Than you for posting that-it's definately a complex issue:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/should-trophy-hunting-of-lions-be-banned-155657735/
I guess I was born without the hunting gene--more of a gatherer maybe? I would be fine with DH hunting deer for food (and have encouraged it, although he's just not that outdoorsie), and I'm fine with people killing highly populated nuisance animals like raccoons and wild hogs.
I used to work cleaning houses with a woman who deer hunted. We worked in a area with a lot of deer and one day we were cleaning a bedroom, looked out the window and saw a pair of deer grazing in the yard. This woman went on and on for minutes about how beautiful the deer were, and then went on to say how she wished she had her rifle with her right then. I just don't get that. It doesn't mean that I think people who hunt are bad, or that this young woman deserves death threats, but killing something you admire and find beautiful and majestic and then being thrilled and proud of it is something I just can't wrap my mind around. *puts flame suit on*
I looked at the blog he was basing it off of and then at the report the blog was on, plus some other sites because I obviously have too much time on my hands right now. And as a disclaimer my reserve/park/game ranch terminology is probably not entirely correct or consistent.
1.) As mentioned, this girl hunted in South Africa which has a rather unique game management system. Much of the wildlife lives on private fenced hunting reserves, so they have to be careful to avoid inbreeding (I imagine this is how they end up with "surplus" lions). Reserves too small to sustain lions might do a canned hunt type of thing, where they buy a captive-bred lion and let it loose for the hunt. South Africa's wild lion population is stable. According to one big journal article with 50 authors, fencing off lions from humans is the way forward, and another report shows lion populations in fenced reserves increase quickly. The report says trophy hunting raises $200 m total, and half of that is from South Africa. Obviously much of what is mentioned in that article is not applicable to this situation.
2.) The main threats to lions are indiscriminate killing by farmers and habitat loss.
Hunting reserves occupy 22% more land than do non-hunting reserves the continent over ie non-hunting tourism is concentrated in specific areas. This makes sense. National parks are often special areas, like the Serengeti, where wildlife populations are very dense (like, you see a few lions an hour driving around). Lions basically cannot exist with even very low densities of people or with any sort of livestock activity, so they are largely driven to marginal land. Most of this marginal land is hunting reserve, but hunting reserve includes potentially arable land as well--regardless with increasing development all kinds of land will be worked. So these hunting areas are chunks of land that are somewhat protected from human encroachment and are not visited by tourists. They are not economically productive compared to non-hunting reserves (national parks), and neither uses are anywhere as productive as agricultural lands. Hunting reserves don't seem to be the driving force in saving endangered species (except in South Africa, which as mentioned, has a special system) but they contribute to conservation efforts, often by providing a buffer zone between development and the national parks. The report couldn't find an example of a managed hunting area causing extirpation, and noted that managed lands, whether used for hunting or not, have the same diversity of species. The report lists quite a few countries in which hunting lands constitute 15-30% of the country's total area, so it would seem to me they must be important in terms of human-free habitat, which is what lions really need.
The main competition for hunting reserves is agriculture, as this provides maximum benefit to communities--but of course farming is very bad news for lions (they are still widely poisoned in eg Kenya). Hunting reserves have more trouble with poaching than do national parks, because of their vast spaces and financial and social logistics (private leaseholders will hire mercenaries to defend the land, there are conflicts, the government won't backup the leaseholders, leaseholders can be assholes, etc.). They also have more trouble with maintaining their borders than do parks, and they are the first to be converted to agriculture as development increases. For instance, Kenya banned hunting in the 70's and hunting reserve land was converted agricultural land. Big game exists pretty much only in the 10% of protected land there now (and the lion population is danger of extirpation within 20 years, according to Kenya Wildlife Services).
Non-hunting tourism is another alternative use for the land, but these hunting areas are vast and not necessarily as interesting as the national parks. It seems to me that if you convert it non-hunting reserve, you would simply loose whatever revenue and employment you get from hunting but tourism would not increase by much. Also, according to the report, a long term, a country can viably save only 12% of its land as wilderness due to development needs and management logistics. It says hunting areas suck because they aren't as good as parks at conservation and community involvement, but that they are good because they can be self-financing. It says they should be conserved and better governed. I don't know how conserving them reconciles with the 12% number, but there you go.
The bottom line is that wild animals need SPACE to survive naturally, not protection from the odd rich person with a gun. The alternative is still lots of space but with fencing, and then culling is necessary.
