Johannesburg – South Africa’s trophy hunting industry said Thursday it “distanced” itself from hunts of half-tame lions in confined spaces, disowning a practice which has sparked worldwide outrage.

The Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa (PHASA) said the majority of its members had voted to “distance the association from captive-bred lion-hunting” until lion breeders “could prove the conservation value of this practice.”

South Africa is one of the continent’s main markets for trophy hunting, with foreign – mainly US – hunters spending about 1 billion rand (70 million dollars) and exporting more than 40 000 trophies in 2013, according to PHASA.

Nearly all of the approximately 800 lions hunted in 2013 had been bred in captivity. Animal rights activists say most of the hunts are so-called canned hunts, carried out in a small space where the animal cannot escape.

The hunting of half-tame lions has come under increasing criticism with the recent release of the documentary Blood Lions and the killing of the GPS-collared lion Cecil in neighbouring Zimbabwe in July.

Activists say breeding lions does not help to preserve the species, because lions raised in captive conditions cannot fend for themselves and cannot be released into the wild.

Animal activists and conservation bodies have declared “a victory for lions” following a number of ground-breaking decisions that could lead to the collapse of captive-lion breeding and canned hunting in South Africa.

This week the Professional Hunters’ Association of SA voted to distance itself from captive-bred lion hunting until the SA Predators Association could prove the conservation value of the practice to professional hunters and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

This followed the announcement by Matthias Kruse, editor of Germany’s leading hunting magazine, that, as of next year, Germany’s leading hunting show would no longer allow the advertising or sale of any form of canned or captive-bred hunts.

According to insiders at the association’s annual general meeting, battle lines were drawn in the lead up to the vote this week.

There were 147 votes in favour of the association distancing itself from canned hunting.

There are between 6000 and 8000 lions in the captive-predator industry, most of them kept in the Free State, North West and Limpopo.

Australia banned the importing of lion trophies in February, when Environment Minister Greg Hunt sponsored legislation banning all imports of lion body parts.

Hunt called South Africa’s canned-lion hunting industry “cruel, unethical and barbaric, and definitely out of step with 21st-century thinking”.

Linda Park, Johannesburg director of Campaign Against Canned Hunting, said: “This dreadful industry, which has nothing to do with conservation, has been a blight on the country and has tarnished South Africa’s image in the eyes of the world.

“Lions are firmly in the public eye at the moment.”

Andrew Venter, Wildlands CEO and executive producer of the documentary Blood Lions, hailed the decisions as “milestones”.

Pieter Kat, of Lion Aid, a UK animal rights organisation, said that France would no longer allow hunters to bring home lion hunting trophies.

“This is excellent news. France ranks high among the EU member states for the importing of such trophies, ” Kat said.

Die leeujagbedryf het vanjaar wereldwyf opskrifte gehaal na die Amerikaner, Walter James Palmer, te midde van groot omstredenheid, Cecil die leeu in Zimbabwe geskiet het.

Lynette van Hoven Leeube wil sy huis in orde kry Die leeujagbedryf het vanjaar wereldwyd opskrifte gehaal ná die Amerikaner, Walter James Palmer, te midde van groot omstredenheid, Cecil die leen in Zimbabwe geskiet het. Op eie bodem het die dokumenter Blood Lion die tonge laat klap. Hierin word daar gewys hoe leeus in haglike omstandighede leef en mishandel word.

Geblikte leeujag lok ook groot konsternasie uit met meer as 1 000 leeus wat jaarliks op hierdie wyse geskiet word. Kenners is dit eens: Dit is tyd om die leeubedryf in orde te kry. Daarom het die Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelersvereniging (SAPBA / South African Predator Breeders Association) vir prof Melville Saayman en sy span by die Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society (Trees) by Noordwes-Universiteit se Potchefstroomkampus genader om na die waarde van die leeubedryf in SuidAfrika te kyk. Die studie, wat meesal op die hoofteelareas van Noordwes en Vrystaat gefokus sal wees, gaan ook kyk hoeveel leeus daar in die bedryf is, want getalle wissel tussen 4 000 en 6 000.

 ”n Verbod op jag in Zimbabwe en die gepaardgaande verlies van inkomste vir Zimbabwiers beteken dat sowat 2.3 miljoen kinders nou van nodige hulpmiddele ontneem is. Dit beteken dat die onderwyssektor daaronder ly en dat brood uit hub borde geneem word. Hub reeds lae lewensgehalte het nog verswak as gevolg van ‘n ondeurdagte besluit deur die regering,” se Saayman.

“Ons sien klaar dat wildstropery toeneem en dat werkloosheid toeneem. Dit is nie gesonde situasie nie.”

Volgens Saayman het die Blood Lions-dokumenter die prentjie ietwat skeefgetrek, maar ook daarin geslaag om die kollig op misdrywe, wat uitgewis moet word, te plaas.

“Blood Lions het ‘n slegte indruk van die bedryf geskep en een van ons uitdagings gaan wees om dit reg te stel. Daar is ongewenste praktyke wat die hele bedryf skade aandoen. Dit kan egter slegs aan paar persone toegeskryf word, maar dit lei tog daartoe dat wanpersepsies oor die bedryf geskep word. Daar is een of twee vrot appels in die leeuhok.”

 Saayman se verder dat Suid-Afrika se leeupopulasie ver daarvan is om gevaarligte te laat flikker, maar meer kan gedoen word om leeus doeltreffend te versprei asook beter te benut.

“Ons gaan ook kyk waarheen die oorskot leeus gaan, want daar moet ondersoek word wat die beste vir die mark sal wees. Sommige van die leeus moet terug parke toe gaan en sommiges moet aan nuwe gebiede voorgestel word om die genepoel te verbeter. Ons het ‘n gesonde getal leeus in die land en danksy ons teelprogramme sit ons nie met ‘n gevaarsituasie nie, maar ons moet kyk na wat met die oorskot leeus gebeur,” verduidelik hy.

 “Daar is verskeie moontlikhede wat die oorskot leeus betref. Hub be kan opvoedkundige doel dien, hub be kan groot rob in ekotoerisme speel, soos om met leeus te stap, en soos genoem kan hulle rondgeskuif word om die genepoel in die land te versterk. Dan kan ons ook natuurlik leeus uitvoer na lande waar daar tekort is. Dit sal web behels dat hierdie lande die versekering moet gee dat daar na die leeus gekyk sal word. Ons het dit in die verlede gedoen, maar toe word die diere gestroop.”

Saayman het ook SAPBA se toewyding aan die verbetering van die bedryf asook hub wedywering vir beter toekoms vir leeus in die land geprys. “Cecil het die bedryf baie seergemaak. Blood Lions het die bedryf benadeel. Deur die beroep vir hierdie studie wys dit web dat die bedryf ernstig is om vrot kolle uit te wis en dit sal tot voordeel van die hele bedryf strek.”

Breaking news has also come out of the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (PHASA) AGM. A motion has been passed that disassociates PHASA with the captive-bred lion industry until such a time that the industry can convince PHASA and the IUCN that the practice is beneficial to lion conservation. This came after canned lion breeders and supporters were apparently outvoted 147 to 103.

A post on the Facebook page, The ‘Con’ in Conservation states: “This won’t ever happen, so its over for them. Thanks to Ian Michler and his Blood Lions documentary, which made such a big difference.”

Blood Lions also stated on their Facebook page that the recent screening of their documentary on the lion breeding industry to European Parliament members, “may well turn out to be the most significant one to date.”

Following the screening, the UK government has decided to meet next week for a full debate on the conservation status of lions, including the role played by all forms of trophy hunting. There was a commitment from the MEPs to ensure that Blood Lions would eventually be seen by the politicians of every state in the EU.

Matthias Kruse, the editor of Jäger, the leading German hunting magazine, made the trip to Brussels especially to see Blood Lions. He announced after the screening that, as of next year, Germany’s leading hunting show that is held in Dortmund will no longer allow the advertising or selling of any form of canned or captive hunts. The show will also no longer allow the sales and marketing of any species bred as unnatural colour variations, such as golden wildebeest.

Blood Lions has also been invited to screen the film for Italian and Spanish parliaments next year.

The lion-hunting industry made global headlines after the American Walter James Palmer shot Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe, causing great controversy.

At home the documentary Blood Lions had tongues wagging. It showed how lions lived in terrible conditions and were abused. Canned lion hunting also causes great controversy, with more than 1 000 lions being shot in this manner every year.

Experts agree: It is time to set the lion industry straight. That is why the South African Predator Breeding Association (SAPBA) contacted Prof Melville Saayman and his team at TREES (Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society) at the North-West University’s Potchefstroom Campus to investigate the value of the lion industry in South Africa. This study, which will focus mainly on the main breeding areas of North West and the Free State, will also determine how many lions are part of the industry, as numbers vary between 4 000 and 6 000.

“A ban on hunting in Zimbabwe and the accompanying loss of income for Zimbabweans mean that approximately 2.3 million children are now deprived of the necessary aids. This means that the education sector is suffering, it means that bread is taken from their mouths. It means that 2.3 million children are worse off and their current low quality of life has deteriorated even more as a result of a bad decision by the government,” said Saayman.

“We can already see how poaching is increasing and we see unemployment increasing as well. This is not a healthy situation.”

According to Saayman, the Blood Lions documentary portrayed a rather skewed picture of the industry, but also succeeded in putting the spotlight on offences that need to be wiped out.

“Blood Lions created a bad impression of the industry and one of our challenges will be to rectify the situation. There are undesirable practices that harm the whole industry. However, this can be attributed to only a few people, but still leads to the fact that misperceptions about the industry are created. There are one or two bad apples in the lion cage.”

Saayman further says that South Africa’s lion population is far from showing problems, but more can be done to distribute the lions effectively and also to utilise them better.

“We will also determine what must be done with the surplus of lions, because it has to be determined what the best will be for the market. Some of the lions have to go back to the parks and some must be introduced to new areas to improve the gene pool. We have a healthy number of lions in the country and thanks to our breeding programmes we are not in a dangerous situation, but we will have to see what is going to happen with the surplus lions,” he explained.

“There are various possibilities as far as the surplus lions are concerned. They can serve an educational purpose, they can play a major role in ecotourism, like walking with lions and, as was mentioned before, they can be distributed to improve the gene pool in the country. Of course we can also export lions to countries where there is a shortage of lions. This will mean that those countries will have to guarantee that they will care for the lions. We did that in the past, but then the animals were poached.”

Saayman also praised SAPBA’s commitment to improving the industry, as well as to striving for a better future for lions in the country: “Cecil hurt the industry a lot. Blood Lions hurt the industry. The initiation of this study shows that the industry is serious about erasing the bad patches, and that will be to the benefit of the whole industry.”

In July, the illegal killing of Zimbabwe’s iconic lion, Cecil, re-ignited the debate over the desirability of trophy hunting in Africa. Supporters of the practice argue that it contributes significantly to the continent’s economy – particularly in impoverished rural areas – and helps to fund conservation efforts. But are these assertions actually true?

In September, a New York Times article claimed that a ban on trophy hunting in Botswana lead to “a precipitous drop in income” for local communities.

However, Costas Christ, Editor at Large for National Geographic Traveler magazine believes that it’s misleading to argue that rural communities in Africa benefit more from trophy hunting than they do from non-consumptive wildlife tourism and that they have been negatively impacted by the ban on trophy hunting. “I have yet to find more than a one-off random example of trophy hunting viable as either a conservation strategy or income generator that can compete with the economic benefits of non-consumptive wildlife tourism.”

South African safari operator and conservationist, Ian Michler, agrees. He comments “There is no evidence to support the claim that rural communities benefit more from trophy hunting than they do from non-consumptive wildlife tourism. In fact, in areas where the two exist as a comparison, the opposite is true and that’s one of the primary reasons the Botswana government has stopped trophy hunting. Of course hunting offers work and creates revenue, but when measured in the bigger picture against a range of factors, including ecological and ethical ones, well-managed, non-consumptive tourism offers a significantly better long-term model”.

While Larry Rudolph and Joe Hosmer of the US-based hunters’ organisation Safari Club International, have claimed that “revenues from hunting generate $200m annually in remote rural areas of Africa”, the accuracy of this figure has been questioned. More importantly, it shrinks into insignificance if considered in the context of the whole of the African tourism industry.

In 2009, a study published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature characterised big game trophy hunting in West Africa as using “up a lot of space without generating corresponding socio-economic benefits”, making “insignificant” financial contributions to local populations and national GDPs.

A more recent briefing paper released by the World Tourism Organisation asserts that “the total international tourism receipts for Africa in 2013 reached $34.2bn” and that the number of international arrivals is predicted to more than double from a record 56 million tourists in 2013 to 134 million a year by 2030.

The authors note that Africa accounts for about half of the global wildlife watching market, which “has been estimated at 12 million trips annually and is growing at a rate of about 10% a year”. They highlight the fact that “wildlife watching represents 80% of the total annual sales of trips to Africa and sales are increasing”.

Regional case studies show that in 2005, 176 000 nature tourists spent $194m in Zambia, and in 2009, Tanzania’s popular Serengeti-Ngorongoro Circuit alone generated $500m from wildlife watching visitors.

The recently released documentary ‘Blood Lions’ estimates the annual revenue generated by a typical African hunting lodge to be $800 000 compared to $2.46m raised by an equivalent photo safari outfit. Operating all year round, the wildlife-watching business trumps the seasonal (6 months of the year) hunting company by serving a significantly larger number of tourists and making a substantially greater contribution to the local economy, for instance through airfares, wages and taxes.

A 2013 report by the organisation Economists at Large describes the role of trophy hunting in Africa as “tiny” and “completely insignificant” in the context of national economies, accounting for less than 2% of overall tourism revenues and never more than 0.27% of the GDP of the countries surveyed.

This appears to be the case even in South Africa, the continent’s most lucrative trophy hunting state. A report published by the global wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC in July puts the average annual revenue for all mammals killed by trophy hunters in South Africa between 2003 and 2010 at $55m. Approximately 20% ($10.9m) of this is accounted for by the controversial practice of hunting lions bred in captivity. In a recent opinion piece, Edna Molewa, South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs, estimated the number of international hunters visiting the country in 2012 at 8 500 and the value of its trophy hunting industry in 2014 at about $80m (R1.07bn).

These figures are dwarfed in comparison with the yearly income raised by the country’s tourism industry as a whole, which is estimated at around $19bn. Non-consumptive wildlife watching tourism plays a much greater role than trophy hunting in South Africa and the eco-tourism sector has become one of the leading and fastest growing segments of the market.

Contrary to claims by the industry, very little of the money made from trophy hunting appears to be finding its way to affected communities. Based on an analysis of the literature available on the issue, the Economists at Large report finds that only 3% of this revenue actually reaches the rural communities in the areas where the hunting takes place.

By contrast, the World Tourism Organisation’s briefing paper suggests that “there is a wide range of beneficiaries from wildlife watching tourism”, including local communities which draw both direct and indirect benefits, for example through the provision of goods and services to tourists, employment opportunities, fees from national parks and social and infrastructure development programmes. In the case of the Serengeti-Ngorongoro Circuit in Tanzania, mentioned above, for instance, $100m a year is considered “pro-poor”, reaching local people in the form of wages and other benefits.

To what extent trophy hunting fosters the conservation of African wildlife remains open to debate (although at least one scientific paper published in recent years suggests that it does the opposite), but it seems clear that its supposed economic benefits are routinely overstated by its supporters.

What’s of growing concern is the immense reputational damage this small industry can potentially inflict on the continent’s much more important non-consumptive wildlife tourism sector. The dubious, unethical or downright illegal actions of some of its members can have devastating effects on public sentiment as the overwhelming worldwide outcry following the killing of Cecil attests.

For the South African tourism industry in general, and for its very substantial and valuable wildlife watching component in particular, the mounting controversy over the captive-breeding and ‘canned’ hunting of lions, which is powerfully documented in the documentary Blood Lions, adds a particularly distasteful dimension that is unlikely to find any favour among international tourists interested in experiencing our increasingly embattled wildlife in its natural surroundings.

The Explorers Club, New York, December 2, 6:00-8:30 p.m.  

NEW YORK, N.Y.  (November 10, 2015) Non-profit foundation Empowers Africa is hosting a special screening of the new documentary film, Blood Lions™, which exposes the shocking captive lion breeding and canned hunting industry in South Africa. This will be the first public screening of the full 85-minute documentary in the United States.

The fundraiser will take place at The Explorers Club, 46 E 70th St, New York, starting with cocktails at 6:00 p.m. The special screening will be followed by a panel discussion on South Africa’s captive lion industry and its links to canned hunting, voluntourism and the burgeoning lion bone trade with Asia, featuring Dr Andrew Venter, CEO of Wildlands, Dr Luke Hunter, President of Panthera, and Ian Michler, Blood Lions™ consultant, and lead character.

“We are hosting this fundraiser to support the Blood Lions™ campaign to raise awareness and put a halt to this brutal and unethical industry,’’ says Krista Krieger, executive director of Empowers Africa.  “If hunters, volunteers and tourists stopped supporting South Africa’s commercial lion breeders, it would go a long way towards closing their facilities down.”

According to leading South African NGOs Wildlands and Endangered Wildlife Trust, as well as the respected New York based NGO, Panthera, captive lion-breeding does nothing for lion conservation. Not a single captive-bred, hand-reared lion has been successfully released into the wild. Instead, every day in South Africa, two to three captive-bred, effectively tame, lions are killed in canned lion hunts.  Helping to fuel this industry are eager volunteers who unwittingly pay up to $1,000 per week to hand-rear lion cubs that have been forcibly removed from their mothers after birth.

Says Dr. Andrew Venter, CEO of Wildlands: “The scale of the industry is huge, with some 4,000 lion cubs born in captive breeding facilities in South Africa each year. Unbelievably, in South Africa canned lion hunting is legal, generating some US$10 million per year.’’

Dr Luke Hunter, President of Panthera, says the growth in Asian demand for lion bones (used as a proxy for tiger bones in traditional Chinese medicines) has created yet another revenue stream. South African lion breeders export over 1,000 lion skeletons annually for the lion bone trade in Asia. Hunter says: “There is absolutely no medicinal value in lion parts – you might as well consume cow for all the health benefits of lion bone. South Africa’s legal trade only fuels the demand for big cat body parts, providing a ready market for cats poached in the wild.’’

In order to reserve a seat for the Blood Lions™ event on 2 December, a donation of $150 can be made for regular seating or a $250 for VIP seating. “All donations from the screening will be granted from Empowers Africa to Wildlands to support the Blood Lions™ campaign. Funds raised will be used to recruit additional NSPCA Wildlife Unit inspectors to prevent abuse in the captive lion industry and to support wild lion conservation in South Africa,” Krieger says.

 “We are thrilled to be supported by Empowers Africa in New York,” says Blood Lions™ co-producer Pippa Hankinson of Regulus Vision. “It’s been four years since I embarked on this project and I am determined to see an end to this cruel industry. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”.

For tickets for the event, click here. http://bit.ly/bloodlions.

There can be very few hunters around the world who have not heard about ‘Cecil the Lion,’ a collared animal from Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, that was shot and wounded outside the park by an American bowhunter, and subsequently tracked and killed on 1 July 2015.

A number of other newsworthy events around Lions happened concurrently or subsequent to this event, resulting in a frenzy of social media activity which was amplified by the mainstream print, radio and television media.

All this unwelcome negative publicity was not at all good for the authentic hunting community where high standards of ethical behaviour are upheld. The ongoing practice of ((canned lion hunting”, while it is not illegal in South Africa, continues to drive a large amount of public condemnation that keeps adding more fuel to the general anti-hunting sentiment which spreads around the world like wildfire, thanks to the Internet and social media. There is now a detailed reference in Wikipedia on the subject of Cecil the Lion.

This story had received worldwide coverage in the period just before the launch of a film called Blood Lions, a documentary about canned lion hunting in South Africa. The film’s sponsors could not have wished for better publicity for their movie, which was released at the Durban International Film Festival on 22 July.

“The film follows long-time wildlife campaigner Ian Michler on his quest to uncover the truth behind these breeding facilities and the canned hunting industry. Opponents to predator breeding and canned hunting have been calling for an end to these practices for almost 20 years, but with little lasting success, as both practices continue to grow.

“The Blood Lions team believes the film will provide the campaign with a significant boost,” says Michler. “Powerful footage and a compelling narrative from a number of world-renowned conservationists and welfare experts will leave viewers in little doubt as to what is taking place on many private farms across South Africa. Other than greed and ego, there are no reasons to be breeding lions in captivity to be killed in captivity. We believe the film can be a global tool for meaningful change.”

Michler is a tireless anti-hunting campaigner, and the canned lion industry provides a convenient scapegoat for the hunting fraternity in general. The film has been touring the world, and has its own website at www.bloodlions.org. So another anti-hunting body comes into existence, gathering more opposition to hunting — and not only canned lion hunting. The website reports as follows (6 September 2015) on the success of the campaign in Australia:

Tomorrow is the last public screening in Australia. We have had a great response in both cities including a standing ovation in Sydney. Ian Michler had this to say: “A huge thanks to Sydney for the great support they gave Blood Lions. A special evening for me with family and great friends in the audience. Special thanks to Matt Collis from IFAW, Hon Mark Pearson MLC, Animal Justice Party and Jerone Van Kernebeek from Four-Paws for the support and their contributions to the panel discussion. It’s Melbourne next and I am looking forward to meeting all the film’s supporters there, including Bruce Poon, Convenor of the Animal Justice Party and Nichola Donovan, President of Lawyers for Animals. Thanks to the UMAPS Student Club and Human Rights and Animal Ethics Network of Melbourne University for hosting us. For those that have not booked tickets, please come and support Blood Lions. While lions are the main characters in the film, we are also dealing with global issues about humanity and our approach to the planet.”

 Among the many thousands of comments about Cecil, a couple stood out for their objectivity, like the one from the Chair of the IUCN’s Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP)/Species Survival Commission (SSC) Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (see http://www.iied.org/rip-cecil-lion-whatwill-be-his-legacy-who-should-decide).

Another valuable commentary may be found at http://thinkinglikeahuman.com/2015/08/26/on-the-conservation-oftrolls/#more-244

While the Internet storm over Cecil the lion is highly relevant to the wildlife policy in Zimbabwe, and elsewhere in Africa, it also has broader implications for conservation. These relate to the impact of social media. Conservation organisations are heavily committed to social media as a way of getting their message out and recruiting supporters. This means that what social media says about conservation strategies has real bite. Hunting-based conservation strategies are suddenly embarrassing.

Live by the sword, die by the sword: if conservation is prosecuted through social media, it will be forced to abide by the norms of those who dominate that community. Science is hard to explain, and evidence-based decisions may be hard to explain or to justify. Subtle arguments do not work very well in 140 characters. Those who are most connected get listened to first and most. Celebrity and connectivity determine influence.

Hence, the conservation of trolls: In the world of the Internet, it is the views of the connected that matter, meaning trolls as well as the many others who use social media to express their views in less extreme ways. And the case opens The Wildlife Game up conservation policy in Africa to a vast passing audience whose views are strongly held and fiercely expressed.

In the end, whose values should drive conservation strategies in countries like Zimbabwe? Those of local people in rural areas where lions hunt and are hunted? Those of national government officials, balancing an industry against their international responsibilities for conservation? Those of media managers in international conservation NG0s, desperate to fted the insatiable demands of Facebook updates and Twitter streams? Or those who only think about conservation when they tune to the shifting emotional storm fronts of social media?

The TRAFFIC organisation had been researching the trade in lion bones for some time, and at the height of the Cecil pandemonium a letter was published in a widely-read journal, titled “Traditional medicines: Tiger-bone trade could threaten lions” (Vivienne L. Williams, Nature 523, p 290, published online 15 July 2015). Shortly thereafter the full TRAFFIC report was published (see Williams, V.L., Newton, D.J., Loveridge, A.J. and Macdonald, D.W. (2015). Bones of Contention: An Assessment of the South African Trade in African Lion Panthera leo Bones and Other Body Parts. TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK & WildCRU, Oxford, UK.) Since a clamp-down on the use of tiger bones for traditional Chinese remedies, lion bones are in demand as substitutes.

Ironically, and coincidentally, this TRAFFIC report features a full-page portrait of Cecil!

The fuller picture of the “lion industry” in South Africa has now been unraveled, and a sordid one it is, and one that does little for the proud conservation reputation of this country. There are an estimated 6 000 or more lions in captivity, mainly in the Free State and North West Provinces. Many of the lion-breeding farms host paying volunteers from overseas, who are duped into thinking they are helping to breed lions for “release into the wild”. Many cubs are placed in “lion-petting” facilities, where children can pet the cubs and have their photographs taken (for a fee). They are also fed the “breeding for release in the wild” line, when, in fact, the animals end up being shot by paying visitors. The bones are then cleaned and sold to China as a further revenue stream. It is a lucrative business, and it is mostly not illegal.

But it is not a business that does any good for the genuine hunting industry, and may end up damaging it severely. In the Internet era, the social media have powerful political influence, and perhaps thanks to Disney’s Lion King, lions share with elephants a special place in Western affections (Mufasa joining the Dumbo club). We can expect every incident involving any perceived downside of hunting to hit the headlines in future.

JOHANNESBURG. – Die beraad van die departement van omgewingsake met trofeejagters is skielik nie meer geslote nie.

Die departement het gister teruggekrabbel en gese die media is welkom om die beraad met die Safari Club International Foundation (SCI) by ‘n luukse vakansieoord in Limpopo by te woon.

“Die vergadering is oop vir die media,” het Albi Modise, woordvoerder van die departement, gese. Vroeer het ‘n kollega van hom gese die beraad is nie oop vir die algemene publiek nie omdat dit ‘n vergadering tussen regerings (Suid-Afrika en Amerika) is.

Die media is ook nie van die beraad in kennis gestel of daarheen genooi nie. Die sakelys van die beraad het egter Saterdagaand aan bewaringsorganisasies uitgelek.

Die bewaringsorganisasie Conservation Action Trust het gister gese die doel met die beraad is duidelik om ‘n veldtog te voer ten gunste van trofeejag in Suid-Afrika. Trofeejag is veral sedert die jagtog op Cecil die Zimbabwiese leeu in Julie wereldwyd omstrede.

Ian Michler, vervaardiger van die dokumentere rolprent Blood Lions, het gese hy vind dit baie vreemd dat ‘n oorsese jagklub so ‘n groot rol speel op ‘n beraad oor die volhoubaarheid van wild in Afrika.

Modise het erken die SCI betaal vir die beraad en dat die departement van omgewingsake die gasheer is. Hy het ontken dat die departement die SCI as sy vennoot beskou en het beklemtoon geen beleidsbesluite sal op die beraad geneem word nie. Volgens Modise is SuidAfrikaanse jagverenigings ook na die beraad genooi.

Hunters from the United States and South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) are meeting behind closed doors at a resort near Polokwane this week, to plan the future use of Africa’s wildlife. Journalists have been told they are not welcome at a meeting hosted by the South African government, in collaboration with pro-hunting groups from the United States.

A four-day conference of The African Wildlife Consultative Forum (8-12 November) is being run jointly by the DEA, and the Safari Club International, the US’s biggest and most influential hunting fraternity. From a leaked agenda it is clear that the gathering is aimed at building an African pro-hunting lobby at the forthcoming meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), scheduled for Johannesburg next year.

The African Wildlife Consultative Forum is an offshoot of Safari Club International. However, environmental non-governmental organisations requesting access to the conference were blocked by DEA deputy director, Mpho Tjiane, who emailed them claiming “this is a Government meeting and is not open to the general public.”

Journalists requesting accreditation have been told that attendance is by invitation only, and they are not invited. There is no indication that deliberations will be made public.

“It is of grave concern that issues of this nature and importance are discussed at closed meetings, with what appears to be predominantly pro-hunting representation,” said Karen Trendler of the NGO, Working Wild. “Many conservation and response organisations will be affected by the various issues being discussed, as will broader South Africa, and it would be preferable to have wider representation.”

Ian Michler, who produced the film Blood Lions, questioned why a foreign hunting club was playing such a significant role in deliberations about the sustainability of wildlife in Africa. “The agenda is clearly not only pro-hunting, but also seeks to raise doubts about the value of photo-tourism against hunting. It also appears to support those wishing to overturn the CITES ban on trade in rhino horn.

“Given the non-transparent nature of the conference, it’s hard not to infer a conspiracy between hunters and governments in proposals that will be presented to CITES in the public’s name.”

The first session kicked off with an address by professional hunting associations, and presentations include issues around the trade of ivory and rhino horn, the role of sport hunting, the Vietnamese demand for rhino horn, import/export permits, the breeding of colour morphs for hunting, and the value of hunting as opposed to photo-tourism.

Moderators from the DEA are being assisted in every session by George Pangeti, an official of Safari Club International, who was head of administration in the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management of Zimbabwe.

His online biography makes it clear that the African Wildlife Consultative Forum was created by Safari Club International to “discuss issues of sustainable wildlife management, sport hunting and benefit flow” in Africa. It was, also, tasked to lobby CITES “in support of sustainable use, especially sport hunting, and trade in wildlife products.”

Following the recent death of Cecil the lion, and a huge tusker in Zimbabwe, trophy hunting has come under considerable pressure from governments and conservation organisations. Questions have been raised about whether trophy hunters are protectors of biodiversity, as they claim, providing funds, and a reason to protect wild areas, or whether they are simply killers of wild animals?

Safari Club International has a large and wealthy membership keen to counter negative publicity about trophy hunting. The agenda at the Polokwane meeting makes it clear that they aim to convince African delegates to support trophy hunting, and act as a bulwark against growing distaste among members of CITES. Scientific studies shows that little money from hunting goes to communities, and that killing the biggest, and fittest animals, is detrimental to species. The South African Government’s enthusiastic support for this line of thinking is of concern to many involved in genuine conservation.