Animal Sentience – #TheyFeelToo

On a regular basis people with stakes in the wildlife industry argue that animals operate purely based on instincts and survival mechanisms and do not have “emotions or morals as humans do”. They claim that projecting feelings onto wild animals in particular distorts our view of their behaviour, which in turn can hinder effective conservation efforts or appropriate care.

Do non-human animals operate solely on instinct, on fight or flight response and other survival mechanisms or can we attribute more human-like capabilities to animals? 

Do they feel too?

For those questions we turn to science and investigate the phenomenon of animal sentience.

What is Animal Sentience?

When people speak of animal sentience or of sentient beings, they generally refer to the capacity of an animal to have subjective experiences. 

But what does that actually mean?

The word sentience comes from the Latin word sentire which means to feel. When we hone in on this notion of animal sentience and their ability to have subjective experiences, we identify that these can be good or bad feelings, such as pleasure, warmth, joy, comfort, excitement, pain, anxiety, distress, boredom, hunger, and thirst. For social species like lions, this includes the ability to form social bonds.

After a long history of instilling the notion that animals have no cognisance and therefore feel no pain or experience no suffering, the 18th Century English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, said “the question is not Can they reason? or Can they talk? but Can they suffer?

This started a long lasting ethics debate amongst philosophers and other intellectuals wrestling with the concept of animals having feelings. A modern day philosopher, Peter Singer, defined sentience in 1979 as “the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness”. 

Fast forward 40 years and animal welfare science and bioethics pioneer, Emeritus Professor David J. Mellor, describes sentience as the capacity of animals to consciously perceive by the senses and to consciously feel or experience subjectively. The capacity of animals to experience feelings and emotions includes both positive and negative sensations.

Which Non-Human Animals are Sentient?

There are three criteria generally used in recognising whether or not an animal is sentient:  behavioural, evolutionary, and physiological.

In 2012, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness reached a scientific consensus that humans are not the only sentient beings. A body of evidence was developing showing that other non‐human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, like octopuses possess neurological substrates complex enough to support conscious experiences. 

Scientists are still not in agreement when it comes to the sentience of fish and invertebrates. There is evidence that some fish for example can experience pain and thus sentience.

There are also ongoing debates around the sentience of insects. Insects and in particular bees have shown surprisingly complex behaviour and cognitive abilities and some scientists argue that they are capable of subjective experiences.

Is Animal Sentience Anthropomorphism?

Unfortunately, non-human animals don’t speak our language and are thus unable to convey their feelings coherently to us. However, that does not automatically make animal sentience anthropomorphism, which is to attribute human thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviours to non-human animals. 

Animal sentience is a phenomenon that can be studied and understood through scientific observations and experiments to more comprehensively understand animal behaviour and emotions based on evidence, rather than solely relying on human projections. 

Why is it Important to Recognise Animal Sentience?

The recognition of animal sentience over the last three decades has created a radical shift not only in the way we view the moral status of animals, but also how we provide for and ensure their welfare and well-being. Recognising animal sentience is crucial for animal welfare, as it underscores the importance of considering not only the physical but also the mental well-being of non-human animals.

With this recognition comes a need to move beyond simply ensuring the absence of animal suffering and move towards securing an ability for non-human beings to thrive.

PRESS RELEASE: South African Predator Association seeks to reinstate irresponsible lion bone export quota through High Court

BREAKING NEWS- 5th March 2025, Cape Town

Blood lions

The South African Predator Association (SAPA) together, with 10 individual lion farmers and ‘canned’ hunting operators, filed a court application seeking to renew a controversial lion bone export quota deemed “unlawful and constitutionally invalid” by High Court Judge Kollapen in 2019. At that time, Judge Kollapen found that the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) failed to consider the welfare of captive lions raised and killed for the bone trade when setting the quotas.

Conservation and welfare organisations, Blood Lions and Humane World for Animals (formerly called Humane Society International – Africa), implore the Honourable Minister Dr Dion George to stand firm and resist the demands of a select few lion farmers, who will all financially benefit from such a quota at the expense of lions.

The groups support the government in not facilitating lion bone exports through the issuing of a new quota.

The lion farmers assert the export quota is necessary to exercise their Constitutional Right to the freedom of trade, but fail to account for the well-being and welfare implications of their industry. The South African courts have moved to a more modern view that recognises that when exploiting captive wild animals, their needs and well-being must be considered at the level of the individual animal. Any consideration of a future quota must do so.

According to the court papers, the 10 lion farmers have stockpiled a total of 1,533 lion skeletons, all obtained as a ‘by-product’ of their ‘canned’ or captive hunting operations. Even though the skeletons may have been as a result of legal hunts, there is still no evidence that the welfare of the lions killed was considered adequately before and during the hunts.

SAPA claims that their members need to adhere to their self-drafted norms and standards, but it is unclear how such voluntary welfare standards are enforced by a membership organisation that includes no welfare professionals and lacks a mandate to enforce welfare conditions.

Blood Lions director Dr Louise de Waal says, “Captive (or ‘canned’) hunts, when a captive-bred, human-habituated lion is placed in a fenced camp, are considered to lack ‘fair chase’ by many in the hunting fraternity and cause severe stress for the animal involved. In addition, the lion has always been dependent on people for its food and water and may even approach the hunter believing it will be fed. Several welfare implications are clearly apparent.”

According to Dr Matthew Schurch, senior wildlife specialist at Humane World for Animals South Africa, “This case is an attempt by a select few to reopen an industry that needs to remain closed for the good of South Africa and its iconic lions. The commercial exploitation of lions for the trade in their bones does not factor in the well-being of the lions concerned. This has been recognised by the government through the adoption of recommendations and guiding policies which aim to close the industry, a position the government most recently reinforced in 2024, through its Policy Position on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Elephant, Lion, Leopard and Rhinoceros.”

Blood Lions

Background

On the 12th December 2024, SAPA and 10 named lion farmers filed a court application with the High Court of South Africa in Pretoria, asking the court to order the Minister to set a CITES export quota for 2025 to enable these individual hunting operators to sell off their lion bone stockpiles.
 

This is an appeal that seeks to overturn a 2019 High Court ruling, which in effect led to a zero quota. Since that time, no lion bones, parts or derivatives have been legally exported from South Africa. Since 2023 and the amendments to National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004, the government has a right to restrict certain trade without a legal obligation to compensate, particularly when such trade leads to grave animal welfare contraventions.

While the Minister and his Department included an animal well-being clause in the environmental legislation, the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association challenged this provision in August 2024, with apparent concerns that their hunting practices may not meet the necessary animal well-being standards.

According to one wildlife trader, a lion skeleton without a skull and claws is worth between ZAR 45,000 (male) and ZAR 35,000 (female), which means these lion farmers stand to profit of around ZAR 61 million through a once-off bone quota.

In April 2024, after extensive public consultation, the Minister’s Task Team (MTT) on Voluntary Exit Options and Pathways from the Captive Lion Industry released its recommendations in a Cabinet approved report. These recommendations included mass incineration of all known lion bone stockpiles, to prevent its illegal export and signal its commitment to ending this practice, as well as a prohibition on the captive breeding of lions in the medium term.

Media contacts

Blood Lions: Dr Louise de Waal, management@bloodlions.org, +27 76 148 1533

Humane World for Animals South Africa: Ms Tharwat Harris, tharris@humaneworld.org, +27 66 275 0960