Original von Jan
Go to:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/117944/dont_miss/

And they (hunters) call this is fair fight? Must say I was pulling for the lion on this one. Imagine five guns being shot at one animal!

Those guys are not "hunters" but "shooters"....as we call them. All hunting organisations condem this and have done all they can to put an end to it. Unfortunately, it took much longer than one would have liked and, like everything that involves money and has a "demand" factor to it, it continues to occur "illegally".

South Africa
The South African Predator Breeders’ Association says lion breeders face bankruptcy and may be forced to slaughter thousands of lions when government implements laws banning most breeding of the animals for canned shooting purposes.
SA has up to 300 breeders keeping about 5,000 lions. Prime male specimens fetched up to R200,000 each on the canned shooting market. The SA Government took action after increased pressure from organized national and international hunting groups to close the canned shooting industry. Carel van Heerden, SABPA chairman, said for $15,000-$25,000 [a client] can be guaranteed a lion and we can even send him a photograph of the animal before he travels”. Will Travers, director of the Born Free Foundation in England, said the closing of the industry would not affect lion numbers elsewhere as the number of wild lions that could be hunted every year was set “through scientific quotas”.

A few interesting observations to me:

1- The closure will probably mean the slaughter of several 1000 lions. Not good!
2- The closure was brought about by direct pressure from within the hunting community. Self policing in action.
3- Will Travers himself, of all people, admits that hunting quotas are set through "scientific quotas". Good admission by an avid anti-hunter.

bwanamich:

Interesting article which in a way I feel is blackmail trying to sway the government from their stance.

If I understand the article correctly, these breeders were breeding strictly for the canned hunt groups is that right? 300 breeders now having 5,000 lions which would need to be destroyed amounts to about 165 lions from each breeder? If the numbers of lions that were able to be shot each year was a limited number to each hunting area, why on earth did the government allow each breeder to breed so many to begin with and why allow so many breeders. I suppose with CITES and other regulating groups these animals could also not be transferred to other countries, is that correct?

Has anyone other than George Adamson had any success with integrating the big cats into the wild?

It just seems almost a crime that the S. African government has allowed that many breeders to breed specifically for an animal to be killed, and yet when someone like Bev Pervan and Chris Mercer want to open a sanctuary for injured and orphaned cats they are refused. It just doesn't make any sense at all other than MONEY. The government could probably tax breeders heavily on their sales, where a wildlife sanctuary would not be bringing much money in to the government. Do I have it right?

I just got the book Wildcare about the group Karen Trendler started in S. Africa and it is most interesting. If only there were more people like her and governments a little more caring that would allow this type of work. The books states that when they first started the "men" in the government and wildlife field thought women should not get into the field and also that injured-orphaned animals should be left to die. Now they are feeling differently and even the rangers in Kruger call her whenever they have an orphaned baby rhino because they know she has had great success. Many of the orphaned rhinos they got were because of actions taken by the wildlife authorities closing a group of rhinos in a boma and not knowing a female was pregnant. Then she would drop a premature baby and want nothing to do with it because of all the stress involved in the roundup and move. Sad stories, but luckily some of these animals had a good ending.

There have to be other humane alternatives other than killing these animals. Do you know any?

If I understand the article correctly, these breeders were breeding strictly for the canned hunt groups is that right? 300 breeders now having 5,000 lions which would need to be destroyed amounts to about 165 lions from each breeder? If the numbers of lions that were able to be shot each year was a limited number to each hunting area, why on earth did the government allow each breeder to breed so many to begin with and why allow so many breeders. I suppose with CITES and other regulating groups these animals could also not be transferred to other countries, is that correct?

The differenc ein South Africa is that all wildlife on private land/property, belongs to the landlord. The Gov does not set quotas for any species in these areas. The owner of the ranch sets his own quotas. So lion breeders could breed and sell as many lions as demand necessitated. These animals could be transferred to other countries. There should not be any restriction on such movements from CITES for Appendix 2 species, such as lion.

Has anyone other than George Adamson had any success with integrating the big cats into the wild?

I'm sure there has been. There was a young lady in Namibia that was doing the same. Not quite sure how successful she was.

It just seems almost a crime that the S. African government has allowed that many breeders to breed specifically for an animal to be killed, and yet when someone like Bev Pervan and Chris Mercer want to open a sanctuary for injured and orphaned cats they are refused. It just doesn't make any sense at all other than MONEY. The government could probably tax breeders heavily on their sales, where a wildlife sanctuary would not be bringing much money in to the government. Do I have it right?

I would take that statement with a grain of salt. While I have no facts and don't feel like researching on the internet, there MUST be several licensed animal sanctuaries in SA. Maybe under different names such as zoo or elephant park, etc but they are essentially sanctuaries. I think perhaps Bev and Chris are not stating all the facts here.

There have to be other humane alternatives other than killing these animals. Do you know any?

Other than transferring them to private ranches where they may be released I am not sure what other alternative there may be. We often hear that these lions were "hand reared" by humans. From the little that I know, the majority were not exactly "hand reared". Sure they may have been kept in small enclosures and did not hunt their food themselves but come feeding time the general mode operandi was to throw a carcass into the fence and let them go at it. What I mean to say is that IMO their natural instincts have not been diminished to the point that they could not be re-introduced to the wild. I can't say how many but a certain number could be transferred and released and would do fine over time.

A lot of "canned" lions were sold to unsuspecting hunters as wild lions. That is to say that a lion hunt was sold to a client as a free ranging animal and then released inot a certain area a short time (1 day sometimes) before the client was due to be there. Finding that individual would then just be a matte rof time. Another way of selling them was as cattle raiders. A client would be hunting for plains game and whilst there, the operator would suddenly come up with a story about the neighbouring ranch having called him about a cattle killer and whether he was interested for a "fee" to hunt it? Who could turn down such an opportunity? Of course, it wasn't a cattle killer at all but a lion that would be released in the general area shortly before. The client always went home thinking he had killed a wild lion and helped in resolving a bad situation for a rancher. Many hunters can be so naive......The point though, is that even with "canned" lion operators, it was often desirable to keep the lions as "wild looking" as possible while still making their handling efficient. So i believe that a fair number could be re-introduced.

Original von bwanamich
I would take that statement with a grain of salt. While I have no facts and don't feel like researching on the internet, there MUST be several licensed animal sanctuaries in SA. Maybe under different names such as zoo or elephant park, etc but they are essentially sanctuaries. I think perhaps Bev and Chris are not stating all the facts here.

Bev, where are you?
Please share some knowledge with us...

Hi Carsten, Here I am. Sorry for the belated reply.
Conservation authorities in SA have routinely banned wildlife Sanctuaries because "there is no conservation value in them".
Animal welfare by itself is not regarded in SA as a legitimate 'use' of animals.(whereas hunting is!) Wildlife rehab centres are allowed but only under narrow restrictions including a condition that any animal which cannot be rehabilitated back to the wild must be euthenased. In other words Sanctuaries are prohibited.
When we insisted on giving sanctuary to a three legged caracal we were prosecuted for exceeding our permit restrictions but we took the matter all the way to the Constitutional Court (at vast cost to ourselves as u can imagine) in order to publicise the iniquity of the ban on Sanctuaries. We also drafted a Sanctuary policy, with assistance of the American Sanctuaries Association, and presented that to Government in the hope that Government would adopt the policy and lift the ban on Sanctuaries. As a result of our efforts Sanctuaries are now for the first time in the 2007 TOPS Regulations (for threatened and protected species) been recognised.

It is true, as bwanamich says, that people have succeeded in getting around the prohibition on sanctuaries by registering with PAAZAB as a zoo. This is not satisfactory, because PAAZAB rules are designed to benefit people at the expense of the animals. For example a zoo is obliged to remain open to the public at all business hours and to make the animals available for public enjoyment. As you can imagine, such a rule has no place in a rehab centre where animals must be protected from human contact, or in a sanctuary situation where the needs of the animals are the deciding factor.