Ensuring animal wellbeing is not an extremist movement, as commercial-use proponents will have you believe

It’s time to set the record straight.

Antagonistic narratives surrounding the commercial use of wildlife have seen a significant upswing in recent months with renewed vigour given to the dated notion of “if it pays, it stays”. But there’s a major omission: any vestige of a solid, evidence-based supporting argument rooted in rigorous scientific processes.

Language and misrepresentation

There’s a second striking concern in these arguments that centre on the rise of inaccurate and misleading language when talking about those who advocate for animal welfare and wellbeing. Pro-commercial use language now disingenuously attempts to position wellbeing-oriented conservationists and welfare advocates, including the NSPCA, as “animal rightists” in an effort to paint these professionals as inexpert and radical extremists.

The NSPCA itself highlighted that media articles portraying the organisation as an animal rightist group are inaccurate and set the record straight that it is an animal welfare organisation and a statutory body mandated to enforce the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 throughout South Africa.

Such blatant misrepresentation serves only to discredit and minimise the validity of the work undertaken by conservation and animal welfare professionals. One such example was the High Level Panel’s 2021 recommendation that wellbeing and welfare of wildlife ought to be integral elements of all wildlife practices so that animal sentience is recognised in policy and practice. This was not just an empty recommendation: in 2022, the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act integrated animal wellbeing into the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Nemba) 10 of 2004. Unfortunately, key industry players including the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association argued that inclusion of wellbeing in Nemba could harm hunting and game farming and launched a legal challenge in response.

Anti-suffrage claims positioned women as too emotional and now the same brush is being used to paint advocates of animal wellbeing.

With this language arises a fundamental question: when did simply ensuring basic animal wellbeing become a radical or extremist movement? It stirs up reminders of those who advocated against women’s rights (interestingly, research has demonstrated stark similarities between the oppression of women and the abuse of animals), a movement in itself that was considered extreme and unrealistic even for basic activities, such as giving women the right to vote and workplace equality.

The parallel I am drawing is based on the language used to justify the commercial exploitation of wildlife and discredit those seeking new ways forward that prioritise wellbeing. Anti-suffrage claims positioned women as too emotional and now the same brush is being used to paint advocates of animal wellbeing as biased in an attempt to diminish sound scientific and legal thinking that has gone into showing the sentience of wildlife, compromised quality of life in commercial pursuits such as captivity and trade, and the need to rethink the extractive basis that continues to inform policy.

Ironically, key role players in the commercial wildlife industry have provided scant science to back up claims that, for example, breeding and trading lions in captivity prevent poaching of wild lions or will bolster declining populations in other African range states. No evidence has been provided regarding assertions that the Kruger National Park’s lions are in danger of dying from bovine tuberculosis, and captive populations will resolve this. To the contrary, these claims were specifically refuted in an answer to a parliamentary question – while bovine tuberculosis does affect lions in the Kruger, deaths are not detectable at a population level and research shows minimal disease effects, with lions actually demonstrating resilience. Overall, the threat of bovine tuberculosis does not pose a significant threat to lion survival in the park. As a result, the park has said there is no need to introduce captive-bred lions because the wild population remains stable.

These are only some of the claims that have been made on numerous occasions, but still the peer-reviewed science has not been produced. To attempt to portray the captive lion industry as a conservation success story without demonstrable evidence is disingenuous.

Further to the issue of captive lion breeding are claims that South Africa’s captive population is the healthiest and taken care of under the strictest animal welfare conditions. Yet, NSPCA inspections carried out in 2022 show that of 75 facilities that were inspected, six were issued with noncompliance welfare notices and 65.3% were issued with warnings for contravening the Animals Protection Act. Twenty-three lions had to be humanly euthanised based on their compromised conditions. The NSPCA pursued seven dockets and one case went to trial.

The NSPCA’s inspections highlighted ongoing and repeated violations, including poor hygiene, lack of potable water, lack of suitable and adequate nutrition, resulting in underweight lions and health issues, unsatisfactory enclosure designs, including safety for animals and people, lack of adequate shelter, lack of veterinary care and husbandry, incompatible species in adjacent camps, and lack of enrichment.

Repeat violations and the scale of welfare concerns demonstrates that the commercial captive industry is not marred by a few neglectful or cruel individuals, but a systemic propensity for exploitation that disregards even the most basic animal welfare conditions in favour of maximising profit. A low number of prosecutions in court does not signal a green flag for the captive industry, but rather a sign of poor law enforcement for animal welfare.

‘Sustainable use’ has become a catchphrase for all commercial use of wildlife without demonstrable evidence that such use is truly sustainable.

Additionally, South Africa’s animal welfare legislation was written during the apartheid era in 1962, hardly an indication of robust laws written to improve animal wellbeing. In fact, a close reading of the Animals Protection Act clearly shows the laws leaning in favour of only minimising grievous harm to animals rather than promoting quality of life.

It’s telling that proponents of consumptive use have launched court challenges against the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment to challenge the inclusion of the wellbeing clause in Nemba and lion bone export quotas. It’s important to note that in 2019 the high court declared the 2017 and 2018 lion bone export quotas to be “unlawful and constitutionally invalid” due to persisting animal welfare concerns for lions bred and killed for the lion bone trade.

Sustainable use or commercial exploitation?

“Sustainable use” has become a catchphrase for all commercial use of wildlife without demonstrable evidence that such use is truly sustainable. But more importantly, use of this phrase increasingly neglects to address the welfare and wellbeing of those sentient animals being used for commercial gain. In many arguments it would appear that sustainable use on its own is enough justification to forgo any consideration of how those animals might suffer in their breeding, living conditions, or even death.

Read more: Sustainable use of wildlife in Africa is not the problem, it’s the way the term is exploited

Kenya is often used as “proof” that trophy hunting provides the proverbial silver bullet to ensure that wildlife thrive across Africa, specifically because the country banned trophy hunting in 1977. Commercial use proponents vehemently argue that Kenya suffered large-scale wildlife losses as a result of banning trophy hunting. Scientifically speaking, to claim that one variable (wildlife loss) occurred as a result of another variable (banning trophy hunting), one would need indisputable evidence of that causal link. This is what’s known as a spurious correlation – sure, these events might be correlated, but one does not necessarily cause the other.

It’s worth examining the other side of claims that banning trophy hunting in Kenya led to wildlife declines. Scientific evidence from Tanzania’s Selous Game Reserve shows that lion populations were negatively affected by trophy hunting due to excessive offtakes, social and genetic disturbances and infanticide. Other research indicates that the trophy quality of lions and elephants in Selous decreased as a result of younger animals being hunted before reaching their breeding peak and repetitive offtakes of those with the largest manes or tusks. After all, trophy hunting remains a sport that pursues the largest and most impressive animals, effectively removing these genetics from the population.

In psychology there is a classic example of spurious correlation: ice cream sales and violent crimes are statistically linked. At face value, can we possibly say that ice cream causes violence? No, because there are a multitude of factors at play that may bring about this association (seasonality, etc). And this is the important part: that association needs deeper exploration on a scientific level to tease apart the association and understand ALL the factors at play.

In Kenya, other factors affect wildlife loss, all of which require systematic, rigorous research because causal claims cannot be considered gospel. Human-wildlife conflict, poaching, habitat loss, urban encroachment, climate change and many other factors are likely to play varying roles in a decrease in wildlife. To label a trophy hunting ban as the sole cause of those losses is unscientific and fallacious.

Colonial conservation and animal welfare needs rethinking

The conservation model undertaken during the apartheid era sought to keep wildlife in the domain of those who could extract the most value. Whether through tourism or hunting, wildlife took on monetary value and now the notion of “wildlife must pay its way to survive” has grown into a taken-for-granted belief.

But I want to more closely examine the subtle contradictions in the narratives currently used to argue that wildlife must pay its way.

The very notion of wildlife having commercial value, and thus protection, is embedded in archaic Western thinking. The commercial industry uses the “realities” of communities living in poverty as further justification for activities such as trophy hunting and captive lion breeding, but once again have only provided minimal evidence for how these benefits accrue significantly to those who live near wildlife areas.

Trophy hunting is clearly a Western sport entrenched in colonial conquests of African spaces.

One of the few publicly available sources shows that in 2019 a mere 9% (or R1.5-million of R17-million) hunting income accrued to the Associated Private Nature Reserves was allocated to “community outreach”. However, attempts to obtain more information via the Promotion of Access to Information Act have been repeatedly declined. A parliamentary question response in 2022 confirmed that only 4% of registered professional hunters at the time could be considered previously disadvantaged. To speak on behalf of South Africa’s local and indigenous communities while engaging in the commercial exploitation of wildlife under the premise of protecting African heritage is simply unethical.

Additionally, professional hunting statistics for 2024 show that the overwhelming majority of trophy hunters hail from the US (4,997) and Europe (2,149), comprising a whopping 92% of hunting clients coming to South Africa. Trophy hunting is clearly a Western sport entrenched in colonial conquests of African spaces.

The author of a recent article claimed that “South Africa’s wildlife is not a Western moral project; it is an African heritage”, but to speak of African heritage and then resume advocating for Western models of commercial use in the name of conservation is intellectual fraud, a subterfuge that hides exploitation for personal financial gain. We cannot continue dishonestly conflating Africa’s colonial past with African heritage to rationalise the exploitation of our wildlife. DM

Dr Stephanie Klarmann is a conservation psychology researcher based in South Africa. Her work has focused primarily on envisioning a conservation psychology relevant to the South African context with a stronger focus on issues of ecological and environmental justice, coexistence and conservation social sciences.