Conservationists who take hunters blood money don’t deserve our respect

Shame on you Professor Macdonald


Cecil the lion’s death was a bitter tragedy. But an Oxford research unit’s acceptance of money from pro-hunting lobbies is just as awful and just as wrong.  

The majestic lion was tempted from the national park onto private land, where he was illegally slaughtered by, of all people, a dentist from Minnesota (typing that makes me feel ill). It took Cecil 40 agonising hours to die.

The conservation unit based at Oxford University responsible for tracking Cecil, headed by Professor David Macdonald, received donations from pro-hunting groups in the past.

Macdonald with an animal that hasn’t been murdered

 

David Macdonald described the unit as simply an “evidence-based organisation.” Whilst few would deny the usefulness of donations to continue WildCRU’s work, the acceptance of donations from any organisation or person in support of hunting has unearthed questions desperately requiring a full, proper and public debate.

Of course the debate over whether hunting is an essential part of conservation rages on. The magazine Scientific American reported last year that African lions face the threat of extinction a lot sooner than many would imagine, by 2050. Yet Macdonald is happy to take money from groups hastening the destruction of these beautiful creatures.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service named the three main threats to Lions as “habitat loss, loss of their prey to the bushmeat trade, and human-lion conflict.” Another reminder to our species we’re plagued by capitalism, greed and power imbalances.

The death of Cecil was not the right death it emerged. Some conservationists claim that controlled hunting can actually help the conservation of lions like Cecil. Dr Tom Kaplan, founder of the US conservation group Panthera, continues to support WildCRU financially.

Panthera is open about its support of hunting, as a blog post by Executive Vice-President Dr Luke Hunter reveals: “By setting very conservative quotas and raising age limits to ensure that older male lions are targeted, the worst effects of lion hunting can be mitigated.” It’s some claim.

It all sounds like a weird social method of control and welfare management – like something George Osborne and Ian Duncan Smith might come up to manage the proles after a few too many late-night scotches. Chris Macsween, a trustee of the conservation charity LionAid warns us that there is no such thing as “sustainable trophy hunting.”

Besides, what even is the definition of conservation anymore? Cull the elderly for the “well-being” of a species? After years of greed at the heart of a species’ destruction, we’re still playing the puppet masters.

It also begs the question: if a report emerged that Cecil had been an unnamed lion shot legally for “conservation” purposes, would the public outcry have been so big, or even have existed?

This question raises some uncomfortable issues. The value of life becomes relative: an illegal death is worse than a legal one. The morality of life and death, and ultimate lack of control the species has over its culling, is mixed in with the subjective system of law and goal-driven financial areas such as tourism.

It’s a complex matter, but it’s necessary to know where we’re directing our anger. We cannot attack an illegal hunt without questioning the ethics of a legal kill. Should we have the right to decide?

The acceptance of donations to WildCRU from pro-hunting organisations and people can only send out the message though that taking innocent life is acceptable, a belief that was behind the death of Cecil. It’s a belief that must be challenged. We’re not doing enough. The debate must continue.

Josh Hagley is a member of Oxford Students for Animals. You can find out about their work here