Significant progress has been made towards the closure of the commercial captive lion industry under the newly elected Minister of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE), Dr Dion George. Imminent closure has caused a furore amongst key industry players who profit from the continued exploitation of captive predators. Naturally, industry proponents now need to work harder than ever before to justify their continued existence, which has given rise to several media articles full of farcical myths and lies.

At this pivotal point in the process of closing down this exploitative industry, robust and evidence-driven information is needed to counter the profusion of misinformation disseminated by the captive predator industry.

The High-Level Panel (HLP) and the Ministerial Task Team (MTT) confirmed that the captive predator industry is built on gratuitous commercial gain at the expense of ethics, animal welfare, and genuine conservation interests. Wildlife Ranching South Africa’s (WRSA) recent media statements are not only deceptive and untruthful, but also without any basis in rigorous, peer-reviewed science. Below we debunk the deceptive justifications propounded by key industry players.

Captive lions and conservation value

WRSA’s assertions that captive lion breeding is an essential conservation tool to protect wild lions has long been negated by international scientists and conservationists. In 2016 the African Lion Working Group confirmed that “Captive-bred lion hunting … does not provide any demonstrated positive benefit to wild lion conservation efforts and therefore cannot be claimed to be conservation”.

In its 2015 Biodiversity Management Plan for lions, South Africa’s former Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) declared “Captive lions are bred exclusively to generate money and currently have limited conservation value.”

The industry’s existence is premised on commercial gain through tourism activities, voluntourism, captive or “canned” hunting, and the trade in live wild animals, their body parts and derivatives. At no point in this commercial life cycle has the industry contributed to conserving wild lions in our national parks or game reserves.

WRSA implies that South Africa’s lions face an “ongoing crisis,” but as Dr Louise de Waal notes:

“South Africa’s wild lion population has been stable to slightly increasing with a total of approximately 3,500 individuals and its conservation status is classed as “Least Concern” compared to “Vulnerable” globally. According to the MTT report, this conservation status dichotomy is mainly due to the expansion of our lion population in private fenced game reserves, where the managed wild lion populations, although highly fragmented, has grown by 16% since 1993.”

The captive lion population is not taken into consideration in setting the conservation status of wild lion populations. How then could closure of a commercial industry devastate wild lion populations? If national parks or game reserves require lions for restocking or genetic purposes, they will surely use the surplus from the managed wild population. Furthermore, South Africa is severely restricted in available suitable habitats for large predators. It therefore remains unclear how the intensive farming of lions for commercial purposes can contribute to genuine lion conservation.

The industry relies on a PhD study conducted by Dr Paul Booyens and supported by the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa, advocating rewilding of captive-bred lions. The funders obviously had a vested interest in the continuation of captive lion breeding and hunting, but there are also several methodological weaknesses. The study was based on a single small sample of captive lions released into a reserve without natural competition from other predators, such as spotted hyena or other lions. Booyens also failed to quantify the cost of phased rewilding when attempting the reintroduction of captive-bred and often habituated lions. This money could be better used for the genuine conservation of lions in wild spaces.

Interestingly, Booyens did conclude that South Africa lacks suitable habitat to release cubs from captive-bred parents. This begs the question: where can we find suitable habitat to rewild captive-bred lions.

The industry often states that bovine tuberculosis (TB) is a major threat to the Kruger National Park’s lion population. According to WRSA, captive-bred lions again present the solution. There is a need to critically reflect on whether or not Kruger’s lion population is in real danger due to TB. WRSA has failed to engage with current evidence-based science to substantiate their claims that up to 80% of Kruger’s lions were infected by 1999. A statement they later contradicted by claiming that Kruger is “overcrowded” in terms of lions.

The original claim appears to be taken from a blog post quoting a website that no longer exists. A more careful reading of that post shows that “testing revealed 80% of lions in southern Kruger had been exposed to the bacterium but only some of these show symptoms at any one time”. If it can be assumed the website provided accurate information, then WRSA’s interpretation of it remains invalid.

n reality, the prevalence of TB infection in 2017 stood at 54% in the southern region of Kruger.

Research from 2023 suggests that while TB can impact individual health, mortality and an animal’s ability to hunt and reproduce, it is difficult to discern these effects at a population level. Extensive ecosystems, such as Kruger, are also impacted by drought, long term environmental changes and other diseases.

A 2015 and 2017 study on the prevalence of TB in Kruger lions confirms that more research is needed on the impact of TB on a population level. SANParks ecologist Dr Sam Ferreira and lion biologist Dr Paul Funston concluded in a 2010 paper that the Kruger lion population is stable and the effects of TB are negligible.

Welfare concerns

In a curious statement, WRSA wrote that lions in the captive industry would be “left to suffer slow, agonising deaths, riddled with disease, or in overcrowded state reserves like Kruger and Madikwe, where the government has repeatedly failed to ensure basic welfare conditions.” These two situations cannot be compared. Kruger is a self-sustaining ecosystem, where wild animals are subject to dynamic natural processes, including prey-predator interactions and natural selection. Conversely, when wild animals are placed into captivity, the owners has the sole responsibility for their welfare and well-being.

WRSA apply a double standard when stating that “the government’s plan – sterilisation and eventual euthanasia – marks a death sentence for these animals”. The industry’s own purpose for breeding lions in captivity includes death through hunting or slaughter for their bones, parts and derivatives. Sterilization and euthanasia are both humane outcomes necessitated by the sheer size of the captive lion population the industry created in the first place.

The industry has consistently presented multiple regulatory challenges, but has never presented any real solutions. Self-regulation, suggested by South African Predator Breeders Association (SAPA), is plagued by inherent conflict of interests. On numerous occasions SAPA members have failed to uphold any reasonable animal welfare standards, leading to severe animal cruelty and neglect. “What motivation would lion breeders have to adhere to SAPA’s self-regulated standards if these are voluntary and can not be enforced”, asks Dr Louise de Waal.

SAPA’s chairman Pieter Potgieter has himself admitted that some members do not adhere to their ‘ethical code’. One well-known case involves a SAPA senior-elected council member who is implicated in serious animal cruelty.

If the captive lion industry is actually concerned over the welfare of their captive wild animals, why have they challenged the recent inclusion of animal well-being in our national biodiversity legislation?

Lack of consultation

During both the HLP and MTT processes, extensive stakeholder engagement was undertaken with individuals and industry stakeholders in the wildlife, conservation and science spheres. Both panels included several wildlife industry representatives. In 2020, 64% of the HLP voted for closure of the commercial lion industry based on the evidence they uncovered.

In addition to implementing voluntary exit, DFFE now also intends to acquire legal lion bone stockpiles through a contractual agreement. The Gazetted notice, however, does not give a 120 day surrender period, as implied by WRSA, but rather invites interested individuals to respond within 120 days of its publication date.

WRSA accuses the MTT of lacking transparency, yet their 250-page report is publicly available. All the answers WRSA seek with regards to the fate of captive-bred lions is contained within the document and outlined with clarity to ensure measured, ethical steps are taken from identifying voluntary exit, phasing out the industry, through to its final closure.  

Who stands to lose from the industry’s closure?

The Confederation of Employers South Africa (COFESA) claimed in an article quoted by WRSA that closure of the industry will result in the loss of 3,500 farms and 14,000 jobs. However, these figures bear little resemblance to those in the MTT report or in peer-reviewed research. The MTT’s national audit identified only 348 lion facilities nationwide and research partially supported by SAPA revealed a modest 549 jobs on breeding farms with an additional 613 in the wider economy across the Free State, North West, Limpopo and Northern Cape. This is only 8.3% of the 14,000 jobs quoted by COFESA.

Many captive lion facilities encourage paying international volunteers as a lucrative money-making exercise, charging thousands of US dollars for short-term positions that deprive local workers of employment opportunities. Dr Ross Harvey found that the volunteering sector could potentially take away 77 full-time local jobs. Harvey further established there is “zero conservation value and (the industry) is likely to result in revenue loss to the country through reputational damage”. This will cost tourism jobs, an industry that employs an estimated 1.46 million people.

In summary, in recent media articles by WRSA, the commercial wildlife industry’s statements continuously fail to be held up to scrutiny. Their lack of scientific rigor in the statements used to justify the continued exploitation of wild animals cannot go without further challenge.

Original Source: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/debunking-the-captive-lion-industrys-myths-and-dec