Support WildlifeDirect:
buy branded merchandise

The Maasai are NOT poisoning lions in the Mara Triangle

Category: In the News, Maasai Community | Date: Jun 27 2008 | By: William

After being in Nairobi and listening to the BBC piece on animal poisonings in Kenya I must say that I’m more than disappointed on the way that the story was reported.

First, let me say, that there is not one false fact within the piece, however there is a combination of stories that when woven together create a false impression of the local Maasai and their involvement of the poisoning of lions here in the Mara Triangle.

The overall story presented by the BBC was that pastoralists in Kenya are using carbofuran to poison wildlife in Kenya, and within that story the Mara Triangle is used for ‘human interest’ as lions were poisoned here recently, and because they were also able to talk to pastoralists who live along the Northern border of the park.

Yet the two are entirely unrelated. We have absolutely no evidence that incriminates or even suggests that local people were responsible for the poisoning of the lions.

There is a single disclaimer in the BBC piece which says that the use of poison in the Mara Triangle was through ‘accidental misuse of the poison’, but this does not make it clear that it was not the Maasai. I spoke to Adam Mynott on the phone yesterday and he argued that at the end of the piece they did interview a chap up on the escarpment who made it clear that he would not use poison to kill a lion, and so removing from the story any accusation towards the local population of the Mara:

On the edge of the Maasai Mara a young herdsman, Ndigwa, said he lost many cows every year to lions and leopards, but he said he would never resort to poison to take revenge on the predators.

Others do not hesitate.

Quoted from BBC website.

I tend to disagree with Adam. Who is implied by this vague ‘others’? There is a big difference in other Maasai of the same village, or just other pastoralists in Kenya.

The article is not inaccurate in its facts, but it is padded with generalities that associate local pastoralists of the Mara and the lion poisonings in the Mara Triangle. Especially when the piece is introduced as “Why are lions and leopards being deliberately poisoned in Kenya? From the Masai Mara game reserve, Adam Mynott reports..” 

It would take a discerning viewer or listener to disassociate the two stories from the tiny disclaimer that the poisoning was because of ‘accidental misuse.’ Here is the reaction by one of the commenters over at the Stop Wildlife Poisoning Blog:

“The report also included footage of lions close to death due to ingestion of this chemical, it was utterly sickening. It also interviewed a Masai farmer, but he obviously denied ever using or knowing of such a thing as Carbofuran. I’m disgusted, I truly am.” (emphasis mine)

I am worried about how this will affect the relationship between the Mara Conservancy and the local Maasai, who have not only been hospitable and open with all of the journalists who have visited the Triangle, but they have also been mostly patient throughout this crisis and, despite there not currently being a cattle compensation scheme in place, no predators have been killed in their area.

The story is about the poisoning of wildlife in Kenya as a whole and refers to many incidences of poisoning, and it is likely that in most of these other cases poison was used deliberately by pastoralists to kill animals. However, what do those people who live next to the park have to do with this apart from the fact that they are also pastoralists? Pastoralists who have suffered the problems associated with living among predators, and yet have worked with the Conservancy to protect these animals.

Ben Ramet, who is part of the Mara Triangle Maasai Village Association, and is from the village where the BBC did the interview, is currently in the UK and saw the pieces when they aired. He was surprised and dismayed to see fellow villagers included in such a story, especially as, dependent also on tourism, it has always been in their best interests to protect the wildlife.

The guys up on the escarpment have absolutely nothing to do with this story, and have been used by the BBC to give their story that bit of ‘extra colour’, the human interest to the piece.

Unfortunately the BBC are not the only ones, today I received a forwarded email from National Geographic who are currently fundraising to help pay for a cattle compensation scheme in Amboselli:

Just a few weeks ago, at least four lions in Kenya’s famed Maasai Mara National Reserve died after ingesting a powerful insecticide.  The Maasai are increasingly using poisons to kill the lions and it has become one of the greatest threats to their survival.

Nancy E. Rehman, Vice President, Development, National Geographic.

Although both sentences on their own are not untruths, placed together like this the impression is unquestionable.

I know it’s not a good story, and I know it doesn’t help with fundraising efforts, but I’m pleased to report that the Maasai are NOT poisoning lions in the Mara Triangle.

Share This

27 Responses to “The Maasai are NOT poisoning lions in the Mara Triangle”

Annie, on 27 Jun 2008

Hopefully this is true…..this is a horrible way these animals are dying………..

Jan - Boston, on 27 Jun 2008

Thanks so much for your clarification on this story. Glad to hear there is no deliberate poisoning going on in the Mara.

However, if the story brings people’s attention to what is going on in other parts of the country/world perhaps it will bring enough attention to the matter that people won’t be able to buy and use the chemical and/or it will be banned in Kenya entirely.

Asante sana for your explanation.

sheryl, washington dc, on 27 Jun 2008

Thanks for the clarification, Will. I agree with Jan, though, that the story can at least bring attention to the huge problem of wildlife poisoning. I just hope the Maasai don’t become angered about how they were portrayed in this story.

s.

kimojino, on 27 Jun 2008

The Mara Conservancy is so grateful to all the generous donors, who stood by us through all that difficult period and we wish to distance ourselves from such misdirected stories.We respect our neighboring communities and therefore apreciate their wildlife conservation initiatives along our common border.
The cattle compensation scheme is yet commence and we are very thankful to all the Maasai community for their patience, over the last past months.We feel any negative stories of any kind may even arouse bad or negative feelings towards our predators by the Maasai community.
We also want to confirm to all our readers that all blog posts are accurate and true, based on our daily operations.

Ken, on 27 Jun 2008

I commend you William for speaking out against this, and also to Kimojino for standing by the truth.

I do not agree with other comments on this post that a community should by wrongly accused for the sake of the larger good. Integrity must always be kept.

Shame on you BBC, and shame on the National Geographic in your attempts to exploit the story in turn for funds.

I also think others here in this forum should have a little bit more respect for the people who have been protecting the wildlife in and around the Mara Triangle.

Jan - Boston, on 27 Jun 2008

Ken:

I in no way feel it right that the Maasai of the Mara Triangle were implicated.

However, the Furadan poisoning of wildlife needs to be told. It is happening more and more and many species are suffering horrendous deaths. Local governments won’t do anything about it until there is a hue and cry from many people who care about wildlife. Let us hope and pray that laws will be put into place so it will no longer be possible for anyone to torture wildlife in this manner.

Ken, on 27 Jun 2008

Jan, I do not think that anyone denies that the Furadan poisoning story should be told. It is indeed a serious issue that must be faced before we lose anymore wildlife.

What we are discussing here, and you seem to agree, is the misrepresentation of the people who have worked with the Conservancy to protect the wildlife in the Mara Triangle. Imagine if we were similarly implicated in such a heinous crime. I think the local Maasai have every right to be angry about this.

sheryl, washington dc, on 27 Jun 2008

Ken, you are way off base. I’d flame you out of the water if this were any other forum but in the future I’ll just ignore your comments.

s.

William, on 27 Jun 2008

Sheryl, how is Ken way off base?

asuka, on 28 Jun 2008

I think Ken, Kimojino and William are the only people who seem to grasp the real issue we are discussing in this post. Furadan needs to be banned but the story to be publicized should not be vindictive of people who had nothing to do with it! Maasai from Chyulu and Amboseli did kill lions using Furadan, but Maasai from Mara Triangle have not. Maasai living on the escarpment held elder meeting so many times so their young warrior do not go around revenging the lions and leopards (which are killing their livestock).

If Nat.Geo wants to raise $150,000 to pay livestock compensation for Chyulu and Amoboseli project, they should NOT in any way write a story which might give wrong impression that Mara Triangle Maasai are killing predators. They are NOT POISONING predators HERE. They have not been paid for their losses since Feb and they are certainly not going to get this $150,000 in future as compensation either.

What we are trying to address is issue of “misrepresentation of people who have worked with Mara Conservancy to protect wildlife”. Furadan issue needs to be addressed, but it has to be done in the manner that innocent people will not be blamed for something which they have NOT done. I will be furious if I get blamed for something I had not part in it.

P.S.
The furadan used in our case was NOT used by Maasai. It was accidentally used by institution in the reserve and Mara Conservancy have banned potentially toxic chemical to be used by any institution in the Triangle.

Susanna, on 28 Jun 2008

Thanks for being clear. It’d be so easy to use this kind of blog just to drum up emotions of international animal lovers with credit card in hand, and not to care too much about facts. I thought it was quite clear when you first reported about the poisonings that some “institution” and not the local Maasai had caused them, but few commentators seemed to get it. I’d like to know the whole story. Though I don’t know if it would do any good except for my curiosity.

Btw, I visited your part of the Mara on Thursday.

Paula, on 28 Jun 2008

It’s unfortunate that this issue and misrepresentation of facts has aroused such passions. I hope that the publicity from BBC and Nat Geo will lead to good positive outcomes. What ever the specifics about Mara Masai and “other Masai” I think we’re all saying the same thing “poisoning of lions, everywhere should stop and banning Carbofuran is one way of achieving this”.

Ole sarisar, on 28 Jun 2008

Thanks for those who have stood up for my fellow Maasai people on the issue of lion poisoning by the Maasai.

Unfortunate and shameful for the bbc and Nat Geo to misuse the community, to sensationalise their story and the fundraising interest, while they have never initiated or contributed any shilling towards conservation or Maasai community around the Mara, despite BBC making lots of money from the famous ‘The big cat diary’.

I come from the Maasai community around the Mara where we grew up with wildlife and coexisted, and are the reason why now many have a chance to see so many animals here. Is it worth to damage our long tolerance for your own gain? If so, we say no and its time for us the Maasai to disengage with organizations and people who have no respect for us.

Seamus, on 28 Jun 2008

I’ve come into this discussion a little late, but I see a number of important topics that are worth discussing. To cut to the chase I’ll just abbreviate my contribution:
1. Jan and Paula: I’m afraid that its not good enough to say that publicity is good, regardless of how accurate it might be. Having righteousness and the weight of large media houses behind one does not make a difference.
2. Will - Let’s not lose sight of the fact that journalists are liable to make mistakes. It may be that Adam fact-checked the story, but failed to realise the implications he was making in the story. There are official channels through which one can raise complaints to the editor of a news-group, and I hope that you’ll find some response. And that you’ll publish the feedback here. Even better, perhaps Mr Mynott would like to comment?
3. Susanna - you make a very compelling point, curiosity or otherwise.
4. It may be true that people surrounding the Mara triangle are not poisoning predators. It does seem however that there are lower densities of predators outside the Mara, compared with inside the reserve. I base this statement on some census work done by Ogutu et al. several years ago. This gradient of predator density does need to be talked about, but perhaps not as part of this particular story.
5. My understanding is that the “big cat fund” set up by national geographic is for big cats generally, not just the Amboseli ecosystem. I am guessing that they intend to decide on other areas of big cat conservation concern, and that they would be receptive to some well-directed communication about the Mara.
6. A general comment about media and conservation (or perhaps just a restatement of a point raised recently on my blog): media is not something that one can control the output of. Its correct to say that they should be held accountable for what they write, but just have in the back of your minds that there is a dropped stitch in every persian carpet.
7. I don’t think that its “unfortunate that this has aroused passions”. In fact, as a conservationist I think balanced debate helpt to mature ones understanding, and to clarify matters. Blogs are interactive, and if people feel strongly the comment section gives them a voice to do this. The moderators of this blog can disallow any content they feel would be counter-productive to the discussion.
8. keep up the good work Will, Asuka, Brian and Kimojino. Thank you to Widlifedirect for this forum. BBC and NG: it seems that conservation stories could be more carefully told in future? You are welcome in this case.

William, on 28 Jun 2008

I think the point being made Paula is that the specifics do matter. And the specifics in this case is the local community being implicated of poisoning lions when in fact they haven’t.

Seamus, the irritating thing, which I said in the post, is that not one fact is inaccurate, but the way that the story has been told is. As well as voicing my concern with Adam, I have lodged an official complaint with the BBC.

And Seamus, do you have a contact for Nat Geo with regards to this fund?

Ole Sarisar, you have a point and the BBC should be warned - why should the local Maasai continue to cooperate and welcome these large organisations who profit enormously from the area and then repay the Maasai with such stories?

asuka, on 28 Jun 2008

Seamus- I believe this fund is going to Maasailand Preservation Trust.

Maasailand Lions—A Desperate Situation
(http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/projects/big-cat-conservation.html)

National Geographic has created an emergency fund to help avert a potential conservation disaster: the complete loss of lions in and around Amboseli National Park, one of Kenya’s most important tourist destinations. As they teeter on the brink of extinction, these lions do not have the luxury of time. The decline in the lion population in this region has reached a critical status that needs addressing on a major scale.

In partnership with Explorers-in-Residence Beverly and Dereck Joubert, filmmakers and conservationists who have worked in some of Africa’s most remote wildlife areas for more than 25 years, National Geographic is committed to this urgent conservation issue. In addition to the fund, National Geographic is providing an emergency $150,000 grant to the Maasailand Preservation Trust, co-led by Richard Bonham and Tom Hill. The grant will aid the trust’s Predator Compensation Fund, which provides compensation to local Maasai herdsmen for livestock killed by lions in and around Amboseli National Park.

Beyond the Lions

Lions are more than an iconic symbol, more than a tourist draw to Africa’s savanna. As large predators, their status indicates the health of ecosystems. According to Dereck Joubert, “if they—the driving force—are removed, then the ecosystem’s functionality is ultimately affected.”

What results can be a chain reaction where other ecosystems are affected, including humans and our own means of survival. It becomes not just a conservation issue, but a humanitarian one as well.

Why Numbers Are So Low

Although there are no reliable data on exact numbers of lions from earlier years, researchers agree that current numbers represent a dramatic drop in the lion population in this region. Why the large decline? Lions are being killed at an alarming rate. Without an abundance of prey to feed on, such as wildebeest, lions are leaving protected lands to hunt the domestic livestock of the Maasai tribe, who then spear and poison the lions to death. Says Dereck Joubert: “When lions raid cattle, the herdsmen understandably retaliate. Lions are eating the one means of survival the villagers have.”

National Geographic and the Jouberts, in partnership with the Maasailand Preservation Trust, want to create a meaningful solution to save these majestic animals while helping the Maasai community—and serving as a model program for other conservation efforts.

Solutions and Hope

The situation in and around Amboseli is grave, but there is hope. In order to stop the killings, the Maasai need to be compensated immediately for their cattle losses.

Pilot projects, such as a previous Mbirikani Predator Compensation Fund, have shown that if the health and livelihood of the community are secured, there is a greater chance to protect the lions. By offering immediate compensation for cattle losses, the pressure to kill lions as a form of retaliation is alleviated. Areas absent of any compensation program see significantly greater lion kills by local tribespeople.

“A compensation program was initiated in the Maasai-owned Kuku Group Ranch last year, and we’ve already seen results,” says Bonham. “In comparison, the rate of lion killing in Olgulului Group Ranch, also owned by the Maasai, is alarming. … More than 40 lions have been killed by the Maasai in Olgulului in retaliation for livestock losses.”

Once lions are no longer viewed as a threat, a dialogue with the communities about conservation can begin.

National Geographic and the Jouberts believe that helping the Maasai through education efforts and conservation awareness, in addition to compensation, will ensure a way for the lions of Africa’s savanna to survive. “The great thing is that there are solutions,” says Dereck Joubert. “We know already that this can work.”

Add Your Support Today

Take the first step toward saving the lions of Kenya’s Maasailand. Outside contributions will not only pay for a lion’s life, but the money raised will be used to support the following:

Education for students and adults
Animal husbandry solutions
Jobs for the Maasai people
Community conservation efforts
It is time now not just for public awareness, but for public action. By working together, we can prevent further lion population decline while helping the Maasai as well. Although we call the work being undertaken a conservation effort, what we are truly facing is a conservation emergency.

asuka, on 28 Jun 2008

Like I said before, nothing wrong with effort to ban the Furadan (and no one in this forum is negating the Furadan ban). We all want that, especially all of us in the field involved with predator conservation. BUT! We also have to stand up for community who have been conserving predators along with us, and that is what Will, Kimojino and I are doing. “Mara Maasai”, “Amboseli Maasai” and “other Maasai” are all important specifics. Werent we all upset when media was broadcasting images which portrayed image which looked like all Kenyan citizen were burning, killing and destroying things during post-election violence. Mara Maasai do care about their reputation also, we all have to be more careful when publicizing things.

Seamus, on 28 Jun 2008

Will - I’d be interested to see the BBC response. I’ll put you in touch with the relevant people here such that you can start a conversation.
Asuka - there is no doubt that 150,000 usd is being paid to the maasailand preservation trust. I was just pointing out that the managers of this fund hope to be able to expand the scope of their work, and to fund other areas where there is concern for conservation of big cats.

Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project » More on media, lions and conservation, on 28 Jun 2008

[…] you have a moment, do have a look at William’s post (the Mara triangle blog) on the recent BBC story that covered the poisoning of several lions. It […]

Wim, on 30 Jun 2008

The BBC never said or implied the Maasai were poisoning Lions in the Mara Triangle.
To respond to your post with reference to the actual five minute BBC piece and not an opinion or interpretation, after all, as you say “there is not one false fact within the piece”;
The Maasai Mara reserve is referred to as the point of reportage and as the site of the “latest IN A SERIES OF DEATHS involving Carbofuran” in this case “ACCIDENTAL misuse”. We later return to the Mara “IN PLACES LIKE THIS, on the margins of game reserves, is where man and animals come into conflict” and a Maasai named Ndigwa is interviewed saying he himself WOULD NOT USE POISON but makes the point that livestock losses to Wildlife provoked resentment which is rather more than “local colour”; it’s a/the reason why poisoning happens, a point worth making in any report about poisoning and not a point created by a reporter but stated by various Kenyan interviewees.
That’s the sum total of Mara specific elements in the five minute report on poisoning in Kenya.
The BBC never specify the local Maasai as a Lion poisoning problem, why would they exonerate them from an accusation never made?
Richard Leakey features to specify the culprits as “pastoralists” and “rural communities” (even he never specifies the Maasai, local or otherwise), the BBC reports the facts and the problem is clearly termed (at least five times by several participants), as being a Kenyan problem.
The NG letter clearly links the Maasai to the Mara poisonings.
They are two separate instances of responses to the local facts.
I don’t doubt that it’s very annoying to be compromised by the actions of others, guilt by association is never fun but that’s life, perhaps a word with those causing the embarassment might be in order?
Neither the BBC nor the NG are the problem here.

Chris, on 30 Jun 2008

Interesting debate. I had a look at the article online and absolutely nowhere does it say that the lions in the Mara were poisoned because of accidental misuse.

It is true that nowhere does it explicitly say that the Maasai killed the lions, however there are strong implications in the piece that this case is due to pastoralists:

First Quote:

“According to world-famous naturalist Dr Richard Leakey, it is being bought not by farmers wanting to control bugs and insects, but mainly by herdsmen who use it to kill lions, leopards and other predators.

Among the latest incidents two lions were poisoned and killed in the Maasai Mara game reserve after eating the carcass of a hippo that had ingested carbofuran.”

Second Quote

“I spoke to pastoralists who said they had heard that Furadan was used to kill big cats.

On the edge of the Maasai Mara a young herdsman, Ndigwa, said he lost many cows every year to lions and leopards, but he said he would never resort to poison to take revenge on the predators.

Others do not hesitate. ”

I would say that the piece is written in a way that covers the BBC’s ass, but it’s not exactly a fair piece for the local people if they are innocent.

William, on 30 Jun 2008

Wim,

I think your understanding of the story is completely fair and also probably how it was intended. Unfortunately I also think the piece is open to some misunderstandings.

The story is about pastoralists using carbofuran to poison animals in Kenya. From the Mara they have poisoned animals (lions) and interviews with pastoralists (the local Maasai), despite the fact that in this one instance the former have not been poisoned by the latter.

Now the BBC do not say in the piece that the local Maasai poisoned lions, but I do think that for the average viewer or listener the two are wrongly associated when listening to the piece; and I have had journalists contact me about the ‘Maasai poisoning lions’ story after seeing it on the BBC -these should be the most discerning of viewers.

Like I said, there is not one false fact within the piece, but there is a false impression.

I’m not sure I understand the end of your comment. Where do you think the problem is?

Wim, on 30 Jun 2008

Are Maasai involved in wildlife poisoning in Kenya? There is evidently a “Maasai Poisoning Lions” story to be reported. Are the Mara Maasai singled out as responsible for any poisoning? Not once.
Richard Leakey does not imply that pastoralists are poisoning wildlife, he says they are, concisely and clearly. Maybe he means the Samburu? Would that make you happier?
The actual problem is that wildlife poisoning is widespread in Kenya William but do we have to smear a piece of well intentioned and, as you say, completely accurate news reporting to avoid some nebulous “impression” of complicity?
I’ve misunderstood the subject of this post, the real issue is evidently the avoidance of blame?

William, on 30 Jun 2008

Wim, thank you for your comment. I understand the sentiments of your message, however what we cannot forget is that the use of carbofuran in Kenya is not actually illegal.

To issue blame would have been incredibly damaging to the institution involved, and yet their actions were perfectly legal. Such a public accusation would not have led to the amicable situation we have now where it is clearly understood by all what can and can’t be used in the park, regardless of the state laws. It is our job to always work towards the best possible outcome that will help towards the conservation of the Triangle.

The point of this post it to make it clear that blame should not instead be placed elsewhere, however I do believe we disagree on the representation of the local Maasai within the piece and so we may have to agree to disagree.

Kathryn, on 30 Jun 2008

I’ve followed your conversations and I just want to say one thing and then I will go about my way. I say the newscast a few weeks back and as an outsider I have to say my reaction (after the tears) was to do something to get a ban put on the Carbofuran. I can understand some anger with the misrepresentation or the ambiguity- but the article has gotten my attention to make a difference, whether to look into how to support the wildlife or to find a way to ban the chemical.
Regardless- I commend you on what you do, it is both admirable and respected.

William, on 07 Jul 2008

Just to let you all know, Adam Mynott has made an amendment to the piece online. It now reads:

“The Masai on the escarpment above the Mara reserve know that a healthy, abundant population of predators is important to their livelihoods, derived in part from income from tourists coming to watch the game; and there is no suggestion at all that they have been involved in trying to poison lions. ”

Full article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7460008.stm

Thank you Adam.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply