Hernandez-Bachen 1

Why Maasai Kill Lions in East Africa: An Analysis of Motivation and Impact

Pedro Hernandez-Bachen

Sophomore College: 2014

“Parks and Peoples: Dilemmas of Protected Area Conservation in East Africa”

Professors Susan Charnley

and William Durham

Hernandez-Bachen 2

Abstract

This paper investigates the differing motivations and interacting causal mechanisms that

affect and lead to (some of) the Maasai people killing lions in East Africa, specifically Tanzania

and Kenya. While the Maasai are not the only ones killing lions in this region, they have become

a flashpoint of debate for conservation, because of the interplay between conserving lions and

allowing for the continued survival of Maasai traditions and lifestyles, some of which directly or

indirectly lead to lion-killing. Through the testing of two hypotheses regarding lion killing, this

paper examines both the scope of lion actions that might incite retaliatory killing as well as the

various reasons Maasai might have to kill lions. Lastly, it acknowledges the weaknesses in the

available data set and proposes some further steps that could be taken to deepen Western

understanding of this complex issue.

Introduction

Lions have long held a unique and revered position among African wildlife for humans,

and given their status as the apex predator in the savanna ecosystems, the recognition is well

deserved. Though the common descriptor of the lion as “king of the jungle” is a misnomer, given

that lions primarily live and hunt in savannah ecosystems, their status as a keystone species gives

them significant ecological value. Further, the human fascination with the grace and raw physical

force of lions, especially when hunting, has created significant efforts from conservationists to

preserve existing lion populations and even increase the lion population throughout Africa.

Hernandez-Bachen 3

Currently, lions face a few different human-based threats to their lives and ability to

thrive in the ecosystems they inhabit. First, human poaching of lions provides a constant threat to

their survival. Second, trophy hunting has been adopted as a means of revenue generation for

governments, conservation efforts, national parks, and anti-poaching measures; in fact, 23 sub-

Saharan African nations have legalized trophy hunting and generated approximately USD $201

million in revenue from around 18,500 hunting expeditions per year (Lindsey et al 2006: 457).

Third, lions face threats on their life from the local human populations, who have interpreted

their right to self-defense of their own lives and property (especially livestock) as a warrant to

kill lions. Additionally, some indigenous peoples have various cultural traditions and practices

that can involve killing lions, and in some cases, killing lions can even elevate one’s social status

within a group, tribe, or people. Clearly, threats to lion survival are manifold and varied; this

complex interplay between conservation goals and humans who have various incentives to kill

lions offers an intriguing base for research and conservation solutions that try to incorporate both

survival of lions and protection of human traditions and livelihood.

To understand the scope and importance of lion conservation efforts, it is necessary to

examine the population of lions in Africa, and, to the extent available, the specific population

sizes in East Africa. Fortunately, Bauer and Van Der Merwe surveyed 30 lion researchers across

Africa in 2005 to get their varied and comparative estimates of lion populations in the regions or

subgroups they specialized in. The most complete data set they could assemble from those 30

Hernandez-Bachen 4

researchers was for the 2001/2002 set of years, and the relevant data points are summarized in

Table 1, below (Bauer and Van Der Merwe 2005: 28-30).

Table 1

Region Africa East Africa Tanzania Serengeti

(ecosystem)

Population

Estimate

23,000 11,000 6,075 2,500

This data provides some relevant context for assessing the scope and urgency of lion

conservation, as well as preliminarily assessing where humans and lions might interact and

experience conflict. Riggio led a team of researchers in 2013 to try to update the lion population

estimates, and came up with a more optimistic projection of lion populations, though one that

still exemplifies the urgent need for conservation efforts. They estimated the current African lion

population at 32,000 individuals, and used a more liberal approach when combining specific data

from other researchers with their estimates of populations in areas where less specific data could

be found (Riggio et al 2013: 27). Regardless of the potential for a small population rebound of

lions in the almost 10 years between Bauer and Van Der Merwe’s study and that of Riggio and

his colleagues, it is clear that the population of African lions is quite low. In fact, according to

the International Union for Conservation of Nature, they qualify as a “Vulnerable Species,”

which is a threshold applied to species who are severely threatened by changing ecosystem

factors and human action, and is only one step above the “Endangered Species” classification

(The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2014.2 2014). The population estimates

gathered by Bauer and Van Der Merwe and the work done by the IUCN both indicate that the

lion populations in Africa are in a tenuous position in the near- and long-term.

Hernandez-Bachen 5

Background

This paper will focus specifically on the human-animal interactions between the Maasai

people, who primarily inhabit northern Tanzania and southern Kenya, and the lions that range in

those areas and ecosystems. The lion population estimates from Bauer and Van Der Merwe

provide a glimpse into how human-animal interaction could be problematized in Tanzania and

Kenya. With 2,500 lions ranging in the Serengeti ecosystem and increasing numbers of Maasai

settlements around and even in Serengeti National Park (Daniel Rosengren 2014: Pers.

Interview), the likelihood of lions interacting negatively with humans via attacks or intrusions

into settlements is increasing steadily. The pastoral lifestyle many Maasai adapt, with an

emphasis on livestock grazing and mobility, perhaps predisposes them to interactions with lions,

since lions have wide ranges that they hunt in and protect. When Maasai settle within a lion

range, a lion is likely to kill cattle, sheep, or goats if they encounter them, since these livestock

are less able to run or defend themselves compared to wildebeest and other non-domesticated

prey that lions encounter when hunting. When lions kill livestock or otherwise damage Maasai

property or livelihoods, lethal retaliation on the lions is a serious possibility, which escalates the

Hernandez-Bachen 6

level of conflict to a consistent threat. The strong negative emotional response to the mere

presence of lions in Maasai-occupied lands has created a culture in which retaliatory killing of

lions is not stigmatized and in fact can be seen as a just response given the harm caused by lions

to the Maasai.

Additionally, the Maasai culture includes rituals and value systems that can encourage

and even celebrate the killing of lions. In the book The Last Maasai Warriors, readers hear

firsthand about the Maasai coming of age ceremony from Wilson and Jackson, two Maasai

young men. This ceremony involves intense physical and spiritual preparation, culminating in

the one-on-one face-off between the young Maasai man and a lion in which the Maasai man has

to kill the lion with his spear or be killed (Meikuaya and Ntirkana 2013: 106). The status of this

tradition in Maasai culture is in some degree of flux as new generations decide whether to

continue with this particular ceremony, but it still exists and poses a threat to lion populations

(Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview). The difference in priorities between the Maasai, who are

focused on subsistence and survival, and conservationists, who value the protection of lion

populations, creates a conservation conundrum.

Hypotheses

In order to explore the impact of lions on Maasai livelihood in the context of retaliatory

killing as well as the other complex social and survival factors that might drive Maasai to kill

lions, I propose two hypotheses. First, lions do not cause harm to Maasai livestock

commensurate to their perceived detriment to overall livestock populations and livelihoods.

Second, Maasai have many motivations for killing lions that extend far beyond retaliatory

killing and into the social and cultural spheres of their lives.

Hernandez-Bachen 7

Findings

In order to test Hypothesis 1, it is necessary to explore the data around livestock

predation in the region as a whole, and examine those figures to assess the impact of lions on

Maasai livelihoods. A few different researchers have conducted case studies of certain regions in

northern Tanzania and southern Kenya to provide some relevant data towards this end. Kissui

focused his study on the Maasai steppe region in Tanzania, comprising Tarangire and Lake

Manyara national parks and the related migratory pathways in the ecosystem (Kissui 2008: 423).

His data revealed that lions caused just 25% (99 of 396) of livestock deaths reported in 15

villages in the Maasai steppe from January 2004-July 2005 (Kissui 2008: 426). The interesting

nuance to this observation was that lions were particularly prone to attacking cattle as compared

to sheep, goats, and other livestock; in fact, lions were responsible for 87% (58 of 67) of reported

cattle attacks (Kissui 2008: 427). This disparity between a relatively low percentage of overall

livestock attacks and a high percentage of attacks on cattle will be analyzed later in this paper.

Fitzherbert and his colleagues also conducted a study on the incidence levels of lion

depredation of livestock in the Mpimbwe region (near Kilimanjaro) in order to explore a

potential causal association between livestock deaths and lion depredation. They found that only

two of 187 “livestock-keeping households… reported having lost any livestock to lions (a total

of 5 livestock) in the preceding 12 months (2009-2010)” (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 88). This data

perhaps represents the lower bound of livestock depredation by lions, since it would suggest that

just 1% of households have livestock killed by lions, but does continue to support the idea that

lions are responsible for a very small portion of livestock deaths by predatory wild animals.

Maclellan and his colleagues studied these same issues in the Mbirikani Group Ranch, an

area in southern Kenya’s Amboseli-Tsavo ecosystem. They found just 7% of livestock deaths

Hernandez-Bachen 8

from 2004-2006 were caused by lions, of the deaths reported to authorities and independently

verified in their research (Maclellan et al 2009: 2422). These areas all have their own unique

ecological and ecosystem factors that could influence the incidence rate of depredation of

livestock by lions, but together, the data from these three studies paint a fairly representative

sample of the northern Tanzanian/southern Kenyan region.

Discerning the various motivations the Maasai have for killing lions requires a more

qualitative approach, and as such the research used to test Hypothesis 2 employs a more human-

centered approach. In conservation literature, the most common cause associated with Maasai

lion killing is retaliation for some form of injury, usually the death of livestock (Ikanda and

Packer 2008: 67). While this cause is still a major factor—Ikanda and Packer interviewed Maasai

elders around the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and reported 81 organized lion hunts (Ikanda

and Packer 2008: 71)—researchers have uncovered other motivations for Maasai lion hunts.

One of the most notable causes of Maasai lion killing is their ceremony that signifies an

entry to manhood and full status as a warrior, known as Olamayio (Hazzah et al 2009: 2429).

This ritual is significant because it is the last step in a Maasai young man’s journey to becoming

a respected adult in the community, and the associated honor of killing a lion provides significant

incentive for organized lion hunts (Hazzah et al 2009: 2429). A study of lion populations in

Kenyan Maasailand revealed that, in Kenya at least, “Young warriors who engage in traditional

lion killing do not face significant consequences because of lax law enforcement and judicial

corruption” (Frank et al 2006: 1). The implications of this lack of disincentive to kill lions, either

through legal or cultural changes, are stark: if no changes happen soon, Frank and his colleagues

believe that “the entire population [of Maasailand lions in Kenya] may disappear within a very

few years” (Frank et al 2006: 2). Clearly, ritual killing of lions continues to be a significant

Hernandez-Bachen 9

factor in the Maasai decision calculus as relating to lion killings, even though it was officially

made illegal in Tanzania in the 1970s (Ikanda and Packer 2008: 67).

A third, new motivation for killing lions has begun taking root in northern Tanzania as

well. While both ceremonial and retaliatory killings of lions fulfill specific purposes in Maasai

households and society, preemptive killings were, until recently, almost nonexistent. However, a

new, more offensive tactic has emerged in dealing with lions—men have begun killing lions,

wearing their coats and heads as symbols of honor and prowess, and most intriguingly, travelling

to different communities and demanding compensation for the so-called public service they are

providing (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 84). In addition to the inherent aggressive nature of such

actions, Fitzherbert’s study revealed, “men now venture far from the livestock herding areas

(often into protected areas) to kill lions that pose no direct risk to their and their neighbours’

stock” (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 85). This process is fueled by the cultural practice of “rewarding

lion killers who are believed to have rid the area of dangerous predators,” despite the fact that the

areas in which hunters go to kill lions have a “virtual absence of lion predation on livestock and

people” (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 85). They found that “The proportion of households visited by a

dancer [someone who actively kills lions and seeks rewards from community members] has been

rising steadily” in recent years, though only ~1% of households had actually experienced

livestock depredation in the 12 months prior to the interview (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 88). In the

214 households surveyed, respondents “widely perceived and acknowledged” a change in

motivation from “avenging” damage caused by lions to “hunting” lions to preempt future threats

and receive financial rewards and increased social status (Fitzherbert et al 2014: 90). This new,

aggressive strategy of dealing with lions is a dramatic departure from previous human-lion

Hernandez-Bachen 10

interactions and poses a significant hurdle for bridging human and conservation priorities in the

future.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In review, the two hypotheses proposed in this paper are: 1) that lions do not actually

cause significant harm to Maasai livestock populations and 2) that Maasai motivations for killing

lions have expanded far beyond simple retaliation to include social and cultural benefits.

Reviewing the first hypothesis in light of the quantitative data provided by the studies conducted

by Kissui, Fitzherbert et al, and Maclellan et al, it is clear that lions do not kill large quantities of

livestock. Thus, I believe that the data support my first hypothesis. The range of data provided

from these three studies suggests that at most, lions are responsible for 25% of livestock killed

by wild carnivores, and the overall trend suggests a very small real impact on livestock

populations. The complicating factor to these conclusions is that, as mentioned in Kissui’s paper,

lions are disproportionately responsible for the deaths of cattle, which Maclellan et al found to be

worth almost $200 per head, as compared to ~$25 for each sheep or goat (Maclellan et al 2009:

2421). This disparity in both market value and subsistence value (cattle can provide milk, blood,

and eventually, meat for a family) perhaps is one reason why cattle are valued so highly in

Maasai culture and could partially explain why lions are targeted for retaliatory killings.

Though the data are more qualitative in nature, I believe that the research does also

support the hypothesis that Maasai have motivations that extend far beyond retaliation and that

perceived social and cultural benefits from killing lions have become significant, if not dominant

factors in deciding whether and why to kill a lion. In particular, the embrace of preemptive lion

kills in order to protect against real or imagined threats to one’s livelihood as well as in the hope

of receiving financial compensation could suggest a change in the Maasai approach to their

Hernandez-Bachen 11

interactions with wildlife and conservation goals alike. After decades of getting pushed out of

lands that they had settled to make way for national parks and other conservation efforts, the

Maasai may be shifting their priorities away from adaptation to the circumstances of life and

towards shaping a life and livelihood that ensures them the ability to at least survive, and perhaps

even thrive.

Despite the increasing difficulty of balancing conservation efforts and protecting the

rights and livelihoods of local people, some efforts have been explored that try to bridge this

tenuous gap. While at Kirurumu Tented Lodge in the Lake Manyara area, we visited an Iraqw

village with a Maasai guide named Sayanga. When asked about his perception of interactions

between Maasai and lions, he indicated that an incentive-based program being piloted in the

Ngorongoro and Tarangire regions was improving relationships and communication between the

Maasai and conservationists (Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview). Sayanga also noted that the Maasai

are being compensated equally for livestock losses, regardless of which predatory animal causes

the death of the livestock, so long as there is a good dialogue with the police officers who

administer the compensation program such that proof of kills are verified and trust is built up

(Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview). Sayanga could not offer any estimates as to whether the

incentive-based conservation program was in fact deterring Maasai from killing lions in

retaliation for livestock kills, but suggested that at least among the tribes he was familiar with,

there was less of an emphasis on retaliatory killing than existed prior to the introduction of the

compensatory system (Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview).

Fortunately, Maclellan and Hazzah have both published papers evaluating the efficacy of

incentive-based conservation in different regions in southern Kenya. In both of the regions

studied, with populations of 14 and 12 lions respectively, they found that the average expenditure

Hernandez-Bachen 12

per lion came out to approximately $7,000 (Maclellan et al 2009: 2424; Hazzah et al 2009:

2434). Despite these significant per-lion expenditures, neither Maclellan nor Hazzah reported the

locals having significant approval of these types of programs. In fact, though most people (88%)

received compensation for their livestock losses, “only about half of those compensated

approved of the program” (Hazzah et al 2009: 2436). This suggests that incentive-based

conservation programs face an uphill battle to convince local people that receiving market value

cash compensation for their livestock losses is sufficient and just reward for the inconvenience

and harm caused to their livelihood and productivity.

As noted at the beginning of this paper, the Western world places a heavy emphasis on

the conservation of lions. With that in mind, it would follow that scientists, governments, and

other interested parties would try various conservation schemes to reduce human-lion conflict.

However, this logical assumption is not founded in reality; the only conservation efforts that

have directly worked with local people to try to minimize the killing of lions are these monetary

compensation programs. While these have all been introduced relatively recently and more study

is necessary to determine conclusively whether they might have a place in the conservation

landscape for lion populations going forward, I would strongly encourage researchers to shift

away from a strictly transactional approach towards evaluating pastoral livelihoods. Sayanga told

our group that the Maasai had begun changing their own coming-of-age ceremonies to focus less

on the physical killing of the lion and more on the values which that process instilled in young

warriors—perseverance, spirituality, and bravery (Sayanga 2014: Pers. Interview).

Additionally, the lack of conclusive or in-depth data suggest a significant set of

differences between local peoples in East Africa and the researchers investigating conservation

issues. These boil down to two fundamental tenets: first, the Maasai have no incentive to be

Hernandez-Bachen 13

honest with outsiders regarding their lion kills, because Western conservation efforts in the 20th

century completely steamrolled their lives and rights; second, there is an inequality in both

research and motivation between the Western world and Africa, where these conservation issues

are playing out in real life, since most Africans lack access to the levels of higher education

necessary to conduct scientific research on conservation topics. Both of these research gaps must

be filled in order for conservation in Africa to work for both people and wildlife in the long term.

Lastly, at some point, conservationists and scientists must evaluate the ethical

implications of lion conservation. Currently, there is a tenuous balance between allowing

existing Maasai cultural practices to continue, even when they involve killing lions, and trying to

protect and grow lion populations once more. In the near future, politicians, scientists, and

conservationists may have to decide whether to prioritize conserving lions as a species or

protecting the native cultures in Africa, and the decision regarding the potential “reform” of

Maasai culture in order to change the value placed on killing lions will be fascinating to watch

unfold.

The state of lions in Africa is perhaps more fragile than ever, with local populations

beginning to actively protect their livelihoods by killing lions and ever-increasing attention from

conservationists on preserving this species and its habitats. The future of lions and the native

peoples of Africa lie in the seemingly inevitable decision of whether to prioritize the lives of

animals or the lives of people, and that choice will have implications in Africa and throughout

the whole world.

Acknowledgments

There are countless people who have made this research and experience possible. I would like to

thank Professors William Durham and Susan Charnley for their invaluable experience, in

Hernandez-Bachen 14

research, discussion, and teaching, as well as being fantastic personal resources for my

classmates and me over the course of the whole Sophomore College experience. I would like to

thank our fantastic Sophomore College Assistants, Clementine Jacoby and Eric Mattson, for their

invaluable assistance in developing and refining my research project, in addition to their valuable

perspectives on Stanford and young-adult life. I would like to thank the Stanford Travel/Study

and Anne Gould for organizing the entire study trip to Tanzania, which provided me with some

of the most incredible memories and personal experiences I could have ever imagined. This

project has enlightened and challenged me academically and personally, and everyone who made

this possible has my sincerest thanks for their role in my continued growth as a scholar and as a

person.

Hernandez-Bachen 15

Bibliography

Bauer, H. and Van Der Merwe, S. (2004) 'Inventory of free-ranging lions Panthera leo in

Africa', Oryx, 38(1), pp. 26-31.

Fitzherbert, E., Caro, T., Johnson, P., Macdonald, D. and Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2014) 'From

avengers to hunters: Leveraging collective action for the conservation of endangered

lions', Biological Conservation, 174, pp. 84-92.

Frank, L., Maclellan, S., Hazzah, L., Bonham, R. and Hill, T. (2006) Lion Killing in the

Amboseli -Tsavo Ecosystem, 2001-2006, and its Implications for Kenya’s Lion

Population, Kenya: Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project.

Hazzah, L., Borgerhoff Mulder, M. and Frank, L. (2009) 'Lions and Warriors: Social factors

underlying declining African lion populations and the effect of incentive-based

management in Kenya', Biological Conservation, 142, pp. 2428-2437.

Ikanda, D. and Packer, C. (2008) 'Ritual vs. retaliatory killing of African lions in the Ngorongoro

Conservation Area, Tanzania', Endangered Species Research, 6, pp. 67-74.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. (2014). [online] Available at:

http://iucnredlist.org [Accessed 4 Oct. 2014].

Kissui, B. (2008) 'Livestock predation by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas, and their vulnerability

to retaliatory killing in the Maasai steppe, Tanzania', Animal Conservation,11, pp. 422-

432.

Maclellan, S., Groom, R., Macdonald, D. and Frank, L. (2009) 'Evaluation of a compensation

scheme to bring about pastoralist tolerance of lions', Biological Conservation, 142, pp.

2419-2427.

Hernandez-Bachen 16

Meikuaya, W., and Ntirkana, J. (2013) The Last Maasai Warriors: an Autobiography, Toronto,

Canada: Me to We.

Riggio, J., Jacobson, A., Dollar, L., Bauer, H., Becker, M., Dickman, A., Funston, P., Groom, R.,

Henschel, P., de Iongh, H., Lichtenfeld, L. and Pimm, S. (2013) 'The size of savannah

Africa: a lion's (Panthera leo) view', Biodiversity Conservation, 22, pp. 17-35.