WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Terrestrial Wild Animals
›
Wild Cats
›
Lion
Coalitions of Kruger National Park
Coalitions of Kruger National Park
|
Coalitions of Kruger National Park
|
Berg en Dal, Nov 2018
Credit: Our Life in Kruger  *This image is copyright of its original author
Watch the next generation "Lion Kings" of the Nwaswitsontso Pride in Kruger National Park.
Singita KNP update
The three Mopani males on the move at Letaba in the H14
Image credits: Kobus of Beer  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
 *This image is copyright of its original author Beautiful male lion photographed today near Lower Sabie in the Kruger National Park One of the two SLS/Tshokwane males Photo credits: Ruan Minnaar KNP-Lower Sabie-12.05.20  (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, 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. I wish they were able to inoculate these animals. Not like there are so many that the losses in such numbers aren't detrimental to the species. Not to mention how heartbreaking it is watching them deteriorate in such a way.
" 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. (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." 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, 03:02 AM)Potato Wrote: 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. Agree with @Potato on this one.. Its sad to see lions die of disease's and injuries.. But thats balance of nature... Saving lions in Kruger would prob trigger effect of lack of prey for them in long run, which would mean more compatitions, starving and dying of lions.. Overpopulation of lions is not good because of that.. I think Mara has problem with that.. Too many lions in that area, young males cant get an chance, they get ousted from that area and roam into villages where they get killed by locals in search for prey.. Kruger is fine as it is.. (12-06-2020, 03:50 AM)BA0701 Wrote: 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. Male lion will always get replaced by others.. And even if his cubs will get killed, new coalition will sire new ones.. Thats how it is.. Just look how many lions Majingilanes killed, but they sired more. (12-06-2020, 03:59 AM)Tr1x24 Wrote:(12-06-2020, 03:50 AM)BA0701 Wrote: 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 would also add to this that: 1. Gene poll gets better when new males switch old ones as a rulers of the pride. I fact he very rarely can see inbreading in lions prides in Kruger. 2. In the long run younger males have better chance to live long enoght to carry protection for his cubs all thir way to adulthood. 3. Argument of a lost of single male leading to loss of many cubs works also in opposite way as this saved lion can kill cubs of other male from other pride. (12-06-2020, 03:59 AM)Tr1x24 Wrote:(12-06-2020, 03:50 AM)BA0701 Wrote: 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. Using that example, the Majingilanes, and since we have not heard specific numbers claimed as we have with the 100 reportedly killed by the Mapogos, the Mapogos absolutely did not sire 100 cubs, and I somehow doubt that the Majingilanes "History's most brutal killers" sired more cubs than the numbers they killed as well. I was simply stating my personal desires, no more than so many others have recently stated in regards to the wish that someone had intervened with Junior. People are free to their own opinions, and if those opinions differ from mine that is perfectly fine and acceptable. However, to imply that the act of prolonging a lion's life will have the same negative impact on prey species, that the death of said lion will have on the lion population is simply not true. In fact, the deaths of too many lions will have a greater negative impact on prey species due to the increase in those populations and the inability for the surrounding lands to maintain proper levels of food sources for them. That has been shown to lead to starvation and disease. The effects of a lions death reverberates through the surrounding areas, and to the lion population in general, whereas the death of an antelope or buffalo is not nearly as consequential to that species as a whole. To desire nature to carry on as it always has with no human involvement, is a perfectly acceptable and justifiable opinion to have, but to use the negligible impact that prolonging that lions life on the surrounding prey species is off the mark in my opinion. (12-06-2020, 04:17 AM)Potato Wrote:(12-06-2020, 03:59 AM)Tr1x24 Wrote:(12-06-2020, 03:50 AM)BA0701 Wrote: 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. Good point
"Are you implying that the loss of an antelope or buffalo could have the same impact the loss of a lion would have"
I am implying that other animals suffer, feel pain the same way lions do and I do not see reason why should I feel more compassion for the suffering lion than a suffering buffalo. What is the logic behind supporting lions and no any other animals? " 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." That is exactly why we should leave nature to balance it self. Nature was balancing itself perfectly for a milions of years before humans appeared and will do perfectly fine in that regard without human. Human interventions can just broke it. "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." Well... Kruger has already quite long history and you can see how the lion population is doing under it policy and that is perfectly healty. "Using that example, the Majingilanes, and since we have not heard specific numbers claimed as we have with the 100 reportedly killed by the Mapogos, the Mapogos absolutely did not sire 100 cubs" I do not understand what has that got to do with Kruger's policy. Such big, overpowered coalitions, killing what gets in their way will appear here and there from time to time no matter what policy Kruger would use. " and I somehow doubt that the Majingilanes "History's most brutal killers" sired more cubs than the numbers they killed as well. " I think they did. They did not killed that much cubs and sired cubs in 7 different prides. "However, to imply that the act of prolonging a lion's life will have the same negative impact on prey species, that the death of said lion will have on the lion population is simply not true. In fact, the deaths of too many lions will have a greater negative impact on prey species due to the increase in those populations and the inability for the surrounding lands to maintain proper levels of food sources for them. That has been shown to lead to starvation and disease. The effects of a lions death reverberates through the surrounding areas, and to the lion population in general, whereas the death of an antelope or buffalo is not nearly as consequential to that species as a whole." Through Magopo era 60% of lion population in Sabi Sands disappeared and what came out of it? Nature will balance itself perfectly fine and human involvement can only cause problems. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 8 Guest(s) |