Why did lions go extinct in most of Asia, but there are still many countries with tigers?

Once upon a time, lions were found over much of Asia – the very symbol of power and strength. Today, their range has shrunk to a single small population in India’s Gir Forest. Tigers, despite facing many challenges, still have numerous countries in Asia as part of their range. The reasons for this stark difference lie in a combination of historical hunting practices, habitat availability, and conservation efforts between the two species.

The decline of the lions in Asia has very much been a factor in man’s fascination with hunting. For centuries, lions had been hunted down as a symbol of bravery and achievement, and European nobility and even local hunters could not have enough of the lion’s head as trophies. The introduction of firearms further accelerated this trend, and it became much easier for hunters to kill such big cats. The story was no different in India. The sport of lion hunting – from horseback or the relative safety of elephants was a favorite of both local royalty and British colonizers. Relentless hunting pressure has reduced lion populations throughout more than 90% of their historic range in Asia. By the early 20th century, Asiatic lions teetered on the brink of extinction. If it were not for timely conservation efforts by Indian rulers, including the establishment of protected areas, even the small population in Gir Forest might have become extinct altogether.

Tigers, however, suffered the same threats but fared slightly better because of their wider geographical distribution. In the early 1900s, the global tiger population plunged from over 100,000 to just 4,000 within 50 years due to hunting and habitat loss. Some subspecies, for instance, the Caspian tiger and the South China tiger were hunted to extinction only remaining in captivity. However, some subspecies of tigers managed to thrive in more than twelve countries across Asia, including India, Russia, and Indonesia amongst others. This wider realm of geographical territory gave an edge to tigers, where lions had already been disadvantaged because of their restricted habitats.

Another important difference involves the scale and timing of conservation; tigers became an international priority many decades before lions, stirring international organizations and governments into various aggressive conservation campaigns. Indeed, protected reserves, anti-poaching efforts, and breeding programs helped stabilize tiger populations in some areas-although they are still at a critically endangered level – but the same for Asiatic lions that came later and were geographically restricted to their survival within India.

Historical treatment and ecological circumstances determined the divergent fates of lions and tigers in Asia. The lion had very high concentrated hunting pressures with a small range, thus leading to its near extinction. The tigers, though being heavily hunted, the wide habitat coverage and early conservation initiatives allowed them to survive in several countries. While both species give the same signal of identifying the human activities that continue to decimate wildlife, they both underscore a need for timely, sustained conservation to prevent further loss of these iconic animals.