Conservation Action
A new scientific report, The Economics of Captive Predator Breeding in South Africa is about to be released.
Conservation Action
And one of its principal findings is that South Africa’s brand attractiveness could lose over R54billion in the next decade to negative publicity from the predator breeding industry and all the related commercial operations using lions and other species. This and the other consequential findings listed below add to the already substantial body of evidence stacked against these notorious industries.
Authored by Ross Harvey from the South African Institute of International Affairs, the lengthy report comprises two sections. The first is a formal academic review of the scientific and ‘grey’ literature, some of which is being used by those involved in attempts to justify their activities, and the second part deals with the conservation and economic claims being made, including the most recent lion bone quota of 1 500 carcasses awarded by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).
According to Harvey, “Perhaps the most surprising finding was the sheer extent to which the skeleton quota numbers for the last two years (from 800 to 1 500) appear to have no grounding in science. Also startling is how little reliable economic analysis has been conducted on this clandestine industry.”
The cruelty and brutality that comes with the industrial-scale farming of lions in South Africa have been well-documented by Blood Lions and others, as has the callous killing of the animals by unethical hunters. In the past, these twin horrors have been the ugly face of this industry, but as Harvey’s report indicates, the burgeoning lion bone trade, as well as the cub petting and ‘voluntourism’ sectors, have over the last decade become just as insidious.
Some of the principal findings in the report include:
Of particular interest to the government, particularly the Department of Labour and the revenue authorities will be Harvey’s findings on the much-touted job creation claims made by some predator facilities and the so-called sanctuaries. Rather than creating jobs, they make use of a seemingly endless stream of volunteers that is ‘crowding out’ at least 84 full-time jobs that would otherwise be available to local work-seekers.
The volunteer exchange is the most incongruous of contracts as those offering their labour for free are also asked to pay substantial sums before setting foot on a facility. In essence, the volunteers pay twice; their cash in Dollars or Euro’s that provide substantial revenue streams for the operators, and then they must get to work.
It’s inconceivable that anyone would offer both their cash and labour to scrub lion cages, mend fences and feed animals amongst many other chores. But as Harvey points out, this happens because of the misleading or false conservation claims used to lure them.
Unsuspecting volunteers from around the world are prepared to make these sacrifices thinking they are making a contribution to securing the future of wild lions. And there is also a little honey involved; the chance to cuddle and bottle-feed recently born cubs.
The shameful deceit and cruelty aside, the messages can also undermine the legitimate efforts of predator scientists and conservationists, and this is reason enough for the authorities to act.
As many others have pointed out, this report also highlights the economic contributions of these industries as being relatively small. However, it is the first to quantify the significant potential losses to Brand South Africa. Next week, Parliament holds a colloquium that will be delving into these exact aspects.