In a results-oriented world, where decisions are often made based upon the success or failure of an act or action, what speaks better of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) than successes of the act itself.  Imagine a world today without the American Bald Eagle, American Alligator, Whooping Crane, Peregrine Falcon, American Gray Wolf, Grizzly Bear, or California Condor.  And yet without the ESA, these iconic animals would almost certainly no longer be around today.  And while that fact alone should put an exclamation point on the success of the ESA and eliminate any further efforts to dismantle or weaken the act, how embarrassing would it be to live in a country that had an extinct species as its national bird, solely  because we could not even bring ourselves to put forth an effort to protect the bald eagle.  However, if not for the ESA, that likely would have happened.

A bald eagle, which the Endangered Species Act is credited with reviving, in Alaska. Critics of the act say that it has become a tool that limits people’s livelihoods.CreditCreditBob Strong/Reuters

Equally important, other species still on the endangered species list that almost certainly would no longer exist include the Florida Panther, West Indian Manatee, Polar Bear, Wood Bison, Jaguar, Jaguarundi, Ocelot, Northern and Southern Sea Otters, Prairie Dogs, Pronghorn, Bighorn Sheep, Stellar Sea Lions, and a variety of species of Whale.  As the saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  The mere fact that the ESA has been this successful in preventing the complete eradication and extinction of such beloved and iconic animals suggests that we should not be talking about weakening of the act.  If anything, we should be discussing how to strengthen it even further.

Unfortunately, while the Endangered Species Act was overwhelmingly passed in 1973 by a bipartisan Congress, it has not been without its detractors who have desired to weaken or even dismantle the act.  However, the threat to this historic act has never been greater than it is today.   And unfortunately, those critics of the ESA have also misled the public, to suggest that the act has failed; when in fact, the exact opposite is true…with 93% of all animals on the list either recovered or on track for recovery.  And given that the overwhelmingly majority of the American public remain in support of this act, it is vitally important that our congressional representatives hear our voices. The American public also needs to understand that those desiring to dismantle the act pursue their efforts for personal gain and selfish motive, contrary to the best interests of our country; and of course, the animals that we are trying to protect.

The battle for animal protections often has been shouldered by animal activists and by organizations that are often mis-characterized by those with opposing agendas as “extremists”; as if living life with a compassionate and caring for all living beings is somehow wrong. Unfortunately, if someone dares take a position that appears contrary to human consumption of the planet, they are painted with that broad brush of extremism.  They are criticized because they don’t have that same view of economic exploitation; that profit maximization should stand head and shoulders above all else, and life is some type of zero-sum game.  And they are criticized because they have a reverence toward all living things, and a belief that as humans, we have a responsibility to protect the environment, and to leave the world a better place for future generations.

To me, that sounds like a pretty good thing.  But as the owner of a small business and of someone with a generally favorable view of capitalism, I probably do not fit the category of typical animal or environmental activist.  However, I count myself as one of those who speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, and I strongly disagree with the view that if someone can make a dollar, and it is not specifically illegal to do so, they should be allowed to pursue profit.  Ethics and morals seem to be in short supply these days, and to pursue capitalistic goals without considering the ethical or moral impact of those goals is a very narrow minded, selfish view of life.

Marianne Jennings, Professor of Legal and Ethical Studies with Arizona State University refers to choices people make under a “Could I – Should I” mentality…with “Could I” reflecting the legal aspect of the decision and “Should I” representing the ethical or moral aspect of the decision.  Unfortunately, decisions are often made based solely on “Could I”, with no consideration as to how that decision may harm or detrimentally impact others.  The attack on the Endangered Species Act is just that; an effort to dismantle or weaken, without consideration of doing what is right ethically or morally, or of doing what is in the best interest of all impacted parties: humans and animals.

While I maintain a strong view that animals deserve protections, and that all creatures have a right to co-exist on this earth, animal activism is not limited to protections of animals, but also to preserve these beautiful creatures for the enjoyment by future generations.  Why should future generations be precluded from having the same opportunities that I had as a child then and as an adult today? Or even better, why shouldn’t future generations have even a better opportunity to experience wildlife and nature than I have?  We should all strive to leave this world a better place but unfortunately, because we have often sacrificed our ethics and morals for a quick dollar pursuing capitalistic interests without any concern for the short-term and long-term impact of our actions, we are quickly leaving the world worse for future generations, not better.

In 1966 and 1969, Congress passed earlier versions of legislation designed to protect those animals that were on the precipice of extinction, but it wasn’t until the historical legislation that President Nixon signed in December 1973 that Congress and our President decided that the protection of animals, plants and other species was a worthy and noble cause; and that without immediate action, many of these species would disappear, never to be seen again.

Think about this in terms of today’s partisanship politics.  Senator Harrison A. Williams (D – NJ) introduced the Senate Version of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and was unanimously approved by the U.S. Senate on July 24, 1973.  The House of Representatives approved their version of the bill on September 18, 1973 by a margin of 390 – 12.  A conference committee then reconciled the two bills and President Nixon signed this act on December 19, 1973.  The ESA was clearly recognized as a bipartisan necessity by both parties and by the vast majority of Americans as an important and necessary act to ensure the preservation of species and vital to ensure that future generations had the same opportunity to coexist with these beloved creatures.  And equally important, or even more so, the protections of these animals was and is necessary to preserve the delicate balance of the ecosystem; and that when a species is removed from the ecosystem, the damage is felt both felt both upstream and downstream throughout the chain.

Of course, that act was introduced 45 years, enacted by the 93^rd Congress and signed by the 37^th President, and the ESA faces a current 115^th Congress and a 45^th President that apparently (1) do not appreciate the importance of this act and that loss of any animal species due to events other than natural selection will have a detrimental, long-lasting and perhaps permanent impact on our ecosystem, (2) have little concern that the American people may one day no longer see these beautiful creatures in the wild; or (3) have allowed the influence of money from certain organizations and industries to cloud their ethical vision and are now willing to push back against legislation that was and still is overwhelmingly supported by the American public.

Further, the 115^th Congress is comprised of individuals such as U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah who “would love to invalidate” the law because it has been “misused for control of the land”.  He has commented that the ESA “…has never been used for the rehabilitation of species. It’s been used for control of the land,” Bishop said this year. “We’ve missed the entire purpose of the Endangered Species Act. It has been hijacked.”  No.  The true hijacking of the act is by people such as Mr. Bishop who desires to dismantle the act on behalf of industry interests in his state, and contrary to the desires of his constituents.

According to a study by Mother News Network, from 1996 – 2010, Congress averaged 5 bills per year designed to weaken and strip the ESA of some of its protections. In 2011, when Republicans took control of the House, there were 30 introduced bills, an average of 40 bills introduced per year through 2016, and at least 75 bills introduced in Congress since January 2017 to weaken, dismantle or effectively make the ESA useless in terms of animal protections.

And certain members of Congress clearly have a disdain for the ESA. However, that view is not representative of their constituents.  So, if these Congressional members are not representing the best interest of their constituents, then exactly who are they representing?

The New York Times reported that in December 2017, David Bernhardt, Deputy Interior Secretary convened a meeting at the Interior Department between senior political appointees and career staffers, at which he laid out his plans to streamline the law.  At the same time, on Capitol Hill, the Congressional Western Caucus, a group of House lawmakers, began coordinating a strategy. On July 12, the lawmakers unveiled a package of nine bills that, if enacted, would see more permanent changes to the law than those pushed by Mr. Bernhardt’s proposal. Legislation that is passed by Congress and signed into law by the president is less easily undone than regulatory changes.”

It is no secret that the Western states have long had a disdain for what they view as federal reach and oversight of western lands, and to be fair, the federal government does own a lot of land.  Congressional Research Services’ Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, published a March 3, 2017 indicates the federal government owns 640 million acres of land, or approximately 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States.  However, this is heavily weighted in the western states, where the federal government owns 61.3% of Alaskan land, and 46.4% of land in the other 11 western states.  This compares to only 4.2% in non-western states.

So, it is no secret that much of the effort to dismantle, destroy, or at the very least, weaken the ESA also comes from legislators in the western states.  And it is no secret that David Bernhardt is a former oil lobbyist and lawyer who counted Independent Petroleum Association of America as one of his clients.  And it is no secret that a significant portion of western industry interests include oil and gas extraction, ranching and mining.  So, it’s not overly difficult to identify those behind this effort, and given that the current administration has a disdain for any legislation, law or protection that would dare prevent someone from eking out an extra dollar, these groups and political representatives view 2018 at the year to truly inflict permanent damage on an act that is supported by the majority of the U.S. citizens.

Critics of the ESA have argued that this legislation should be reformed (or repealed) because public support for animal protections has faded over time, and therefore, supports this push to dismantle.  So, to determine the accuracy of this statement, a team of ecologists and social scientists from “Conservation Letters” gathered data from several sources, including a national survey they conducted in 2014, as well as other published studies and polls spanning two decades since the mid-1990s.

By combining data from all this research, the study’s authors found that “support for the Act has been remarkably stable over the past 20 years. As noted in the table below, more than four out of five Americans support the ESA, the data show, while only about one in 10 oppose it. The most recent studies were conducted in 2015, 2014 and 2011, yet their results are “statistically indistinguishable” from those of the earliest study, which dates back to 1996.

And while this should come across as no surprise that certain Congressional representatives are pursuing a legislative agenda benefiting well-financed mining, ranching and oil / gas extraction industries and individuals, rather than representing the best interests of the majority of their constituents, acknowledging, and accepting are two different things.  In fact if anything, these polls indicate not only  overwhelming support of the ESA by the majority of Americans, but that opposition against has actually decreased from 1996 and 2015.

So, why should we continue to support the ESA and what is the purpose of the ESA?  The Endangered Species Act was passed to (1) prevent the extinction of vulnerable species throughout the United States; and (2) to recover a species’ population to the point where listing the species as endangered or threatened is no longer necessary.

Unfortunately, critics of the ESA and those with ulterior motives conveniently ignore its primary purpose; that is, to prevent extinction.  Rather, they present misleading and misinterpreted statistics to argue its failure.  Mark Twain referred to these as “lies, damned lies and statistics” and this is certainly an example of that.  Legislators such as U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) in an August 23, 2013 interview with Wyoming Radio attempted to mislead the public with a comment of “we have a law where only 1 percent of the species that have been listed have actually been delisted. To me, that indicates a law that is failing in its goal which is to list species, recover them, and then delist them.”

That 1% was based upon the US Fish and Wildlife Services reference that of the 2,105 species on the endangered species list at that time, 28 animals had been deemed as recovered and subsequently delisted. This equates to 1.3%.  Unfortunately, statistics are often misleading and manipulated to push certain false narratives.  As William Robert Irvin, President and CEO of American Rivers stated “By the time species are listed as threatened or endangered, their numbers are so low that preventing extinction is the major challenge, with recovery and delisting a remote consideration. The law acts as an emergency room. Recovery requires much longer treatment through actions under the full panoply of conservation laws and programs.”

The fact of the matter is that while the ESA has exhibited an overwhelming success rate more than 90%.  In celebration of Endangered Species Day 2012 (which also marked the 40-year anniversary of the ESA), the Center for Biological Diversity studied in detail the actual success of the ESA and published a report entitled On Time, On Target: How the Endangered Species Act Is Saving America’s Wildlife; and it offers a contrast to those detractors suggesting the ESA has failed.

Their study focused on the actual recovery rate of 110 different species, which represented a range over all 50 states, included all major taxonomic groups and a diversity of listing lengths.  Of these species, they determined that 90 percent of the species were recovering at the rate specified by their federal recovery plan.  They also determined that it takes an average of 25 years for a species to fully recover and that 80% of the species have not even been listed long enough to warrant an expectation of recovery.  Their analysis also concluded that the average age of listing was 32 years while recovery plans require approximately 46 years of listing.

Those detractors and those presenting the false narrative would have the reader believe that an animal placed on the endangered species list should be fully recovered the following day.  This is no different from someone announcing that they are going on a diet, and then expressing shock and surprise that they are still carrying that additional 50 pounds on their body the following day.  That 50 pounds was not gained overnight but was representative of years of poor eating habits and poor choices.  Unfortunately, many of the animals on the endangered species list are also on that list because of poor choices we have made as humans, including over-hunting, over-development, eradication of animals viewed as pests, and the decimation of habitat and food sources.

The Endangered Species Act currently provides protections to animals that are endangered or “threatened”.  The current attack on the ESA would include the removal “endangered” protections to those animals that were only viewed as “threatened”.  However, the reason threatened animals receive the same protections as those endangered is to enhance recovery and to protect them before their numbers plummet to a level that would make recovery unlikely or much more difficult.

Think of a “threatened” species as a patient on blood pressure medication.  The doctor could wait until after a heart attack or stroke and then if the patient survives, prescribe high blood pressure medication. Or the doctor could opt for a more proactive, preventative approach and prescribe medication as a preventative, hoping to help the patient before a life-ending or life altering heart attack.  The ESA serves as that “medication” for those animals deemed as threatened and enables a greater chance of survival and recovery; and certainly, it makes more sense than simply waiting for the inevitable reclassification from threatened to endangered.  And proactive measures are almost always less expensive than reactionary measures, which essentially is what is required once endangered.

Of course, the “medication” provides little benefit if the patient doesn’t alter his or her lifestyle: losing weight, eating better, or addressing other contributing factors that caused the high blood pressure in the first place.   So, while the ESA is the initial medication to stave off extinction, further steps are then required to stabilize the species before recovery can even be considered.  Take the Florida Panther for example.  Most studies estimate a population of 160 to 200 Florida Panthers residing south of the Coosawatchie River and primarily in the Southwest corner of the state.  There are those who would have the reader believe that Florida Panthers should no longer be protected because (1) the 160 to 200 estimate grossly underestimates total panthers in existence (There are a number of experts who actually suggest that even the 160 to 200 is a gross exaggeration and there may be fewer than 100; (2) saving the Florida Panther from extinction if a futile exercise so we might as well give up; and (3) the Florida panther is a subspecies of the North American Mountain Lion who is not endangered (not yet, although they remain at risk) and therefore, shouldn’t receive special treatment.

However, the reality is that those in favor of removing the Florida Panther from the endangered species list have ulterior and hidden agendas and are not speaking from an independent, science supported observation.   This includes hunters who selfishly desire a trophy, ranchers who complain about livestock depredation (even though the federal government provides for compensation relief from lost livestock), or developers who desire to develop the few remaining parts of Florida not already developed but are unable to develop in those areas deemed as Florida panther habitat.

In addition to removing protections of those animals who are only “threatened”, the most damaging component of the legislation is a requirement that economic impact would have to be factored before an animal could be added to the list.  Essentially, this would require financial justification of species protection, that the protection must somehow generate a greater profit than other land uses such as mining, gas exploration, ranching, etc.  And of course, we all know this would be a herculean task to overcome.  So, the reader needs to understand that the true impact of this measure will effectively be a final dismantling of the endangered species act. Those animals currently on the endangered species would be grandfathered in, but all future animals, birds, plants, etc. could not be added unless it could be proven that protecting the species would create a greater economic impact than these alternative land uses.  And those attacking the ESA know that.

How do you measure the economic benefit that a Florida Panther or Yellowstone Grizzly contributes?  Perhaps one could argue that the possibility of seeing a Grizzly increases tourism and tourism revenue to Yellowstone National Park.  However, the Grizzly is likely to be an exception.  The Florida Panther is an elusive big cat, rarely seen and certainly, it would be difficult to argue the Florida Panther generates revenue to support its existence.  But compare that to a developer desiring to develop on Panther habitat.  The developer can easily provide an “economic loss” scenario that would justify development over protection of the species.

Additionally, the economic argument is completely contrary to the original purpose of the act and economics should not be a basis of consideration.  When President Nixon signed the ESA into legislation, he noted that “nothing is more priceless and more-worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed. It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”

In other words, you can’t monetize this act, and the protection of animals gravitates beyond the realm of value.  The protection of these species is truly priceless; which therefore, exceeds any economic benefit that might be derived through alternative land uses that would contribute to the extinction of species that deserve protection.

It’s a sad moment in American history that we find ourselves, where the desires of the few have a greater influence than the desires of the many; when profit alone becomes the determinant of decision making, and when the long-term impact of such changes is simply ignored.  The efforts to weaken, dismantle and destroy the ESA is not steeped in any scientific theory, and is presented in a manner to mislead and misrepresent the public as to the success of this act.  Unfortunately, as is the case most of the time, one only needs to follow the money trail to understand the true intent and reason that certain people wish to repeal the act in its entirety, or at least weaken it to the point where it no longer provides protections to animals.

The Endangered Species Act is one of the greatest legislature achievements passed by our legislature because it was passed not for monetary benefits of special interest, but it was passed because it was simply the right thing to do.  It was an act introduced by a Democratic legislator and signed by a Republic President and received almost 100% unanimous support by Congress.  There is a reason it received this type of support and that is because the American Public wanted it passed then, and the American Public remains as supportive, if not more, today.  The Endangered Species Act deserves preservation in its current state, and those species protected by the act deserve continued protections that eventually aid in recovery.  Otherwise, these species will disappear off the face of the earth forever, never to be enjoyed by current or future generations.

On Saturday, October 24, the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) authorized the first hunt of the Florida black bear in 21 years; and three years after this iconic animal was removed from the threatened species list. This hunt was to last for seven days.

However, the death toll and carnage inflicted upon the black bear was so devastating, the FWC had to call the hunt on Sunday, effectively meeting the hunting goal of 320 bear in less than a 48-hour period. And News-Press.com described this hunt as “poorly conceived, poorly coordinated, poorly conducted and the end result was embarrassing for Florida.”

SOME BACKGROUND

In 1994, the Commission of Game & Fresh Water Fish (GFC) closed all remaining areas in the state of Florida for bear hunting; and at that time there were only about 1,250 black bear remaining in the state. But, thanks in part to this hunting ban and other conservation efforts, the population had recovered to an estimated 3,000+ bear in six core areas (Eglin, Apalachicola, Osceola, St. Johns and Big Cypress) and two remnant areas (Chassahowitzka and Glades / Highlands).

Yet, despite the fact that the Florida black bear had been removed from the threatened species list three years ago, the FWC made the decision to authorize the killing of up to 320 bear in this hunt. This number was based upon (1) bear count estimates; (2) historic annual mortality rates of 8% to 10%; and (3) an assumption that a subpopulation of at least 200 bear could absorb and survive up to a 23% annual mortality rate and still sustain the species.

As noted in the chart below, the FWC determined that four geographic regions (East Panhandle, North, Central and South Regions) supported this hunt, with the “Objective” in each region to reduce the bear population by 20%, which also factored in the annual average mortality rate.

                                 Est. Bear      20%      Mortality      Hunt
Region                     Total       of Total    Estimate  Objective EastPanhandle         600           120              80               40
North                           550           110               10              100
Central                     1,300           260            160             100
South                           700            140             20               80
Total                          3,150           630           270             320

The map below identifies the four Bear Management Units (BMU) that were targeted for this hunt.

In an effort to justify this hunt, the FWC argued that the increase in complaint calls, as well as several reported incidents of actual bear attacks justified the need to pare down the bear population. According to the FWC, in 2014, they fielded in excess of 6,000 complaint calls from concerned citizens. They also reported that 227 black bear were killed in vehicle related accidents in 2014. And while this information on the surface might appear to justify the need for this hunt, there is more to the story.

CONFLICTS & INCONSISTENCIES ABOUND

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is composed of seven members; all appointed by the governor and all serve five-year renewable terms. However, the current commission has been described as “a Breakfast Club of power players: a builder, a road builder, a rancher, a hotel magnate, a power company executive, a Republican bigwig, and a developer”. There is not a single conservationist or animal welfare advocate that sits on this board; and it can easily be argued that every one of these Commissioners has a conflict of interest when it comes to the protection of Florida’s wildlife and the environment.

This said, in 2012 the FWC released the “The Florida Black Bear Management Plan” (The Plan), a 200+ page study with an overall objective to “maintain sustainable black bear populations in suitable habitats throughout Florida for the benefit of the species and the people”; and to “address these conservation challenges and to ensure that bears will never again need to be listed as a threatened species”.

Additionally, Florida Administrative Code 68A-4.009 was promulgated to further protect the Florida Black Bear, stating:

(1) No person shall take, possess, injure, shoot, collect, or sell black bears or their parts or to attempt to engage in such conduct except as authorized by Commission rule or by permit from the Commission;

(2) The Commission will issue permits authorizing intentional take of bears when it determines such authorization furthers scientific or conservation purposes which will benefit the survival potential of the species or to reduce property damage caused by bears. For purposes of this rule, activities that are eligible for a permit include:

     (a) Collection of scientific data needed for conservation or   management of the species;

(b) Taking bears that are causing property damage when no non-lethal options can provide practical resolution to the damage, and the Commission is unable to capture the bear.

In 2014, the FWC updated bear population counts for the North and Central Bear Management Units (BMU); however, they had not completed counts for the East Panhandle and South BMU’s. And although those counts had not been updated in 13 years and were to be completed in 2016, the FWC still made the decision to move forward this hunt in 2015. Even Ron Bergeron, the only FWC Commissioner that voted against the hunt was quoted by the Sun Sentinel in September to say “You should have all your science in place before you hold your first hunt in 21 years, especially when you’re dealing with an icon animal.”

In addition, the FWC chose not to limit the number of permits for this hunt; and ultimately sold a total of 3,778 – enough to kill every bear in the state. And although the FWC established a limit of 320 bear, they also guaranteed a two-day hunt; and acknowledged that the total number of bear killed would not be counted until after the end of the second day. So, with a two-day commitment, there was no guarantee that the number of bear killed would be limited to the targeted 320.

While the FWC justified this hunt based upon the perceived “human – bear conflict”, they also acknowledged via their website that “The mere presence of a black bear does not represent a problem. In fact, living in black bear country can provide unique and rewarding experiences! The best way to enjoy our wildlife is to keep them wild and away from food sources like garbage, pet food, and bird seed.”

The FWC further acknowledged that “there is no shortage of natural foods in Florida’s forests for bears. They are very opportunistic feeders and are technically omnivores. Bear typically wander into residential areas because the food they can find there is high in calories and easy to get.“ The FWC further noted that “black bears avoid confrontation 90% of the time. They are naturally shy animals that will generally give plenty of warnings (e.g. jaw popping, huffing, bluff charging) before attacking”.

Nick Wiley, the Executive Director of the FWC acknowledged that the two attacks on humans in 2013 and the two attacks in 2014 did not prompt the bear hunt because they can’t prove this would reduce future incidents. He further stated that “We have never proposed bear hunting as a solution to conflicts. It’s to control the bear population. We don’t know for sure it will lessen the conflicts. We don’t have the science to prove it.”

The FWC also agreed with animal rights supporters that the best way to minimize human-bear conflict is through managing garbage and food attractants, such as utilizing bear-proof trash cans. And while the FWC suggested that “hunting” is a one tool in their comprehensive approach to curbing the population, the Florida Black Bear Management Plan makes no mention of hunting the black bear as part of the plan.

The FWC also acknowledged that 75% of the 40,000+ calls, letters and emails from Florida residents stated opposition to the hunt; but that they had to weigh public opinion versus scientific research…even though as Mr. Wiley acknowledged, there was not supportable scientific research to justify this hunt.

SO, WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME?

According to the FWC, total bear killed in this hunt was 304. However, both the North and South bear management unit (BMU) fell well short of their targeted range. The North BMU only met 25% of the targeted number, while the South BMU was slightly higher at 275. On the opposite extreme, the Central BMU (143%) and East Panhandle BMU (285%) embarrassingly exceeded their target numbers; particularly considering that those numbers were met on the first day of the hunt.

Naturally, this raises the question as to whether the FWC truly had any idea as to the actual population count; or if this  were simply a guesstimate. And if the FWC was working with inaccurate assumptions and inaccurate data, then we really have no idea as to the detrimental impact this hunt may have on the black bear, both short-term and long-term.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

As noted earlier, there were nearly 6,000 complaint calls made in 2014. However, the majority of these were made by concerned citizens to either report a bear in the area, or a complaint the bear had dumped over a trash can and was rummaging through the garbage.

And while there were 227 black bear killed in vehicular accidents in 2014, this actually represents a 20% reduction over the 285 bears that were killed in 2012; thanks to the construction of wildlife underpasses, the posting of warning signs and reduced speed limits in frequent roadkill areas, providing of information at rest stops and tourist information areas, and other measures.

Thus while complaint calls have increased from 1990 to 2014, this would be expected, given that Florida’s population of 13.03 million in 1990 had increased 53% to 19.89 million by 2014. Add 6 million more people and development that infringes upon the bear’s natural habitat, this equates to more human – bear conflict.

Diane Eggeman, FWC’s hunting director, predicted the hunt would claim 183 bears, based upon similar hunts in other states; while Brad McNaughton, the Central Florida Bear Hunters Association President commented that “If you do it by the (Florida) rules, no dogs and no baiting, it won’t be easy. It’ll be a luck deal. They’re sneaky suckers,” he said. And although Ms. Eggeman substantially under estimated the number of bear killed, perhaps there is some truth to both of these statements. They both assumed that all 3,778 hunters would play by the rules, which unfortunately, was not the case. Those rules included:

• No baiting. (Evidence has been presented that baiting did take place; and based upon the number of bear killed so quickly on Saturday, speculation is that baiting had occurred days, if not weeks before the hunt started.)

• No killing of mothers with cubs (The final tally was 179 female bear, of which 21%, or 38 were lactating.)

• No killing of cubs under 100 pounds. (Per Politico Florida, eight of the 170 were less than 100 pounds; and again using the same ratio for the 298 bear kills reported by the FWC, this would indicate a total of 14 cubs killed.)

Hunt Florida TV channel, commission spokesman Tony Young said, “If you see a bear that comes out into view, and you’re thinking about harvesting it because it looks big enough, give it a little while and make sure it doesn’t have a cub with it.” Unfortunately, this advice was not followed by everyone.

FAILURES ABOUND

This article would be substantially shorter if we summarized what went right; because quite frankly, the only “right” of this entire event was in the fact that it was mercifully shut down after the second day. So, let’s summarize the failures.

• The FWC is a commission consisting of developers, attorneys, ranchers and hunters. Not a single commissioner has experience in conservation or biology. Simply put, the financial interest of a developer or rancher is contrary to the protection of Florida’s wildlife, including the black bear and Florida panther, both of which are deemed to be a threat to “progress”.

• The FWC produced a detailed Bear Management Plan in 2012 which was developed to ensure the black bear would never again become a threatened species. A hunting program was never addressed as part of this plan; and this recent hunt represents a significant step backward in what had been a great story of recovery.

• Seventy five percent of Florida residents were opposed to this hunt; yet the FWC ignored the overwhelming majority…and ignored the science as well. Yet, there is no evidence that the FWC decision was a nod to hunters either. There were a number of hunters that were also against the hunt, with some describing this event as about the same as going out and shooting your own dog. Many of the bear had grown accustomed to humans, had no reason to fear them, and walked right up to the hunters. With exception of fences or cages, this essentially became a glorified canned hunt.

• The FWC choose to move ahead with this hunt before final bear counts were even completed. The completion date was targeted for 2016; but the FWC offered no adequate explanation as to why this hunt was held before finalization of the counts. As the final numbers attested, it was clear that the FWC had no idea as to how many bear, nor where they were located geographically.

• The FWC did not limit the number of permits sold for the bear hunt. Ultimately, there were 3,778 permits sold…enough to kill every black bear in the state. Obviously, that was not going to happen. However, the FWC certainly positioned the black bear into a precarious position that, with a guaranteed two-day hunt, could have been decimated beyond recovery. This was a poor advised gamble that could have had (and may still have) catastrophic consequences.

• The $100 in-state permit fee and $300 out-of-state permit fees were minimal and therefore, failed to generate any significant revenue that could have been invested in bear conservation efforts. Given that this was the first hunt in 21 years and a lot of hunters excited about the opportunity of killing a black bear, the permit price seemed artificially low. This is particularly perplexing, given that Brian Yablonski, the Chairman of the FWC is a major supporter and advocate of the “economic value theory”. The theory goes that the conservation and protection of a species increases in proportion to the animal’s market value. The greater the value, the greater the conservation effort.

Therefore, one would have assumed that the first hunt in 20+ years of an iconic animal such as the Florida black bear would have yielded a much higher permit fee… $2,000 to $3,000. The final amount collected was $377,000, which will do very little toward future conservation of the bear. Higher permit fees would have raised significantly more money that could have gone toward a bear proof trash can subsidy program, further education of the residents in bear country; and investment in over-passes or under-passes, allowing bear and panthers safe haven and access over or under busy highways.

• By allowing an unlimited number of hunters, a compacted hunting period, and a two-day guarantee, the FWC was virtually assured of an unmanageable hunt. Expanding the hunt into multiple weeks and limiting the number of hunters on any given day, this would have helped to manage the hunt count, and ensured that both the Eastern Panhandle and Central Florida bear counts remained in check.

• The FWC held the bear hunt in the first place. Aside from the mistakes referenced above, the simple fact is that there was no justification to even have the bear hunt. The FWC acknowledged that there was not an over-population issue. They acknowledged that natural food sources were ample. They acknowledged that the isolated incidents where bear actually attacked humans was due to human provocation. (Bears are very shy animals, and almost never initiate an unprovoked attack.)

• The FWC acknowledged that the most effective way of controlling the human – bear conflict is to educate the public, and to place a greater emphasis of bear proof trash cans in bear country. Yet, the FWC ultimately justified the bear hunt on the basis that it would reduce the human – bear conflict, even though they acknowledged this hunt would not accomplish that goal. “We know this isn’t going to work but we are going to do it anyway” appeared to be the mantra of the FWC. Additionally, the majority of the bear killed were in Marion County, and deep in the Ocala National Forest. These were not even the bear that were creating the human-bear conflict in the first place.

AFTER SHOCKS

A week after the hunt, a kayaker discovered a dead bear cub floating in the Suwannee River; a previously unreported casualty of this disaster of a bear hunt, which brings up the necessary discussion as to aftershocks associated with this hunt.

Orphaned cubs, according to the FWC are capable of surviving on their own at about 8 months; and with an October hunt, most would have been 8 to 9 months old. Based upon the reported 38 lactating mothers that were killed, and an average litter of 2.5 bear cubs (typical litter are two to three bear cubs), that would equate to approximately 94 orphaned cubs.

And while cubs may have the ability to find food and survive on their own, a 70 or 80 pound cub would have a significantly less chance of surviving the attack of a 300 or 400 pound full-grown male, than one with a mother there to defend him or her. So, the mortality rate of orphaned cubs necessarily will be higher than the mortality rate of cubs protected by a mother bear. According to http://www.bear.org, the one-year survival rate of a litter of two bear is 88% and three bear is 82%, so an average of about 85%. Without a protective mother bear, the survival rate is assumed to be significantly less than 85%.

Additionally, subsequent to the bear hunt, there have been increased reports of bear sightings in residential neighborhoods. This is not surprising and should have been expected; but perhaps with exception of the FWC. There are two reasons for this.

  Source: adn.com

One, the young orphaned bears do not have the same level of foraging experience as their moms. The logical question must be posed as to why they normally stay with their mother for an average of eighteen months if they only require eight months? The answer is simple…that is the ideal period of time that nature intended for these bear to have the best chance of survival.

And because these young bear do not have those years of foraging experience, they are likely to seek more readily available food sources like leftover food in unsecured trash cans. Even the FWC noted: “Bear typically wander into residential areas because the food they can find there is high in calories and easy to get. Because black bears are “smart enough to be lazy” and take the path of least resistance – the neighborhood. They will spend a few hours in a neighborhood getting into trash cans, bird feeders, or gardens and get the same number of calories.”

Secondly, bear are intelligent animals and many are now associating the forest with the carnage that took place in the woods. They now see the residential area as a safer environment, which obviously will only result in an increased level of human – bear conflict.

The official tally provided by the FWC is 304 bear. This appears to be an artificially low number. However, even if that is correct, after adding the unaccounted bear injured and never found, the increase in orphaned cub mortality, the increase in bear – human conflict, and loss of future offspring, what is the true death toll resulting from this bear hunt? And what is the long-term impact? Whatever the answer is, it is significantly higher than the original target of 320 bear.

THE ATTACK CONTINUES

Subsequent to the conclusion of the 2015 hunt, the FWC has now introduced proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code 68A-4.009. The most significant change to this code section would be to remove the sub-species categorization of the black bear. Specifically,

1) Remove any references to the specific subspecies of the Florida black bear (Ursus Americanus Floridanus) from the rule, including the title. This change is necessary to:

A) maintain consistency and avoid confusion because all other references to bears in F.A.C.s refer to black bears and do not refer to the specific subspecies Florida black bear, and

B) clarify that any black bear in Florida is protected under the rule. A Florida black bear is physically indistinguishable from an American black bear or Louisiana black bear, which are the two other subspecies of black bears inhabiting the eastern United States. While we have never found anything but a Florida black bear in Florida through thousands of genetic samples analyzed, removing the subspecies reference from the rule would negate the need to analyze DNA from a bear to prove it is the subspecies and therefore is protected under this rule.

This explanation sounds mundane, and suggests that the FWC is proposing this change for simplification purposes. However, the true intent is more sinister.

Current sources indicate that there are approximately 300,000 black bear living throughout the lower 48 states. And while there are actually 16 subspecies, only the Louisiana Black Bear and Florida Black Bear are in that volatile category…the Louisiana black bear currently listed on the federal register as threatened, while the Florida black bear was considered threatened until 2012.

The Florida black bear, as a subspecies of approximately 3,000, enjoys (or had enjoyed) special protections that he would not have received if categorized as part of the larger 300,000 black bear species.

In other words, had the sub species title been removed back in 1994 (when the GFC imposed the hunting ban), there likely would have never been a hunting ban because technically, there would not be an existence of a Florida black bear. He would just be a “black bear” and as long as the overall species of black bear was a healthy number, it wouldn’t matter whether or not a black bear population existed in Florida or not.

Now whether that is the intent of the FWC, only the FWC can answer that question. However, this effort to amend the Administrative Code Section should be a concern to wildlife advocates. And it should be noted that the FWC also desires to remove the subspecies categorization of the Florida panther, which would remove his endangered species protections as well.

It also needs to be noted that as to whether there is a difference between the Florida black bear and other black bears, even the FWC states on their website that the Florida “black bear can be distinguished from other subspecies by genetic and skeletal differences.” So, when the FWC acknowledges that there are genetic and skeletal differences, one must question the underlying intent of differentiating the bear, yet wanting to pretend there is no differentiation. This should be viewed with suspicion.

MATHMATICALLY CHALLENGED

Additionally, the FWC has also indicated the intent to have another hunt in 2016, although in recent days Dianne Eggeman has walked that statement back and indicated that the FWC will not make a decision on future hunts until they complete a thorough review of the 2015 hunt.

Meanwhile, Thomas Eason, Director of the FWC’s Habitat and Species Conservation Division has been recently quoted to believe that there are now an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 bear now living in Florida; and producing 1,200 cubs per year. I find this interesting because it is quite obvious now that the FWC was simply guessing when they estimated the 3,000 bear in Florida. Now, they are guessing 5,000 bear? Or is it 6,000? Or does that 5,000 or 6,000 number include the 304 bear reported killed during this hunt? Does anyone really believe any of this?

With regards to the 1,200 cubs per year, this would suggest an annual growth rate of 20% to 24% per year, based upon his assumption of 5,000 to 6,000 bear. It is a generally accepted fact that the average mortality rate of a typical bear population, without undue influences of hunting and other non-natural events is about 10% per year. In fact, in determining the targeted 320 bear in this year’s hunt, the FWC acknowledged a 10% goal, which added to the 10% mortality rate, would equate to an overall number of 20%. They deemed this a conservative number, as previous studies had indicated that up to 23% of a bear population could be killed in a given year without risk of sustainability of the species.

In 1994, there were an estimated 1,250 bear. If we assume a 20% growth rate (which is based upon a 1,200 cub to 6,000 total population that Mr. Eason provided; 24% if the ratio was 1,200 to 5,000 bear) and assume the 10% mortality rate during that period (as hunting was not allowed from 1994 through 2014), this would actually indicate that Florida’s black bear population would be nearly 52,000. Yet, I don’t believe anyone would consider that to be an accurate number.

However, this is simple math; it assumes the 20% cub birth rate provided by Mr. Easton and a 10% overall mortality rate every year. Run the numbers. I did. It works. So, by this calculation, even he has substantially underestimated the overall bear population.

Unless…he is grossly exaggerating the bear numbers, or just making it up because it sounds good. This is not an accusation, but the numbers clearly do not add up; and I would have assumed that the director of habitat and species conservation would have factual data to support these assumptions.

According to the FWC, there was an estimated 3,000 to 3,500 bear before this hunt began. Assuming the 1994 number of 1,250 is accurate (and I have found no dispute of this number), this would suggest an annual net bear increase of around 4.5% per year.

Assuming the same 10% mortality rate, this would indicate a cub production rate of around 5.5% per year, substantially less than the 20% estimated by Mr. Eason. And in fact, http://www.bearsmart.com notes that “Bears are among the least productive mammals in North America.” So perhaps, Mr. Eason has been a little too optimistic concerning the reproductive rate of the black bear; or of the total population, or both.

And why would the FWC once again go on record with a number before final counts have even been completed? This just seems to further enforce incompetence or an agenda reliant upon a gross misstatements of fact, exaggerations or egregious lies.

It should also be noted that Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Jon Steverson has within the past few days, proposed for the upcoming legislative session that the state open up all 161 state parks to hunting, in an effort to “maximize moneymaking opportunities.”

FINAL THOUGHTS

One must acknowledge that there are situations when the only choice we have is to forcibly reduce wildlife populations, particularly when there is a perceived over-population of that animal. Of course, that over-population is almost certainly our fault as well, as we have tampered with the delicate balance of the ecosystem. We have either killed too many predators like the wolf or mountain lion or bobcat or coyote, resulting an over-population of prey animals. Or, we have reduced the animal habitat to such a confined space, they have no place else to go. They are then considered “nuisance” animals because they are infringing on our territory, even though we actually infringed upon their territory first.

And it is ironic when you think about the fact that when the human population over-populates, we don’t hire hunters to reduce the human population to manageable levels. Rather, we simply take over more land to accommodate people. Animals generally don’t over-populate. We just force them into smaller and smaller habitats; and as those habitats become smaller, there is a perceived over-population. And the answer to that problem is to kill and reduce.

The majority of Florida’s citizens did not want this hunt in the first place. After the black eye that the FWC has inflicted upon the state with this embarrassing, unjustified hunt, one can only hopes that the FWC will bow to the will of the people…and to common sense…and to intelligent conservation measures.

The actions of the FWC leading up to this bear hunt, the management of the actual hunt, and their actions after the hunt, combined with the recent legislative efforts, and DEP’s thoughts to legalize hunting in all state parks should send an alarming message to Florida’s residents. The attitude of the current state Administration toward wildlife and the environment is rather obvious, and one only hopes that something can be done before there is irreparable damage. If not, the repercussions of this will be felt by all parties involved: hunters and non-hunters.

The FWC has masterfully manipulated a situation where many of the animal advocates and hunting advocates believe that they are each other’s primary adversary in this battle. As those two groups expend energy fighting one another, the FWC continues to quietly pursue an agenda under the radar; with the hunting and animal advocates too busy fighting one another to take notice.

Fortunately, many appear to be waking up to this; and let’s hope for the sake of the bear and all Florida wildlife, something can be done before it is too late.

For the first time in what seems more than a month, the sun finally returned from vacation and greeted us with its warm presence this morning; and even hung around for a sunset. The temperature was a near perfect 78 degrees and it was about as perfect of a day as one could ask. Yet, there was a feeling of emptiness, and there was a feeling that something just wasn’t quite right.

Twenty-four hours earlier, many of us took a collective breath, found a comfortable chair and settled in to watch the long-awaited premiere of Blood Lions. Some of us had the box of tissues next to us, some of us had a stiff drink; and almost all of us had our hand on the remote control, just in case the program was just a little more than we could take.

Many of us had a general idea as to what we would see but weren’t sure if we were entirely prepared for the truth. Others may have only heard about the concept of canned hunting, and were only vaguely prepared to watch. And those channel surfers just looking for something to watch were truly in for a rude awakening.

For those of us able to soldier through the full hour without breaking down emotionally (there were many of those, and understandably so); or without throwing a brick through the television (I managed, although there were a few times I was looking for that brick), what did we learn? And for those that could not, did not or will not watch this program, what can we share with them?

To respond with the most basic, matter of fact, answer: there are many liars among us, and there are many more that have some misguided understanding view of conservation…or CONservation, which may be a more accurate pronunciation of the word.

Among the more interesting, or should I say, disturbing facts are these…although I hesitate to use the word “facts” universally. Some are facts, some are myths, some are downright lies, and some just leave you puzzled.

THE FACTS

An opponent of canned hunting is known as a “greenie”. Okay, I guess green is a term that is associated with the environment. It’s a good word. My favorite color is green, so I have no problem with this.

For a canned hunt, all you need is a long weekend. Zip over, shoot a lion, and zip back. Three days and two nights is all that is required. After all, this is the immediate gratification society. No time to waste.

Traditional trophy hunting of lions costs an average of $76,000, requires a time commitment of 21 days, and is only met with a 61% success rate. Canned lion hunting costs an average of $19,000, requires only 3 days and has a 99% success rate. And they even offer trophy insurance for that 1% that fails in their quest for a trophy.

Unlike traditional hunting, the canned hunt virtually guarantees success through a program that involves captive breeding. This program includes the taking away of the lion cubs from their mothers within 3 to 10 days after birth, are bottle-feed, and then ultimately sold to one of the safari outfitters. By this time, the lion has a complete trust of people, so he (or she) has no fear of humans.

The lion is then baited with food, unknowingly eating his final meal before execution. And he may be partially drugged, to ensure he remains lethargic and doesn’t run away. However, even if he does try to run, there is no escape. He is enclosed in a small fenced-in area.

Many that participate in canned hunting are not skilled at hunting. They have money to spend but could not hit the broad side of a barn. Relying upon their own hunting skills, they probably would not survive without this ambush style of hunting. One hunter took 6 shots to kill the lion, even though he was no more than 30 yards from the animal.

Trapped: The hunters sit on high platforms from where they can take potshots at the animals in front of them – Daily Mail.

There are an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 captive lions in about 200 facilities in South Africa. This is an increase from the 1,000 to 2,000 estimated in 1999. Current expectations are that by 2020 (unless this practice is stopped or slowed), there may be 16,000 to 20,000 lions raised for the sole reason of becoming someone’s trophy.
There is little concern for the well-being of the lion. “They are not worried about genetics…just need to pump them into the industry and to do as little as possible” So, the poor lion with the terrible gimp and struggle to walk? No problem as long as his “trophy” head is intact.

The lack of regulations in South Africa has resulted in the proliferation in this industry. In fact, to operate a lion farm, all that is required is money to purchase the land, the fencing, and the lions. There is no requirement that a person has a background in animal husbandry, or has any veterinary or biological background. In fact, no experience is required at all.

Many people are duped into raising these captive lions. For the modest price of $2,800, these farms offer volunteers the “chance of a lifetime” to spend a week interacting with the supposed orphaned cubs. They sell this story as a conservation effort; and that once raised to adulthood, lions will be released into the wild to help re-establish the population.

Once the lions reach three to four years of age, they are then sold to the safari companies. Many of the safari companies then post a photograph of each lion with a price below each one. So, the wannabe trophy hunter simply logs in to the safari website, pays the appropriate fee, then clicks on the lion of choice and just like that, the lion’s fate is sealed.

There are actually some hunting operators that are angry at this practice and do not agree with it. Unfortunately, they are probably the exception and certainly in the minority.

THE LIES

“We don’t breed…maybe every 2nd year we allow a lioness to have a litter.”

This was the story the documenters were told at facility after facility. Every farm is a sanctuary and this is where the lions live the remainder of their lives. That said, no one could explain where all the lion cubs were coming from, or why there were no older lions on any of these lion farms.

The orphaned lion cubs are hand-raised as part of a “breeding project” to help re-establish the population.

These animals have lost their fear of humans and have lost the ability to hunt and survive. No captive lion has ever survived in the wild. So even if this wasn’t a lie, it would be an extremely poorly conceived conservation idea.

“Lion numbers are going up as daily as we speak”, so says Freddie Oosterhaus, a hunting operator.

As Dereck Joubert responded “Saying the lion population is increasing is like saying the world is flat. You design the argument that keeps you doing what you want to do.” Now if he is referring to the captive lion program, then unfortunately he is right. The number of genetically inferior, inbred, and defective lion population is growing daily. And there are even those conservationists that sadly believe if you shutter the canned lion industry down, the best thing to do would be to just humanely euthanize every lion in the program. It is sad indeed.

THE COMMENTS THAT JUST LEAVE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD

“I am an animal lover, therefore I am a hunter” – Olivia Nalos Opre.

So, this assumes if you don’t kill animals, you can’t love animals. I must admit, this was a real head scratcher.

“Wildlife is a very precious thing and every hunt that I go on, it’s not about the kill. It’s about the full experience. It’s about getting to know the indigenous people…about seeing the wildlife and appreciating them and then when the time comes to hunt the oldest animal. It’s going to die a certain death at some stage, so to take that Cape buffalo and give the meat to the people and to enjoy the experience and the adventure and thrill behind hunting. One of God’s most incredible creatures” – Olivia Nalos Opre.

I believe this is when I first started looking for that brick to toss at the television. “Wildlife is precious”, therefore we must kill wildlife; but it has nothing to do with hunting at all…it is the experience. Then why not pick up a camera instead of a gun? Every comment she makes above (with exception of the giving meat to the people – which we all know is a thinly veiled attempt to justify and rationalize the killing of these innocent animals), is also accomplished with a camera. Seeing wildlife, appreciating wildlife, getting to know the indigenous people? All accomplished with a camera, and much less expensive. And we know the part about hunting the “oldest” is a complete lie. As long as the hunter desires to take home a “trophy” that celebrates the kill, these arguments will never be valid or accepted.

“Hunters are the real conservationists” – Leon Munyan.

If you would like to view Leon’s conservation efforts, please visit the Munyan Family Hunting Conservation Museum or his website http://museum.munyan.com/home.html. He touts 313 separate exhibits of accomplished killing…err, I mean conservation practices.

And you will be proud to know that Leon has practiced his “conservation efforts” throughout the world, including Africa, Asia, North America, Europe, South America and the South Pacific. And his two daughters have also joined his conservation efforts as well; so we should be pleased that this family of conservationists is so active at protecting the world’s wildlife. If everyone was such an avid conservationist, I’m pretty sure that just about every animal species would have been wiped out by now.

“This is conservation because if it wasn’t for hunters, that lion wouldn’t be there. He never would have been bred…At least he has a purpose in life”. – Leon Munyan

Basically, he is saying that animals exist on this earth for our own personal pleasure and we can pretty much do whatever we want with them. And I suppose there are people out there that truly believe that “Man has dominion over the animals” is interpreted to be just this…we can do whatever we want. Needless to say, I and many others strongly disagree with this statement.

Earthisland.org

“There’s no comparison between hunters and non-hunters, because hunters understand animals.” – Leon Munyan

I would be willing to put my knowledge of animals up against any hunter that wishes to take on that debate. I am not a hunter, but I watch, I study, I read, I observe, I photograph. And there is one piece of knowledge that I know better than the hunters. And that is that the animal does not want to be shot and does not want to be a trophy.

“Yeah, I’m an animal lover. I have four dogs.” – Leon Munyan

Clearly, Leon has a different view of domestic animals versus wild animals when professing his love. I am pretty sure he would have a problem if someone walked into his backyard and shot his four dogs. However, he clearly does not have a problem shooting other animals.

THOUGHT PROVOKING QUESTIONS

“Is this something we feel proud of as a nation? My feeling is I’m not proud of it.“ – Derek Hanekom, South Africa Minister of Tourism.

The reality is that as much of the world may be outraged at the existence of this industry; and while there may be certain legislation enabled by other countries (such as Australia banning the import of lion trophies into the country) or bans enacted (major airlines no longer importing trophy parts), the South African nations must take the lead to stop this horrendous practice. It is not conservation and this is not saving the species…nor was it designed to. The South African people need to look inside themselves and ask this question. I believe it would be hard pressed to find anyone truly proud of this industry.

“Clearly, of the great evils you can imagine in this world, putting a wild at heart predator into a confined area is one of them. Then sending a safari to shoot him is another.” – Dereck Joubert.

I have nothing to add to this. Dereck Joubert is probably the greatest lion conservationist that has ever lived; and has spent the last 40 years of his life with his wife Beverly, studying lion behavior, filming them, watching them. Therefore, when Dereck speaks, people need to listen.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Suffice it to say that I am not a hunter, yet my comments are not universally critical of the entire hunting industry. It would be hard pressed for me to pull the trigger and kill any animal; therefore, I am incapable of getting into the hunter’s mind and mindset to understand what drives that behavior.

What bothers me is that hunting has reached the level of no longer truly being a sport, if it ever was in the first place. As someone commented about the last stock market crash, when your plumber or butcher starts to offer stock tips, you know something really bad is going to happen. No disrespect to plumbers and butchers, but they excel at their professions. If they excelled at stock picking, they would be stockbrokers. Canned hunting has provided an avenue for those without any true hunting skills to participate in this sport. If you have money, you have the opportunity. Even traditional hunters should be incensed at this activity, as it puts their credibility into question.

With the advancement of high powered rifles and bows, four-wheeled drive vehicles that can maneuver anywhere, and global positioning satellites, even traditional hunting provides the animal with virtually no fighting chance. And I fear that it is only a matter of time before drones are used to patrol the killing fields of Africa. Then, the hunter can simply sit in his easy chair, a cool beverage in one hand and the joy stick in the other; maneuvering the drone to target the lion or other animal of choice. Of course, at this point, they would not be hunters at all; but glorified video game enthusiasts. As Rick Swazey, the hunter that assisted with this documentary stated, “This isn’t hunting”.

There is a reason that lion cubs stay with their mom for up to two years; and it is the same with the human population. We don’t drop our children off the side of the road at 3 years of age and wish them good luck surviving on their own. During that two year period, the cub learns survival skills…he learns how to capture prey and how to socialize…which is a critical part of the lion social structure. Pulled away from his mother after ten days, he learns none of this, and becomes completely dependent upon humans for everything. He is raised in very sparse conditions, no concern for his well-being…other than to stay alive long enough to be killed. Bred for the Bullet is unfortunately a dead-on description of this young lion’s life.

Yes, nature is cruel and the life of a wild lion is fraught with daily challenges of survival. The mortality rate of lions in the wild is high, and many unfortunately, will succumb to starvation, disease, or attacks by other animals. However, that is nature and we need not interfere. To think that we are somehow giving them a better life by raising them in confined quarters and then killing them is ludicrous. Prison offers many of the same benefits. “Three hots and a cot.” Anyone interested in trading in their life for one behind a cell door? I’m not. So, how is captive lion breeding and canned hunting considered acceptable?

Pieter Potgieter, President of the South African Predator Association stated that he doesn’t seen a difference between domestic and wild animals, other than the fact that one is tame and one is wild. He also states that the lion is an icon of wildlife, but that perception is only in people’s mind and that captive breeding and canned hunting is a globally accepted practice.

I would argue that it is not accepted; and the only reason this practice has existed at all is that most people cannot even fathom someone resorting to such a practice. To participate in an activity with a singular purpose of stuffing and mounting a replica of what was once a wild, beautiful and majestic animal takes the human to a new low level of embarrassment and deceit. Are we capable of becoming even less compassionate, even more unethical than this? The unfortunate answer is probably yes; and it is sad because we should be evolving as a species and elevating ourselves to a higher level. I thought that was the whole idea of life…to evolve, to transcend, to grow, to learn. Canned hunting is none of those.

Blood Lions final scene captured the camera zooming in on the innocent eyes of wildlife…not just lions, but leopards and rhinos and elephants. And the question was posed to Ian Michler as to why some hunters actually put their weapons down, and I leave you with his response.

“It has something to do with the look in the eye of the animal. For the first time, that hunter sees himself in the eye of that other. And I think it is the beginning of seeing everything a little differently, after you put down that gun. It is in the eye of the prey that the shift of skin takes place that the barrel points the other way and you find yourself hunting in a new country.”

It is unlikely that those proponents of lion farming and canned hunting will be moved to change as a result of this film. However, I don’t believe that was the intention, although perhaps it may sway a few. The purpose of the film was to uncover a dark secret that the majority of us either didn’t know about or didn’t believe actually existed. After watching the film, canned lion hunting is now in the public spotlight, and there are few who would disagree that this is a cruel and inhumane practice. The all-important question is, what are we going to do about it?

It is likely that you are familiar with the term “blood diamond” and you probably have a basic understanding of this term. If not, blood diamonds are diamonds “mined in a war zone and sold to finance an insurgency, an invading army’s war efforts, or a warlord’s activity”. (source – Wikipedia) However, there is a relatively new term that perhaps you are not as familiar…Blood Lions, and there are sadly, similarities between the two. So, picture this scenario below:

A young lion cub, born into a world completely vulnerable, blind for the first two to three weeks of his life. He is solely reliant upon his mom to protect him, to shelter him, to feed him. Yet, within a few hours of birth, he is ripped away and separated from his mom’s grasp. He is then bottle fed by human surrogates. Meanwhile, Mom is forced back into estrus, to reproduce again and again and again.

Four years later, the lion cub has now become completely entrusting of humans and has no fear of them. He is released into a fenced-in area to roam about, albeit in a semi-drugged state – to ensure he remains lethargic and doesn’t stray very far. Little does he know there is no escape route in this fenced-in area.

He sees a human approaching; but has no fear. That is because this human is no different from the human he viewed as his protector…his defender, his mother. So, he approaches this individual, who we will refer to as Joe Bob.

He then sees Joe Bob holding something in his hand, but doesn’t know what it is. He observes that the object is long and is perpendicular to his body, one end facing the hunter…the other end facing the young lion. Of course, the lion has no reason to fear this human, nor whatever he has in his hands. So, in his drugged state, and out of curiosity, he moves closer. Perhaps this kind-hearted person has food to share. Suddenly, the sound of gunshot. The lion buckles from the intense pain and collapses to the ground.

Unfortunately for the lion, Joe Bob is not a very good shot. He was a simpleton…born into wealth but without the good sense to spend his money on positive societal contributions. So, he must pay a handsome fee for a “guaranteed kill”, to offset his lack of skill as a hunter and lack of compassion as a human being.

The lion is suffering in immense pain, stares up at the hunter with innocent eyes, asking why? Of course the lion cannot talk, but his expression asks the question, “Why would you do this to me? What did I do?”

Mercifully, a professional hunting escorting this hunt steps in and mercifully ends the poor young lion’s suffering. The lion’s final thoughts are those of betrayal and confusion.

This is known as a canned hunt. It is brutal It is savage. It is deplorable. To put this as blunt as possible, it is sick. And in the 21st century, it is also legal. Is it ethical or moral? Far, far from it. In fact, it is hard to envision a scenario any more inhumane or cruel than this. Not just the final moments of his life, but the entire cycle…from separation from his mother, the deplorable conditions of which he exists, and his brief existence — serving solely to satisfy the ego of someone who believes the mighty lion is best suited to serve as a conversation piece over a fireplace.

This is so shocking, that many people have no idea that this barbaric activity exists today. And many people would view this as so incredulous that surely it is an exaggeration; that no one would stoop to this level to treat another living being. Yet, it does exist. And on Wednesday, October 7 at 10:00 p.m. EST, MSNBC and on the Discovery Channel around the world, the long-awaited premiere of Blood Lions will finally be premiered; and it will lay bare the dark underbelly of South Africa’s captive breeding and canned hunting industries.

The link to the trailer is found below. However, a warning to the weak of heart; the trailer and the actual documentary may be deeply upsetting and tough to stomach. Unfortunately, this may be necessary to shed the light and bring out the truth that has been hidden for so many years.

Of course, the captive lion breeding program or canned hunt is no different from any other marketable product. Without demand, there is no supply. So, enter Joe Bob. And it is unlikely that any representative within the hunting community, or a hunting organization such as Safari Club International would actually admit the truth.

You ask why? Okay. If you have read some of my previous posts or other articles written on the subject – which probably number in the thousands by now, you probably have a general understanding of the conservation argument. However, this is THE issue that trophy hunters use to justify the killing of lions and other animals. So, I will briefly provide this explanation again. The good news for you, the reader, is that the reasoning itself is not subject to debate. Both sides generally agree as to the why; the dispute is in the reality and accuracy of the argument.

So to keep this is as basic as possible; the pro hunting community argues that they are conservationists, because trophy hunters spend top dollar to purchase the licenses required to hunt these animals. Most of these African countries establish an annual quota of animals to be shot; with that quota established to theoretically maintain a healthy balance of the surviving population. The revenue generated – argued by the hunting associations – is $200 million per year. And that $200 million is then filtered back down where it can be used for conservation purposes and to support the local communities.

This theory is sound in its logic; with the $200 million number based upon a 2006 publication entitled, Economic & Conservation Significance of the Trophy Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa (Lindsey, Roulet and Romanach). However, in February 2013, The African Lion Coalition published “The $200 Million Question: How Much Does Trophy Hunting Really Contribute to African Communities”; in an attempt to verify not only the legitimacy of this $200 million number, but also to determine the true economic benefits of hunting to the local economies – the primary component of this argument.

http://www.lionaid.org

The origin of the $200 million estimate is from a variety of sources, with $100 million of that total provided by the South African Professional Hunters Association (PHASA). However, despite repeated attempts by the African Lion Coalition to obtain the necessary documentation and source of this estimate, PHASA failed to provide any further documentation in support of this number. And given that this information was provided by a pro-hunting organization clearly benefitting from the existence of trophy hunting; and with no source of origin, it should be accepted with great caution and skepticism. One might even wonder if this was an erroneous doubling up of the first $100 million derived from the other combined sources.

In fact, as noted in the chart below, the only two documented sources of information were Namibia’s $28.5 million – provided by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism; and Tanzania’s $27.6 million – provided by the Selous Game Reserve Data. The African Lion Coalition also determined that Zambia’s $5 million was overstated, with an actual figure of $3.1 million.

Unfortunately, the Lindsey, Roulet and Romanach is the only known continent-wide study of trophy hunting available, so it is constantly sited…accurate or not. That said, according to the African Lion Coalition, these same three authors also provided another study in 2005, And in that study, they estimated South African trophy hunting revenue of between $68 million and $81 million. So, can we put any faith or trust in any of these numbers…other than those provided by legitimate and confirmed sources?

Yet, despite the discrepancy, whether $100 million or $200 million, there is no question that this is a significant amount of revenue that is generated by the hunting industry. So, the more important question is how much of this revenue actually filters down to the local communities?

According to both the pro hunting organization International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, only 3% of total revenues actually filter back to the local communities; which might be better described as a trickle or even a drip. The majority of the revenue accrues to hunting firms, governmental agencies and individuals located internationally or in national capitals.

Simple mathematical calculations suggest this 3% equates to somewhere between $3 million and $6 million annually (based upon the assumption that $100 million to $200 million is an accurate revenue range). And keep in mind that this number is representative of the entire continent; so the actual benefit per country is substantially smaller.

The African Lion Coalition, in their study, also concluded that hunting revenue only contributes .04 of 1% to the gross domestic product of those African countries; and hunting revenue only represents 1.77% of total African tourist revenues. So, does trophy hunting contribute to the local economies? Yes, but in an extremely nominal amount.

And keep in mind that the $100 million to $200 million estimate represents revenue from the trophy hunting of all animals, not just lions. The buffalo, for example, contributes 22.1% of trophy fees to Tanzania, far more than any other species. And further studies by the African Lion Coalition have determined that a reduction of lions hunted would have a minimal impact on the overall revenue of the industry. So in truth, it could be argued that actual revenues and benefits to the local communities tied to the trophy hunting of lions is nominal at best.

And this brings us back full circle to Blood Lions. Owners of private breeding farms say that more hunting of captive-bred lions takes pressure off declining wild lion populations. Not so, says Dr. Luke Hunter, president of Panthera, an organization dedicated to conserving endangered big cats. “This industry pumps out cats to be shot in cages or shipped to Asia to supply the demand for big cat parts. Blood Lions blows away the hollow ‘conservation’ arguments made by South Africa’s predator breeders to justify their grim trade.”

Yellow – USA, Green – Spain, Red – Rest of the World.(source http://www.lionaid.org)

The narrator of Blood Lions, Ian Michler, spent 25 years in Africa as a specialist safari operator, journalist and conservation advocate. In the 1990’s he was living full-time in the Okavango Delta, and during this period, he began learning about the lion farms and canned hunting. According to Michler, there were an estimated 800 to 1,000 lions living in cages in 1999. By the time he submitted a report to the Botswana Minister of Environment and Tourism in 2005, there were an estimated 3,000 to 3,500 captive lions. Today, there are an estimated 8,000 captive lions, tigers and leopard in Botswana.

Defenders of these lion farm facilities will argue that they exist for education and conservation purposes. However, there are currently no South African ecologists trying to re-establish lion populations. Additionally, lions are among those species that cannot be re-wilded after being hand reared. Yet, many of these organizations continue to promote these falsehoods and even recruit unwitting volunteers to pay up to $1,000 to go work these properties, with the understanding that they are simply caring for these orphaned lions until they can be released back into the wild.

Image: Young volunteers with lion cubs, allegedly bred for canned hunting purposes. (Ian Michler)

Additionally, Michler notes that “These lions are genetically contaminated, sometimes to the extent that they suffer from rickets, back and eyesight problems, all sorts of issues that come from inbreeding and cross-breeding.” And “ No self-respecting conservationist would ever allow a genetically contaminated lion to be introduced into wild populations.”

SO, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

Demand Change!

According to Michel, they initially reached out to Australian and American audiences with a promo clip to help raise money to get the documentary made. An Australian organization – For the Love of Wildlife saw the clip and took it to their Parliament, from where it made its way to the minister of the environment. It caused outrage.

Greg Hunt, the environment minister, subsequently signed an order to prevent the import of the gruesome hunting trophies, effective immediately. Hunt, said the practice of canned hunting was “cruel” and “barbaric.”

“It is about raising the most majestic of creatures for a singular purpose and that is to kill them, to shoot them for pleasure and for profit, it is done in inhumane conditions. It is involving things such as raising and then drugging and in many cases, baiting. It is simply not acceptable in our day, in our time, on our watch.”

And this should not be an acceptable practice on our watch either. It is time to stop this barbaric and inhumane practice once and for all.