How to stop canned lion hunting.
The recent panel discussion held at Hermanus after the screening of Richard Peirce’s documentary film Lions Bones and Bullets has exemplified the issue.
There is a popular misconception that the South African Minister for the environment is in the process of banning lion farming and canned hunting and that it is just a matter of time before this awful industry is consigned to the dustbin of history.
Alas, nothing could be further from reality.
Many lion farmers have already assured us that they will bring legal and constitutional challenges to any legislation to ban their industry. Such is the celerity of the dysfunctional justice system in South Africa that this threat to tie up the proposed ban in litigation for ten years or more must be taken seriously. Besides, prima facie they have a winning case. They would argue:
You gave us permits to farm with Lions and you promoted hunts of captive bred lions. We spent billions of rands and many years building the industry. Now you want us to stop?  We want compensation .  We are talking billions of rands.
The issue of funding was raised by Richard Peirce at the panel discussion but skated over by the panel. The crisp question is this; should lion farmers be compensated for a ban on their livelihood and if so where will the money come from? Certainly not from the South African government which cannot even keep the lights on. So where then? NGOs in the Western world?
I can just imagine the outrage from Western NGOs at the suggestion of rewarding lion farmers for their animal abuse.
Yet there is a precedent for this; the abolition of slavery. To abolish slavery the UK government had to hold its nose and pay out billions in taxpayers money to the cruel Plantation owners, and their heirs, giving them generational wealth. Rewarding hideous cruelty.
Animal advocates and some conservationists have done wonderful work in raising awareness about the cruelty but now their efforts need to be complemented.
The game has changed. And that demands a change of players.
The only people capable of tackling the challenges of deconstructing a whole industry are people who have built industries themselves. People like Anton Rupert, Sol Kerzner, Elon Musk et al, business leaders who have the strategic and tactical knowledge and experience to know what to do and how to do it.
This is the conversation which all concerned conservationists, animal welfarists and regulators should be having.
Everything comes down to money in the end and this issue is no exception. However money in itself will not solve the problem without a raft of safeguards and other issues to promote it. Demand reduction by securing a ban on the import of lion trophies into foreign countries is also essential and we applaud the efforts of people like Eduardo in UK, Donalea in Australia and Simone in Holland for their admirable efforts in securing bans on the import of trophies and thereby reducing demand  for trophy hunting.
Even if the money were to be raised, throwing it at the hunting industry without well thought out safeguards will only aggravate the problem, not solve it.
Without adequate safeguards, some unscrupulous  lion farmers could  take the money and use it to build new infrastructure and facilities in countries like Namibia and Mozambique, for example. Border hopping is so easy..
Safeguards are possible. For instance, the compensation money could be paid in to a trust fund administered by professionals who could vigorously police and audit the payouts..
 Imagine if you went to the drug cartels in South America and offered them billions to stop trafficking in drugs. They would surely say all the things you want to hear, take your money, laugh at you behind your back and resume business as usual through third parties.
So after reading this are you still confident  that the SA government will ban lion farming?
 
 
 
 
 

-This draft White Paper is so badly drafted that reading it is a real challenge. Reams and reams of paper, 76 pages in all, of turgid text that could and should have been condensed into a five-page document. Every page repeats the same abstract ideas over and over.
 
It’s not all bad. There are some good ideas but these are obscured by the repetitive verbiage so that finding them is like looking for flecks of gold in an ore-body. As any intelligent person knows, focus is the key to success. Cast your net too wide and you are doomed to fail. And unfortunately the net does not get cast wider than this. The White Paper seeks to cast its net over the whole nation; every government department, every local government, every community, every NGO and indeed every private citizen. Everyone and everything is going to be regulated to implement the ideology of this White Paper. It’s totalitarian.
 
It seeks to politicise conservation. The legacy of apartheid must be rigorously stamped out, regardless of conservation imperatives. Does this mean that a successful conservation initiative owned and run by citizens who are unacceptably white and unfashionably male must be dismantled and replaced by a demographically acceptable workforce, representing blacks, women and the youth. Because that is how the White Paper reads.
 
Per contra traditional healers are to be vigorously supported and promoted. What does this mean for wildlife conservation? Just go down to the traditional Muti market in Faraday, Johannesburg and look at all the wildlife body parts. Whole colonies of vultures have been wiped out and made regionally extinct by the demands of traditional healers for beaks and claws. How is government going to convince traditional healers at Faraday to source their vulture and Leopard parts ethically? The effect of politicising conservation with all sorts of social and ideological issues will inevitably be to dilutive conservation, to bury it under a welter of government interference.
 
Casting the conservation net over every institution and government structure makes the whole idea unworkable. Local authorities in South Africa are notoriously  corrupt and incompetent. At the expense of service delivery, local government councillors gleefully and unashamedly help themselves to ratepayers funds like children let loose in a sweet shop. Yet the White Paper envisages these very structures, which cannot even repair potholes in town streets, becoming effective evangelists for conservation. Laughable.
 
This dreadful document completely misses the whole point of conservation which is the preservation of natural functioning ecosystems for their own sakes. Poverty alleviation has nothing whatever to do with it. Instead we get what is a nonsensical jumble of conflicting and contradictory concepts and goals. A word salad that makes no sense at all.
 
The most serious flaw in this draft White Paper is that it completely ignores the fundamental issue upon which all conservation and sustainable use policies must rest and as a result it’s an exercise in superficiality and therefore an exercise in futility. The elephant in the room which this document cannot bring itself to mention, is the unsustainable human population explosion. This is getting worse not better, again largely due to poor governance. For example encouraging women to breed by providing child benefits is politically popular but it leads to social ills in a poor population. Like schoolgirls being encouraged by their families to fall pregnant so that the families can get extra child support. The desperation of the rapidly growing human population will overwhelm any conservation initiative. Desperate people will do whatever it takes to survive. A hungry mother setting wire snares in a conservation area to trap some food is pitiable. 1 million such mothers are a conservation nightmare and 10 million such mothers are a national calamity.  Without effective human population control measures the government can draft all the White Paper’s, green papers and legislation it likes and it will not make the slightest difference.
 
You might be able to fool some people with the political ideology underlying the White Paper but, as the famous physicist Richard Feynman observed, you can’t fool nature.
 
Like Escom and the other state owned enterprises, and for exactly the same reasons, the lights are going out for wildlife and biodiversity in South Africa. It’s just not as noticeable as the Escom blackouts because it’s more insidious and anyway the wildlife neither votes nor riots.
 
So my suggestions are:-
1.    get someone with intelligence and a grasp of language to condense the White Paper. It will make the ideas more comprehensible to the general public.
2.    Focus first on tackling the human population explosion because without that all conservation policies will be overwhelmed by human need and greed.
3.    Focus on conservation. Successful initiatives must be promoted and supported by the government regardless of race or gender. Dump the political ideology. Poverty alleviation and conservation are separate issues and cannot be conjoined as this document preaches.
As it stands this draft White Paper is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

Subject: press release by Dr Bool Smuts of Landmark Foundation
 
Barbaric killing of a leopard near Uniondale: Knowingly left in a cage to die of starvation and dehydration.
In or about August 2020, Mr Andre Barnard of Toorwater farm, along the southern slopes of the Swartberg near Uniondale in the Western Cape, is alleged to have killed a leopard under the most depraved and barbaric circumstances. The leopard was allegedly illegally captured in a cage trap without the requisite permits, then, knowing it was captured, Mr Barnard allegedly wished it dead, but did not want to shoot it. Nor would he call CapeNature or Landmark Foundation for assistance. Instead, it was left to die of dehydration in the cage. His son and the farm workers were knowing of this and/or involved in this.
It is unknown how long the leopard was left to suffer before it died. Thirst is the only urge a mammal cannot resist. Dying of dehydration, by deprivation of water, is the cruelest death any animal can be subjected to.
Landmark Foundation has agitated since March 2022 to get the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to fully prosecute the alleged crimes. Initially the charges included only illegal capture and killing of the leopard without due permits in terms of the 1974 Provincial Ordinance and disregarded the ethics or depravity of the method the animal was allegedly intentionally killed. With our agitation, charges were added in respect of the Animal Protection Act. However, attempts by the accused and the NPA to get a plea deal agreement intervened. The Landmark Foundation asked for a watching brief in court and the right to address the Magistrate’s Court presiding officer in aggravation of sentencing. We demanded that all the transgressions in law (the Conservation Ordinance and the Animal Protection Act) should have been prosecuted and charged. We also believe that the farm workers and the son of Mr Barnard that was allegedly involved in and/or had knowledge of the leopard capture and the circumstances of it being left to die in the cage, be charged also as accomplices.
These actions are barbaric!
What is equally shocking is the criminal justice system’s atrocious prosecution of this matter. The accused has been before court on at least 6 occasions where we have attended. He has still not been asked to plead. From one Magistrate’s opining about the plight of farmers and how terrible leopards are, and the State not compensating farmers (even before the accused has pleaded), to brazen arrogance of the NPA in this matter, there seems little prospect of justice being served in this matter.
We believe an appropriate sentence be to be imposed on all guilty parties. We have succeeded in elevating the matter from the District to the Regional Magistrates Court. The initial plea deal presented by the accused had been rejected.
We have lodged a complaint at the Magistrates Commission in respect of the clearly biased Magistrate Henderson’s conduct in the Uniondale District Magistrates Court 8 June 2022 and have not had the decency of a response therein.
At the first appearance in the Regional Magistrate Court the prosecutor arrived ill-prepared and was not even being able to advise the Magistrate of what the charges were, then later confirming that the charges had been truncated to only 2 charges (from 4 previously), and what is more, their claiming the leopard was killed in a snare when in fact it was in a cage trap. The tragedy of errors continues and are now laced by arrogance from senior NPA staff trying to cover over this layered incompetence and disinterest in the killing of a protected species and the cruelty.  This is not the first instant, in fact the fifth example in our experience, of disinterest in respect leopard killing prosecutions by landowners. With such disinterest and lack of prosecutorial rigor, these animals have little hope.
So, the illegal killing of a leopard and abject barbarity has not yet been prosecuted and the prosecution seems to be bumbling along, and yet we have a dead leopard, killed in the cruelest of circumstances.
There were reasonable alternatives available to the farmer, that could have rescued leopard from a barbaric, unthinkable death, to potentially translocate the animal or collar and release it back on site as part of a compensation scheme to the farmer. Instead, the allegedly farmer left the leopard in the cage to die of dehydration.
Below are the emails on this matter and the relevant contact details of the state officials charged with executing justice for our wildlife. Please assist us in getting justice for this situation.
Please join us in demanding justice for this animal and attend court on 15 September in Uniondale to ensure our civil servants do their civil duty. All the relevant contact details are below.

To: 'Repsadmin@npa.gov.za' <Repsadmin@npa.gov.za>; 'carendse@npa.gov.za' <carendse@npa.gov.za>
Cc: 'TOMMY Tommy (NPA Contact)' <tabunguzana@npa.gov.za>; 'Botha Rosina' <RoBotha@justice.gov.za>; 'Zietsman Rietta' <RZietsman@justice.gov.za>; 'Redelinghuys Muller' <MRedelinghuys@justice.gov.za>; 'Jaxa Gloria' <GJaxa@justice.gov.za>; 'Le Roux Riaan' <RLeRoux@justice.gov.za>; 'Nieuwoudt Michael' <MiNieuwoudt@justice.gov.za>; 'cclerk@npa.gov.za' <cclerk@npa.gov.za>; 'Carlo Van Tonder' <cvtonder@capenature.co.za>; 'Ernst Baard' <ebaard@capenature.co.za>; 'Barend Le Roux' <bleroux@capenature.co.za>; 'Simon Candice' <CSimon@justice.gov.za>; 'Jacomina Swart (A)' <ajswart@npa.gov.za>; 'nabell@npa.gov.za' <nabell@npa.gov.za>

 
Trophy hunting lobbyist Ron Thompson is at it again. He is now attempting to defeat the proposed ban on the import of trophies into UK by deliberately confusing the conservation issue of culling with the anti-conservation issue of trophy hunting.

http://africaunauthorised.com/warden-ron-thomsons-letter-to-the-uk-government-on-the-folly-of-a-hunting-ban/

Culling is a totally different thing from hunting which is simply commercial exploitation.
Hunting is an evil for many reasons but one compelling one is that it puts the process of natural selection in reverse. Nature takes the old and the weak thereby strengthening the gene pool. Trophy hunting takes the biggest and the best thereby weakening the gene pool.

The culling by conservationists to reduce an elephant population which is causing harm to the environment is a different thing altogether. It is a military operation involving helicopters and dozens of heavily armed rangers. Using the helicopters, a targeted herd of elephants is rounded up and massacred right down to the smallest calf.

 In support of trophy hunting, Thompson is claiming that hunters who target a majestic tusker are helping to control elephant populations. What rubbish! The elephant cows will simply be mounted by smaller bulls and population numbers will be unaffected. What trophy hunter wants to shoot all the small calves and pregnant cows?

A critical analysis of Thompsons open letter to the UK government breaks it down into three components:
1. a tedious rant about the need to kill elephants in Kruger Park
2. defamatory and outrageous accusations against anyone in the world who does not agree that hunting is conservation and speaks out against it
3. gratuitous insults directed at the British Prime Minister personally.

What Eduardo Goncalves and his team are asking of the British government is to ban the import of hunting trophies. Nobody is promoting a ban on culling which is a conservation issue best left to conservationists.

Accordingly, Thompson’s diatribe about culling has nothing whatever to do with the issue of the proposed ban and can safely be ignored as irrelevant.

We are left with the gratuitous insults to the British Prime Minister and the outrageous accusations against anyone who disagrees with Thompson’s fanatical belief that hunting is conservation.

Attacking the British Prime Minister.
Of Prime Minister Boris Johnson he writes:
“.. the Prime Minister is politically foolhardy to allow himself to be manipulated and to be led by the nose by these nefarious charlatans.”
What egregious arrogance! Who is this be be-whiskered self-important octogenarian to use such disgraceful language against an elected British leader?
The proposed UK government policy has not been written by the UK Prime Minister (or anyone else in the UK government, or its advisers) because they have been “manipulated” (sic).  
There was a full, public UK Consultation on hunting trophies imports/exports whereby DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) studied the available science and opinion over the course of some 21 months, reporting its conclusions and ‘Policy Statement’ 10 December 2021 -  concluding that trophy hunting puts wildlife at risk.
The proposed policy to ‘bringing forward ambitious legislation to ban the import of hunting trophies from thousands of species’ has not been made up in wilful ignorance of the science, but because of it.
Pro-trophy hunting advocates had ample opportunity to (and no doubt did) submit to the UK’s Consultation (which closed 25 February 2020).
Clearly, the pro-trophy hunting lobby did not present, or could not present, a convincing case supported by science. 
Attacking  any who may disagree.
As for anyone who disagrees with him, he has this to say:
“People who disagree with me are dyed- in- the- wool anti-hunters … such people have no knowledge about, nor personal experience in, the vital management needs of African wildlife. Their purpose… has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of hunting… their sole interests are about making money out of the anti-hunting campaign. NOTHING ELSE!”

Thompson blasts the British Parliament in the following terms:
“ watch.. the antics of British parliamentarians as they are being manipulated - and side-blinded -(?sic) by a handful of self-centred animal rights extremists whose real purpose in stirring the pot is to make money out of the gullible British public.”

What condescending self-righteous claptrap! 
One has to wonder if this man is deranged. His vicious and completely irrational attacks upon Eduardo Goncalves personally merely because he is promoting the proposal to ban trophy imports seem to me to be actuated by spite. He can see that Eduardo understands the need to work at a policy level to effect change - and that terrifies Thompson. In short, it is Eduardo’s effectiveness as an animal advocate that provokes such a defamatory attack upon him. It is an unintended compliment!

I hope that the British government will treat this outrageous letter from Thomson with the contempt that it deserves.

Chris Mercer
Campaign Against Canned Hunting
Karoo Wildlife Centre
South Africa.

POSTSCRIPT
The unparallelled joy of killing an elephant
I quote below from Ron Thompson's message to Safari Club International, written some years ago:
“No-one can define the rush of adrenaline that sends the pulses racing but the hunter, himself; the goose-pimples that run up and down his arms, and along the length of his back, erecting the hair on the nape of his neck.
"Then to manoeuvre myself into a position to be able to place a bullet – smaller than two digits of a man’s little finger – into the elephant’s brain!
“Sluck! The sound of the bullet hitting its target. The elephant throws its head up, its trunk rising high.
"It is the elephant’s final salute. Its hind quarters collapse first – then it falls sideways to the ground, its large brown eyes already staring into the great hereafter.
“Then the shaking begins, not from fear, but the release of it! Not from excitement, but from the expiring of tension. The smile on my face is painful. The exhilaration is complete.
“Sadly, those who are not hunters at heart will never understand the feeling of accomplishment, of utter fulfilment that comes with the satisfying of this, the greatest of man’s instincts.”

Hi Dr Naicker
I have many years experience of rehabilitating wildlife, and running a wildlife sanctuary originally in the Kalahari and currently in the Klein Karoo.
I read on page 18 on the Minister's Position Statement that " there are no standards, regulations or guidelines for effective rehabilitation of animals."
Nearly twenty years ago I drafted a comprehensive policy for government to adopt, or at least use as a basis for discussion, and sent it to all conservation structures, provincial and national. I did not try to re-invent the wheel, instead I took the policy from the American Sanctuaries Association, and adapted it to SA needs.
Not a single conservation authority even acknowledged receipt.
After many years dealing with conservation structures I would describe conservation in SA as an ugly mess, and a black hole that devours intelligent input and puts out nothing.
Pasted below it is available. Use it or lose it.
Kind regards
Chris Mercer.
Director: Campaign Against Canned Hunting. (registered NGO) 

   WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES AND REHABILITATION CENTRES IN SOUTH AFRICA.
 
                                    DRAFT POLICY - DISCUSSION DOCUMENT
 
NATIONAL PRINCIPLES, NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR ANIMAL SANCTUARIES
 
Drafted by:
 The Kalahari Raptor Centre 
PO Box 1386, Kathu, 8446
Northern Cape.
Tel: 053 712 3576.
www.raptor.co.za
 
The draft document provides national norms and standards for wildlife sanctuaries in South Africa within the context of applicable national policies and legislation.
 
1.         AIMS 
·         To provide a national approach to the establishment and registration of animal sanctuaries.
·         To ensure that the animal sanctuaries are managed and monitored according to the set norms and standards.
 
 
2.         DEFINITIONS 
“alien species” means 
a. any species that is not an indigenous species; or
b. an indigenous species translocated or intended to be translocated to a   place outside its natural distribution range in nature, but not an indigenous species that has extended its natural distribution range by natural means of migration or dispersal without human intervention.
           
            “animal” means any mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian.
 
“animal sanctuary” means a care and rehabilitation facility recognized by the animal welfare community where wild animals in need of care are provided with the appropriate care and housing or when possible, rehabilitated and returned to the wild.
           
"animal welfare community" means the broad-based community as defined in the National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998, whose main concern is for the welfare of animals.
 
"animal welfare committee" means a committee elected by the animal welfare community to carry out supervision duties under this policy.
 
 “commercial” means an act that is done for the purpose of financial gain
 
“euthanasia” means the bringing about of an animal's death in a humane, pain-free manner.
 
            “IATA” means the International Air Transport Association.
 
“indigenous species” means a species that occurs, or has historically occurred, naturally in a free state in nature within the borders of the Republic, but excludes a species that has been introduced in the Republic as a result of human activity.
 
“notifiable disease” means a disease that, by statutory/legal requirements, must be reported to the public health or other authority in the pertinent jurisdiction when diagnosis has been made.
 
“rehabilitate” means the treatment, handling husbandry and preparation of an animal for release, in such a manner as to ensure that the animal is capable of surviving on its own in the wild.
 
“re-introduction” means an attempt to establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range, but from which it has been extirpated or become extinct.
 
“species” means a kind of animal, plant or other organism that does not normally interbreed with individuals of another kind, and includes any subspecies, cultivar, variety, geographic race, strain, hybrid or geographically separate population.
 
“veterinarian” means any person registered as a veterinarian with the South African Veterinary Council in terms of the Veterinary and Paraveterinary Act, 1992.
 
“welfare” means the provision of circumstances that contribute to the well being of the animal
 
            “wild animal” means a species of bird, reptile or other animal that is not normally domesticated in South Africa.
 
 
  
3.         PRINCIPLES
 
Animal sanctuaries must be established taking into consideration the following principles:
 
3.1.      Captive Breeding
 
AWC members will not encourage captive animals to breed unless the progeny can successfully be released into suitable habitat.  Reversible contraception methods according to the requirements of the animal, and the availability of expertise and equipment should be used wherever possible. AWC members accept that in some cases, permanent sterilization may be used, but careful deliberation for long-term implications should be considered.
 
Release and Reintroduction
 
Where possible and appropriate, AWC members are encouraged to manage captive populations in such a way that release back into the wild may be possible, in accordance with accepted guidelines. If release is being considered, the development of the project and the site selection will need to be taken into consideration from the outset. 
 
           
3.2.      Animal acquisition policy
 
Ideally, no AWC sanctuary would purchase or provide compensation as a condition of acquiring any animal.  AWC members should not engage a third party, even a government official, to do so on their behalf. All animals in an AWC sanctuary should have been confiscated by relevant authorities, surrendered or donated by the person/s holding the animals. AWC members agree to make every effort to educate such person/s in a positive and interactive way, not to take animals out of their natural environment.
However, circumstances alter cases, and it may sometimes be necessary for a sanctuarian to purchase animals, to save their lives or to remove them from intolerable conditions.   When doing so the sanctuarian should bear in mind that by doing so he is promoting the keeping of animals in captivity, and that he should try to strike a balance between the welfare of the particular animal and the broader interest of animal protection.   Working with NSPCA and other responsible authorities to remove an animal from poor conditions to a reputable AWC sanctuary without payment is a better option.
 
3.3.      Exploitation of animals in sanctuary.
 
The primary purpose of the facility should be the protection of the animals at the facility.  Animals should not normally be used for any commercial purpose, sold, traded or hired out for entertainment, or used for any unnatural purposes.   However, many sanctuaries allow visitors who view and photograph unreleasable animals, and so long as the animals are not stressed, such interaction can be useful as a source of income, an added local tourist attraction and as a tool for education.
 
          Sanctuaries accept lifetime responsibility for their resident animals
 Exceptions:
A facility may rehabilitate and release animals to an appropriate habitat if the animal is indigenous to the area and not imprinted on humans.
AWC members agree to cooperate with member sanctuaries in the placement of animals in the most appropriate facility for the individual, taking into consideration the species or subspecies' natural origins, the welfare of the individual and possibility for integration into a social group.
It may transfer animals to another approved facility that is better suited to their needs. Potentially dangerous wild and alien animals should not be placed into household situations for private ownership.
 
3.4.        Euthanasia policy
 
Euthanasia means to cause humane and painless death (i.e. unconsciousness is rapidly induced and succeeded by cardiac arrest and clinical death; thereby not subjecting the animal to pain, distress, anxiety or apprehension)
AWC does not rule out the use of Euthanasia. But it should only be used as a final option, after all other options have been considered and either attempted or judged impossible.  Euthanasia cannot be used as management tool. Below are examples of cases where euthanasia may be accepted:
 
Criteria:

• Incurable disease/injury that is likely to cause pain or suffering;
• Disease/injury where treatment is likely to cause unreasonable pain or suffering;
• Disease/injury where treatment will not be effective in restoring the animal to an acceptable quality of life;
• Where the process of aging has resulted in an unacceptable quality of life;
• In the event of presenting an infectious disease risk to the rest of the resident population.

 
 
3.5.      Research
 
AWC cannot support vivisection or invasive or obtrusive research on animals.  AWC members are also aware that laboratory conditions do not offer the standard of care of a sanctuary.  Eliminating the need for laboratory experimentation is an AWC goal and members will not consider assisting with research proposals that will in any way create the impression that a sanctuary is a surrogate laboratory. 
 
Research policy is as follows:
 
·         Research involving wild populations associated with sanctuaries must be non-disruptive to their social order. This includes no provision of feeding and no habituation of primates where risks from hunting exist now or may in the future.
·         Biological research will be conducted only in response to member facilities’ animal management needs, and samples should be taken only during routine examinations.
·         Research cannot be exploratory nor justified on the grounds of human medical benefit.
·         No laboratory or researcher can infect/inject other animals experimentally with infectious agents derived from samples obtained from sanctuaries.  Behavioral/ ethological research that encourages non-natural behavior when animals have reached an advanced stage of rehabilitation should be discouraged.  Acceptable research should involve minimal modification of animals’ and staff’s daily routine.
 
3.6.      Local Community and Government Relations
 
AWC members will ensure that a significant amount of staff is employed from local communities. 
 
Where possible, AWC members will provide sustainable economic opportunities to local communities (such as labour, purchase of food and transportation, etc.).
 
AWC members will strive to ensure that local communities are aware of the purpose of the projects, the need for conservation in general, and the need for protection of wild and captive primates and their habitat.
 
AWC members will ensure that official permission from traditional, local and national government institutions is obtained to be in operation and, where possible, have NGO / charity / not-for-profit status. 
 
Where possible, AWC members will investigate the long-term plans of governments, companies and communities regarding land-use near the sanctuary/ release sites.  Where possible, AWC members will advocate the protection and preservation of these areas to avoid future conflicts between humans and animals, to the detriment of both.
 
AWC members should develop guidelines for appropriate land use including non-lethal methods of problem animal control.
 
3.7.      Tourism
 
AWC has no policy regarding the promotion of tourism at member sanctuaries, other than to stress that it should be subsidiary to and complementary of, animal welfare. If AWC members decide to encourage tourist activities on a sanctuary-by-sanctuary basis, each should ensure that it is in the best interest of the staff and animals.
 
 
3.8.      EDUCATION
 
AWC recognizes that the future success and effectiveness of its members lies in the ability to promote a unified conservation education message. AWC members are encouraged to design, implement, and support education programs through their sanctuaries, with an emphasis on the protection of local wildlife and wild spaces.
 
 
 
4.         NORMS AND STANDARDS
 
4.1.         Administration and Management requirements
 
4.1.1.     The facilities must obtain and maintain the required permit(s) which shall not unreasonably be withheld, from the conservation authorities
4.1.2.     The facilities must comply with national and provincial laws and also with approved codes of practice.
4.1.3.     The type of sanctuary and the animal species to be kept should be specified in the permit application, unless the applicant requires an open permit for general welfare purposes.
4.1.4.  For all alien species the applicant must submit a risk assessment plan.
4.1.5.  Save for existing facilities, the applicant must prepare and submit a management plan which must also address the following: 
·         fully developed mission statements, objectives and policies;
·         sufficient evidence of its financial stability;
·         contingency plan ( a plan for the continuance of the facility and lifetime care of its animals should the founder (director) become incapable of continuing the daily operations of the facility);
·          animal inspection program, whereby the facility will be inspected periodically by members of the animal welfare committee
·          security measures
·          first aid and emergency procedures;
 
4.1.4.     All facilities are required to maintain a Register with all relevant details relating to the animals kept at the Centre.
4.1.5.     Facilities may elect to acquire non-profit status.
4.1.6.     Fundraising activities must be conducted with honesty and integrity.
4.1.7.      Facilities must conduct business and related activities in a professional manner.
 
4.2.        Transporting of animals
 
4.2.1.  The facility director must ensure that the transport of the animal is safe, humane and adheres to the minimum requirements for the transport of wild animals.
4.2.2       The inter-provincial transport of animals must be according to the relevant provincial legal requirements.
4.2.3.     The international transport of animals must be according to the IATA regulations.
4.2.4.      Health certificates and any transport permits should accompany the animal transfer.
 
4.3.    Veterinary care
 
4.3.1.      An experienced and registered veterinarian(s) must be locally available to provide advice.
4.3.2.     To prevent the breeding of animals, reproductive control programs appropriate to the animal species kept must be adopted.
4.3.3.      A quarantine area for newly acquired animals to prevent disease transmission should be established.
4.3.4.     A separate area for the examination and treatment of animals should be established
4.3.5.      A separate area for the care of especially distressed or sick animals must be established.
Complete records of each animal's health history should be   maintained and available.
4.3.6.      Handling, administration, control and storage of drugs must be in compliance with the relevant acts and regulations.
4.3.7.     The State veterinarian must be informed any notifiable diseases or unusual outbreaks, conditions etc.
4.3.8.  A qualified veterinarian should perform a post-mortem on animals that die in quarantine, under unusual circumstances or of unknown causes.
 
4.4.     Feeding of animals
 
4.4.1.     Animal diets must be of a quality, quantity, variety and nutritive value suitable for the animal's nutritional needs.
4.4.2.     The animals must have access to clean potable water of sufficient quantity at all times.
4.4.3. Food supplies and drink are to be kept and prepared under
          hygienic conditions.
 
 
4.5.     Housing of animals
 
4.5.1.     The animals must be kept in escape proof enclosures and designed to minimize the risk of injury to animals and staff or public
4.5.2.     The animal enclosures must be of a size, design and complexity sufficient to provide for the animal ‘s physical, physiological and psychological requirements.  Minimum standards should be agreed by the animal welfare community, and attached as conditions to the relevant permits.
4.5.3.     The enclosures must provide protection from prevailing weather conditions and predators.
4.5.4.     The animal enclosures should whenever possible replicate their wild habitat and be kept in numbers to meet their social and behavioral needs.
4.5.5.     The enclosures should allow easy feeding and cleaning.
4.5.6.      Enclosures effectively prevent the transmission of diseases.  
4.5.7.     Proper standards of hygiene in the enclosures should be maintained.
4.5.8.     Animals should wherever possible be kept in compatible groups with others of its kind.
 
 

1.    Disposal of waste or dead animals

 
This should be done in compliance with the relevant national and provincial legal requirements, and with sensible practices for hygiene and disease control.
 
4.7.     Staff/Personnel
 
4.7.1. Staff should be given appropriate training with regard to the    handling and caring of the animals.
4.7.2.  There should be adequate number of staff to care for the animals appropriately and to conduct the work of the facility.
4.7.3.  All staff members should obtain relevant vaccinations (inoculations) such as for tetanus, TB (if caring for primates) to eliminate possible disease transmittance from or to animals.
 
 
 
5.         ANIMAL WELFARE COMMUNITY (AWC) MISSION STATEMENT
 
AWC member sanctuaries are committed to providing the best possible facilities and care to captive African animals, while working towards the protection and conservation of the species in the wild.
 
 
CODE OF CONDUCT and POLICIES OF AWC
 
 
The AWC will act in the best interest of animal welfare and the integrity, efficiency, impartiality, and fairness of its members must be beyond question.   The acts of one individual can seriously affect the reputation and standing of the whole community.  It is the responsibility of all members and their staff to be vigilant and aware of the potential for misconduct, and maintain high morals, a strong sense of professionalism, and a commitment to the objectives of animal welfare.
 
This Code of Conduct establishes standards of behaviour expected of members and their staff and is a guide to solving ethical issues for those whose work involves caring for animals in sanctuaries situated in Africa.  While there are no set rules capable of providing answers to all ethical questions that may arise, this code provides the framework for appropriate conduct in a variety of contexts.  It is intended to convey the obligations placed on, and the behaviour expected of, all members and their staff.
 
 
Core Values
 
The AWC Code of Conduct assumes a number of values that require members and all staff to exhibit:
 
·                     A concern for the animals
·                     Integrity
·                     Transparency
·                     Fairness
·                     Conscientiousness
·                     Professionalism
·                     Personal and institutional commitment to animal welfare
 
 
AWC: Operational Philosophy
 
·         That the welfare of the animal is paramount,
·         That holistic and long-term approaches shall be adopted as these challenges are addressed
 
AWC: Principles
 
·         Creating, managing and maintaining sanctuaries for the care of animals in need, with priority given to those animals in our respective regions
·         Extending to all animals the dignity and respect that they deserve as sentient beings, making informed provision for them to express their natural behaviours
·         Assisting in the conservation of wild animal populations and their natural habitats and to undertake activities that promote and support the  protection of wildlife and their habitats
·         Developing, through education and public awareness, an understanding and appreciation of animal welfare, in local communities
·         Ensuring that no captive animals – including those in the sanctuaries -- are used for any purpose other than welfare, and education and that the animals shall receive the very best of care.
·         Agreeing that research that compromises the well-being of individuals cannot be considered acceptable.  Use of animals as pets and/or for entertainment at the expense of the animal's well-being is not accepted by AWC and its members
·         Forming working relationships (where possible!) with the relevant wildlife authorities and any other relevant institutions
·         Striving to continually improve care and husbandry techniques
·         That project design, development, implementation and management practice should be based on sound, modern, scientific principles
·         Ensuring that the captive population is managed in such a way that reintroduction can be considered in the future, if feasible or appropriate
 
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
 
In the broad nature of the community, some kind of representation is required, but we should be careful not to allow appointees to use the AWC for their own purposes.  Democracy means that a majority of members must be properly consulted and given all relevant information so that each one can make an informed decision.
AWC will elect members to represent their interests either generally or for specific projects.   Voting and appointment can be done by email.  Representatives will strive to provide the best leadership, judgement and advice on behalf of its members, and work in all areas to promote the success of the community.   Any one member may represent the AWC, but in the age of emails all significant decisions should involve everyone in the community.
 
 
 
 

​ 
Environment Minister Barbara Creecy has announced:
 “The Panel identified that the captive lion industry poses risks to the sustainability of wild lion conservation resulting from the negative impact on ecotourism which funds lion conservation and conservation more broadly, the negative impact on the authentic wild hunting industry, and the risk that trade in lion parts poses to stimulating poaching and illegal trade. The panel recommends that South Africa does not captive -breed lions, keep lions in captivity, or use captive lions or their derivatives commercially. I have requested the department to action this accordingly and ensure that the necessary consultation in implementation is conducted.” 

There is a tendency for animal activists to become euphoric when conservation appears to be heading in the right direction. However what ministers say and what happens in practice are often very different. Let’s put her words in the context of the key recommendations which are spelled-out in the report.

What exactly does “action these recommendations” mean?
The key recommendations are:

1. develop a process to stop lion farming and euthanase existing lion stocks.
2. make policy decisions to stop canned lion hunting and the lion bone trade, and
3. find mechanisms to protect workers on lion farms.

“Developing processes” and “drafting policies” can take years in South Africa. No implementation can take place without consultations with stakeholders. Consulting 300 lion breeders and a whole industry built up around them can take years.
Almost certainly a phasing out process will be insisted upon under threat of litigation which also takes years in South Africa.
I would guess that 5 to 7 years could be expected as a phasing out period.

The Minister’s bald statement belies the hideous complexity around the whole issue and around the appointment of the so-called “high level panel”. There is nothing particularly high level about most of the people on this panel: indeed the panel consists of dozens of people from all different walks of life with seemingly random appointments. Change the jury and you change the result.
The unwieldy and largely unqualified panel members started by asking for a legal opinion to tell them what to do. When they got it from a team of lawyers headed by senior counsel they did not understand it and had to ask for another. They then obtained a supplementary opinion to explain the first.

To be fair this is not so surprising when you analyse the difficulties created by the so-called environmental clause in the Constitution, section 24.
“Protect the environment,” says section 24, “but also protect the socio-economic rights of the people”. In practice the two are mutually exclusive. The clause thus contradicts itself.
“Oh,” says the High Court vaguely, “in that case just strike a balance between the two”. Easier said than done!

And these legal complexities must be resolved by weak and dysfunctional governance. The South African government is substantially dysfunctional. South African government parastatals and departments are substantially dysfunctional. Most provincial conservation structures are substantially dysfunctional. The justice system in South Africa is largely dysfunctional.
I would guess that in five years time canned lion hunting and the lion bone trade will still be flourishing.

I hope I’m wrong.

20 years of campaigning against lion farming and canned hunting have taught me never to underestimate the resourcefulness of the lion exploitation industry.
If I am wrong in what I’ve said above and the South African government eventually manages to regulate away lion farming and the canned hunting industry, then I would expect a flurry of midnight flights to take place and the following months the hunting magazines will be full of adverts offering lion hunts in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia.

The root of the problem is the demand from trophy hunters for living targets and, from Asians, for lion bone products. So long as the demand exists, soldiers of fortune will spring from the soil to find a way to supply it.
Prohibition in America created the Mafia. It did not stop the  liquor industry.
The war on drugs created fabulously wealthy Mexican drug cartels. It did not stop drug use.
​
What kind of Mafia, I wonder, will result if we ever get an effective ban on lion breeding, lion hunting and the lion bone trade?

How to save lions (and the rest of nature)
 
or                    Where are the philanthropists?
 
Oh dear, the more things change the more they stay the same. Plus ca change..
The hunting fraternity, feeling threatened by public disgust at their iniquitous bloodlust, have (predictably) responded with a slew of propaganda.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/15/celebrity-power-undermining-global-conservation-efforts-scientists-warn-trophy-hunting-dispute
 
Cobbling together a motley gang of protagonists, including the ubiquitous compliant academics, we are regaled in a suspiciously well-publicised media piece, that hunting – ‘albeit repugnant to some’ - is the best way to preserve African wildlife.
Ho hum..and I suppose they’ll argue that whaling is the best way to protect whale populations?
 
In this media piece we see echoes of big Tobacco’s war on the truth to protect their obscene profits and their poisonous product. Remember all the highly qualified scientists who were happy to proclaim publicly that smoking was not harmful? That is until the whistleblower came forward and blew them away to crawl back under their flat academic stones. With no punishment for all the painful deaths from lung cancer that their lies had contributed to.
 
Ross Harvey of Conservation Action Trust has replied with a thoughtful and convincing rebuttal of the claims made by pro-hunting scientists in that media article. He suggests non-consumptive use (ecotourism if you like) as a viable ecological alternative to hunting. So it is, but that argument opens up a raft of counter-arguments postulating the ‘best use of marginal land’ and why ‘one size fits all’ solutions cannot work. (Unless the one size is hunting of course.)
 
Hunters operate their bloody, dusty, cruel and sadistic activities under the umbrella of the policy of sustainable use as adopted in the Convention on Biodiversity. But human nature being what it is we do not see sustainable use - only sustained abuse.
 
As a result of this toxic policy we all witness catastrophic declines in wildlife numbers in the few remaining wilderness areas. As well as the inevitable response to wiping out wildlife in the wild, which is to capture animals and breed hunting targets in captivity. The soldiers of fortune such as lion farmers claim to be conservationists but they are farmers, farming formerly wild animals as alternative domestic livestock.
 
Thus the direct result of the misguided policy of sustainable use is to wipe out wildlife in the wild and replace it with a poor substitute - domesticated alternative livestock.
 
It is grimly amusing to see eminent scientists try to deflect the focus away from hunting by pointing to habitat loss and poaching as the main drivers of extinction. As if this exonerates the hunting fraternity. But it doesn’t and the scientists are dishonest for trying to deflect the focus away from hunting when hunting clearly exacerbates all the other risks.
Arguing - as they do - that other factors like habitat loss are the real problem and therefore hunting is irrelevant is like arguing that whaling is irrelevant where there are other causes of die offs such as polluted oceans.
 
So how do we stop this remorseless drift to extinction and the relentless stranglehold of the hunting fraternity on our wilderness areas?
 
There is only one answer – money. And lots of it.
 
Money is the Supreme God in the human world regardless of what subsidiary religion people claim to worship. Just look at how many sacrifices people make every day of their lives to the Great God Money - working down mines, repetitive factory jobs, meaningless 9-to-5 treadmills etc
 
Let us see how our worship for the great God money can help us save the natural world.
Take Botswana, for example, which calls for tenders for concessions on vast tracts of pristine wilderness from time to time. Currently only the hunting industry can afford to tender for the control and management of those wild lands which are so deserving of protection for their own sakes.
 
But let us hope and pray and assume that we can find enough wealthy philanthropists to stand with us against extinction. Never before in human history has so much wealth - extreme wealth - been concentrated in so few hands. The surplus money is there - searching always for a good home. And what better home than to save Africa’s wild places?
 
Armed with billions from enlightened philanthropists, real conservationists could break out of the hunting mould, and outbid the hunters to take control of and protect the vast concession areas. The money would have to cover the ongoing management of the reserves, the employment of game guards, sinking of boreholes etc
The consequences would be revolutionary:

1. the natural functioning ecosystems would be protected against human molestation
2. the Botswana people would benefit from the greater employment of rural Africans
3. the Botswana government would derive greater income from leasing out the concessions.
4. Devoutly flattering the great God money in this way would change the whole conservation paradigm and stand it on its head. African governments would see wildlife and wilderness as priceless national assets to be preserved at all costs rather than as commodities to be exploited.

 
The great American poet HW Longfellow once bemoaned the absence of brilliant poets who would succeed him in firing people’s imaginations. “Where are the Admirals of the high seas of thought?” he asked near the end of his life.
In the same vein we ask extremely wealthy philanthropists:
“Where are the Admirals of the high seas of conservation?”
 

“Big yellow taxi” by Joni Mitchell and the popular version by Counting Crows says it quite well:
“they took all the trees and put them in a tree Museum
and charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone
they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”
 
Just like South Africa - they took all the wildlife, put it behind fences and charge people a fortune to see/hunt/photograph it.

Canned lion hunting which flourishes in South Africa is a national embarrassment to everyone including the hunting industry. A canned hunt is one where the target animal is unfairly prevented from escaping the hunter either by physical constraints such as fencing or by mental constraints such as being bottle fed and hand reared. In South Africa more than 300 lion farms breed captive lions for the trophy hunting fraternity.
 
Even more shocking than turning the King of beasts into the equivalent of a battery hen to breed living targets on an industrial scale is the fact that this is merely the thin end of the wedge. Lions are the sentinel species. What happens to lions today will happen to all wildlife tomorrow. They will all be bred on hunting farms on an industrial scale to become living targets for hunters.
 
This is not a prediction; it is already happening. The South African government has already published official regulations classifying most well-known wildlife species as domestic animals to be farmed. Game farmers are not conservationists; they are merely people who farm with alternative livestock.
 
The wild has been taken out of South African wildlife and the animals are now officially classified as domestic livestock.
 
The long-term consequences of turning wildlife into farmed animals can only be imagined. Conservation was all about protection. Livestock farming is all about production and profits i.e. exploitation. It is an alarming paradigm change to the way we treat the natural world.
 
People like ourselves who speak out against such reckless and cruel policies are in the minority. It is very difficult to raise funding for animal advocacy. Virtually all sponsorship and funding for conservation - especially in corporate South Africa - goes to the pro-hunting organisations such as WWF. And while the millions flow into WWF’s coffers, WWF never misses a chance to lobby on behalf of the hunting industry.
 
So when someone new comes along to raise money for organisations like ours we are very grateful.
 
 LuxurTraveller (https://luxurtraveller.co.uk/) is a new wildlife community which has already donated +$9642.74 across 5 charities so far, in an effort to make this a better world for animals. Their main goal is to end wildlife abuse worldwide. It was founded in the UK at the start of 2018, by Arnold Debiyi as an online e-Commerce store, dedicated solely to the preservation of wildlife. The Luxurtraveller team first started on Instagram where they gradually grew their following by posting breathtaking wildlife photography.
 
Luxurtraveller (https://luxurtraveller.co.uk/)decided that the best way to raise money for animals around the world was to sell relevant items and donate a portion of the profits directly to charities such as ourselves.
 
A few months ago Luxurtraveller started a new campaign, which you may have come across on Instagram, to raise awareness and help end canned lion hunting. https://www.instagram.com/luxurtraveller/?hl=enwww.instagram.com/luxurtraveller/?hl=en

I've just read with mounting concern the latest IPPL newsletter. So much hardship everywhere! I knew that the lockdowns and restrictions were affecting animal welfare but still found the accounts in the newsletter terribly depressing. And the misery is global. From Africa to Asia wildlife sanctuaries are battling to survive, laying off staff who can ill afford lay-off, cutting wages for the few remaining staff by 50%, suffering almost total sponsor and donor withdrawal, total loss of volunteer support, struggling to find food for their animals. etc.

One heartbreaking story is how angry mobs invaded one African primate sanctuary, looted and vandalised the accommodation, then beat the manager savagely and dragged him through the dusty streets of the local town. Food was becoming scarce owing to all the covid restrictions, and the locals were inflamed into an orgy of savagery and destruction.

I cannot believe that free people have allowed themselves to be sentenced to house arrest for long periods of time without rebelling against the medical tyranny. I can just imagine the contempt that my dear old friend and mentor Rita Miljo, founder of primate sanctuary CARE in South Africa, would have shown to lockdown regulations.
Perhaps we all took freedom for granted.
Putting millions out of work to - maybe - save thousands of lives? Madness!
And we are only beginning to see the appalling socio-economic consequences of the collective insanity of most world governments. They will get worse; much worse.

African adventurer Kingsley Holgate says it best: here is his memorable analogy for covid hysteria and lockdown: 🇿🇦
. 
"The wildebeest in Africa migrate every year, as we know, in search of food to survive. When they reach the Mara river, the crocodiles are waiting. They know this and they know they will lose a few when they cross but for the sake of the survival of the herd, they cross anyway. They have done this successfully for hundreds of years and survived. 
Implementing lockdown is like putting up a fence to prevent the wildebeest from crossing the Mara river to save those that would be eaten by the crocodiles, and as a result, the whole herd dies of starvation."

There is no future for wildlife in South Africa.
Define wildlife accurately: animals living wild in their natural functioning ecosystem.
Instead it is South African government policy to take the ‘wild’ out of wildlife and turn the animals into alternative livestock to be farmed. The fate of wildlife is to become domesticated. And to what purpose? To be hunted of course. To make more money for wildlife/alternative livestock ranchers.
But hunting is innately cruel. The wildlife ranching/exploitation industry dances around this issue. Here is a statement from the latest Wildlife Ranching magazine by one Sas-Rolfes:
“the ability of certain animals to experience pain and suffering evokes strong emotions and underpins the rising support for( zoo centrism)”
 Wow! So only certain animals feel pain.....
In plain English here is an entire industry built upon routine cruelty to animals; upon the adoption of a policy of inflicting death and suffering on helpless animals for fun. For fun and blood money for the ranchers/exploiters who pander to the hunters/sadists.
And the justification given for such an obviously barbaric policy is “to save the animals from extinction”. Well, which is it, wildlife/alternative livestock ranchers/exploiters? Are you investing all those millions in using land to provide entertainment for sadists or are you doing it to save the species from extinction?
If you answer ‘both’ then that begs the question: why bother? If the only purpose in breeding captive wild is to shoot bullets into them then what is the point?
These are fundamental questions that the South African government does not address or even understand. 
Here is an example which serves as a metaphor for South African government policy:
Most readers will be aware of Lord Ashcroft’s book Unfair Game which exposes the cruelty underlying the canned lion hunting industry in South Africa. When his colleagues attempted to bring his research to the attention of the senior policeman in the capital city on the issue of wildlife protection, here is the response they received. 
In Lord Ashcroft’s own words:
“One of the most shocking aspects of the recent investigation into lion farming that I launched was that when it ended, my team took their findings to a senior police officer in Pretoria who specialises in wildlife issues. Not only did he not read the evidence file they gave him, but having rejected it he also threatened to put them in prison.”
There you have it - conservation South African style. In my experience as an advocate for compassion towards animals over two decades, animal welfarists are routinely labelled ‘radical’, ‘extremist’, ‘troublemakers’ and yes - even ‘terrorists’.
I flick through this 120 page glossy magazine jam-packed with lovely photos of wildlife and stuffed with articles all trumpeting (sorry) the success of wildlife ranching and proclaiming what wonderful conservationists they all are. I’m left wondering if anyone in South African conservation thinks further than his bank account.
Even the South African veterinary Council is complicit. I know many wonderful vets who are passionate about animal welfare. But the SA Veterinary Council appears to me to be more passionate about the commercial interests of the veterinary industry. I quote from page 97 of the magazine:
“it is critical for the veterinary profession if it wants to ensure its future ..to be seen to be relevant to this country today, not to some conceptual (read ‘colonial’) country in accordance with idealistic but impractical ill-fitting and irrelevant rules and standards.”
Translate: get into bed with the animal abusers and steer clear of the animal rights movement! 
So according to this eminent vet, the real colonials are the animal welfarists, not the trophy hunters. What was President Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya thinking when he described trophy hunting as ‘a barbaric relic of colonialism?’
The last chapter is titled Tourism is the New Gold. And here is President Cyril Ramaphosa giving an address at Africa Travel Indaba. Here he extols the benefit to South Africa of a growing tourism industry. He himself is a breeder of trophy animals - expensive buffalo in particular. I read that he paid something like 40 million rands for a buffalo bull at a ‘game sale’ some years back. Why so much for one animal? Because of its large horn span. Trophy hunters pay by the inch for buffalo horn trophies. How bizarre is that?
So this makes me shake my head in disbelief. Here is a president claiming to be desperate to grow tourism for job creation and poverty alleviation. But only recently the Portfolio committee of Parliament called upon government to phase out lion farming and canned hunting because these activities were sabotaging the valuable tourism industry. Our own submission to Parliament listing the bad press South Africa was getting from treating lions so badly – all 62 pages of it – can be viewed here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ry49b4b0blmjdgt/CACH%20Brand%20SA%20Review%20August%202018.pdf?dl=0
So which is it? Are lion farmers and hunting operators ‘economic saboteurs’ driving ethical tourists to boycott SA, or are they tourist attractions being encouraged by government to expand their operations?
Conservation was always thought to be the protection of whole natural functioning ecosystems for their own sakes. Now it is synonymous with money. Whoever makes the most money from exploiting wildlife is the most worthy conservationist in South Africa.
But if money has become the sole criterion of conservation then a Schindler’s list situation has been created. If we wish to save Africa’s vanishing wildlife we shall have to outspend the hunters in buying the lives of the animals. Good luck with that!