South Africa is home to the world’s largest commercial captive lion breeding industry. The country has about 8,000 captive lions kept in nearly 350 facilities, compared to an estimated 3,500 lions in the wild.
These captive lions are bred for a range of purposes: cub petting attractions; tourist “walk with lions” experiences; “canned” or captive trophy hunts in enclosed spaces; to be sold to overseas zoos; and for their body parts, such as bones, claws and teeth, for traditional medicine.
Supporters of the industry argue that captive breeding provides a conservation benefit, that if consumer demand for lion products can be met through a legally farmed supply, there will be less incentive to kill wild lions.
Similar arguments have been used to justify the commercial breeding of other wildlife species, including tigers and crocodiles.
But how strong is the evidence behind these claims?
Reviewing the evidence
Our research team conducted a systematic review of more than 160 sources (126 peer-reviewed papers and 37 reports from governments, NGOs and investigative journalists) published from 2008 to 2023.
Using an existing framework to evaluate whether captive lion breeding can sustainably reduce pressure on wild lion populations, we assessed evidence across five criteria: preference, supply, cost, restocking and laundering.
This review revealed that claims of conservation benefits remain largely untested, with little direct evidence to support them.
Knowledge gaps and risks
Our review found that many of the arguments used to justify captive lion farming rest on unproven assumptions. Across five key areas, evidence for conservation benefits is either missing or points to potential harms.
- Preference: Captive-bred lions are promoted as substitutes for wild-sourced products. Yet consumer preferences remain poorly understood, and available evidence suggests that wild-sourced products may be valued more highly for authenticity and/or quality. This raises doubts about whether farmed products can replace demand for wild lions.
- Supply: Industry advocates claim that farming can satisfy existing demand. However, studies provide no clear proof that this occurs. In some markets, the presence of farmed products may even stimulate demand rather than reduce it, creating new avenues for trade that increase the pressure on wild lion populations.
- Cost: To be effective, farming must act as a cost-effective alternative to sourcing from the wild. Independent analyses have not confirmed such advantages. Once the costs of breeding, feeding, and especially maintaining proper welfare standards are factored in, the profitability and competitiveness of farmed products remain uncertain.
- Restocking: Captive facilities are said to be self-sustaining and independent of wild populations. While most lions on farms today are captive-bred, there is little evidence that these populations can maintain long-term genetic diversity or viability without periodic wild input. This is especially true when considering breeding for selective traits, such as white lions or dark manes, that have small founder gene pools and which can lead to inbreeding.
- Laundering: Farms are presented as legal and well-regulated. Yet oversight is weak, and reliable methods to distinguish wild-sourced from captive-bred parts are lacking. This creates opportunities for laundering wild lions (and other big cats) through legal channels.
Taken together, these gaps suggest that captive lion breeding cannot currently be considered a proven conservation tool. Instead, the available evidence indicates that lion farming may pose additional risks for wild populations.
Policy shifts in South Africa
In 2021, the South African government announced its intention to phase out the captive lion industry, citing concerns from a high-level panel that included animal welfare, conservation, and reputational damage to tourism.
A ministerial task team has since released a report outlining possible steps towards voluntary exit and closure, including halting breeding, creating sanctuaries for existing lions and addressing lion bone stockpiles.
However, no definitive deadlines have been set, nor have actual steps been taken towards closure. During the transition, some practices (such as “canned” hunting) may continue.
Our research findings suggest that policymakers are justified in pursuing a phase-out, as current evidence does not support claims of conservation benefits.
Broader lessons
Although this study focused on South Africa, its conclusions have wider implications.
Captive predator breeding is also promoted elsewhere (notably tiger farming in Asia) as a potential conservation tool. However, without rigorous evidence demonstrating conservation benefits, such approaches should be treated with extreme caution.
This study also highlights the need for independent research to evaluate whether commercial wildlife breeding can meaningfully contribute to conservation objectives.
Implications for conservation
For lion farming to be considered a genuine conservation tool, there would need to be clear and reliable evidence that it benefits wild populations. At present, such evidence is lacking.
At the same time, South Africa’s commercial captive lion industry presents negative impacts, including but not limited to persistent animal welfare violations, risks of stimulating demand for lion products, enforcement challenges and potential links to illegal wildlife trade.
Given these concerns and the growing public and governmental support for phasing out the industry, South Africa has an opportunity to redirect efforts, as well as conservation resources currently spent on regulating a commercial industry, toward strategies that directly benefit wild lions.
Measures such as protecting habitats, mitigating human–wildlife conflict, strengthening anti-poaching initiatives and supporting community-based conservation programmes address the real drivers of global lion population decline.
Prioritising these approaches over commercial captive lion breeding is likely to deliver more lasting conservation outcomes, both within South Africa and across the species’ range. DM