RANCH LION HUNTING IN SOUTH AFRICA

The hunting of ranch lions in South Africa is open and will continue as usual in the 2016 hunting season.

SAPA realises that the entire hunting industry is currently under severe pressure and that it will stay under pressure for as long as the perceptions of the public are exploited and manipulated by the animal rights organisations. Winning the hearts and the minds of the people for hunting as a legitimate and ecologically responsible human activity is a battle all hunters and conservation-minded people must be prepared to fight together. SAPA has and will continue to stand up against these ongoing onslaughts on hunting,

SAPA firmly believes in the integrity and sustainability of the ranch lion industry in South Africa. Lion hunting is legal and constitutes an important sector of the trophy hunting industry in South Africa.

• Lion hunting is allowed and supported by the SA government

The hunting of ranch lions in South Africa is well regulated by the National Department of Environmental Affairs, together with the provincial conservation authorities. All licensing and permitting of the keeping, breeding and hunting of lions are done strictly in accordance with CITES regulations. As recent as 15 May 2015, the Minister of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, has confirmed the government’s support for the lion industry in a press release by remarking: “There appears to be a deliberate strategy to conflate canned lion hunting with captive breeding of lions. The former is strictly prescribed; the latter is allowed, but strictly regulated and monitored. Lion hunting is allowed in South Africa. It is an integral part of our sustainable utilisation policies.”

NO RESTRICTION OR TERMINATION ORDER REGARDING THE RANCH LION INDUSTRY HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE SA GOVERNMENT AND NOTHING OF THAT KIND IS EXPECTED

• Accreditation the key to sustainability and responsibility

Complementary to state laws and regulations SAPA has developed norms and standards to guide the actions of its members. To ensure compliance with these norms and standards SAPA has developed a system of accreditation. Lion hunting destinations are formally assessed against these norms and standards by independent assessors.  Successful applicants are awarded accreditation for three years and audited regularly in-between.

Currently (January 2016) twelve lion hunting destinations in South Africa have been accredited. These 12 ranches have dedicated their businesses to the legal and authentic hunting of captive bred lions in South Africa. SAPA is in the process of expanding accreditation to several more compliant ranches.

SAPA is very much aware of and seriously committed to its responsibility towards the conservation of lions in the wild. The Association is contributing to lion conservation in various ways, e.g. through its Conservation Fund, funded by levies on lions hunted on accredited lion hunting destination and by contributions of hunting clients.

• The USFWS and the status of the African lion

SAPA is aware of the fact that the final ruling of the USFWS on the status of the African lion, published on 23 December 2015, may have serious effects on the ranch lion industry’s client basis. However, the industry is positive that it will be able to live with the ruling and able to comply with any specific trophy import requirements.

• Lion hunting and the Professional Hunter’s Association of South Africa (PHASA)

SAPA and PHASA are closely related organisations, with members that belong to both organisations. Many PHASA members were, until recently, involved in lion hunting. PHASA’s decision, in November 2015, to distance itself from captive bred lion hunting drastically changed the situation. Their decision was followed by a warning that “…any of its members found to be involved in the hunting or marketing of captive-bred lions would face expulsion”.

SAPA is utterly disappointed by PHASA’s feckless about-turn on the issue of lion hunting. Although it has been expected for some time, it is still a slap in the face of a partner that has shown itself to be trustworthy and loyal in the hunting and wildlife industry.

PHASA obviously did not base its decision on what is good for the lion population of South Africa, but rather to appease uninformed public opinion. In a public statement prior to their 2015 annual general meeting, former PHASA president Hermann Meyeridricks expressed their unease as “the tide of public opinion is turning strongly against this form of hunting” and indicated that PHASA’s volte face on the subject came about “against this backdrop.”

It is SAPA’s position that the right decisions are often at odds with those that are popular. The current campaign against captive-bred lion hunting is just a battle in the war against hunting in general. PHASA has buckled before this onslaught of uninformed social activists. If the hunting of captive-bred lions should be prohibited, it would remove an important node of resistance against the opponents of all forms of hunting. The entire industry and its sustainable benefits for wildlife preservation are at stake and PHASA has taken the side of those who would destroy it. Ironically, in doing so, PHASA has jeopardized its own long-term survival.

PHASA’s humiliating retreat on the issue was done with no small amount of hypocrisy. It now demands that SAPA should prove the “conservation value” of captive-bred lion hunting as well as enlarge minimum hunting areas to 2 000 ha and increase the release period, yet PHASA would not dream of instituting these conditions on the owners of buffalo or rhino which are also bred in captivity to be hunted.

PHASA has expressed their reservations about the ethical treatment of lions bred in captivity in South Africa, but has now relinquished any position from which to advise or influence SAPA in the matter.

THE documentary film Blood Lions: Bred for the Bullet is making an extraordinary impact around the world. Even the European parliament is sitting up and taking notice of the unholy alliance between lion breeding and canned hunting.

The hunting industry is not enjoying the attention, and here in South Africa, the Professional Hunter’s Association is turning against the purveyors of such practices.

The last few months have been a bit of a whirlwind for the makers and producers of Blood Lions, especially so for Ian Michler, conservationist, safari operator and special consultant to the hard-hitting documentary.

It began with the first screenings at the Durban International Film Festival in July, and hasn’t stopped. Since then Michler has been in Brussels, Helsinki, Turku, London, New York, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Gaborone and Bogota to promote the feature film that digs deeply into South Africa’s predator breeding and canned trophy hunting industry And an industry it certainly is, with more than 200 predator breeding farms raising lions for the bullet, the lion bone demand in eastern Asia, and the lucrative petting and voluntourism sectors.

I caught up with Michler on a short break back in South Africa before heading back into the fray and was eager to ask him about the reaction of audiences around the world. “In a word, fantastic,” he responds.

“Wherever we’ve been the reception has been overwhelmingly supportive, both of the film and the campaign behind it to end the breeding and canned hunting industry”

Lobby

“Even in the United States?” I ask. `Absolutely” says Michler. “As you know, like here in South Africa, the States has a very strong trophy hunting lobby. But no one took us on at any of the screenings. Hunters know about the film of course and I know they are worried about the groundswell of opinion against them. This comes through in social media and in other discussions within hunting groups around the world. Clearly Blood Lions and the events around the killing of Cecil in Zimbabwe have thrown their activities into the spotlight and they have been back-footed as a result.

“By contrast,” Michler continues, “while we have to deal with powerful pro-trophy hunting voices in South Africa and the US, Europe presents itself rather differently In Europe the trophy hunting lobby seems to represent the minority of hunters. In fact there is a strong sentiment against trophy hunting per se, not just the canned hunting element of it. European hunters are mostly after meat – what we would call the biltong hunters. We had hunters come to screenings of Blood Lions and they were completely in agreement with the film and the campaign.”

Michler’s experiences “on tour” and at screenings in South Africa seem to have been remarkably similar. Public reaction to the documentary – outrage in fact – has been huge and the South African Professional Hunting Association (Phasa) has been squarely confronted by the less savoury aspects of its world. So much so in fact that its president admitted to the urgent need to rethink its “untenable” position on the matter of canned lion hunting.

Well, the re-thinking has happened apace as Phasa certainly hasn’t wasted time in formally turning its back on the controversial practice of captive-bred lion hunting. At the association’s recent AGM a majority of its members voted to distance the association from the practice “until such time as the South African Predators Association could prove its conservation value to Phasa as well as the IUCN”.

Phasa also resolved that any of its members found to be involved in the hunting or marketing of captive-bred lions would face expulsion. Strong words and seemingly a victory for the Blood Lions campaign. But Michler is cautious. “Many of us have been on the issue of predator breeding and canned lion hunting for 15 plus years and we need to remember that for all that time Phasa has pretty much thumbed its nose at any opposition.

 “Also, we mustn’t forget that when in 2010 the predator breeders were successful in overturning a law aimed at banning canned lion hunting, Phasa was quick to jump on the bandwagon.

 “Having said that, I completely welcome the about-turn on the part of Phasa since the release of Blood Lions. In fact I would go so far as to congratulate the courage and commitment of the current leaders of Phasa to take on their own membership in this manner.

“Two members of Phasa deserve special praise: Paul Stones and Garry Kelly have long led a debate around ethics within hunting circles, so much so that they were ostracised by their own organisation and had to break away to form their own group. Although belittled at the time, they have carried the day “But now comes the real test”, says Michler. “From now Phasa will be judged not on its statement but its actions – how it goes about it from here.

Collapse

“Are we going to see them actually take on errant members? Are we going to start seeing the collapse of canned hunting and the closing down of breeding farms? We wait to see. The point is that the hunting industry has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to make this decision in the face of what the world sees as appalling, horrific and without any conservation merit.”

While Michler was abroad, things took a bit of a bumpy turn back home. One of the farms featured in Blood Lions took action against the documentary’s producers for harming their reputation as a “sanctuary” and a lucrative voluntourism destination.

“It must have been a little disquieting being so far from home when this was going on,” I ask Michler.

“Interestingly, we expected to be taken on by someone,” he replies. “We just weren’t sure which facility would do it. I expect there was communication among all of them in the run-up to lodging the case. But the fact is that the judge threw the case out in its entirety and also awarded us all costs.

“But, yes, it was disconcerting. Our lawyers, Bowman Gilfillan did an outstanding job in presenting our case. Added to that, Pippa Hankinson – without whose determination the film would never have been made – and fellow producer Andrew Venter also did an excellent job in our defence.

“The reason we were confident we hadn’t overstepped the mark, and it is an important point to make, is that although we openly oppose the breeding and canned lion hunting industry and unashamedly want it stopped, the film doesn’t accuse individuals or places. The judge took the point that we simply ask legitimate questions and listen to the answers we are given.”

To do this, Michler and cameraman Nick Chevalier had to dig in some pretty sensitive and threatening places. “We had to,” Michler acknowledges. “This industry t isn’t transparent, you know, it’s murky and deceitful. There has to be a reason as to how we have gone from a few hundred captive predators to 8 000 in 15 years.

“At the same time we also know that more than 800 lions have been shot annually in canned hunts. Where have they come from? Who is providing them? Yet if you go from farm to farm few admit to breeding and none will admit to supplying lions for canned hunts. I imagine what they do is put a so-called trading agent between themselves and the property on which a lion will be hunted. So it is easy for them to say with feigned indignation that ‘We don’t breed or hunt our lions’.”

Michler believes that although Blood Lions has proved to be a catalyst for a rapid rethink about hunting and hunting ethics, he avers that it is part of a much bigger sea change.

“The stage has been set. We have had decades of the trophy hunting arguments and hard-core sustainable use proponents being in the ascendancy But now there is a growing force within conservation and the wider public saying that we need to reassess our approach to wilderness and wild species. We see this not only in the response to Blood Lions and Cecil, but to poaching and the illegal wildlife trade too – indeed, in the way we treat the planet as a whole. There is a strong sense that a more considered stance is gathering momentum.

“I’m not saying that we need to throw out the whole concept of sustainable use but, as Will Travers of Born Free points out in the film, ‘we need to reinterpret it’. I agree wholeheartedly. Much of what we have seen over the past decade here in South Africa and all over is not sustainable use, but sustained abuse.

“I firmly believe that at the end of the day the conservation, economic and community issues have nothing to do with it. The root of it is whether we choose to have an abusive relationship with the planet or not. And this is a deep-seated philosophical matter. The rest is all smoke and mirrors.”

Michler is the first to admit that the battle against the breeders and canned trophy hunting is far from over but hopefully, in the words of Churchill, “it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.

So where to next? “Well, the presentation to the EU parliament has been the most significant to date so we plan to return in the new year to secure even more commitment. In particular we have been invited to talk to the governments of Spain, Italy and Finland.

Legislation

“Once we can get some consolidation in Europe we’ll turn the focus to the United States. But while it is critical to get countries to get legislation in place to ban the import of trophies, it is also vitally important to keep the dialogue open across the spectrum of conservation, political and hunting opinion. And then we also need to be bringing far greater awareness around the fraudulent conservation messages sent out by breeders and petting facilities.”

One of the greatest challenges seems to be to get the attention of the South African government. Its reaction to Blood Lions: silence.

Rather strange given the fact National Geographic cited the documentary as one of the decade’s 12 top exposes of endangered and abused wildlife. But maybe not…

In the preamble to an article posted on Untold Africa towards the end of 2015, I wrote: “Hunting, especially trophy hunting, is a topic guaranteed to get a lot of people very hot under the collar very quickly, especially among those polarised into the stridently ‘for’ camp and the often even more strident ‘under no circumstances’ camp.

What is right? What is wrong? What is best for Africa?”For me these questions were thrown into sharp relief when a meeting between South African government officials and representatives of Safari Club International (SCI) took place in a town called Polokwane in the far north of the country.

Awards for killing

For those who may not be familiar with SCI, it is arguably the biggest and politically most powerful hunting club it the world. Within its embrace the wealthiest and most ardent of its 25,000-plus members compete to have their names inscribed in the SCI Record Book. For 60 years the entries in this hallowed tome have commemorated, in meticulous detail, the feats of hunters and the trophies they have brought down by arrow, bullet and bolt. All in the name of sport.

It doesn’t end there, not by a long chalk. Trophy hunting is an intensely competitive pastime and SCI acknowledges the grandiosity of members according to a strict, medieval-sounding hierarchy ranging from Grand Slam Awards, Inner Circle Awards, the Fourth Pinnacle of Achievement Award, the Crowning Achievement Award and, finally, the Nimrodian height of glory itself – the World Hunting Award for which the qualification requires an astonishing array of kills, including the African 29 Grand Slam (a list of species from which 29, including three of the big five, must be taken).

And this is just an outline of the many arcane sub-categories of CSI awards that in the case of Africa have resulted in the deaths of 2,007 lions, 791 elephants, 572 rhinos (including 93 black rhinos listed as Critically Endangered), 1,888 leopards and 3,238 Cape buffaloes since its inception. Then there are thousands of other animals felled for some or other desirable anatomical attribute.

The collective clout of a wealthy few

Of course there are other powerful hunting clubs in the world, and hunters come from everywhere, not just the United States. And it is only fair to add that even in America there is far from universal approval of hunting – in fact a 2014 poll conducted on behalf of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) found that more than 80 per cent of Americans surveyed support the banning of lion and elephant trophies.

Relative to the world population, the proportion of sport hunters is really very small and of those the trophy hunters are but a fraction again. However, they are a very wealthy few who individually and collectively wield a lot of clout.

So, it was understandable that SCI’s meeting in Polokwane in the heart of South Africa’s big game hunting industry caused a ripple of disquiet through conservation circles, not because the meeting took place, but that it did so behind closed doors. Why the secrecy? Why was the media not welcome?

2015 – an annus horribilis for trophy hunting

Well that seemed pretty easy to work out: the hunting industry, especially the trophy aspect of it has been somewhat on the back foot recently, especially here in Africa. Witness the world-wide outrage at the inexpert murder of Cecil the lion and the subsequent slaying of a great old tusker in south-eastern Zimbabwe. And then the hard-hitting film Blood Lions exposed the shameful horrors of canned hunting. First it was shown to select audiences in South Africa, but now it is being increasingly screened at festivals and venues all over the world. Even Discovery Channel aired a one-hour cut.

Add to this the increasing number of airlines refusing to carry lion trophies out of Africa, the banning of the importation of lion trophies and lion body parts into Australia, increasing anti-trophy import actions in the US (including listing the African lion in terms of the US Endangered Species Act, which makes the importation of trophies illegal) and one begins to understand how beleaguered trophy hunters must be feeling.

Furthermore, with Blood Lions filmmaker Ian Michler now in an ongoing engagement (see “The turning tide – Blood Lions v lion breeding and canned hunting”) with the European parliament to have the import of lion trophies banned across the EU, 2015 was something of an annus horribilis for he hunting fraternity. So who better to turn to than an old friend with a sympathetic ear: the South African government.

Burnishing the chalice

No doubt SCI and their supporters will have gone to great lengths at the meeting to show their activities in the most positive light possible and to reinforce their much-vaunted contribution to the economic development of African countries that allow hunting, their services to conservation and the provision of all-important jobs in impoverished local communities. The great chalice of trophy hunting would have been taken out, burnished and much admired as all the old chestnuts were laid out for discussion.

Almost certainly one of the first items on the agenda would have been the claim that the trophy hunting industry generates some US$200-million in revenue across remote African rural areas. A lucrative activity indeed. But for whom? For a start, The $200 million question, a report by Economists at Large suggests that the contribution claimed is at best a rather shaky guestimate that should be used with caution. But even if we accept the figure at face value, further investigation reveals that very little actually accrues to rural communities alongside hunting areas. Only about three per cent in fact. The vast majority goes to commercial firms, government agencies, overseas or stays in regional capitals. Moreover, any amounts that do go to government coffers rarely end up in communities thanks to corruption and other questionable spending priorities.

Of course US$200-million is not to be sneezed at, but in the context of economies as a whole it represents a fraction of one per cent of the collective GDP of the countries reviewed in the report. What’s more, it transpires that across the board trophy-hunting revenue amounts to a mere 1.8 per cent of total tourism receipts. Perhaps not too surprising in light of a study by the University of Port Elizabeth that estimated ecotourism on private game reserves generated “more than 15 times the income of livestock or game rearing or overseas hunting”.

Exaggerated economic importance

And do hunting camps contribute meaningfully to employment as the industry claims? They do provide jobs, for sure, but they are generally seasonal, poorly paid and without much security considering the dangers involved. Also hunting camps tend to be basic, with very low staff compliments. Photo safaris on the other hand mostly operate all year and run to high standards of accommodation and services that engage a substantial staff complement. There is also a far greater security of tenure and the opportunity to learn hospitality and conservation management skills that can and do lead to life-long careers.

Clearly the economic development importance of trophy hunting is greatly overstated. Certainly it adds little real nourishment to the poorly stocked larders of conservation.

Specious claims

The arguments justifying trophy hunting extend well beyond the economic claims. Hunters argue that their activities only take out older animals that are past their breeding lives and therefore have fulfilled their purpose. Such specious claims have been perpetuated for decades and have been mostly accepted by a gullible audience. Science shows clearly, however, that the elderly of many species still breed and make a vital contribution to the structures of their society. Removing them artificially upsets all sorts of behaviour around reproduction, collective wisdom and, certainly in the case of elephants, discipline within herds.

Then there are the assertions that hunters keep vast tracts of Africa in a near wilderness state and that their activities add to vigilance against poaching. This might be true in some cases of privately owned land but it can’t be used as a sweeping generalisation. Certainly the lion breeding and hunting farms that have burgeoned in South Africa are little more than ecological deserts – they have no conservation value at all.

Witness too the situation in Tanzania, one of the great hunting destinations in Africa. The fact that some 60 per cent of the country’s elephant population has been lost to poaching in the past five years makes one suspect that “hunter’s vigilance” is not quite the anti-poaching force it is made out to be.

And so the arguments and sometime insults and threats are traded back and forth until we reach a state where the “Yeah but, no but” arguments (often ending in irrational conclusions on both sides of the divide) are worthy of Vicky Pollard, the obnoxious teenager from English cult comedy series Little Britain.

A rapid turnaround

One thing is for certain, the South African Professional Hunters’ Association (PHASA) has been squarely confronted by the less savoury aspects of their world, to the extent that the association has finally and formally turned its back on the controversial practice of captive-bred lion hunting. At the association’s most recent AGM, a majority of its members voted to distance the association from the practice “until such time as the South African Predators Association could prove its conservation value to PHASA as well as the IUCN”.

PHASA also resolved that any of its members found to be involved in the hunting or marketing of captive-bred lions would face expulsion. Strong words and seemingly a victory for the Blood Lions campaign. Michler has welcomed and congratulated PHASA on their stance. “But,” he says, “now comes the real test. From now PHASA will be judged not on their statement but their actions – how they go about it from here. Are we going to see them actually take on errant members? Are we going to start seeing the collapse of canned hunting and the closing down of breeding farms? We wait to see.”

A fundamental distinction between right and wrong

Actions aimed at the eradication of canned hunting are a great step forward, but I want to see an end to trophy hunting and I make no bones about it. I wholeheartedly support Ian Michler and his colleagues in their strategy of getting parliaments around the world to ban the importation of trophies. It is a sound course of action and, judging by the agitation it is causing in hunting circles, an effective one.

In the end trophy hunting turns upon the fundamental distinction between right and wrong. How can shooting an animal from a safe distance with a high powered weapon for no other reason than to conquer it and hang its lifeless remains on a wall possibly be construed as a moral act?

And so my question to all who champion trophy hunting is simply this: “What right does one species have to kill a member of another species for pleasure?”

This article was originally written by Peter Borchert and published by Untold Africa.

As a publisher, editor and writer Peter Borchert has a media career spanning more than four decades. He was the founder of Africa – Environment & Wildlife which subsequently became Africa Geographic. The magazines were the focus of 20 years of his life before he left the business in 2013. In 2014 Peter started a new venture UNTOLD AFRICA – a digital media platform dedicated to the celebration of Africa’s wonders and the ongoing dialogue about the threats to their existence.