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!

Maybe some good news?
https://www.facebook.com/100008398837454/posts/2505163533106917/
However, this decision was likely made in Beijing, not Harare.
This is the report I put out before the good news was announced:
​
The tragedy of Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe
I'm quoting in full below a passionate and well considered open letter by Zimbabwe conservation group Friends of Hwange. Turning Zimbabwe's wildlife gem in to an open cast coal mine run by Chinese is an environmental catastrophe.

I know this reserve so well. In fact I honeymooned at nearby Victoria Falls in (blush!) 1968.

No matter how cogent are the reasons to ban mining in Hwange, I fear that they are unlikely to succeed. There are two major - if not insuperable - obstacles.

The first is the legacy obligations owed by the ruling party to China, which had been a principal arms supplier during the liberation struggle.

The second is cultural. Former SA President Zuma is reported as saying at a public meeting: Compassion for animals is un-African. 
Well, never mind animals - compassion for people is alien to the ZANU_PF government of Zimbabwe.

When ZAPU president Joshua Nkomo came to see me (late 1970's) about the massacre of his Ndebele people in Matabeleland by Mugabe's infamous North Korean led 5th brigade, we could not find a single media company anywhere in Europe to publicise the slaughter. Why? Because the media had blindly supported the liberation struggle; Mugabe was the media darling, and so who cared if whole villages were machine gunned or thrown alive down abandoned mine shafts?
My old acquaintance Emerson Mnangagwa - now President - was complicit in that massacre.

Don't expect a genocidal government to shed any tears for a collapsing national park.
Chris Mercer.

Joint Statement on Special Mining Grants in Hwange National Park from the Stakeholders of Hwange to President Mnangagwa
On September 3rd, 2020 the Hwange Area Stakeholders held an emergency meeting to discuss our concerns about Mining in Hwange National Park. This video serves as the minutes for the Stakeholders Meeting: https://explorehwange.com/mining-in-hwange-national-park/ 
It has been widely reported that the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority rangers arrested Chinese nationals found to be undertaking mining explorations within Hwange National Park. The same Chinese miners have since reappeared in the Park with a Special Grant for mining explorations.
We have been advised that in our country, Special Mining Grants cannot be issued without the approval of the President of Zimbabwe, thus, as an outcome of our Stakeholder’s Meeting, we hereby present a joint statement appealing to you, President Mnangagwa to reverse all Special Grants that have been issued by you for areas within Hwange National Park. Chinese companies are reportedly already cutting down mature teak trees and clearing crucial wildlife habitat to make way for their mining activities within Hwange National Park. A map of the known areas affected is available should you wish to review it. 
We have also since obtained documentation which indicates that SustiGlobal was commissioned by Afrochine Smelting P/L, a subsidiary of the Tsingashan Group of China (Pvt) Ltd in relation to a proposed coal exploration project located in Hwange, after Sinamatella Camp in the vicinity of Deteema Dam and Masuma Dam. The project scope involves opening of access roads, land clearing, geophysical and geochemical prospecting as well as drilling. A Special Mining Grant (SG7263) was issued to Afrochine Energy.
Similarily, Zhongxin Coal Mining Group received a Special Mining Grant (SG5756) and engaged SustiGlobal with a focus on coal exploration that would entail land clearing, opening of access roads, geophysical and geochemical prospecting as well as drilling along the road to Sinamatella Camp in the Deka Safari Area.
During our Stakeholder’s Meeting, it was ascertained that none of the Stakeholders in our region were contacted or engaged for consultation purposes prior to the issuance of these two Special Mining Grants. We therefore also wish to know what other Special Mining Grants have been issued for mining activities within Hwange National Park, and out of concern, we as the Hwange area Stakeholders wish to advice you, President Mnangagwa, of the following consequences expected as a direct result of the issuance of Special Mining Grants in Hwange National Park:
Tourism (domestic and international)

•  The Zimbabwe National Parks are the bedrock of tourism. At present, Hwange National Park is

one of Africa’s most unspoiled tourist destinations attracting tourists from around the globe. In response to news that you will be potentially converting the Park to a mine, people from around the world are already wondering what is next for mining in Zimbabwe and if all National Parks including the Victoria Falls will be offered to the Chinese for mining.
www.explorehwange.com 

•  Travel agents and tourists will cancel their travel itineraries and tours scheduled to arrive in

Hwange National Park and will seek alternative destinations in other countries. 

•  Hwange is a feeder destination to other tourism attractions within Zimbabwe such as Mana

Pools, Binga, Msuna, Matopos, Chimanimani, Great Zimbabwe. Mining in Hwange National Park will therefore result in a significant reduction of tourists traveling to any part of Zimbabwe. o Hwange National Park and other Parks in Zimbabwe will no longer be viable or sustainable
destinations for tourism since all investment will likely be withdrawn and tourists will not pay Park entry fees to see Parks where mining activities are underway. o Special Mining Grants were issued for concessions in areas that already had been allocated to
other safari operators who have invested millions of dollars in tourism infrastructure. Lawsuits will ensue, seeking compensation for losses due to mining operations. 

Every safari camp, tour operator and activity provider will likely lose their business as a direct
result of mining in Hwange National Park. 

The repercussions are far reaching as safari lodges and domestic tourism operators are not the only ones who will lose their livelihoods to mining operations in Hwange National Park - booking agents and travel agents both locally and internationally, ground transfer companies, lodge employees, safari guides, training institutions, car rental companies, fuel suppliers, banks, philanthropic groups, airlines, suppliers of tourism related goods, food supply chains, grocery stores, artisans, students, research organizations, immigration and others will be all be affected. Not to mention the investors who have put their faith in Zimbabwe being “Open for Business”.
Environment 

•  Hwange National Park has historically faced severe shortage of water supply. Mining activities

will place a further strain on an already low water table which means less water will be available for the wildlife who are the voiceless stakeholders and victims of the Special Mining Grants. 

 River systems originating from the affected areas stretch all the way down the Zambezi will face
contamination due to the polluting effects of mining in Hwange National Park. o Existing within a 60-kilometers stretch running through Hwange are 7 active mining operations. 
There is enough coal outside of Hwange National Park and other protected areas and no cause for coal mining for coal mining activities to be sought within and of Zimbabwe’s National Parks. 

•  For more than 15 years key stakeholders have assisted Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife
• Management Authority in many ways. The most significant has been managing the provision of water to the pans / waterholes within our National Parks. In recent years they have largely been responsible for the conversion from diesel engines, using fossil fuel, to clean and sustainable solar energy which were deemed necessary for both economic and environmental reasons. The over utilization of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming. There is no need to mine coal

when there are cleaner renewable sources of energy.
Wildlife and Conservation

• Conservation related funding currently being directed to Hwange National Park and other Parks

throughout Zimbabwe will likely to be cancelled or withdrawn by international conservation partners and other donors from around the world. The Sinamatella section of Hwange National Park, an area threatened by Special Grants,
represents the only habitat with Black Rhino in the whole of the Matabeleland North province and provides a vital safe haven for these and other endangered and specially protected animals
www.explorehwange.com 

•  Other endangered species in the area include the pangolin and the Painted Dogs which draw

global interest in conservation and tourism for Zimbabwe. Ivory and rhino poaching will increase in Hwange National Park with the presence of mining
operations within the Park. 

• The areas targeted for mining within Hwange National Park are also the areas with the most and

reliable water drinking points for wildlife, from Mandabvu dam, Masuma Pan, Shumba Pan, Lukosi River into main Camp Imvelo area and to Deteema in Robins and possibly Dollilo. 

The National Parks of Zimbabwe were proclaimed principally as Sanctuaries for the benefit of wildlife. Hwange National Park (NHP) is one such sanctuary situated in a strategic, central, position in the region and is critical to the success of the KAZA Transfrontier Area (KAZA TFCA). Any mining, particularly coal, would pollute and destroy the habitat and rivers thus rendering surrounding areas uninhabitable as far as animals are concerned. This would have an adverse effect on the region and substantially reduce the wildlife domain. o Mining activities within Hwange National Park will have an inevitable impact on the Hwange-
Chobe-Kazuma Wildlife Dispersal Area. Sinamatela is at the heart of the wildlife dispersal area linking Hwange (Zimbabwe) and Chobe National Park (Botswana) within the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA) where Stakeholders are implementing cross border conservation programmes with four other countries, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Angola. There are serious implications that the proposed mining project will have, jeopardising agreements that were signed by the Government of Zimbabwe, particularly those involving significant support secured from non-governmental organizations. 

The animals are the stakeholders that have no voice and they will be decimated by mining
activities within Hwange National Park, an impact not only on the short term but for subsequent generations. Of particular concern is the welfare of the African Elephant (Loxodonta africana). This species has been exploited for far too long; the animals have been hunted for meat and ivory, and for centuries humans have encroached on wildlife areas and consequently confined these creatures to Nature Reserves and National Parks. Mining now threatens one of their last remaining sanctuaries. 

 All wildlife is important, but elephants are of great significance as they are a “keystone species”
and have a major impact on the environment largely for the benefit of other species. They have a developed brain, good memory, feel emotions (similar to humans) and thus deserve special consideration. 

Hwange National Park is home to a considerable number of animals all year round but of major importance are the populations of elephant and buffalo that congregate in the dry season (May- November). These animals thrive in this semi-arid environment and rely on water pumped from underground reservoirs. At the start of the rains (end November) most of these animals literally disappear overnight and head south (mainly to Botswana). This migratory pattern enables them to feed in one area, for approximately half the year, whilst the other area recovers. Preventing this annual migration would force the animals to remain in one area (mainly Botswana) all year round with the resultant destruction of habitat and inevitable mass die off of many different species. 

We have evidence which shows that the highest concentration of elephants within Hwange
National Park is present near the Special Mining Grant SG7263 concession. 

All creatures have an equal right to exist, roam on migratory routes if they choose, and live
freely. Hwange National Park is home to 10% of the entire population of elephants on the African continent, the threat of mining activities in the Park will displace all of these elephants leaving them with nowhere to go.

 Vultures are critically endangered and as these birds cover vast areas reducing natural habitat
would hasten their demise.
www.explorehwange.com 
With no game drives occurring within Hwange National Park due to the loss of tourism resulting
from mining, there will be no eyes on the ground, safeguarding and protecting the wildlife. Zimbabwe’s legacy of wildlife preservation will be replaced by hazardous and destructive degradation as a direct result of open cast mining of fossil fuels. 

 Wildlife is our heritage, and no one should have the right to deny future generations the privilege of seeing and experiencing nature. Surely President Mnangagwa, you do not want to see wildlife and conservation in Hwange National park being destroyed.


Archeological sites with historic significance, history and culture

• Mining within Hwange National Park will destroy and violate cultural sites and the ancestral

shrines of the people from Hwange thereby also destroying the cultural heritage of residents in the Hwange region. 

The history of Hwange’s people will vanish with the imposition of mining activities in Hwange
National Park. Masuma Dam is the historic site for Masuma village, a cultural village where the ancestors of some Hwange residents were born. 

 Mtoa, Bumbusi and Shangano are significant ancestral shrines of the Nambya and the Rozvi people and hold historic archeological significance. They will be impacted by coal mining activities in Hwange National Park.


Human health, community and socioeconomic impact

• Tourism could potentially become a multi-billion-dollar industry for Zimbabwe, creating millions of

jobs for Zimbabweans and providing significantly more value than the marginal gains to be produced through fossil fuel extraction or coal mining. 

In 2020, the displacement of wildlife due to increased mining activities in Hwange has already produced an increase in the number of deaths resulting from human wildlife conflicts when compared to previous years. Mining activities force wild animals to become stressed and dangerous as they are pushed out of their natural habitat and enter nearby communal areas in search of alternative spaces to live. 

The residents of Hwange have expressed concerns about the quality of water within the vicinity
of mining areas. It is reported that already, water supply within the Hwange region may be contaminated due to mining activities. Mining within Hwange National Park will therefore similarly contaminate water sources for humans as well as for the flora and fauna. 

 Mining activities in Hwange National Park will desecrate indigenous knowledge by destroying a
fragile ecosystem and biodiversity within the Park. 

Polluted air can cause serious health conditions including respiratory problems such as silicosis and pneumoconiosis. The introduction of mining activities in Hwange National Park will increase the health risk and exposure to air pollution for the residents of Hwange. 

Many people in Hwange already live in abject poverty, and since Covid-19, the area is already economically vulnerable. Mining activities within Hwange National Park will result in more loss and due to the disruption of tourism. 
Renewable energy like such as solar power do not emit CO2 and is more sustainable than
mining for fossil fuels such as coal which emit toxins and other hazards to humans and to the environment.  Any jobs created through mining activities within Hwange National Park will be short lived when
compared to the perpetual and less hazardous job outlook provided by the tourism sector.
www.explorehwange.com 
 Air and water pollution caused by mining of fossil fuels within Hwange National Park will further
contribute towards global warming emissions and climate change.  In the long run for Hwange residents and Stakeholders, the future for our children will be in
tourism and not in the short-term extractive mining of fossil fuels. 

 The Residents of the Hwange community have indicated that they intend to organize follow up
meetings to address their concerns about mining activities in Hwange National Park.


We can provide documentation in support of the predictions and implications listed in our statement and we ask you to review the video from our September 3rd Stakeholder Meeting.


We humbly request that you cancel all Special Grants that are within Hwange National Park and all of the National Parks of Zimbabwe. You have promised to be a listening President. As our President, save our tourism industry and preserve the livelihoods of millions of people within Zimbabwe and around the world. Hwange National Park, the wildlife and cultural shrines it contains is our heritage and a legacy to be left for our children and their children. 
Elisabeth Pasalk Hwange Stakeholder and Facilitator on behalf of Hwange Area and other Regional Stakeholders
Association for Tourism Hwange +263782288842 elisabeth@explorehwange.com www.explorehwange.com
www.explorehwange.com  

African traditional medicine and wildlife conservation.

The media generally and social media in particular are awash with blogs, articles and comments on the catastrophic effect of Chinese traditional medicine on wildlife. Although African traditional medicine is every bit as destructive of wildlife conservation,  strangely enough, it escapes the media frenzy enjoyed by its Chinese counterpart.

This post by Brian Gaisford draws attention to the grim market in South Africa, typified by the Mai Mai and Faraday muti markets in Johannesburg. As you can see body parts of every imaginable species, endangered or not, are publicly displayed and traded day in and day out. Mass poisonings of carcasses and water supplies are the commonest methods used by the suppliers to the counterpart of the Chinese traditional medicine practitioner, here called the Sangoma.

Wildlife conservation officials in South Africa would rather break their necks then even look sideways, let alone control, this macabre market. So the markets function openly and freely without the slightest regard for the law or conservation.

I have spent the last 20 years odd trying to raise awareness of the existential danger to conservation caused by the hunting fraternity. The focus is on the sordid commercial exploitation of helpless animals.

The Muti markets are every bit as damaging to conservation as hunting.  Perhaps even more so.

So why is there a deafening silence in the media on this crucial environmental issue? Why is it legitimate to attack the hunting industry and Chinese traditional medicine but not to expose the terrible muti markets?  I have raised this matter directly with conservation officials and the answers that I always get confirm my worst fears: that political correctness trumps survival of species.

The sangomas and their arcane muti concoctions are regarded as a sacred cow because they are part of African culture. Anyone who seeks to expose the damage to wildlife conservation caused by allowing this terrible business to function without restraint, will surely attract the epithets most commonly levelled at true conservationists in Africa:
1.that we put animals above people
2.that we are racist, privileged, radical, extremist, and even, terrorist.
3.That we seek to impose an alien Western culture upon African culture
4.that African wildlife belongs to Africans, not to the world, and we should accept, to use the exact words used by former South African president Jacob Zuma, that “compassion for animals is un-African”.

No doubt the sangomas and African politicians will fight just as furiously as traditional Chinese medical practitioners to protect and preserve their culture.

However, in the interests of avoiding extinctions, a rigorous public debate on the issue might lead to some kind of compromise and some semblance of control.

Here is what Brian Gaisford posted:

I expect all my S African followers saw the CARTE BLANCH bit on wildlife trade lastnt. Lente Roode from her HOETSPRUIT ENDANGERED SPECIES CENTER was a big focus. What makes me mad is that she allowed me to bring Prof Mary Ting to her conference theater to talk on Chinas lust for wildlife .2018. When she was doing exactly what we were trying to expose & stop.

As many know, i have been rampaging to shut down the two WET MARKEST in downtown Johannesburg.The MAI MAI & FARADY , starting way back in 2014 with no success and all the time wondering where all the spotted cat skins came from. Our first count was 80 leopard and 15 cheetah and slowly the leopard skins decreased but cheetah skins increased until in Feb 2020 we counted 80 Cheetah and 15 leopard including mountains of every animal body part one could think of. We even took NAT GEO to view and photograph all. Sad to say they are still sitting on their pictures. WHY ?I think i know .

80 cheetah skins are far to many to have come from the wild. So where are they coming from? You tell me.

They have even skinned poisoned vultures under our cameras.With the blood flowing into the main str of JHB.The dried out brains are sold to China to increase eyesight and to see into the future.I ate some and i see what is going to happen if we don't shut down all WET MARKETS.

These WET MARKETS are open to the public and the MAI MAI is listed as a tourist attraction. How nuts is that. Lets show off to the world how we kill our animals and sell their body parts in SA.We should be very proud of that. China sends much of this back to their trade and lust for wildlife beliefs in China & Vietnam.These market operate with impunity as they are listed as so call HEALERS MARKETS.

Yes the herbal potions may work but the spotted cat skins are sold off to tribal chief to wear. OK in the old days when we had less chiefs and more cats. Now it is severest & every one thinks they are a chief if the wear some sort of spotted cat skin.

Our next CORONA outbreak may well burst out of one of our very own markets in downtown Johannesburg S Africa. Two years back we warned of this C thing and here it is.

BE WARNED we are going to be hit again.

Have a look at what we do for wildlife and then explain to us in plain words why we are not supported by conservation officials. Indeed, why they proactively undermine our efforts.
Even though our Karoo Wildlife Centre is a project of the international award-winning NGO, Campaign Against Canned Hunting, and we followed procedures to obtain permits as much as possible until the excessive bureaucracy defeated us.

Far away from the paper world of government policies and regulations, in the real world, here is how rehab sanctuaries work. An animal is orphaned or injured and taken by good samaritans to the local vet. She attends to its wounds and needs, and then what? She has a veterinary surgery in a built-up area. She needs a wilderness facility with large natural camps where the animal can be fed and nurtured until it is fit for release back to the wild. It then needs a soft (gradual) release into suitable habitat where it can survive and flourish.
​
The rehab centre is therefore an essential part of the rescue process. Without it, the vet would have no choice but to put the animal down.
So here is a perfect example: seven orphaned bat eared fox pups were delivered to the Karoo Wildlife Centre recently.

Check out the videos: look how well fed and cared for they are in spacious natural surroundings. When ready, they will be released in to the surrounding wilderness by merely opening the gate of the camp. They will not disperse immediately and we'll continue to put food out for them after release. Some foxes released a year ago still come back every night for their food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKfLSKtjI80
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUokGs7f5Og
https://youtu.be/iUokGs7f5Og

So why on earth should we have to work outside the permit system? Surely, we should be welcomed by conservation officials as complementing their efforts to save our wildlife heritage?

Because hunting involves cruelty, killing and adverse impacts upon biodiversity, you’d expect hunting to be heavily regulated and monitored.   And you’d expect animal protection and rehab centres to be lightly regulated, to encourage public participation.

But this is South Africa, where the hunting fraternity controls conservation.
To start a hunting farm:
All the landowner needs is a Certificate of Adequate Enclosure to confirm that his perimeter fence is strong and high enough and Presto!  all regulations vanish like smoke.  No need to apply for any re-zoning, or obtain EIAs, or file complex business or management plans, or be restricted by hunting seasons; the landowner is free to do what he likes with his ‘alternative livestock.’ Indeed,  he can turn the land in to a battlefield, like the infamous driven hunt at Alldays in Limpopo. See this illustrated report on the Alldays hunt, showing how hunting is to conservation what pornography is to art.
https://www.thedodo.com/hunters-hide-their-faces-1347803434.html?utm_source=HuffPo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_facebook

Now compare the regulatory burden on wildlife sanctuaries or rehab centres.

1. To start a Wildlife Sanctuary and/or rehab centre for animal rescue, a re-zoning application is called for.  Now the bureaucracy runs riot.
A one-size-fits-all re-zoning application means that the mind-numbing requirements designed for large scale developments such as a new golf course complex or a five star ten story hotel all have to be met by the poor wildlife rehabber.

Really!!??  All this – and much, much more - just to rescue a bundle of fur or feathers??

2.      An E.I.A. (environmental impact assessment) - for which yet another expensive consultant is required.  An EIA can only be done by a registered qualified EIA practitioner, and the whole process can take months,  and cost tens  of thousands of rands.

3.      Formal standard operating procedures (SOPs) for every aspect of the rehab process; use of vehicles, use of equipment, cleaning, etc .etc – all of which must be signed by staff and volunteers. The detail required is so overwhelming that even where to park the car at night must be included in the SOP!

4.      Expensive and unnecessarily high and strong fences for enclosures, even those designed to hold small, harmless animals.
​
5.      Explain mission and vision, species and number of animals kept (how on earth to know this in advance?), how you are going to meet the physiological, physical and psychological needs of the animals that you do not yet have, transport facilities, veterinary facilities, fire management plans, personnel training, public liability insurance for millions, escape plans, exit strategies, letters of support from all neighbours, an essay on how the centre will add value to conservation, research, education etc, risk assessment, ecological impacts etc etc.
Oh and membership of PAAZAB.
(Logic?? PAAZAB is a zoo association. Why on earth should a rehabber be forced to join a Zoo association?  Zoos exist for human entertainment; the rehabber has no interest in human entertainment.   Some of PAAZAB’s rules, such as the requirement to be open to the public at all times, are bizarrely inappropriate to a rehab centre, which is closed to the public at all times.)

The point is this: not only are these excessive bureaucratic obstacles discouraging people from exercising their legal right to participate in wildlife management, but the fact that none of these onerous obligations are imposed upon game hunting farms is partial and discriminatory and therefore unlawful in terms of Section 3 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.

Is this burdensome bureaucracy really necessary for conservation purposes?

1. If these onerous bureaucratic demands were really important, then they would apply to game farming and the hunting industry – much more so because hunting impacts the environment far more than rescuing and rehabbing orphaned and injured wildlife. Despite the anti-conservation antics of an out-of-control hunting fraternity, such as cross-breeding mutant freaks for hunting trophies, or turning the land in to a battlefield like the driven hunt at Alldays in Lipopo, no EIAs are required. 
2. In the conservation sub-culture, ‘welfare’ of animals is almost a swear word.  There is open hostility to the whole idea of animal welfare, and anyone who speaks out against cruelty to wildlife is pejoratively labelled a ‘greenie,’ a ‘rightist’, a ‘radical’ and ‘an‘extremist.’ 
3. In seeking to control every aspect of sanctuary/rehab activity, the conservation authorities are acting ultra vires ie outside their legal powers.  In short, unlawfully. The Supreme Court of Appeal decided in the Predator Breeders case that breeding lions for canned hunting or other human entertainment fell outside the authority of conservationists.

So why are conservationists so obsessed with controlling every aspect of animal welfare facilities when they have no legal right to do so? They themselves never miss an opportunity to deny that animal welfare is their responsibility.

Authority and responsibility go together - conservation officials cannot claim that they have no power to regulate animal welfare - and then proceed to try to regulate it.   

I hope we shall not have to go to the High Court for relief before this saga is over.

 
An outrageous article calling for animal-rights groups to be excluded from conservation has been published here:
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-11-08-how-to-save-cites-if-its-worth-saving/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=80895&tl_period_type=3&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Afternoon%20Thing%20TGIF%208%20November%202019%20UCT&utm_content=Afternoon%20Thing%20TGIF%208%20November%202019%20UCT+CID_62cebdb18adff3246ca53b59d5eedb59&utm_source=TouchBasePro&utm_term=How%20to%20save%20CITES%20if%20its%20worth%20saving

The author of this intemperate rant is well known for his habit of pouring petrol on burning issues and then relishing the consternation he causes.

The article is a lengthy and wordy litany of misleading statements, calculated to support his bizarre conclusion that the only way to save CITES is to kick out all the animal-rights groups. He describes them as follows:
 Animal rights groups, however,.. do not support utilisation of wildlife, sustainable or otherwise, and believe they have a right to dictate, from the comfort of their elitist perches in rich countries, what poor countries are entitled to do with their own wildlife. Their policy is one of preservation, not conservation.

First, I and other conservationists, have explained in the past how CITES is a white elephant, a creaking bureaucracy that diverts millions in funds that ought to go to conservation. CITES should be abolished, and replaced with a more effective body which is based upon conservation, not on trade.

The author advances facile arguments such as the following:
In South Africa, about 72% of wildlife ranching revenue comes from hunting, while only 5% comes from eco-tourism, according to Wouter van Hoven of the Centre for Wildlife Management at the University of Pretoria.
Wow! Let me restate his argument in plain simple English: most people who visit hunting farms are hunters. How trite is that?

His whole theme is that hunting is wonderful conservation and anyone against hunting, such as animal-rights groups, is anti-conservation.

Any intelligent person can see that he has confused the victim with the perpetrator. Conservation should be aimed at preserving natural functioning ecosystems. He reverses that logic, and argues that preservationists are anti-conservation.

He believes fanatically that cramming as many wild animals as possible into a fenced hunting camp and breeding living targets for the hunting industry, is conservation.
It’s not. It is farming with wildlife - not conserving it. He can’t see the difference.

Like all good hunting propagandists, he compares South Africa to Kenya. He says Kenya has lost 85% of its wildlife since it banned hunting in 1977.
From that statistic, he concludes that it was the hunting ban that caused the decline in Kenyan wildlife. In other words, according to him, the only way to save Kenya’s wildlife is to hunt it.

This is such rubbish. The decline in Kenyan wildlife has everything to do with the reckless human population increase from about 4 million at the end of WW2, to nearly 50 million, most of whom have expanded into wilderness areas and decimated the wildlife.
To promote hunting would not solve the problem, it would aggravate it.

His conclusion:
To save the CITES treaty, however, will require decisive action.
First, CITES needs to kick out the animal rights groups.

Actually, it is CITES that needs to be kicked out of conservation. And replaced with a proper international  conservation body.
​
This whole article is tendentious nonsense and conservationists should pay it no regard.
 
 
 

There has been an interesting and positive development in the South African tourism industry. SATSA, the South African tourist Association has launched a guide for tour operators and tourists to evaluate captive wildlife interactions.
​
The excellent and well researched guide can be downloaded here:
https://www.satsa.com/wp-content/uploads/SATSA_HumanAnimalInteractions_Final5_Interactive.pdf

This guide will enable foreign and local visitors who wish to interact with animals, tour operators and others to make informed decisions that support responsible tourism in South Africa.

There is a visual guide in the form of a line in the sand, a curve going from red through orange to green. Those facilities that fall in the red category should be avoided and the line of acceptability progresses through orange to green, which includes genuine ethical establishments such as rehab centres and sanctuaries.

This is a wonderful initiative and all involved should be complemented.

I see two problems with the proper implementation of this guide:
First, lion farmers are very astute and convincing to pose as genuine sanctuaries. Only someone experienced in animal welfare and conservation in South Africa would be able to separate the good from the bad especially since there are often shades of grey.

Second, the guide establishes an excellent system for raising awareness and making better informed decisions on which facilities to support and which to avoid. But it raises the question of how conservationists and animal lovers are going to move from being better informed to having the decision made for them by some kind of certification process. 
There is clearly a need for an accreditation process in which knowledgeable inspectors could decide whether a facility should be promoted by SATSA, or not.
​
Notwithstanding, this is a praiseworthy step in the right direction for promoting responsible tourism and giving tourists the power to promote ethical treatment of animals in their spending of tourist money. Well done SATSA.

The hunting industry has been very successful in foisting the hunting narrative onto the conservation community. Using stalking horses such as WWF the hunting fraternity has persuaded most of global conservation structures that hunting is a tool of conservation.

In particular the hunting fraternity has infiltrated the IUCN and ensured that this pre-eminent scientific authority makes no decisions that impact adversely upon hunting privileges.

Now for the first time, a careful, comprehensive report by the IUCN ethics committee, an eminent international group of distinguished scientists, has reported that hunting and in particular trophy hunting, has no place in conservation. Hunting agencies which currently control the narrative in IUCN should logically therefore be thrown out of the IUCN.

The reasoning of the committee was impeccable. The report pointed out that the primary aim of conservation is to preserve the integrity and diversity of nature. In order to achieve that primary goal, any use of natural resources and wildlife must be sustainable. Notice that the doctrine of sustainable use is subsidiary to the primary purpose of conservation.

The scientists analyse the effect of trophy hunting upon the environment and conclude that it is not sustainable, and, even if it were, it fails to preserve the diversity of nature.

Hunting is therefore a form of farming of wildlife and it has nothing whatever to do with conservation.

This report was dynamite, but you will not be surprised to hear that when the media approached IUCN headquarters for comment, the report of the ethics committee was very swiftly deleted.
​
However, our colleague Eduardo saved the report and you can read it in full hereunder:
 https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mKQYvyCt5YMJ:https://www.iucn.org/news/world-commission-environmental-law/201909/compatibility-trophy-hunting-a-form-sustainable-use-iucns-objectives+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
 
The Daily Telegraph have run this story about it:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/03/anti-hunting-groups-seek-oust-big-game-hunters-global-conservation/
 
1. Introduction
For IUCN, the issue of trophy hunting recently arose in the context of whether organizations that are supportive of trophy hunting may be eligible for IUCN membership under the IUCN statutes. Of central importance to determining membership is whether, at least, one central purpose of an organization meets IUCN’s objectives. The Council has to determine, in particular, whether:
“the objectives and track record of the applicant embody to a substantial extent (i) the conservation of the integrity and diversity of nature; and either or both: (ii) the aim to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable: (iii) dedication to influencing, encouraging and assisting societies to meet the objectives of IUCN.”1
In determining whether an applicant meets this test, the Council cannot rely on claims or representations made by the applicant, but has to consider whether the applicant’s “objectives” and actual “track record” make it likely that the applicant is dedicated to advancing the objectives of IUCN. Hence, a mere intention or willingness of the applicant to advance IUCN’s objectives would not be sufficient. The “dedication” to influencing, encouraging and assisting societies involves a credibility assessment. This may include a closer look at the membership of the applying organization, for example, the motives and actual conduct of its members and the overall impact that the organization has had, and would have as an IUCN member, on IUCN’s dedication to meet its objectives.
The central question for the Council is - or should be - whether or not an applicant adds to the potential of the IUCN’s overarching objective, i.e. “to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.” (Art. 2). This objective cannot be interpreted in a way that emphasizes one aspect (e.g. “sustainable use”) at the expense of other aspects. Nor would it be appropriate to liken the objective with “sustainable development” or any abstract idea of promoting conservation. Rather, Article 2 contains a certain hierarchy: the conservation of integrity and diversity of nature is the overall concern. The use of natural resources has to occur in a manner that it is equitable and ecologically sustainable so that the integrity and diversity of nature will be conserved (and restored where necessary). This clearly implies that sustainable use and sustainable development are both subservient considerations to the overarching aim of ensuring ecological integrity.
It would be wrong therefore to measure trophy hunting purely against “sustainable use” as it is commonly referred to in domestic environmental laws and international hard and soft law. Nor could it be measured against statements on sustainable use of wildlife as, for example, provided by WWF which contends: “WWF is not opposed to hunting programs that present no threat to survival of threatened species and, where such species are involved, are part of a demonstrated conservation and management strategy that is scientifically based, properly managed, and strictly enforced, with revenues and benefits going back into conservation and local communities.”2 Trophy hunting is not mentioned here, and even it were, it would have to be measured against a “demonstrated” conservation strategy and against “revenues and benefits going back into conservation and local communities”.3 Furthermore, the overarching concern, for IUCN at least, is to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature (globally and locally) and to educate (“influence” etc.) societies (nationally) how this can be achieved. Is trophy hunting an acceptable means to achieve this end?
In answering this question, we need to consider not just sustainable use requirements and practices, but also the general debate around trophy hunting. There are pro-arguments in favour and arguments against. The former are largely based on economic benefits for local conservation efforts, while the latter is critical of such ‘trickle-down’ effects and emphasizes the ethical dimensions of trophy hunting.
For the Ethics Specialist Group, ethical grounding of conservation laws, policies and practices is critical and arguably consistent with IUCN’s overall objective to ensure integrity and diversity of nature. In the next section we outline some ethical considerations before addressing the actual question at hand.
2. General debate around trophy hunting
The debate about the justifiability of trophy hunting ranges from stressing economic benefits at one end of the spectrum to fundamental ethical objections at the other. Supporters base their argument largely on the perceived virtue of economic benefits and advantages for conservation. The claim is that local communities financially benefit from hunting and funds raised can be directed toward conservation efforts. These claims are based on financial, empirical evidence, but the benefits appear to be nowhere near as widespread as claimed. For example, in Zimbabwe as little as 3% of the income for trophy hunting actually reaches local communities.4
Hunters as a group tend to privilege an abundance of the species they are interested in killing over the existence of biologically diverse ecosystems.5 Despite claims by trophy hunting organizations that hunting promotes wildlife conversation in Africa, there is evidence that trophy hunting causes populations of African lions to decline.6
Apart from uncertainties around verifiable benefits generated by trophy hunting, there are basic concerns with cost-benefit analysis (CBA) used for the evaluation of wildlife conservation, particularly with respect to trophy hunting.
First, we can never identify all the direct and indirect benefits and costs of any action. This is especially true for wildlife conservation with its many unknowns. How to quantify the benefits of trophy hunting? Aside from possible benefits for local communities, the benefits of human-induced culling of wildlife are questionable given that trophy hunters often remove individuals with the highest breeding value from wildlife populations.7 Proof that hunting can have measurable conservation-related benefits for a species may be a possibility in principle, but is hard to come by given the complexities involved. Species development is not just affected by direct human action, for example, motivation of private landowners to increase the numbers of a certain species such as the white rhino.8 There are important environmental factors to be considered including ecological interdependences, habitat stability and impacts of biodiversity loss and climate change. There are too many uncertainties to justify trophy hunting by pointing to benefits for wildlife conservations.
Secondly, in light of the debate about ‘valuing nature’ and ‘monetizing nature’ it can be questioned whether a monetary value can be placed on life.9 It is unethical to place a monetary value on human life. On what grounds then should this be different with respect to animals? Even if an ‘intrinsic value’ of animals (biocentrism) is denied, an assumed mere ‘instrumental value’ of animals (anthropocentrism) still requires justifiable reasons for killing animals. These may include essential human needs (food, clothing, cultural identity etc.), but certainly not killing for fun (‘experience’, sport, trophies). At the very least, the onus for justifying trophy hunting must lie with those who claim that the ‘benefits’ for wildlife conservation are greater than the ‘costs’ of loss of life. Again, it must be stressed that the assumption of justifiable trophy hunting could only be made on the grounds of ethical anthropocentrism - a position that arguably is not consistent with IUCN’s overarching conservation ethics (see further below).
Thirdly, there are practical difficulties of compatibility. As economic benefits are easier to quantify than ecological benefits, there is a tendency to neglect ecological benefits and harms that are far more difficult to quantify, whether in economic/financial terms or in terms of conservation efficiency. Policy positions based on economic considerations often neglect critical ethical issues such as ecological justice, human rights and human responsibilities. The implication is that a preconceived level of economic benefit justifies (a degree of) ecological harm; especially if that benefit could be used to advance the human development project. If the economic benefit, as perceived by humans, is sufficient, then any ecological harm can be justified, whereas the “value” of maintaining ecological integrity is never stated or used as a counter-balance to economic value. This trade off approach raises the question of what the limits are – and that has to be determined or guided by ethical concepts.10
Opponents of trophy hunting tend to argue from a moral and ethical perspective.11 Typically, they refer to social ethics (i.e. rich-poor disparities, trickle-down ideology, intra-generational justice, equality) and environmental ethics (inter-generational justice, inter-species justice, ecological sustainability). Both social and environmental ethics are relevant here as Articles 2 and 7 refer to them. It is important, however, to stress that environmental ethics offers the key to understanding the relationship between human needs and inspirations, on the one hand, and the sustainability of ecological systems on the other. The latter is a precondition to the former.12
As far as the general debate around trophy hunting is concerned, there is a certain emphasis on assessing benefits against possible risks (e.g. economic benefits for communities vs endangering of species and/or ecosystems). Such emphasis looks at the consequences of human conduct – in our case trophy hunting - and is known as ‘consequentialism’. From a consequentialist perspective, the good outcome, or consequence, of a morally motivated conduct is crucial. If the outcome has more benefits than harm, then the conduct is justified. In the extreme, consequentialism amounts to “ends justifying the means”.
Contrasting with the consequentialist perspective is the deontological perspective. Here rules and moral duty are central. Deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of human conduct from the character of the behavior itself (at least since Immanuel Kant). Typical for deontological ethics is the idea of human rights or sustainability. Neither human rights nor sustainability can be entirely explained as protection measures against undesirable outcomes (typical for consequentialism), although they may be part of the reason why human rights or sustainability ought to be guiding rules for humanity. Essentially, if something is recognized as a (fundamental) rule, then any behavior not following the rule is unethical (and often, but not necessarily so, illegal).13
For IUCN’s position on trophy hunting to be credible, it is important to reflect on both, economic (utilitarian) and ethical (consequentialist and deontological) considerations bearing in mind that IUCN typically derives its position from its own normative rules (e.g. statutes, resolutions, policies, guidelines etc.). Neither purely economic or utilitarian reasoning, nor purely ethical reasoning may satisfy all the stakeholders involved, although it has to be stressed that ANY human behavior is ultimately motivated by ethics, whether consciously or unconsciously. Arguably, IUCN is inherently motivated and shaped by ethical, not economic or utilitarian concerns for conservation,14 although it has to be said that the development of IUCN’s current policies and programmes has considerably lacked in this regard.15
3. IUCN’s Current Position
As mentioned earlier, Article 2 of the Statutes charges IUCN with the commitment to “influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.” Accordingly, the IUCN has an overarching commitment to ecological integrity assisted by a form of use of natural resources that is both socially equitable and ecologically sustainable. Neither socially unjust nor ecologically unsustainable practices could be tolerated, so the onus has to be on an applicant to demonstrate that their objectives and practices serve this commitment in order to justify IUCN membership. Again, the dedication to influence, encourage and assist societies and the ability and credibility to do so are crucial here.
In furtherance of its overarching commitment, the IUCN has passed over 100 resolutions that directly link conservation science (and practice) with justice and equity. Examples include: the World Conservation Strategy (1980), World Charter for Nature (also adopted by the UNGA in 1982); Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living (1991); the Draft International Covenant on Environmental Development (1995/2015); Resolution 3.022 endorsing the Earth Charter as “an ethical guide for IUCN policy” (2004); Resolutions 4.098 Intergenerational Partnerships: Fostering Ethical Leadership for a Just, Sustainable and Peaceful World and 4.099 Recognition of the Diversity of Concepts and Values of Nature (2008); 3.020 Drafting a Code of Ethics for Biodiversity Conservation; and 004 Establishment of the Ethics Mechanism (2012).
The resolutions concerning the Earth Charter and the Ethics Mechanism are major recent landmarks. The first because the Earth Charter is the world’s most widely endorsed ethical guide for sustainability. It articulates the values of care, respect and responsibility for each other with ecological integrity at its core, and has been endorsed by civil society, governments and UNESCO. In addition to guiding policy, the IUCN has undertaken to “work to implement its principles” through its programmes. The second resolution (calling for effective implementation of Ethics Mechanisms) is crucial because it recognises the central importance of global ethics to the IUCN’s mission, and delivery of its programmes and activities.
With respect to sustainable use of wildlife, Resolution 011 Closure of Domestic Markets for Elephant Ivory (2016) effectively bans trophy hunting of elephants as it “threatens the survival of many populations of savannah and forest elephants and undermines the ecological integrity of savannah and forest ecosystems”.16
Against these overarching commitments and resolutions, other IUCN documents including guidelines and statements from specialists groups need to be assessed. With respect to trophy hunting, the Species Survival Commission has developed ‘Guiding Principles for Using Trophy Hunting as a Conservation Tool’, and IUCN has published a Briefing Paper (updated version prepared for CITES CoP17. These documents recognize that, when well managed, trophy hunting can deliver important benefits for species protection and recovery, habitat conservation, and reducing illegal hunting and illegal wildlife trade, as well as delivering important livelihood benefits to rural communities (e.g. in Namibia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Tajikistan, Canada, Pakistan and several European countries).
The documents do not explain, however, how “well managed” trophy hunting may be consistent with IUCN’s commitments to promoting ecological integrity and diversity, as expressed in IUCN’s objectives and many resolutions seeking to implement the objectives in policy and programme development. Given the hierarchy of norms that IUCN is guided by, it would fall upon the authors of subordinated documents such as the SCC’s ‘Guiding Principles’ or the IUCN’s ‘Briefing Principles’ to demonstrate their consistency with generally adopted objectives and resolutions or, if they aim for deviating from them, seek a status that binds IUCN at large, typically in the form of a resolution adopted at a WCC.
In the absence of such clarifications, the interpretation of trophy hunting as an acceptable form of “sustainable use” has to follow the guidance that Articles 7 and 2 provide. As shown above, Article 2 defines “sustainable use” with respect to IUCN’s overarching concern to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature (not economic benefits for communities or conservation practices).
For the purposes of the question at hand here, the onus is clearly on an applicant for IUCN membership to demonstrate that its own objectives and track record would serve IUCN’s overarching objective. In the light of the appropriate interpretation of Article 2 and the many resolutions (mentioned above) that further elaborate on the importance, meaning and implementation of Article 2, the ‘Guiding Principles’ and ‘Briefing Paper’ are insufficient to serve as a guide for a decision on the eligibility of organizations supporting trophy hunting. Instead, the objectives of such organizations are prima facie inconsistent with IUCN’s objectives.
4. Conclusion
This report addressed the issue of “sustainable use” as a possible criterion to determine the eligibility for IUCN membership of organizations supportive of trophy hunting. It also addressed the more general issue of IUCN’s position on trophy hunting. Bothe issues are intertwined and need to be considered simultaneously.
Trophy hunting is not consistent with “sustainable use”. And even if it were, “sustainable use” is not the sole criterion for the decision on eligibility of organizations seeking IUCN membership. The critical question is whether trophy hunting as it is practiced by individuals and promoted by certain hunting organizations may be consistent with IUCN’s general objectives as expressed in Articles 2 and 7. This is clearly not the case. Any other view would threaten IUCN’s credibility for providing moral and ethical leadership in conservation policies. It would certainly undermine the many efforts of IUCN members to promote a just and sustainable world.


This report has been provided by the following members of the WCEL Specialist Ethics Group (ESG), all professors of environmental law: Klaus Bosselmann (NZ/Germany), Peter Burdon (Australia), Prue Taylor (NZ), Ngozi Stewart (Nigeria), Louis Kotzé (South Africa) and Thiti Waikavee (Thailand).
1 Art. 7 (c) IUCN Statutes and Regulations (as last amended on 10 Sept. 2016); emphasis added.
2https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/sustainable-use-of-wildlife
3 Ibid.
4 S. Wiggins, The Economics of Poaching, Trophy and Canned Hunting, 2015; https://iwbond.org/2015/09/02/the-economics-of-poaching-trophy-and-canned-hunting/.
5 R. Holsman, “Goodwill Hunting? Exploring the Role of Hunters as Ecosystem Stewards,” Society Bulletin28, no. 4 (2000), 808–16.
6 C. Packer et al., “Sport Hunting, Predator Control, and Conservation of Large Carnivores,” PLOS ONE 4, no. 16 (2009), http://journals.plos.org. S. Wiggins, How can ‘we’ save the African Lion?, 2016; https://iwbond.org/2016/01/05/how-can-we-save-the-african-lion-panthera-leo/.
7 This phenomenon is called "unnatural selection.” F. Allendorf and J. Hard, “Human Induced Evolution Caused by Unnatural Selection through Harvest of Wild Animals,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (2009): 9987–94.
8 N. Leader-Williams, S. Milledge, K. Adcock, M. Brook, A. Conway, M. Knight, S. Mainka, E.B. Martin T. Teferi (2005). Trophy Hunting of Black Rhino: Proposals to Ensure Its Future Sustainability, Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 8 (1) 1-11.
9 G. Monbiot, ‘The Pricing of Everything’, 2014 SPERI Annual Lecture University of Sheffield https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/jul/24/price-nature- neoliberal-capital-road-ruin; ‘Can Nature be Monetized?’, Capital Institute Forum http://capitalinstitute.org/braintrust/can-nature-monetized/
10 It is worth noting that IUCN’s practices tend to favour CBA approaches over ethical approaches for the evaluation of biodiversity conservation measures. A report by the International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development at Maastricht University examined IUCN’s perspectives, policies and practices with respect to biodiversity conservation for the period between 2007 and 2013 (“IUCN and Perspectives on Biodiversity and Conservation in a Changing World”, Biodiversity and Conservation, December 2013, Vol. 22, Issue 13-14, pp 3105-3120) and found that anthropocentric, economic and market-based approaches far dominated genuine ethical approaches to evaluating biodiversity conservation measures.
11 There appears to be only one voice arguing in favour of trophy hunting from an environmental ethical perspective: A. Gunn, ‘Environmental Ethics and Trophy Hunting’, Ethics and the Environment , Vol. 6.1 (2001), 68-95; https://muse.jhu.edu/article/11197.
12 This is also true in light of the needs of indigenous and local communities in poor (“developing”) regions of the world. Their livelihood was always dependent on a harmonious relationship with nature. This has not changed by the fact that the (over-)developed world has imposed existential threats to their livelihood with respect to both, social and environmental conditions.
13 A recent example of opposition against trophy hunting from a deontological perspective is A. Ahmad “The Trophy Hunting Debate: A Case of Ethics” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 51, Issue No 26 – 27, 2016.
14 See, for example, R. Engel (with K. Bosselmann), The Contribution of IUCN to the Ethics of World Conservation: Chronology from 1948-2008.
15 An example is the lack of implementing specific ethical resolutions such as the endorsement of the Earth Charter at the 2004 IUCN WCC or the adoption of Ethics Mechanisms at the 2012 IUCN WCC. See also P.E. Taylor, P. Burdon and D.A. Brown, ‘Moral leadership and Climate Change Policy: the role of the World Conservation Union’, Ethics, Policy and Environment (forthcoming 2017).
16 Notably, the International Council for Game & Wildlife Conservation expressed a disclaimer “for the record” stating that “legal elephant trophies are not subject of this Motion.” (WCC-2016-Res-011-EN; last paragraph).
 

The Rhino and Lion reserve in South Africa has come under new management and the new management has taken the courageous step of deciding not to offer lion cub petting to tourist visitors any longer.

The reason of course is the difficulty that tourist facilities run into for when the cubs grow older, there is no market for them other than the canned hunting industry.

This ethical position has been taken before so this is not unprecedented. Some years ago, the Lion and Safari Park tried to abandon cub petting only to find that they lost so much tourist traffic that they were obliged to reinstate cub petting.

So the public should not underestimate the cost of making such a morally courageous decision. The rhino and lion reserve will lose some tourist traffic as a result of taking this principled stand and we can only hope that they do not lose so much that they are obliged to reverse it.

The new manager at Rhino and Lion Park is Mike Fynn, who is no doubt primarily responsible for this courageous decision.
Especially since he was the manager at Lion and Safari Park and very much responsible for that facility attempting to take the same principled stand.

For good measure, Mike was an active member of the captive carnivore working group, a broad cross-section of all sectors interested in lion conservation, which was seeking to fill the gap in government regulation by drafting suitable regulations which government could adopt and enforce in order to improve the conditions of lions at lion farms in South Africa.

An unsung hero indeed, quietly working away to improve the lives of lions. 

https://www.sapeople.com/2019/09/09/rhino-and-lion-reserve-in-south-africa-will-no-longer-offer-cup-petting/?fbclid=IwAR0u6B689RdUhi-bild-yH8EkK7Abj9WhU0yIvaP97T7yBdNqzbLIVqUjs4

I was reading the response by the Minister for the Environment in South Africa to parliamentary questions on the status of lions, when, to my horror, I came across this old canard which ought to have been discarded years ago. 

I quote:
2) A non-detrimental finding (NDF) made by a Scientific Authority, in respect of African lion and in terms of section 61(1)(d) of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 indicates that there are currently no major threats to the wild and managed lion populations of South Africa, whereas minor threats include over-utilisation, disease, poaching and conflict with communities around protected areas. The NDF further states that trophy hunting of captive-bred lions poses no threat to the wild population within South Africa, and “it is thought that captive lions may in fact serve as a buffer to potential threats to wild lions by being the primary source for hunting trophies and derived products (such as bone)”. The NDF was published in the Gazette, No. 41393, on 23 January 2018.

The “scientific authority” referred to is the very same one which was thoroughly discredited during the recent parliamentary colloquium when it was quite apparent that it had no idea at all what it was talking about, consisted for the most part of a bunch of ivory tower academics who had as much understanding of the blood and guts of the hunting industry is that of a dog watching a passing aircraft, and was prepared to stand behind an assumption made by another academic from Oxford University. A personal assumption for which there was not a shred of evidence.

It is hunting propaganda repeated by academics as if it were a scientific truth. Yet the moment it is subjected to scrutiny it collapses like a pricked balloon. But pricked balloons have an amazing unscientific ability to re-inflate themselves and be promoted as scientific truths by the Department of Environment.

Some academic at Oxford made a personal assumption and mentioned in passing, with no scientific evidence at all, that:
“it is thought that captive lions may in fact serve as a buffer to potential threats to wild lions by being the primary source for hunting trophies and derived products (such as bone)”. 

And now here is this personal assumption being put forward by the Minister as if it were an established scientific fact.. Disgraceful!

In reading the quote of the Minister’s reply you might have missed the critical three words - within South Africa.

So, even if lion farming in South Africa is stimulating the poaching of wild lions in neighboring territories to the extent of causing regional extinction, the Department of Environment and what passes muster for nature conservation in the provinces continue to eagerly promote lion farming and canned lion hunting.  
Yet the threat posed by SA lion farms to lions in Southern Africa is not mere assumption. Read for example what is happening in Mozambique:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/lions-menu-now-inside-legal-lion-bone-trade/story?id=64827468

So, all conservationists know of CITES Decision 14.69 which bans the breeding of tigers for the trade in their body parts. Why? Because everyone in the conservation universe understood that permitting Tiger farming for the trade in body parts would not only stimulate the poaching of wild tigers it would make it impossible for customs officials and other authorities to be able to determine whether the bones they were looking at were legal ones or from a poached wild animal. The bones all look the same.

Now, if Tiger farming is banned because the trade in body parts is going to adversely impact wild tigers, why is the farming of lions not banned for exactly the same reason? But no in the case of lions, lion farming should be legal and promoted by government, because some foreign academic mentions that tame lions might provide a buffer to protect wild lions from hunters.
And what does this baseless assumption say about the hunting industry?
That trophy hunters are so rabidly determined to kill lions that if they can’t find a tame one they’ll move heaven and earth to kill a wild one?

So pity the poor lions. South African conservation officials who are paid by the taxpayer to protect our wildlife instead use public money to subsidise the hunting industry.
​And they are so inept that they cannot tell the difference between assumption and scientific fact.
 

Lion bone trade: justice delayed is justice denied
Hot off the press, the decision of the High Court in the matter of the National Council of the SPCA against the lion farmers and their stooges in government, is causing quite a stir.
The NSPCA challenged the legality of the way the SA government determined the export quotas for lion bones. In particular, it challenged the minister’s conservation dogma that animal welfare had nothing to do with the Department of Environment.
You can read the full judgement of the High Court here:
https://emsfoundation.org.za/wp-content/uploads/Judgment-Lion-Bone-case-6-August-2019.pdf
So as you can see, the High Court decision was essentially moot; it related to the 800- carcass quota for 2017 and the 1500- carcass quota for 2018, both of which quotas had already been exported. Clearly though, the decision that the quotas were determined illegally and without taking all relevant factors into account will have a salutary effect upon future quota settings.
Much of the judgement relates to the importance of the government taking animal welfare considerations into account in all aspects of conservation but specifically here in the setting of export quotas. Many lions are kept in appalling conditions in South Africa. The lion bone trade wants bones so a skeletal lion is much more profitable than a healthy animal who needs to be fed better to remain healthy.
Had I been arguing the case, I would have pointed out that it is quite impossible to effectively manage the lion population or indeed any wildlife population without including animal welfare considerations within the current conservation paradigm of sustainable use.
(Sustainable use is the theory; sustained abuse is the practice)
The reason is this: I have personally been told by any number of conservation officials: “don’t bother us with animal welfare. Animal welfare is no part of our mandate. We are only concerned with population numbers.”
So as far as they’re concerned, they just count the numbers. If the numbers of animals go up they pat themselves on the back and say what a wonderful job they’re doing. If the numbers go down, then they pretend that they have to do something about it.
The inevitable result of this narrow numbers based approach to sustainable use is that the condition of the animals composing the wildlife populations becomes irrelevant. This is so wrong.
It is highly relevant to conservation and to sustainable use that three quarters of the species are now in miserable captive conditions being starved to death for the lion bone market where as conservationists are treating them as if they were part of the ecology/environment.

​So what happens now?
My guess is that this judgement will be honoured more in the breach than in the observance by South African government conservation structures. They will continue to support lion farming and the export of lion bones and rely on the fact that anyone challenging their thumb- suck quotas will have to take them to the High Court, a remedy which is obscenely expensive, coin- tossingly uncertain and slower than cancer.