PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TQ
22 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
82
The greatest difficulty to be overcome is in reality the universal conservative objection to adopt any conspicuously new measure, and the true merits of the case are usually lost sight of on this account.
Half measures are not likely to be successful in any policy, and particularly in matters of game preservation. Game which is interfering with the interests and of private land-owners cannot be tolerated in any country, and had better progress be got rid of, but game in the unoccupied shooting grounds and game reserves should be strictly preserved, and if the lion is to be recognised as a valuable game animal, as it undoubtedly is, it is equally entitled to reasonable protection.
I consider four lions quite a generous enough allowance on a licence, and this number should satisfy any reasonable person, especially in view of the fact that any additional number may be killed on and near the occupied areas without any licence. Sportsmen who wish to kill large numbers of lions for the purpose of making records should be discouraged, and not encouraged, unless they kill these lions in the districts in which they are a source of danger and annoyance to farmers.
The proposal to prohibit the hunting, killing, or capturing of lions under a traveller's licence may appear unnecessary, but it is not so, for the following reasons, and is an essential condition of the measure.
The traveller's licence was originally created to meet what was felt to be a need in cases where persons were bonâ fide travellers, and had not come to the Protec- torate for big game shooting. It was supposed that such persons were in search of farms or employment or were making a tour of the country with a view to eventually becoming settlers in some capacity, or that they were perhaps genuine sightseers or scientists, and not sportsmen." It was felt that although they might not wish to hunt game, they might, however, require to kill a certain amount for purposes of The idea was a reasonable and considerate one, but, like other concessions and privileges, in actual practice the spirit, and not unfrequently the letter, of the law has been greatly abused.
food.
6.
The facility for obtaining large bags of game on one or more traveller's licences which are allowed under Section 20 of the Game Ordinance, and the practical impossibility of preventing a certain amount of illegal shooting on Crown lands, have led to the traveller's licence being extensively used by visiting sportsmen and residents, and this has directly robbed the revenue of the Protectorate of at least £3,000 annually.
With special regard to lions, any person, by taking out two or three traveller's licences, can spend two or three months hunting lions in any part of the Protectorate, It is not the and a considerable number of lions are annually killed in this way. case that a traveller's licence is necessary to kill lions, for no licence at all is needed at present to kill lions, but some meat is necessary for the journey, and the nine animals allowed on Crown land under the traveller's licence supplies this need, and a few extra zebra or hartebeest cannot easily be detected, and for this reason it is necessary to prohibit the shooting of lions on a traveller's licence in the protected
areas.
The more valuable and rarer animals are not allowed to be killed on Crown land on a traveller's licence, and lions should certainly be included in this category. There is no hardship at all entailed in the prohibition. The traveller's licence will still enable the holder to have a cheap shoot on private land and within the 20-mile zone, and on private land to shoot as many lions as he can find, but it will prevent lions in the valuable shooting grounds being killed without proper payment, and will
No
who sets out with the sole person consequently add considerably to the revenues. object of hunting game or lions with a traveller's licence is a bona fide traveller in the sense in which the licence was framed, and in my opinion no visiting sportsman should be able to enter the shooting grounds unless he is the holder of the £50 sports- man's licence. The unoccupied shooting grounds of this Protectorate will become more valuable as time goes on if properly protected, and should be looked upon as game "preserves" as opposed to game
"in which no shooting is allowed. With regard to 20-mile zone around private land, and the five-mile zone of the railway line, as suggested, I believe it will be found quite sufficient; lions do, of course, travel about to some extent, but as the game gradually disappears from the occupied areas, as it inevitably must, there will be less likelihood of lions straying into the occupied areas. There is no intention of making absurd quibbles over such a question as to whether a lion is killed a mile or so beyond the 20-mile limit, and I do not think any serious objection can be raised on this point. As a matter of fact,
}
1
reserves
83
with the exception of farms in the neighbourhood of the Southern Game Reserve, there are few farmers, if any, in this Protectorate who have suffered from the depredations of lions which have come from a greater distance than 20 miles.
The other alternative to the 20-mile zone would be to state definitely the boundaries of those areas in which lions may only be shot on a sportsman's or resident's licence. However, this appears to me to be a far more complicated and difficult method. The 20-mile limit will not, in any way, prevent lions being killed on the farms and in their neighbourhoods, while it excludes the gluttonous sports- men from killing large numbers of lions in the valuable shooting grounds, and will thus prevent the gradual extermination of the lions in these areas.
It may perhaps be held that some of the areas in which it is proposed to prevent the extermination of lions are occupied by natives, and that even the partial protec- tion of lions in these areas, is consequently unjustifiable. There is no doubt that a strong case could be made out against the protection of lions on these grounds, but it would not in reality be a sound or practical argument. The natives have always existed successfully with the lions both before and since the advent of the white man, and the occasional cases of native stock being killed by lions are accepted in the ordinary course of events, and are in no way considered to be the fault of the white man, but are considered to be the ordinary conditions of everyday life. In the present proposals there is no suggestion to make these conditions worse, but only to leave them as they are, for large numbers of lions will still continue to be killed by sportsmen, and the pastoral tribes will still be at liberty to kill lions in defence of their cattle, as they have always done under Section 36.
If it is not justifiable to allow these conditions as to lions and natives to remain as they are at present, then it follows as an obvious corollary that it is incumbent upon Government to set to at once and exterminate all lions in the native reserves, which is certainly unnecessary.
I must point out that, in the preservation of such animals as elephants, rhinoce- roses and lions, unless the necessary measures are taken in good time nothing can be achieved. Once the numbers of such animals have been reduced below a certain point it is too late to endeavour to protect them and their complete extermination in the districts concerned is then only a matter of time.
If, therefore, it is desired to prevent the extermination or serious depletion of lions in the shooting grounds steps must be taken at once.
With regard to the cheetah, the arguments which have been put forward in favour of the protection of lions in certain districts are equally or more applicable in the case of the cheetah. It is an interesting and beautiful animal; they are probably less numerous than lions, and far less destructive to domestic stock. The cheetah is so easily ridden down and killed, and is so little able to defend itself, that it certainly cannot be termed a dangerous wild animal, and its extermination would be a matter of great regret. I have, therefore, proposed giving it similar protection to the lion, except that I consider that only two should be allowed on a licence.
In conclusion, I must point out that if this amendment for the protection of lions is passed it will have absolutely no effect, except a beneficial one, upon farmers and landholders. No difference will be noticed; no one will even be aware that it has been passed, except that it will hasten the extermination of lions in the occupied areas and neighbouring districts.
may
be
It will also have little effect upon the majority of visiting sportsmen. It is quite the exception for sportsmen to obtain more than four lions, or to have the opportunity of shooting more than four. Besides, this limitation to four only refers to certain protected areas, outside which and on private land
any number killed.
The only people who will be practically affected by the measure will be those sportsmen who may be said to almost specialise in lion hunting and hunt lions only, and who wish to kill large numbers of lions with the object of breaking records, or for any other reason.
It is at such persons that the present amendment is aimed, and the restriction which it will place upon lions in certain areas is, I maintain, a necessary and justifiable one.
R. B. WOOSNAM,
Game Warden.
334H9
f 1
32986
84