JOHANNESBURG: Some call it the Cecil the lion effect. A year ago, an American killed a lion in Zimbabwe in what authorities said was an illegal hunt, infuriating people worldwide and invigorating an international campaign against trophy hunting in Africa.
Some conservationists, however, warn there are greater threats to Africa’s beleaguered lion populations, including human encroachment on their habitats and the poaching of antelopes and other animals for food, a custom that deprives lions of prey.
The death of Cecil at Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park raised lions’ profile on the “conservation radar,” but most substantive steps in lion conservation since then have been directed against trophy hunting rather than bigger problems depleting lion numbers, said Luke Hunter, president of Panthera, a conservation group. Those measures include airline bans on the transport of parts of lions, rhinos, elephants and other wild animals shot in hunts.
In a report marking the anniversary of Cecil’s death in early July 2015, Panthera and two other conservation groups — WildAid and WildCRU — estimated that it would take at least $1.25 billion a year to effectively manage all protected areas in Africa where lions roam.
The groups advocated more protection for lion habitats, measures to stimulate tourism and economic growth unrelated to hunting, and the supply of alternative sources of protein to local people to reduce demand for wild animal meat. Restrictions on hunting should be tightened as more data emerges on whether trophy hunting of some threatened species is even sustainable, the report said.
The number of lions in the wild in Africa has dropped by more than 40 percent to about 20,000 in the past two decades, according to estimates. Lion populations in West, Central and East Africa have dropped, though some conservation success has been recorded in the southern part of the continent.
Cecil, who wore a GPS collar and was being monitored by researchers, was killed in a protracted hunt in which he was, according to authorities, lured out of the wildlife park and initially wounded by an arrow. The death unleashed an extraordinary outpouring of anger at Walter Palmer, the American dentist who shot the lion, and other foreigners with means who have traveled to Africa to kill wildlife.
The hunting industry countered that it has a conservation role, channeling revenue from hunting back into wildlife areas that would otherwise end up as farms for livestock.
“Each (wildlife) population needs its own management plan,” said Stewart Dorrington, who hosts bow and arrow hunters at a wildlife area three hours by car from Johannesburg. He said in a telephone interview that some anti-hunting activists favor a “blanket statement” about the ills of all hunting across Africa.
Dorrington, who does not have lions at his Melorani Safaris hunting operation, said many hunting areas in South Africa are struggling to get foreign clients at the moment.
In December, the United States made it harder for American big-game hunters to bring a lion head or hide into the country, announcing that it would protect lions in Africa under the Endangered Species Act. At least 11,000 lions were logged in the trophy hunting trade between 2004 to 2013, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare, a conservation group.
Conservationists are also increasingly concerned about the use of lion bones to replace tiger bones in traditional medicine in parts of Asia, as well as for use in ceremonies in some African countries.
Hunter, the Panthera president, said lions are relatively easy to spot in some wildlife parks and leave the impression that their overall population is plentiful. Lions are social, active during the day and accustomed to vehicles, he said.
“They’re one of the top drawcards for tourists visiting Africa, in protected areas,” said Hunter, noting the death of Cecil had generated massive awareness about their plight. “I hope that it doesn’t go away.”
Plight of African lions persists 1 year after Cecil killing
Plight of African lions persists 1 year after Cecil killing
Tug of war: how US presidents battle Congress for military powers
- The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II
WASHINGTON, United States: Donald Trump’s unleashing of operation “Epic Fury” against Iran has once more underscored the long and bitter struggle between US presidents and Congress over who has the power to decide on foreign military action.
In his video address announcing “major combat” with the Islamic republic, Trump didn’t once mention any authorization or consultation with the US House of Representatives or Senate.
In doing so he sidelined not only Democrats, who called for an urgent war powers vote, but also his own Republican party as he asserts his dominance over a largely cowed legislature.
A US official said Secretary of State Marco Rubio had called top congressional leaders known as the “Gang of Eight” to give them a heads up on the Iran attack — adding that one was unreachable.
Rubio also “laid out the situation” and consulted with the same leaders on Tuesday in an hour-long briefing, the US official said.
According to the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war.
But at the same time the founding document of the United States first signed in 1787 says that the president is the “commander in chief” of the military, a definition that US leaders have in recent years taken very broadly.
The last official declaration of war by Congress was as far back as World War II.
There was no such proclamation during the unpopular Vietnam War, and it was then that Congress sought to reassert its powers.
In 1973 it adopted the War Powers Resolution, passed over Richard Nixon’s veto, to become the only lasting limit on unilateral presidential military action abroad.
The act allows the president to carry out a limited military intervention to respond to an urgent situation created by an attack against the United States.
In his video address on Saturday, Trump evoked an “imminent” threat to justify strikes against Iran.
- Sixty days -
Yet under this law, the president must still inform Congress within 48 hours.
It also says that if the president deploys US troops for a military action for more than 60 days, the head of state must then obtain the authorization of Congress for continued action.
That falls short of an official declaration of war.
The US Congress notably authorized the use of force in such a way after the September 11, 2011 attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda. Presidents have used it over the past two decades for not only the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan but a series of operations in several countries linked to the “War on Terror.”
Trump is far from the first US president to launch military operations without going through Congress.
Democrat Bill Clinton launched US air strikes against Kosovo in 1999 as part of a NATO campaign, despite the lack of a green light from skeptical lawmakers.
Barack Obama did the same for airstrikes in Libya in 2011.
Trump followed their example in his first term in 2018 when he launched airstrikes in Syria along with Britain and France.
But since his return to power the 79-year-old has sought to push presidential power to its limits, and that includes in the military sphere.
Trump has ordered strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America without consulting Congress, and in June 2025 struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Perhaps the most controversial act was when he ordered the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro in a lightning military raid on January 3.
Republicans however managed to knock down moves by Democrats for a rare war powers resolution that would have curbed his authority over Venezuela operations.
Trump has meanwhile sought to extend his powers over the home front. Democrats have slammed the Republican for deploying the National Guard in several US cities in what he calls a crackdown on crime and immigration.









