Lions encounter numerous dangers. Humans rank among the most significant, according to recent findings from the University of Georgia.
Between 1980 and 2018, humans claimed the lives of 698 lions in regions surrounding Etosha National Park in northern Namibia. This equates to an estimated 22 lions per year, though experts suggest this figure is likely too low.
The latest research revealed that there wasn’t one definitive cause behind the fatalities.
“It was environmental. It was cultural. It was climatic,” explained Dipanjan Naha, the principal investigator of the study and a researcher at both UGA’s Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and the Ongava Research Centre in Namibia.
Lion deaths peak during colder, arid months
Etosha National Park serves as one of the largest safe havens for lions and a significant destination for wildlife tourism.
The research indicated that the peak of lion fatalities occurred during the cold and dry months from May to August. This period also coincides with lions crossing the Etosha boundary fence and venturing outside the park.
“Once the lions exit the park, they face issues with the farmers.” —Dipanjan Naha, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory
During times of limited water supply, prey becomes scarce, prompting lions to leave the park. This leads them to livestock and game farms adjacent to the park, creating conflict with humans.
“When lions move from Etosha to nearby farms or communal territories, they come across both wild prey and livestock,” stated Naha. “Thus, these lions may think, ‘This could be a good habitat for me to settle.’ However, when they arrive there, they often get killed.”
“Surrounding areas of the park act like an ecological trap for them. Once the lions exit the park, they become vulnerable to farmers.”
During the cold, dry months, lions leave the park in search of prey, such as the antelopes shown here. (Submitted)
Increased vegetation provided greater safety for lions
Regions with denser vegetation experienced fewer fatalities, enabling lions to conceal themselves more effectively from humans. However, younger males were more prone to being killed compared to females, as they often get pushed out of areas dominated by stronger prides.
The Etosha area suffered repeated droughts throughout the 1990s and 2000s, prompting farmers to transition from livestock to game farming. Game farmers were less accommodating of the presence of carnivores due to the elevated costs associated with game.
Understanding the reasons behind lion killings is crucial for their conservation, researchers indicated.
70% of lion deaths occur within commercial farms
Typically, individuals who kill lions are merely attempting to safeguard their livelihoods, researchers noted. Lions prey on and consume the livestock that farmers rely on for their survival. From their perspective, the farmers are simply protecting their animals. Commercial farmers receive no compensation when carnivores kill their livestock, which leads them to resort to lethal measures.
The division created by the fence further exacerbates the situation. It was established to prevent disease transmission, with farms north of the fence restricted from selling their meat south of it or to other nations.
“That line created an economic divide and a rationale for those living on the southern side to perceive, ‘If a lion comes and kills our livestock, it poses a direct threat to our survival,’” Naha explained. This may have further encouraged the use of lethal measures for managing lions.
Conservation should embrace coexistence
Previously, the perception of lions as a threat was significantly less common.
Etosha National Park was once home to indigenous hunter-gatherers who coexisted with the big cats. However, Europeans settling in the area probably viewed lions as a danger to their safety — and they possessed firearms to address that perceived risk.
Nevertheless, it may be feasible to revert to a harmonious existence alongside lions.
“We need more integrated conservation measures where humans and wildlife can inhabit shared spaces, while concurrently mitigating the risks of lions being killed or the threats to people’s livestock and livelihoods,” Naha stated.
The presence of lions may also benefit local communities through tourism initiatives, job opportunities, and assistance in monitoring lions in their natural habitats.
By pinpointing areas most affected by human-lion conflicts, policymakers could customize their interventions to specific locales, enhancing the welfare of both the big cats and the populations living nearby.
This research was published in Global Ecology and Conservation and co-authored by J. Werner Kilian, Claire Goelst, Claudine Cloete, and James Beasley.
The article Examining the causes of human-lion conflict first appeared on UGA Today.