will not
shoot a male that is in a pride…nothing that is immature, no youngsters, but it is a
very small group of companies that are concerned, not just lions, but everything else.
But I can tell you its only, out of all the hunting companies, I think there’s 42, and out
of the 42, there’s probably about 5 companies that are really concerned about what
they do. (SH 7)
Most respondents remarked that the market-based economy of sport hunting often made
it difficult for companies, particularly small to medium sized ones, to forego the profits of
hunting a lion if it was of an inappropriate age, or in extreme cases, sex. In some
situations, hunters have also resorted to illegally hunting lions at night using night-vision
scopes and lights. In terms of scheduling, while a lion-hunting safari is supposed to be 21
days, some companies book shorter safaris for their clients whilst paying the entire fee
21-day fee. This maximizes the number of lion safaris they can sell in a season and puts
additional pressure on the professional hunter to find a suitable trophy lion in a shorter
time frame. In this scenario, “you’ve got to shoot the first lion that you see” (SH 2).
These problems are compounded by the demands placed on professional hunters by
their clients. Noting that the majority of clients are middle class individuals who will only
come to hunt lions once in their lives, SH 8 explains:
So you’ve got this guy who has saved all his pennies and he is coming and this is his
one shot to do it and he wants to do it right, and they see a lion. That guy doesn’t give
a shit about whether there [are] lions here tomorrow or the next day. He has focused
his whole self on this one safari, and to hell if that’s a four year old lion or a pride
male lion. That’s his lion. He’s paid for it, and he is going to take it. And that middle
band, lower band operator…is in a similar position, his livelihood is depending on
this client, because this guy is going to tell his buddies and his buddy’s going to come
and hopefully come and hunt with him. (SH 8)
Naturally, clients hope to find a lion with a significant mane. Some respondents noted
that as a result, older lions were less desirable because their manes often become raggedy
and tattered later in life. In contrast, prime adult males typically have fuller, large bodied
manes which are highly prized as trophies. Hunters feared that taking these prime males,
if currently associated with a pride, could have negative effects on the social behavior of
lions and potentially result in an increased incidence of infanticide during pride
takeovers.
Lion hunting was considered to be so out of control by SH 7 and SH 1 that they
suggested a moratorium on lion hunting in Maasailand for a minimum period of 3-5
years. SH 8 also suggested a moratorium but reviewed in a block-by-block manner.
In contrast, photographic tourism was considered by all respondents to have the least
amount of impact on the environment and lions. A number of individuals noted that the
habituation of lions to tourist vehicles could have negative consequences when the
animals move out of the park, and the overcrowding of lions by tourist vehicles may
impact the lions’ social behavior. However, these were not considered to be serious
threats in the overall context of problems facing lions.
Various land use relationships are also important in the formation of attitudes toward
lions. The ecological requirements of lions in the Tarangire ecosystem, compelling them
to range widely throughout a variety of land use types, and the complicated legal
environment regarding rights to land and wildlife utilization outside of parks have created
an intensely controversial and, at times, hostile environment between the stakeholder
communities. The majority of respondents from all stakeholder communities considered
photographic tourism and sport hunting to be incompatible when practiced
simultaneously in a shared location. From a photographic perspective, PC 1 explains,
“you don’t want to really see dead animals when you’re with photographic people.”
Individuals from both industries noted that photographic clients often express antipathy
towards hunting. In addition, the inherent dangers of hunting in areas utilized by other
individuals, the possibility of a hunt being disrupted by photographic clients, and the
more secretive and wary nature of lions in hunting areas were all reasons given for a
physical or temporal separation of the two activities. Most individuals felt that the
industries could share an area by designating time periods for each activity. SH 2
explains the general consensus:
You have to decide whose area it actually is. Is it a hunting company’s or
photographic’s and have some sort of timetable, you know. Hunting high season
and photographic high season are different. They overlap a bit, but they are
different, so maybe six months it’s [photographic], six months it’s hunting. (SH 2)
Maasai pastoralism was viewed as less problematic when occurring in areas utilized
by sport hunters and photographic tourists. However, several individuals from the
hunting and Maasai communities mentioned the potential dangers of hunting (e.g. stray
bullets, wounded animals, lions habituated to baits that are then believed to switch to
livestock predation in the non-hunting season) in the vicinity of human communities. All
respondents noted the overwhelming incompatibility of agriculture with lions,
photographic tourism, or sport hunting.
Controversies over land and wildlife laws and the as yet unfulfilled promise of
increased community control over wildlife as stated in the revised wildlife policy (MNRT
1998) have also created an antagonistic environment indirectly affecting people’s
relationship to lions in the Tarangire ecosystem. In this sense, lions have become a
symbol in the debate over wildlife management outside of national parks and reserves.
While lions are potential “assets that are helpful for building better
friendships/relationships between various villages and the national park of Tarangire,”
(M4), Maasai respondents indicated a general frustration with the central government’s
delay in authorizing community wildlife management:
The atmosphere is difficult because every year they say this year we are going to
hand over to the communities but when the year comes, they say next year or in the
next five years, so it looks like the time to hand over isn’t good. (M1)
The new laws, first of all, haven’t arrived here at all. They haven’t made it to the
village. We don’t comprehend them, we don’t know them. They haven’t arrived, so
we don’t know them. (M2)
This uncertain environment, if continued for too long, can have serious consequences for
Maasai – lion relationships by creating a resentment of government that may physically
manifest itself in retaliation against lions traversing the boundaries of national parks and
village lands.
Meanwhile sport hunters and photographic companies appear to maintain an uneasy
truce while awaiting the outcome of community wildlife management areas. Sport
hunters indicated a resentment of photographic presence outside of Tarangire National
Park in designated hunting areas. SH 3 explains:
…the hunting companies pay a lot of money for the block. About $7500 and that’s
going to increase to $12,000 next year, and according to the [wildlife] act no
photographic or anyone is allowed to go into a hunting area to have a camp or
anything else…unless they have permission from the director of the ministry, but I
don’t know how it is working because now as it is around Tarangire, there are too
many [photographic] lodges. (SH 3)
Part of this resentment lies in the high fees that the sport hunting companies pay for a
block which is then utilized by photographic companies with no additional government
fee. Photographic companies make agreements and payments to the local communities on
a case by case basis that have no set fee structure. However, these agreements are tenuous
at best because the villagers have no legal authority to grant wildlife utilization rights
(consumptive or non-consumptive) on village lands. Confusion and frustration with the
current set of wildlife and land laws is evident among many of the photographic
respondents:
It is one of these gray areas, where nobody really knows what they can do and the
laws don’t, you can find laws that support each side of it, and so, the hunting
companies are afraid to be to aggressive and we are willing to just hold out but it is
unpleasant. (PC 2)
[We need] recognition that we are, you know, that we are legal. Recognition that
communities have in there, you know, the final say, that yes, we are allowed to
operate. I mean at the moment the way the legislation stands, we are illegal. You
know, we are not allowed to conduct photographic tourism in non-national park areas.
You know until that day comes, where we are recognized as being a legal entity, then
we are going to have to keep a low profile. (PC 9)
Under one policy we’re illegal, under another set of legislation we’re legally
operating. (PC 1)
Resolution of the contradiction between village rights over land and natural resources
and central government control over wildlife utilizing village lands will inevitably alter
human-lion relationships in the Tarangire ecosystem. Photographic and sport hunting
respondents worried about the ability of the Maasai to control corruption if given control
over wildlife and hunting rights. Interestingly, all parties indicated an interest in working
collaboratively if and when a new institutional environment for wildlife management
materializes with hopes that this would strengthen human-lion relationships. As PC 8
remarks, photographic individuals, sport hunters, and the Maasai all share a common
bond when it comes to lions:
I think everyone of those groups sees the lion as a special creature. Whether it’s fear,
whether it’s awe, whether it’s a photographic moment, whatever it is, we are all
excited about lions. We use lions in different ways, and we probably view them in
different ways because of that. (PC 8)
The challenge is to integrate these different views and uses in a way that is beneficial to
all the human communities and, of course, to the lions.
Discussion
Based on the data presented, some general conclusions regarding attitudes toward
lions among the Maasai communities and the professional sport hunting and
photographic industries can be made that have implications for lion policy and
management. Overall, a number of similarities were found between the photographic and
sport hunting communities. Overwhelming positive attitudes toward lions and their
conservation were evident among participants within both of these industries. Lions were
revered from aesthetic, symbolic, humanistic, and utilitarian points of view. In addition,
photographic respondents expressed scientific and naturalistic values of lions that were
part of the experience of observing lions in their natural, wild state, while sport hunters
revealed dominionistic and moralistic values that often underlie hunting encounters with
dangerous game. Despite popular misconceptions of hunters among the general public,
these individuals often exhibited strong affection and appreciation for large carnivores
(Kellert et al. 1996).
Positive perceptions of lions were strongly related to the thrill of choosing to be in the
presence of a dangerous large carnivore that was otherwise absent from the daily lives of
respondents and/or their clients. These perceptions were generally strengthened by an
awareness of the decline of lion populations throughout Africa, making the experience of
truly wild African lions even more special. On the other hand, the perception of a local
population decline in the Tarangire ecosystem was personally disappointing while less
significant from a business point of view. All respondents appeared to have a general
understanding of the local ecology of lions which was enhanced by knowledge gained
from access to scientific information related to lions and conservation. Both the
consumptive and non-consumptive utilization of lions further contributed to interest and
positive attitudes toward lions, though considerable concern was voiced regarding the
management, monitoring, and ethics of sport hunting in Tanzania. Finally, lions were
viewed as an important symbol in the debate over land management outside of protected
areas in Tanzania.
Among the Maasai, a more tenuous relationship between humans and lions was
evident that teetered between cultural reverence of lions as an appreciated and respected
foe and powerful dislike for an animal that can inflict hardships on local communities. In
this manner, Maasai values of lions were strongly symbolic, dominionistic, and
negativistic. The cultural value of lion hunting was an important aspect of positive
sentiments toward lions, though this traditional practice is at odds with national
legislation forbidding the killing of non-livestock depredating predators. While this ritual
appears to be eroding, there are both social and ecological values to maintaining a
respectful wariness among lions for the Maasai, and perhaps, a compromise between law
and tradition is needed that both protects Maasai custom and ensures that lion numbers
are not significantly reduced by the activity.
An emerging utilitarian value of lions also suggested that positive perceptions of lions
might increase if individuals received greater benefits from these animals. Nevertheless,
current perceptions of lions were mainly negative based on the potential threats lions
posed to livestock and human life. Village leaders’ opinions were divided on the current
population status of lions in the Tarangire ecosystem, though their general knowledge of
lions was similar to that of photographic and sport hunting respondents while lacking a
formal, scientific background.
The most prominent negative attitudes toward lions were evident in terms of direct
and indirect human – lion interactions. The Maasai indicated a strong frustration with
livestock-marauding animals and the Tanzanian government, who though deemed to have
responsibility for wildlife, was thought to do little to help compensate or mitigate
human – lion conflicts. In addition, the Maasai saw themselves as powerless in terms of
land use decisions and unable to regulate the use of lions on village lands.
On the outskirts of Nairobi National Park in Kenya, Maasai fed up with government
control over wildlife recently killed a large number of lions, exemplifying the significant
influence wildlife policies can have on human – lion relationships. While in the Tarangire
ecosystem, individuals appeared tired of awaiting changes in the Tanzanian wildlife
policy, the situation is not nearly as incendiary. Nevertheless, frustration with national
authorities had important negative repercussions regarding Maasai views of the sport
hunting industry, since these individuals were often perceived as linked with the
government. Finally, despite the more negative attitudes of the Maasai toward lions, they
indicated an interest in future collaboration with all stakeholders involved with lions and
their conservation, suggesting that a more positive human – lion relationship is still a
possibility for the future. Therefore, effective implementation of the revised, more
community-friendly, wildlife policy has the potential to significantly alter future attitudes
toward Maasai and lion cohabitation.
In terms of lion policy and management, these results indicate several important areas
requiring further attention. Almost unanimous support from all of the stakeholders was
given for a scientifically based review of lion hunting quotas in Tanzania. This was
particularly noteworthy coming from the professional hunting companies interviewed
given the potential short-term costs to them of reducing lion quotas. However, it is
unclear whether the majority of hunting companies in Tanzania, who were referred to by
the sport hunting respondents themselves as adopting largely unethical practices and
harboring shortsighted, economic goals, would support this position. Certainly, the longterm benefits of maintaining a healthy, scientifically monitored lion population in
Tanzania should outweigh any economic losses associated with a revised quota system
for lions. However, the Tanzanian government will need to be promote this principle
before it is generally accepted by most hunting companies. While it is unclear whether
the means or institutional support for such an undertaking are currently available, some
positive steps are being taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism
regarding lions. As of 2005, a new recommendation against shooting lions under six
years of age is being considered. If reasonably enforced, this has the potential to stem
what appears to be a fairly common practice of shooting under-aged lions.
In addition, hunting respondents also noted that client expectations and the marketbased pressures of the hunting industry often resulted in illegal practices while lion
hunting. This suggests that not only are effective reforms the responsibility of the
Tanzanian government, but that companies active in Tanzania, and more broadly, the
global hunting industry, have a role to play in reforming lion hunting. Education of
clients regarding how to judge an acceptable lion trophy, the potentially negative effects
of shooting under-aged animals, and, more generally, ethical hunting practices should be
a priority among international hunting organizations and the media. In fact, it may be
useful to develop a certification system for companies that are deemed to hunt lions in a
responsible, ethical, and ecologically viable manner.
In terms of local village effects on lions and vice-versa, many respondents indicated
that Maasai poisoning of lions was prevalent, though village officials were less likely to
admit this because, by virtue of their government status, they were responsible for
promoting anti-poisoning policies and demonstrating a decline in this activity. On the
other hand, the Maasai indicated that livestock predation was an important factor
influencing their negative attitudes toward lions. This is commonly found in other parts
of the world where carnivores take domestic livestock (Oli et al. 1994; Mech 1995;
Kellert et al. 1996) making the understanding of the magnitude of livestock predation and
its effect on the human psyche an important policy consideration. This will be addressed
in the following chapter on Maasai interactions with lions.
Indeed, with regard to human – lion interactions in the Tarangire ecosystem, an
important distinction can be made with respect to the stakeholders. Photographic and
sport hunting respondents had overwhelmingly positive encounters with lions which were
accompanied by the freedom to experience lions on their terms and at times and locations
of their choosing. They took pleasure in rekindling an atavistic fear of large, dangerous
animals, which in contrast, has never been dormant for the local Maasai population. The
degree to which fear of lions is influencing Maasai tolerance of lions is also considered in
Chapter Three.
As this study has shown, the Maasai - lion relationship is not straightforward. Neither
do they love them, nor do they wholeheartedly hate them. On the contrary, a complicated
set of attitudes toward lions arises from cultural, political, and economic forces
influencing Maasai-lion relationships. In the future, emerging wildlife policy and law in
relation to community rights to wildlife, the nature of Maasai interactions with lions, and
the degree to which they maintain a cultural value of lions will influence Maasai attitudes
toward lions.
Finally, this study has shown that the importance of lions to human communities
extends far beyond their ecological or economic significance. As an extremely
charismatic species, the lion was viewed as having many emotional, spiritual, and
psychological benefits that bring added meaning to human life and help us define our
place in the natural world. As such, the heavy print of a lion’s paw in the sand of a dry
riverbed has immeasurable worth, and its persistence will forever be a meter of
humankind’s kinship with nature.
References
Adams, J. S. and T. O. McShane. 1992. The myth of wild Africa: Conservation without
illusion. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California.
Alvarez. K. 1994. The Florida Panther recovery program: An organizational failure of the
Endangered Species Act. Pages 205-226 in T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading, and A. L.
Clarke, eds. Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Arhem, K. 1985. Pastoral man in the Garden of Eden: The Maasai of the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area, Tanzania. Uppsala Research Reports in Cultural Anthropology.
University of Uppsala, Uppsala.
Baldus, R. D. 2004a. Lion conservation in Tanzania leads to serious human – lion
conflicts with a case study of a man – eating lion killing 35 people. Tanzanian
Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 41. GTZ, Wildlife Division, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Baldus, R. D. 2004b. Tourist hunting and its role in development of wildlife management
areas in Tanzania. Tanzanian Wildlife Discussion Paper No. ?. GTZ, Wildlife
Division, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Baldus, R. D. and A. Cauldwell. 2004. Lion hunting. Pages 16-22 in Baldus, R. D. 2004a.
Lion conservation in Tanzania leads to serious human – lion conflicts with a case
study of a man – eating lion killing 35 people. Tanzanian Wildlife Discussion Paper
No. 41. GTZ, Wildlife Division, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Clark, T. W., D. J. Mattson, R. P. Reading, and B. J. Miller. 2001. Interdisciplinary
problem solving in carnivore conservation: an introduction. Pages 223-240 in J. L.
Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne, eds. Carnivore
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.
Clark, T. W., R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke, eds. 1994. Endangered species recovery:
finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Earth Trends. 2003. Data online at earthtrends.wri.org.
Gittleman, J.L., S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne, eds. 2001. Carnivore
Jersey.
Homewood, K. and W. Rodgers. 1991. Maasailand ecology: Pastoralist development and
wildlife conservation in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Cambridge University Press, New
York, New York.
New Jersey.
Kellert, S. R. 1985b. Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management.
Journal of Wildlife Management 49(2): 528-536.
in J. J. Clear, C. Servheen, and L. J. Lyons, eds. Ninth International Bear Conference,
Grenoble, France.
Kellert, S. R. and T. W. Clark. 1991. The theory and application of a wildlife policy
framework. Pages 17-36 in W. R. Mangun, ed. Public policy issues in wildlife
management. Greenwood Press, New York, New York.
Lama, L. 1998. Conflict and compatability: An inventory and analysis of land use in a
Tanzanian wildlife corridor. Ph. D. Dissertation, Binghamton University, State
University of New York, New York.
LEAT (Lawyer’s Environmental Action Team). 1998. Socio-legal analysis of
community-based conservation in Tanzania: Policy, legal, institutional and
programmatic issues, considerations, and options. Report prepared for EPIQ, Dar Es
Salaam, Tanzania.
Mangun, W. R. ed. 1991. Public policy issues in wildlife management. Greenwood Press,
New York, New York.
Mech, L. D. 1981. The wolf: the ecology and behavior of an endangered species.
Doubleday Press, New York, New York.
MNRT (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism). 2000. The wildlife conservation
(tourist hunting) regulations. Government Printer, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
MNRT (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism). 1998. The wildlife policy of
Tanzania. MNRT, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Muir, A. 1994. A situational analysis of pastoralism in Simanjiro district, Tanzania.
VETAID, Arusha, Tanzania.
Nelson, F. 2004. The evolution and impacts of community-based tourism in northern
Tanzania. Drylands Issues Paper Series No. 131., International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, England.
Nshala, R. 2002. Village rights relating to land management, tourism, and tourist hunting.
Lawyer’s Environmental Action Team. Available online at
www.leat.or.tz/publications.
Oli, M. K., I. R. Taylor, and M. E. Rogers. 1994. Snow leopard (Panthera uncia)
predation on livestock: An assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna
Conservation Area, Nepal. Biological Conservation 68: 63-68.
Quammen, D. 2003. Monster of God: The man-eating predator in the jungles of history
and the mind. W.W. Norton and Co., New York, New York.
Roe, D., N. Leader-Williams, and B. Dalal-Clayton. 1997. Take only photographs, leave
only footprints: the environmental impacts of wildlife tourism. Wildlife Development
Series No. 10. International Institute for Environment and Development, London,
England.
Tanzania Population and Housing Census. 2002. Data online at
www.tanzania.go.tz/census.
Weber, W. and A. Rabinowitz. 1996. A global perspective on large carnivore
conservation. Conservation Biology 10(4): 1046-1054.
CHAPTER THREE
The Risk of Living with Lions:
The Effects of Potential and Actual Interactions with Lions
on the Maasai Living Adjacent to Tarangire National Park
Chapter Three
Globally, human attitudes toward large carnivores are becoming increasingly positive
as people recognize these species as both important components of the ecological
community and significant sources of human fascination, inspiration, and creativity
(Kellert et al. 1996; Chapters One and Two). However, as I demonstrated in Chapter
Two, this change is not occurring equivalently within all communities; those individuals
living alongside these dangerous, wild animals often maintain negative attitudes toward
them. This has important implications for the future of these species given that the
coexistence of people and large carnivores is an important and necessary component of
their conservation where they range outside of protected areas (Woodroffe 2001).
In the Tarangire ecosystem, negative attitudes toward lions among Maasai individuals
were strongly influenced by the direct and indirect interactions that resulted from sharing
a landscape with the big cats. Adverse feelings were exacerbated by people’s perceptions
of governmental failures to mitigate human – lion conflicts and by the inability of local
communities to manage wildlife on their lands. In this sense, the Maasai’s negativity
toward lions resulted from a complicated coupling of social and ecological forces that
inevitably influenced their actions toward lions.
While in Chapter Two, I focused on the social dimensions of human – lion
relationships, I now turn to how the ecological reality of daily cohabitation with lions
affects the Maasai both in a physical and a psychological sense. Specifically, I consider
Lichtenfeld – Chapter Three 75
how both actual interactions with lions and the sheer possibility of lion encounters, or the
perception of risk, influence Maasai – lion conflicts and their tolerance of lions.
Risk perception, in terms of wildlife, is related to the uncertainties and threats people
associate with particular wildlife species (Bernstein 1996). It incorporates both the
perceived possibility of suffering harm or loss as well as the worry that is caused by a
particular species (Riley and Decker 2000). Those risks that are not accepted voluntarily
or over which humans have little control tend to exacerbate human concern and usually
represent low probability events that nevertheless result in elevated risk perceptions
(Slovic 1987). Kellert (1985a) hypothesized that risk perception of large carnivores was
an important component of people’s tolerance of these animals, yet few studies have
tested this. Nevertheless, preliminary studies of cougars in the United States (Riley and
Decker 2000) and Asiatic lions in India (Saberwal et al. 1994) showed that elevated risk
perceptions negatively influenced local support for the conservation of these species. It is
expected that a similar relationships exists regarding the African lion.
The objective of this chapter is to provide an analysis of Maasai – lion interactions in
the context of real and potential encounters. More specifically, I consider the degree to
which risk influences human acceptance and tolerance of lions. In addition, local attitudes
toward livestock predation, reported and actual rates of predation, human encounters with
lions, and the influence of benefits from wildlife tourism are addressed in terms of their
impacts on the local acceptance of lions.
Methods
The Study Area
Though initially protected in 1957 as a Game Reserve, Tarangire National Park (2600
km2) was formally declared in 1970. The park is recognized as an important dry season
wildlife refuge (TMCP 2002). During this time, it harbors the second highest
concentration of large mammals in northern Tanzania. Large populations of elephant,
wildebeest, zebra, and buffalo can be found alongside the Tarangire River that bisects the
park from south to north. At the onset of the rains, however, migratory wildlife species
tend to move outside of the park into a mosaic of hunting and communal lands (see
Figure 2.1).
Wildlife habitat outside of Tarangire National Park is increasingly threatened by
human population growth and an associated expansion in land cultivation. Of the original
30 migratory routes followed by large herbivores to wet season grazing habitat outside of
the park, less than four remain passable today (Kahurananga and Silkiluwasha 1997). The
majority of these remaining routes are located outside the eastern boundary of Tarangire
National Park where animals initially pass through the following village lands: Lolkisale,
Loibor Soit, Emboret, Narakauo, Loibor Serrit, Sukuru, and Kimotorok.
All of the villages on the eastern boundary of the park are located in Simanjiro
district, excepting Lolkisale, which is in Monduli district. While originally recognized as
pastoral Maasai villages, an increasing trend in the last decade has been the immigration
of agriculturists, predominantly of the Waarusha ethnicity (Muir 1994). The Waarusha
people are historically affiliated with the Maasai, sharing a similar dialect, however their
livelihoods are generally based on agriculture rather than pastoralism. Other individuals
in the area include small groups of Ndorobo hunter-gatherers as well as immigrant farm
hands and miners of various ethnicities.
Pastoralism and small-scale subsistence agriculture are the predominant livelihoods in
these villages. Some large-scale farms are found in the proximity of the park. However,
these are mostly owned by expatriates and a few, wealthy Waarusha farmers. Cattle,
goats, and sheep are the primary livestock raised by villagers. Maize and beans are the
main subsistence crops. Local community members depend on the surrounding
environments for firewood, grazing, medicinal plants, and other products. In addition,
both community members and outsiders (e.g. large scale farm laborers) produce a large
amount of charcoal from this area. Recently, an increasing number of village youths have
been emigrating to urban centers to find employment. For instance, a nearby rare gems
mine attracts a large number of individuals from these villages. These local dependencies
on natural resources and the changing social dynamics in the Tarangire ecosystem have
important ramifications regarding future land use decisions and changing attitudes toward
lion conservation.
Along with local communities, several professional hunting and photographic tourism
companies use the land outside of the park for wildlife-based tourism. The Game
Controlled Areas were originally demarcated primarily for professional sport hunting.
Various open areas to the north and south exist where resident hunters are allowed to
shoot select game species under permit. Several photographic lodges and camps are
located between the national park and the villages as well as a few professional hunting
camps. In addition, several photographic companies use non-permanent camps in the
vicinity. Detailed information regarding the predominant stakeholders (Maasai
communities, sport hunting companies, and photographic companies) utilizing the
Tarangire ecosystem is provided in Chapter Two.
Data Collection
The research was conducted between July and December 2002 using a structured
survey as the primary data collection tool (see Appendix Two). Three of the six villages
(Loibor Serrit, Narakauo, and Lolkisale) bordering the eastern boundary of Tarangire
National Park formed the survey population for the study.
The survey was conducted with a sample population of 235 homesteads. Elected
officials from each village provided a list of the number of homesteads, arranged by subvillage. The homestead or “boma,” which often incorporates several different households,
was considered the appropriate level to survey. This was based on the assumption that an
encounter with a large carnivore at the level of the “boma” would be likely to affect all of
the incorporated households in a similar manner. Therefore, attitudes toward lions within
a “boma” would not vary as greatly as those between them. In the villages of Loibor
Serrit and Narakauo, this resulted in nearly 100% sampling at the homestead level (n = 67
and n = 83, respectively). Due to the larger overall size of Lolkisale, every other
homestead encountered was sampled (n = 85). One adult person (≥ 18 years) in each
selected homestead was interviewed. On a daily basis, the research assistant was
encouraged to try and survey both men and women of different ages; however, the
availability of respondents at the homestead also affected the selection of respondents.
One research assistant conversant in the local dialects was hired to administer the
survey. A local community member who facilitated introductions and reduced general
suspicions of the interviewer assisted him in each village. The utilization of Tanzanian
research assistants minimized cross-cultural bias and non-sampling error that would have
been introduced if the author had been present. The research assistant was asked to try to
conduct interviews in a private setting without large gatherings of neighbors or kin so that
the respondents would not feel pressured or self-conscious while answering the questions.
However, this was not always possible. Typically, the interviewer and his local facilitator
either walked or rode bicycles to the homesteads. However, where the distance was great,
they were dropped off prior to a group of homesteads in the morning and picked up in the
afternoon. In all cases, individuals were told that the study was part of the researcher’s
university degree. This was done to ensure that all the respondents had the same
understanding of who the researcher was as well as to minimize expectations of aid
following the study which might have influenced people to exaggerate their conflicts with
carnivores.
On average, four surveys were collected per day. Unannounced checks of 5% of the
homesteads surveyed in each village were conducted to ensure that the surveys were
administered. Randomly selected questions throughout the survey were repeated, and the
respondent’s answers were crosschecked with those recorded by the interviewer. In all
cases, the survey was administered, and the responses were recorded accurately. In
addition, during the research period, I frequently met individuals who had participated in
the survey.
The survey was developed in English and then translated into Swahili and Maa. Each
translation was then translated back into English to ensure that the meaning of each
question was adequately preserved. The questions were organized into the following
broad categories: (1) general wildlife preferences, particularly large carnivores; (2)
livestock predation; (3) human interactions with lions; (4) perceptions of lion population
trends; and (5) demography (e.g. ethnicity, gender, age, education, and income). The
majority of the questions were closed-ended. The survey was pre-tested with the research
assistant as well as a sample of local community members from one of the villages.
During the pre-testing period, several questions were re-worded for increased
comprehension. Each survey took approximately one hour to complete.
Observations and unstructured interviews conducted over two years in the study area
supplement the data. In addition, a detailed study of the actual rates of livestock predation
was conducted in the village of Loibor Serrit for a period of one year. All livestock
predation incidents were recorded and photographed by a local research assistant who
established a team of informants throughout the village. As soon as an informant became
aware of a predation episode, the research assistant was found and brought to the scene
where he photographed the livestock remains (if any) and any signs of the predator, such
as tracks near the carcass. In addition to noting the type and number of livestock taken
and the carnivore species responsible for the attack, the assistant collected information
regarding the time, location, manner in which the attack took place, and whether or not
the livestock owners retaliated against the carnivore. If so, he also recorded the method of
retaliation and whether or not it was successful.
Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
Version 11.5. Initially, response frequencies for the entire sample were calculated based
on the pre-determined response categories. In some cases, similar categories (e.g.
strongly agree and moderately agree) were combined and presented as one general
category (e.g. agree) for further analyses. Most questions followed the Likert scale for
response categories (Babbie 1990).
The perceived threat lions pose to humans and livestock was measured by three
related questions (items) regarding people’s fear of lions and their likelihood of harming
people or livestock. These questions were combined to form a risk perception scale,
though the potential limitation of a scale based on three questions should be noted. Factor
analysis was used to identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of
correlations within a set of observed variables, in this case the risk perception scale
(SPSS 11.5; see Tessler and Warriner 1997; Mehta and Kellert 1998). The scale is
considered reliable and valid if it loads highly on a common factor (range 0 to 1; a large
value indicates greater factor loading). This scale was later used as the dependent variable
for logistical regression. Reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach’s alpha
(Cronbach 1951) to determine the internal consistency of the scale based on the average
inter-item correlation. The value of Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0 to 1 with a larger
value indicating greater reliability.
Bivariate data were analyzed using Pearson’s χ2 tests (cross-tabulations) to determine
whether an association existed between two variables. Variables were considered to be
dependent upon one another if the significance value (p) was less than 0.05. In such
cases, Cramer’s V was used to determine the strength of the association between the
variables, ranging from 0 (no association) to 1 (complete association).
Logistic regression was used to determine whether demographic variables such as
ethnicity, gender, class, or age explained various trends in attitudes toward lions and
wildlife tourism activities. Logistic regression analyses are suitable in situations where
the dependent variable is dichotomous. Therefore, in each case, the dependent variable
was represented by a dummy (indicator) variable. For example, the risk perception scale
was dichotomized using the median score of the scale. A response was assigned a code of
1 if it indicated a higher perception of risk and 0 for a lower or non-existent perception of
risk. Similarly, respondents who indicated they have received benefits from wildlife
tourism were given the code of 1 while those who indicated no benefits received a code
of 0. Demographic variables were similarly coded as dummy variables. For example, the
respondent was coded as 1 if male and 0 if female; 1 if Maasai and 0 if Waarusha. Class
and age categories were coded using the median score: 1 if wealthier (≥ 200,000 TSH per
year) and 0 if not, 1 if older (≥ 46 years) and 0 if not. Logistic regression analyses were
made using the forward stepwise selection of variables that significantly improved the
model’s goodness of fit. Significance levels are shown for each variable, while the model
χ2 values indicate the significance of the final model.
Results
Demographic Variables
The sample population consisted of one hundred and seventy-seven men (75.3%) and
fifty-eight women (24.7%) from the villages of Loibor Serrit, Narakauo, and Lolkisale.
The lower percentage of women respondents was attributed to the difficult nature of
interviewing women in traditional African societies where men often prevent women
from participating. Ninety percent of the sample population were considered long-term
residents of their communities having either lived in their respective villages since birth
(73%) or been resident there for over 20 years (17%). Of the remaining twenty-four
individuals, sixteen were women who had immigrated to a village upon marrying.
Respondents ranged in age from 18-75 years; however, the majority of respondents
(66%) were between the ages of 36-55. The sample population was relatively evenly split
between younger individuals (43%) and older individuals (57%) based on the median age
of 46. Seventy-two percent of the respondents belonged to the Maasai ethnic group, while
the remainder were of the Waarusha ethnicity (28%). Sixty-six percent of the respondents
had no education, while 32% had completed some primary school, and 2% had
completed some secondary education. Ninety-nine percent of the sample population
cultivated crops on an average plot size of 8.7 hectares (range: 0 – 83 hectares).
Similarly, 97% of the population owned livestock with average household livestock
holdings of 30.8 cattle (range: 0 – 150 cattle), 32.2 goats (range: 0 – 350 goats), and 25.8
sheep (range: 0 – 350). Mean livestock holdings and plot size per village are summarized
in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Average plot size and household livestock holdings per village.
Measure
Mean Plot Size (hectares)
Mean Cattle/Household
Mean Goats/Household
Mean Sheep/Household
Lolkisale
11.4
23
26
23
Narakauo
8.3
37
37
30
Loibor Serrit
5.9
40
36
27
General Wildlife Preferences
Overall, respondents’ preferences were evenly distributed between positive and
negative perceptions of wildlife. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they liked
or disliked twelve different wildlife species (6 herbivores and 6 carnivores): elephant,
leopard, wildebeest, impala, lion, wild dog, buffalo, cheetah, zebra, hyena, giraffe, and
jackal. Responses for all 12 species were combined in order to analyze general
preferences toward wildlife. Fifty-three percent of the sample population either strongly
liked or moderately liked these species as a group, while the remainder held negative
views of them (47%, n = 2803). However, when the species were analyzed categorically
as carnivores or herbivores, preferences were significantly more negative toward the
carnivores (χ2 = 261, d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001, V = 0.31; Figure 3.1). Among major groups,
the Maasai were more likely to dislike carnivores than the Waarusha (χ2 = 40.9, d.f. = 1,
p < 0.0001, V = 0.13), whereas the Waarusha were evenly divided between like (51%)
100
90
80
Percent (%)
70
60
50
40
30
Attitude
20
Dislike
10
Like
0
Carnivores
Herbivores
Figure 3.1 Preferences toward wildlife among local community members. Carnivore species include lion,
leopard, cheetah, hyena, wild dog, and jackal. Herbivore species include elephant, wildebeest, impala,
buffalo, zebra, and giraffe.
and dislike (49%). Women were also more likely to dislike carnivores than men (χ2 =
32.4, d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001, V = 0.15).
Risk Perception of Lions
Among the five large carnivores studied, lions consistently ranked first among
respondents as the most fearful and potentially harmful predator (Table 3.2). The
majority of individuals either strongly feared (65%) or moderately feared (23%) lions. In
contrast, 2% feared lions a little, while 10% of respondents did not fear them at all.
Similarly, lions were perceived as either very likely (60%), moderately likely (29%) or
slightly likely (9%) to harm humans. Only 2% of respondents felt that lions were not at
all likely to attack people. In terms of livestock predation, 89% of respondents felt lions
were very likely to harm livestock. Only a few individuals felt lions were moderately
likely (10%) or slightly likely (1%) to harm livestock, while no one indicated that it was
not at all likely.
These three items regarding the potential threats lions present were combined into a
single risk perception scale (Table 3.3). Due to differences in phrasing and scale
categories, factor analysis was used to identify whether or not the scale was appropriate.
The one-factor solution loaded highly on a common factor for all three questions
indicating the reliability and validity of the scale (see Mehta and Kellert 1998).
The scores of the three items were added to produce an overall score of perceived
risk. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.52. The average score (on a nine-point scale)
was 7.75. The average item score (on a three-point scale) was 2.58.
The risk perception scale was combined into two categories for further analysis. The
scale was used to test the prediction that individuals perceiving a higher level of risk
would have lower tolerance for lions as measured by the desire for a decrease in the
overall population numbers of lions. This hypothesis was supported. A significantly
larger percentage of respondents who perceived a high level of risk associated with lions
were more supportive of a reduction in overall lion population size than those who
reported a lower level of risk (χ2 = 37.76, d.f. = 2, p < 0.0001, V = 0.40; Table 3.4).
Despite the high perceived risk associated with lions, the actual number of people
who reported being attacked by a lion appeared relatively low. For example, 97% of the
population responded a lion had not attacked them in the last two years (n = 235). Only
seven individuals reported a lion had attacked them once. Since this response was biased
towards those who had survived a lion attack, respondents were also asked to estimate
how many people from their respective villages lions harmed on an annual basis. Eightynine percent of respondents thought no one would be harmed from their respective
villages. Of the 11% who thought one or more individuals would be attacked, all of the
respondents were from the village of Loibor Serrit. This suggests that either the real risk
of being attacked by lions is low or that people are extremely vigilant in the area.
In comparison, a review of lion attacks on humans in Tanzania indicates that human
injuries and deaths as a result of lions are far more prevalent in southern Tanzania where
recently “not less than 35 people were killed by one or several man-eating lions in an area
of 350 km2 … within 20 months” (Baldus 2004: 6). While the reason for this is still
unknown, it suggests that in the north either social factors (e.g. increased human
vigilance, different livelihood activities/patterns) or ecological factors (e.g. prey
availability, habitat type, behavioral ecology) or both are contributing to lower rates of
lion attacks on humans. And in the Tarangire ecosystem, while definitive data were not
collected, it appears that sexually-transmitted diseases, malaria, tuberculosis, and other
diseases are responsible for a far greater proportion of human mortality in the area
compared to lions. Nevertheless, it should be noted here that while lion attacks on people
do not occur extremely frequently in the Tarangire ecosystem, this does not invalidate the
high perception of risk associated with lions. Any memory of a lion attack is likely to be
vividly rendered and therefore associated with a belief that the likelihood of being
harmed by lions is exceedingly high.
Perceptions that individuals would be harmed by lions in a respondent’s respective
village were associated with higher levels of risk (χ2 = 13.28, d.f. = 1, p < 0.001, V =
0.24) as were reported loss of livestock (χ2 = 4.24, d.f. = 1, p < 0.05, V = 0.13) and the
lack of exposure to books or magazines about lions (χ2 = 8.52, d.f. = 1, p < 0.01, V =
0.19). Awareness of someone else who had been attacked by a lion (85%) was not
associated with an increased perception of one’s own risk of being harmed. In addition,
those individuals with exposure to videos about lions (66%) or who had seen lions in the
bush (87%) were not more likely to have elevated risk perceptions. Logistical regression
revealed that while the Maasai were the most likely to dislike lions (p = 0.001), women
and wealthier individuals were likely to have the greatest perception of risk (p < 0.0001
and p < 0.05, respectively; Table 3.5). An individual’s age was not a significant predictor
of risk perception.
Table 3.2 Rank of large carnivores considered to pose a strong threat to respondents in terms of
illiciting fear or potentially harming humans and livestock. See Table 3 for question phrasing.
The percent responding to each category is in parentheses (n = 235).
Carnivore
Lion
Leopard
Cheetah
Spotted Hyena
Wild Dog
Rank:
Strongly
Feared
1 (65)
2 (46)
3 (42)
4 (27)
2 (46)
Very Likely
to Harm People
1 (60)
2 (49)
3 (40)
4 (34)
3 (40)
Very Likely to
Harm Livestock
1 (88)
1 (88)
3 (65)
2 (70)
3 (65)
Table 3.3 Factor analysis of questions relating to risk perceptions of lions (n = 235). Based on a 0-3 scale,
a high score indicates a greater perception of risk. Respondents who held no opinion (n = 2) were
assigned a score of 0 assuming they did not have a strong perception of risk towards lions.
Question
Factor
Loading
0.71
Mean
2.42
Standard
Deviation
0.96
2. How likely, if at all, do you think lions are
to harm a person in situations where they
are not being hunted? Rated in terms
of very likely, moderately likely, slightly likely,
or not at all likely.
0.77
2.45
0.77
3. How likely, if at all, do you think lions are to
harm livestock (cattle, goats, and sheep)?
Rated in terms of very likely, moderately likely,
slightly likely, or not at all likely.
0.71
2.88
0.35
1. How much, if at all, do you fear lions
in situations where the animals are not
being hunted? Rated in terms of strongly fear,
moderately fear, fear a little, or do not fear.
Table 3.4 Relationship between risk perception of lions and desired future population size of lions. Based
on responses to the question, “In the next ten years, would you like the numbers of lions to increase
greatly, increase a little, decrease a little, decrease greatly, or remain the same in the Tarangire ecosystem?”
The initial five categories were collapsed to increase, decrease, and remain the same for the analysis.
Perceived Risk
High
Low
N
Percent Responding:
'Increase'
25
68
(93)
‘Decrease’
78
35
(113)
'Remain the Same'
11
18
(29)
Table 3.5 Results of the logistic regression analyses for the socio-economic factors (gender = female,
tribe = Maasai, class = wealthier, and age = older) that influence general attitudes toward lions and risk
perceptions. Significance levels for each variable and chi-square values for the final model are
presented. Age was an insignificant predictor for both analyses.
Perceptions of Lions
General Dislike
High Level of Risk
Factors Identified:
Step I
Step II
Tribe
Gender
p = 0.001
p < 0.01
Step III
-
Gender
p< 0.0001
Tribe
p< 0.05
Wealth
P< 0.05
Final Logistical Model
d.f.
p
χ2
19.89
2
< 0.0001
34.66
3
< 0.0001
Lions and Livestock Predation
Respondents indicated that lions were accountable for almost 100% of cattle
depredation, whereas leopards and hyenas were held responsible for losses of goats and
sheep (Table 3.6). The Maasai were significantly more likely to indicate losses of
livestock to lions than the Waarusha (χ2 = 40.42, d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001, V = 0.42). Maasai
cattle herd size (36 animals/household) was greater than that of the Waarusha (21
animals/household). However, herd size was an insignificant predictor of reports of
livestock predation as was age, gender, and income of the livestock owner.
Instead, reports of cattle predation by lions were related to an individual’s village
with residents of Narakauo indicating significantly more cattle losses than the other two
villages (χ2 = 11.88, d.f. = 2, p < 0.005, V = 0.23). A similar tendency for higher rates of
reported leopard predation in Narakauo was found for goats (χ2 = 7.25, d.f. = 2, p < 0.05,
V = 0.18) and sheep (χ2 = 28.24, d.f. = 2, p < 0.0001, V = 0.35). In the latter case,
accounts of losses of sheep were very low in Loibor Serrit. Reports of hyena predation on
goats and sheep also showed a significant spike in Narakauo (χ2 = 24.72, d.f. = 2, p <
0.0001, V = 0.32 and χ2 = 43.08, d.f. = 2, p < 0.0001, V = 0.43, respectively), and in both
circumstances, hyenas appeared to select larger herds (χ2 = 14.42, d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001, V
= 0.26 and χ2 = 5.46, d.f. = 1, p < 0.05, V = 0.16, respectively).
In Narakauo, the percentage of respondents owning cattle (46%), goats (53%), and
sheep (46%) was higher than in Loibor Serrit (37%, 40%, and 31%, respectively) and
Lolkisale (26%, 29%, and 28% respectively). Combined with the higher than average
mean livestock holdings per household in Narakauo (see Table 3.1), this suggests that the
overall number of livestock in the village of Narakauo is greater than that of Loibor Serrit
or Lolkisale. Ecologically, the village of Narakauo is unique in that it contains a large
dam with permanent water. This may contribute to the greater herd size. In any case, it
seems possible that higher incidences of reported predation in Narakauo are related to the
greater abundance of livestock in the area.
The majority of respondents considered protecting livestock from lions as both timeconsuming and expensive (91.2% and 91.5%, respectively). However, it was also
considered to be an activity that taught young adults bravery and responsibility (97.9%).
Respondents were fairly evenly split regarding whether or not people should be
compensated for livestock lost to lions. Forty-six percent of respondents thought money
should be collected from villagers to pay for livestock lost to lions. Responses were
slightly more favorable when asked whether the government should provide
compensation (61.3%). Eighty percent of individuals appeared interested in being
provided with information regarding how to protect their livestock from lions.
Attitudes toward problem lions were definitive. Ninety-six percent of all respondents
agreed that lions that predated on livestock should be killed, and 50.7% of the sample
population favored the use of poisons. Furthermore, the majority of individuals felt
people who kill a lion after it has attacked livestock should not be punished (94.4%).
While only 14.9% of respondents admitted they had killed a lion in the last two years,
73.6% of the population knew someone else who had killed a lion.
In addition to the survey data, within the village of Loibor Serrit, a detailed record of
all livestock predation events was kept for a period of one year (data are kindly provided
by C. Trout). Thirty-seven separate accounts were verified. Hyenas were responsible for
the majority of predation incidents (55.3%), followed by lion (28.9%), and leopards
(15.8%). In addition to these, three accounts of jackal predation on baby goats were
noted.
Of the 21 hyena incidents, attacks on goats (n = 9) and cattle (n = 7) more the most
prevalent. Four hyena attacks on sheep and one attack on a donkey were also recorded.
Leopard attacks occurred only on goats (n = 4) and sheep (n = 2), while lions pursued
mainly cattle (n =8) and donkeys (n =3). All incidents resulted in the death of the victim.
Hyenas were the only species that killed more than one animal at a time. On six
occasions they managed to kill two animals, and one mass killing of ten animals occurred
when a boy lost his herd at pasture. In fact, 71.4% of carnivore attacks occurred in the
bush when herd animals wandered off and were lost. The remainder of attacks occurred
near or in the “boma” (28.6%). Only leopards and lions entered the corrals by either
jumping over the thorn fence or by crawling through holes in it, while in the three cases
where hyenas attacked livestock at the “boma”, the animals were left on the outside of the
enclosure.
Despite the prevalence of their kills, retaliation against hyenas was only attempted
twice via poison and, in both cases, was deemed unsuccessful. On the other hand, four of
the six leopard predation incidents were repaid with endeavors to kill the animals via
traps (a hole dug in the ground near a carcass or at the base of a tree; a person gets in it
with his spear, is covered with light brush, and awaits the predator), snares, poison, guns,
and spears. Again, no efforts were successful, though one leopard was caught in a snare
and severely mauled a man when it broke free.
On the contrary, nine out of the eleven lion depredations resulted in retaliation, and
over the period of one year, five lions were killed. In addition to one cub, one adult male,
one subadult male, and one adult female were killed (the age and sex of one lion were not
recorded; ages are approximations based on the research assistant’s information). Most
lions were speared to death, while on one occasion, professional sport hunters shot the
marauding lion for the village. Only one unsuccessful attempt to poison a lion was made.
And in one case, a man was hospitalized after being attacked by a lion when he speared it
from a trap.
Table 3.6 Respondents' estimates of the number of cattle, goats, and sheep taken by carnivores
over the last two years. Number of respondents (n) out of 235 is indicated in parentheses.
SD = Standard Deviation
Carnivore
Cattle
Goats
Sheep
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Lion
3.88 (169)
3.88
4.97 (31)
4.80
3.76 (21)
3.02
Leopard
-
-
5.85 (136)
4.97
4.17 (126)
3.50
Cheetah
-
-
3.38 (8)
1.69
3.50 (4)
3.32
Hyena
2.25 (4)
1.50
4.11 (133)
3.60
3.36 (95)
2.74
Wild Dog
3 (1)
-
3.35 (17)
2.50
3.00 (9)
1.80
The Nature of Human – Lion Encounters
In the last ten years, most respondents felt that the number of lions in the Tarangire
ecosystem had either increased greatly (40%) or a little (36.2%), while only 23.8% felt
they had either declined or remained the same. Similarly, the majority of the sample
population thought they were either very abundant in the ecosystem (55.3%) or
moderately abundant (36.6%). While 54.5% of individuals felt there would be more lions
in Tarangire National Park than in an area outside the park of comparable size, over half
of the respondents estimated the lion populations in these similarly sized areas to be
greater than 1000 animals (51.9% and 53.2%, respectively). These estimates of lion
abundance will be tested in Chapter Four.
Respondents indicated that the majority of human and lion encounters occurred while
grazing livestock, traveling by foot, and while protecting livestock at night (71.9%,
58.3%, and 49.8%, respectively). However, over a two-year period, these encounters
appeared to occur relatively infrequently (e.g. for livestock grazing, an average of 2.89
days over two years; Table 3.7).
Chi-square tests revealed that men were more likely to encounter lions while
livestock grazing (χ2 = 8.60, d.f. = 1, p < 0.01, V = 0.19), traveling by foot (χ2 = 33.32,
d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001, V = 0.38), or protecting livestock at night (χ2 = 71.16, d.f. = 1, p <
0.0001, V = 0.55). Women were more likely to encounter lions while collecting firewood
(χ2 = 71.92, d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001, V = 0.55) or collecting water/washing clothes (χ2 =
25.35, d.f. = 1, p < 0.0001, V = 0.33), corresponding with the gender-bias of these
activities. Both men and women were equally likely to encounter lions while farming
crops, an activity commonly shared by both groups.
The majority of individuals indicated that if they encountered a lion, they would leave
it alone (88.1%). Of the remaining 11.9% of respondents who indicated they would
actively pursue a lion (i.e. chase, attempt to kill, or incite others to kill it), all were men
except for one woman who said she would get others to hunt it. Maasai men were slightly
more likely to attempt to kill the lion than the Waarusha men (χ2 = 4.8, d.f. = 1, p < 0.05,
V = 0.14).
Table 3.7 Mean number of days respondents encountered lions over the last two years
according to activity. Number of respondents (n) out of 235 indicated in parentheses.
SD = Standard Deviation
Activity
Livestock Grazing
Farming Crops
Collecting Firewood
Collecting Water/Washing Clothes
Traveling by Foot
Protecting Livestock at Night
Mean
2.89 (169)
2.43 (42)
2.23 (26)
1.63 (24)
1.99 (137)
2.22 (117)
SD
2.66
2.46
1.92
0.71
1.58
1.73
The Influence of Wildlife Benefits on Attitudes Toward Lion Conservation
The majority of respondents recognized both photographic tourism of lions and the
sport hunting of lions as important contributors to the Tanzanian economy (97.9% and
93.2%, respectively). Furthermore, they indicated that both activities have the potential to
bring significant economic benefits to local communities (97.1% and 98.3%,
respectively). Fewer individuals, however, indicated they had personally benefited from
wildlife tourism and professional hunting (14% and 51%, respectively). Logistic
regression revealed that respondents who reported they received benefits from wildlife
tourism were likely to be Waarusha (p< 0.0001) and male (p < 0.01; Table 3.8).
Individual benefits from tourism and sport hunting were used to test the prediction
that benefits from these activities are associated with elevated tolerances toward lions as
measured by a desire for an increase in the overall population numbers of lions. This
hypothesis was confirmed. Those individuals who benefited from photographic tourism
or professional sport hunting were more likely to support an increase in the lion
population over the next ten years (χ2 = 29.20, d.f. = 2, p < 0.0001, V = 0.35 and χ2 =
21.50, d.f. = 2, p < 0.0001, V = 0.30, respectively; Table 3.9). Nevertheless, respondents
appeared relatively unwilling to actively participate in lion conservation by restricting
their own activities in areas where lions were found (Table 3.10). While 54.5% and
44.3% of the sample population strongly agreed with limiting the activities of sport
hunters and photographic tourists, only 11% of the respondents strongly agreed with
limiting the activities of livestock owners or farmers.
Table 3.8 Results of the logistic regression analyses for the relationship between socio-economic
factors (gender = male, tribe = Waarusha, class = wealthier, and age = older) and benefits of wildlife
tourism (n = 231). Significance levels for each variable and chi-square values for the final model
are presented. Neither age nor wealth was a significant predictor for the analyses.
Benefits
Photographic Tourism
Sport Hunting
Factors Identified:
Step I
Step II
Tribe
Gender
p< 0.0001
p < 0.01
Tribe
p< 0.0001
Gender
p< 0.001
Final Logistical Model:
d.f.
p
χ2
32.42
2
< 0.0001
30.15
2
< 0.0001
Table 3.9 Relationship between benefits from wildlife tourism and desired future population size of
lions. Based on responses to the question, “In the next ten years, would you like the numbers of lions
to increase greatly, increase a little, decrease a little, decrease greatly, or remain the same in the
Tarangire ecosystem?” The initial five categories were collapsed to increase, decrease, and remain
the same for the analysis.
Benefits
Percent Responding:
'Increase'
'Decrease'
'Remain the Same'
Photographic tourism
Yes
No
(n)
27
66
(93)
4
55
(59)
2
81
(83)
Sport hunting
yes
no
(n)
64
29
(93)
26
33
(59)
29
54
(83)
Table 3.10 Willingness to restrict activities for lion conservation. Measured by responses to the question,
"How strongly do you agree or disagree with limiting the activities of the following groups of people in
areas where lions are found outside of national parks and game reserves?" Responses are percents (n =
235).
Group
Strongly
Agree
54.5
Moderately
Agree
21.3
Moderately
Disagree
2.1
Strongly
Disagree
15.3
Don’t
Know
6.8
Tourists
44.3
30.2
3.0
15.3
7.3
Livestock owners
11.5
20.0
9.8
53.2
5.5
Farmers
11.1
20.0
8.5
54.9
5.5
Sport hunters
Discussion
Based on the data presented, some general conclusions and recommendations are
made regarding potential and actual interactions with lions and their implications for
reducing human – lion conflicts. The research presented here has demonstrated the
importance of considering the perception of risk as an integral component shaping local
attitudes toward and tolerances of lions. People’s perceptions of lions were influenced by
their fear of them and by the belief that they are capable of harming humans.
Interestingly, the only documented attacks of large carnivores on humans in Loibor Serrit
occurred after individuals provoked them while attempting to kill them in retaliation for
loss of livestock. While it is impossible to conclude whether the real risk of lion attacks
on humans is low or, on the other hand, whether the Maasai are simply extremely capable
of deterring them, the sheer possibility of being attacked by a lion constitutes a serious
threat considering the potentially fatal outcome. This was particularly apparent among
women whose likelihood of interacting with lions was fairly small, yet they indicated a
high level of perceived risk associated with the lion. In any case, the mystique of the lion
as a dangerous beast is as important a component shaping local attitudes toward
interactions with them as actual incidences of attacks. In fact, due to this persistent fear,
programs targeted solely at reducing attacks on humans may not be entirely successful in
elevating human tolerance towards lions.
The perception of lions as primary livestock killers was also a major component
affecting the risk of living with lions. Negative attitudes toward carnivores are common
among ranchers and farmers and are generally motivated by a fear of economic loss
(Kellert 1985a, Reading and Kellert 1993). Depredation of stock can inflict severe
emotional, financial, and political consequences (Mech 1981). In Loibor Serrit, detailed
records of actual predation accounts indicated that the vast majority of depredations
occurred once herd animals were lost in the bush. This suggests that improvements in
livestock husbandry might significantly reduce the number of animals lost to large
carnivores. Specifically, many animals were lost when young herd boys fell asleep or lost
interest in their livestock, when animals were being moved between “bomas,” when
pregnant animals disappeared from the herds to give birth, or when sick animals were
unable to keep up with the livestock movements. While definitive data were not
collected, conversations with key informants indicated that many of these incidents might
have been avoided. In terms of the lower predation rates at the “bomas,” it should be
acknowledged that Loibor Serrit is situated in a relatively woody environment where a
substantial number of thorn bushes are available to build protective fences. In other
villages, where the trees and shrubs have been denuded for charcoal burning or other
uses, or, in generally more open settings, livestock predation rates at the “boma” may be
higher than those in Loibor Serrit as a result of less fortified fences.
Not only did accounts of livestock predation elevate people’s perception of risk, but
they also motivated negative interactions with the large cats. The majority of lion
depredations in Loibor Serrit led to human retaliation, and these attempts were frequently
successful. Furthermore, over half of the sample population favored the use of poisons in
retaliation against stock-raiding lions. Not only is this a non-selective method for killing
stock-raiders, the consequences of poisoning are far greater as many non-implicated
species are likely to feed off poisoned carcasses. Poisoning of carnivores was also
believed to be a popular local method of dealing with livestock predation by many sport
hunters active in the area (Chapter Two). However, while throughout the study period
several poisoned tawny eagles were found in the vicinity of Loibor Serrit, none of the
known attempts to use poisons appeared successful on large carnivores. Given the
illegality of using poisons, it is possible that this method was underreported. However,
more information is needed to accurately determine the effects of poisoning on the lion
population.
While the precise number of lions killed annually by Maasai in the Tarangire
ecosystem is unknown, survey data presented in this paper indicate that approximately
15% of the sample population killed a lion (irrespective of method used) in the last two
years, suggesting at least 17 lion deaths/year among only three Maasai villages.
Therefore, rough estimates of the number of lions killed on an annual basis indicate a kill
rate of 5.7 lions/village or 39.9 lions/year among the seven villages on the outskirts of the
park, although environmental variability may result in gross annual fluctuations. The
effects of these kill rates on the lion population will be considered in Chapter Four. This
estimate compares reasonably with the five lions that were known to be killed over the
period of one year in Loibor Serrit. In one particularly unpleasant account, two lions were
speared to death after attacking a man’s donkey, while the individual was hospitalized for
critical wounds sustained in the attack.
Despite the aggravated relationships between people and lions, little attention is given
to the financial, psychological, and social consequences of lion attacks on humans and
livestock in the Tarangire ecosystem. However, this research showed that local
individuals were interested in learning how to better protect their livestock from lions and
other large carnivores. Future educational programs should target this interest with hopes
of reducing lion – livestock conflicts. In addition, whereas the village of Loibor Serrit
indicated a higher likelihood of lion attacks on humans than any other village, it may be
useful to conduct a more detailed analysis of this phenomenon.
Nevertheless, while reduction of livestock depredation and lion attacks on humans
should be considered primary management objectives, these alone may not result in a
change in attitudes toward lions. For example, Bath (1987) indicated little change in
negative attitudes toward wolves among ranchers in Wyoming after being offered
compensation, elimination of problem animals, or confinement of wolves to protected
areas. Similarly, Rudnai (1979) observed that human resentment of lions appeared out of
proportion to actual livestock depredations outside of Nairobi National Park. She
suggested that antipathy towards lions was more a result of historically antagonistic
wildlife policies than losses of livestock. Her analysis is supported by recent killing of
lions by the Maasai in Nairobi National Park that were motivated by resentment
regarding the inequitable distribution of the costs and benefits of conserving wildlife.
In the Tarangire ecosystem, data presented in both Chapter Two and this chapter
emphasize the extent to which ambiguous and insecure property rights negatively affect
Maasai perceptions of lions. In such cases, negative attitudes may be far too complicated
and long-standing to be altered by wildlife management programs focused solely on the
interactions between carnivores and livestock without considering the human social and
psychological consequences of the problem.
Certainly, given the widespread conflicts with lions and the highly negative attitudes
toward them, it is unlikely that a change in Maasai-lion relationships will occur without
greater local control over lions and significant, individual, realized benefits from the big
cats among local community members. While the professional sport hunting and
photographic tourism of lions were both seen as important contributors to the Tanzanian
economy and as potential sources of income for local communities, relatively fewer
individuals perceived actual benefits from these activities. Importantly, those who did
were more supportive of lion conservation; however, certain inconsistencies were
evident. For example, those benefiting from wildlife tourism (Waarusha and men) were
not necessarily those individuals with higher risk perceptions of lions (women and
Maasai). While it is acknowledged that past benefits from wildlife have not been targeted
for raising tolerances toward lions per se, they were expected to increase participation in
wildlife conservation. This research demonstrates the importance of targeting particularly
high-risk groups for conservation awareness and the need to make sure all individuals
benefit equitably from wildlife tourism.
Linking species and habitat protection with community wildlife rights and benefits is
one of the goals of the recently revised wildlife policy of Tanzania (MNRT 1998).
However, while benefits from tourism may make people more positive toward wildlife
conservation, this does not mean that they will actively change their land use practices to
accommodate more wildlife. In this study, local individuals appeared strongly opposed to
limiting their activities (i.e. livestock grazing and farming) in order to conserve lions
regardless of the potential benefits of lion-based tourism. Discussions with community
members indicated a deep distrust of wildlife management authorities and a fear that
conservation activities outside the national park would lead to an eventual loss of access
to vital livestock grazing and farming lands. In fact, many individuals supported the
clearing of otherwise vacant land as a means of demonstrating local land rights in order
to thwart the conservation of wildlife habitat outside of the protected areas. In this sense,
the perceived lack of control over wildlife, particularly lions, is viewed more broadly as a
loss of control over the environment which is neither psychologically nor socially
acceptable. In fact, as their world spirals increasingly out of order, the Maasai may
intensify symbolic demonstrations of power by killing more and more lions. While it is
beyond the scope of this paper to evaluate the potential efficacy of the Tanzanian wildlife
policy, other studies have demonstrated the challenges of facilitating real changes in land
use practices in response to economic benefits from wildlife (Kellert et al. 2000).
The significance of human perceptions of fear and dislike for carnivores in affecting
the long-term persistence of a species has already been demonstrated in North America
by the widespread extirpation of large carnivores (e.g. wolves, grizzly bears, coyotes, and
mountain lions). This suggests that a potentially similar situation is possible for lions
outside of protected areas in Africa. In fact, modern day local attitudes toward lions are
not dissimilar to historical relationships between Euro-American settlers and wolves.
Much like the lion, wolves were considered a threat to personal safety and were held
primarily responsible for financial losses due to cattle depredation despite a multitude of
other factors such as disease, weather, and fluctuating market prices (Kellert et al. 1996).
Just as wolves were considered a threat to progress and civilization (Young 1946), similar
views are expressed toward lions as exemplified by this quote from a Tanzanian
newspaper, “People living under fear of wild animals, running a daily risk of being killed
by lions and other beasts, often tend to believe that they do not live under what can be
properly called a Government” (The Guardian 1997). Vulnerability to large carnivores, in
this sense, is viewed as backwards and embarrassing to a country increasingly exposed to
the global community. While in the United States, a profound change in attitudes toward
wolves has occurred in the last century, negative views toward wolves have endured
among people living in proximity to them, particularly ranchers and farmers (Tucker and
Pletscher 1989; Bath 1987; Kellert et al. 1996). The persistence of negative attitudes
toward large carnivores among local communities has important implications for
conservation programs in developing countries where significant carnivore populations
still exist alongside rapidly growing and expanding, agriculturally based human
communities.
As such, the research presented here contradicts the more popular notion of the
Maasai as ‘custodians of wildlife.’ While, historically, Maasai pastoralism has been
considered ecologically compatible with wildlife conservation (Arhem 1985; Diehl 1985;
Collet 1987; Homewood and Rodgers 1991), this may have had more to do with the
lower human population numbers and land pressures of the past than any concerted
efforts toward wildlife conservation. In fact, it is proposed that Maasai attitudes toward
large carnivores have not changed considerably over the years. However, the effects of
their attitudes and actions toward large carnivores have become more pronounced as
increasing land use pressures and human populations have forced lions, people, and cattle
into closer proximity and therefore more aggravated relationships. Romanticized notions
of Maasai – wildlife relationships obscure present-day relationships between these groups
and may ultimately undermine the long-term conservation of particular species such as
the lion in Maasai-dominated landscapes.
Finally, this chapter has demonstrated that attitudes toward large carnivores among
local communities in Africa are not necessarily those promoted by conservation
organizations, wildlife management bodies, or tourism industries. Conservation programs
to protect these animals will not be readily accepted by communities where they interfere
with individual livelihoods or where the real or perceived risk of living among these
animals outweighs the actual benefits of sharing the landscape with them. Therefore, the
success of conservation efforts for large carnivores outside of protected areas will depend
as greatly on the social acceptance of these animals by local communities as on the
biological variables directly influencing their survival.
References
Babbie, E. 1990. Survey research methods. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont,
California.
Baldus, R. D. 2004. Lion conservation in Tanzania leads to serious human – lion
Bath. A. J. 1987. Attitudes of various interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf
reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. MA thesis. University of Wyoming,
Laramie, Wyoming.
Bernstein, P. L. 1996. Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk. Wiley, New York,
New York.
Collet, D. 1987. Pastoralists and wildlife: Image and reality in Kenya Maasailand. Pages
129-148 in D. Anderson and R. Grove, eds. Conservation in Africa. Cambridge
University Press, New York, New York.
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica
16: 297-334.
Diehl, C. 1985. Wildlife and the Maasai: the story of East African parks. Cultural
Survival Quarterly 9(1): 37-40.
York, New York.
Kahurananga, J. and F. Silkiluwasha. 1997. The migration of zebra and wildebeest
between Tarangire National Park and Simanjiro plains, northern Tanzania, in 1972
and recent trends. African Journal of Ecology 35: 179-185.
Kellert, S. R. 1985a. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote.
Biological Conservation 31: 167-198.
Kellert, S. R., J. N. Mehta, S. A. Ebbin, and L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community natural
resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources
13: 705-715.
Mehta, J. N. and S. R. Kellert. 1998. Local attitudes toward community-based
conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun
Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation 25:320-333.
Tanzania. MNRT, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
VETAID, Waarusha, Tanzania.
Reading, R. and S. R. Kellert. 1993 Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of black-
footed ferrets. Conservation Biology 7: 349-365.
Riley, S. J. and D. J. Decker. 2000. Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder
acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5: 5062.
Rudnai, J. 1979. Ecology of lions in Nairobi National Park and the adjoining Kitengela
Conservation Unit in Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 17: 85-95.
Saberwal, V. K., J. P. Gibbs, R. Chellam, and A. J. T. Johsingh. 1994. Lion-human
conflict in the Gir Forest, India. Conservation Biology 8: 501-507.
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280-285.
Tarangire – Manyara Conservation Project. 2002. Final Report. Istituto Oikos and
University of Insubria, Italy in Collaboration with TANAPA. Arusha, Tanzania.
Tessler, M. and I. Warriner. 1997. Gender, feminism, and attitudes toward international
conflict: exploring relationships with survey data from the Middle East. World
Politics 49: 250-281.
The Guardian (Dar es Salaam). July 23rd, 1997.
Tucker, P. and D. Pletscher. 1989. Attitudes of hunters and residents toward wolves in
northwestern Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 509-514.
Woodroffe, R. 2001. Strategies for carnivore conservation: lessons from contemporary
extinctions. Pages 61-92 in J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K.
Wayne, eds. Carnivore Conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, New
York.
Young, S. P. 1946. The wolf in American history. Caxton Printers, Cladwell, Idaho.
CHAPTER FOUR
Lions Living on the Edge:
Real and Perceived Lion Abundance in Sport Hunting and
Village Lands Outside Tarangire National Park, Tanzania
Chapter Four
The diminishing global status and distribution of large carnivores is a persistent
concern among wildlife managers and conservationists. Recent studies show that most
conflicts with these species occur outside or on the boundaries of parks and reserves
where they come into contact with human communities (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998;
Gittleman et al. 2001; Chapters Two and Three). In fact, while the creation of protected
areas has extended the tenuous hold large carnivores have on wild existence, these areas
have not been able to stem overall species declines (Weber and Rabinowitz 1996).
Not surprisingly, outside protected areas, where human – carnivore conflicts are
prevalent, local retaliation against these animals is common. For example, communities
living adjacent to protected areas in Brazil are responsible for the illegal killing of jaguars
that predate on local livestock (Conforti and Azevedo 2003). Subsistence farmers living
among snow leopards within the Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal support the
extermination of the species as a solution to livestock predation (Oli et al. 1994). And, as
I demonstrated in Chapter Three, the Maasai retaliate against livestock depredating lions
in the Tarangire ecosystem with poison, traps, guns, and spears.
In the Tarangire ecosystem, local conflicts with lions derive from an interaction of
social and ecological factors that affect Maasai attitudes toward lions. In Chapters Two
and Three, I showed that a variety of political, economic, valuational, and institutional
issues created negative attitudes toward lions. In addition, both the possibility of livestock
loss or attacks on humans along with actual lion encounters influenced Maasai tolerance
Lichtenfeld – Chapter Four
110
of the big cats. An important perception underlying and aggravating these negative
attitudes was the pervasive local belief that lions are abundant outside of Tarangire
National Park (Chapter Three). Nevertheless, little information is known about the size
and status of the lion population in the area.
Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to analyze whether or not the popular notion
of abundant lions is grounded in ecological reality by testing the hypothesis that lion
densities are high outside of Tarangire National Park. This requires comparing the
densities of lions within several land use areas both within and outside of the national
park. Specifically, I study the relative, seasonal abundances of lions in a mosaic of
protected, village, and professional sport hunting lands using spoor counts as the
principal methodology. Conservative population estimates for lions are presented and
discussed in terms of local perceptions of lion abundance and the implications for lion
conservation in the Tarangire ecosystem. In addition, I evaluate the effects of the Maasai
and sport hunters on lion survivorship in terms of their estimated annual kill rates.
Methods
Study Area
I conducted research in three experimental areas within the Tarangire ecosystem of
northern Tanzania. The Tarangire ecosystem is approximately 12,000 km2 in size,
including Tarangire National Park (2600 km2), Lake Manyara National Park (330 km2),
the Lolkisale Game Controlled Area, and extensive village and hunting lands. My
research was focused within Tarangire National Park, which is between 3° 67’ and 4° 53’
111
south and 35° 92 and 36° 29 east, and two study sites along the eastern park boundary.
The study sites represented three different land uses: the Park (control – wildlife
protection), Kikoti (sport hunting), and Loibor Serrit (village/sport hunting; Figure 4.1,
boxes A, B, and C, respectively).
Tarangire National Park and the adjacent study sites are located within the semi-arid
ecological zone (Pratt et al. 1966). The average annual rainfall is 450 – 600 mm with a
biannual rainy season. Historically, short rains fall from October to December and long
rains from February to May. However, the rains are increasingly erratic and highly
variable (Kahurananga and Silkiluwasha 1997). During the study period from February
2003 – May 2004, the short rains failed. Therefore, the data were interpreted for one wet
and one dry season.
The topography and vegetation of Tarangire National Park and the adjacent study
sites consists of rolling hills and valleys characterized by Combretum – Dalbergia and
Acacia – Commiphora woodlands, grasslands, and floodplains (Lamprey 1963). The
national park is notable for the permanent Tarangire River that bisects the park from
south to north. Other water sources include seasonal waterholes, springs, and man-made
dams as well as a small, semi- permanent, spring-fed stream in Loibor Serrit. The soil in
well-drained areas is dark red, sandy clay loam and in flood plains is typically black
cotton (Kahurananga and Silkiluwasha 1997).
112
Figure 4.1 Location of three study sites (boxes) in the Tarangire ecosystem.
Density Estimates
Large carnivore population abundances are often estimated by identifying individuals
and groups (Schaller 1972; Smuts et al. 1977; Hofer and East 1995). This derives from
long-term research projects focused on the ecology of individual animals. Identification
of individuals is not feasible when population estimates are needed in short order for
environmental problem-solving over large areas (such as, for example, human-wildlife
conflicts). To this end, a number of indirect measures have been developed to estimate
relative carnivore population abundances including scent-station surveys, scat surveys,
113
track counts, den surveys, and playback or vocalization response surveys (see Gese
2001).
I used track counts to evaluate the abundance of large carnivores based on the
identification and quantification of fresh spoor left by individual animals on dirt roads.
Several studies utilizing track counts for the estimation of cougar, leopard and lion
populations have established this technique as both repeatable and objective (Van Dyke
et al. 1986; Martin and de Meulenaer 1988; Smallwood and Fitzhugh 1995; Stander
1998; and Funston et al. 2001). In particular, calibrations of leopard and lion spoor counts
with direct counts of known individuals have established the validity of this methodology
in estimating large carnivore population densities in southern Africa (Stander 1998;
Funston et al. 2001). In this study, I use spoor counts broadly as a technique for
estimating lion abundance in several study sites. I then calibrate the indirect spoor counts
to a direct measure using individual identification of lions within a small area of
Tarangire National Park.
Indirect Sampling: Spoor Density
I adapted to an east African environment methodologies established in southern
Africa for large carnivore spoor counts (see Stander et al. 1997; Stander 1998; Funston et
al. 2001). In southern Africa, the relatively sandy soil makes the detection of spoor fairly
easy. Therefore, the road network is determined primarily based on road availability. In
Tanzania, the soil often has a sandy top layer; however, in some areas, the red clay or
114
black cotton soil becomes hard packed and unsuitable for tracking. Therefore, in addition
to road availability, I considered road suitability in my determination of transects.
I conducted spoor counts of lions in three experimental areas: park (150 km2), Kikoti
(202 km2), and Loibor Serrit (246 km2). Table 1 provides general characteristics of the
roads in each study area. I selected roads in all three study areas that were primarily
orientated in a north – south direction. This maximized the likelihood of detecting spoor
as I noted most animal tracks and movements were in an east – west direction. Figure 4.2
provides an example of the roads sampled in Loibor Serrit.
I enlisted help from traditional Hadzabe hunter-gatherers whose knowledge of and
ability to detect wildlife tracks have been revered throughout Tanzania. Based on
traditional practices, the Hadzabe hunt wildlife on foot by following tracks until they are
close enough to shoot the animal with a bow and arrow. The ability to detect accurately
and follow wildlife tracks is essential to their well-being and, in a cultural sense, survival.
Today, in recognition of their dependency on wild meat, the Hadzabe are the only tribe in
Tanzania that still maintains the right to hunt wildlife without observing the six month
hunting season or first having to file for a permit. Therefore, they also have more
opportunities than most individuals to keep their tracking skills sharp.
I sampled roads for a period of 10 months. In two separate cases (park and Loibor
Serrit) data collection was not possible for one month (February and May, respectively). I
drove the roads at speeds between 8 and 12 km/h in the early morning with between two
115
Figure 4.2 The road network in Loibor Serrit. “B” indicates the beginning of a transect
and “E” indicates the end.
and four individuals sitting on the front bumpers and sides of the vehicle looking for
spoor. I only recorded fresh spoor (i.e. <12 hours old), and therefore, on a given day, I
only traveled roads that were not disturbed by other vehicles, livestock, rain, or wind
within 12 hours of data collection. In addition, the afternoon before a road was sampled,
all old spoor were erased by either dragging dead thorn bushes behind the car, or, in the
case of the park, by heavy vehicle traffic. Nevertheless, frequent disturbances,
particularly of vehicles, occurred after dark or in the mornings, and I often had to re-drive
roads on another day in order to sample them in an undisturbed condition.
I recorded data for each road once a month. The road penetration index, defined by
Stander (1998) as the relationship between the number and length of roads and the size of
the area sampled, indicated a high sampling intensity per study area compared to the
116
suggested ratio (6.5 km2: 1 km road, Stander 1998; Table 4.1). I recorded fresh spoor by
species, group size, and in the case of lions, individual age group and sex. In all cases, I
personally checked the spoor to ensure correct species identification (as we were working
in two different languages, Hadzabe and Kiswahili, occasionally the species name was
linguistically confused, though the track had been correctly identified; this prevented
recording errors that might have resulted from fatigue). In addition, I recorded the time,
location, and number of observers. An individual’s spoor was only recorded once per
day. Spoor density is the number of individual animals’ spoor per km.
Table 4.1 Road and sampling characteristics of the three study areas.
Categories
Study Area
Tarangire N. P.
Kikoti
Loibor Serrit
Sample Area (km2)
150
202
246
No. of Roads
7
9
6
Avg. Road Length (km)
7.8 ± 1.26
9.19 ± 1.3
13.2 ± 1.01
Total Distance of Roads (km)
55
83
79
Road Penetration*
2.6
2.4
3.1
Sampling Effort (n)
9
10
9
2
* Road Penetration is defined as the ratio of x km surface area: 1 km road (see Stander 1998).
Direct Sampling: Visual Observation
I estimated the density of lions directly for Tarangire National Park in the 150 km2
experimental site based on the individual identification and monitoring of lions. This
estimate was independent of spoor counts, although in certain cases, following spoor
from a road transect led to individual identification. Upon sighting lions, I photographed
each animal with particular attention to the vibrissa-spot pattern that is unique to
individual lions (Pennycuick and Rudnai 1970). In addition, ear notches, permanent
117
scars, mane size (in males), nose pigmentation, and tooth wear aided in individual
recognition.
I aged animals according to Smuts et al. (1978) who found body size differences in
lions up to three years old. Lions up to two years of age are smaller than adults and are
easily recognizable. Females over two years approach their maximum size and are more
difficult to age, while males between the ages of two and four years generally have
conspicuous, yet incomplete manes. Five-year-old males tend to have full manes, though
in some cases, male lions can be maneless, and this was witnessed in the Tarangire
ecosystem. Therefore, mane size is not always a reliable predictor of age. Body wear can
also aid in estimating the age of lions. Older animals tend to begin to show signs of wear
as a result of the dangers of hunting and maintaining pride territories and appear to have
an increased number of ear notches and scars, significant tooth wear and discoloration,
and, in the case of some older males, tattered manes. Finally, nose pigmentation has been
proposed as a reliable means of estimating age based on the percentage of dark coloration
in the nose (Whitman et al. 2004). These authors found lions’ noses increasingly
darkened with age, reaching 50% blackness at 5 years of age, though variation in the rate
of darkening was evident in two separate populations. I used nose pigmentation as an aid
in ageing lions along with the aforementioned indicators. However, in some cases, I
found cubs with entirely black noses suggesting that nose pigmentation may be expressed
differently in the Tarangire population. I classified age groups as the following: juveniles
(0 – 2 years), subadults (2 – 4 years), and adults (4+ years). I kept a record of sightings
for each individual along with group associations and locality.
118
Statistical Analyses
Means are presented with standard error (X ± SE) or 95% confidence intervals.
Differences in several means were analyzed using nonparametric statistics for nonnormally distributed data. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicates that groups are significantly
different if the p value is less than 0.05. Tests of two means (e.g. wet and dry season
values) utilized the standard two-sample t-test. In all cases, significant differences were
measured at p < 0.05. NS indicates non-significant results.
Results
Reliability and Accuracy of Trackers
The Hadzabe trackers were highly capable of identifying species by their spoor. I
conducted independent tests of the Hadzabe’s abilities to detect lions from their spoor,
including age group and sex, by locating and identifying lion spoor and then following
the tracks until the actual lion was found. I then aged and sexed the lion, and the data
were compared to the Hadzabe’s determinations (the Hadzabe were not allowed to see
the actual animal until after they had identified the track). They correctly identified lions
from their spoor in all 16 cases (Table 4.2). Stander et al. (1997) found similar results
with San Bushmen in Namibia and provide a graphical analysis of the anatomical
variation in spoor between several large carnivore species. The Hadzabe were also
capable of correctly identifying the age group and sex of individual lions by their spoor
(Table 4.2).
119
Table 4.2 The percentage of correctly identified lions from their spoor including determination of
an individual’s age group and sex.
Lion
Species
Age Group
Number of
Cases
16
Correct
Identification
16
% Correct
47
44
94
28
97
Sex*
29
* Only adult and sub-adult spoor were sexed.
100
Effects of Locality and Seasonality on Spoor Density
The average annual, wet season, and dry season spoor densities for lions, spotted
hyenas, and leopards in all three experimental areas are presented in Table 4.3.
Significant differences in the annual densities of lions (Kruskal-Wallis: χ2 = 7.32, d.f. =
2, p < .05) and spotted hyenas (Kruskal-Wallis: χ2 = 10.33, d.f. = 2, p < .01) were evident
by area. No differences in annual densities between areas were found for leopards (p >
0.05). The median test for lions indicated that park spoor densities were significantly
greater than the median value of .08 spoor/km, while spoor densities were significantly
lower than the median in Loibor Serrit (χ2 = 11.23, d.f. = 2, p < .005). Spotted hyena
spoor densities were also significantly greater than the median value (.42 spoor/km) in
the park while lower in Kikoti and Loibor Serrit (χ2 = 8.04, d.f. = 2, p < .05).
I also analyzed the data by season. Lion spoor densities (Table 4.3) are significantly
greater in the park during the dry season (T = -2.92, p < 0.05) and in Kikoti during the
wet season (T = 3.87, p < 0.01). A shortened wet season of February through May in
Kikoti results in an even more significant increase in lion spoor density (T = 15.05, p <
0.0001). There is no seasonal difference in lion spoor density for Loibor Serrit unless the
120
wet season is extended through July. In this case, lion spoor density is slightly greater in
the dry season than the wet season for Loibor Serrit (T = -3.45, p < 0.05). While no
annual difference in lion spoor density was found between Kikoti and Loibor Serrit,
during peak periods (February - May for Kikoti; August - December for Loibor Serrit)
lion spoor density is significantly greater in Kikoti (T = 13.36, p < 0.0001).
No seasonal differences among study areas were found for spotted hyenas regardless
of the time period analyzed. This was also true for leopards except in the case of Loibor
Serrit. Leopard spoor density was slightly greater during the shortened dry season
(August – December; T = 2.39, p < 0.05). If one outlier point (no leopard spoor found) is
left out of the Kikoti analysis, leopard spoor density is also significantly greater in the dry
season (July – December; T = 3.82, p <0.01).
Table 4.3 Overall and seasonal spoor densities (# of spoor/km; mean and standard error) for lion, spotted
hyena, and leopard in the three study areas. Wet season is from February through June. Dry season is from
July through December.
Categories
Lion
Park
Kikoti
Loibor Serrit
Spoor Density Number of Spoor Density Number of Spoor Density Number of
n
Overall
Fresh Spoor Wet Season Fresh Spoor Dry Season Fresh Spoor
9
.21 ± .039
10 .093 ± .022
9 .063 ± .0076
Spotted Hyena
Park
9
Kikoti
10
Loibor Serrit
9
.59 ± .044
.39 ± .018
.38 ± .033
100
69
41
.12 ± .038
.15 ± .027
.050 ± .011
25
54
14
.29 ± .040
.038 ± .0074
0.074 ± .0087
75
15
27
276
304
229
.59 ± .053
.39 ± .023
.34 ± .021
119
145
91
.60 ± .072
.40 ± .031
.42 .054
157
159
138
Leopard*
Park
9 .030 ± .0091
14
6
8
.028 ± .011
.032 ± .015
10
22
Kikoti
10 .039 ± .0086
32
.052 ± .015
.026 ± .0060
Loibor Serrit
9 .041 ± .0065
26
9
17
.033 ± .0063
.048 ± .010
* If zero density data points are excluded (3 for park and 1 for Kikoti) overall spoor density becomes
.045, .043, and .041 for leopard.
121
Lion Group Size, Composition, and Sex Ratios
The average size of foraging groups was 1.92 ± 0.14 (n = 106). There was no
difference in foraging group size based on spoor between the three experimental areas (p
> 0.05). However, foraging group size was significantly greater for lions visually
observed in the park (3.50 ± 0.58, n = 22) in comparison to the spoor data (T = 15.5, p <
0.05). A comparison of age groups based on individual identification of lions and
tracking data is presented in Table 4.4. Spoor data in the park revealed a lower
percentage of juveniles as compared to those observed visually. If juveniles are excluded
from the analysis, the percentages of adults and subadults appear similar between those
visually observed in the park and those identified by spoor in the park and Kikoti.
Tracking data from Loibor Serrit suggest a higher percentage of subadults and fewer
adults. The observed sex ratio in the park (not including juveniles) was 2.4 females: 1
male. This was different from that determined by spoor in the park (1.1 females: 1 male),
Kikoti (1.14 females: 1 male), and Loibor Serrit (1.11 females: 1 male).
Table 4.4 Lion population structure based on age groups according to individually identified lions
in the park and spoor data for the three experimental areas. Parentheses indicate percentages
excluding juveniles.
Area
Park - Visual ID
% Adults
47.9 (74.2)
n
23
% Subadults
16.7 (25.8)
n
8
% Juveniles
35.4
n
17
Park - Spoor
61.0 (72.6)
61
23.0 (27.4)
23
16.0
16
Kikoti
59.4 (68.3)
41
27.5 (31.7)
19
13.0
9
Loibor Serrit
51.2 (55.3)
21
41.5 (44.7)
17
7.3
3
122
Lion Population Density Estimates
Based on the individual recognition of lions in the park, a minimum estimate of the
peak lion density (when all 31 adults and subadults are present at the height of the dry
season) in the 150 km2 study area is 0.21 lions/km2. This is a conservative estimate that
does not include juveniles or nomadic individuals. The spoor density in the park for the
same month when all lions were found was 0.33 lion spoor/km (juveniles excluded), and
the ratio of true density to spoor density is 0.64. Based on this conversion factor,
minimum lion population densities (excluding juveniles; annual averages and 95%
confidence intervals) in the three study areas are as follows: park (0.12 lions/km2, 0.068 –
0.16 lions/km2), Kikoti (0.052 lions/km2; 0.025 – 0.078 lions/km2), and Loibor Serrit
(0.038 lions/km2; 0.028 – 0.049 lions/km2).
Discussion
Human – wildlife conflict is an extremely significant factor influencing the
worldwide fate of large carnivore populations in the twenty-first century. In Chapter
Three, I determined that an important aspect underlying negative attitudes toward lions
among Maasai communities in the Tarangire ecosystem was the perception that lions are
abundant outside of the national park. In this chapter, I test this belief by comparing the
real and perceived abundance of lions in several land use areas located inside and outside
of Tarangire National Park using spoor counts as the principal methodology. In addition,
I consider the effects of the Maasai and sport hunters on lions by estimating the
magnitude of annual kill rates.
123
Maasai individuals correctly determined that lion abundance would be greater within
the park as compared to areas outside its boundaries. Average annual lion density in the
park is more than two times greater than in Kikoti or Loibor Serrit. However, this
contradicts the popular perception that lions were highly abundant outside of the park.
Furthermore, while annual lion densities were not significantly different between Kikoti
and Loibor Serrit, this obscured important environmental variation. A more appropriate,
seasonal analysis based on wet and dry season spoor densities (mean, 95% C.I.) indicated
that Kikoti supported peak lion densities (0.093 lions/km2, 0.067 – 0.12 lions/km2) of
twice the magnitude of Loibor Serrit (0.048 lions/km2, 0.035 – 0.061 lions/km2).
Importantly, the Loibor Serrit lion population was characterized by a greater
proportion of subadults than adults. This suggests that lion social dynamics may be a
significant factor influencing human – lion conflicts in the Tarangire ecosystem. Subadult
lions are typically displaced to poorer quality habitats until they are capable of
establishing pride territories (Schaller 1972; Bertram 1973; Rudnai 1979; Hanby and
Bygott 1987). Past research has shown that subadult lions are also more likely to be
responsible for attacks on livestock and/or humans (Stander 1990; Saberwal et al. 1994).
Therefore, Maasai perceptions of high lion densities may be a result of the greater
encounter frequency of misbehaving and marauding subadults rather than the overall
number of lions in the ecosystem. This suggests that in village lands, where marginal
habitat is used by higher incidences of younger, nomadic individuals, human perceptions
of the large cats are more strongly influenced by the social dynamic of lions than actual
densities.
124
Therefore, while village centers are capable of supporting lion populations, they do so
at depressed levels and altered social structures compared to hunting blocks that do not
incorporate local residences and land use activities. Observations made by professional
sport hunters utilizing areas further east of the experimental sites led to similar
conclusions. The preference of lions for hunting blocks in the absence of local
communities indicates the importance of these areas in maintaining critical wildlife
habitats outside of national parks and game reserves. This does not imply, however, that
sport hunting has no negative effects on the lion population.
The following estimates of lion population size in the Tarangire ecosystem facilitate
testing of the Maasai belief that the lion population outside of the park tops 1000 animals
(in an area of equivalent size to the park; 2400 km2) as well as consideration of the
impacts of both Maasai and sport hunting kill rates on lions. However, it should be noted
that these are preliminary estimates, and all estimates are exclusive of juveniles. They are
applicable only for the period of study and may fluctuate annually according to
environmental variability. Significantly, the study was conducted in a year of less than
average rainfall.
Nevertheless, using the most conservative annual estimate of lion density in the
ecosystem (0.038 lions/km2), the minimum lion population size for the Tarangire
ecosystem is 456 lions. This is very likely to be an underestimate, since average lion
densities for the park and habitats excluding village centers are greater. However, even if
the larger, annual density estimate for Kikoti is used, resulting in 624 lions, the lion
125
population is still below 1000 animals in an area of 12,000 km2. This indicates that the
Maasai have significantly overestimated the abundance of lions in the Tarangire
ecosystem. Therefore, it is possible that if a concerted effort is made to educate the
Maasai regarding the actual, much lower abundance of lions, it may have important
implications for improving Maasai tolerance of lions and reducing aggressive actions
toward them.
These estimates also have important implications in terms of the effects of Maasai
and sport hunting kill rates. In Chapter Three, I conservatively estimated that 39.9 lions
were killed per year among the seven Maasai villages outside the park boundary. Attacks
on lions were nonselective resulting in the deaths of all age groups and both sexes.
Analyzing this kill rate in terms of the abovementioned population estimates suggests that
the Maasai-induced, annual lion mortality is between 6.4% and 8.8%. However, in years
preceding the warrior’s Eunoto ceremony, a significant spike in male lion mortality may
occur in response to an increased demand for lion headdresses. Conversations with local
Maasai indicated an interest in reviving this activity in Tarangire where traditional rites
have somewhat eroded over time.
Because sport hunting is generally selective for adult males (though immature
animals are sometimes illegally taken), the permitted quota of 15 lions/year (Chapter
Two) is analyzed in terms of the adult male portion of the population only. Given a 1:1
sex ratio and an average proportion of 65.4% adults throughout the three study sites, this
results in annual adult male mortality of between 7.4% and 10.1%. High adult male
126
mortality was corroborated by observations of very few males over six years of age in the
entire study system. While separately, Maasai-induced and sport hunting-induced
mortality rates are not exceedingly high (based on average adult survivorship of 70% to
90%; Schaller 1972; Packer et al. 1988; Orford et al. 1988; Whitman et al. 2004), their
combined effects, along with loss of habitat and reductions in prey populations, are most
likely responsible for the lower lion density in Loibor Serrit. Certainly, all of these factors
threaten the long-term persistence of lions in the ecosystem. And, it should be noted that
while no data on the reproductive rates of lions throughout the population were available,
this information contributes significantly to the determination of human effects on lions.
Past research has demonstrated that land to the east of Tarangire National Park plays
a crucial role in maintaining large, migratory herbivores during the wet season (TMCP
2002). Data and observations made during the course of this study now indicate this is
also true for large carnivores, particularly lions. During the wet season, the abundance of
park lions decreases, and park prides expand their home ranges to include areas to the
east of the park where they presumably interact with other non-park prides and nomadic
individuals (based on visual identification of 11 park lions outside of the park during the
wet season). Increases in lion home ranges as a result of fluctuations in prey availability
have been well documented (Bertram 1973; Stander 1991; Viljoen 1993). These results
have important implications for lion conservation in the Tarangire ecosystem given the
increasing trend in habitat conversion for cultivation among resident Maasai communities
and immigrant/expatriate communities (Muir 1994; Lama 1998; Chapter Three) as well
as the higher mortality rates of lions in village areas. In the absence of successful efforts
127
to protect remaining wildlife habitats to the east of the park, it is expected that the lion
population in the Tarangire ecosystem will be seriously diminished and increasingly
susceptible to the negative, genetic effects of small, isolated populations.
Lions are a prominent species whose ecological and behavioral characteristics destine
them to come into contact with human communities. Whereas spotted hyenas and,
particularly, leopards appeared more robust to differences in the experimental sites, lions
suffered in areas of high human habitation. Weaver et al. (1996) demonstrated varying
resilience to environmental disturbances among wolves, cougars, wolverines, and grizzly
bears according to foraging behavior, dispersal capabilities, and reproductive rates.
Crooks (2002) further demonstrated that body size was an important component affecting
relative carnivore sensitivities to habitat fragmentation. Utilizing these criteria, the
comparatively large lion home ranges (e.g. 42-369 km2; Viljoen 1993), group sizes (e.g.
average 5.9 lions/pride; Schaller 1972), prey size requirements (e.g. 90% of total kills in
Serengeti were buffalo, wildebeest, zebra, and warthog; Scheel and Packer 1991), and
overall body size of lions (e.g. 174.9 kg - males, 119.5 kg - females, average body mass
for East African lions; adapted from Smuts et al. 1980) indicates that they may need
larger, less disturbed habitats for their survival. However, their relatively high
reproductive rate suggests that where habitat is available, lions will be fairly resistant to
other human disturbances such as controlled hunting (Whitman et al. 2004; Kikoti). In
comparison, the relatively smaller body size of leopards (e.g. 58 kg – males, 37.5 kg –
females; Bailey 1993), smaller home ranges (e.g. 37-38 km2 – females in the Serengeti;
Cavallo 1993), solitary nature (Bailey 1993), and high adaptability of leopards in terms of
128
prey selection and size (Bailey 1993) suggest that they will be more resilient to landscape
disturbances. The presence of significant leopard populations in the outskirts of large
towns lends testimony to this (Martin and de Meulenaer 1988).
Finally, the research presented here demonstrated the utility of spoor counts in
providing a successful, relatively low-cost strategy for the simultaneous monitoring of
several large carnivore populations. I was able to sample several different habitats that
provided important insights into the environmental variation within carnivore populations
as well as the effects of seasonality on carnivore distribution. In addition, differences in
the foraging group size and sex ratio of lions determined by actual sightings and spoor
counts demonstrated the ability of this technique to accurately reflect lion population
structure.
Certainly, larger groups of lions are easier to spot visually than smaller ones,
particularly in the undulating landscape and long grass of the Tarangire ecosystem.
Therefore, lion sightings are probably biased toward larger groups. Other studies have
demonstrated that pride members spend more time in smaller sub-groups or even alone
(Schaller 1972; Packer 1986) suggesting that spoor counts actually present a more
accurate representation of lion foraging group sizes than visual observations. In terms of
the sex ratio, higher male spoor counts than expected might be a result of the increased
likelihood of males to patrol their territories and therefore a greater than average
likelihood of crossing roads and being detected by spoor versus visual observations.
Furthermore, male spoor counts may be incorporating a greater proportion of nomadic
129
males whose active avoidance of pride males may make them less likely to be observed
visually. This is supported by Schaller (1972) who found nomadic males walk farther
each day than pride animals, and he determined that when nomadic habitats were
incorporated in population sampling, the result was an equal sex ratio.
In conclusion, I suggest that the use of spoor counts to estimate large carnivore
abundance and distribution is an effective, ecologically sensitive method for monitoring
these species. This ‘hands-off’ methodology is particularly useful in areas where large
carnivores are already threatened by human activities and where interference with them
via radio-collaring and other forms of handling would add additional, unnecessary stress
as well as fatalities. And, the benefits of this methodology transcend ecological
boundaries by incorporating the extensive knowledge of local communities such as the
Hadzabe, thereby providing an avenue for the utilization of an ancient, dwindling art
form in a modern context. This methodology could be easily adopted for use by wildlife
rangers and game scouts supported by governmental, public and private organizations,
and companies working in the national parks, game reserves, and communal lands of
many African countries.
References
Bailey, T. N. 1993. The African leopard: a study of the ecology and behavior of a solitary
felid. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.
Bertram, B. C. R. 1973. Lion population regulation. East African Wildlife Journal 11:
215-225.
Cavallo, J. 1993. A study of leopard behavior and ecology in the Seronera Valley,
130
Serengeti National Park. Pages 33-43 in Serengeti Wildlife Research Centre
Scientific Report 1990-1992, Serengeti, Tanzania.
Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat
fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16(2): 488-502.
Funston, P. J., E. Herrmann, P. Babupi, A. Kruiper, H. Kruiper, H. Jaggers, K. Masule,
and K. Kruiper. 2001. Spoor frequency estimates as a method of determining lion and
other large mammal densities in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. Unpublished draft
provided by main author.
Gese, E. M. 2001. Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. Pages 372-396 in J. L.
Gittleman, J. L., S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne. 2001. Why ‘carnivore
conservation’? Pages 1-7 in J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K.
York.
Hanby, J. P. and J. D. Bygott. 1987. Emigration of subadult lions. Animal Behavior 35:
161-169.
Hofer, H. and M. East. 1995. Population dynamics, population size, and the commuting
system of Serengeti spotted hyenas. Pages 332-363 in A. R. E. Sinclair and P. Arcese,
eds. Serengeti II: Dynamics, management, and conservation of an ecosystem.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Lama, L.1998. Conflicts and compatibility: An inventory and analysis of land use in a
Tanzanian wildlife corridor. Ph.D. Dissertation. Binghamton University, New York.
Lamprey, H. F. 1963. Ecological separation of the large species in the Tarangire game
reserve. Tanganyika. East African Wildlife Journal 1: 67-92.
Martin, R. B. and T. de Meulenaer. 1988. Survey of the status of the leopard Panthera
pardus in sub-Saharan Africa. CITES, Gland, Switzerland.
131
Orford, H. J. L., M. R. Perrin, and H. H. Berry. 1988. Contraception, reproduction, and
demography of free-ranging Etosha lions (Panthera leo). Journal of Zoology 216:
717-733.
Packer, C. 1986. The ecology of sociality in felids. Pages 429-451 in D. I. Rubenstein
and R. W. Wrangham, eds. Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Pennycuick, C. J. and J. Rudnai. 1970. A method of identifying individual lions,
Panthera leo, with the analysis of the reliability of identification. Journal of Zoology
160: 497-508.
Pratt, D. J., P. J. Greenway, and M. D. Gwynne. 1966. A classification of East African
rangeland. Journal of Applied Ecology 3: 369-382.
Saberwal, V. K., J. P. Gibbs, R. Chellam, and A. J. T. Johnsingh. 1994. Lion-human
conflict in the Gir Forest, India. Conservation Biology 8(2): 501-507.
Schaller, G. B. 1972. The Serengeti lion: a study of predator-prey relations. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Scheel, D. and C. Packer. 1991. Group hunting behavior of lions: a search for
cooperation. Animal Behavior 41: 697-709.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lions
Felis concolor california population trends. Biological Conservation 71: 251-259.
Smuts, G. L., I. J. Whyte, and T. W. Dearlove. 1977. A mass capture technique for lions.
East African Wildlife Journal 15: 81-87.
Smuts, G. L., J. L. Anderson, and J. C. Austin. 1978. Age determination of the African
lion (Panthera leo). Journal of the Zoological Society of London. 185: 115-146.
Smuts, G. L., J. Hanks, and I. J. Whyte. 1980. Comparative growth of wild male and
female lions (Panthera leo). Journal of Ecology 190: 365-373.
Stander, P. E. 1990. A suggested management strategy for stock-raiding lions in
132
Namibia. South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 20: 37-43.
Stander, P. E. 1991. Demography of lions in Etosha National Park, Namibia. Madoqua
18: 1-9.
Stander, P. E. 1998. Spoor counts as indices of large carnivore populations: the
relationship between spoor frequency, sampling effort, and true density. Journal of
Applied Ecology 35; 378-385.
Stander, P. E., //. Ghau, D. Tsisaba, //. =oma, and l.l ui. 1997. Tracking and the
interpretation of spoor: a scientifically sound method in ecology. Journal of the
Zoological Society of London 242: 329-341.
Tarangire – Manyara Conservation Project Final Report. 2002. Istituto Oikos and
University of Insubria, Italy in Collaboration with TANAPA, Arusha, Tanzania.
Van Dyke, F. G., R. H. Brooke, and H. G. Shaw. 1986. Use of road track counts as
indices of mountain lion presence. Journal of Wildlife Management 50: 102-109.
Viljoen, P. C. 1993. The effects of changes in prey availability on lion predation in a
large natural ecosystem in northern Botswana. Pages 193-213 in N. Dunstone and M.
L. Gorman, eds. Mammals as predators. Proceedings of the Symposium of the
Zoological Society of London, No. 65. Clarendon, Oxford.
Weaver, J. L., P. C. Paquet, and L. F. Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and conservation of
large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10(4): 964-976.
Whitman, K., A. M. Starfield, H. S. Quadling, and C. Packer. 2004. Sustainable trophy
hunting of African lions. Nature 428: 175-178.
Woodroffe, R. and J. R. Ginsberg. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of population
inside protected areas. Science 280: 2126-2128.
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion:
The African Lion Roaming Through Wilderness
and the Human Mind
Chapter Five
In the preceding chapters, I presented research on human – lion relationships in the
context of both social and ecological systems. In Chapter One, I introduced the sociocultural, political, economic, psychological, and ecological factors influencing the longterm persistence of lions in human-dominated landscapes. While, quite naturally, all of
these factors are influential in affecting human – lion relationships, I predicted that
throughout the course of my study, certain key variables would emerge as having greater
importance in securing the long-term conservation of the African lion. Not only did these
variables come forth in Chapters 2-4, emphasized below, but I also discovered that in
order to maintain the truly wild lion, as both an ecological and psychological reality, the
preservation of lions in protected areas, separate from human communities, is not
enough. Instead, despite the hardships of living among lions, we collectively crave the
possibility of prolonging human coexistence with these dangerous cats whose presence
has shaped our own relationship with the natural world for as long as we can remember.
In Chapter Two, I focused on the complicated set of socio-cultural, political, and
economic factors that combine to influence attitudes toward lions among diverse
constituencies, including the sport hunting and photographic industries as well as Maasai
communities. Within a single landscape, I demonstrated that a wide variety of positive
and negative attitudes toward lions existed that influenced individual desires for lion
conservation. In particular, the nature of human – lion interactions emerged as a
significant variable affecting human perceptions of the large cats. While those individuals
from the tourism industries benefited positively from the freedom to experience lions on
Lichtenfeld – Chapter Five 135
their own terms, Maasai individuals noted the difficulties of daily cohabitation with them.
Beyond the physical realities of living with one of the world’s largest cats, they also
emphasized the importance of unclear property rights and the lack of authority to control
wildlife as highly significant variables influencing their negative attitudes and actions
toward lions. In fact, confusion in interpreting the wildlife and land policies and laws of
Tanzania contributed to aggravated relationships among all the stakeholders.
In Chapter Three, I shifted the analysis from a strongly social perspective to one that
considered both the ecological and social dimensions of human interactions with lions
from a Maasai point of view. The results of this study demonstrated that Maasai
interactions with lions were as strongly influenced by the ecological realities of livestock
predation and human – lion encounters as they were by the social and psychological
concepts of fear and risk that are stimulated by the notion of living alongside a large and
dangerous predator like the lion. And again, Maasai discontent with insecure property
rights and their inability to locally manage wildlife were emphasized as having important,
negative consequences affecting local tolerance of lions.
Then, in Chapter Four, I swung the disciplinary balance in favor of ecology and
considered the impact of different human land uses on the distribution and abundance of
lions as they navigated an environment wrought with human-drawn boundaries. I
determined that habitat availability was an important ecological variable influencing the
abundance of lions. Higher lion densities were found in areas of lower human presence
that were most likely associated with both greater prey availability and reduced conflicts
with humans. But interestingly, in village habitats, I also learned that lion behavioral
ecology was significantly influencing human – lion relationships. Younger, nomadic
individuals typically relegated to marginal habitats and probably lacking important,
learned behaviors in terms of wariness of humans were more abundant in village
communities. In this sense, human transformation of habitat has unwittingly led to the
increased likelihood of local communities interacting with the more typically
misbehaving segment of the lion population: the young, marauding, overtly bold,
subadult lions who, by virtue of their risky behavior, give lions a bad name.
In this final chapter, I now contemplate the linkages between these chapters and,
more broadly, human and ecological systems, as they bear on the future of human – lion
relationships in the twenty-first century and, inevitably, humankind’s position in the
natural world. Specifically, I provide conclusions regarding the positive and negative
influences of the Maasai communities as well as of the sport hunting and photographic
industries on the lion, and I reconsider the relative significance of the social and
ecological factors influencing the lion’s survival. This leads me to return to the original
schematic diagram presented in Chapter One (see Figure 1.1) and to revise and expand it
in order to more accurately represent a theoretical model of human – lion relationships.
Finally, towards the end of the chapter, I move beyond the data to provide a number of
policy suggestions at the local, national, and international levels that I believe would
make an important contribution towards the better integration of the needs of both people
and lions for their mutual benefit.
The Maasai communities in this study were in the unique position among the
stakeholders of cohabitating with lions on a daily basis. From an ecological point of view,
the long-term, definitive presence of the Maasai and their land use decisions as they react
to the pressures of human population growth and expansion as well as an increasing trend
towards cultivation will significantly influence the fate of the lion outside of Tarangire
National Park. In addition, both the economic costs and psychological effects of living
among lions have weighed heavily on their overall attitudes toward lions, often resulting
in negative perceptions. Nevertheless, the Maasai maintain a degree of tolerance for lions
based on the long-standing, cultural value of lion hunting. Importantly, throughout this
scenario, indicating mixed emotions toward lions, ran the recurrent political problem of
ambiguous property rights. As a collective group incurring the costs of living among
lions, the Maasai appeared to be the last to benefit from them economically and were
frustrated over their lack of authority to manage wildlife tourism on village lands as well
as the apparent unwillingness of the government to take responsibility for human – lion
conflicts. In a sense, while the political solutions to these problems are out of their hands,
as they await the government’s decision to implement community rights to manage
wildlife, the Maasai are creating their own local solutions by clearing otherwise vacant
land, thereby demonstrating their ownership. Unless this problem is resolved and the
Maasai begin to receive significant benefits from lions, it is unlikely that they will
tolerate their presence much longer, and it is possible that the eradication of lions may
become a symbolic demonstration of their discontent.
Individuals from the sport hunting industry expressed much more positive attitudes
toward lions based on their values of lions, the importance of lions to the industry’s
economy, and the thrill of encountering one of nature’s most dangerous cats. In Chapter
Four, I showed that the presence of hunting blocks can maintain important habitat for
lions. Yet beyond this and the conservation programs of several concerned and proactive
companies, respondents themselves indicated that the majority of hunting companies in
Tanzania were more interested in short-term gains than the long-term conservation of lion
populations. Indeed, as a country containing a relatively large remaining population of
lions, Tanzania affords short-sighted companies the freedom to be relatively unaffected
by declining lion populations in certain blocks, simply moving their lion hunts to other
areas. Ironically, this mobility – supported by an impression of abundant lion populations
in Tanzania – reduces the incentive to invest locally in conservation and may contribute
to future declines in lion populations throughout the country. And importantly, despite a
great respect for lions and wildlife that is common among hunters, the pressures of
market forces – the necessity to provide an expectant client with a lion trophy in a short
time frame – encourages the use of illegal practices among some companies (i.e. shooting
subadult lions and females, hunting at night) and may discourage the majority of
companies from supporting a review of lion hunting quotas.
Many of the positive aspects of human – lion relationships demonstrated by the sport
hunting respondents, in terms of wildlife values, the thrill of encountering lions, and the
iconic stature and importance of the wild feline to the industry, were also shared by
individuals from the photographic industry. Among all of the stakeholders, photographic
companies appeared to have the least amount of negative influence on lions. However,
the perception of ‘no impact’ can also have negative consequences if it is then used to
justify a lack of responsibility for the wildlife or area from which a company benefits.
Similarly to sport hunting companies, photographic respondents mentioned the relative
mobility of their industry and noted that the presence of lions in Tarangire was not
essential to their economic success. These considerations, as well as jurisdictional
confusion regarding the rights of photographic companies to establish business
agreements with local communities, can create a lack of incentives for photographic
companies to invest heavily in conservation activities outside of national parks.
Based on these conclusions, certain social and ecological factors originally presented
in Chapter One as potentially influencing lion populations (see Table 1.1) emerge as
more significant than others. A revised and contextually specific model is now presented
in Table 5.1 that reflects the unique relationship of each of the stakeholders with lions in
the Tarangire ecosystem. For example, negative psychological factors appear to
predominantly affect those individuals cohabitating with lions, while political variables
are important components of all the stakeholders’ relationships with lions. In terms of
ecological variables, habitat availability, population abundance, and behavioral ecology
appear to be more important in Tarangire than disease or reproductive ecology. Socioculturally, all the stakeholders express positive values toward lions that are nevertheless
derived from extremely different types of interactions with them. However, the Maasai
also express negative values and are the only group to face the economic costs of lions.
Table 5.1 Positive and negative factors influencing human - lion relationships organized by key ecological and social variables.
Variables
ECOLOGICAL
Maasai Communities
Habitat availability/use
- increasing cultivation of land
- growing human population
- retaliation against livestockraiding lions
- increased hunting of males
during ceremonial periods
Behavioral ecology
- marginal habitat in village
areas attracts subadult lions
POLITICAL
Property rights
- insecure property rights/lack of
control result in symbolic
demonstrations of power
Authority/responsibility
- frustration with gov response
to conflicts decreases tolerance
- lack of authority to control
wildlife tourism on village lands
creates resentment
Wildlife policies/law
- jurisdictional confusion
results in strained relations
with all stakeholders and
less incentive to conserve
ECONOMIC
Wildlife benefits
- potential revenue from wildlife
tourism promotes tolerance
Wildlife costs
- loss of livestock
- human injury or loss of life
- time spent protecting livestock
from large carnivores
SOCIO-CULTURAL Wildlife values
- respect for lion as natural foe
- negativistic value as a result
of hardships induced by lion
- negative interactions resulting
from attacks on humans or
livestock decrease tolerance
Traditions/customs
- cultural reverence for lion
hunting encourages tolerance
PSYCHOLOGICAL
Risk/fear
- real and potential risk of
human injury or livestock
loss reduces tolerance of lions
Sport Hunting Companies
- unscientifically determined
quotas lead to over-shooting
in certain blocks
- shooting of young males that
haven't reached reproductive
Peak
Photographic Companies
Behavioral ecology
- habituation of lions may
endanger animals outside park
- overcrowding of lions may
impact social behavior
Behavioral ecology
- removal of adult males in
village areas enhances
destabilized age structure
Land use relations
- government demarcated
hunting blocks lead to
local resentment of sport
Hunting
- incompatibility of sport
hunting and photographic
tourism in same time/space
Incentives/disincentives
- lions are essential to
Industry
- company mobility reduces
incentive to locally conserve lions
Market forces
- pressure to obtain lion trophy
can encourage illegal practices
Land use relations
- incompatibility of sport
hunting and photographic
tourism in same time/space
- insecure agreements
discourage investment in
conservation
Incentives/disincentives
- lions are essential to
industry
- company mobility reduces
incentive to locally conserve
lions
- nonconsumptive designation
can create perception of
lack of impact and therefore
less responsibility for wildlife
Wildlife values
- lion as symbol of wildness
- lion as icon of hunting industry
Wildlife values
- lion as symbol of wildness and
ecosystem health
- lion as icon of wildlife safaris
- excitement of dangerous
encounter with wild animal
- decline in overall lion numbers
makes lion hunting a more
exclusive/rare experience
- excitement of dangerous
encounter with wild animal
- enhanced experience when
lions are viewed in exclusive,
wild settings
Fear
- enjoyment of atavistic fear
of lions not normally
encountered in daily life
Fear
- enjoyment of atavistic fear
of lions not normally
encountered in daily life
While we are still a long way from assuring the long-term survival of lions and many
other, similarly challenged large carnivores, this study provides a step forward by
highlighting the major factors influencing the future of lion conservation in the Tarangire
ecosystem. Although we do not have enough of an understanding of human – lion
relationships or, more broadly, human – large carnivore relationships in other contexts,
countries, and continents, the application of this type of study in other circumstances is
very possible. And, the following theoretical model of human – lion relationships as well
as general conclusions are widely applicable to the global community of humans and
large carnivores; simply replace “lion” with the large carnivore of choice.
The lion has emerged in this study as a species of worldly significance. At a time
when the rate of human – induced species extinctions is reaching alarming levels, it is
impressive that a large carnivore, like the lion, still manages to find a place in an
increasingly human-dominated and altered landscape. From a societal point of view, our
tolerance of lions is rooted in our attitudes toward them that appear strongly influenced
by the cultural value of these big cats as symbols of power, bravery, and wildness. In the
Tarangire ecosystem, even the Maasai, who stand to lose the most, in a daily, economic
sense, by the mere presence of lions and hold generally negative attitudes toward them,
consider the total loss of lions to be socially undesirable. Therefore, as a cultural icon that
moves beyond the boundaries of its own ecological distribution to reach humanity on a
global scale, the lion is incredibly well poised to endure in our minds and to engender
support for its survival.
But as an ecological reality, the same bold, grand, intrepid, and fearful characteristics
that human society reveres in lions are also the traits that inevitably destine lions to come
into conflict with local people in a shared landscape. Healthy lion populations cannot be
confined to small spaces. In the Tarangire ecosystem, the national park, at its widest
point, is only 40 km across – a distance a lion can cover in several nights. The ecological
requirements of the lion for large territories and abundant prey compel it to defy humanimposed boundaries on the land, roaming through areas of human habitation in their quest
to survive. And the behavioral characteristics of the lions – their bold nature, their
guttural roars, and their social lifestyle – mean that their presence will rarely go
unnoticed. Even when they cunningly adapt their behaviors, becoming more silent, more
nocturnal, more wary, in high pressure areas, the massive paw print of one of the world’s
largest cats seems like an arrogant reminder that, yes, a lion was here. Indeed, if the wild
lion is to survive in both our minds and our world – that image of power, raw energy, and
merciless danger – then his heavy tread cannot be separated from both the habitat and the
people who have made him so.
In this sense, we must begin to consider a more complex and accurate model of
human – lion relationships that truly reflects the connectivity of people and lions
throughout their collective histories and landscapes. Revising the schematic diagram
provided in Chapter One (see Figure 1.1), I now emphasize the abilities of each “culture,”
feline and human alike, to affect each other through their respective tolerance of one
another. This results in a theoretical model of human – lion or, more broadly, human –
carnivore relationships presented in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 A Theoretical Model of Human – Lion Relationships.
Ecosystem
Human Dimension
Political
Factors
Socio-Cultural
Factors
Lion
Tolerance
for
Humans
and
Livestock
Lion Dimension
Political
Factors
Stakeholders
Psychological
Factors
Economic
Factors
Socio-Cultural
Factors
Lions
Human
Tolerance
for
Lions and
Prey
Species
Psychological
Factors
Economic
Factors
Prey
Population
In this model, people and lions share a landscape or ecosystem and respond to one
another in a feedback loop where one “culture” affects another via their perceptions and
attitudes (represented by dashed arrows from human/lion dimension) which in turn alter
their relative tolerances of one another and inevitably their actions (solid arrow from
human/lion tolerance) toward each other. The perceptions and attitudes of both humans
and lions are variable and are influenced by the factors incorporated within the
human/lion dimension and by the actions of one upon the other. From a socio-biological
perspective, the “cultural” dimension of lions is articulated by recognizing that political,
socio-cultural, psychological, and economic factors transcend human – wildlife
boundaries, acting as lexicons that can also be applied to the big cats.
For instance, economic factors affecting lions can be described ecologically as the
costs and benefits associated with optimal foraging dynamics, optimal group size, and
prey size selection. Political factors affecting lions include territorial disputes, the
development of male coalitions, and pride dynamics. Socio-culturally, as the only truly
social cat, the lion has developed a number of behavioral “customs” or traits including
cooperative hunting, shared female rearing of offspring, and infanticide. And finally, as
was mentioned in Chapter Four, lions also respond to psychological concepts such as risk
and fear as they react to human communities, weighing the costs of lion – lion risk with
those of human – lion risk. Just as fear can stimulate bravado in some human
communities, hunger in lions can result in more risky and bold behavior. Therefore, from
this model, it becomes clear that both humans and lions are capable of changing their
attitudes toward one another based on variable characteristics of the ecological and social
environment. In order to further verify the theories generated by this study, the next
round of research should develop and test hypotheses regarding the circumstances under
which people and predator relationships change in a broader, global context.
Finally, the long-term coexistence of humans and lions in the wild will depend not
only on recognition that the lion’s contribution to humanity – enriching the meaning and
experience of human life – merits support for the species continuance, but also, that as
recipients of the lion’s endowment, we have a responsibility to take active steps to ensure
the conservation of lions in a manner that is both ecologically and socially appropriate.
The conservation of lions depends on a public commitment to their preservation on
international, national, regional, and perhaps most importantly, local levels. This means
that we need to acknowledge the discrepancies in our current social systems that permit
the global benefit-sharing of lions, in particular as a supreme figure in the extensive
photographic and sport hunting spheres, and more generally as a source of human
creativity and development, while the costs of maintaining lions are born
disproportionately by the world-wide minority of communities still living among them.
More specifically, this means that we will have to work to breakdown the political,
economic, and legal barriers that prevent local communities, like the Maasai, from
sharing in more of the positive aspects of human – lion relationships that are enjoyed by
the majority of individuals, businesses, and government entities who, once removed from
the daily threats of these bold cats, have the freedom to experience.
Policy Recommendations
In this final section, I provide some policy recommendations that are supported by the
ecological and social data of this study. While perhaps not conventional, I believe these
recommendations, if adopted, could make an important contribution to lion conservation
in a variety of settings. While organized into local, national, and international categories,
all of the recommendations below are considered to be of primary importance, and their
ordering should not suggest that some are of secondary significance.
In the Tarangire ecosystem:
(1) While a variety of different attitudes toward lions are prevalent in the Tarangire
ecosystem, all of the stakeholders from the photographic and sport hunting industries,
as well as the Maasai communities, indicated an interest in future collaboration
regarding lion conservation and management. This is particularly noteworthy for
individuals from the wildlife tourism industries; despite sharing the lion as an
essential species in their businesses, both expressed aggravated relationships with
each other resulting from ideological differences as well as direct conflicts over land
use. In addition, individuals from both industries indicated that they were not
necessarily dependent upon maintaining the long-term presence of the lion in the
Tarangire ecosystem, since opportunities to hunt or view lions existed in many other
areas of Tanzania. Therefore, this positive step towards collaboration also suggests an
emerging willingness to accept greater responsibility for the areas from which they
profit. Furthermore, while Maasai communities portrayed relatively positive
sentiments toward these industries, resentments regarding the inequitable distribution
of benefits derived from lions and rights to wildlife, particularly in terms of the
perceived link between the sport hunting industry and the national government, were
contributing to negative attitudes toward lions. Therefore, given the positive
atmosphere towards greater collaboration, the development of a cooperative forum
of individuals – inclusive of the sport hunting and photographic industries, Maasai
communities, government entities, and research and/or conservation organizations
involved with lions – is recommended to coordinate lion management and
conservation within the Tarangire ecosystem. Having established a positive working
relationship with all of the various stakeholders, the People and Predators Fund might
act as a catalyst for the initial meeting. This forum could be particularly effective in
working collectively to resolve the local conflicts that arise from the interactions of
these varied constituencies and each other. In addition, this forum should emphasize
the importance of educating clients, both photographic and sport hunting, to act
responsibly in the ecosystem. This group should also address the subsequent policy
recommendations for the Tarangire ecosystem.
(2) One of the social factors significantly influencing negative attitudes toward lions
among the Maasai was their feeling of powerlessness in terms of making land use
decisions and regulating tourism activities related to lions on village lands. While the
Tanzanian government has made promises of increased community control over
wildlife, Maasai individuals appeared frustrated with the slow pace at which this new
policy was being implemented. The timely establishment of the legal rights for local
communities to manage wildlife on their lands is supported by this study. An
increased willingness to conserve lions is linked with the ability of local individuals
to derive significant, real benefits from them, but the converse is also possible. As
communities grow tired of waiting, they may lose their desire to protect wildlife and
act out against it. This is becoming evident in the Tarangire ecosystem where
individuals are clearing land for the sole purpose of demonstrating their lawful right
to it. Since legal authority will not be granted without government support and
implementation, this suggestion is applicable to both the Tarangire ecosystem and
Tanzania as a whole.
(3) Support was shown among all the stakeholders involved in the Tarangire ecosystem
for a governmental, scientific review of the sport hunting industry and quota system
as it pertains to lion hunting. Many individuals felt that lion quotas were too high to
ensure the long-term persistence of particular lion populations in Tanzania. Certainly,
the results of this study indicate that in Loibor Serrit, the combined effects of sport
hunting and Maasai kill rates resulted in a depleted population with few large, adult
males; therefore the temporary suspension of lion hunting in that block is advisable.
On the contrary, in Kikoti, the lion population appeared healthier, and if professional
hunters adhere to the recent concept of only shooting animals of six years or more,
this will most likely be sufficient to regulate the quota in that area. Given these varied
results, a block-by-block review of lion quotas would be the most ecologically
appropriate course of action, though the financial and institutional capabilities for
such an undertaking are probably unavailable. Nevertheless, significant interest was
evident among the sport hunting companies interviewed to accept a greater role in
monitoring lion populations within their blocks, and it is possible that a cooperative
effort between the government, hunting companies, and research organizations
could result in a new collaborative model for monitoring lions and other wildlife
populations in Tanzania. In addition, the offtake of lions in all blocks should be
monitored in an open and objective fashion. Again, this recommendation is applicable
to both the Tarangire ecosystem as well as the entire country.
(4) Of all the stakeholders, the Maasai displayed the most negative attitudes toward lions.
Part of their negativity stemmed from the perceived likelihood of dangerous, human
encounters with lions. While the number of lion attacks on humans appeared low in
comparison to other areas of Tanzania, even the slightest possibility of an attack is
enough to discourage support for lion conservation. Therefore, the development of a
large carnivore education program that works collaboratively with the Maasai to
identify ways in which to further reduce the chance of an attack and that also
addresses the more positive aspects of maintaining a lion presence in the ecosystem
is recommended. This program should be geared to both men and women, and it
should emphasize the cultural significance of the lion that was indicated by many
individuals to be an important component affecting their overall tolerance of lions
and, therefore, the persistence of the species in the ecosystem
(5) While unprovoked attacks on humans occurred fairly infrequently, the predation of
lions on livestock was a significant problem in the Tarangire ecosystem that led to
economic hardships, human injuries, and retaliation against stock-raiding animals.
Given the severity of the problem, on both sides, the continued monitoring of
livestock predation in the Tarangire ecosystem is recommended. A livestock
predation monitoring program should be implemented in all of the villages, and the
development of a provisional compensation program for livestock losses due to
large carnivores should be attempted. Given that many depredations occurred when
animals were lost in the bush and probably could have been prevented, information
regarding ways to avoid livestock predation should also be provided to the local
communities.
In Tanzania, in addition to numbers two and three above, policy suggestions include:
(1) This study and many others have demonstrated that the persistence of large
carnivores, like lions, outside of protected areas is heavily dependent on positive
relationships with the human communities they live among. Where human –
carnivore conflicts are prevalent, in particular where large carnivores aggravate
people by killing livestock or instill fear within the community, individuals look to
the government for support. In Tarangire, the Maasai felt abandoned by the national
government, and this perpetuated negative attitudes toward lions. Therefore, it is
recommended that a nationwide database of human – carnivore conflicts is created
and centralized within the government. Wildlife-based field staff should be trained
to respond to carnivore conflicts in a socially appropriate manner that is sensitive
to the concerns of the local community and that demonstrates a sincere effort to
resolve the problems. In addition, this staff should provide community training and
then collaborate with local, village scouts when dealing with problem animals in
order to relieve some of the pressure on the government. This would go a long way in
improving government and community relationships. Financial support for research
programs focused on the resolution of these conflicts should also be sought.
(2) In order to meet the needs of an increasing human population in Tanzania – a
population that will undoubtedly come into greater conflicts with large carnivores and
other wildlife species in the future – the government will require a large body of field
staff trained in the human dimensions of wildlife conservation. In addition, local
communities will also require this training as they become legally empowered to
manage their own wildlife. Nevertheless, human dimensions training is often lacking
in developing countries. While Tanzania has a number of field-based training
institutes and universities, these institutions should be encouraged to emphasize the
social sciences and interdisciplinary problem-solving skills in wildlife-based
curriculum. In addition, this study has demonstrated spoor counts as a reliable and
cost-effective technique for monitoring large carnivores that can be easily adopted
by national park rangers, wildlife division game scouts, and village game scouts.
Therefore, it is recommended that this technique should also be integrated into
field school curriculums.
Internationally:
(1) This study has demonstrated the worldwide significance of the lion as a species
valued for its contribution to human society in terms of our creative, spiritual, and
cultural development. While geographically confined in the twenty-first century to
Africa and a small piece of India, the lion travels widely in our minds influencing
human cultures globally in one way or another. In recognition of this, the lion
should be honored and distinguished as the first World Heritage Species. Just as
certain landscapes are deemed to have global worth, meriting international efforts to
protect them, the wild lion should be similarly valued. This does not suggest
protection in the traditional sense, forbidding use, but rather protection in a manner
that recognizes the many important human – lion relationships and that celebrates
their continuance well into the twenty-second century.
(2) Complementing the previous distinction, we need to build international mechanisms
that channel increased support, particularly in a financial sense, but also politically,
from foreign and local nations that benefit economically and socially from the
presence of wild lions to those communities overwhelmingly burdened with the costs
of living among them. Redistribution of the costs and benefits of maintaining wild
lion populations will increase local support for the continued presence of these
animals. The development of an international, endowed fund for lions will provide
an essential source of finances to meet the costs of implementing the
recommendations proposed herein.
(3) In terms of sport hunting, research results indicated that while Tanzanian reform of
the lion hunting industry is definitely needed, there also exists a responsibility among
hunting companies, professional hunters, and their clients to accept and endorse
hunting techniques that promote the long-term persistence of lions. In order to reach
these individuals and entities on a global scale, international hunting organizations
and media should vigorously promote a set of lion hunting standards. This may
involve the development of a certification system for companies deemed by a
reputable hunting body to be hunting lions in both an ethically and ecologically
sound manner.
(4) Finally, this study has bridged the gap between the ecological and social scientific
disciplines, demonstrating the importance of linking human and ecological systems in
the study of modern wildlife conservation issues. While the focus has been lions, this
approach can be applied to many other systems, particularly since conflicts between
people and wildlife are of global proportions. It is suggested that the proliferation of
this type of study which emphasizes the need for a comprehensive understanding of
both the ecological and social dynamics contributing to human – wildlife conflicts
will be significant in transforming the traditional, disciplinary, ecologicallyoriented approach to resolving wildlife conflicts to one that is multidisciplinary,
multidimensional, interactive, and respectful of the human context of conservation.
And as a result, our ability to effectively resolve these conflicts and to better protect
and preserve the environment and the species we live among will be immeasurably
enhanced.
The lion in human society represents the noble warrior, the King of all Beasts, a
majestic and all-powerful predator that elicits both fear and admiration in us but, above
all, gives meaning to our lives by his mere existence. Those who painted the lion onto the
rocks of ancient history showed impressive foresight that this animal would continue to
persist in our minds as an indelible figure. And in the end, if it must come, it will not be
the last image of a lion walking across a landscape of human habitation that is
incongruous. The lion does not recognize a boundary between human and ecological
systems, only that human beings are a species to be wary of. The incongruity will lie with
us who want to see the lion remain wild in all his magnificence yet fail to commit
ourselves to accepting the conditions under which this must be so: that lions, indeed,
must live among us. In this respect, the solutions to lion conservation lie as much in our
understanding of how our human systems interrelate with the ecological world of lions as
they do in our understanding of one another. What will ultimately happen to the society
we have built, a society that has revered the lion since the dawn of man, if the lion
disappears? To this end, it is not only the kingdom of the lion that is at risk, but our own
as well.
Lichtenfeld – Bibliography 154
Bibliography
Adams, J. S. and T. O. McShane. 1992. The myth of wild Africa: Conservation without
illusion. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California.
Alvarez. K. 1994. The Florida Panther recovery program: An organizational failure of the
Endangered Species Act. Pages 205-226 in T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading, and A. L.
Clarke, eds. Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Babbie, E. 1990. Survey research methods. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont,
California.
Bailey, T. N. 1993. The African leopard: a study of the ecology and behavior of a solitary
felid. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.
Baldus, R. D. 2004a. Lion conservation in Tanzania leads to serious human – lion
Baldus, R. D. 2004b. Tourist hunting and its role in development of wildlife management
areas in Tanzania. Tanzanian Wildlife Discussion Paper No. ?. GTZ, Wildlife
Division, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Baldus, R. D. and A. Cauldwell. 2004. Lion hunting. Pages 16-22 in Baldus, R. D. 2004a.
Lion conservation in Tanzania leads to serious human – lion conflicts with a case
study of a man – eating lion killing 35 people. Tanzanian Wildlife Discussion Paper
No. 41. GTZ, Wildlife Division, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Bath. A. J. 1987. Attitudes of various interest groups in Wyoming toward wolf
reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. MA thesis. University of Wyoming,
Laramie, Wyoming.
Bath, A. J. 1989. The public and wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park.
Society and Natural Resources. 2: 297-306.
Bernstein, P. L. 1996. Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk. Wiley, New York,
New York.
Bertram, B. C. R. 1973. Lion population regulation. East African Wildlife Journal 11:
215-225.
Cavallo, J. 1993. A study of leopard behavior and ecology in the Seronera Valley,
Serengeti National Park. Pages 33-43 in Serengeti Wildlife Research Centre
Scientific Report 1990-1992, Serengeti, Tanzania.
Clark, T. W., D. J. Mattson, R. P. Reading, and B. J. Miller. 2001. Interdisciplinary
problem solving in carnivore conservation: an introduction. Pages 223-240 in J. L.
Clark, T. W., R. P. Reading, and A. L. Clarke, eds. 1994. Endangered species recovery:
finding the lessons, improving the process. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Collet, D. 1987. Pastoralists and wildlife: Image and reality in Kenya Maasailand. Pages
129-148 in D. Anderson and R. Grove, eds. Conservation in Africa. Cambridge
University Press, New York, New York.
Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica
16: 297-334.
Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat
fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16(2): 488-502.
Diehl, C. 1985. Wildlife and the Maasai: the story of East African parks. Cultural
Survival Quarterly 9(1): 37-40.
Earth Trends. 2003. Data online at earthtrends.wri.org.
Eaton, R. L. 1979. Evolution of sociality in the Felidae. Carnivore 2: Supplement 82-89.
Funston, P. J., E. Herrmann, P. Babupi, A. Kruiper, H. Kruiper, H. Jaggers, K. Masule,
and K. Kruiper. 2001. Spoor frequency estimates as a method of determining lion and
other large mammal densities in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. Unpublished draft
provided by main author.
Gese, E. M. 2001. Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. Pages 372-396 in J. L.
Gittleman, J. L., S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne. 2001. Why ‘carnivore
conservation’? Pages 1-7 in J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K.
York.
Gittleman, J.L., S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne, eds. 2001. Carnivore
Hanby, J. P. and J. D. Bygott. 1987. Emigration of subadult lions. Animal Behavior 35:
161-169.
Jersey.
Hofer, H. and M. East. 1995. Population dynamics, population size, and the commuting
system of Serengeti spotted hyenas. Pages 332-363 in A. R. E. Sinclair and P. Arcese,
eds. Serengeti II: Dynamics, management, and conservation of an ecosystem.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
York, New York.
New Jersey.
Jacobson, S. K. 1998. Training idiot savants: The lack of human dimensions in
conservation biology. Conservation Biology. 12(2): 263-267.
Jope, K. and B. Shelby. 1984. Hiker behavior and the outcome of interactions with
grizzly bears. Leisure Sciences 6: 257-270.
Kellert, S. R. 1985a. Public perception of predators, particularly the wolf and the coyote.
Biological Conservation. 31: 167-189.
Kellert, S. R. 1985b. Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management.
Journal of Wildlife Management 49(2): 528-536.
Kellert, S. R. 1986. The public and the timber wolf in Minnesota. Transactions of the 51st
Kellert, S. R. 1991. Public views of wolf restoration in Michigan. Transactions of the 56th
in J. J.Clear, C. Servheen, and L. J. Lyons, eds. Ninth International Bear Conference,
Grenoble, France.
Kellert, S. R. and T. W. Clark. 1991. The theory and application of a wildlife policy
framework. Pages 17-36 in W. R. Mangun, ed. Public policy issues in wildlife
management. Greenwood Press, New York, New York.
Kellert, S. R., J. N. Mehta, S. A. Ebbin, and L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community natural
resource management: Promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural Resources
13: 705-715.
Lama, L. 1998. Conflict and compatability: An inventory and analysis of land use in a
Tanzanian wildlife corridor. Ph. D. Dissertation, Binghamton University, State
University of New York, New York.
LEAT (Lawyer’s Environmental Action Team). 1998. Socio-legal analysis of
community-based conservation in Tanzania: Policy, legal, institutional and
programmatic issues, considerations, and options. Report prepared for EPIQ, Dar Es
Salaam, Tanzania.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. Oxford University Press, New York, New
York.
Lopez, B. 1978. Of wolves and men. Charles Scribner’s and Sons, New York, New York.
Mangun, W. R. ed. 1991. Public policy issues in wildlife management. Greenwood Press,
New York, New York.
Marean, C. W. 1989. Sabertooth cats and their relevance for early hominid diet evolution.
Journal of Human Evolution. 18: 559-582.
Marks, S. A. 1984. The imperial lion: Human dimensions of wildlife management in
Central Africa. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Martin, R. B. and T. de Meulenaer. 1988. Survey of the status of the leopard Panthera
pardus in sub-Saharan Africa. CITES, Gland, Switzerland.
Matthiessen, P. 1987. Wildlife in America. Viking Press, New York, New York.
Mattson, D. J., S. Herrero, R. G. Wright, and C. M. Pease. 1996. Science and
management of Rocky Mountain Grizzly Bears. Conservation Biology 10(4): 10131025.
Mehta, J. N. and S. R. Kellert. 1998. Local attitudes toward community-based
conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun
Conservation Area. Environmental Conservation 25:320-333.
MNRT (Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism). 2000. The wildlife conservation
(tourist hunting) regulations. Government Printer, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Tanzania. MNRT, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
Nelson, F. 2004. The evolution and impacts of community-based tourism in northern
Tanzania. Drylands Issues Paper Series No. 131., International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, England.
Nicholson, B. 2001. The last of old Africa: Big-game hunting in East Africa. Safari Press
Inc., Long Beach, California.
Nowell and P. Jackson, eds. 1996. Wild cats: Status survey and conservation action plan.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Nshala, R. 2002. Village rights relating to land management, tourism, and tourist hunting.
Lawyer’s Environmental Action Team. Available online at
www.leat.or.tz/publications.
O’Brien, S. J. 1996. Molecular genetics and phylogenetics of the Felidae. Pages xxiiixxiv in K. Nowell and P. Jackson, eds. Wild cats: Status survey and conservation
action plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Orford, H. J. L., M. R. Perrin, and H. H. Berry. 1988. Contraception, reproduction, and
demography of free-ranging Etosha lions (Panthera leo). Journal of Zoology 216:
717-733.
Packer, C. 1986. The ecology of sociality in felids. Pages 429-451 in D. I. Rubenstein
and R. W. Wrangham, eds. Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Pennycuick, C. J. and J. Rudnai. 1970. A method of identifying individual lions,
Panthera leo, with the analysis of the reliability of identification. Journal of Zoology
160: 497-508.
Pratt, D. J., P. J. Greenway, and M. D. Gwynne. 1966. A classification of East African
rangeland. Journal of Applied Ecology 3: 369-382.
Lamprey, H. F. 1963. Ecological separation of the large species in the Tarangire game
reserve. Tanganyika. East African Wildlife Journal 1: 67-92.
Quammen, D. 2003. Monster of God: The man-eating predator in the jungles of history
and the mind. W.W. Norton and Co., New York, New York.
Reading, R. and S. R. Kellert. 1993 Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of blackfooted ferrets. Conservation Biology 7: 349-365.
Ridley, M. 1993. Evolution. Blackwell Science, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Riley, S. J. and D. J. Decker. 2000. Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder
acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5: 5062.
Rockwell, D. 1991. Giving voice to the bear: North American Indian myths, rituals, and
images of the bear. Robers Rinehart Publishers, Niwot, Colorado.
Roe, D., N. Leader-Williams, and B. Dalal-Clayton. 1997. Take only photographs, leave
only footprints: the environmental impacts of wildlife tourism. Wildlife Development
Series No. 10. International Institute for Environment and Development, London,
England.
Saberwal, V. K., J. P. Gibbs, R. Chellam, and A. J. T. Johnsingh. 1994. Lion-human
conflict in the Gir Forest, India. Conservation Biology 8(2): 501-507.
Saberwal, V. K. and A. Kothari. 1996. The human dimension in Conservation Biology
curricula in developing countries. Conservation Biology 10(5): 1328-1331.
Schaller, G. B. 1972. The Serengeti lion: a study of predator-prey relations. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Scheel, D. and C. Packer. 1991. Group hunting behavior of lions: a search for
cooperation. Animal Behavior 41: 697-709.
Shepard, P. and B. Sanders. 1985. The sacred paw: The bear in nature, myth, and
literature. Viking Penguin Inc, Toronto, Canada.
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280-285.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lions
Felis concolor california population trends. Biological Conservation 71: 251-259.
Smuts, G. L., I. J. Whyte, and T. W. Dearlove. 1977. A mass capture technique for lions.
East African Wildlife Journal 15: 81-87.
Smuts, G. L., J. L. Anderson, and J. C. Austin. 1978. Age determination of the African
lion (Panthera leo). Journal of the Zoological Society of London. 185: 115-146.
Smuts, G. L., J. Hanks, and I. J. Whyte. 1980. Comparative growth of wild male and
female lions (Panthera leo). Journal of Ecology 190: 365-373.
Stander, P. E. 1990. A suggested management strategy for stock-raiding lions in
Namibia. South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 20: 37-43.
Stander, P. E. 1991. Demography of lions in Etosha National Park, Namibia. Madoqua
18: 1-9.
Stander, P. E. 1998. Spoor counts as indices of large carnivore populations: the
relationship between spoor frequency, sampling effort, and true density. Journal of
Applied Ecology 35; 378-385.
Stander, P. E., //. Ghau, D. Tsisaba, //. =oma, and l.l ui. 1997. Tracking and the
interpretation of spoor: a scientifically sound method in ecology. Journal of the
Zoological Society of London 242: 329-341.
Tanzania Population and Housing Census. 2002. Data online at
www.tanzania.go.tz/census.
Tarangire – Manyara Conservation Project. 2002. Final Report. Istituto Oikos and
University of Insubria, Italy in Collaboration with TANAPA. Arusha, Tanzania.
Tessler, M. and I. Warriner. 1997. Gender, feminism, and attitudes toward international
conflict: exploring relationships with survey data from the Middle East. World
Politics 49: 250-281.
The Guardian (Dar es Salaam). July 23rd, 1997.
Treves, A. and L. Naughton-Treves. 1999. Risk and opportunity for humans coexisting
with large carnivores. Journal of Human Evolution 36: 275-282.
Tucker, P. and D. Pletscher. 1989. Attitudes of hunters and residents toward wolves in
northwestern Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 509-514.
Van Dyke, F. G., R. H. Brooke, and H. G. Shaw. 1986. Use of road track counts as
indices of mountain lion presence. Journal of Wildlife Management 50: 102-109.
Viljoen, P. C. 1993. The effects of changes in prey availability on lion predation in a
large natural ecosystem in northern Botswana. Pages 193-213 in N. Dunstone and M.
L. Gorman, eds. Mammals as predators. Proceedings of the Symposium of the
Zoological Society of London, No. 65. Clarendon, Oxford.
Weaver, J. L., P. C. Paquet, and L. F. Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and conservation of
large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10(4): 964-976.
Whitman, K., A. M. Starfield, H. S. Quadling, and C. Packer. 2004. Sustainable trophy
hunting of African lions. Nature 428: 175-178.
Woodroffe, R. 2001. Strategies for carnivore conservation: lessons from contemporary
extinctions. Pages 61-92 in J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K.
York.
Woodroffe, R. and J. R. Ginsberg. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of population
inside protected areas. Science 280: 2126-2128.
Young, S. P. 1946. The wolf in American history. Caxton Printers, Cladwell, Idaho.

Lion Relationships in the 21st Century

Transcription

Similar documents

Man-Eating Lions - International Wildlife Museum

KiCK off tAiL GAte PARty

The Commons at Federal Way

event flyer - Federal Way Lions Club

December 2013

lions pride - Merced Breakfast Lions Club

District Pride October 2008

in memoriam - edwin k. calain

December 2013 - Elburn Lions Club

Greycoats: The Lions and The Swans