End of lion breeding in captivity ?

[Lisbeth]

Rhino breeding cannot be compared to lion breeding. They are two completely different things and with two completely different aims.

[100ponder]

Hi Lizbeth, I think you relise that captive breading will have ensured the continued existence of the Northern White Rhinoceros and I think you are viewing Lion captive breaders in too a simplistic way. The captive breeders are much more diverse than that.
Another fact is that hunting is here to stay.
Main thing is - let us as humanity not make the same mistake AGAIN with lion.

[Klipspringer]

Ironically, the last northern rhinos are captive bred animals, they came from zoos engaged in conservation breeding.

And I say it again, farming animals commercially is not conservation breeding.

[Lisbeth]

I agree with Klipspringer. Captive breeding as we know it, is done only for personal gain.

[Klipspringer]

And the lion populations don't dwindle due to poaching for body parts as with rhino.

The reason is lack of suitable habitat with limited human wildlife conflict around and available prey.

There is no need for lion conservation breeding, there are more than enough lions available for relocations from wild or managed metapopulations, if there is a place to be rewilded and lions introduced. Small reserves even controll lion numbers through contraception because there is nowhere to move them.

[Lisbeth]

Conservation’s Mariana Trench: Report on wildlife trade a seminal moment in South Africa’s history

By Peter Borchert• 6 May 2021


A Lion is seen at the Aquila private game reserve in Touws River, some 200 km east of Cape Town, South Africa, 01 July 2010. (Photo: EPA/HELMUT FOHRINGER)

For those familiar with the conservation landscape in southern Africa, the significance of Barbara Creecy’s announcement needs little explanation. But for those who aren’t, suffice it to say there are two main wildlife issues around which almost everything revolves in South Africa – hunting and trade. Unfortunately, the divide is so deep that it makes the Mariana Trench seem like a ditch.

Peter Borchert is the founder and publisher of Africa Geographic magazine, and has authored five natural history books, and published and edited in excess of 500 magazines and books. He is the honorary chairperson and editor-in-chief of the Shannon Elizabeth Foundation, which publishes www.rhinoreview.org, where this article first appeared. He is also co-host of South Africa’s number one-rated nature podcast, www.artofconservation.com

Mid-morning on Sunday, 2 May 2021, I sat glued to my computer screen, and I certainly wasn’t alone, for the day was to prove a seminal moment in South Africa’s long and mostly illustrious wildlife conservation history. The occasion was the public release of Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries Barbara Creecy’s long-awaited review of the policies, laws and practices around the breeding, hunting, management, trade and handling of four iconic species – elephants, rhinos, lions and leopards.

It didn’t disappoint. As Don Pinnock writing in Daily Maverick aptly observed: “In a seismic shift that will send shock waves through many areas of SA’s wildlife industry, the Cabinet has endorsed a report calling for the end of lion farming, captive lion hunting, cub-petting and the commercial farming of rhinos.”

Comment was quick to follow. Ian Michler, an investigative journalist, a long-time campaigner against predator breeding, and a key member of the Blood Lions film team, was deeply encouraged by the panel’s findings. “After almost 25 years of opposing the horrors of captive predator breeding, mostly without success, this shift in thinking is significant,” he said. “The minister seems sincere, which means it is also an incredible opportunity to work with the department to rid the region of these practices forever. Blood Lions congratulates her, the ministry, the high-level panel and all those who made submissions calling for an end to the industry.”

Not everybody was happy, however. At the end of her presentation, Creecy was challenged by a very angry representative of the pro-trade, pro-hunting lobby which claimed that “many of these recommendations will not lead to the saviour of our species. They will lead to the destruction and the eradication of our species. They will pave the way to the extinction of our species. We need to change the way we do business. And don’t talk to us as being partners if we are not treated as partners, but the majority of people who own and pay for the protection of the rhino are the people who want a pro-trade agreement with CITES.”

For those familiar with the conservation landscape in this part of the world, the significance of this seminal report needs little explanation. But for those who aren’t, suffice it to say there are two main wildlife issues around which almost everything revolves in South Africa – hunting and trade. Unfortunately, the divide is so deep that it makes the Mariana Trench seem like a ditch. On the one side sit the protagonists of trade and hunting, and on the other sit those against. To be fair, there are a few conservationists who accept that both sides make some good points, but apart from these minor concessions, the opposing views are cemented into place with dogma-like conviction.

The pro-consumptive wildlife stance has dominated for many decades – unsurprisingly so, given the extent of land and wildlife stock in private ownership in South Africa. It is a powerful lobby – about 9,000 wildlife ranches sprawl across about 207,199 square kilometres of the country’s real estate, while the hunting industry is worth close to $1-billion to the national economy. Of this, trophy hunting contributed only about $131-million in terms of accommodation, game hunted and, in some cases, also the trophy handling and processing. The major slice of hunting revenue derives from mainly local “biltong hunters” who spend about $800-million a year on their pastime.

The lobby is no less powerful in neighbouring countries, particularly Namibia and Zimbabwe. This southern African nexus has not only supported hunting over the years but has also led impassioned delegations to argue the case for the legal trade of ivory and rhino horn, particularly at conferences of the signatories of CITES, the international treaty governing trade in endangered flora and fauna. However, the response from the rest of the world to these initiatives has by and large been unsympathetic. Increasingly, the zeitgeist (particularly in the West) is running against blood sports, trade and other practices perceived as inappropriate in today’s world.

This is particularly true in the case of a lion-breeding industry that has been allowed to flourish in recent times and operates as nothing but lion factories to supply stock into the canned lion sector of the trophy hunting industry. While South Africa might have enjoyed some sneaking international sympathy for rhino horn farming and trade, there has been none for this form of “sustainable use” from any quarter except for those (mainly American) hunters intent on having a stuffed lion to hang proudly in their homes.

Even in South Africa, the mood has swung significantly, much to the chagrin of the pro-hunting/pro-trade community, and has led to intensely vitriolic and unnecessarily personal attacks (from both sides, it must be said). The energy expended in these open displays of sectarianism has been costly and enormously time consuming, and has done little to enhance South Africa’s conservation reputation globally. But government concerns regarding damage to the country’s putative status as an exemplar of good practice in conservation and ecotravel seem to have finally prompted action.

In this regard, relentless pressure has been brought to bear on Creecy’s ministry. This has been led by individuals, the ecotourism industry, local and international NGOs and organisations such as Blood Lions, whose telling documentary of the same name has done so much to expose the sickening, cruel underbelly of the industry.

At Sunday’s press conference, Creecy referred directly to ending “certain inhumane and irresponsible practices that greatly harm the reputation of South Africa and the position of South Africa as a leader in conservation”. There could be no mistaking that her finger was pointing directly at the lion-breeding industry as she reiterated the panel’s view that it “poses risks to the sustainability of wild lion conservation resulting from the negative impact on ecotourism, which funds lion conservation and conservation more broadly, the negative impact on the authentic wild hunting industry, and the risk that trade in lion parts poses to stimulating poaching and illegal trade”.

She has already instructed her department to take the necessary actions for South Africa to end the practice, not breed or keep lions in captivity, or use captive lions or their derivatives commercially. This effectively puts an end to canned hunting and the current legal and lucrative practice of killing captive-bred lions and shipping their skeletons to Asia, where they are often falsely advertised and used as a substitute for tiger parts.

Besides those deeply involved in the industry, few will shed tears over this hard line taken against predator breeding and canned hunting. However, regarding rhino conservation, Creecy will undoubtedly feel the wrath of breeders and pro-traders in the coming weeks and months. As mentioned earlier, they will have been less than overjoyed by her decision not to make proposals to CITES for further trade in these species until additional findings are at hand and there is a global consensus for legal international trade in horn. She made it clear that, since South Africa is responsible for the most significant component of the global rhino population, the country intends to play a global leadership role in these deliberations. In respect of elephants, she also made it clear that South Africa supports the current CITES position of no trade and that the country would seek to play its part in finding an African consensus on ivory.

The report acknowledged the significant contribution of the private conservation sector and gave assurance of continued dialogue with private rhino owners. However, they will take scant comfort from this, given the panel’s view that captive facilities for the five iconic species should be reviewed, with a view to phasing them out, that their domestication and intensive and selective breeding should be prevented and restricted in legislation and regulation, and that special consideration should be given to mechanisms to rewild captive rhino from breeding facilities.

The report focuses heavily on providing policy certainty and reducing bureaucracy in its overall vision of “secured, restored and rewilded natural landscapes with thriving populations of elephant, lion, rhino and leopard, as indicators for a vibrant, responsible, inclusive, transformed and sustainable wildlife sector. The ongoing intention is to place communities living with wildlife at the centre of conservation thinking and make sure they benefit appropriately, something that to date has received little attention.”

Accordingly, there will be a renewed focus on transforming the ownership and management of the commercial wildlife economy, particularly in the ecotourism and “authentic hunting” sectors.

Creecy was at pains to point out that the panel’s recommendations are not against the hunting industry. On the contrary, she argued, ceasing to hunt captive lions is actually in the interests of the authentic wild hunting industry.

Quite what is meant by authentic is uncertain, but the panel clearly tried to avoid loaded terms such as “ethical hunting” and the concept of “fair chase”. Nevertheless, these definitions will have to be teased out and debated to avoid future confusion and legal loopholes. Meanwhile, South Africa and its neighbouring trophy hunt-hosting nations will continue to face pressure to end all trophy hunting once and for all. I certainly abhor the practice and find it impossible to see anything ethical or fair in it. For anyone critical of my stance, I suggest they watch The New Yorker’s exposé of NRA executive Wayne LaPierre’s farcical attempt to shoot an elephant in Botswana in 2012. He fired botched shot after botched shot point-blank into the poor creature lying and groaning on the ground before his companion’s coup de grâce ended its misery. And then he was lauded by the whole entourage for his shooting prowess. I would dearly love to know what was really going through the mind of LaPierre’s professional hunting guide as he offered his congratulations. Ethical, fair chase, authentic? I think not.

To be fair to the panel and the ministry, investigating the closure of all trophy hunting was not within their terms of reference. Nevertheless, for those who have long lobbied for the demise of the captive-lion breeding industry and all the inhumane practices it embodies, including canned trophy hunts, the report will be good news indeed. And so will the firm decision not to press CITES for a trade in rhino horn.

Needless to say, the protagonists for legal rhino horn and ivory trades and members of the broader trophy hunting industry will be less enthusiastic. But, this said, all business thrives in an environment of stability and certainty and flounders under contradictory and imprecise rules. To this end, the report has certainly started down a road of providing policy certainty, and this should be appreciated by all stakeholders.

Creecy, her ministry, the panel, and all who made submissions for consideration are to be congratulated on their thorough and detailed application to a highly complex set of issues. That said, the following and most important step will be to secure all these critical decisions in unambiguous policy and legislation.

As Don Pinnock comments: “The report now needs all the support it can get to make its way through Parliament and into law. Now is the time for former opponents, both in the NGO sector and the wildlife industry, to bury their hatchets and give it their support – and to do it for the sake of the beautiful wild animals with which South Africa is blessed.”

I hope that Pinnock’s appeal will be heard and that some hatchet-burying will take place. But sadly, I doubt it. The divisions are enduring, and all the old antagonisms and ill-feeling will continue to simmer in the dark depths of conservation’s Mariana Trench.

[Lisbeth]

LION FARMING – A HIDEOUS COMPLEXITY

BY CHRIS MERCER - 5TH MAY 2021 - CACH

Environment Minister Barbara Creecy has announced:
“The Panel identified that the captive lion industry poses risks to the sustainability of wild lion conservation resulting from the negative impact on ecotourism which funds lion conservation and conservation more broadly, the negative impact on the authentic wild hunting industry, and the risk that trade in lion parts poses to stimulating poaching and illegal trade. The panel recommends that South Africa does not captive -breed lions, keep lions in captivity, or use captive lions or their derivatives commercially. I have requested the department to action this accordingly and ensure that the necessary consultation in implementation is conducted.”

There is a tendency for animal activists to become euphoric when conservation appears to be heading in the right direction. However what ministers say and what happens in practice are often very different. Let’s put her words in the context of the key recommendations which are spelled-out in the report.

What exactly does “action these recommendations” mean?
The key recommendations are:

develop a process to stop lion farming and euthanase existing lion stocks.
make policy decisions to stop canned lion hunting and the lion bone trade, and
find mechanisms to protect workers on lion farms.
“Developing processes” and “drafting policies” can take years in South Africa. No implementation can take place without consultations with stakeholders. Consulting 300 lion breeders and a whole industry built up around them can take years.
Almost certainly a phasing out process will be insisted upon under threat of litigation which also takes years in South Africa.
I would guess that 5 to 7 years could be expected as a phasing out period.

The Minister’s bald statement belies the hideous complexity around the whole issue and around the appointment of the so-called “high level panel”. There is nothing particularly high level about most of the people on this panel: indeed the panel consists of dozens of people from all different walks of life with seemingly random appointments. Change the jury and you change the result.
The unwieldy and largely unqualified panel members started by asking for a legal opinion to tell them what to do. When they got it from a team of lawyers headed by senior counsel they did not understand it and had to ask for another. They then obtained a supplementary opinion to explain the first.

To be fair this is not so surprising when you analyse the difficulties created by the so-called environmental clause in the Constitution, section 24.
“Protect the environment,” says section 24, “but also protect the socio-economic rights of the people”. In practice the two are mutually exclusive. The clause thus contradicts itself.
“Oh,” says the High Court vaguely, “in that case just strike a balance between the two”. Easier said than done!

And these legal complexities must be resolved by weak and dysfunctional governance. The South African government is substantially dysfunctional. South African government parastatals and departments are substantially dysfunctional. Most provincial conservation structures are substantially dysfunctional. The justice system in South Africa is largely dysfunctional.
I would guess that in five years time canned lion hunting and the lion bone trade will still be flourishing.

I hope I’m wrong.

20 years of campaigning against lion farming and canned hunting have taught me never to underestimate the resourcefulness of the lion exploitation industry.
If I am wrong in what I’ve said above and the South African government eventually manages to regulate away lion farming and the canned hunting industry, then I would expect a flurry of midnight flights to take place and the following months the hunting magazines will be full of adverts offering lion hunts in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia.

The root of the problem is the demand from trophy hunters for living targets and, from Asians, for lion bone products. So long as the demand exists, soldiers of fortune will spring from the soil to find a way to supply it.
Prohibition in America created the Mafia. It did not stop the liquor industry.
The war on drugs created fabulously wealthy Mexican drug cartels. It did not stop drug use.
​
What kind of Mafia, I wonder, will result if we ever get an effective ban on lion breeding, lion hunting and the lion bone trade?

[RogerFraser]

Blood Lions
May 10 at 12:19 PM ·
BLOOD LIONS WEBINAR: Reflecting and reporting on the HLP recommendations.

Date: Thursday, 13 May 2021
Time: 16h30, SAST
Register: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/registe ... Gc_ggjjyw0

Join Blood Lions directors Ian Michler, Pippa Hankinson, Nicola Gerrard and Dr Louise de Waal for this discussion around the recent announcement by Minister Barbara Creecy.

They will be taking a close look at the High-Level Panel report, their recommendations and the consequences these may have for the captive lion breeding industry.

The webinar will end with a Q&A session.

[Lisbeth]

I have registered Now I must just remember at 16:30

[Lisbeth]

Lion farming and zoonotic diseases

Posted on June 14, 2021 by Team Africa Geographic in the DECODING SCIENCE post series.



In the recent report provided by the High-Level Panel on the management of iconic wildlife species in South Africa, the majority of the panel recommended that the government of South Africa ban captive lion breeding. One of their reasons was the risk associated with zoonotic diseases. It is a risk that has been highlighted by several lobbying groups and individuals but is often lost beneath the layers of moral debate that tend to dominate. So what diseases are associated with lions, and how acute is the risk? A recent study analyses 148 different research papers to start providing answers to these questions.

A zoonotic disease is a disease caused by any pathogen – bacteria, viruses, prions, fungi and parasites – capable of transmitting from vertebrate mammals to humans. Outbreaks of zoonotic diseases such as ebola, foot-and-mouth, psittacosis, or tuberculosis are often associated with severe human illness and death, as well as heavy livestock losses. Any farming and commercial use of animals is associated with an increased risk of zoonotic transmission, which is why biosecurity is so stringently regulated in most countries.

Wild animals can also act as reservoirs of infectious disease, some of which may, as yet, be unknown to the scientific community. Commercial wildlife operations are typically conducted with high concentrations of animals, poor hygiene conditions, and close contact between animals. In wild animals without domesticated instincts, high stress levels caused by captive situations might lower immune response and increase the risk of disease spread. Even though there are now thousands of lions and other predators housed in captive situations throughout South Africa, this was the first attempt at compiling a list of pathogenic organisms associated with lions from recent scientific research.



The authors analysed 148 different scientific papers from the last ten years to collate a list of diseases that have been identified in lions. Sixty-three different pathogens were reported, most of which were parasites but also included viruses and fungi. The authors also list 83 clinical symptoms and diseases associated with the identified pathogens. Several were singled out as potential threats to human health:

1. Echinococcosis – a disease caused by tapeworms that may often be present without symptoms for many years but may result in the formation of cysts in the brain, lungs and liver.
2. Human African trypanosomiasis – lions are a potential carrier of African sleeping sickness, though the disease is not typically present in South Africa.
3. Bovine tuberculosis – tuberculosis transmission at the wildlife-livestock-human interface is a growing concern and can have severe health and economic implications.
4. A pathogenic strain of Escherichia coli – these bacteria are present in the intestines of most mammals, including humans, but pathogenic strains cause diarrhoea and digestive distress.
5. Toxoplasma gondii – a protozoan parasite that causes toxoplasmosis (generally symptomless in healthy adults but can cause serious conditions in those with weakened immune systems). Some Toxoplasma species can cause severe inflammation to pulmonary, cardiac and nervous systems and have been linked to foetal death and abortion.
6. Anaplasma phagocytophilum – one of the tick-borne Rickettsia bacteria, causing tick bite fever.
7. Microsporum gypseum – a fungus that causes dermatomycosis (ringworm).
8. Toxascaris leonina – a parasitic roundworm that has been known to invade human hosts.
10. Mange – a contagious skin disease caused by parasitic mites and resulting in scabies in humans.

Of significant concern is the mutation and spread of viruses. Coronaviruses are one of the most common virus types in the world, and almost every human is infected with one or more during their lifetime. It is the more lethal strains of the virus (such as COVID-19) that are of concern. The feline coronavirus has not yet been known to spread from cats (lions or domestic cats) to people. However, the unsanitary conditions and proximity in lion farms increase the risk of these viruses mutating and making the species leap to humans. There are documented cases of COVID-19 in captive big cats, and farmers in the Netherlands contracted COVID-19 through close contact with infected mink. Pathogens could also transmit from farms to the surrounding wildlife.

In many instances, managing disease within captive lion populations is especially difficult because the lions appear asymptomatic for years or may act as carriers of disease. With little to no legal regulation, most captive lion farms have no biosecurity measures in place. This, in turn, will have implications for what happens to the lions currently in captivity.

The authors indicate that the list of identified pathogens is far from exhaustive but was intended as a baseline inventory of key pathogens associated with diseases in lions. They conclude that regardless of the moral debate surrounding the commercial breeding of lions, the industry poses a potential risk to other wildlife and public health.

The full text can be accessed here: African Lions and Zoonotic Disease: Implications for Commercial Lion Farms in South Africa, Green, J., et al., (2020), Animals