logo

A true conservationist is a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children.

- John James Audubon


image

Environment

May 30, 2018

Opinion: Inside the Mind of a Lion Murderer

This is an opinion article courtesy of Alexander Anghelou who is a psychologist specialising in cognitive behaviour therapy, who is passionate about nature and wildlife.

WRITTEN BY

Alexander Anghelou

Why would anyone be interested in killing lions? Even if it was for free, which it is not. As a psychologist, this is what I try to understand.

In 2014, after visiting South Africa, I wrote an article entitled “Lion Canned Hunting, the person behind the ‘Hunter”. This was before the infamous “Cecil the Lion” incident which sparked the world, and exposed the brutal and pitiful practice of canned hunting. At the time, the psychopathic industry of canned hunting was unknown to most people.

On the first of July 2015, Cecil the emblematic lion in Zimbabwe, is killed by an American dentist and exposed this barbaric kind of hunting to the world. Hearing of this industry for the first time, people were shocked and disgusted that this existed, and was even legal. I decided to look back at my article and see how things have evolved, but also analyze the persona who indulges in such practices. 

It’s over-compensation to avoid the reality that they are not 100% in control.

For those who have not heard of lion canned hunting, it consists of putting an adult lion (which has been hand reared and habituated to humans), in an enclosure, where a trophy hunter kills the lion with a rifle, gun, or crossbow from the safety of a jeep. There is no possibility of escape, and no ‘skill’ required. The lion, that has been habituated to humans, is calm until it gets shot, usually more than once, before dying an agonizing death. After killing the lion, ‘the brave hunter’ poses for a picture with the dead animal, before getting it shipped home to hang on their wall. A dirty business built on animal suffering and money.  

Four years after first hearing about canned hunting, I still believe that we live in a fast pace world that makes us feel less in control, and therefore less secure. To feel secure, many seek to over compensate by seeking an unrealistic degree of control, this strategy backfires as it leads in the opposite direction where one eventually ends up feeling helpless, and therefore more anxious and more insecure.

Born to Die. Photo: Alexander Anghelou

Read on The Outdoor Journal: Capt. Paul Watson’s Commentary, ‘Human Lives are Not More Important Than Animal Lives”.

In the case of canned hunters, I believe that it is over-compensation, to avoid the reality that they are not 100% in control.  I believe that the power and thrill the hunter feels by killing lions, which are symbols of power, is due to the fact that they feel reassured by fooling themselves that they have more power than they actually have, and therefore temporarily feel more secure.

The problem with reassurance is that it is addictive, the more we have it, the more we need it.  Since we habituate to it, our need for it escalates, we need more of it to get the same effect.

Behaviour isn’t random; it always serves a purpose and has a function.  We do many things to feel more secure. The more control we feel, we experience greater security, but it’s a self defeating trap because as soon as the illusion of control is exposed, we end up feeling more anxious and insecure than before. A growing number of people have expectations of 100% control, whilst each trophy hunter has individual twists and subtleties, I am confident that this is an important component and a common denominator. I would expect to see an expectation of control, in a mild or significant way, in each one of them. 

Boasting about killing an animal isn’t a sign of strength; it’s a sign of insecurity.

To be secure is to accept that our control is limited.  Only then do we maximise our feeling of control.  When we feel secure we do not feel the need to dominate and kill.  I do not include hunters, that hunt to eat or people who are in a situation where they need to defend themselves.  I am referring to the hunters who fly to the other end of the world to kill for the ‘entertainment and thrill.’ Boasting about killing an animal isn’t a sign of strength; it’s a sign of insecurity.

The way to address this insecurity isn’t by escaping or over-compensating, but instead coming to terms with reality. We do not have 100% control over our lives, we never did and never will, but that does not mean we should live in fear.

Imprisoned Lion. Photo: Alanxader Anghelou

The Situation:

To give you an idea of the magnitude of the animal massacre that is happening in Africa today, here are a few figures from Conservation Action Trust in South Africa

“Research reveals that in 14 years (between 2001 and 2015) South Africa and Tanzania alone represent the biggest exporters of animals in Africa.  During this period, they shipped 10,273 dead animals and 6,208 living animals of various species.
An astonishing 81,572 hunting trophies from African Bush Elephants were exported from Africa in this time – including skin pieces, tusks, feet and ivory carvings. 
In the same 14-year time frame 17,000 African lions were killed for sport resulting in their pelts, heads and bones exported for hunting trophies.”

In 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Obama administration stopped the import of lion trophies from South Africa. This was due to the listing of Panthera Leo as threatened on the Endangered Species Act, the African lion population had decline by 43 percent between 1993 and 2014. The Trump administration is set to undo the Obama legislation by legalizing the importation of lion and elephant trophies into the United States, but this decision was put on hold, leaving the situation unclear.

One should note that fifty years ago, there were around 500,000 lions in Africa,  today there are less than 20,000, and should this continue, within the next 15 years there might not be any wild and free lions in Africa.  Recent data from the DEA (South African Department of Environmental Affairs) estimate around 7000 captive lions being bred for ‘the bullet’ in approximately 260 facilities (100 more than in 2014).

Read Next on TOJ: Demand in Asia’s Legal Markets is Destroying Africa’s Wildlife.

Some Lion kisses. Photo: Alexander Anghelou

What’s Being Done

In November of 2015, the movie ‘Blood Lions’ by Ian Michler exposing canned lion hunting is projected at the European parliament. This movie played a big role in raising awareness of killing lions.  In the past 4 years, I have seen great efforts made to raise awareness, and to engage companies or legislative bodies to defend lions from this industry. There have been efforts to block the import of trophies into Europe, as well as to encourage airlines to refuse the transport of animal parts or ‘trophies’. 

Also in 2015, the Australian Federal Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, announced a ban on the importation of lion trophies as part of a crackdown on canned hunting. This made Australia the first country to make the import of Lion trophies illegal. Shortly after, over 40 airline companies started refusing the transport of big-game trophies.

Possibly the greatest news is that on the 3rd of February 2018 in Las Vegas, a surprising milestone was reached. The world’s largest hunting club, Safari Club International (SCI) announced at its annual convention, that it condemned and would no longer advertise or accept hunts of captive bred lions. This greatly affecting the canned hunting industry in South Africa.

The world is reacting to this immoral industry, but no changes have been seen within the South African government, who continues to support the canned hunting of lions. 

I would like to thank and show my gratitude to the many dedicated people who have been working hard for lions. I encourage anyone who is touched by this piece to contribute in their own way.

Here are just a few heroes trying to bring an end to killing lions and canned hunting: Kevin & Mandy Richardson – www.lionwhisperer.co.za, Luis and CJ Munoz: Chelui4lions [Facebook], Chris Mercer www.cannedlion.org, and Julie Lasne (CACH)

Read Next: Capt. Paul Watson’s Commentary, ‘Human Lives Are Not More Important Than Animal Lives’.

About the Author: Alexander Anghelou is a psychologist specialised in cognitive behaviour therapy and is passionate about nature and wildlife.  www.cbt-brussels.eu

Continue Reading

image

Boulder

Sep 17, 2018

“Frack”-tured Community: Colorado’s Proposition 112 to Direct Future of Natural Gas Drilling

The grassroots initiative, which Boulder voters will see on the ballot come November, would mandate a state-wide, half-mile “buffer zone” of fracking wells from occupied buildings.

image

WRITTEN BY

Sean Verity

Hydraulic fracturing, known colloquially as “fracking”, has been controversial since it became the widespread method of shale gas production over the past decade. The technique involves pumping millions of gallons of highly-pressurized water and chemicals into deep shale formations to proliferate cracks and free gas for extraction. On Colorado’s crowded Front Range, where land is a premium, active wells operate within arm’s reach of houses, schools, and other occupied structures.

Fracking proponents say that the practice has drastically increased U.S. natural gas production, lowered energy prices, and reduced carbon dioxide emissions via displacing coal burning in electricity generation. Opponents of fracking cite many potential health and environmental hazards of the practice including methane leakage, groundwater contamination, radioactive wastewater, and well fires.

significantly more likely to have a low birth-weight baby

According to Colorado Rising, a grassroots non-profit committed to exposing fracking’s health and safety concerns, fracking’s toll on public health outweighs the economic benefits. Research from the Colorado Public School of Health indicates that proximity to fracking operations poses serious risks to health and safety. Among these risks include exposure to cancer-causing toxins such as benzene and air pollutants. An analyses of public health research at the University of Chicago examined correlation between prenatal health and proximity to fracking wells and found that mothers living within a half-mile radius of active wells were significantly more likely to have a low birth-weight baby than mothers who lived farther away. This half-mile radius, incidentally, is the amount of buffer the ballot proposition would require.

The research is preliminary, however, as it cannot definitively prove point-source contamination. To date, no double-blind studies have ever linked fracking directly to low birth weights. But according to spokesperson Anne Lee Foster of Colorado Rising, “Weld County is the most fracked county (host to over 23,000 wells) and has twice the still-born rate of other Colorado counties”. She claims the spike in still-borns occurred in 2009, after a 2008 influx in natural gas drilling. But the list of environmental hazards does not end with carcinogens. The Colorado Rising report also condemns fracking’s environmental toll. Their briefing states that because of methane leakage, “…fracking, transporting and burning natural gas for electricity is likely as bad as or worse for climate change than coal or oil”. The jury is still out on this claim. Granted, fracking is energy-intensive and petrochemical-dependent, but burning natural gas emits half as much carbon dioxide as burning oil or gasoline. Methane leakage in drilling and pipeline transportation is minor, though Colorado Gas & Oil industry officials and public health activists like Colorado Rising disagree on the amount and impact of leakage.

Despite its controversy, there are approximately 50,000 active oil and gas wells in Colorado, many of them concentrated in Boulder and Weld Counties. Under current legislature, fracking operations can take place 500 feet from an occupied home and 1,000 feet from a school building.

do Colorado residents share Foster’s precautionary mindset, or are the economic gains too good to forgo?

Public demand for an expanded mandatory buffer zone from occupied buildings compounded after a 2017 incident in which an open gas line from an operating well leaked into a Firestone home, causing an explosion that killed two. Colorado Rising wrangled over 172,000 signatures for their “Safer Setbacks from Fracking” initiative, which was subsequently approved for November’s ballot. The regulation would underscore the burgeoning research on detrimental public health and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing—research that Colorado’s oil and gas industry might call inchoate and inconclusive. It would increase the mandatory buffer zone between oil and gas wells and occupied buildings to 2,500 feet—a move that the Colorado Petroleum Council has deemed “job-killing” and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association has said risks “more than $1 billion in taxes for schools, parks, and libraries, and our nation’s energy security”. And Weld County, situated on potent shale, has benefited from the incursion of jobs and money brought by the industry’s presence in the area.

The future of Colorado’s oil and gas sector is up in the air, and the proposed initiative would significantly reduce the amount of viable drilling land in populated regions of the state. As Anne Lee Foster summarizes, “the general consensus is that negative health impacts are possible, and it’s best to err on the side of caution”. November’s vote will tap into the metaphorical shale deposits of public sentiment towards fracking; do Colorado residents share Foster’s precautionary mindset, or are the economic gains too good to forgo?

Special thanks to Anne Lee Foster, who was interviewed for this piece. The Colorado Oil and Gas Board did not respond to request for commentary.

Cover photo courtesy of Brett Rindt.

Resources and Further Reading: A Denver Post report on fire and gas explosions, political commentary by Colorado Politics, a public health report by Colorado Rising, The Colorado Rising website, A Popular Mechanics article on 10 Most Controversial Claims About Natural Gas Drilling, A New York Times article,

https://coloradopolitics.com/setback-initiative-ballot/ (comments from COGCC)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1594bLT2U9nGsnWSSA4C5EAT3XZV-vDkB/view (public health report by Colorado Rising)

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/g161/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593/ (information on fracking misconceptions and research)

Interview with Anne Lee Foster of Colorado Rising on 9/5/2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/31/us/colorado-fracking-debates.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/business/energy-environment/colorado-activists-submit-petitions-for-referendums-on-fracking.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

loadContinue readingLess Reading

Recent Articles



Adventure Tourism in India Leading to Deaths and Massive Environmental Degradation

Litigation against mass trekking operations has led to a ban on nearly all mountain tourism in Uttarakhand, leaving 100,000 jobless and an industry without a future. But this doesn't solve the problem or punish those responsible.

An Introduction to Olympic Surfing, with New Zealand’s Paige Hareb

Learn about surfing's induction into the Olympics, and how New Zealand's top surfer, Paige Hareb, is preparing for the 2020 Games in Tokyo.

Secrets of the Nahanni: The Valley of Headless Men

A team of river guides and storytellers venture into the "Valley of Headless Men" to uncover secrets of the past.