Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Hernandez-Bachen 1 Why Maasai Kill Lions in East Africa: An Analysis of Motivation and Impact Pedro Hernandez-Bachen Sophomore College: 2014 “Parks and Peoples: Dilemmas of Protected Area Conservation in East Africa” Professors Susan Charnley and William Durham Hernandez-Bachen 2 Abstract This paper investigates the differing motivations and interacting causal mechanisms that affect and lead to (some of) the Maasai people killing lions in East Africa, specifically Tanzania and Kenya. While the Maasai are not the only ones killing lions in this region, they have become a flashpoint of debate for conservation, because of the interplay between conserving lions and allowing for the continued survival of Maasai traditions and lifestyles, some of which directly or indirectly lead to lion-killing. Through the testing of two hypotheses regarding lion killing, this paper examines both the scope of lion actions that might incite retaliatory killing as well as the various reasons Maasai might have to kill lions. Lastly, it acknowledges the weaknesses in the available data set and proposes some further steps that could be taken to deepen Western understanding of this complex issue. Introduction Lions have long held a unique and revered position among African wildlife for humans, and given their status as the apex predator in the savanna ecosystems, the recognition is well deserved. Though the common descriptor of the lion as “king of the jungle” is a misnomer, given that lions primarily live and hunt in savannah ecosystems, their status as a keystone species gives them significant ecological value. Further, the human fascination with the grace and raw physical force of lions, especially when hunting, has created significant efforts from conservationists to preserve existing lion populations and even increase the lion population throughout Africa. Hernandez-Bachen 3 Currently, lions face a few different human-based threats to their lives and ability to thrive in the ecosystems they inhabit. First, human poaching of lions provides a constant threat to their survival. Second, trophy hunting has been adopted as a means of revenue generation for governments, conservation efforts, national parks, and anti-poaching measures; in fact, 23 subSaharan African nations have legalized trophy hunting and generated approximately USD $201 million in revenue from around 18,500 hunting expeditions per year (Lindsey et al 2006: 457). Third, lions face threats on their life from the local human populations, who have interpreted their right to self-defense of their own lives and property (especially livestock) as a warrant to kill lions. Additionally, some indigenous peoples have various cultural traditions and practices that can involve killing lions, and in some cases, killing lions can even elevate one’s social status within a group, tribe, or people. Clearly, threats to lion survival are manifold and varied; this complex interplay between conservation goals and humans who have various incentives to kill lions offers an intriguing base for research and conservation solutions that try to incorporate both survival of lions and protection of human traditions and livelihood. To understand the scope and importance of lion conservation efforts, it is necessary to examine the population of lions in Africa, and, to the extent available, the specific population sizes in East Africa. Fortunately, Bauer and Van Der Merwe surveyed 30 lion researchers across Africa in 2005 to get their varied and comparative estimates of lion populations in the regions or subgroups they specialized in. The most complete data set they could assemble from those 30 Hernandez-Bachen 4 researchers was for the 2001/2002 set of years, and the relevant data points are summarized in Table 1, below (Bauer and Van Der Merwe 2005: 28-30). Region Africa Table 1 East Africa Population Estimate 23,000 11,000 Tanzania 6,075 Serengeti (ecosystem) 2,500 This data provides some relevant context for assessing the scope and urgency of lion conservation, as well as preliminarily assessing where humans and lions might interact and experience conflict. Riggio led a team of researchers in 2013 to try to update the lion population estimates, and came up with a more optimistic projection of lion populations, though one that still exemplifies the urgent need for conservation efforts. They estimated the current African lion population at 32,000 individuals, and used a more liberal approach when combining specific data from other researchers with their estimates of populations in areas where less specific data could be found (Riggio et al 2013: 27). Regardless of the potential for a small population rebound of lions in the almost 10 years between Bauer and Van Der Merwe’s study and that of Riggio and his colleagues, it is clear that the population of African lions is quite low. In fact, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, they qualify as a “Vulnerable Species,” which is a threshold applied to species who are severely threatened by changing ecosystem factors and human action, and is only one step above the “Endangered Species” classification (The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2014.2 2014). The population estimates gathered by Bauer and Van Der Merwe and the work done by the IUCN both indicate that the lion populations in Africa are in a tenuous position in the near- and long-term. Hernandez-Bachen 5 Background This paper will focus specifically on the human-animal interactions between the Maasai people, who primarily inhabit northern Tanzania and southern Kenya, and the lions that range in those areas and ecosystems. The lion population estimates from Bauer and Van Der Merwe provide a glimpse into how human-animal interaction could be problematized in Tanzania and Kenya. With 2,500 lions ranging in the Serengeti ecosystem and increasing numbers of Maasai settlements around and even in Serengeti National Park (Daniel Rosengren 2014: Pers. Interview), the likelihood of lions interacting negatively with humans via attacks or intrusions into settlements is increasing steadily. The pastoral lifestyle many Maasai adapt, with an emphasis on livestock grazing and mobility, perhaps predisposes them to interactions with lions, since lions have wide ranges that they hunt in and protect. When Maasai settle within a lion range, a lion is likely to kill cattle, sheep, or goats if they encounter them, since these livestock are less able to run or defend themselves compared to wildebeest and other non-domesticated prey that lions encounter when hunting. When lions kill livestock or otherwise damage Maasai property or livelihoods, lethal retaliation on the lions is a serious possibility, which escalates the Hernandez-Bachen 6 level of conflict to a consistent threat. The strong negative emotional response to the mere presence of lions in Maasai-occupied lands has created a culture in which retaliatory killing of lions is not stigmatized and in fact can be seen as a just response given the harm caused by lions to the Maasai. Additionally, the Maasai culture includes rituals and value systems that can encourage and even celebrate the killing of lions. In the book The Last Maasai Warriors, readers hear firsthand about the Maasai coming of age ceremony from Wilson and Jackson, two Maasai young men. This ceremony involves intense physical and spiritual preparation, culminating in the one-on-one face-off between the young Maasai man and a lion in which the Maasai man has to kill the lion with his spear or be killed (Meikuaya and Ntirkana 2013: 106). The status of this tradition in Maasai culture is in some degree of flux as new generations decide whether to continue with this particular ceremony, but it still exists and poses a threat to lion populations (Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview). The difference in priorities between the Maasai, who are focused on subsistence and survival, and conservationists, who value the protection of lion populations, creates a conservation conundrum. Hypotheses In order to explore the impact of lions on Maasai livelihood in the context of retaliatory killing as well as the other complex social and survival factors that might drive Maasai to kill lions, I propose two hypotheses. First, lions do not cause harm to Maasai livestock commensurate to their perceived detriment to overall livestock populations and livelihoods. Second, Maasai have many motivations for killing lions that extend far beyond retaliatory killing and into the social and cultural spheres of their lives. Hernandez-Bachen 7 Findings In order to test Hypothesis 1, it is necessary to explore the data around livestock predation in the region as a whole, and examine those figures to assess the impact of lions on Maasai livelihoods. A few different researchers have conducted case studies of certain regions in northern Tanzania and southern Kenya to provide some relevant data towards this end. Kissui focused his study on the Maasai steppe region in Tanzania, comprising Tarangire and Lake Manyara national parks and the related migratory pathways in the ecosystem (Kissui 2008: 423). His data revealed that lions caused just 25% (99 of 396) of livestock deaths reported in 15 villages in the Maasai steppe from January 2004-July 2005 (Kissui 2008: 426). The interesting nuance to this observation was that lions were particularly prone to attacking cattle as compared to sheep, goats, and other livestock; in fact, lions were responsible for 87% (58 of 67) of reported cattle attacks (Kissui 2008: 427). This disparity between a relatively low percentage of overall livestock attacks and a high percentage of attacks on cattle will be analyzed later in this paper. Fitzherbert and his colleagues also conducted a study on the incidence levels of lion depredation of livestock in the Mpimbwe region (near Kilimanjaro) in order to explore a potential causal association between livestock deaths and lion depredation. They found that only two of 187 “livestock-keeping households… reported having lost any livestock to lions (a total of 5 livestock) in the preceding 12 months (2009-2010)” (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 88). This data perhaps represents the lower bound of livestock depredation by lions, since it would suggest that just 1% of households have livestock killed by lions, but does continue to support the idea that lions are responsible for a very small portion of livestock deaths by predatory wild animals. Maclellan and his colleagues studied these same issues in the Mbirikani Group Ranch, an area in southern Kenya’s Amboseli-Tsavo ecosystem. They found just 7% of livestock deaths Hernandez-Bachen 8 from 2004-2006 were caused by lions, of the deaths reported to authorities and independently verified in their research (Maclellan et al 2009: 2422). These areas all have their own unique ecological and ecosystem factors that could influence the incidence rate of depredation of livestock by lions, but together, the data from these three studies paint a fairly representative sample of the northern Tanzanian/southern Kenyan region. Discerning the various motivations the Maasai have for killing lions requires a more qualitative approach, and as such the research used to test Hypothesis 2 employs a more humancentered approach. In conservation literature, the most common cause associated with Maasai lion killing is retaliation for some form of injury, usually the death of livestock (Ikanda and Packer 2008: 67). While this cause is still a major factor—Ikanda and Packer interviewed Maasai elders around the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and reported 81 organized lion hunts (Ikanda and Packer 2008: 71)—researchers have uncovered other motivations for Maasai lion hunts. One of the most notable causes of Maasai lion killing is their ceremony that signifies an entry to manhood and full status as a warrior, known as Olamayio (Hazzah et al 2009: 2429). This ritual is significant because it is the last step in a Maasai young man’s journey to becoming a respected adult in the community, and the associated honor of killing a lion provides significant incentive for organized lion hunts (Hazzah et al 2009: 2429). A study of lion populations in Kenyan Maasailand revealed that, in Kenya at least, “Young warriors who engage in traditional lion killing do not face significant consequences because of lax law enforcement and judicial corruption” (Frank et al 2006: 1). The implications of this lack of disincentive to kill lions, either through legal or cultural changes, are stark: if no changes happen soon, Frank and his colleagues believe that “the entire population [of Maasailand lions in Kenya] may disappear within a very few years” (Frank et al 2006: 2). Clearly, ritual killing of lions continues to be a significant Hernandez-Bachen 9 factor in the Maasai decision calculus as relating to lion killings, even though it was officially made illegal in Tanzania in the 1970s (Ikanda and Packer 2008: 67). A third, new motivation for killing lions has begun taking root in northern Tanzania as well. While both ceremonial and retaliatory killings of lions fulfill specific purposes in Maasai households and society, preemptive killings were, until recently, almost nonexistent. However, a new, more offensive tactic has emerged in dealing with lions—men have begun killing lions, wearing their coats and heads as symbols of honor and prowess, and most intriguingly, travelling to different communities and demanding compensation for the so-called public service they are providing (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 84). In addition to the inherent aggressive nature of such actions, Fitzherbert’s study revealed, “men now venture far from the livestock herding areas (often into protected areas) to kill lions that pose no direct risk to their and their neighbours’ stock” (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 85). This process is fueled by the cultural practice of “rewarding lion killers who are believed to have rid the area of dangerous predators,” despite the fact that the areas in which hunters go to kill lions have a “virtual absence of lion predation on livestock and people” (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 85). They found that “The proportion of households visited by a dancer [someone who actively kills lions and seeks rewards from community members] has been rising steadily” in recent years, though only ~1% of households had actually experienced livestock depredation in the 12 months prior to the interview (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 88). In the 214 households surveyed, respondents “widely perceived and acknowledged” a change in motivation from “avenging” damage caused by lions to “hunting” lions to preempt future threats and receive financial rewards and increased social status (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 90). This new, aggressive strategy of dealing with lions is a dramatic departure from previous human-lion Hernandez-Bachen 10 interactions and poses a significant hurdle for bridging human and conservation priorities in the future. Conclusions and Recommendations In review, the two hypotheses proposed in this paper are: 1) that lions do not actually cause significant harm to Maasai livestock populations and 2) that Maasai motivations for killing lions have expanded far beyond simple retaliation to include social and cultural benefits. Reviewing the first hypothesis in light of the quantitative data provided by the studies conducted by Kissui, Fitzherbert et al, and Maclellan et al, it is clear that lions do not kill large quantities of livestock. Thus, I believe that the data support my first hypothesis. The range of data provided from these three studies suggests that at most, lions are responsible for 25% of livestock killed by wild carnivores, and the overall trend suggests a very small real impact on livestock populations. The complicating factor to these conclusions is that, as mentioned in Kissui’s paper, lions are disproportionately responsible for the deaths of cattle, which Maclellan et al found to be worth almost $200 per head, as compared to ~$25 for each sheep or goat (Maclellan et al 2009: 2421). This disparity in both market value and subsistence value (cattle can provide milk, blood, and eventually, meat for a family) perhaps is one reason why cattle are valued so highly in Maasai culture and could partially explain why lions are targeted for retaliatory killings. Though the data are more qualitative in nature, I believe that the research does also support the hypothesis that Maasai have motivations that extend far beyond retaliation and that perceived social and cultural benefits from killing lions have become significant, if not dominant factors in deciding whether and why to kill a lion. In particular, the embrace of preemptive lion kills in order to protect against real or imagined threats to one’s livelihood as well as in the hope of receiving financial compensation could suggest a change in the Maasai approach to their Hernandez-Bachen 11 interactions with wildlife and conservation goals alike. After decades of getting pushed out of lands that they had settled to make way for national parks and other conservation efforts, the Maasai may be shifting their priorities away from adaptation to the circumstances of life and towards shaping a life and livelihood that ensures them the ability to at least survive, and perhaps even thrive. Despite the increasing difficulty of balancing conservation efforts and protecting the rights and livelihoods of local people, some efforts have been explored that try to bridge this tenuous gap. While at Kirurumu Tented Lodge in the Lake Manyara area, we visited an Iraqw village with a Maasai guide named Sayanga. When asked about his perception of interactions between Maasai and lions, he indicated that an incentive-based program being piloted in the Ngorongoro and Tarangire regions was improving relationships and communication between the Maasai and conservationists (Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview). Sayanga also noted that the Maasai are being compensated equally for livestock losses, regardless of which predatory animal causes the death of the livestock, so long as there is a good dialogue with the police officers who administer the compensation program such that proof of kills are verified and trust is built up (Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview). Sayanga could not offer any estimates as to whether the incentive-based conservation program was in fact deterring Maasai from killing lions in retaliation for livestock kills, but suggested that at least among the tribes he was familiar with, there was less of an emphasis on retaliatory killing than existed prior to the introduction of the compensatory system (Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview). Fortunately, Maclellan and Hazzah have both published papers evaluating the efficacy of incentive-based conservation in different regions in southern Kenya. In both of the regions studied, with populations of 14 and 12 lions respectively, they found that the average expenditure Hernandez-Bachen 12 per lion came out to approximately $7,000 (Maclellan et al 2009: 2424; Hazzah et al 2009: 2434). Despite these significant per-lion expenditures, neither Maclellan nor Hazzah reported the locals having significant approval of these types of programs. In fact, though most people (88%) received compensation for their livestock losses, “only about half of those compensated approved of the program” (Hazzah et al 2009: 2436). This suggests that incentive-based conservation programs face an uphill battle to convince local people that receiving market value cash compensation for their livestock losses is sufficient and just reward for the inconvenience and harm caused to their livelihood and productivity. As noted at the beginning of this paper, the Western world places a heavy emphasis on the conservation of lions. With that in mind, it would follow that scientists, governments, and other interested parties would try various conservation schemes to reduce human-lion conflict. However, this logical assumption is not founded in reality; the only conservation efforts that have directly worked with local people to try to minimize the killing of lions are these monetary compensation programs. While these have all been introduced relatively recently and more study is necessary to determine conclusively whether they might have a place in the conservation landscape for lion populations going forward, I would strongly encourage researchers to shift away from a strictly transactional approach towards evaluating pastoral livelihoods. Sayanga told our group that the Maasai had begun changing their own coming-of-age ceremonies to focus less on the physical killing of the lion and more on the values which that process instilled in young warriors—perseverance, spirituality, and bravery (Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview). Additionally, the lack of conclusive or in-depth data suggest a significant set of differences between local peoples in East Africa and the researchers investigating conservation issues. These boil down to two fundamental tenets: first, the Maasai have no incentive to be Hernandez-Bachen 13 honest with outsiders regarding their lion kills, because Western conservation efforts in the 20th century completely steamrolled their lives and rights; second, there is an inequality in both research and motivation between the Western world and Africa, where these conservation issues are playing out in real life, since most Africans lack access to the levels of higher education necessary to conduct scientific research on conservation topics. Both of these research gaps must be filled in order for conservation in Africa to work for both people and wildlife in the long term. Lastly, at some point, conservationists and scientists must evaluate the ethical implications of lion conservation. Currently, there is a tenuous balance between allowing existing Maasai cultural practices to continue, even when they involve killing lions, and trying to protect and grow lion populations once more. In the near future, politicians, scientists, and conservationists may have to decide whether to prioritize conserving lions as a species or protecting the native cultures in Africa, and the decision regarding the potential “reform” of Maasai culture in order to change the value placed on killing lions will be fascinating to watch unfold. The state of lions in Africa is perhaps more fragile than ever, with local populations beginning to actively protect their livelihoods by killing lions and ever-increasing attention from conservationists on preserving this species and its habitats. The future of lions and the native peoples of Africa lie in the seemingly inevitable decision of whether to prioritize the lives of animals or the lives of people, and that choice will have implications in Africa and throughout the whole world. Acknowledgments There are countless people who have made this research and experience possible. I would like to thank Professors William Durham and Susan Charnley for their invaluable experience, in Hernandez-Bachen 14 research, discussion, and teaching, as well as being fantastic personal resources for my classmates and me over the course of the whole Sophomore College experience. I would like to thank our fantastic Sophomore College Assistants, Clementine Jacoby and Eric Mattson, for their invaluable assistance in developing and refining my research project, in addition to their valuable perspectives on Stanford and young-adult life. I would like to thank the Stanford Travel/Study and Anne Gould for organizing the entire study trip to Tanzania, which provided me with some of the most incredible memories and personal experiences I could have ever imagined. This project has enlightened and challenged me academically and personally, and everyone who made this possible has my sincerest thanks for their role in my continued growth as a scholar and as a person. Hernandez-Bachen 15 Bibliography Bauer, H. and Van Der Merwe, S. (2004) 'Inventory of free-ranging lions Panthera leo in Africa', Oryx, 38(1), pp. 26-31. Fitzherbert, E., Caro, T., Johnson, P., Macdonald, D. and Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2014) 'From avengers to hunters: Leveraging collective action for the conservation of endangered lions', Biological Conservation, 174, pp. 84-92. Frank, L., Maclellan, S., Hazzah, L., Bonham, R. and Hill, T. (2006) Lion Killing in the Amboseli -Tsavo Ecosystem, 2001-2006, and its Implications for Kenya’s Lion Population, Kenya: Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project. Hazzah, L., Borgerhoff Mulder, M. and Frank, L. (2009) 'Lions and Warriors: Social factors underlying declining African lion populations and the effect of incentive-based management in Kenya', Biological Conservation, 142, pp. 2428-2437. Ikanda, D. and Packer, C. (2008) 'Ritual vs. retaliatory killing of African lions in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania', Endangered Species Research, 6, pp. 67-74. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. (2014). [online] Available at: http://iucnredlist.org [Accessed 4 Oct. 2014]. Kissui, B. (2008) 'Livestock predation by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas, and their vulnerability to retaliatory killing in the Maasai steppe, Tanzania', Animal Conservation,11, pp. 422432. Maclellan, S., Groom, R., Macdonald, D. and Frank, L. (2009) 'Evaluation of a compensation scheme to bring about pastoralist tolerance of lions', Biological Conservation, 142, pp. 2419-2427. Hernandez-Bachen 16 Meikuaya, W., and Ntirkana, J. (2013) The Last Maasai Warriors: an Autobiography, Toronto, Canada: Me to We. Riggio, J., Jacobson, A., Dollar, L., Bauer, H., Becker, M., Dickman, A., Funston, P., Groom, R., Henschel, P., de Iongh, H., Lichtenfeld, L. and Pimm, S. (2013) 'The size of savannah Africa: a lion's (Panthera leo) view', Biodiversity Conservation, 22, pp. 17-35.