In South Africa there are some 10,000 lions and the numbers are increasing all the time. A conservation success some might aver. But the lie behind this statistic is revealed in the fact that South Africa is the only lion range state that has three separate classifications for these great cats: captive, managed and wild. And so we find that only 3,000 – less than a third – are truly wild and living in designated conservation areas.

The rest, 7,000 or so, live on private farms, mostly in small crowded camps where their social structure is destroyed, not to mention their genetic integrity. The only purpose, despite rather weak attempts to justify the activity as conservation-based or ‘scientific,’ is to breed them.

Young cubs are great drawcards for visitors especially if they can pet them. Slightly older, they provide a rush for visitors who pay to walk with them in the veld. And finally as they grow into the magnificence of adulthood,

with flowing manes and faces unblemished, they become handsome targets for trophy hunters. Hundreds more are slaughtered and shipped to the East for the burgeoning lion bone trade.

This, in essence, is the captive lion breeding industry and its inseparable consequence: canned lion hunting. It is a cynical and highly profitable niche industry in South Africa and enjoys a powerful lobby in high places. It is also supported by a seemingly insatiable demand for these guaranteed hunts, particularly from Europe and North America.

Captive breeding conditions

Wildlife campaigner Ian Michler has been exposing the brutality of the industry and calling for its demise for more than 15 years. Blood Lions follows his story, but also draws on the observations of some of Africa’s most respected ecotourism and conservation personalities.

I asked him what first triggered his response to canned hunting and what keeps him lobbying for it to be shut down.

“During the 1990s, I lived in the Okavango Delta and my research there into trophy hunting took me to the canned hunting farms of South Africa. For anyone who has an ecological understanding of the natural world, to witness territorial and apex predators being kept under intensive agricultural conditions is horrifying. And then to find out that they are being bred to be killed by hunters in confined areas defies all sense of integrity.

“I got to see and understand very quickly that there is no basis or justification for this type of behaviour, other than human greed and complete ignorance, that is. And there is also a degree of deception by many of the operators involved so it became obvious why I should stay involved.”

Progress – a long and bumpy road

It has been a long and often bumpy road that Michler and his colleagues have followed, a road that never seems to end. “Do you think that there has been progress towards shutting the industry down?” I ask him.

“There has most certainly been progress,” he responds forcefully. “For example, the recent undertaking by several global airlines never to carry lion trophies or lion parts out of the country, and the Australian government’s decision to ban imports of trophies and body parts demonstrate the growing opposition.

“The release of Blood Lions is another example,” says Michler. “Pippa Hankinson, the inspirational director of Regulus Vision, has been the force behind the film. And this, together with dedicated assistance from a core team of filmmakers and campaigners including Wildlands Conservation Trust, has given us a real opportunity to raise greater awareness at various levels across the world.

“We know there is no conservation value to the breeding practices and it’s an extremely poor, even irresponsible, way to try to educate people about lions and their ecology. There are very few true sanctuaries, and they only exist because of the breeding.

“In addition, my experience is that the vast majority of the world finds breeding lions to be killed by thrill seekers in canned hunts completely inappropriate behaviour. Under these circumstances, there is no logical reason as to why we cannot make further progress with the decision-makers here in South Africa.”

Professional hunters frequently talk about the huge financial contribution they make to the national tourism coffers, but when you compare the actual figures against the total revenue from tourism, trophy hunting is a very small portion. And then canned hunting is again a very small fraction of total hunting revenues.

“This seems to make a lie of the breeders and canned hunting lobby’s claim?” I ask Michler.

He agrees. “When one contextualises the amount generated by the predator breeders and canned hunters, the financial contribution is miniscule. The canned lion hunting contribution is a tiny fraction of 1% of the almost R100-billion South African tourism generates.

“In addition, visitor numbers also tell the story: of the over nine million international foreign arrivals that come into South Africa annually, a mere 9 000 or so are trophy hunters and of these, about only 1 000 or so will be to kill ions in canned hunts.”

Damaging Brand South Africa

“While on the subject of tourism,” I remark, “in the film you have quite a long discussion with the South Africa minister of tourism, Derek Hanekom. He seems distinctly uneasy with canned hunting and sees it as potentially damaging to Brand South Africa. In fact he seemed to suggest that it had already damaged our international reputation as a nation with a proud conservation history. Would you go so far as to call him an ally in your quest?”

“Yes,” Michler responds confidently. “We, the filmmakers and the campaign team that is, view the government in general as an ally as they would not want to damage South Africa’s global reputation on any level. The good thing is that Minister Hanekom and many others understand that by allowing these practices, Brand South Africa is being increasingly damaged around the world.

“My sense is that once the decision-makers understand the full picture and grasp the degree of growing opposition, this will be reflected in the way they respond going forward.”

It’s all about the trophy

At a point in the film Michler says, “You can’t look at predator breeding and canned hunting without addressing the greater trophy hunting issue. At the end of the day people who want to hunt a lion are driven by the same thing: the trophy.” I ask him to elaborate.

“Having researched and written about the trophy hunting industry for almost two decades now, I have come to understand that ultimately, for the vast majority of trophy hunters, it is actually only about the thrill of the kill and then the prize of the trophy. No matter what type of hunt it is, the trophy is non-negotiable. So almost all lion hunters come to Africa in search of that prize; the argument between them simply becomes one about the conditions under which they bagged theirs.

“There is an additional link. The unfortunate part for the wider trophy hunting industry around the world is that they are now stained by canned hunting operations. They could have closed them down ages ago if they had chosen to do so. But they didn’t. Some issued statements against the practice but most of them merely backed away and stayed on the sidelines.

“This has significantly contributed towards the flourishing of the industry. And we now see the likes of PHASA [Professional Hunters Association of South Africa] getting in on the act by trying to justify lion killing through the nuances of word play. It is foolish to attempt a distinction between ‘canned’ and ‘captive’ hunting when it is clear that whatever word one uses, predators are being bred in captivity to be killed in captivity.

“However, one of the positive developments is that we are now starting to see professional hunters making strong stands on ethical grounds against the practices. This may well cause splits within the hunting bodies.

“There are distinctions between sustainable hunting, fair-chase hunting and canned or captive hunting, and given that hunting remains a part of our conservation thinking in South Africa, the film recognises this and is targeted at the breeding and canned or captive hunting sector.”

Botswana’s stand – a great example

I remark that it is interesting to see a country like Botswana taking a stand against trophy hunting and seeing it as an inappropriate practice in this day and age. But they are the only ones really. Even Kenya, which has long prohibited hunting of wildlife, seems to have a powerful groundswell of support for its reintroduction.

“Could this happen?” I ask.

“I think the Botswanan government has shown immense vision,” Michler responds. “And their decision was based on science and conservation as well as the comparable community and economic benefits measured over decades. However, there are vested interests that will play an obstructionist role as they seek to ensure the transition to a non-hunting regime is made as difficult as possible. As is the case when any significant legislative change is introduced, there will be difficult periods for all parties.

“And no, I don’t see hunting being reintroduced in Kenya anytime soon. The link between declining wildlife populations and a ban on trophy hunting in that country has no scientific basis – it is a self-serving argument perpetuated by the hunting lobby. There are a host of socio-economic factors, all compounded by a lack of planning as well as a succession of corrupt governments, that have contributed to Kenya’s woes. And let’s not forget, for many of Kenya’s population groups, hunting wild animals is not part of their cultural heritage.”

Getting into the head of a hunter

One of the more intriguing scenes of the film takes place at an international hunting trade fair in the US. Aside from the mind-boggling amount and variety of weaponry and hunting gear on display, there is also clearly no shortage of hunters happy to speak about their “sport”, often implying that without them all of conservation would simply collapse.

Time and again you hear the claim that hunting purpose-bred lions takes the pressure off wild lion populations and therefore they (the hunters) are supporting conservation. “If lions were not bred for hunting,” it was claimed, “they simply would not be born at all so at least we are giving them a purpose in life.” One female hunter (and there are a surprising number in a supposedly male-dominated industry) said, “I am a wildlife lover, therefore I am a hunter,” while another fellow remarked on “the opportunity to harvest some of God’s creatures”. And most of them say it is not about the killing – and yet that is the desired and inevitable end result.

For a non-hunter it is hard to get inside the head of a hunter, particularly a trophy hunter, and to get any clear idea of why their “sport” is so important to them. Michler has spent so much time meeting and talking to hunters from all over the world, so I ask if he can help to understand the hunter’s psyche.

“I guess this is the very nub of why the debate becomes so heated,” he says. “Firstly, the hunting debate deep down is not about economics and communities and conservation – it is actually about philosophy and a world view not dissimilar to the way debates on the death penalty, same-sex marriage, abortion or racism rage around the world.

“The comments you mention above are views being expressed about the way these people see and understand their world. The science and economics, which is available in support of all views, then becomes part of the bias. The film then also asks viewers whether the only purpose lions have is to be born for hunters to kill, whether their interpretation of hunting is Biblical, and whether only hunters are able to be lovers of wildlife.”

Exposing the bad – a risky business?

One of the central arcs of the film follows a genuine hunter on a trophy hunt on a farm specialising in canned hunting. These are extremely tense scenes, shot through with menace. Michler has been in many of these highly charged situations and I ask to what extent is it all bluster and bullying, or whether he has feared for his safety at times.

“There is certainly a theme of brutality that runs through these practices,” he says. “Bullying or not, the moment can be very disturbing, but I would like to think that when push comes to shove one’s personal safety is not at risk.”

At the end of the film I am left with a sense that Blood Lions really does allow the voice of the lion to be heard. Certainly this film does nothing to glorify the hunter and I have no doubt that there will be angry responses to its release. I ask Michler where will it be shown and what he hopes will come out of it?

“The film will be shown globally,” he responds. “We have already been accepted into a number of international film festivals and there will be screenings in parliaments around the world as well as to select audiences of decision-makers.

The campaign will also embrace bringing awareness at various levels, including schools and universities. “There is sure to be opposition as the operators and their clients at the core of canned hunting will see us undermining their livelihoods and their cherished pastime. We hope to go beyond that as ultimately Blood Lions seeks to bring an end to the exploitative breeding of predators and the killing of them under canned or captive conditions.”

In February 2015 I left the UK for the adventure of a lifetime – 2 weeks volunteering in South Africa with lion cubs. As an avid animal lover I thought that there cannot be anything better than sitting in the sun playing with cubs all in the name of conservation, but I quickly realised how wrong and naïve I had been.

I booked my trip through a UK agency aimed at young adults looking to volunteer around the world for conservation or to simply work abroad on their gap year. The top rated trip was “Live with Lion Cubs” and it appealed instantly. I spent a year of my life planning my trip and paying off the huge fee – £1,250.00 for trip alone + flights at around £500.00. I used all of my savings and every penny I received for my 21^st birthday as I thought saving lions would be a great way to spend it. I was not allowed to know the name of the park until the agency had received my non-refundable deposit, but it was not actually until a month before my trip they disclosed it was a well known lion park on the outskirts of Brits.

Prior to my trip, my knowledge of the canned hunting and cub petting industries was extremely limited. I had come across the CBS expose about Lion Park around a week before I was due to depart, but I was reassured the park was in no way involved with hunting and that they held all of the correct licenses from the South African authorities. I have since requested to see such documentation on numerous occasions but it has yet to be disclosed to me. We were told the lions were bred for conservation and would eventually be released into reserves around Africa.

I arrived at the park on 2^nd February 2015 with my hopes and my head high only to be treated like an idiot for the entire two weeks. It was one of the most hostile, unwelcoming environments I have ever found myself in and that was due solely to the staff. I was made to feel stupid if I asked a question about the lions and often laughed at if I chose not to partake in moving animal carcasses. The owners of the park were friendly for the first few days but soon started to avoid me and not engage in any conversation with volunteers, with the exception of those who had stayed previously. There was a real sense of hierarchy at the park with previous volunteers acting as though they were the park’s answer to the Lion Whisperer, yet the utter naivety and lack of initiative was astounding. For my first 4 nights, there were 5 lion cubs weighing 8-10kg each being kept overnight in a small dog kennel. We would pile them on top of each other and lock them up from 5pm-8am the next morning which was an action I instantly questioned. On my first night I was reassured that they were due to be moved into ‘The Devils’ enclosure but there was not enough room until some of The Devils were also moved to larger enclosures; it was 4 days before anything was done. This was the first thing that made we wish I could fly home that instant.

The following two weeks consisted mainly of passing 3 week old lion cubs around tourist groups of around 10 people, including school children, multiple times a day. The cubs were exhausted and were only allowed to be fed at certain times of the day, no matter how hungry they seemed to be. The guilt I felt when I had a cub suckling on my finger looking for food was immeasurable and yet I was in no position to help. It is important to note that during our induction talk, the owners noted that they were actively cutting down cub breeding which would mean less experiences open to volunteers and tourists, yet since I left the park in February at least 6 new cubs have arrived, including two tigers. On another occasion we were walking through The Devils’ enclosure and noticed a young cub with a wire wrapped around his paw – every time the gate opened the wire tightened. We unravelled the cub and tied up the wire as best we could and instantly told a Ranger, but it took at least 2 hours for anything to be done.

During my stay and as my suspicions grew, I found a Facebook group called “Volunteers in Africa Beware” and came across horror stories from previous volunteers. This included having their phones searched after speaking out and sexual harassment from the Rangers. I found this incredibly easy to believe after having been on the park for a week so I contacted my Dad and told him about my worries. I was so afraid of speaking out that my Dad was offering to fly to Johannesburg to collect me or even giving me his credit card details so I could make an escape on my own. For my second week I had trips away from the park booked for almost every day so I chose to wait it out and fly home after two weeks as planned. During this time I was warned by various individuals from the online community that I should avoid posting anything negative on social media as they usually checked our sites – I was in a state of panic as I found reviews on Trip Advisor that backed up those claims so I kept myself to myself and did not raise any questions I thought might put me in danger. Since my return, the staff have made a point about how I did not question their intentions and now I’m sure it is clear why I made that decision.

It would have been easy to come home and pretend that my two weeks were great and continue to post my “lion selfies” on social media, but the gut wrenching realisation that I may have contributed to the canned hunting industry was too much to bear so I decided to share my story through a blog. I also pursued a refund through the agency under grounds of misrepresentation and inadequate health and safety standards but their response was utterly laughable. I stated that every penny I expected from my refund would be donated towards charities fighting canned hunting and they have refused to give me anything back. As an agency that “prides itself in its support of its volunteers” my claims were refuted and they not only implied I was a liar who was in a relationship with a staff member, but also that I was intolerant of other cultures. My jaw dropped to the floor as I read their response to my complaint. I reassured them that since I am in long term relationship there was absolutely nothing going on with any staff members and I even sent them evidence of an ongoing relationship between a Ranger and a regular volunteer – they chose to ignore this. With regard to implying I am intolerant of other cultures, I reassured them that this was not the case and sent them evidence of a staff member mocking a religion on Instagram – again this was ignored. They told me how they were surprised to find I had had such an awful time since my social media seemed positive and I therefore questioned why they had been checking my pages and why I was not informed they would be doing so before I booked, needless to say they ignored this too.

The health and safety aspects of my complaint included questioning why an entire container of chlorine was tipped into the swimming pool whilst my friend was swimming and the agency informed me this procedure was done at 7am every morning and were therefore unsure as to why we were in the pool so early. In response, I urged them to check the CCTV footage where they would in fact be able to see I was telling the truth and we were swimming late in the afternoon, their response? Nothing.

I think the moment I finally snapped was when I looked through my photos and was reminded of a day on Ranger duty where we had visited the “sister park”. I had completely forgotten this day, during which we took 15+ crates of chicken to feed the park’s lions that were being held on the sister park before being transferred to “a reserve in the Congo”. (I now realise such a reserve is highly unlikely to even exist.) I was absolutely astounded to find that the sister park’s website offers a vast list of hunting opportunities and even that “large game can be hunted by prior arrangement”. I do not condone hunting of any kind and I felt sick to my stomach knowing I had stepped foot on that park without being made aware of this fact. Volunteers are constantly reassured that the park do not promote hunting and nor do they make a distinction between “ethical and unethical hunting” yet they are keeping lions on a park that offers exactly that. I was speechless.

The response to the blog has been mostly positive, yet we constantly receive abusive messages from past, present and even future volunteers. It seems the need for a “lion selfie” greatly outweighs the need to save these beautiful animals from extinction. People simply do not want to accept the fact that cub petting is widely discredited and that no park that truly contributes to the welfare and conservation of lions will offer this interaction. I have been told I’m a sadistic liar who is making it all up out of boredom, amongst other insults, and it truly baffles me that someone could believe I would do such a thing.

I cannot undo my time volunteering with lion cubs and ultimately perpetuating cub petting and breeding farms, which is why I vowed to take a stand and share my story to as many people that would listen. I made a massive mistake in choosing this trip and that was made clear during my first week at the park. The agency could not have offered me a more disappointing response and I am currently working on a case with a solicitor to try and get at least an ounce of justice for these lions. When I sat down to write this article the overwhelming memories came flooding back, as did the unbearable guilt, which ultimately reminds me why I am doing this.

When I saw that Blood Lions was due to be released it dawned on me that this could finally be the big break these lions need and deserve and I cannot wait to watch it and see how breeding parks respond. I survived my two weeks of hell and I’m using them to fight against canned hunting and cub petting and I urge other volunteers to accept the truth and join the pride.

 

Ian Michler of Invent Africa is one of the continent’s finest wildlife guides, as well as an outspoken conservationist who has fought for the protection of African wilderness and wildlife. For 15 years, he has researched and campaigned against the canned-lion hunting industry in South Africa. His film Blood Lions is due for release at the Durban International Film Festival (Diff) on July 22.

SCOTT RAMSAY chatted to him recently about the canned-lion industry — and his thoughts on rhino-horn trade and hunting.

You’ve been exposed to some very different wildlife experiences — which was the most striking?

About 15 years ago, I was at one of the many wildlife auctions that take place across South Africa. I photographed an adult lion squeezed into a metal crate barely larger than its own body size. Brought to the market for selling, the crate was lying in the midday heat and all I could see of the animal was one of its eyes. What I saw in that eye continues to drive much of my conservation work.

There are probably no more than 20 000 lions remaining in the African wild. Consider that there are maybe more white and black rhinos in Africa than lions, and its clear that lions are facing a serious conservation crisis.

South Africa has somewhere between 2 800 and 3 200 lions in the wild. Of these, about half are “managed”, as they occur in the smaller private wildlife reserves. But there are more than 6 000 captive lions in South Africa, bred in small enclosures or on smallholdings.

These “canned” lions are bred for a variety of commercial uses: for cub petting, for hunting and for the lion bone trade, which is booming in Asia. It’s become a multimillion dollar industry, and all based on the deceit that it’s about conservation, education and research.

The genetics of these captive lions are useless to conservation because of inbreeding, as well as the extensive habituation to humans.

Of course, these are apex predators that should be roaming wild and free in national parks and wilderness areas. Lions should not be bred in captivity or enclosed in cages or small enclosures.

My new documentary film titled Blood Lions (produced with Nick Chevalier) reveals the full extent of the notorious industry, which serves no conservation purpose of the species whatsoever.

 Trade in rhino horn. Yes? No? Or maybe?

Trade in rhino horn should not be allowed as it may well hasten the demise of the species. Trade is based on a fraudulent paradigm. The economic models put forward to support a trade are weak, inconclusive and ultimately, risky.

Trade relating to other species or their body parts in similar circumstances: elephants, bears, tigers, lions, abalone and vicunas, for example, show clearly how a legal market promotes demand, poaching and parallel illegal markets.

Because of current legislation and voting requirements, it would seem that South Africa’s chances of succeeding with change at the 2016 Cites meeting are highly unlikely. Why are we wasting time and resources on an unrealistic approach?

Hunting. Does it fit into your conservation matrix? If no, why? If yes, why, and with what conditions?

Trophy hunting should not be part of our conservation thinking for a number of reasons. Here are two broad ones

• We have more effective ways of managing protected areas; responsible non consumptive ecotourism being the primary one. These options bring significantly more sustainable conservation, economic and community based benefits.
• Trophy hunting is a paradigm that originated over 100 years ago when colonials sought to shoot large numbers of wild animals as sport. Despite the conservation and economic justifications, it remains mired in that thinking today.

However, in the past few decades, we have made such substantial advances in unravelling our knowledge of other species, the environment in general and the impacts we are having. Society demands that we respond progressively to such scientific and social breakthroughs, which should mean a complete review of trophy hunting.

Which are your three favourite wildlife regions in Africa?

The remote private concessions of the northern and central western reaches of the Okavango Delta in Botswana. The wetland and woodland mosaic is always enchanting, and makes for the perfect place to linger among wildlife and birds.

Liuwa Plain in far western Zambia during the May/June period. One of the most underrated parks out there, Liuwa has awesome birding, fascinating wildlife, great landscapes and those early evening periods, where sound and silence alternate, are completely addictive.

The Mahale Mountains in far western Tanzania offer something truly special, and if twinned with Katavi on the other side of the mountain, it’s the most unique safari combination available. The far north-western reaches of Namibia, the southern Serengeti and Timbuktu are not far behind.

What does African wilderness and wildlife mean to you, personally?

Wilderness is so utterly different from everything that consumes the daily lives of most modern humans. It is completely natural, while our societies have become increasingly manufactured and contrived, and the level of malady we feel and display as individuals and communities is a measure of this menacing disparity.

So yes, we go into the wild for the immense beauty, the tranquillity, even the excitement, but we also go because it’s the most secure place to measure our own maladies and levels of unease. Being there is like coming up for fresh air, and it’s the only place where we can, for a period of time, exist in that refreshed state of mind.

What do I miss most about it?

It’s the complete authenticity and integrity that exist, factors that are mostly absent in our world, and it’s kind of reassuring to know they trump our cunning ways.

South Africa, 16th July 2015—A new study finds there is little evidence that the Lion bone trade in South Africa is currently adversely impacting wild Lion populations there, but warns the situation needs to be closely monitored and that too little is known about the situation elsewhere in Africa.

The findings, by researchers from Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCru), TRAFFIC and the University of Witwatersrand, were published today in Bones of Contention: An assessment of the South African trade in African Lion bones and other body parts (PDF, 5 MB).

Lions are listed in Appendix II of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), which means international trade in live animals or body parts can only take place under a strictly controlled permit system. Prior to 2008, the only record of South Africa issuing CITES permits to export Lion skeletons was for three units to Denmark in 2001.

However, Lion bone exports from South Africa have increased dramatically in recent years. From 2008 to 2011, the official number of skeletons legally exported with CITES permits totalled 1160 skeletons (about 10.8 tonnes on bones), 573 of them in 2011 alone, with 91% of them destined for Lao PDR. The North West, Free State and Eastern Cape, all home almost exclusively to captive-bred Lions, were the only provinces to issue export permits. Not all Lion bone trade in South Africa has been legal, however. In 2009, a Vietnamese national was arrested and later deported for being in possession of Lion parts without permits, while in June 2011 two Thai men were arrested after being found with 59 Lions bones.

“The trophy hunting industry…is the main source of carcasses once the trophy hunter has taken the skin and skull,” say the report’s authors. Numbers of Lions at breeding facilities in South Africa almost doubled from 2005 to 2013 when around 6188 animals, some 68% of the national total, were in captivity, many destined for the lucrative trophy hunting industry, which generates around USD10.9 million per year. However, the report finds: “there is no economic incentive to farm Lions solely for their bones, especially given the costs involved in raising Lions and the current prices paid for skeletons.”

Nevertheless, the value of bones generated as a secondary by-product of the trophy hunting industry has allegedly motivated farmers to dig up previously discarded carcasses originating from trophy hunts and captive mortalities and whereas female Lions formerly had little or no trophy hunting value to breeders, the emergence of a market for bones has generated a previously overlooked value. The authors recommend Lion breeding facilities are closely monitored to restrict opportunities for abuse of the system for financial gain.

The authors speculate that bone exports to Asia may be connected to Lion bone being used as a substitute for Tiger bone in tonics. In 2005, TRAFFIC found evidence that African Lion bones were an ingredient in “tiger bone strengthening” wine produced in Guilin, China, and distributed in Tiger-shaped bottles, but with Lion bones as an approved ingredient.

The authors also note the difficulty of distinguishing Lion from Tiger bones. With more than 280 Tigers captive in South Africa, they recommend DNA spot checks of shipments to verify their origin and also in the report provide some guidance, based on skeletal characteristics, on how to distinguish the two species.

The reports also notes the large discrepancies in information on Lions in South Africa: between 2004 and 2010, 2950 Lions were registered as having been hunted there – yet CITES export permits indicate 4088 trophies for the same period, a difference of more than 1100 trophies.

Several reasons are proposed to explain the discrepancies, including specimens incorrectly described as trophies and animals not being hunted in the same year as the permits are issued. The authors recommend a number of improvements to recording systems, including development of an integrated national system for issuing permits that can be crosschecked by all enforcement and Customs officials. They also make a pragmatic blanket recommendation that measures currently in place to impede opportunities for illegal activities are strengthened across the entire supply chain from Lion breeding to skeleton exports.

Wildlife rehabilitation has become my life’s work, and my passion. I’ve worked on a variety of projects, and in many wildlife rehabilitation centres around the globe. I’ve studied a lot, had awesome mentors, and passed tricky examinations to be the best I can be at what I do.

Being a big cat fan, I jumped at the opportunity to embark on two stints of several months duration on a lion and tiger captive breeding project. As well as sometimes being in sole charge of the animals, I also had to conduct orientations and provide training for new volunteers. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Very legitimate and well-meaning, wouldn’t you think?

Incentive to join? Cute, fuzzy cubs that “needed” hand-rearing. Vague but encouraging spins about conservation. The assurance given by the owners that I was working with “experts” who really cared about their animals.

Of course what I really mean is that, to my eternal shame, I found myself embroiled in the workings of a lion and tiger mill. And I do mean that, in exactly the same sense as the puppy and kitten mills that exist worldwide.

Yes folks, I had joined that band of people seduced by the claims of “responsible” voluntourism companies and project owners who de-fraud volunteers. They take your money – and then they lie to you. And when called out, when questioned, the lies get more outrageous. In the worst cases it turns to hostility, and you get the feeling that these people will stop at nothing to protect their sordid little empires. It is precisely for this reason that I have chosen to remain the anonymous author of this plea for justice. I have personally been threatened and bullied by disgruntled owners.

Let’s be very clear here. These projects are not about conservation. Even the South African Predator Breeders Association has admitted that lions bred on farms have no conservation value.

They are not about increasing numbers so that suitable candidates can be released to the wild or into game reserves. Game reserves are fully stocked. There is nowhere for lions to be released into the wild in southern Africa. And tigers clearly can’t be released – they’re not indigenous to South Africa. Habituation to people makes any animal unsuitable for release – ask any good wildlife rehabilitator.

They are not about preserving a diverse gene pool. I have seen brothers bred with sisters; uncles bred with nieces; grandfathers bred with grand-daughters. I have seen lions mating with tigers, with the only comment from breeders being what a coup it would be to have a liger to draw in the public. Worse yet, I once heard a suggestion to procure a jaguar to mate with leopards since the owner insisted that, apart from living on different continents, they were the same animal. I kid you not. And they’re certainly not about animal welfare. Lion and tiger mills are about one thing, and one thing only. Profit.

How do they achieve this profit? In several unsavoury ways.

The first is YOU. They’ll put up a website with some very pretty pictures which do two things. First of all they make you go “awwww”!! All those cute, fluffy bundles being cuddled by smiling teenagers. What follows is the second thing, and it usually works. You say to yourself “I want to do that!”

The second is hunting. But let’s qualify this. This isn’t the type of hunting where you go out into the unfenced veld, find a wild animal, and then take your chances. This is canned hunting. This is where the animal is in a confined area and has nowhere to go. The animal will be killed, quickly or slowly, following one shot or many – depending on your skill with a rifle. Or worse, with a bow.

The third, equally despicable profit-maker is the lion bone trade. Yes, there is such a trade just as there is a trade in tiger parts. As tigers become rarer, and the price of bits and pieces of them go up, lion mill operators find it convenient to sell off the by-products of dead lions to fill the gap.

So how do the last two profit-making activities have anything to do with voluntourism? Well, here’s the thing. All those cute, fluffy babies that all those teenagers were cuddling? All those babies that the owners, and like as not the tour companies, told you were going to be released, or go to zoos, or be used in scientific breeding programs? They’ll end up as trophies on a wall, or as a bunch of boiled bones. They’re going to end up dead at the hand of man – or woman. The “lucky” ones will be bred into the ground first.

What most volunteers don’t know, and are never told, is that by hand-rearing cubs they actively contribute to the canned hunting, lion bone, and tiger body part industries. Volunteers are doing the dirty work of habituating big cats to people, so that they’re easy to kill, because a habituated big cat sees humans as a food provider. Volunteers also actively contribute to the poor welfare of big cats in captivity.

How is this possible? Well, most volunteers on these projects are very young and naïve. No-one told them they should do some research first. Most volunteers don’t question why cubs are removed from their mothers at such a young age. Nor do they question the sheer numbers of cubs. Most volunteers never ask where the cubs go once they’re too big for interaction with the paying public. Young volunteers, in particular, tend to believe whatever fabrication is in vogue with project managers and owners. And that can change from week to week, day to day, even volunteer to volunteer, in some instances.

Volunteers don’t get a lot of quality training. In a lot of cases, training is left in the hands of fellow volunteers who may only have been at the project a week or two longer than new arrivals. With no adequate training themselves, how can they possibly provide first-class care, let alone pass high standards on to new volunteers?

Volunteers are not taught about hygiene, diet, enrichment, or how to tell if an animal might be ill. If you’re lucky you’ll find a longer-term volunteer who actually knows how to handle big cats. Otherwise you’re given all sorts of misinformation about interacting with them, which can be downright dangerous. Volunteers are laughed at if they show an aversion to chopping carcases or handling dead chickens. They are derided if they have the audacity to ask awkward questions or – heaven forbid! – start doing any independent research.

You see the owners and managers, these “experts” who breed cubs ultimately destined for tragic ends, only want volunteers for the large amounts of money they bring in. These “experts” often have no qualifications. They don’t care about the health issues brought on by inbreeding. They don’t care about the condition of females continually brought into oestrus by the early removal of cubs, or about the condition of males being placed with pens of receptive females month after month after month. They know nothing and care less about appropriately balanced diet and supplementation either for cubs or adults.

They care nothing about providing warmth – essential in the first few days of life as cubs are not immediately able to thermoregulate. They care nothing about feeding frequency, the importance of weighing cubs regularly, or even the composition of lion or tiger milk so they can match it as closely as possible with their dodgy home-made formulas. If you were to use the phrase “colostrum replacement for very young cubs” they probably wouldn’t know what you were talking about – but would dismiss it as unimportant. They don’t care that the consequences of incorrect diet on a cub can be disastrous. After all – there’ll always be another cub to replace any who die.

Often as not, they won’t consult a vet about a sick cub or adult. They might have their own small stock of medicines on hand which they will administer, witch-doctor like, for a diverse range of ailments. Most ailments in young cubs are dismissed as being a “normal” part of hand-rearing. Let me tell you, there is nothing normal about a cub having diarrhoea for days on end due to a poorly formulated diet.

Many will sedate animals with controlled substances on their own without the attendance of a vet. Most wildlife rehabilitation centres are not allowed access to these drugs. This is an undertaking that is blatantly against South African law. And these experts are certainly not there to teach, about anything – conservation, threats, disease. Some of them will even flatly deny the latest IUCN redlist categorisation, insisting that lions are not in trouble in the wild.

Adequate housing is also a foreign concept. I have seen enclosures of just a couple of hectares housing as many as 50 lions. I’ve seen the same sized enclosure housing 20-30 lions and tigers. I’ve seen enclosures the size of a small front garden housing up to 12 cubs. I’ve seen a small nursery building – around the same size as the average kitchen – housing up to 9 cubs. I’ve seen enclosures with no shelter from the elements, filthy water containers, and too many stressed animals. I’ve seen poor quality fences and gates, and electric fence systems that, if they’re even switched on, don’t necessarily work.

You, the volunteer, make this possible on such a large scale. It’s for the sake of your income that lion and tiger mills pull cubs from their mothers at two weeks, or even younger.

You, the volunteer, have the power to bring an end to this cruel and shameful trade. Refuse to be used by profiteers interested only in lining their own pockets. Refuse to be used by travel companies who support any project that advertises raising cubs, walking with cubs, or petting cubs. Use your voice and tell everyone you know about the reality of the predator breeders masquerade.

We owe it to all those cute fuzzy creatures in the glossy ads.

Almost a decade has passed since the horrors of canned hunting were first exposed to the world. Brought to our attention with shocking images of caged lions being shot from close range by shameless hunters and their clients, few could have imagined back then that these scenes were in fact not an isolated incident, but rather the beginning of a dark and disgraceful period for South Africa’s wildlife industry. I for one expected these scenes to galvanize the wildlife community, hunting bodies and the authorities to act. Instead, an apparent lack of will (or was it tacit approval in some quarters?) during the ensuing years brought indecision and no clampdown of any sort. Yes, there were official statements of disapproval from DEAT and various hunting bodies, but nothing concrete and constructive to stop the industry flourishing into a multi million dollar one. Emboldened by this display of inertia, a second horror began unfolding. Those involved began establishing large breeding facilities and farms, predominately in the provinces of Free State, Limpopo, North West and Gauteng, to supply the trophy hunters and the animal traders with a sufficient number of captive bred predators.

I have been closely monitoring these industries over the last five years, much of which has been reported through this magazine. It has been an awful task, made all the worse by nagging doubts of whether it would ever be possible to have these practices stopped. Without fail, after leaving every property, my mind would swirl with images of caged predators pacing a maze of wire fencing, and the pack of lies I had just been fed by the owner or guide. The result would be wild swings of reason between absolute outrage and an attempt to understand a chosen livelihood based on an entrenched hunting culture justified by perverse borrowings from the language of conservation and sustainable utilization. Inevitably, I was always left with same conclusion; that of doubting the possibility of any change.

But I now find myself thinking and believing differently. For the first time, and based on the actions and words of Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, I firmly believe there is hope for a full ban on canned hunting and major restrictions to be placed on those wanting to breed large predators. These measures are also likely to be accompanied by stricter regulations governing the hunting industry and the wildlife management industries in general. Why my change in heart? Firstly, Van Schalkwyk has seemingly recognized these industries for what they are, secondly he has accepted that there are major structural, operational and regulatory deficiencies in the hunting industry in general and thirdly, he appointed a ‘Panel of Experts’ earlier this year to review all of the above.

The Minister must be applauded for taking such a proactive stance, but more importantly, he and the Panel of Experts should now be given full support during this period when the laws and regulations are being formulated. The Panel has completed their work and these findings have been delivered to the Minister for review. With regards to canned hunting and the captive breeding of wildlife, the main recommendations of the panel are as follows:

• “In general, the practice of hunting captive bred animals should not be allowed”.
• “The Panel recommends that the Minister place a ban on the import of all alien species for hunting purposes”.
• “The Panel recommends the prohibition of the translocation of species outside their range zones”.
• With regards to put-and-take hunting and canned hunting, “the Panel recommends that both these practices should be prohibited as they compromise the principle of fair chase and the humane treatment of animals”.

It needs to be stressed that at this stage these are merely recommendations, and any changes to the law are unlikely until mid year sometime at the earliest. In the interim, there is no doubt that the industry heavyweights will be lobbying government against any bans, and if their activities are heavily curtailed, one can expect a full array of legal threats to be introduced.

While the legal challenges are pressures the government should be able to deal with, there are more serious concerns to begin pondering if an outright ban is to be implemented. What do we do with approximately 3 000 human imprinted lions, 500 cheetah, 250 wild dog, 60 tigers and countless other predators that breeders will surely look to abandon?

The canned hunting industry has again been in the news lately. For those readers who have not been following the debate, the State President has before him a policy document that awaits his signature. First drafted in 2002, the document aims at legislating the cowardly and abhorrent practice of shooting captive bred animals, mostly large predators, that are kept in cages and confined areas, sometimes drugged and feeding from a bait. The policy has already been approved at various levels of government, including parliament. As it stands, it should not be allowed to receive his signature. There are obvious loopholes – policing the legislation, it does not provide for exotic species, there are weak definitions of what constitutes human-imprinted animals and the lack of public participation amongst others.

While these oversights are serious, I believe there is a more menacing aspect to the industry that needs to be introduced into the debate, and that is the process of domestication. Are the canned operators not in the process of creating a domesticated version of the wild lion? And for that matter, the same could be asked about a number of the other species being bred by canned operators and wildlife ranchers. Do we understand the biological, behavioural and philosophical implications of what is actually going on behind the fences and cages on these farms? One can distinguish three broad categories of interaction between Humans and wild animals. Habituation occurs when wild animals become familiar with our routine movements, taming occurs when we control their feeding behaviour, and domestication occurs when we control their breeding behaviour. The managed hunting industry is all about supplying animals that offer sufficiently attractive trophies. Larger, heavier, longer and more colourful equates to higher prices paid by the hunter, and in order to achieve this, breeders will control and manipulate the breeding behaviour of animals. With the large predators, one-week old cubs are often removed from their mothers in order to induce another estrus cycle; lions will be mated with their own offspring (particularly in the case of white lions); lions and tigers are being cross-bred producing what are known as ligers. By consistently doing this, the reproductive capacities of the females are placed under stress as they will be reproducing at rates that exceed the normal circumstances in the wild. The cubs on the other hand are being reared outside of their natural social pride dynamic. With plains game species for example, blesbok and bontebok are crossbred to achieve longer horns and springbok and impala are bred for recessive genes. One need only consider the mutations that have occurred in domestic dogs and cats to accept that there will be critical future consequences to this reckless practice.

Controlling the breeders in South Africa is only half the solution as they are only half the problem. The hunters, who come from all over the world, also need to be targeted. Much like the illicit drug industry, effective legislation needs to be aimed as much at the user and abuser as at the dealer. The ultimate control would be to put a blanket ban on the export of all trophies. This would also be an interesting acid test as to why people hunt in general. This measure should not materially affect the overall experience of genuine hunters, who claim that they are primarily involved in conservation and the fair chase!

And while discussing the distinction between wild and domestic animals, the hoary? old story still put forward by hunters and breeders to justify their practices by comparing them with the domesticated animals is simply outlandish. The majority of domesticated animals is the result of a process that has taken place over thousands of years – when Humankind was inexplicably linked to the natural world for food, clothing and survival. Our relationship with the environment has fundamentally and unquestionably changed, and to argue otherwise is both foolish and self-serving. If there is any doubt, lets ask the hunting world a question in a paradigm they will understand. Do they ever come to Africa to shoot our prize cattle and horses to hang these trophies on their walls? Or conversely, when last did they pop down to their local butcher to order a kilogram of prime lion or zebra ribs? The fair treatment and slaughter process of domesticated animals is another issue altogether. Ultimately, by carrying out these practices with wild animals and attempting to link the argument to domestic animals, they defeat the very purpose of what they say is central to their sport – that of the thrill and challenge of pitting ones hunting skills against the instincts and survival strategies of wild animals.

Canned hunting has no conservation status whatsoever! How can we trust canned hunting operators with the gene pool of Africa’s wild species. The canned hunting industry must be completely killed. It has no place in a forward-thinking society.

Let’s put the lid on wild tales of canned hunting” (May 31) refers. How anyone can use the term “hunting” in connection with the shooting of canned lions in South Africa is beyond me.

We are talking about the killing of tame, farm-bred animals that never lived a natural life or were given a chance to breed and feed the natural way. That is why it is so different from most game farming in South Africa, which has been very beneficial to many rare species of antelope, released into suitable habitats after years of protection.

The lion industry is another matter — it is a money-making venture that has never been of any benefit to the wild population of lions in South Africa. Apart from a few token “p op u l at i o n s ” to create some sort of alibi, nearly all trophy lions are taken directly from their cages and killed by either very naive hunters, or hunters with no self-respect.

The failure by the authorities and professional organisations such as the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa to stop this unethical practice has severely damaged the reputation of our hunting industry, and the attempt by the association, and now also the honourable Minister Edna Molewa, to rename these hapless creatures “captive-bred lions” is, to put it politely, extremely naive.

Most importantly, the renaming has been met with disbelief by many overseas hunting organisations. The European hunting union CIC and the Nordic Safari Club in Scandinavia have distanced themselves from the shooting of lions in South Africa, and some ban South African hunting outfitters from marketing their special brand of “lion hunting” at hunting shows in their countries.

Hunters who still travel to South Africa to participate in the shooting of canned lions are increasingly becoming ridiculed by ethical hunters.

Even in the US, with import regulations on the horizon, and many airlines refusing to transport CITES trophies on their aircraft, the party could soon be over.

I’ve been a hunting outfitter for 35 years, and I am truly saddened to experience how those colleagues have lowered the ethical limits of hunting in South Africa. — A concerned hunting outfitter, by e-mail