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.