Lion Bones export Approved/Blood Lions

[Richprins]

It is the same as the farmed rhino argument, sort of...

[Lisbeth]

Very much "sort of" !

The Rhinos are not killed, not abused, have space enough etc.

[Lisbeth]

Newsletter:

The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) is delighted to note that the Pretoria High Court has today set aside the 2017 and 2018 lion bone quotas, stating that these were both unlawful and unconstitutional, and that due process was not followed in the setting of these quotas. Before giving his judgement, Judge Jody Kollapen said that this issue has implications for both current and future generations, and that he had taken time over his deliberations to reflect the grave importance of the decision for society.

He went on to state that the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), and the former Minister, had erred when they disregarded the welfare of captive wild animals. He stated that the welfare of captive lions should have been considered when determining this trade quota. Judge Kollapen further questioned whether or not the welfare mandate for lions in captivity lies solely with the Department of Agriculture, when the national Biodiversity Plan for African Lions (gazetted by DEA) specifically stipulates the need for permit holders to comply with “minimum standards” of care. The judge went on to say that “it is inconceivable that the State…could have ignored welfare considerations of lions in captivity in setting the annual export quota.”

This precedent-setting judgement therefore has much broader implications beyond the lion bone trade, and could have a significant impact on the breeding, slaughter, and selling of parts of all captive wild animals.

The EWT has been vocal in its opposition to the lion bone trade, and the setting of these quotas, as the captive breeding of wild animals for their parts offers no conservation value for the species. We do not support the commercial captive breeding of carnivores because it does not contribute to the sustainable, responsible use of our wildlife resources and, in some cases, may have negative impacts on the conservation of these species in the wild.

Instead, we support the conservation of wild and free ranging carnivores, including but not limited to lions, in their natural habitat, where they contribute to biodiversity conservation as keystone and flagship species. The EWT therefore welcomes this landmark judgement, and applauds the NSPCA and all other parties who have persisted in their efforts to secure this victory for lions.

EWT CEO, Yolan Friedmann, said, “This judgement is significant as it clearly addresses the assertion, incorrect in the EWT’s view, that the ethical and welfare implications of the Department’s decision, to establish an annual quota for the lion bone trade, fall outside of the Department’s remit. It confirms the need for the Department to take into account welfare considerations when they take decisions around captive wildlife instead of treating these issues as being incidental to the Department’s concern. We envisage this being a turning point for a trajectory of decision-making in recent years that has treated our national wildlife heritage as a resource for pure commercial exploitation at industrial production levels, and we applaud the Court for upholding the values underpinning our Constitutional environmental rights.”

[Lisbeth]

The Pretoria High Court has today set aside the 2017 and 2018 lion bone quotas, stating that these were both unlawful and unconstitutional

A pity that it is a bit late

[Lisbeth]

Ruling that lion skeleton export quotas are illegal is a victory for ethical conservation

OP-ED
By Ross Harvey• 7 August 2019

Welfare problems have always characterised the captive lion industry, but have proliferated over the past few years due to a shift in the market as lion breeders actively promote lion bone exports.

The government is now legally obliged to consider animal welfare in all its wildlife conservation decisions. This is the message from the judgment handed down on 6 August by the Gauteng High Court which determined that South Africa’s 2017 and 2018 lion export skeleton quotas were unlawful and constitutionally invalid, although the exports under those quotas have already been made. The judgment strongly rejects the view that “adaptive management” of wild animals can arbitrarily be divorced from ethics.

The National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) was the applicant, and the respondents were the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the South African Predators Association (SAPA). The NSPCA objected to the way in which the quota had initially been determined as it ignored welfare considerations.

In November 2018, a report adopted by the National Assembly called for the termination of the country’s predator breeding industry, requiring a review of current legislation with a view to ending the industry. The then minister of environmental affairs strangely sidestepped this resolution, calling instead for the formation of a high-level panel to “review policies, legislation and practices on matters of lion… management, breeding, hunting, trade and handling”.

Judge Jody Kollapen noted that the way in which the 2017 and 2018 quotas were set had ongoing implications for how conservation decisions were taken.

He ruled that the treatment of lions in captivity was an environmental issue and its relationship with the commercial activities that arise from its operations (lion bone exports) was “inextricably linked to the constitutional issue of what may constitute the elements of the right to an environment and the right to have it protected for the benefit of this and future generations that Section 24 of the Constitution articulates”.

Kollapen referenced the 2016 judgment in the NSPCA case against the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, which stated that “the rationale behind protecting animal welfare has shifted from merely safeguarding the moral status of humans to placing intrinsic value on animals as individuals”.

In this respect, the canned hunting of lions was unanimously seen as “abhorrent and repulsive” due to the animals’ suffering. Given the integrative nature of welfare and conservation, Judge Kollapen ruled that while the minister may technically be right that the welfare mandate for lions in captivity resides substantially with the Department of Agriculture, this was different to the obligation to consider welfare issues in conservation decisions. The latter resides in the minister of the environment, especially as lions in captivity constitute part of the country’s biodiversity challenge.

The judge further noted that it was “inconceivable that the State Respondents could have ignored welfare considerations of lions in captivity in setting the annual export quota”. It was “illogical, irrational and against the spirit of Section 24 and how our courts have included animal welfare concerns in the interpretation of Section 24” to signal that South Africa endorses a legal lion bone trade, but ignores the conditions under which lions are kept. He, therefore, declared that the decision to enact a quota in 2017 and 2018 was “unlawful and unconstitutional”.

This clearly has implications for whether the environment minister can set a new quota until a process for addressing welfare considerations is established. Sarah Kvalsig of Cullinan and Associates, an environmental law firm, notes that the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries “must now consider welfare as part of the basis for its decisions rather than treating it as incidental to those decisions”.

Pivotal as the judgment is, it does not stop the captive breeding of lions nor the setting of future export quotas but places the onus on the department to take the animals’ welfare into consideration when making decisions concerning them.

Welfare problems have always characterised the industry, but have proliferated over the past few years due to a shift in the market as lion breeders actively promote lion bone exports. Typically, predator breeders would rent or sell cubs to interaction tourism facilities. To increase production, cubs are ripped from their mothers a few hours after birth to force lionesses into early oestrus. At interaction facilities, either members of the gullible public or volunteer tourists pay to pet, feed and cuddle the cubs.

Research conducted in 2018 reveals that at least 80 of these facilities operate for public entertainment. Once cubs have outlived their petting usefulness, they become “walking” lions. Thereafter, they are either sold into the canned hunting industry, where hunters pay upwards of $5,000 to shoot a lion in a fenced enclosure, or directly into the Asian bone trade, where lion parts now masquerade as tiger parts.

Since the US imposed an import ban on captive-origin trophies in 2016, many breeders have switched to bypassing interaction and hunting altogether, as the bone trade is growing steadily more lucrative. In the past, breeders had a superficial incentive to pay attention to welfare as hunters wanted prime trophies.

The supply-side economics argument justifying an annual export skeleton quota is as follows: Captive predator breeding in South Africa maintains a steady supply to the Asian bone market. Any price shock through terminating the industry or applying an overly restrictive quota will result in increased poaching of wild lions. Bans tend to drive markets further underground, risking the emergence of a parallel illegal market impossible to control.

These are the “scientific” grounds on which the late minister Edna Molewa justified the establishment of an annual quota in 2017. The minister also ignored the fact that captive lion numbers had grown to feed a demand that had not previously existed, abetted by the Department of Environmental Affairs.

Despite a motion by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that called for the termination of the captive predator breeding industry, a meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 2016 allowed South Africa to establish a quota. The decision to do so immediately thereafter was couched in terms of “adaptive management” that sought to neither throttle nor expand supply so as to avoid disruption to the status quo. No strong evidence at the time suggested that captive breeding was detrimental to wild lion survival in South Africa.

Judge Kollapen wrote that while this conclusion appears to be unassailable, “there appears to be some controversy as to whether the means used to achieve such an outcome – the targeting of captive lions – is beyond reproach.”

A truly scientific approach by the government would have weighed all the evidence and assessed what kind of impact a legal quota might have on the survival probability of lions in the wild, not only in South Africa. Conducting research that only took into consideration the interests of those involved in the captive predator breeding industry was likely to be biased towards establishing policy positions that protected vested interests at the potential expense of wild lion conservation.

The pro-trade argument also assumes that a legal trade in lion bones will fetch exactly the right price to incentivise sufficient breeding, but somehow simultaneously disincentivise poaching. This ignores the science that shows that it will always be less expensive to poach a wild animal than to breed it responsibly. The idea that a legal and regulated market will crowd out illegal supply is therefore fanciful. The government’s view also assumes, despite significant evidence to the contrary, that no illegality in the lion bone trade currently exists.

Furthermore, legal lion bone supply undermines efforts in Asia to ban the purchase of tiger products. Laws have an impact on norms that determine consumer preferences, creating a stigma effect that complements demand-reduction efforts. South Africa’s continuation of a legal trade in lion bones erodes the efficacy of the stigma effect and sends confusing signals to the market. Arguments defending the industry also typically ignore the opportunity costs and negative externalities associated with it, such as the reputational brand damage to South African tourism. The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries also appears to have forgotten a statement made to the Parliamentary Committee on Environmental Affairs that only lion breeding facilities which could show conservation benefits would be approved.

Wild lions are under severe threat, having disappeared from 94% of their historic range. There are only half as many as there were 25 years ago, with fewer than 25,000 estimated. Poaching is one of the primary threats and is increasing to satisfy the growing demand for skin, teeth, paws, claws and bones.

The existence of a captive predator-breeding industry may have a detrimental effect on wild lion survival, especially if it shifts demand for derivative parts well beyond the legal market’s ability to supply. The contention that there is no proof that poaching is increasing because of captive breeding reflects a fallacy that absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence. That South African wild lions have not seen a significant uptick in poaching does not mean that there has not been increased poaching in other range states. Conservation decisions cannot be taken in a vacuum, as if trading in captive-origin bones from South Africa has no impact on wild lion poaching in places such as Mozambique.

The NSPCA’s Karen Trendler rightly noted in her organisation’s victory that this “precedent-setting judgment” declares that “one cannot simply use, abuse and trade wildlife without considering their welfare and well-being”.

Judge Kollapen has gifted South Africa with legal clarity regarding the unlawfulness of the establishment of the 2017 and 2018 quotas. He has also reminded us that the captive lion industry is abhorrent and repulsive, so it remains to be seen how the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries will take this into account in determining future quotas. DM 2

This article was provided by the Conservation Action Trust.

[Klipspringer]

https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa ... -in-limbo/


environment 7.8.2019 08:08 am
Lion bone trade in limbo

Nica Schreuder


For lion bone quotas to be confirmed, the decision must be made in accordance with the Scientific Authority and professional reviews of all available information. Image: iStock

The captive-bred lion industry is in itself an ethical conundrum, making yesterday’s ruling which overturned the former environmental minister’s quotas even more ground-breaking.
A much-anticipated ruling on contentious lion bone quotas has found that late minister of environmental affairs Edna Molewa’s 2017 and 2018 figures were unlawful. According to Judge Jody Kollapen, the quotas were reportedly not legal and were constitutionally invalid.

Last year’s quota was increased dramatically from 800 in 2017 to 1 500 (with or without the head). The figure was allegedly “agreed upon” due to evidence from a research project established by the South African National Biodiversity Institute and a collaboration between Wits University, Oxford University and the University of Kent.

According to the department’s website, the research found there was a stockpile of lion bones in the country that was increasing. There had been no significant increase in poaching of wild lions, but an increase in hunting of captive-bred lions had been seen.

It also said the captive breeding industry was “in a state of flux” as breeders respond in different ways to the US’ restrictions on trophies, as well as the imposition of the skeleton export quota”.

The captive-bred lion industry is in itself an ethical conundrum, making yesterday’s ruling even more ground-breaking.

The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) has been fighting for some time for the lion bone trade to be abolished. Last September, the NSPCA applied for an urgent interdict against the minister of environmental affairs, the SA Predator Association and the MECs of economic development and environment in Limpopo, North West, Gauteng and Free State in a bid to get it suspended.

For lion bone quotas to be confirmed, the decision must be made in accordance with the Scientific Authority and professional reviews of all available information. The public can submit information for consideration by the Scientific Authority.

The NSPCA argued last year that as soon as it submitted a request for a review of 2017’s quota, the 2018 quota was announced and confirmed.

This was while it had two legal processes in the pipeline. It also argued that although the department said no wild lions were at risk, the Endangered Wildlife Trust highlighted that wild lions, especially in Mozambique, had come under increasing threat for their body parts, which the department downplayed.

The NSPCA argued in court the lion bone trade sees captive-bred lions at times kept in deplorable conditions. The judge criticised the state for this, adding that if SA pursued this trade, captive-bred animals had to live in legally specified conditions.

If this did not occur, it sent the message that SA was open for business regardless of the conditions lions were in, which the judge said contravened “the spirit of the constitution”.

Minister of Environmental Affairs Barbara Creecy has not yet set a quota for this year.

[Lisbeth]

In one article is written that there had been an increase in hunting of captive-bred lions and in the other they talk about a decrease

[Lisbeth]

Lion bones masquerade as tiger bones in China. Wikimedia commons

Captive lion breeding in South Africa: the case for a total ban

BY ROSS HARVEY - 30 JULY 2019 - THE CONSERVATION

A new report by global NGO, World Animal Protection, provides a damning indictment on the captive predator breeding industry. Big cats are being bred for the use of their bones in traditional Chinese medicine. China is estimated to house about 8 000 tigers in captivity, while South Africa may have as many as 14 000 lions. Nontobeko Mtshali asks Ross Harvey to analyse the issues around captive breeding in South Africa.

Is the South African government doing enough to manage the fact that it’s got the biggest number of wild cats in captivity?

No. The fact that it has the largest number of big cats in captivity in the world – anywhere north of 8 000 – across an estimated 300 facilities – is evidence of an industry out of control. It remains largely unregulated.

The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries admits that it doesn’t know how many facilities there are. Nor does it know how many predators are in captivity.

Captive breeding is permissible under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The trade in products arising from it is permitted under an annotation. But the International Union for the Conservation of Nature – the world’s foremost conservation body – has unequivocally called for its termination.

The South African government has been slow to act against the industry despite significant welfare concerns. These include the fact that regular practices include removing cubs born in captivity from their mothers a few hours after birth. And that they are regularly sold into the captive-origin (canned) hunting industry after they’ve outlived their usefulness, or sold directly into the Asian tiger bone trade.

On top of this South Africa’s legal trade is actively encouraging the consumption of tiger parts, which is imperilling highly endangered wild tigers. This is because lion bones masquerade as tiger bones in China, where the purchase of tiger products is illegal.

The government’s interpretation that the industry can continue, provided it draws up legislation to govern it, contradicts a set of resolutions articulated by the country’s parliament in 2018 that called for laws to be reviewed with a view to shutting the industry down. There is no room in that instruction for the government to continue allowing the industry.

What are the biggest issues it should be addressing?

In my view, any new law should terminate the industry.

There is a counter-argument to this, that breeding may provide a bufferagainst wild lion exploitation. But this remains speculative, as the poaching of wild lions isn’t declining. There are probably fewer lions left in the wild than rhinos.

Also, legal supply availability undermines efforts to reduce demand. And the idea that South Africa and CITES can successfully regulate a legal trade in captive-bred lion parts or govern the industry well is a fantasy. The government has neither the will nor the resources to do this.

In fact it’s not clear that a continued legal trade can have any positive conservation value. The price of lion skeletons would have to be just right –- a Goldilocks price that incentivised farming but somehow simultaneously disincentivised poaching. In an excellent scientific articleon why a legal trade in rhino horn will not solve the rhino poaching problem, Douglas Crookes and James Blignaut show that it is always cheaper for a poacher to extract parts from wild slaughtered animals than to farm them sustainably.

Legal trade only works if it crowds out illegal supply, and that is almost economically impossible. It is further compounded by the fact that some consumers are after evidently wild-sourced product.

Finally, welfare considerations of lions’ lives in captivity bestow a responsibility on the government to end the industry. There are no easy answers. But South Africa’s Constitutional Court has ruled that

welfare and animal conservation together reflect two intertwined values.

What useful research has been done to help guide it in its decision-making?

Both sides use research to bolster their arguments.

The government is citing a study it commissioned that was published in an academic journal article last year. It conveys findings from a survey of a large proportion of South Africa’s breeders.

The government has indicated that it takes one finding in particular to be concerning – some breeders intimated that they would find illegal channels to sell their skeletons if the government’s export quota was too restrictive. Policy-making to accommodate these threats looks more like a hostage negotiation than a well-considered and impartial plan.

The article also argues that South Africa should continue to allow the legal industry to flourish so as to avoid introducing a price-shock to the market.

But parliamentarians point to a number of reports and a working paperhave been published to examine the various problematic elements of the lion bone trade and the captive predator breeding industry. These informed parliament’s resolution to shut the industry down. But they have largely been ignored by the government.

What moral issues should it consider?

If welfare and conservation are inextricably linked, then the industry should be terminated on those grounds alone. But there’s a more pernicious moral issue at play.

Justifying the continuation of predator breeding farms on the grounds that there is no causally established relationship between farming and increased poaching is a form of crude utilitarianism. The utility to be maximised is a limited increase in wild lion and tiger poaching. If breeding serves that end, the means are justified.

This calls us to ignore the suffering of individual animals, which is morally objectionable. Science is not value-neutral, nor is its practice always impartial. It should never be used to ignore ethics.

Original article: https://theconversation.com/captive-lio ... ban-121131

[Lisbeth]

Photo: Pippa Hankinson

“Answer to South African Parlimentary Question: Noting There Are Approximately 7979 Lions in Captivity in 366 Facilities”

BY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES - 12 AUGUST 2019

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

(For written reply)

QUESTION NO.410 (NW1382E)

INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 7 of 2019

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 26 July 2019

Ms H S Winkler (DA) to ask the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries:

(1) (a) What number of (i) lions are currently kept in predator-breeding farms across the Republic and (ii) farms or facilities across the Republic are involved in the breeding of predators and (b) what systems are in place to audit the captive lion breeding industry in each province;

(2) What is the reason that the specified industry has been allowed to continue when it is commonly accepted that the industry has no conservation value and is detrimental to the Republic’s conservation record (details furnished); and

(3) Why has her Department not adhered to the strong recommendations and resolutions put forward by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs in November 2018, which called for an end to the captive lion-breeding industry in the Republic?

410. THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES REPLIES:

(1) (a) In terms of section 87A of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA), the Members of the Executive Council (MECS) of the provinces who are responsible for conservation of biodiversity are the issuing authorities for permits in respect of listed threatened or protected species, which in this case, includes the registration of captive lion breeding facilities. The following information is applicable, as reported by provincial issuing authorities in December 2017:

(i) There are approximately 7979 lions in captivity in South Africa.

(ii) There are 366 captive facilities that are registered in terms of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004): Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, 2007.

The figures provided in (i) and 9ii) are an indication of all lions in captive facilities which could be purely captive breeding facilities; or captive facilities that operate as a combination of captive breeding facilities and commercial exhibition facilities (zoos); or captive keeping facilities/zoos that do not specifically engage in breeding.

(b) A permit is required, in terms of NEMBA, to carry out any restricted activity involving a listed threatened or protected species. Since lions are currently listed as vulnerable species in terms of section 5691) of NEMBA, the permit requirements of NEMBA apply to all specimens of the African lion, whether those specimens are in the wild or in a captive environment. Further, the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations, promulgated in terms of NEMBA in 2007, require that any captive breeding operation must be registered. Officials from the provincial conservation authorities who have been appointed as Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs) in terms of the National Environmental management Act 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998), are responsible for monitoring compliance with the provisions of NEMBA, as well as conditions of permits issued in terms of NEMBA and registrations issued in terms of the TOPS Regulations. These EMIs are also responsible for taking enforcement action in the case of non-compliance with NEMBA and the TOPS Regulations.

(2) A non-detrimental finding (NDF) made by a Scientific Authority, in respect of African lion and in terms of section 61(1)(d) of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 indicates that there are currently no major threats to the wild and managed lion populations of South Africa, whereas minor threats include over-utilisation, disease, poaching and conflict with communities around protected areas. The NDF further states that trophy hunting of captive-bred lions poses no threat to the wild population within South Africa, and “it is thought that captive lions may in fact serve as a buffer to potential threats to wild lions by being the primary source for hunting trophies and derived products (such as bone)”. The NDF was published in the Gazette, No. 41393, on 23 January 2018.

(3) The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries takes the resolutions and recommendations of the Portfolio Committee (PC) on Environmental Affairs seriously. It is for this reason that the Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries is finalising the appointment of a High-Level Panel to review the policies, legislation and practises in respect of the handling, management, breeding, hunting and trade involving, among others, lion.

Regards,
MS B D CREECY, MP
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES

DATE: 12/8/2019

[Lisbeth]

Nature reserve in Cradle of Humankind ends cub petting

2019-09-09 14:11

As the collective voice against cub petting and its links to the canned hunting industry grows louder, one facility in the Cradle of Humankind has also drawn the line.

The Rhino and Lion Nature Reserve in the Cradle of Humankind announced that they will be stopping their cub petting activity for the public with immediate effect. This forms part of the reserve's rebranding as a 'nurture reserve' since it fell under new stewardship, dedicated to putting animal welfare first.

“As new owners, we have acknowledged that what was acceptable in 1990 when the reserve first opened to the public, may no longer be acceptable in 2019,” says Jessica Khupe, the reserve's brand manager.

“Human beings have always wanted to get up close and personal with wild animals. Understandable as this is, studies have shown that it is not good for animal welfare."



Its new COO, Mike Flynn, reiterated this sentiment, adding that besides the welfare aspect, "it's also not a sustainable business model".

This forms part of the reserve's three-year plan to upgrade all of its public facilities, habitats and wildlife enclosures for the benefit of the animals, as well as striving for healthy genetic diversity among their animals, helping ensure the long-term survival of vulnerable species and pledge to never sell or exchange their animals, including their lions, unless it's to a reputable and licensed wildlife institution.

They also commit to only breeding animals if it serves a conservation purpose.

“To those of our visitors who are disappointed that they can no longer cuddle a lion cub at our reserve - this is the right thing to do,” says Khupe. “As animal lovers, we understand how charismatic African wildlife is. But the truth is that our love for our animals may inadvertently harm them, even though we don’t mean to.”

It's been widely reported that lions used in the cub petting industry end up being sold for either canned lion hunting and the lion bone trade when they get too old for petting.