Search Lion Landscapes Content

When you think about lions in the wild, what comes to mind? Perhaps images of great prides roaring across a pristine savanna teeming with wild prey like zebra, wildebeest, and giraffe. While some lions might live this lux lifestyle, most share space with human and domestic animal neighbours. Coexistence among people, livestock, and lions has existed for millennia, but as with all neighbours, conflicts do arise. Lions may prey upon livestock for food or people may kill lions to protect their livestock. These interactions have serious implications for lion conservation, human livelihoods, and environmental well-being.   Understanding interactions among lions, livestock, and people in shared landscapes is critically important, but also very challenging! Within each of these three groups exists a huge diversity of identities, preferences, and experiences that can affect how they all interact. Do some lion individuals prefer hunting cattle instead of buffalo? Do women and men differ in their attitudes toward or experiences with lions? Not all people or animals are the same, of course!   To explore human-lion interactions at a deeper level, we needed detailed information about the day-to-day lives of as many individuals as possible. Lions and livestock aren’t very interested in having a chat over tea though, so in Laikipia, Kenya, we’re using another technique to learn about their lives: biologging.   Biologging bling: lion Fitbits and livestock earrings If you’ve ever worn a smartwatch, you’re already familiar with the concept of biologging – using small, body-borne devices to record data about an individual’s movements, physiology, and surroundings. You can track the miles covered and calories burned during your morning run using your watch or phone; we can do something similar with lions and livestock using other devices.   For lions, we use SMART collars – Species Movement, Acceleration, and Radio Tracking, that is. These collars collect GPS location and other data at regular intervals, showing where lions go and what they’re doing. In northern Laikipia, an incredible vet team from Kenya Wildlife Service has helped put collars on 11 new lions this year, bringing the total here to four males and 11 females collared. Data from these collars are not only shedding light on how different lions live in this complex landscape, but also helping pastoralists keep their livestock safe from lion predation. Another cool thing about SMART collars: when it’s time for them to come off, we can remove them via remote control without having to bother the lion at all! A lioness with a SMART collar looking toward a potential breakfast of zebra. (Photo credit: Lucrecia Aguilar) Instead of collars, cattle get ear tags. Putting ID tags on the stiff ears of cattle is common practice in ranching, but these smart tags go a step further. Each ear tag has a tiny solar panel that powers the transmission of GPS points and activity data every few hours, allowing us to remotely track a cow’s movement. The information gathered by these GPS ear tags is invaluable for conservation research, human-carnivore conflict mitigation, and livestock management alike. Earlier this year, we collaborated with six pastoralist communities and three conservancy ranches to deploy 100 ear tags. Some tags have even helped owners find lost herds! Cattle showing off their new ear piercings. (Photo credit: Lucrecia Aguilar / Summer Smentek)   The longer these lion collars and livestock tags are out in the field – and the more we can deploy – the more overlap we get in lion and livestock data. This will enable us to explore how individual lions and cattle herds interact, as well as why some interactions lead to conflict. GPS locations from a lion collar and cattle ear tag showing close proximity at a farm.   What about people? Cattle aren’t just roaming across Laikipia by themselves; people are there, too. How one person lives in and uses their landscape isn’t necessarily the same as another person, though. People with different identities and social roles – like gender, socioeconomic status, or occupation – may use their environments in especially distinct ways. For example, a woman who runs a convenience store in town goes to very different places during a day than a man who herds his family’s cattle does. These differences, in turn, can lead to different levels and types of interactions with wildlife like lions. Unfortunately, the experiences and needs of underserved groups such as women or people of colour have often been overlooked in conservation – we’re trying to change that.   Over the past two years, we have collaborated with community leaders and social scientists in developing a plan to better understand how people with diverse identities interact with lions in northern Laikipia. The plan has two main parts: 1) phone location tracking, and 2) social surveys.   For those who would like to participate, we will turn on location tracking on smartphones to understand how different groups of people use the landscapes they share with lions. Our survey team will also interview community members one-on-one to learn about their attitudes, experiences, and behaviours regarding both lions and conservation. We appreciate everyone who has decided to participate in this work so far and make sure to keep their data secure! We’re excited to see how this research might help expand whose voices are heard in conservation.    Meeting with interested community members, Lion Landscapes staff, and my student research team. (Photo credit: Alfred Kibungei) Scaling up Individual biologging is great for looking at fine-scale interactions in real time – but what about the big, long-term picture? Better predicting and preventing conflicts before they happen could give human-lion coexistence a major boost. We hope to do just that by combining data from lions, livestock, and people with landscape mapping.   These aren’t your standard road trip maps. The Davies Lab at Harvard University surveys landscapes using state-of-the-art sensors flown on drones, producing extremely detailed maps that show colour, temperature, and 3D structure. Imagine something like Google Maps Street View but for natural ecosystems. These drone-based surveys provide information on everything from vegetation to microclimates to roads. By mapping the areas in Laikipia that collared lions, tagged cattle, and human participants use, we’ll try to pinpoint conflict hotspots and direct help to where it’s needed most. Flying over Mpala Research Center with drone-based remote sensors to map the landscape. (Photo credit: Peter Boucher)   About the Author Lucrecia K. Aguilar is a PhD candidate in the Davies Lab at Harvard University working with Lion Landscapes in Laikipia, Kenya. She aims to improve the well-being of diverse human and wildlife communities by researching human-carnivore coexistence and supporting equitable conservation.

Lion Landscapes and the Ruaha Carnivore Project have joined forces in an effort to build more collaborative conservation, scaling up efforts to stop the loss of wildlife, reduce the cost of living with large carnivores and unlock the value of wildlife to local people. We have merged to form a new, combined organisation including all our existing programmes, under the name Lion Landscapes. The organisation, which will work in key landscapes across Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia, will be jointly led by Dr Alayne Cotterill and Dr Amy Dickman, who have championed collaborative conservation for years and are two of the six co-founders of the Pride Lion Conservation Alliance. Moving forwards together as Lion Landscapes. Photo by Solomon Opodo Lions are our flagship species, but our conservation work focuses on so much more than lions. We aim to help secure flourishing Lion Landscapes, which can support top predators, because they have a healthy habitat, thriving biodiversity (including prey) and people willing to tolerate large carnivores. Healthy ‘lion landscapes’ are also vital for many other species. Why merge? Over the past year, Lion Landscapes and the Ruaha Carnivore Project have been collaborating and working together ever more closely to standardise and scale up our approaches across sites. The more we collaborated, the more we realised there was a huge opportunity for us to combine forces, become more efficient and increase our conservation impact. There really is no time to waste: lions and many other species are declining very quickly, while conservation often fails to truly benefit or empower local people. We are excited to bring together all our combined expertise, knowledge and partnerships, to help build a better future of more effective, equitable conservation. School feeding in Malinzanga. Unlocking the value of living alongside large carnivores by directly tying their presence to community benefits is a key pillar of our approach. This work takes the skills, knowledge and passion of many team members in all our sites - please do learn more about them here . It would also not be possible without all our donors, supporters and friends around the world. Thank you all for your continued support, and we are thrilled to have you with us as we enter this exciting new phase. Please keep following us to hear more about our plans together, and learn more about the work of the new Lion Landscapes. To learn more, watch the interview with the new Lion Landscapes Co-Founders and CEOs below!

By Amy Dickman and Alayne Cotterill, joint CEOs, Lion Landscapes “I held onto the tree all night long. I saw my brothers eaten by the lioness: it was very painful. It was all bones that I saw when I scaled down and ran away. I will never be happy again without my brothers.” This is the heart-breaking account of Kiambwa Lekitony, an 11-year old Tanzanian boy who recently witnessed a lion killing and eating his three brothers after they went into the bush to search for lost cattle. Only the skulls of the 9 and 10 year old boys were left. Kiambwa himself was badly injured, as well as traumatised by a horrific incident that none of us would surely wish on anyone. Despite the charisma and value people ascribe to lions globally, this can be the devastating reality of living alongside them for rural people. The international public often seem unaware that across much lion range, lions rely on human-dominated land around and beyond Parks. Lions live where communities live, work and have deep roots. People in these places often simply have no choice but to fetch firewood and water, tend livestock and walk to school, all in the knowledge that they might risk attack. The camera traps caught this sequence of a pastoralist with cattle and then three minutes later a lion. Luckily the pastoralist was vigilant and there were no attacks. Given the extensive overlap, lion attacks on people are relatively rare, but still far more common than most people imagine. Between 1990 and 2007, lions attacked over 1000 people in Tanzania. Most attacks were unprovoked , with lions entering farms, settlements and even houses to attack people. Nearly a fifth of attacks involved children under 10 years old. Each and every attack is a tragedy. The depth of loss is often shockingly dismissed by people seeing it through the safety of a faraway screen, but is very real. We have sat with families devastated by the killing of their children. We have felt shame when they assume we discount their terrible loss, and think we prioritise lion lives over those of their children. Having seen our own children in the bush, and often feared for their safety, it seems impossible that people would ever risk their own children to save lions. And if we wouldn’t risk our own children, it is unconscionable that we should risk other peoples’ children. The appropriate response to a lion attack on a human is to identify and track the animal responsible, and then to humanely kill it. Similar actions are taken in other places where people encounter dangerous predators. Recently in the US, a 16-year old girl sleeping in a hammock during a trip to a National Park was attacked by a black bear, which was promptly killed . In the UK, the risk from an escaped Eurasian lynx (a species not known for killing people), was deemed severe enough to kill the animal after recapture attempts failed. If wild carnivores cannot be allowed to risk the lives of Europeans or Americans, then the risk to African lives should be viewed no differently. However, recent reports suggest that the plan is to relocate , not kill, the lion involved in Kiamba’s attack. That has generated support, particularly on social media from people concerned about declining lion populations. Unfortunately, relocation in cases like this is likely to increase risks to lions and other wildlife, further intensifying decline, as well as posing unacceptable risks to local people. Conflict with local people has been identified by experts as the primary threat to lions, and relocation is often likely to directly increase that threat. Locally, if rapid steps are not taken to identify and kill a man-eating lion, people perceive that local lives are less valued than lion lives. That rightly intensifies feelings of deep injustice and conflict. People are then much more likely to take matters into their own hands, indiscriminately poisoning and killing far more animals than just the one responsible. This has devastating conservation and welfare impacts. As well as the unacceptable risks to people, it is simply not worth saving one lion’s life to amplify and embed the conflict which threatens so many other lions. An indiscriminate poisoning incident killing lions and vultures. So if a lion must be removed, what are the options? One is permanent captivity, but that is likely to involve far more long-term stress for a wild lion than a quick death. Even relocation involves substantial stress from capture, travel and release. And where to release it? Acceptable sites would need to be far from people, as it would be deeply unethical to put other lives knowingly at risk. But how far is far enough? Lions and other big cats can move long distances after relocation, and often keep causing conflict . Suitable locations should also ideally lack existing lion populations or major threats, but have sufficient habitat and prey. Such areas are vanishingly few. In reality, lions often end up in areas with people, resident lions and conservation threats, putting both people and lions at increased risk of death. The pressure to relocate rather than kill seems to be driven by media and social media pressure, where the killing of an iconic animal like a lion seems increasingly untenable to Western audiences. But relocation often does lead to deaths, frequently in worse ways than a professional’s bullet. Of 13 conflict-causing lions translocated and monitored in Botswana, 10 died within a year, including five killed by people because of conflict. Negative attitudes towards carnivores can be both ‘contagious’ and long-lasting , so if you experience a carnivore attack, you are more likely to view other negatively as well, and that hostility can last for years. Given the primacy of conflict as a threat to lions, it is imperative that we don’t simply move problems and inadvertently create yet more conflict. In some limited circumstances, lion relocation can be both appropriate and effective. But for man-eating lions, the risks to both humans, lions and wider wildlife are simply not worth it. There are many situations in conservation where costs and benefits are finely balanced, where what is best for lions and for local people clash, and where decisions are legitimately difficult. Choosing between killing a man-eating lion, or risking more devastating impacts on lions and other wildlife – and most importantly on families like Kiambwa’s - is simply not one of them. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

Today on World Wildlife Conservation Day, we want to share with you some highlights of our recent journey in piloting a new wildlife conservation tool, the Conservation Contract. Our Community Camera Trapping programme is currently operating in 12 villages in the Ruaha Landscape in Tanzania and has helped establish a direct link between presence of wildlife on village land and community benefits. This has helped those living with carnivores to receive tangible benefits and increase their tolerance towards wildlife. As attitudes and tolerance have increased, we are now looking to implement programmes that aim to affect direct conservation actions. We felt that it was time to develop a system which included penalties for behaviours such as poisoning large carnivores as well as bonuses for positive behaviours, such as maintaining wire bomas and reinforcing traditional bomas. Examples of rewards and penalties A collared lion spending a night in village land will net the village 11 USD while a snare while the detection of an illegal snare will subtract the same amount. Our Conservation Contract is inspired by our friends at Niassa Carnivore Project and provides incentives and disincentives for certain behaviours. Presence of wildlife (through the Community Camera Traps) and quality of livestock enclosures are rewarded, whereas the presence of snares and carnivore mortalities are penalised. All conditions have been agreed upon with the village leadership and we hope will encourage the community to conserve and protect their wildlife. After numerous community meetings, the first "Conservation Contract" was signed on 19 August 2021 with the village of Malinzanga for an initial period of 3 months, which was recently extended to 6 months. The three month pilot project was recently evaluated to see where it was working well, and where it needed to be adjusted according to feedback from stakeholders. The first period ended up with a pay-out that was very close to the base fund the village started with because the penalties in this period were about the same size as the additional bonuses. The village clearly stated that they wish to continue with the pilot as the exercise helps them to measure their success in conservation issues. The chairman even stated that even without a payout they would want to continue in order to inform them how successful they are in conservation issues. We are very impressed by the understanding and support of the village leaders and agreed to hold a public event on Friday December 3rd where we will share the successes and challenges as well as sign the conservation contract extension. Public event a great success We held a public celebration to mark the completion of the three month pilot project. Community sensitisation and education is an important part of this project as each community member can directly contribute to the success of the conservation contract. The event was opened by the guest of honour, the Idodi ward counsellor, welcoming everyone present. The village chairman, agricultural officer, head teacher, and other village leaders took turns encouraging the community to continue to conserve wildlife. We were thrilled to have the local drama group, Wazawa, to help educate and entertain the community of Malinzanga. The drama group has worked closely with Lion Landscapes before and tailor their dramas and comedy to incorporate key conservation messages. Below is a short clip showing the ‘WAZAWA GROUP ‘ making some dramas and educating the Malinzanga villagers about the conservation contract and the projects of Lion landscapes. The language spoken is Swahili so although you may not understand it you can clearly see it is engaging the crowd. We look forward to the results of the next pilot period, lessons learned and applied and will keep you updated on the progress of this project! Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

By Amy Dickman and Alayne Cotterill, joint CEOs, Lion Landscapes Short summary of contribution Here, we provide a contribution to the Call for Evidence for the Animals Abroad Bill, based on our scientific knowledge and first-hand conservation expertise. This is written by the joint CEOs of Lion Landscapes, a UK charity working on community conservation across multiple lion landscapes in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia. We have over 40 years of field conservation experience between us, as well as relevant advanced degrees, including PhDs. Our contribution focus primarily on lions, but the points made relate to many other species as well. As this exceeds 3000 words, our contribution covers the following points, providing evidence for each point raised (often using hyperlinks to the relevant studies): We highlight that for effective conservation, the key threats to biodiversity must be identified and addressed. According to the IUCN Red List, current trophy hunting is not a major threat for any species, so the attention on this threat is misleading and draws attention away from other pressing conservation concerns Using IUCN Red List data for monitored lion populations, and published data from various African countries, we highlight that the presence of trophy hunting does NOT mean that wildlife populations are declining, and that banning or restricting trophy hunting does not mean they will increase We use scientific data to show that while poorly managed trophy hunting can negatively impact some populations, well managed trophy hunting can have a positive impact, even on endangered species. We also link to evidence that regulations can be effective at reducing the pressure on hunted species We present studies showing the benefits that are delivered through trophy hunting at present, including habitat conservation, the maintenance of species range, protection against the specific, major threat of land conversion, and provision of livelihood benefits. We present a summary of community benefits from trophy hunting from a recent report, and highlight the importance of listening to affected local communities and not undermining their rights and livelihoods We discuss the challenges of finding adequate, scalable, viable alternatives to replace trophy hunting, and some of the problems associated with increasing photo-tourist numbers We present suggestions for different rules for animals hunted in different settings, with a focus on trying to incentivise habitat conservation and discourage ‘canned’ hunting We outline significant unintended consequences likely from import bans, especially in terms of the risk of indiscriminate killing, with major negative impacts on animal welfare and conservation. We also highlight a recent poll showing that the UK public would not be supportive of trophy hunting bans (including import bans) which led to those consequences We state that we do not believe that the current measures on controlling trade in trophies are effective for supporting conservation, and make suggestions for how they could be improved. However, we stress that the current controls would be better than damaging import bans if those are imposed without due consideration for unintended consequences. 1. Will the Government’s proposals on the export and import of hunting trophies effectively support the conservation of endangered species? No, for many reasons as outlined below. 1a. For effective support of conservation, the key threats to biodiversity must be identified and addressed Despite all the media attention, IUCN Red List data shows that current trophy hunting is NOT a major threat to any species at a range-wide scale. To effectively support conservation, it would be far more impactful to take action that addresses major threats to wildlife. Data on conservation status and key threats (from the IUCN Red List) are compiled below, for the African species most commonly discussed in this debate. It is clear that trophy hunting is not a major threat to any of them – and by conserving habitat and prey, and contributing towards anti-poaching activities, it can actually help reduce those major threats. Therefore, extreme caution should be taken before imposing restrictions which could harm the economic viability of this land use, particularly without any viable, scalable and funded alternatives ready. Figure 1. Population trends and major threats to some of the most-discussed African species in the trophy hunting debate. This current focus on trophy hunting is misleading to the public, and risks detracting attention (and possibly funding) from far more pressing issues such as habitat loss and conflict. It is actually those issues – and working out how conservation can be used to drive local development – that should be the focus of the UK Government and other interested stakeholders. People may suggest that tackling ANY threat is a good step, but that is only positive if in doing so we don’t inadvertently increase larger threats such as conflict, bushmeat snaring and habitat loss, which is the very risk outlined by many conservation scientists and the IUCN with regard to trophy hunting bans, including import bans. 1b. The presence of trophy hunting does NOT mean that wildlife populations are declining – and banning or restricting trophy hunting does not mean they will increase Using data on monitored lion population trends between 1993 and 2014 in the 2016 IUCN Red List. 38 of these lion populations were in non-hunting areas, and of those, 22 (58%) were declining (Figure 2). Only 7 populations examined were in trophy hunting areas, and of those, only 1 (14%) was declining. This is not to say that trophy hunting does not negatively impact some lion populations – especially where poorly managed and in concert with other threats, as outlined in the section below – but it demonstrates that having trophy hunting in an area is not in itself an indication of threat, just as the absence of trophy hunting does not mean populations are safe. Figure 2. Data on lion population changes from 1993 – 2014 from 2016 IUCN Red Data List for the African lion. This trend is not unique to lions: Kenya is a famous example of a country which banned trophy hunting (in 1977) and far from seeing well-conserved wildlife, a study has shown that its wildlife numbers have plummeted since then. Figure 3. Trends in wildlife and livestock numbers documented in Kenya between 1977-1980 and 2011-2013, showing the precipitous decline in wildlife & concomitant increase in livestock. While there are multiple causes for these declines, the lack of local incentives to maintain wildlife is a key aspect. This is highlighted in the study when it compares wildlife trends in Kenya to those in several other sub-Saharan African countries which used sustainable use, including trophy hunting, as part of their wildlife management. In those countries, there was evidence of increased wildlife numbers and concurrent declines in livestock numbers. Figure 4. Indicators of wildlife population increase and concurrent declines in livestock numbers in Namibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Zambia but substantial increase in livestock numbers and concurrent declines in wildlife numbers in Kenya (references can be found here. 1c. While poorly-regulated trophy hunting can have a damaging local impact on populations, well-regulated trophy hunting can have a positive impact, even for species like lions. The costs and benefits should be assessed at a site level, not at a species or country level Poorly regulated trophy hunting can undoubtedly have damaging impacts on populations, especially in concert with other threats. However, trophy hunting is not necessarily damaging to a population if it is well regulated, and can have positive impacts. One key example is Bubye Valley Conservancy (Figure 5), where lions were reintroduced around 20 years ago, and now number around 500 individuals (see case study 4 in the IUCN Briefing Document), with well-regulated trophy hunting used as a key management tool. This demonstrates that trophy hunting can be a useful conservation tool. Figure 5. Lion population in Bubye Valley Conservancy, which uses well-regulated trophy hunting to fund its wildlife conservation activities. At a wider scale, the IUCN Red List data shows that wild lion populations are only increasing in two countries, Namibia and Zimbabwe, both of which use trophy hunting (including of lions) as part of their sustainable wildlife management. Because trophy hunting can be positive or negative depending on how it is managed, as suggest that decisions on imports are made on a case-by-case basis rather than imposed at the species or country level. The same holds true for several other species, including both black and white rhino, as outlined in the IUCN Briefing Paper for Decision-Makers. Figure 6. Data on rhino population trends, from the IUCN Briefing Paper for Decision-Makers. Furthermore, in many places (including around Hwange, one of the examples of poor management of lion trophy hunting above), there have been recent changes in policy since those papers were published. Short-term moratoria, reduction of quotas and the adoption or adaptive age-based quotas have all reduced the risk posed by trophy hunting. There is scientific evidence of the effectiveness of such measures in reducing pressure on hunted species, so it is these kinds of approaches which should be tried first, before import bans. 1d. Trophy hunting areas have clear and well-evidenced conservation and livelihood benefits, so care should be taken not to imperil those benefits through bans (including import bans) It is often questioned whether there is any evidence for conservation benefits from trophy hunting. Here, we provide evidence for clear conservation benefits in terms of protecting habitats and also maintaining species within those areas. While good management of trophy hunting is clearly necessary for effective conservation of the hunted species, it is important to note that some of these key benefits – e.g. habitat protection – still often occur even in those places where the hunting regulations may not be optimal. (i) Habitat protection Given that land use change has been identified by IPBES as the main driver of biodiversity decline, we believe that this is the major benefit of trophy hunting, certainly for lions. 11 lion range countries currently allow legal trophy hunting of this species, though this is a dynamic situation. Trophy hunting areas have the same key conservation benefit as National Parks – large-scale habitat protection, and hunting areas cover large extents of remaining range (Figure 7). Our current draft analysis of remaining lion range indicates that the area where lion trophy hunting of lions is legal is ~712,000km2, equal to around 42% of wild African lion range. This exceeds the area of remaining range covered by National Parks (~450,000km2). Figure 7. Map showing (in blue) from 2019, showing the extent of remaining lion range covered by areas where trophy hunting was legal, compared to the extent covered by National Parks (in green). Note that this was before Botswana lifted its ban on trophy hunting. Trophy hunting is a particularly significant land use in those countries with the largest remaining extent of lion range (Figure 8), such as Tanzania, Botswana and Mozambique. Figure 8. Significance of trophy hunting as a land use in remaining lion range countries, though now Botswana has made trophy hunting legal again. The habitat protection extends far beyond lions, and across Africa, areas conserved under trophy hunting exceed the areas conserved under National Parks. Therefore, decisions which affect that land use should not be taken lightly. Furthermore, the conservation benefit of that habitat protection appears clear: in a recent study assessing how well countries were doing to protect large mammals, the majority of the top 10 countries (including the top 3) use trophy hunting as part of their wildlife management. The particular significance of trophy hunting as a land use in key wildlife range countries underlines the importance of not imperiling this land through knee-jerk policy reactions. Unfortunately, much of this hunting area is unlikely to be suitable for economically viable photo-tourism, and proven alternatives do not yet exist at the scale required. Researching those alternatives in concert with local stakeholders, and funding them, should be a top priority if the Government wants to play a positive role in moving towards effective wildlife conservation without trophy hunting. (ii) Maintenance of species range People often assume that hunting areas are mismanaged and devoid of wildlife, but our recent data analysis for Tanzania (paper in prep), shows that these areas are very important for biodiversity. Considering 18 large mammal species for which sufficient range data are available, the data showed that a mean of 44.4% of the species’ country range was found within hunting PAs, compared to 18.5% in non-hunting PAs and 37.2% in completely non-protected areas (Figure 9). Hunting PAs were the most important area category for 61% of the species considered. We have not yet been able to examine wildlife densities in these areas, but it is clear that hunting areas play a key role in large species conservation in Tanzania (and many other countries) so decisions that affect these areas should be taken very seriously. Figure 9. Data from Tyrrell et al. (in prep) showing the significance of trophy hunting areas for large mammals in Tanzania. (iii) Protection against land conversion Land conversion is the major threat driving biodiversity decline at a global scale. When examining habitat loss across three land uses (National Parks, trophy hunting areas and other areas), Tyrrell et al. (see case study) showed that within Tanzania, habitat loss was lowest in strongly protected non-hunting areas (National Parks), followed by strongly protected hunting areas (Game Reserves). Importantly, as many hunting areas are becoming vacant – partly in response to increasing international pressure – they also found that habitat conversion was higher in vacant blocks than in actively hunted blocks, demonstrating a likely positive impact of anti-poaching activities in managed hunting blocks. This also highlights the major risk of likely unintended consequences in areas where hunting ceases without viable alternatives implemented at the same time. The map below from Tanzania (Figure 10) clearly demonstrates the value of hunting areas in helping protect against the key threat of habitat conversion (in this case agricultural land conversion). Given that land conversion is so much more significant than trophy hunting in terms of threats to lions, and is such a major threat to biodiversity overall, losing the protective effects of trophy hunting areas is a major risk. Figure 10. Map from Tanzania from 2019, showing National Parks in dark green and areas where trophy hunting was permitted in light green. The red shows land conversion, demonstrating the clear protective benefit of hunting areas against land conversion. Some of the Selous Game Reserve has now been gazetted as Nyerere National Park. (iv) Provision of livelihood benefits Just as with photo-tourism, trophy hunting can provide important local jobs, income and other benefits. There is an erroneous figure commonly used by anti-hunting groups, suggesting that local people only receive 3% of trophy hunting income. Although (again just as with photo-tourism), in many places the amount of benefit reaching local people should be higher, the current income is nonetheless locally significant in many areas. A recent comprehensive assessment from the African Leadership University School of Wildlife Conservation documents the important community benefits which emerge from trophy hunting in many African countries. When trophy hunting was banned in Botswana, there were multiple, varied and well-documented negative impacts on local communities. Elsewhere, scientific analyses have shown that both photo-tourism and trophy hunting revenue combined are currently crucial to many community conservancies in Namibia, with trophy hunting also generating important benefits in the form of meat. Representatives of millions of rural Africans have vociferously spoken out against Western-led campaigns to ban trophy hunting and deprive them of their livelihood options, and the right to sustainably and legally utilise their wildlife. Such campaigns have been accused by community leaders in southern Africa of representing a ‘colonial mindset’, and that should be a major concern for the UK Government in considering any course of action. Figure 11. Table showing community benefits from trophy hunting in multiple African countries To summarise, while both National Parks and hunting areas often have issues (e.g. lack of funding, mismanagement, declining wildlife populations), but in both cases the key conservation benefit is the incentive to maintain habitat for wildlife, protect species and prevent land conversion. This is done by generating a wildlife-based income stream, which can also provide substantial benefits for local people, and is often part of their key right to sustainably use their natural resources. These are very valuable benefits and should not be discounted in the case of trophy hunting areas just because people dislike the activity. It is vital that policy-makers recognise these benefits and work to ensure that they are replaced if action is taken to reduce the economic viability of trophy hunting. 1e. Reducing the economic viability of trophy hunting areas without providing a better alternative is likely to be very damaging for wildlife and people, and yet there are no proven alternatives ready at the scale needed Peer-reviewed research has demonstrated that lions do best in well-funded photographic areas, and do least well in protected areas which have neither photographic tourism nor trophy hunting. Therefore, the optimal scenario from a lion conservation point of view would be to convert the area to well-funded photographic tourism. However, unfortunately the vast majority of Africa’s existing protected areas, including photographic areas, are severely underfunded. Given that range state Governments are already under severe financial pressure, reducing the income from hunters and asking Governments increase funding for conservation areas appears both unjust and unlikely to happen. Therefore, it is imperative – as stressed by the IUCN – that fully funded, viable and sustainable alternatives be ready before measures are taken to limit trophy hunting. Many people assume that trophy hunting revenue could simply be replaced by photographic tourism, but in most current trophy hunting areas, photographic tourism is unlikely to be financially viable due to issues such as insecurity, disease risks, naturally low-density wildlife populations and unattractive habitat. The evidence from the hunting moratorium in Botswana demonstrated that it is very hard to adequately replace trophy hunting revenue with photographic tourism revenue, with the ban leading to increases in human-wildlife conflict, poaching and damaging local livelihoods. Even where viable, photographic tourism often relies on many more tourists than trophy hunters, as the per-capita hunter revenue is often higher. This is exemplified by Timbavati Game Reserve (Figure 12), which reported that 21 hunters generated 30% of their revenue in 2018, while 24,000 tourists generated 51%. Given the huge resource use of tens of thousands of tourists in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water etc, then a lot of care should be taken to replace low numbers of hunters with many more tourists. This should be of particular concern given the UK’s stated concerns over climate change, and their key role in COP 26. Figure 12. Breakdown of revenue and numbers of people for each revenue stream in Timbavati Some potential alternative funding mechanisms exist, including carbon and biodiversity payments, but none of them are proven at the scale needed or have realistic funding streams secured. The key is to ensure that whatever alternatives are in place, they ensure that revenue is directly linked to conserving viable populations of wildlife and its habitat, and that the benefits to the local communities are at least equal to what they are receiving under trophy hunting. Alternative mechanisms should also ideally not rely on vastly increased numbers of users, as that will have unintended consequences in terms of carbon emissions, water use, infrastructure needs etc. Identifying and investing in suitable alternatives long-term at meaningful scales and in cooperation with local stakeholders should be a priority if the UK Government is keen to replace trophy hunting with alternative mechanisms for wildlife conservation. 2. Should there be different rules for the trade in animal trophies depending on the setting in which the animal was hunted? Yes, as the aim should be to discourage practices like canned hunting (which have little or no conservation benefit), and to allow trophy hunting as a form of wildlife management where it delivers conservation and livelihood gains. Regarding specific conservation-relevant rules for UK imports for lions (our focal species), this was a point that was outlined in a recent report to the UK Government, which recommended: Those specific rules (e.g. the degree of habitat required to be meaningful) would vary by species, but we believe that stricter rules should be imposed ensuring that benefits to conservation and livelihoods are shown, and reducing the likelihood of canned or captive-bred hunting trophies being imported (although the term canned hunting needs better definition). 3. What are the possible unintended consequences of the proposals, for example in relation to animal trophies that pre-date the legislation? As outlined above, and explained in the scientific literature, there are very substantial possible unintended consequences of proposals which ban trophy hunting (or imports) without finding and funding viable alternatives to secure wildlife habitat and replace revenue to local communities. Another unintended consequence is that despite its focus on ‘following the science’ during the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK Government is not taking decisions based on the best available evidence, and listening to recommendations from respected authorities, which in this case would be the IUCN. In their 2016 Briefing Paper for Policy-Makers, IUCN makes the following recommendations to policy-makers, regarding decisions that could restrict or end trophy hunting programmes (including import bans): To our knowledge none of these steps have been taken with the current proposals, so it is imperative that they are taken before import bans are imposed. These proposals also risk betraying the public’s faith in the Government to take the right steps to protect and conserve wildlife. We understand (and in fact share) that particularly for iconic species like lions, there is widespread revulsion amongst the UK public towards trophy hunting. However, we also assume that most of the UK public hate other forms of lion killing, e.g. poisoning and snaring, at least as much, particularly as many of those indiscriminate killings involve pregnant females, lionesses with dependent cubs, and the cubs themselves (Figure 13). Figure 13. Lion cubs killed in conflict: such images and events are likely to be just as appalling to the general public as trophy hunting deaths, and should be considered in any action taken. While people often stress the ethical and moral dimensions of this debate (which are important considerations), we strongly believe that it is not ethical or moral to stop one kind of killing, only to increase another kind of killing which is often worse both in terms of animal welfare and conservation. In fact, a very recent (September 2021) Survation poll of the UK public revealed that less than half (42%) of the respondents would support bans on trophy hunting which increase overall threats to wildlife (Figure 14). Even fewer (only 39%) would be supportive of a ban which negatively impacted marginalised communities. The poll also showed that only 64% of people polled would want a trophy hunting ban even if it decreased overall threats to wildlife: far less than the ‘86% support’ which has been widely reported, based on an anti-hunting lobby group’s poll. Figure 14. Data from a recent Survation poll on the views of the UK public towards trophy hunting bans (described as including import bans) which have different likely outcomes. Unfortunately, negative impacts for both conservation and communities are extremely likely to be the case at the moment (with no better alternatives secured for trophy hunting areas), so would not be respecting the will of the British people. They have often been told by campaign groups that bans or import bans on hunting trophies would positively impact conservation, with no apparent evidence to back up that statement. If the UK Government has reliable evidence suggesting that the conservation, animal welfare and local livelihood impacts could actually be negative (e.g. through this call for evidence) then it should not act in a way which goes against that will to protect and conserve wildlife. Currently, most of the wildlife deaths that occur when wildlife loses economic value happen deep in the bush and are never seen on social media, so the public is largely unaware of them. However, reports suggest that these kinds of lion killings, particularly from conflict and snaring, probably outweigh those from trophy hunting by around five to ten-fold and in some cases it can be much more. As one example, one of our study sites is in southern Tanzania, in one of the most important areas left for wild lions (one of only five populations left with >1000 lions). There, we work on village land where there has traditionally been no economic value of lions through photo tourism or trophy hunting. The level of lion killing (and killing of other wildlife) was staggering – in 2011, we had reports of over 25 lions and other large carnivores killed, mainly due to conflict with people. This equated to over 50 lions killed per 1000km2 - 100 times higher than the normal recommended limit of 0.5 lions per 1000km2 if this had been a trophy hunting area (Figure 15). Furthermore, half these killings involved females (often pregnant or lactating), which is known to be particularly damaging in terms of conservation impacts on a population: far more so than removing older males. Figure 15. Some of the many killings on village land, where lions and other wildlife had no economic value. It is imperative not to reduce trophy hunting deaths only to increase these deaths. Note the heavily pregnant female (top left) and lactating female (bottom left): many of these indiscriminate killings involve reproductively active females, which is known to be particularly damaging in terms of population impacts. All too often, the debate appears binary, as if it is between trophy hunting deaths and safe lions. Unfortunately, if viable alternatives are not in place, then the likelihood is that when trophy hunting ceases, other threats such as snaring for bushmeat, conflict-related killings and habitat conversion increase, actually increasing the number of wildlife deaths. In addition, these tend to be particularly horrible deaths from both a welfare and conservation standpoint, as they affect many species and often involve killing reproductively active females and younger males. Therefore, both from the perspectives of what the UK public want, the conservation risks and the animal welfare concerns, it is imperative to consider the very real likelihood that decreasing economic viability of trophy hunting without better options ready will lead to huge increases in other forms of killing. Given the rightful concern amongst the UK public for animal welfare – one which the Rt Hon George Eustice MP highlights in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare – then these likely impacts should be very carefully considered. 4. How effective are current measures on the trade in trophies of hunting, including how they support conservation? We don’t believe the current measures are effective enough in supporting the conservation of wild species, both the hunted ones and wider biodiversity. One of the major issues here is that one of the major conservation benefits of trophy hunting is the protection of habitats, and currently, as far as we are aware, that does not seem to be recognised under the JNCC criteria for trophy imports. The lack of inclusion of that criteria means that trophies can be imported from captive-bred or ‘canned’ operations, with very little real conservation impact in terms of habitat protection. Canned hunting (albeit a poorly defined term) is also one of those areas where the UK public (in my opinion rightly) feel most revulsion at the practice. Therefore, as described in the section above, the criteria should be revised to ensure that conservation benefit is mainly centred around how much habitat is protected, rather than the population increasing (which can easily be produced in a captive situation, and which may not be happening in a hunting area due to external threats which are nothing to do with trophy hunting). Furthermore, the criteria have to be reasonable and based on the best available science, rather than unreasonable expectations, e.g. making it a requirement to have rising lion populations in an area - this is not even being delivered in most National Parks so the expectations should be equivalent. The major risk of criteria that are unreasonable is that they would likely lead to a reduction in imports, reduced economic viability and a likelihood of land conversion and biodiversity loss, in the common situation where there is no better wildlife-based land use available. Ideally, we would like to see revised import criteria where decisions were based primarily on metrics such as habitat protection and meaningful community engagement, at the same level that are expected from other protected areas. However, given the major threats for both conservation and livelihoods, keeping the current regulations would be better than imposing poorly-considered trophy hunting bans or import bans. 5. What will be the impact of the proposed domestic ban on advertising and offering for sale overseas attractions, activities or experiences that involve the unacceptable treatment of animals? This is beyond the scope of our expertise and we would defer to animal welfare organisations and other experts for input here. 6. Who should be responsible for ensuring attractions, activities or experiences overseas do not cause the unacceptable treatment of animals? This is beyond the scope of our expertise and we would defer to animal welfare organisations and other experts for input here. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

Thelma and Louise, two cats with a habit of wandering. Victoria, a big, beautiful female with a relaxed nature. Grumpy, a sleek, dark male with an alarmingly aggressive streak. Reggie, a characteristically inquisitive feline. These are not domestic pets, but just a few of the many wild big cats that we have grown to know and care about during our work. They are also, more formally, known as LF648, LF649, LF302, AM115 and LM744. Like every other field conservationist we know, we give our study animals numbers, but they often end up with names as well. Naming wild animals brings both costs and benefits, and can stir up controversy. Here, we explain our reasons for naming some of our study animals, and the positive and negative impacts we have found it can have on conservation. Names are more intuitive than numbers The first reason for naming animals is that scientists are humans. Rather than wondering how the home range of LF278 compares to those of LM558 and LM401, it is much more intuitive for our team to discuss how the movements of Dawn, Chalisa and Felix are affected by their pride dynamics (in this case, being a mother with cubs, a dispersing male and an young coalition male). Studying animals over any length of time creates a bond, and you notice their characters, and start using names which reflect their individuality and appearance. The names often aren’t that imaginative. There was Bluey, a lioness with an eye injury, turning it milky blue; Bahati (‘lucky’ in Swahili), a cheetah who had survived a lion attack despite substantial injuries; and Spot, a particularly imaginatively-named leopard. These tend to be internal, informal nicknames, and reflect the fact that scientists are not automatons. We notice and value the differences between individual animals in both looks and character. We bond with them, care about them, and are affected when they are killed. That should surprise no-one, as it is the passion for these animals that drove us into this field, and which drives us to fight for their conservation every day. In addition, in many places we are not the only ones studying these animals. Conservancy staff, safari guides and others are often strongly invested in the animals around them, and have often already named them. For example, Onca was a leopard that guides had noticed had jaguar-style rosettes, while Grumpy was named because of his tendency to chase tourist cars. While we still give these animals numbers for our records and papers, we respect the names given by others, and often use them ourselves. Naming animals can have positive conservation effects in the field The above mentioned naming is relatively unintentional, driven by familiarity of us or others with particular animals. But we also intentionally use animal naming to improve conservation outcomes. It is a very human trait that people tend to bond more with a named, known animal – especially one we have named ourselves - than one with a more sterile identifier, such as a number, allocated by someone else. Naming increases attachment, empathy and direct connection with an animal. In our study sites, conflict with people is one of the primary conservation threats. Animals like lions and leopards are dangerous and difficult to live alongside. People recognise their beauty, but still justifiably fear them, and have often never really thought of them as individuals with intrinsic value. We have spent decades trying to improve human-wildlife coexistence in those places, and use multiple approaches to build more connections with wildlife, including Park visits and conservation-themed film nights. Bonding with individual animals is one approach that can help with those connections. AM342, a.k.a Kali Getting local people (whether conservancy managers, villagers or others) to name an animal gives a particularly meaningful connection, one that often holds for weeks, months, or years of coexistence afterwards. AM342 was one such lion. His collaring revealed that he was a problem animal who attacked livestock relatively regularly. Local warriors helped track him and came to know him as Kali (meaning fierce). Despite the seemingly negative moniker, the warriors discussing him by name in village meetings seemed to give him more status, and people seemed more tolerant than they might have been with an unknown animal they were disconnected from. From our experiences, naming animals can certainly have positives in the field. It builds empathy, which is a vital tool in rural African communities where empathy levels for dangerous animals are often understandably low, far outweighed by more pressing concerns like protection of people’s livestock and families. Individuals matter, populations even more Individuals clearly matter, and we care about all of them. As a population represents a large number of those individuals, it holds that we should care about populations even more – and we do. But while this makes sense to us as conservationists, our priorities increasingly seem misaligned with much of the general public, particularly in Europe and North America. We developed our approaches, including naming some of our study animals, based on needs in the field, far before we had to think about how they would be viewed from behind faraway computer screens. But so much of conservation attention and debate now occurs far from the bush, particularly on social media. There, the needs and opinions of keyboard warriors appear to matter more to decision-makers than the needs and opinions of the actual warriors trying to protect their livelihoods from large carnivores. That causes a conundrum. On social media, and in similar environments far from the reality and complexities of conservation, strong attachments to the stories of individual animals can potentially lead to harm. In an international context, naming sometimes risks negative conservation effects Unfortunately, just as it is human to connect with individual animals, it is also very human to find it much harder to expand that connection to the many individuals which make up a population, let alone the other animals, plants and biodiversity in the landscapes supporting them. That is where harm can come in. Particularly amongst Western audiences, levels of empathy for dangerous wild animals are already extremely high. Frequently, people fail to realise that as beautiful and impressive as big cats are, they are also extremely challenging to conserve, and they can and do destroy lives and livelihoods. Without the tempering influence of context and lived experience with dangerous wildlife, the stories and bonds forged with known individuals start to be elevated, often beyond the needs of wildlife populations, or worse, over the needs and rights of local people. This has been seen time and time again. The killings of known individual animals, such as Cecil the lion, Avni the tigress, Voortrekker the elephant, or Rafiki the gorilla, create intense media and public interest, and often a clamour for knee-jerk responses and policies, such as not killing man-eating animals, or using lethal force against poachers. All too often, these are simplistic measures which fail to consider conservation realities and exacerbate division between the international public and local people living with wildlife, and therefore carry major risks for long-term conservation. The way forward Some people believe that naming an animal gives it more importance, and that people have more responsibility towards named animals, as it assigns them some kind of personhood and elevated value. That may have some philosophical value, but from a conservation perspective, we strongly disagree. Despite the utility that names can have for local conservation, it shouldn’t be the named ones, the known ones, which we prioritise. We shouldn’t focus so much on the lions which are regularly photographed, whose lineages and history are fully documented, whose habits are known and whose movements can be predicted. Rather, we should be focused more on the fate of the unnamed, unknown ones. The ones who are glimpsed for an intoxicating moment, and then who slink back into the bush, never to be spotted again. It is those – whose very elusiveness and anonymity symbolises wilderness – which we should strive to prioritise. Few people name trees: we have never heard of a bush, a gulley, a lilac-breasted roller or an agama lizard being named. But every part of the landscape is valuable, and it takes all of it to support Kali, Victoria, Grumpy, and the countless thousands of animals that none of us will ever know or even see. As with everything in conservation, even this simple topic is more complicated than it might first appear. We certainly don’t have all the answers, and our strategies change over time as we consider different risks and benefits. For now, we at Lion Landscapes have decided that we will use names locally where that has benefit, but will not use individual names internationally, to try to reduce some of the risks above. Instead, we will refer to the names of the relevant prides or places associated with these animals, to try to instil more connection with those wider entities. We hope that may encourage people to remember that any wild individual is part of a population and supporting ecosystem, without which it would have no future. Focusing on individuals is easier for us all, but unless we widen our view to see the intricate web of biodiversity and community needs supporting those individuals, then we will be doing conservation a disservice. And while naming can increase both empathy and revenue, if that goes from being something useful to something harmful, then it is something that we should all consider and try to tackle in this new, complex landscape of modern conservation. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

For researchers, conservationists, and protected area managers, understanding the health and status of wildlife populations is essential. How can we tell if our activities are having an impact if we don’t know if our wildlife populations are increasing or decreasing? And how can we know if they are increasing or decreasing if we don’t know how many there were in the first place? These may seem obvious questions, and you might think they have obvious answers. However, this is not the case. Counting animals has always been challenging – after all, they don’t respond to mail-in surveys, and they tend to have the unfortunate characteristic of not staying in one place for more than a few hours (if you’re lucky!). While most species present some challenges when it comes to population assessments (‘how many are there?’) and monitoring (‘how is this number changing over time?’), these difficulties are especially evident for large carnivores. Carnivores tend to be secretive, being mostly active at night, and to exist at naturally low densities and roam over large areas. As a result, it is often not possible to find enough of them to obtain a reliable population estimate by simply driving around. This is especially the case in areas where large carnivores are not used to tourist vehicles, or where they experience persecution by people (often as a result of human-carnivore conflict). For many large carnivore species this issue has been circumvented by using camera traps, which take remotely triggered pictures when an animal passes in front of it. With camera traps, it doesn’t matter if animals are shy, scared of people, or exhibit any other characteristic which might make it difficult to approach them: if they pass in front of the camera, you have your pictures. As you may know, large carnivores such as tigers, jaguars, and leopards all have very distinct coat patterns. What you may not know is that – much like our own fingerprints – these are unique for each individual (Fig. 1), meaning that it is possible to identify animals at an individual level from camera trap pictures. Figure 1 Three leopard pictures from Lion Landscapes' 2018 camera trap survey in Ruaha National Park. As we can see, leopard coat patterns allows us to clearly ‘match’ individuals from different photographs. Once this is done – provided that enough cameras have been deployed, over a sufficiently large area, and that enough pictures have been recorded – it is possible to use statistical models (known as ‘capture-recapture’ models) to estimate the number of animals that have been missed by the cameras, and, consequently, the total number of animals in an area. However, instead of the total number of animals (‘population abundance’), researchers often like to estimate ‘population density’ (i.e. how many animals per – for example – 100 km2). This is because population density can be easily compared across areas, habitats, and land management strategies, regardless of how big the study areas are, making it more useful for management and research. For individually identifiable species, such as those mentioned above, camera traps combined with capture-recapture models have become the standard technique employed to survey unstudied populations, and to monitor those which receive regular conservation attention. On the other hand, due to lions lacking such markings, the technique has until now been very rarely used for the species. Although alternative methods – which use the same statistical frameworks but rely on direct observations of lions – have been developed, these are less applicable to secretive and low-density lion populations in remote areas, such as those where Lion Landscapes mostly works. However, in recent years there have been considerable advances in camera trap technology, including the development of ‘white’ (xenon) flash devices, which provide very clear colour pictures, even at night (Fig. 2). Since lions have unique ‘whisker spots’ on their faces, which can also be used as a sort of biometric ID, we wanted to test whether it would be possible to identify lions at an individual level from white flash camera trap pictures, and use these data to estimate lion population density. Figure 2 A male lion photographed (‘captured’) in MBOMIPA WMA on one of our modern white-flash camera traps. In 2018 and 2019, we deployed four semi-systematic camera trap grids, each comprising between 26-40 camera ‘stations’, each spaced between 2-5 km from each other. Each station comprised two camera traps, positioned on the opposite side of a road or trail in order to photograph both flanks. As lions – much like house cats – tend to always prefer the most comfortable option, they often travel by walking along roads or well-defined animal trails. Cameras were therefore placed on trees alongside these, at about 30-50 cm height, and 3-5 m from the centre of the road or trail (Fig. 3). Figure 3 Cameras are placed on trees, facing towards the road or trail. Protective cases are used to protect the cameras from hyaena, lions, elephants, and – we were recently surprised to learn – even ground hornbills! Each camera grid covered an area of between 150 and 550 km2, and was left out between 70 and 90 days. Two grids were deployed in two different habitats within Ruaha National Park (NP) – one in the core tourist area, near the Great Ruaha River, and one in miombo woodlands. In addition, we deployed a grid in MBOMIPA Widllife Management Area (WMA), a community-run buffer area between Ruaha NP and village lands, and one in Rungwa Game Reserve (GR), a primarily miombo woodland hunting area to the north of Ruaha (Fig. 4). By covering a range of habitat and management types, we wanted to determine whether the method was suitable to a diverse range of conditions, and how density estimates between the different sites compared. Figure 4 The Ruaha-Rungwa conservation landscape (B), within the context of Tanzania’s protected area network (A). Insets 1-4: camera traps survey grids, and the main vegetation type of the area. Once the cameras were taken down and the data sorted, we had two different researchers independently identify photographs of lions for two of the grids, to determine how reliably individual lions could be identified. We used a number of features in the identification process. As mentioned above, whisker spot patterns are unique, and these were the primary means of identification. As we placed cameras at a consistent distance from the road or trial, and at consistent angles, many pictures depicted whisker spots well enough for individual identification (Fig. 5). Figure 5 Six different captures of lion from Ruaha, depicting three different individuals. Notice the distinct whisker spots, which allow the ‘matching’ of individuals from different photographs. The top and bottom row proved particularly useful. We also found scars & marks to be a very useful features. The majority of lions photographed had at least one clear scar or mark, with most having multiple (Fig. 6). While most of these signs will fade over time, they allowed us to match lions where pictures of whisker spots were not as clear. We also noted that most individuals picked up new scars and marks throughout the study period, meaning that at most times there was at least one that helped us to identify the animals. Figure 6 Two examples of scars or marks used to facilitate individual identification. This female (below) actually have several such signs (may require magnification!), which allowed us to identify her even when whisker spots were not very clear (as is the case in the last picture) Overall, for most individuals, a combination of whisker spots and scars or marks were the primary characteristics used for identification (Fig. 7). Figure 7 For most lions, a combination of whisker spots and distinctive scars or marks were used for identification In addition, a number of supplementary features were used to speed up identification. Mane size and shape was very useful for males: Fig. 8 shows all the nine male lions captured in the MBOMIPA WMA grid: as can be seen, a quick glance at the mane would allow us to immediately exclude some individuals from the identification process, considerably speeding this up. Figure 8 All male lions photographed in the MBOMIPA grid. The variation in mane size, colour, and shape greatly facilitates the process – it does not take a lion researchers to notice how different some of these lions are! Finally, knee tufts (for males) and nose size and shape (Fig. 9) also proved useful in the identification process. While these were never used independently, they helped further facilitate and expedite identification. Figure 9 Knee hair tufts (on males) and nose shape also helped us speed up identification. Notice how the two males have very similar bodies and manes; however, while one has some very well-developed knee hair tufts, the other is lacking them completely. Similarly, the two females depicted below it have very different nose shapes. Overall, our researchers found that – provided the use of white flash camera traps and consistent framing and angles of photographs – it is possible to reliably identify lions from camera trap pictures. Both researchers independently agreed on 98% of captures in one of the grids, and on 92% in the other, suggesting low levels of misidentification. Following individual identification, the data was used to successfully estimate lion population density at these four sites in the Ruaha-Rungwa landscape. These are the first spatially-explicit estimates of lion density for Tanzania, and the first overall for Ruaha-Rungwa. Lion density was found to be highest in the core tourist area of Ruaha NP, followed by MBOMIPA WMA, which comprises similarly highly-productive riparian-grassland habitat. The two miombo woodlands sites, in Ruaha NP and Rungwa GR, both exhibited intermediate lion densities (Fig. 10). Figure 10 Lion population density estimates (and associated standard errors) for the four surveyed sites in Ruaha-Rungwa. Overall, our study presents one of the first applications of a novel method that can be useful for the assessment and monitoring of lion populations. In the Discussion section of the study, we go into detail on lessons learnt and best practices, as well as the limitations of the method and potential improvements going forward. We look forward to seeing this technique employed at other sites across Africa, and we will be sure to keep sharing lion pictures with our supporters across the world! The full study can be accessed and downloaded for free Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

Since 2020, Lion Landscapes has been carrying out a large carnivore assessment across the vast Selous-Nyerere landscape in southern Tanzania, in close collaboration with Frankfurt Zoological Society, protected area management authorities TAWA and TANAPA, and the Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute. A major component of this survey effort has been a series of camera trap surveys, which involve setting up remotely-triggered camera traps for two to three months to take photos of wildlife, which we then use to estimate population density of lion, leopard, and spotted hyaena. With so many cameras deployed as part of this effort over the past two years – 236 camera pairs so far – it’s inevitable that the cameras end up capturing some interesting and unusual things. While the field site remains largely inaccessible thanks to the rains, our ecological team have been busy processing the images from the cameras deployed last year in Selous Game Reserve. During this process, they discovered multiple photos of a beautiful and unique female leopard who appears to be what’s called a “strawberry” colour morph. Rather than the usual black spots, this leopard’s spots are reddish brown in colour. The photos below show the strawberry leopard next to a normal leopard in the same position at the same camera, for comparison: And below is a side-by-side comparison of daytime photos, with the strawberry leopard on the left and a normal leopard on the right: It's thought that this unusual colouration is a result of erythrism, a genetic mutation that causes an absence of a normal dark pigment or excessive production of red pigment. This has only been recorded a handful of times in leopards: a study from India in 1993 reported five individuals with the mutation (Divyabhanusinh 1993), and it was first documented in Africa in 2012, in a male leopard in South Africa’s Madikwe Game Reserve (read more about the record in this NatGeo article). A study in 2016 collated all known records of the mutation across South Africa, which totalled seven (Pirie, Thomas & Fellowes, 2016; read more in this article about the study). More recently, another strawberry leopard was documented in 2019 in Thaba Tholo Wilderness Reserve, in South Africa’s Limpopo Province, where two of the six leopards recorded in the 2016 paper were seen (more details in this article), and a female was photographed in Rajasthan, India late last year (read more in this article). Although our team never got to see this leopard in person, the camera traps allowed us a peek into her life – which is one of the perks of doing these kinds of surveys. As our ecological team continue processing the thousands of photos taken during last year’s field season, they will be on the lookout for more interesting and unusual things! Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

Knowledge sharing and skills training is a vital part of improving capacity in conservation. There are many important conservation landscapes with passionate, dedicated staff, but because they are in remote, isolated situations, they often lack the ability to gain new training opportunities. Through our Interns, Mentors and Partners (IMPs) programme, Lion Landscapes is committed to improving reciprocal knowledge exchange in carnivore conservation. This has allowed us to engage with amazing people who are dealing with diverse conservation challenges. Recently, the Lion Landscapes team in Tanzania recently welcomed Alain Omari from the Democratic Republic of Congo to the project camp near Ruaha National Park, to provide him with training on how to carry out surveys for large carnivores. Alain is an ecologist at Upemba National Park in south-eastern DRC, working in collaboration with Forgotten Parks Foundation. Following a number of reports from their rangers of hearing lions in part of the park, Alain and his team reached out to us to request this training, and will use the new skills he learned to document whether there are lions and spotted hyaena in Upemba. In his first week with Lion Landscapes, Alain learnt all about our human-wildlife conflict mitigation activities. He joined Lion Defenders Darem and John during their tracking route, where he learnt how to recognize and differentiate the spoor (footprints) of different species of carnivores, including lion, spotted hyaena, and leopard. The Lion Landscapes Research Assistants taught him how to identify individual lions using whisker spots, which we are using to monitor Ruaha’s lions through the guide sightings programme. He also learnt how to collect data using specially-designed software that can be installed on a smartphone or tablet. In his second week with us, Alain received training in the ecological survey methods our team have been using to assess the status of different large carnivore species in the Selous-Nyerere landscape. The training began with a discussion of the best methods Alain could employ to find lions, and which methods would be most effective and feasible in his specific study site. Together, we developed a survey strategy for him to use on his return to DRC. That afternoon, Alain also underwent hands-on training on QGIS mapping, in which he learned how to visualise data collected through fieldwork, and how to produce high-quality maps for reporting. He then showcased his new skills by producing a map of Upemba showing the location of a sighting of a shoebill – a rare stork-like bird. In the evening, the team went out to carry out call-ins, which are used to attract large carnivores – particularly lion and spotted hyaena – close enough that they can be seen and documented. The team selected an open area, mounted speakers onto the roof of the vehicle, and played recordings of prey at full volume (ear plugs are recommended!). Alain clearly brought some good luck on this particular evening: the call-in brought in three lions, including two small cubs, one spotted hyaena, and even one leopard. The next day, Alain and the ecological team ventured out early to learn how to conduct spoor surveys, which involve driving at low speed along roads and recording animal tracks. Although there had been heavy rain overnight which washed away many tracks, the team nonetheless found spoor of both spotted hyaena and lion, in addition to greater kudu, impala, and bushbuck. Alain correctly identified the carnivore tracks using his training and reference materials, and learnt how to photograph tracks alongside a ruler and GPS with the track coordinates. On the same morning, Alain was taught how to place camera traps with the goal of photographing lions, and put this training into practice by setting up two cameras in the Lion Landscapes camp. Although we did not find any pictures of wildlife when checking the cameras the following morning – as we expected – we were treated to multiple photos of the camp dogs running around in front of the cameras, and the camp guard conducting his night patrols! Although it was a relatively short visit, we’re delighted that we were able to expose Alain to so many different large carnivore research methods, as well as giving him the opportunity to see lions in real life. We hope that he will be able to use the new skills and knowledge he gained through this visit to gain the first insights into lion in Upemba. From our end, we learned lots about the challenges of carnivore tracking and conservation in a completely different environment. We intend to stay in touch and continue sharing knowledge to improve the impact achieved by both of our organisations. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

On World Ranger Day, celebrated every year on 31 July, we shine a light on the Laikipia Lion Rangers, who work to protect large carnivores and the livelihoods of local pastoral people on top of their normal security duties. These dedicated individuals are invaluable in achieving landscape-scale coexistence between lions, other large carnivores and people. Lion Rangers engaging local school children We currently partner with ten conservancies and ranches across Laikipia to train and support their rangers to monitor and protect lions and other large carnivores, prevent attacks on livestock and work with communities to stop the use of poisonous pesticides in retaliatory killings. Our partner conservancies and ranches include; Borana Conservancy, Mpala, Mugie Conservancy, Ol Maisor Ranch, Sosian Ranch, Suyian Ranch, El Karama Conservancy, Lewa Wildlife Conservancy, Tumaren Ranch (Karisia Walking Safaris) and Loisaba Conservancy. Together they cover approximately 200,000Ha of Kenya's third largest lion population. Laikipia’s Lion Rangers taking part in the Wildlife Ranger Challenge An annual activity that highlights the invaluable role of Rangers is the Wildlife Ranger Challenge organised by Tusk - with the ultimate goal of raising funds to support these men and women on the front line of Africa’s protected areas. Now in its third year, the Wildlife Ranger Challenge is a 21km half marathon and the Laikipia Lion Rangers will once again participate. The run-up includes a series of mental and physical challenges consisting of a push-up and sit-up challenge and a quiz designed to prepare the rangers for the half marathon. Laikipia Lion Rangers taking part in the Wildlife Ranger Challenge physical challenges This year, 24 of the Lion Rangers from Borana Conservancy, Mpala, Mugie Conservancy, Ol Maisor Ranch, Tumaren Ranch (Karisia Walking Safaris) and Loisaba Conservancy will join over 100 ranger teams from across the African continent in the Wildlife Ranger Challenge. In 2020, Loisaba Conservancy Lion Rangers won the inaugural Wildlife Ranger Challenge while in 2021, Ol Maisor Ranch Lion Rangers came in 12th overall. This year, all teams are ecstatic and motivated to do their best in the mental and physical challenges ahead. "The race was very tough and tiring.... we tried our level best and we enjoyed the race even though one of us was injured by thorn but we made it. We thank our management for their support for being with us at the ground from the start to the end and we thank Lion Landscape as well,” stated Nicholas (Laikipia Lion Ranger from Ol Maisor Ranch). What Nicholas does not mention is that the thorn injury was sustained whilst being chased by an elephant during the race - all in a day's work for a wildlife Ranger! We need your help! As we celebrate these men and women and their valuable role in conservation, we need your help - Due to high demand, we are raising funds to expand the number of Lion Rangers trained and supported in Laikipia to include more conservancies. This will allow us to collectively support even more livestock owners to successfully coexist with lions and other large carnivores across the Laikipia landscape. You can help us to achieve this valuable goal: Donate: Make a difference and support Laikipia Lion Rangers by donating through our fundraising page. Every donation will be matched by the Scheinberg Relief Fund, doubling the impact of your contribution and supporting rangers throughout Africa. Run with Laikipia Lion Rangers: Join the race and run alongside the Laikipia Lion Rangers by registering on https://wildliferangerchallenge.org for a 5, 10, or 21km run or walk. You can also take the ranger quiz and the exercise-based challenges. Encourage your friends and family to support you in your run and raise valuable funds to make each mile even more meaningful. You can start an individual fundraising campaign to support Laikipia Lion Rangers. Laikipia Lion Rangers taking part in the Wildlife Ranger Challenge race Share your Experience: Save the following dates in your calendar and share an image or video with us on Social Media of you doing the challenges, getting ready, running or finishing the race. See how many push-ups and sit-ups you can do in under two minutes, then test your knowledge with our ranger quiz at WildlifeRangerChallenge.org. 30 August: Push-Up Challenge Week 5 September: Sit-Up and Canine Challenge Week 12 September: Quiz Week 17 September: Race Day Shop to Support: Show your support by wearing one of our official Lion Ranger t-shirts - the same design as the Laikipia Lion Rangers will be wearing for the Wildlife Ranger Challenge. See here merchandise options. Expand our Reach: Join the Challenge by following our social media pages; Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn, and sharing the event. Follow #ForWildlifeRangers to hear stories from the front line throughout the campaign. Follow #TrainLikeARanger from August to September to see if you’ve got what it takes to take to the field. However you wish to participate, we are grateful for your support of the men and women who are so valuable in helping us achieve our goals and in the conservation of our valuable landscapes. Images by Anthony Ochieng/TonyWild in collaboration with the Wildlife Ranger Challenge and supported by Natural State, the Game Rangers Association of Africa and the Scheinberg Relief Fund to raise the profile of Africa's rangers and showcase their important and diverse role in conservation. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

Lions are under serious threat, with their numbers dropping by over 40% in around 20 years. One of the main threats to them is conflict with local people, as lions and other carnivores can impose significant costs on local people, and often offer few tangible local benefits. Lion Landscapes works to facilitate human-lion coexistence by reducing the costs and increasing the benefits of large carnivore presence to people in four of the most important landscapes for lion conservation left in the world today. Here we share six of the most important factors that allow lions to coexist with people. We are sitting in our vehicle staring at a deep green bush, the mottled leaves create shadows that may or may not be something moving. Straw-coloured grass, knotted into clumps, is the dominant ground cover, making the dense patch of bush the only area of deep shade. Less than 200 yards away, a herd of cows slowly graze their way from right to left, a herder walking behind them, alternately whistling and calling to the cows, and stopping to silently watch us. He is no doubt curious as to what we are doing. I start to wonder myself; we are responding to a lion sighting report in this area and have decided on this most likely place where the lion might be but it is hot and we have been staring at this same patch of bush for a long time. Suddenly, and almost imperceptibly the shadows coalesce into the form of a lioness. Slung low to the ground and the same yellow as the grass, she materialises to watch the cows drift past for a long minute before disappearing so completely back into her thorny refuge that we are left doubting what we saw. Lioness in the bush watching Approximately half of the world’s remaining lions live in unprotected rangelands with people and livestock. Wherever there is such cohabitation, there is often tension. Lions can severely impact the livelihoods of pastoral people by killing livestock, particularly the larger and more valuable species like cattle and camels. This often leads to the retaliatory killing of lions, which poses one of the biggest threats to their conservation. Other serious threats to lions are also related directly or indirectly to people; prey and habitat loss, illegal poaching, and the list goes on. People are seemingly bad news for lions and vice versa, so what makes coexistence between our species possible? 1. Conflict is not the norm. Most interactions between lions and people are uneventful - lions normally allow people and livestock to pass without incident - in the case above, the lioness was doing something critically important to successful coexistence: she was assessing the situation and making an active decision not to hunt one of the slow-moving cows grazing past her. This is somewhat surprising considering how easy a cow would be to catch - but killing cows represents a risk to lions. Camera trap images of livestock and a lioness crossing the same place at almost the same time in the Ruaha landscape: the lioness seems to be making no attempt to attack the cows and may have waited for them to pass. 2. Fear drives behaviours that facilitate coexistence. As strange as it may seem, most lions are afraid of people most of the time. The slim man herding his cows posed no discernable threat to my eyes but lions have had hundreds of years to learn that people are dangerous. Without a healthy fear of people, lions would pull tourists out of their safari tents and ambush people venturing from their homes. They would also eat livestock - the most abundant and easy to catch prey in African rangelands - almost exclusively. But fear of people means lions attack livestock relatively rarely, and people even more rarely. Likewise, without a healthy fear of lions, people would leave their livestock to cover the landscape 24:7, whereas livestock that is tightly herded by day and confined to safe enclosures at night is not only better protected from lions and other large carnivores but also leaves space for other species to use the landscape. 3. Different activity patterns means people and lions can use the same space at different times. Lions are mostly nocturnal and people are mostly diurnal, and where they overlap this Spatio-temporal separation of activity becomes more pronounced. This means that the East African rangelands are the lionesses to use at night, and the man’s and his livestock to use during the day. Spatio-temporal separation of activities allows both people and lions to live full and active lives whilst minimising contact with the other. Lions and people walking along the same road in Kazumba Game Ranch in the Lower Luangwa Valley in Zambia 4. Lions show preference for familiar prey. If livestock is well guarded, and killing it represents a risk for lions, then lions will choose other wild prey species wherever they are available. Successfully protecting livestock from lions through good husbandry creates a positive feedback loop where livestock stays off the menu for lions, and their preference for wild prey is reinforced. A predator-proof boma which effectively protects livestock from large carnivores: our data show that fortifying enclosures in this way reduces attacks by around 90% 5. ‘Refuge’ habitat helps reduce negative interactions. The dense bush we were watching so intently acted as a refuge for the lioness, allowing her to remain undetected by people during the day. Likewise, people need a safe space to retreat to at night. Without their respective refuges, both lions and people would be at the mercy of the other during their vulnerable resting hours. 6. Successful coexistence is ultimately about value. At Lion Landscapes, we define successful coexistence as being where humans and wildlife occupy the same landscape without significant negative impacts on one another. In reality, wherever people and lions share the landscape, there will be some costs to both, but the most important key to successful coexistence is ensuring that related costs to the dominant species (humans) are outweighed by the benefits of coexistence. The benefits of conserving healthy, biodiverse ecosystems are becoming increasingly clear on a planetary level, but the very presence of the lioness, now invisible in her refuge of thorns, represents a risk to the life and livelihood of the man walking by. Ultimately, she must be sufficiently economically and/or culturally valuable to make allowing her presence a risk worth taking. Lion Landscapes and many similar organizations work to understand and amplify tangible value associated with lions and other wildlife. This could be cultural value (such as through our Lion Defenders programme or storybooks), community value (such as through our Community Camera Trapping) or economic value (such as through Lion Carbon). Crucially, any programmes should be based on local values and needs, and co-developed at all stages with local people. By considering these six factors, and putting local people's needs at the heart of conservation, we can make substantial progress towards reducing the significant threat of human-carnivore conflict and moving towards easier coexistence, which could improve the lives of both people and lions. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.

Conservation takes courage. Coming from lion conservationists, you might think we are talking about fieldwork, which certainly has its challenges. Tracking wild lions on foot, living in remote field camps with snakes and poisonous spiders, facing community anger and grief when wild animals destroy peoples’ livelihoods or, appallingly, kill their children. The emotional stresses are often greater than the physical ones, and go well beyond the risks of fieldwork. Year after year, we and our teams deal with the gritty realities of conservation – the kinds of events that make you cry in your tent at night. We deal with the aftermath of poisoned lions, snared leopards, mauled livestock, and spend countless hours developing new ways to try to deal with a staggering diversity of threats, from charcoal burning to bushmeat poaching. There are bright spots too, when we know our team has made a tangible positive impact on people and wildlife, and those should be celebrated. But make no bones about it, we are just putting our fingers in the dam, as seemingly unstoppable human pressures swamp the wonders of biodiversity. And we are not alone. Every conservationist we know, whether they are working on lichens or lions, is deeply committed, enthusiastic, and steeped in expertise and passion. They are all fighting to save biodiversity in immensely complex and challenging situations. It is surprising, then, to see how much the passion, expertise and courage of conservation scientists fades as soon as we step away from the savannahs into the far more hostile environment of social media. Moving from dealing with angry warriors armed with spears to dealing with keyboard warriors armed with emojis, we are disempowered by unwritten but seemingly immutable rules. People only want good news stories. You can’t post photos of dead animals or people will be ‘put off’. Don’t depress people. Don’t focus on nameless animals – people like to hear stories about known individuals. Keep it simple, avoid complexity and nuance - people like black and white stories, ideally with a clear ‘villain’. Don’t get into anything too contentious, or people might not like you. Don’t speak out on controversial issues or it will cause public distrust and donor abandonment. Don’t risk it. Post a cute picture of a lion cub called Lucky instead. When did we all become so scared about sharing reality? This lack of honest engagement is increasing the disconnect between public perceptions of conservation and reality. Scared into submission, conservationists dutifully highlight the birth of Lucky and her litter-mates, so people feel happy. They are dissuaded from highlighting the far-more-frequent killings of unnamed wild animals, whose very anonymity means they are critically important, as they are likely to live in less studied areas. Conservationists are often directly told not to raise important fears – such as the risk of habitat and biodiversity loss from misinformed policy – in case it alienates donors. This has very real consequences. How can we get the public, political and economic buy-in needed to properly address huge issues like lion decline, tackling key threats such as habitat loss, if no-one recognises the complexity of the topic and why it is so challenging? What donors and the wider public believe is shaped directly by what we tell them. If they think that all is well in the world of lion conservation, because we focus on showing them photos of Lucky the lion cub living happily in an apparent safe haven, we have no-one to blame but ourselves. Equally, failing to challenge overly negative ‘extinction narratives’ also does conservation a disservice. For example, campaigners have recently claimed that there are only 10,000 lions left, while there is a persistent media myth that they face extinction by 2050. In fact, latest estimates put the wild lion population (excluding those in smaller fenced areas) at around 24,000 animals, and while their numbers and range are very likely to diminish further, extinction is very unlikely as populations will remain within well-protected areas. Some will say that we shouldn’t nit-pick: lions and many other species are under major threat, so why change media narratives which highlight that (and which are likely to help generate donations)? Because facts and truth matter. They are the very foundation of scientific understanding, and we should treat them lightly at our peril. If conservationists fail to truthfully engage with the public, it will ultimately make conservation success less likely. Overly negative warnings risk public ‘extinction fatigue’, and make it harder to gain attention for truly urgent threats. Furthermore, simplistic messaging creates simplistic understanding. It creates the illusion that conservation is easy, and that anyone can do it – which is why, in the media anyone with a passing interest in wildlife seems to be termed ‘a conservationist’. It diminishes the understanding that conservation work requires many years of professional expertise to understand its complexities. People recognise that with medicine, engineering, physics and so much else, but we are failing to communicate it for conservation. This is not about bruised professional egos – simplistic understanding (or worse, misinformation) can actively intensify the conservation threats we battle against every day. It creates a swell of support for simplistic, false ‘solutions’ which risk making things worse when they meet complex realities on the ground. Current examples are campaigns to ban trophy hunting (which risk amplifying the far greater threats of habitat and biodiversity loss, as well as undermining local communities) and campaigns to end all wildlife trade (which fail to recognise the benefits of legal, sustainable trade and risk harming millions of vulnerable people). Once such campaigns have public and political traction, the voices of concerned conservationists go virtually unheard, like shouting into a storm. Instead, we need to act far sooner, by being open and honest about the realities of conservation, even if it is risky. The risks are real: from personal experience, we know that speaking out openly on complex topics such as trophy hunting risks abuse and targeted campaigns to try to discredit scientists. This is appalling, but should not stop us engaging. While some donors only want simple narratives, we have found that most people are far more resilient and open to honest and informed perspectives, even about contentious topics, than conservationists appear to give them credit for. Everyone knows that life is complicated, and that actions often risk unintended consequences. So when you explain those realities in conservation, it resonates as authentic. People trust us with their money and their passion for wildlife, and we should honour that trust by engaging with them honestly and openly. Right now, the system is not working. The realities and complexities of conservation are abundantly clear in the field, but all too often, unpalatable truths are filtered out by the media and PR lens of conservation NGOs, fearful of public and donor backlash. We must have the courage to know our expertise, and use it to shape public discourse and policy discussions. The natural world needs the passion and knowledge, openly shared, of those fighting to conserve it. The public need to know that what we do is complex, difficult and immensely challenging. Conservation deserves it. Scientists deserve it. Donors and the wider public deserve it. Long-term, even Lucky the lion cub deserves it. Stay in touch You can visit our website and keep up to date on our work and research in Africa by subscribing to our general newsletter. Join us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn for recent photos and stories from the field.