Stephanie Klarmann – Blood Lions

Press Release: New Research Assessing Welfare Conditions in South Africa’s Captive Lion Tourism Venues

NEW RESEARCH

Taking Stock: Assessing Welfare Conditions in South Africa’s Captive Lion Venues

New research shows welfare concerns across multiple aspects of the physical, environmental and behavioural conditions experienced by captive lions in South Africa’s commercial lion industry.

A systematic assessment of lion welfare conditions of 34 public-facing captive wildlife venues suggests that the consistency of animal welfare concerns across all venues cannot be explained by isolated cases of poor husbandry.

For decades, South Africa’s captive lion industry has attracted concern about, among others, its impacts on animal welfare and our international reputation. However, access to many commercial facilities is even difficult for the NSPCA, let alone for researchers.

To help address the animal welfare conditions evidence gap, Blood Lions and World Animal Protection undertook a systematic assessment of lion welfare conditions and husbandry practices at 34 tourism venues across South Africa. The venues catered to both local and international visitors, offering activities like predator viewing, cub petting, and walking with lions. All venues across Gauteng, Limpopo, Free State, and North West provinces were visited by researchers as paying members of the public, allowing them to document what visitors would ordinarily see and experience.

Researchers assessed ten welfare conditions and husbandry indicators for lions at each tourism venue, namely mobility, environmental noise quality, shelter, hygiene, environmental naturalness, social interaction, enrichment, diet quality, entertainment intensity, and animal management.

The lion welfare conditions observed point to systemic welfare challenges embedded within the wider captive lion industry. The conditions in off-grid facilities that keep lions and other predators for broader commercial purposes, like captive hunting, live export and trade in their body parts, are likely to be similar or potentially worse than those observed in these public-facing venues.

“When animals are kept within a system designed primarily around their commercial use, their management tends to be shaped by the needs of business and profit, rather than by what is best for the welfare of the animals under their control”, says Dr Louise de Waal (Managing Director, Blood Lions).

Two-thirds of the lion tourism venues assessed offered some form of Animal-Visitor Interactions (AVI). Venues that did not offer AVI generally had better overall welfare conditions than venues offering activities, such as cub petting, bottle feeding, and walking with lions.

“However, this does not mean that simply avoiding cub petting or walking with lions, and choosing a venue where lions are exhibited for viewing only is a guarantee of good welfare conditions”, says Dr Stephanie Klarmann (Campaign Manager, Blood Lions). “For tourists, the most wildlife-friendly choice is to avoid captive wild animals and instead choose to view wildlife in their natural habitats.”

The findings of this peer-reviewed research shows a systematic picture of the welfare conditions existing across captive predator tourism venues in South Africa. In doing so, it highlights what lions experience within the wider commercial captive industry and the welfare considerations that must remain central to efforts to bring this industry to an end.

South Africa was on a trajectory of phasing out its commercial captive lion industry, a process that came to a halt under former minister Aucamp. “We sincerely hope that the findings of this research help Minister Maynier to continue the process of phase out, which has been through years of rigorous democratic processes and is based on solid scientific evidence”, says Dr de Waal.

South Africa is home to one of the world’s largest commercial captive lion industries, with nearly 8,000 lions kept in about 350 facilities across the country. Lions may be bred and commercially exploited at different stages of their lives – cubs are used for petting and feeding experiences, adolescent lions for walking activities, and older animals for breeding or captive trophy hunting. In addition, live lions are exported to zoos and entertainment parks and for breeding purposes, and their bones and other body parts enter the wildlife trade (legally or illegally) after death. These different uses create an interconnected commercial system in which individual lions are exploited for profit throughout their lifetime.

__________________________________ END __________________________________

For media enquiries, contact:

Dr Stephanie Klarmann, Campaign Manager, Blood Lions

Email: info@bloodlions.org

Cell: 082 304 8447

Further information:

Full peer-reviewed paper with data HERE
Public-facing report: HERE

PRESS BRIEFING: WORLD LION DAY 2026

For Immediate Release

World Lion Day 2026: Conservation and welfare organisations urge renewed commitment and action to end South Africa’s captive lion industry

11 August 2026

In honour of World Lion Day, four leading animal welfare and conservation organisations are renewing calls for South Africa to honour its commitment to phase out the commercial captive lion industry.

As part of World Lion Day, FOUR PAWS South Africa, Humane World for Animals South Africa, Voice4Lions and Blood Lions hosted a virtual press conference on 11 August to provide an update on the current status of the industry, highlight recent research and evidence to reinforce the need for decisive action, and outline the practical next steps needed to ensure that South Africa’s current captive lion population is the last generation bred for commercial exploitation.

“The key message today is that there remains a significant gap between policy intentions and reality. Government has committed to phasing out the captive lion breeding industry, yet captive lion breeding remains legal and the industry remains largely operational. Closing that gap is now the critical challenge, because until policy commitments are translated into implementation, lions will continue to be born into an industry that government itself has recognised does not form part of South Africa’s future wildlife vision. As we commemorate World Lion Day, we call for urgent action to turn years of consultation, recommendations and commitments into tangible change for lions,” says Fiona Miles, Director, FOUR PAWS South Africa.

Despite former Minister Barbara Creecy’s announcement in May 2021 that South Africa would phase out the commercial captive lion industry, the industry remains fully legal. The reports that emanated from the High-Level Panel and Ministerial Task Team provided a positive way forward, yet five years later we are still waiting for a result and the industry continues to thrive”, says Linda Park (Voice4Lions). Since November 2025, no progress has been made towards progressing and implementing the necessary policy changes to bring this commitment into effect. This has left around 8,000 lions vulnerable to continued breeding and commercial exploitation.

World Lion Day serves as an important reminder that South Africa’s lions belong in thriving, functioning ecosystems, not in breeding facilities where they are commodified throughout their lifecycle.

“We encourage Minister Maynier to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and continue the process of ending the captive lion breeding industry by, first, prohibiting the establishment of new captive lion breeding facilities and, second, prohibiting the breeding of captive lions. These measures would send a clear signal that South Africa is committed to a new approach to the management of captive wildlife”, says Dr Matthew Schurch (Humane World for Animals South Africa).

The coalition remains committed to working collaboratively with the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, his Department, stakeholders, and the public to achieve a responsible, science-based and humane transition away from the commercial captive lion industry in such a way that South Africa’s international conservation and tourism reputation is protected.

According to Dr Stephanie Klarmann (Blood Lions), “the South African government has an opportunity to take decisive action and demonstrate global leadership in animal welfare, biodiversity governance, and reliance on evidence-based decision-making by ensuring their commitment is translated into action.”

Ends

For further details please contact:

FOUR PAWS South Africa

Media contact: Deidré Daniels

Deidre.Daniels@four-paws.org

Cell: 078 675 8220

Blood Lions

Media contact: Dr Louise de Waal

management@bloodlions.org

Cell: 076 148 1533

Voice4Lions

Media contact: Ms Linda Park

voice4lionssa@gmail.com

Cell: 082 812 3870

Humane World for Animals South Africa

Media contact: Dr Matthew Schurch

mschurch@humaneworld.org

Cell: 066 275 0956

Blood Lions Statement on the appointment of Willem Aucamp as Minister of Environment

BLOOD LIONS LATEST NEWS

Blood Lions Statement on the appointment of Willem Aucamp as Minister of Environment

President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the appointment of Willem Aucamp as the new Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and removed Dr Dion George from the portfolio on Wednesday late evening 12 November 2025.

The announcement was made while George was still in Brazil heading South Africa’s team at the Convention on Climate Change (COP30) and shortly before the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP20) which will take place in Uzbekistan later this month.

Blood Lions and many other organisations have campaigned incessantly to close the exploitative commercial captive lion industry and together with global pressure this led to among others the Parliamentary Colloquium in 2018 (see below).

Under the direction of former Environmental Ministers Creecy and George, we have made great strides to phase out South Africa’s commercial captive lion industry. Significant steps have been taken towards democratic policy change, including:

The resolution from the Parliamentary Colloquium on captive lions in August 2018, to end the practice of captive lion breeding for hunting and the lion bone trade, which was adopted by Parliament that same year.
The High-Level Panel (HLP), comprising a diverse panel of experts including several wildlife industry members, making recommendations to close the captive lion industry, among others. Their nearly 600-page report was approved by Cabinet in April 2021.
This was followed by the development and implementation of the White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity in June 2023 and the Policy Position On The Conservation And Sustainable Use Of Elephant, Lion, Leopard And Rhinoceros in April 2024.
- Noting in particular the inclusion of one of its objectives – to end the captive keeping of lions for commercial purposes and close captive lion facilities, put a halt to the intensive breeding of lions in controlled environments, and end the commercial exploitation of captive and captive-bred lions.
The Ministerial Task Team (MTT) was appointed in 2023 to develop voluntary exit options and pathways from the commercial captive lion industry. They produced a report with various recommendations on voluntary exit as well as on the wider phase out of the commercial captive lion industry, which were adopted by Cabinet in March 2024.
This led to the creation of a draft prohibition notice for new captive lion facilities and the voluntary exit from lion breeding and keeping, and the voluntary surrender of lion bone stockpiles under the auspices of Dion George. The prohibition notice has been through public participation twice and is in its final stages of being promulgated.
Most recently the setting of a zero CITES annual lion bone export quota that Minister George gazetted for public participation on 22 September 2025.

This democratic process is supported by a growing body of science-based and peer-reviewed evidence, such as

We trust Minister Aucamp will continue this democratic process that long precedes George’s tenure, which is not only firmly rooted in science but also is fully in line with his party’s Resolution, tabled at the DA 2023 Federal Congress to “end the captive predator breeding, captive “canned lion” hunts and lion bone export”.

We look forward to engaging with and continuing to support the Minister and his Department in achieving the goal and vision laid out in the White Paper and Policy Position and restore our tarnished conservation and eco-tourism reputation through the phase out of this exploitative industry.

DA leader John Steenhuisen requests to replace Minister Dr Dion George with Willie Aucamp

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

DA leader John Steenhuisen requests to replace Minister Dr Dion George with Willie Aucamp

Agriculture Minister and Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen wants to replace Minister Dion George for ‘underperformance’, but has failed to produce evidence for the general public.

A coalition of NGOs note with concern that Steenhuisen’s request “emanate[s] not from a broad public interest, but from a narrow sector of organisations who seek to continue profiting from an extractivist model of wildlife consumption.”

Late last week, the news broke that Steenhuisen requested President Cyril Ramaphosa to replace the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE) Minister Dion George with the DA’s national spokesperson Willie Aucamp. Alleged ‘underperformance’ criticisms have been mentioned, however, no publicly available evidence has been produced, highlighting concerns that this move may be politically motivated by vested interests.

Blood Lions, Humane World for Animals South Africa, Voice4Lions and Animal Law Reform South Africa have written as a coalition to President Cyril Ramaphosa to urge him to reject Steenhuisen’s request and commit to transparent, democratic decision making that demonstrates consistent and reliable leadership.

Steenhuisen’s request does not align with these values and “amounts to a challenge to democratically developed wildlife policy and highlights the conflict of interest apparent in his dual roles as minister in the Government of National Unity and party leader of the Democratic Alliance”, according to the coalition.

The DA leader’s proposed replacement, Willie Aucamp, has openly shown close alliance with the same organisations fighting to keep the commercial captive predator industry alive, such as Wildlife Ranching South Africa and the Sustainable Use Coalition of South Africa. He has close family ties with a wildlife breeding farm for buffalo, Kings wildebeest, Golden oryx and other rarities bred for trophies, as well as a family hunting farm.

The captive predator industry makes regular claims regarding purported conservation value of breeding and trading captive-bred lions but have yet to produce scientific, peer-reviewed evidence to substantiate these claims. Minister George, however, has demonstrated a progressive and evidence-based approach to wildlife conservation and animal well-being throughout his tenure. His explicit commitment to end the commercial captive lion industry has been continually met with fierce resistance from industry proponents, including court challenges on the inclusion of animal well-being in NEMBA and lion bone export quotas.

At the same time, his engagement on commercial captive predator industry issues have been transparent and democratic, led by public participation (including draft notices for public comment), involving stakeholder engagement (the continuation of the Ministerial Lion Task Team, the Wildlife Well-Being Forum, and the Wildlife Forum), and using peer-reviewed science (examples here).

His tenure has similarly seen him directly address broader environmental and other conservation issues, including finalising 150 abalone appeals; fishing rights allocation; taking action against a shark long-line vessel that breached permit conditions; expressing his commitment to implement the SADC Vulture Conservation Strategy and Action Plan; increasing protection of African penguins; identifying 11 Renewable Energy Development Zones; finalising the Climate Change Response Plan for coastal adaptation; finalising the National Carbon Credits and Biodiversity Offsets Framework strategy; adopting the Rio Declaration on Crimes that Affect the Environment, amongst other pressing environmental concerns.

This latest move by the DA leader could set South Africa as a country back by a decade in terms of conservation policy reform that would restore our standing as a leader in conservation and eco-tourism.

His proposed Cabinet reshuffle also presents a worrying contradiction, since the DA passed a resolution at their 2023 Federal Congress to “end captive predator breeding, captive canned lion hunts and lion bone export”. A resolution that is completely in line with Minister George’s vision and has full approval from Cabinet.

Blood Lions, Humane World for Animals South Africa, Voice4Lions and Animal Law Reform South Africa have urged the President to reject Steenhuisen’s request and to recommit to the democratically developed wildlife conservation policy framework settled over the last seven years.

END

For further details please contact:

Blood Lions

Media contact: Dr Louise de Waal

management@bloodlions.org

Cell: 076 148 1533

Voice4Lions

Media contact: Ms Linda Park

voice4lionssa@gmail.com

Cell: 082 812 3870

Comments on the Notice of Intention to set Zero Export Quota for Trade in Lion Bones 2025

The Director-General: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
FAO: Ms Malepo Phoskoko
Private Bag X447
Pretoria 0001

Delivered by email to: cites@dffe.gov.za

21 October 2025

Comments on the Notice of Intention to set Zero Export Quota for Trade in Lion Bones 2025

Dear Ms Phoskoko,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intention to set a zero export quota for trade in lion bones sourced from captive breeding operations in South Africa for the 2025 calendar year, gazetted under notice 53394.

CITES

At CoP17, an annotation was added to the Appendix II listing of Panthera leo, specifying that: “…a zero annual export quota is established for specimens of bones, bone pieces, bone products, claws, skeletons, skulls and teeth removed from the wild and traded for commercial purposes. Annual export quotas for trade in bones, bone pieces, bone products, claws, skeletons, skulls and teeth for commercial purposes, derived from captive breeding operations in South Africa, will be established and communicated annually to the CITES Secretariat.”

The CITES lion bone export quota has never specified the export of bone products, such as lion bone cakes, and claws and teeth. Lion bone cakes are made by boiling cleaned bones for several days to condensing down the gelatine. The bone pieces are removed, and the remaining liquid is gradually reduced to a glue-like consistency, which hardens into an odourless cake. It is normally cut into squares for sale and generally consumed by dissolving small pieces into medicinal wine. Teeth and claws are made into expensive jewellery, commanding much higher prices than in their raw form.

These smaller parts and derivatives are currently still legal to export with a CITES permit, are in high demand and have a high market value in Southeast Asia, particularly in Vietnam.

At CoP17, Decisions 17.241 relating to Panthera leo were adopted, stating among others the intent:

to undertake studies on legal and illegal trade in lions, including lion bones and other parts and derivatives, to ascertain the origin and smuggling routes, in collaboration with TRAFFIC and/or other relevant organisations;
to undertake a comparative study of lion population trends and conservation and management practices, such as lion hunting, within and between countries, including the role, if any, of international trade.

To our knowledge, this still has not been undertaken and we therefore do not have a reasonable indication what impact the legal trade has on the conservation of Panthera leo across its range states.

Research

Blood Lions in collaboration with the World Animal Protection have recently published a peer-reviewed paper that looked at whether the commercial captive breeding of lions in South Africa, to satisfy the commercial demand for lions and their body parts, could provide a sustainable solution for wild lion conservation. An existing evaluation framework was adapted to assess the impact of commercial captive lion breeding on wild lion populations, considering five criteria: consumer preferences, market supply and demand, cost efficiency, breeding stock maintenance, and protection from criminal activity.

We reviewed 126 peer-reviewed articles and 37 public reports published between 2008-2023. The analysis identified several red flags suggesting that lion farming may harm wild lion populations by accelerating – and potentially facilitating – commercial demand for lions and their body parts, including bones, claws and teeth. The review also highlights key knowledge gaps that must be addressed to better understand the wider implications of the captive lion industry. Recommended areas for future research include: consumer preferences for lion products sourced from either captive or wild populations, supply and demand interactions relating to captive lion products, economic comparisons between farmed and wild lion products, the genetics and genetic health of captive lion populations, and the extent of illegal activity taking place between Africa and destination countries in Southeast Asia.

In the 2018 Non-Detriment Finding Assessment for African lions, the Scientific Authority of South Africa concluded that exporting captive-bred lion trophies, live captive-bred lions for zoological or breeding purposes, and/or trading lion skeletons from the captive population did not negatively impact South Africa’s wild lion population. While wild lion populations in South Africa are currently considered stable, this new research shows that using captive breeding as a tool to meet the demand for lion commodities may pose potentially detrimental effects on already vulnerable lion populations and other big cat species across other range states.

Even though we are in full support of the Minister’s decision to set a zero lion bone quota, we have considered whether a zero quota or a deferred quota is better from a legal perspective. We believe that a zero quota is an explicit prohibition written into the CITES framework, which is stronger from a strictly international / CITES perspective than leaving the quota undefined. However, we are in the process of obtaining an independent legal opinion on this matter.

Furthermore, we would urge the Minister to consider taking this zero lion bone export quota one step further and explicitly include bone products, teeth and claws. These would be important steps to pave the way for South Africa to phase out its commercial captive lion industry entirely.

We sincerely hope that you will take the above comments into consideration taking the final decision on the 2025 CITES lion bone export quota.

NEW RESEARCH: Does lion farming in South Africa harm Africa’s iconic wild lions?

PRESS RELEASE

South Africa’s commercial lion breeding industry does not benefit Africa’s iconic wild lions, according to new research by Blood Lions and World Animal Protection.

This finding may have vital implications for the future of lion farming in South Africa – an industry that has been allowed to grow over the past three decades to around 350 captive facilities holding nearly 8,000 lions and thousands of other big cats for tourist entertainment and profit.

Researchers from Blood Lions and World Animal Protection reviewed 126 peer-reviewed articles and 37 public reports published between 2008-2023. Their analysis identified several red flags suggesting that lion farming may harm wild lion populations by accelerating – and potentially facilitating – commercial demand for lions and their body parts, including bones, claws and teeth.

The review also highlights key knowledge gaps that must be addressed to better understand the wider implications of the captive lion industry. Recommended areas for future research include: consumer preferences for lion products sourced from either captive or wild populations, supply and demand interactions relating to captive lion products, economic comparisons between farmed and wild lion products, the genetics and genetic health of captive lion populations, and the extent of illegal activity taking place between Africa and destination countries in Southeast Asia.

Currently, there is no scientific evidence to substantiate industry claims that commercial captive lion breeding protects wild lion populations. On the contrary, the findings suggest it may be driving demand with potentially damaging consequences for the species in the wild.

Contributing researcher and Director of Blood Lion Dr Louise de Waal said: “We need to err on the side of caution globally, but in particular in African lion range states, to stop facilitating the further emergence of commercial captive predator breeding and trade. This is particularly relevant when considering the increased wildlife trafficking opportunities between the African continent and Southeast Asia, fuelled in part by the expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative^[1] – a global infrastructure development strategy by the Chinese government.”

In May 2021, former Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Barbara Creecy, initiated a process to ultimately close South Africa’s commercial captive lion industry with all its associated activities, such as cub petting, walking with lions, and “canned” or captive trophy hunting.

This decision followed the release of the High-Level Panel report, which found that, among others, the captive lion breeding industry damages South Africa’s eco-tourism and conservation reputations, lacks the necessary transformation, and is widely accused of animal welfare neglect and abuse.

In its 2018 Non-Detriment Finding Assessment for African lions, the Scientific Authority of South Africa concluded that exporting captive-bred lion trophies, live captive-bred lions for zoological or breeding purposes, and/or trading lion skeletons from the captive population did not negatively impact South Africa’s wild lion population. While wild lion populations in South Africa are currently considered stable, this new research shows that using captive breeding as a tool to meet the demand for lion commodities may pose potentially detrimental effects on already vulnerable lion populations and other big cat species across other range states.

Dr Angie Elwin, contributing researcher and Head of Research at World Animal Protection added: “Our review finds no clear evidence that South Africa’s captive lion breeding industry benefits wild lion populations, and growing indications it could be doing harm by fuelling demand for lion parts. Given the precarious status of lions globally, any claims of conservation value should be treated with extreme caution. Lessons from tiger farming show that legal trade from captive animals has failed to protect wild populations and may even accelerate their decline. We risk repeating the same mistake with lions.”

These new research findings are highly relevant for the current political process and should urge Minister Dr. Dion George (Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment) to take two critical next steps: first, to impose an immediate moratorium on the breeding of lions in captivity, and second, to develop a structured and timebound phase-out plan for the broader commercial predator industry.

Find a PDF version of the full peer-reviewed research paper HERE.

^[1] Hughes, A.C. Understanding and minimizing environmental impacts of the Belt and Road Initiative. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 883–894.

What does science tell us about depression in animals?

What does science tell us about depression in animals?

While many stakeholders in the commercial wildlife industry believe that animals respond to their environments based on instincts alone, science has demonstrated that animals can experience depression-like behaviours. This information is not new as an early (and highly unethical) study conducted in the late 1960s by Martin Seligman, an American psychologist, showed that dogs subjected to unavoidable electrical shocks gave up trying to escape their environments after repeated exposure. The phenomenon was termed ‘learned helplessness’ and became an important model for understanding depression in humans and animals.

What does ‘learned helplessness’ mean?

‘Learned helplessness’ occurs when an animal is repeatedly exposed to stressful situations outside of their control. Eventually these animals cease trying to escape their situations. Sadly, even when escape from long-term and repeated exposure to a stressful situation eventually stops, animals experiencing ‘learned helplessness’ may not even attempt to escape.

How does this relate to depression in animals?

Although Seligman’s study was extremely cruel and unethical, the concept of ‘learned helplessness’ became an important model for understanding the behavioural responses of people (and animals) to depression. It’s a powerful indication that chronic, uncontrollable stressful situations can lead to severe and lasting behavioural and neurochemical changes.

‘Learned helplessness’ can be seen in passive behaviour, a lack of motivation, and feelings of pessimism that things will never change for the better. In animals, scientists have found that those who display signs of ‘learned helplessness’ even have altered brain chemistry and behaviours similar to people experiencing depression.

Do animals in captivity experience depression and learned helplessness?

Science shows that wild animals kept in captivity can experience severe environmental deprivation, a lack of control, and long-term exposure to stress, all of which can lead to depression-like behaviours associated with ‘learned helplessness’, such as the following:

Animals showing signs of depression actually mirror what we see in humans experiencing depression, including neurochemical changes in serotonin (implicated in depression) and cortisol (the stress hormone), and neurological changes in brain function and structure.

What does depression look like in captive animals?

The general public often miss the signs of depression in animals kept in captivity, but the following are strong indicators that an animal is experiencing chronic stress and ‘learned helplessness’:

Animals kept in captivity show these behaviours because captive environments do not provide mental and physical stimulation, they feel isolated from members of their own species, and because they simply cannot escape their stressful environments.

What does this mean for the welfare of predators kept in captivity?

Captive facilities are by their very nature artificial environments that confine and restrict an animal’s ability to engage in natural behaviours. For predators, like lions and tigers, one of their most inherent behaviours – hunting – is impeded. They are robbed of their ability to roam their territories, hunt prey, and socialise with their own species in ways that are natural to them. Predators kept in captivity often exhibit signs that their environments are harming their well-being and quality of life. By supporting commercial captive facilities, we are failing to genuinely consider wild animals’ quality of life. Even if overt cruelty and neglect is not occuring in a commercial captive facility, captive predators quietly endure stressful and inadequate conditions from birth to death. One or two negative conditions may not feel harmful to the animal’s overall welfare state, but the cumulative impact over its entire life can turn into serious depression and severely affect a captive animal’s quality of life.

I want to see a big cat up close, but should I?

How can we tell if a captive facility is one that we should support or avoid? With so many predator parks calling themselves sanctuaries or claiming to rescue their animals, how can we be certain that the facility is ethical or not?

South Africa has close to 400 captive predator parks, most of which are purely commercial, or at a minimum designed to earn a profit from their animals. This has resulted in an rampant industry that keeps approximately 8,000 lions, 600+ tigers, 500 cheetahs, 300 leopards, and 1,000s of other predators all in captivity.

To help you better understand what unethical and profit-driven predator parks look like, read on to learn more about the captive Red Flags.

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

BREAKING NEWS- 5th March 2025, Cape Town

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.”

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

Submission on the Draft Game Meat Strategy

Submission on the draft Game Meat Strategy

The draft White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity has been welcomed by many professionals in different sectors, as it represents a paradigm shift away from outdated policies and models, towards more modern approaches to the conservation of biodiversity, while adopting One Health and One Welfare principles in the management of our wildlife, as well as principles of Ubuntu.

The draft Game Meat Strategy for South Africa has however come as a complete surprise, as its vision is purely to intensify, commercialise, formalise and transform the game meat industry in South Africa to contribute to food security and sustainable socio-economic growth, without giving due consideration to the progressive draft White Paper principles. This is particularly apparent with regard to the following issues so clearly highlighted in the Draft White Paper which:

recognises that all wild animals are sentient, have intrinsic value, should be treated humanely, have their well-being secured, and have the right of respect;
defines well-being as the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal which are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, including its ability to cope with its environment;
identifies the need to protect wild animals in the wild and to expand protected areas;
understands the need to reverse the domestication of wild animals, which it refers to as a “poor practice that erodes the sense of wildness and the cultural heritage and stewardship for the environment”;
aligns with Section 24 of the Constitution with regard to the promotion of ecologically sustainable use, and the protection and conservation of our biodiversity;
defines Ubuntu as being built upon compassionate, respectful, and interdependent relationships, and that the very essence of Ubuntu hinges on consolidating the human, natural and spiritual tripartite;
states the need to prevent, where possible, or minimise risk of the animal-human transmission and further evolution of zoonotic diseases associated with wild animals;
confirms the importance of maintaining South Africa’s conservation reputation;
recognises the need for an improved and updated permitting system, as well as the monitoring and enforcement of legal compliance with regard to our wildlife industry.

In contrast, the Draft Game Meat Strategy:

disregards the rights of animals, and depicts wildlife purely as commodities, simply to be utilised as resources of commercial value;
fails to recognise that wild animals are sentient and therefore the need to protect their welfare and well-being. For example, Strategic Objective 1 refers to developing Industry Standards for Game Meat to ensure product safety and quality; and Strategic Objective 7 refers to skills development to ensure meat integrity, safety and quality, but neither include the welfare and well-being challenges of the wild animals involved;
does not acknowledge the need for comprehensive industry norms and standards that fully incorporate ALL aspects of the value chain, including the welfare and well-being of the wild animals and their quality of life and death, i.e. the breeding, keeping and slaughter;
promotes the intensification of farming wild animals, which inevitably leads to domestication. This is in direct conflict with Policy Objective 3.7 in the draft White Paper identifying the need to reverse the domestication of wild animals;
promotes the intensification of the game meat industry without due consideration to Goal 3 (Biodiversity Conservation Promoted) of the draft White Paper and, in particular, Objective 3.9 which acknowledges the risks associated with zoonosis, and the need to minimise them;
promotes the farming of wild species for commercial use, but does not define which species are included in the term “game species”; whether they are captive, ranched, wild/free-roaming; intensively and/or selectively bred (e.g. colour variants); or whether the animals are indigenous and/or exotic;
none of the guiding principles in the Game Meat Strategy speak of securing biodiversity and/or expanding protected areas through growing the game meat market, as would be expected of a DFFE led document. It only speaks of economic development, job creation and transformation, which are no doubt important issues to consider but are not the sole mandate of DFFE. Even the Game Meat Strategy’s vision (i.e., a formalised, thriving and transformed game meat industry in South Africa that contributes to food security and sustainable socio-economic growth) is one-dimensional. As such, this document is an agricultural strategy that belongs under DALRRD;
endorses Ubuntu in respect of the need to create improved livelihoods, but fails to incorporate the need for respectful co-existence and harmonious relationships with our wildlife and its environment;
fails to adequately address solutions for the monitoring and enforcement of industry compliance with existing legislation and regulations;
does not satisfactorily explore or promote alternative income streams besides game meat.

Furthermore it should be noted that:

The draft Game Meat Strategy fails to take into account the evidence brought forward by the Scientific Authority’s Intensive and Selective Breeding report^[1] which concludes that intensive management and selective breeding of game poses a number of significant risks to biodiversity at landscape, ecosystem and species levels, as well as to other sectors of the biodiversity economy of South Africa, and may compromise the current and future contribution of the wildlife industry to biodiversity conservation.

Key biodiversity risks identified on an ecosystem and species level include:

The killing of predators and other conflict species may result in a reduction in population numbers, which in turn may lead to a change in the conservation status of the species and thereby furthering the extinction risk.

Key biodiversity risks identified on an ecosystem level include:

Fragmentation of the landscape through impermeable fencing restricts movement of free-ranging species and reduces habitat quality and quantity;
Concentration of species in small areas with impermeable fences for intensive breeding purposes results in habitat degradation within such areas;
The removal of predators will at a certain scale disrupt predation as a natural process in the broader landscape/environment thereby affecting ecosystem functioning.

Key biodiversity risks identified at species level include:

Loss of genetic diversity resulting in decreased fitness and reduced adaptive potential;
Domestication of wild species resulting in a loss of their natural ability to adapt to wild conditions;
Changes in natural genetic composition, evolutionary trajectory and adaptive potential of wild populations through the introgression of captive population genetics wherein genetic changes in the captive population may lead to an altering genetic composition and/or evolutionary trajectory and/or adaptive potential of wild populations through deliberate and accidental introductions.
The draft Game Meat Strategy promotes marginal lands as being better suited to wild species, but whether we intensively farm domestic cattle and sheep or domesticated antelope and buffalo, the impacts on the environment and the potential for habitat degradation will remain the same. We understand that Government wishes to reduce poverty, create food security and advance the rights of communities by growing the game meat industry, however this should not be at the detriment of the environment, biodiversity and/or the well-being of individual wild animals.
The intensive breeding of animals, whether domestic or wild animals, has far reaching impacts on the environment, particularly with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, the strategy does not seem to align with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13 (take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts), as well as the Paris Agreement on climate change that was signed at COP21.

We believe the above aspects are of serious concern and we trust that these contradictory stances are rectified in the final Game Meat Strategy document.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Louise de Waal

Campaign Manager and Director