(12-06-2020, 03:50 AM)BA0701 Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 03:02 AM)Potato Wrote: " Not like there are so many that the losses in such numbers aren't detrimental to the species."

The lion population in the KNP is as healty as it can be. Moreover even one, single male without a competition can cover females even from multiple big prides so low amount of males bassicly never can be an issue. On the any dying pride or ageing male there are always few young males for which it is great opportunity. 

"Not to mention how heartbreaking it is watching them deteriorate in such a way."


You can not just think of pain of those dirrect lions, but also on consequences that helping lions brings up, like for example lifes of prey animals. Helping lion means also death sentence for a multiple species this lion would kill through his life and that is just a one of many issues helping lions would bring.  I am myself great supported of KNP's no intreferance policy. Of course it is sad to see lions we are following and getting attached to die, but unforturetly that is exactly how wildlife works. There are constantly some animals suffering and dying from various reasons like since or just being killed by another animal. The only way to cut such suffering would be to destroy wildlife and close up all the reserves, but would it be what should have been done. I definitelly do not think so. Seeing some lions in wildlife died is just rough reality we have to live with.

Are you implying that the loss of an antelope or buffalo could have the same impact the loss of a lion would have? For starters the numbers of lions is but a small fraction of the numbers of the animals they prey upon. Just as we have seen with sea lions, whitetail deer, or any countless other examples, if the shark population decreases drastically the sea lion population increases beyond the capabilities of the surrounding food sources often leading to starving animals, or if certain areas minimize or eliminate hunting of whitetail deer, the numbers of these animals increases exponentially, and such increases have been proven to be detrimental to the area's population of the species as a whole. Whereas the loss of a single male lion can quite directly lead to the loss of many cubs and even some lionesses, and given the much smaller numbers of the lions this could have a much more detrimental impact on so many others in the surrounding areas. Comparing the two is quite simply apples and oranges. The loss of a single lion is far more consequential than the prey he may take as a result of prolonging his life.

(12-06-2020, 07:45 AM)Balam Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 03:50 AM)BA0701 Wrote:

(12-06-2020, 03:02 AM)Potato Wrote: " Not like there are so many that the losses in such numbers aren't detrimental to the species."

The lion population in the KNP is as healty as it can be. Moreover even one, single male without a competition can cover females even from multiple big prides so low amount of males bassicly never can be an issue. On the any dying pride or ageing male there are always few young males for which it is great opportunity. 

"Not to mention how heartbreaking it is watching them deteriorate in such a way."


You can not just think of pain of those dirrect lions, but also on consequences that helping lions brings up, like for example lifes of prey animals. Helping lion means also death sentence for a multiple species this lion would kill through his life and that is just a one of many issues helping lions would bring.  I am myself great supported of KNP's no intreferance policy. Of course it is sad to see lions we are following and getting attached to die, but unforturetly that is exactly how wildlife works. There are constantly some animals suffering and dying from various reasons like since or just being killed by another animal. The only way to cut such suffering would be to destroy wildlife and close up all the reserves, but would it be what should have been done. I definitelly do not think so. Seeing some lions in wildlife died is just rough reality we have to live with.

Are you implying that the loss of an antelope or buffalo could have the same impact the loss of a lion would have? For starters the numbers of lions is but a small fraction of the numbers of the animals they prey upon. Just as we have seen with sea lions, whitetail deer, or any countless other examples, if the shark population decreases drastically the sea lion population increases beyond the capabilities of the surrounding food sources often leading to starving animals, or if certain areas minimize or eliminate hunting of whitetail deer, the numbers of these animals increases exponentially, and such increases have been proven to be detrimental to the area's population of the species as a whole. Whereas the loss of a single male lion can quite directly lead to the loss of many cubs and even some lionesses, and given the much smaller numbers of the lions this could have a much more detrimental impact on so many others in the surrounding areas. Comparing the two is quite simply apples and oranges. The loss of a single lion is far more consequential than the prey he may take as a result of prolonging his life.

I agree with Potato's critique about the analogy concerning white tailed deer. One of the reasons why there is such a big imbalance of prey-predator populations in North America has a lot to do with the human-caused extirpation of wolves and mountain lions in many areas where white tailed deer can be plentiful.

The argument that many hunters use to justify the culling of deer has no bearing on reality as nature has systems set in place to regulate said populations naturally. Ironically, those same arguments for culling ungulates are also used by the same hunters to justify the slaughter of cougars across North America, claiming that they are reducing the population of deer and elk, as though that wasn't their role in the ecosystem in the first place.

North America was certainly much more balance in terms of mammalian populations prior to the arrival of European settlers. Any disparity in the numbers of herbivores and carnivores across the continent is the fault of human intervention and nothing else. This same concept can be applied with Kruger and other nature reserves in Africa. As painful as it might seem, it's better sometimes to let nature take its course and balance itself out.

(12-06-2020, 02:21 AM)Tr1x24 Wrote:

(12-05-2020, 05:08 AM)BA0701 Wrote: First thing I thought of as soon as I saw the picture. Clearly there is something going on. I know that AIDS causes sores on people, not sure if it affects cats in the same way, I'm also not sure of the exact affects of TB in cats either, as it seems to affect them differently than it does people. This is all very troubling, to say the least.

Thats muscle eating TB.. As far as I understand, not all TB's are dangerous (same as cancer to humans).. This one is and occurs on back legs of lion (mosty after injury, its some kind of a trigger) and eats whole muscle to the point that even bones are visible, example of Sizanani:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Exact thing happened to Nsuku and prob Hip Scar Majingilane..

Buddy and DeLaporte Talamati prob have exact thing.. 

It seems that most males in Kruger has TB, but not all have this one which is dangerous..

(12-06-2020, 07:07 PM)Tr1x24 Wrote: Mazithi males, Kruger Sightings :

https://twitter.com/i/status/1335543986820419584

*This image is copyright of its original author

(12-05-2020, 10:44 AM)titose Wrote: Watch the next generation "Lion Kings" of the Nwaswitsontso Pride in Kruger National Park.

(12-07-2020, 01:12 AM)Gijima Wrote: Who would be the fathers of these males?