Time for us to let the king of the jungle be just that
Holding lions captive does nothing for conservation and is damaging Brand SA
EARLIER this year, officials in Florida in the US introduced legislation to ban the captive breeding of orca whales as well as keeping them for entertainment purposes. Seen as a necessary and progressive step in line with our greater understanding of wild species, this move follows from California’s successful legislation in 2016.
It is against this backdrop that it is worth reviewing South Africa’s situation with regards to lion breeding and the commercial exploitation of these animals.
It has been almost three years since the release of the documentary Blood Lions and its global campaign to bring awareness around the issues. Executed in partnership with numerous local and international agencies, the film and campaign aims to do for lions what Blackfish has done for orcas.
These efforts have brought numerous successes, at times way beyond initial expectations, and for this we owe huge thanks to all these committed partners. But much work remains as the indiscriminate breeding continues and thousands upon thousands of predators remain in confined or captive conditions, mostly to be used for hunting and tourism-related purposes.
As we plan the next stages of the campaign, it is important to reiterate a few key issues:
Firstly, to those involved in the hunting of canned/captive/ranched lions, no amount of messing with language can divert attention from what underpins the practice of killing these animals.
This country already has three different official categories for lions: wild, wild-managed and captive – two more than most conservationists would like to see. Despite the existing confusion among some, a small group of breeders and hunters are now trying to introduce a fourth grouping, that of “ranched” lions.
No matter how you phrase it or attempt to hide it, breeding lions and other predators in captivity to be killed in captivity will remain an unacceptable practice in the eyes of the conservation and ethical hunting community, as well as a shameful one by the vast majority of nature lovers.
These views are also supported by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which introduced a ban on the import of trophies from captive lion populations because they see no conservation value in these practices.
Secondly, to all those that continue to be lured by the thrill of securing a “selfie” while cuddling or walking with a lion cub under the guise of making a contribution to the survival of the species, it is vital you heed the words of the world’s leading scientists and conservationists and not the marketing hype of the business owners.
The African Lion Working Group (ALWG), an International Union for Conservation of Nature-affiliated body with a membership of 100 leading lion scientists and researchers, says: “Captive breeding of lions for sport hunting, hunting of captive-bred lion and the associated cub-petting industry are not conservation tools. In our opinion they are businesses and outside the remit of the ALWG and should be dealt with accordingly.”
It is worth noting that not a single lion breeder, captive-hunting operator or commercial predator enterprise – and this includes the many outfits trying to justify their existence on the basis of their claims to conservation – are members of the ALWG.
Similarly, the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), one of South Africa’s most highly regarded conservation NGOs, has this to say: “Captive carnivores do not contribute to the conservation of free-roaming populations; they are not releasable and they do not form part of any registered conservation or management plan for any carnivore in Africa.”
These statements were followed up late last year by another damning one from the wider conservation community.
It was sent to the US government in response to a letter “fraught with inaccuracies, false statements, and a flawed viewpoint” by the South African Predator Association, in an attempt to have the captive lion trophy ban overturned.
A more recent development has been the awarding of an export quota of lion bones and skeletons by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), a move widely condemned by the recognised predator conservation community.
Dr Paul Funston, senior director of the Panthera lion programme, said: “The government’s proposed quota of 800 lion skeletons for legal export has absolutely no grounding in science.
“When the facts are clear, South Africa’s lion breeding industry makes absolutely no positive contribution to conserving lions and, indeed, further imperils them.”
These views are vital because they set the conservation and scientific agenda, not the farmers and businesses profiting from the breeding and commercial activities.
Making sure visitors and volunteers to this country understand the accepted predator conservation objectives as well as the recognised agencies involved in securing them remains a central focus of the Blood Lions campaign. The same can be said about tourism. The current marketing push is all about authentic, ethical and responsible tourism products. Petting lion or cheetah cubs and paying for related activities hardly represents these parameters.
This is why SA Tourism chief executive Sisa Ntshona has been so outspoken.
“SA Tourism does not promote or endorse any interaction with wild animals such as the petting of wild cats, interacting with elephants and walking with lions, cheetahs and so on,” he said last year.
It’s also why the Blood Lions call to stop all the non-conservation breeding needs to be a priority. If we end the commercial breeding we end the need to deal with the current mess.
In the light of the worldwide opposition and potential damage being done to Brand SA, the DEA’s aversion to listen or engage begs the questions: who are they listening to and why? Are there other issues at play?
SA TOURISM DOES NOT PROMOTE INTERACTION WITH WILD ANIMALS, SUCH AS PETTING WILD CATS, INTERACTING WITH ELEPHANTS AND WALKING WITH LIONS