Latest news with #BloodLions
Daily Maverick
12-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Maverick
Project Cheetah is an ill-advised wildlife relocation that seems doomed to failure
In an ill-advised attempt to establish a population of African cheetahs in India, Project Cheetah aimed to restore India's long-extinct cheetah population. To initiate this, 20 cheetahs from southern Africa were sent to Kuno National Park in India from 2022 to 2023. Reports suggest a further 20 cheetahs are to be sent from Kenya this year, as well as potentially more cheetahs from South Africa. Despite its portrayal as a conservation and restoration success story, Project Cheetah has experienced high mortality rates, with eight adults (40%) and five cubs (29.4%) dying due to kidney failure, fighting injuries, extreme heat and humidity and fly-strike-related skin infections. In a recent research paper, co-authored with researchers from Blood Lions, we addressed how Project Cheetah exemplifies broader issues related to rewilding and restoration projects. We argue that proponents and authorities issuing Cites permits need to be cognisant of the consequences of their decisions. Project Cheetah alone is estimated to cost between $50-million and $60-million, an amount that could arguably be used more effectively for in-situ conservation and social upliftment efforts. Concerns about Project Cheetah are not new — cheetah experts have been raising alarms since the project's inception, yet South Africa's Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) approved the export permits for 12 cheetahs to leave South Africa, with the other eight originating from Namibia. Scientists opposed to the project agree that Project Cheetah lacks conservation and scientific merit, especially demonstrating shortfalls in the ecological criteria that guided decision-makers. Critics have also suggested underlying political motives, including an alleged request from Namibia for India to withdraw its ban on the ivory trade. Global conservation efforts have witnessed a necessary shift towards equity and justice in protecting biodiversity. So often, conservation efforts and biodiversity loss disproportionately affect marginalised communities and indigenous people. More recently, there's a significant movement to recognise that non-human species also suffer immense injustices, not only in the illegal trade but also in the legal trade. In the case of Project Cheetah, our research shows that cheetahs translocated to India for restoration purposes have had their welfare compromised, in addition to the unjust social implications for local and indigenous communities surrounding Kuno. Further challenges exist, including differences in climate, prey species and habitat that African cheetahs need to adapt to, and the potential human-wildlife conflict for communities not accustomed to the presence of cheetahs. Why is Project Cheetah problematic? Kuno is a biodiverse region of 784km2 in the central Indian Vindhya Hills. Initially, it was earmarked as the site for the reintroduction of Asiatic lions, which was due to start in 2008. To accommodate the Asiatic lion reintroductions, 5,000 people from 24 villages were displaced between 1999 and 2001. However, the project never went ahead as the Gujarat state government was reluctant to release lions to another state. With 669 Asiatic lions dying in the last five years, the species is now listed as 'largely depleted' in the latest IUCN Listing as of 27 March 2025. A report released in 2010 on the translocation of cheetahs into Kuno shows many shortcomings. Instead of recognising diverse values, understanding potential inequitable impacts, and focusing on historically burdened groups, the surveyors made subjective judgments about community members by looking at their age, sex, clothing condition, the use of jewellery and wristwatches, and transport. The goal behind this assessment was to determine which populations would be most likely to accept once-off compensation for relocating. What the report failed to acknowledge included important social dimensions like attitudes towards relocation, exotic species introduction, project acceptance and perceived risks and benefits. Instead, it focused on identifying economically and socially disadvantaged targets for monetary incentives, further exacerbating disenfranchisement and power imbalances. Unjust conservation efforts that explicitly exclude and remove people have led to conservation refugees who were forcibly removed from their homes. Neglecting the human dimensions of conservation Project partners have stated that the cheetah translocations to India were largely justified by the tolerance displayed by those of predominantly Hindu faith. It was implied that people of Hindu faith would tolerate any risk of human-wildlife conflict. But such broad generalisations need to be challenged: communities surrounding Kuno are of many faiths and may experience human-wildlife conflict, and even within Hindu communities, attributing tolerance exclusively to religion is simplistic. Such statements demonstrate severe neglect in accounting for the complex web of socio-ecological systems and the challenges of co-existing with wildlife. Relying on generalisations to justify translocations demonstrates little appreciation of the human dimension of conservation, often overlooking diverse knowledge systems and values, and the complex relationships people have with nature, how they perceive wildlife, and consent to bear the consequences of such conservation work. Unethical and unjustifiable threats to cheetahs As part of Project Cheetah, all cheetahs were initially released into nine bomas designed for 'soft release'. The bomas range in size from 0.5-1.5km2 (compared to the 4.3km2 in which cheetahs can roam daily in Kuno's range of 5,441km2). Some pregnant females have never left these bomas, whereas others have been moved from free-roaming in Kuno back to their bomas on a regular basis. Some have escaped Kuno and have been seen roaming neighbouring villages and towns. According to the most recent publicly available information, all surviving cheetahs have been returned to the bomas. Even more worrying, initial projections have suggested that establishing a viable population in India could take 30-40 years, necessitating that at least 12 cheetahs are imported annually to account for these unacceptable mortality rates. With the adult cheetah mortality at 40%, nearly half of all cheetahs imported for Project Cheetah are likely to die prematurely. Project Cheetah presents serious threats to cheetah welfare, including stress, trauma and adaptation failures, especially considering cheetahs are a stress-prone species. The cheetahs translocated to Kuno have not only undergone intercontinental transportation, but they are also regularly subjected to veterinarian interventions, with more than 90 medical immobilisations conducted so far. It's vital to consider how this can affect their long-term physical and mental welfare, in addition to being kept in captive conditions in bomas for long periods. As a result, the project has seen low survival rates of 60% in adult cheetahs, which is far below the average survival rate of 85% for reintroductions in South Africa's fenced private reserves. The survival rate for Kuno's newly introduced cheetahs is likely to fall even further when all the animals are released from the bomas and encounter other large and unfamiliar predators indigenous to India. On social media, anecdotal reports of cheetahs being stoned by villagers and being harassed during sedation reveal further risks faced by cheetahs struggling to adapt and thrive following their release, highlighting once again the complex interplay of welfare concerns, human-wildlife conflict, and conservation priorities marring Project Cheetah. More recently, cheetahs that appear to be in poor health have been seen hunting cattle in the villages while people attempt to scare them off by throwing stones at them. Senior wildlife biologist and conservation scientist Dr Ravi Chellam says that 'unlike leopards and tigers, these cheetahs, due to their long-term captivity and constant following, are very used to human presence. I expect such interactions to be more common in the future. 'Having said that, it is still very unusual for the cheetahs to attack a prey animal when surrounded by such a boisterous crowd of people. This seems to suggest that the cats are desperately hungry. It has, of course, been very clear right from the start that India does not have the required extent of habitat of suitable quality and the space for the cheetahs to range free in the wild.' How can translocations be improved? Wildlife relocation projects that fail to acknowledge environmental and social issues highlight an urgent need for conservationists to engage in scientifically grounded and locally accepted conservation strategies. Poorly planned community relocations disrupt social structures, similar to forced land reform, and may cause severed cultural connections to land and animals. Our beliefs and traditions intertwine with our experiences in nature, and forced removals can affect the mental health of local and indigenous communities who so closely identify with their culture and the surrounding land and animals. While we agree that community relocations may sometimes be necessary for medical, educational, law enforcement or conservation reasons, our research shows just how important it is to consider residents' preferences and needs to prevent unjust consequences. Given the age-old shaping of nature by local and indigenous communities, relocations may not even be desired where co-existence is preferred. It's vital to acknowledge people's profound connections to land and non-human species and to embrace diverse values of nature. The cheetah translocations to Kuno have shown serious ethical concerns by experimenting with an IUCN-listed 'vulnerable ' species and knowingly subjecting these animals to substantial stress, risks and mortality. We need to challenge and critically think about how we measure conservation successes to go beyond measuring ecological processes of births and deaths, but also to understand the impacts on an animal's physical and mental welfare. When 40-50% of the animals die in a relocation project, we need to reconsider what an ethically acceptable mortality rate should be. Can this really be considered a 'successful reintroduction'? If conservation practices prioritise respect, inclusivity and justice, we are more likely to see positive outcomes for people and nature. DM
IOL News
09-05-2025
- Entertainment
- IOL News
The rise of ethical tourism: Confronting South Africa's captive lion industry
Bone trade is probably the most convenient way of disposing of lions that are no longer big earners as tourism or hunting attractions. Image: Linda Park Sustainable or ethical tourism is growing and, although South Africa relies heavily on Big 5 safari experiences, the sector will soon butt heads with travellers no longer prepared to countenance a captive lion breeding industry riddled with corruption, cruelty and exploitation. According to Coherent Market Insights, the global ethical tourism market is currently worth $273.8 billion and is set to grow at 5.9% to reach $409.28 billion by 2032. Millennials, in particular, spend on tourism experiences that make the world a better place and petting of days old cubs removed from their mothers, walking with captive lions and voluntourism which deceives people into believing they are helping to rehabilitate wild big cats will no longer pass muster. For several years, Blood Lions, Four Paws South Africa, Voice4Lions and other conservation organisations have actively campaigned against the horrors of South Africa's commercial captive lion industry. During the build up to Africa's Travel Indaba, a high profile event that showcases tourism products to international and local buyers, this crusade may ramp up with conservationists like British writer and film maker, Richard Peirce ,author of the book Cuddle Me, Kill Me, revisiting the horrors that continue to be swept under the eco-tourism mat. Four years after the award-winning documentary Lions Bones and Bullets premiered at the Monte Carlo Television Festival, he is back in South Africa investigating what progress, if any, has been made. British conservationist, writer and filmmaker, Richard Peirce, author of the book Cuddle Me, Kill Me, is in South Africa investigating what progress has been made in rooting out corruption, cruelty and exploitation in the captive lion breeding industry. Image: Jacqui Peirce Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ He shared conversations with breeders, hunters and conservationists as well as his own concerns about a burgeoning captive bred lion population that is now the largest in the world. In Lions Bones and Bullets, Peirce and his fellow film makers graphically showed how lions were housed in cramped and filthy cages and ultimately slaughtered for their bones which were sold for traditional medicine in South East Asia. Statistics are shaky at best, but the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has unwittingly documented the growth of the very industry that it promised to disband. In December 2022, then-Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Barbara Creecy, appointed a ministerial task team to recommend voluntary exits for the captive lion industry. Another next task followed in February 2024 with the Terms of Reference finally published on April 26, barely a month before the national general election. In 2023, Creecy's ministerial task team estimated that there were 7 400 captive lions in 519 facilities across South Africa. By November 2024, when replacement Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Dr Dion George, called on the captive lion industry to voluntarily surrender stockpiles of lion bones and derivatives, this population had apparently grown to 8 000 – more than double the 3 500 wild lions that prop up safari tourism. Officially, an estimated 8 761 lion skeletons have been exported from South Africa since 2008 but there is evidence that bone sales have not only continued illegally but escalated. Image: Jacqui Peirce Lion industry economics As Peirce found during his recent discussions, the smoke and mirrors continue with a cash strapped government unlikely to compensate lion farmers. Already, the so-called captive lion industry has launched a court battle to re-instate the legal export of lion skeletons. This follows a 2019 High Court ruling that prohibited this. Officially, an estimated 8 761 lion skeletons have been exported from South Africa since 2008 but there is evidence that bone sales have not only continued illegally but escalated. Peirce shared how environmental economist and member of the Conservation Action Trust, Dr Ross Harvey, attempted to work out the value of the captive lion industry in 2018. This proved almost impossible given the unavailability of accurate statistics as well as the plethora of 'uses' for these big cats. Captive lions feeding on a carcass. The photo features in Richard Peirce's book Cuddle Me, Kill Me. Image: Richard Peirce He finally came up with an estimate of around $180 million, a figure that includes lion cub petting and voluntourism but excludes taxidermy, hunting and the sale of lion bones. A similar study conducted at the Northwest University put the value at a far more conservative $26 million a year, or R500 million. Sadly, Peirce comments, lion hunting is booming. During a conversation with president of the South African Predators Association (SAPA), he learnt that the hunting fraternity ran out of shootable males in 2024 making the hunting element – canned or otherwise – a significant part of this so-called industry. Peirce shared further comments from Harvey who agrees, based on the sheer volume of canned hunts being sold: 'You get an email advertising discounted hunts. Of course, they don't say that these are canned hunts because these same outfits ostensibly support the move away from this. Nonetheless, they say South Africa is about to shut down the trade, so you need to respond if you still want a shot at their inexpensive rate. Current prices are about $50 000 for a hunt plus shooting a lion which costs anywhere between $8 and $14 000 depending on the type of lion.' Harvey also tried to work out the average earnings per year from selling lion bones. Based on estimates of around 1100 skeletons sold each year for an average of $65 dollars per kilogram and each skeleton weighing about 15 kilograms, this comes to $2 475 per skeleton and $ 2.7 million dollars per year. Hence the bone trade is probably the most convenient way of disposing of lions that are no longer big earners as tourism or hunting attractions. Peirce says the flip side is that it costs very little to breed lions. However, he also believes that the value of the lion breeding industry - at just four to five percent of the value of entire tourism sector - is not worth the bad press that it gleans as conservationists ramp up their efforts to expose the cruelties of captive breeding. He suggests that Creecy's department had not fully thought through the ramifications of making lion breeding illegal. Peirce and Harvey say lion breeders can calculate an audited value for their businesses as part of a strong legal challenge against Creecy's legislation and George's attempted implementation. They point out that a cash strapped government cannot take on the court battle let alone compensate farmers for lost earnings or surrendered bones and body parts. Peirce warns that, should government be taken to court by breeders, the case would remain in court for a protracted period. He likens this to the British government trying to legitimise the slave trade. 'This could be in court for five, six, seven years. If pockets are deep enough to keep it there, the misery goes on, the trade goes on.' For most conservationists, the only solution is the complete eradication of captive lion breeding. However, some sort of compromise will probably be the eventual outcome. Instead of going the legal route, Peirce suggests that some of the bigger businesses are looking at cleaning up their acts and pushing out the smaller players who have given this so-called industry a bad name. 'What they're trying to do now is introduce better husbandry laws, stricter requirements, better licensing, better record keeping, and try to squeeze out the smaller people and the petting businesses.' Harvey agrees but does not necessarily see a positive outcome. 'We are talking about a government that has struggled to regulate this industry in the past. There's not a lot to suggest that it will do any better in the future, especially given that from province to province, operators seem to do whatever they like. Whenever we put in a request to find out how many breeding facilities are operating in the country, we are referred to the provincial authorities who don't have a clue what's going on.' Somewhat reluctantly, Peirce concedes that a solution could be based on supply and across what has evolved into an entire lion supply chain. 'I think it may come back to scale. The big boys with large farms may consider getting involved in eco-tourism. If you close off smaller operators doing cub petting and lion walks, less lions need to be bred. Although many conservationists and animal welfare campaigners will not like this, I think they should consider going for what they can get as a start,' he suggests. Harvey is not convinced that highly regulated lion ranching where big cats could still be hunted under fair chase rules offers a long term solution. He says this would be bitter pill given that captive bred lions do not have the instincts of a wild lion and wouldn't naturally run away from a hunter, especially one with a powerful rifle and scope. Conservationist and former national inspector for the NSPCA, Karen Trendler, notes that authorities dragging their heels when they should have closed the industry years ago gave it time to strategize and fight back. Currently, there are no standards or regulation and lion farmers are required to pay as little as R50 to R100 for a permit to operate. 'They should be paying for the permit application, administration, a pre permitting inspection. It's little steps like that, that are going to enable us to push standards and costs up to make it too difficult and expensive for so many to operate. 'We all acknowledge that what is happening is appalling, disgusting. We know it's cruel. By bringing in high standards, you have something against which to measure someone in court. From a wellbeing perspective, cub petting, the removal of cubs, walking with lions will be easy cases to win. The intensive breeding of lions, where you've got large numbers in very small cages can be challenged,' she suggests. Trendler concedes that allowing regulated and pared down lion ranching may be the only chance to get a better deal for lions. 'This will require full time veterinarians and infrastructure, qualified trained managers and lion breeders. Breeders will have to ask themselves if their businesses are sustainable and if it is financially viable to continue,' she says. Linda Park, director and co-founder of Voice4lions Image: Supplied Linda Park, director and co-founder of Voice4lions says that while conservationists and the public world-wide want to put an end to the industry, there might be a need for compromise: 'We need to be pragmatic. Dithering around and futile arguing is getting us nowhere and certainly not helping the very animals for which we are fighting.' SUNDAY TRIBUNE
