so i eventually found the articles i mentioned before
this guy is actually doing his PHD on this lion waterberg project
Thanks very much for posting.
So-called scientists have been saying for years that CBLs have no conservation value and it's on that basis that some countries ban the import of CBLs, and SCI bans the discussion of CBL hunts, etc. People are buying into this nonsense because they have an anti-hunting bias, and after all, scientists are saying it, so it must be true.
This experience and study should finally put the lie to the canard that captive bred lions can't survive in the wild or can't be used to re-populate areas which have lost their own lion populations. Except that it won't, of course.
In August of last year a letter signed by over 128 scientists appeared in
Science magazine (the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - trust me, it's a respected scientific journal). The letter was entitled "Trophy Hunting Bans Imperil Biodiversity" and was based on scientific research. Hunters know that, and anyone else who cares to pay attention does as well, but it's always nice to have science confirm your experience. But. Of course there's a but, because this is hunting.
Not long after, the "scientific community" responded to this letter. Here is an example of "science" in one letter in rebuttal to the letter in support of trophy hunting:
Whether Dickman et al. [the principal author of the letter supporting trophy hunting] concur or not, wildlife has the basic right of existence, irrespective of human existence and interests. Intentional killing of animals to satisfy the whims of wealthy individuals is detestable. No potential gains, even those that are promoted by Dickman et al. as beneficial to wildlife, justify undermining the moral basis of the protection of Earth's natural resources. It is our responsibility to suppress the destructive tools at our disposal so that these resources remain unharmed.
Culling of endangered species is a self-evident fallacy. Our foremost emergency is to restore endangered species to their former state, irrespective of human interests. Unless required for basic existence, hunting of all forms is a practice that should be eradicated like the smallpox virus. Beyond rational arguments, the most appropriate response to the Letter by Dickman et al. is outrage. [Science, 25 Oct. 2019, p. 435]
This is, of course, a moral view, not a scientific view. But it was reproduced in a number of attacks, likely in concert, to the same effect. These "scientists" said that trophy hunting was bad because they didn't like it and thought it was wrong.
"No potential gains . . .as beneficial to wildlife justify undermining the moral basis . . ." That's right. A scientist has stated, in a reputable science journal, that research is irrelevant and that no amount of good for animals collectively can excuse the killing of an individual animal.
Reputable scientists who work in this field know that the biggest threat to most animals is habitat loss, and this includes, especially, lions, which require large areas. Lion hunting, properly managed, of either wild lions or captive bred lions, preserves lion habitat. It is also self-evident that as long as lions are being bred on farms, they will never be extinct. And they will be bred on farms as long as there is an economic reason to do so. In connection with the Lord Derby Eland, the real scientists behind the IUCN Red List say this:
Safari hunting is the most likely justification for the long-term preservation of the substantial areas of unmodified savanna woodland which this antelope requires, and sustainable trophy hunting is a key to the Giant Eland’s future. [Emphasis mine]
I can't make a scientist think or act like a scientist. But, at the very least, is it at all possible that on AH we can stop repeating arrant nonsense like captive bred lions cannot survive in the wild? Please?