animal welfare

Fraudulent microchip use and compliance issues found on controversial lion farms in the Free State, South Africa

Operating without valid permits and inconsistent record keeping were some of the irregularities found on commercial facilities for captive lions.

A number of serious management and compliance issues were revealed on lion farms in the Free State province, South Africa, by a joint team of researchers from MONITOR, Blood Lions, and World Animal Protection. Potentially fraudulent activities relating to the use of microchips, operating without valid permits, and incomplete, inconsistent, and unclear record keeping were some of the irregularities found on commercial facilities that keep and trade captive lions and other predators.

Lions on a commercial lion farm in South Africa. Photo by Blood Lions

African lions are legally farmed in South Africa for commercial uses in interactive tourism activities, such as cub petting, voluntourism, or the “canned” hunting industry (where captive-bred lions are released into a confined space to be killed for sport). Other reasons include trade in live animals, or selling their body parts for the needs of traditional Asian Medicine.

All lions born and kept on commercial farms in South Africa should be registered with the provincial authority and fitted with a unique identification microchip, in order for each animal to be followed from birth to death through the system and to avoid the laundering of wild-caught and/or non-registered captive-bred lions.

A multinational team of researchers used permit data legally obtained from provincial authorities to summarise such uses of lions on farms in the Free State and found multiple instances of violation of national and provincial regulations.

It is known that the Free State province is at the heart of the commercial lion industry, with about a third of all lion facilities across the country located on its territory. These farms in the Free State predominantly breed, keep and euthanise lions, as well as trade with other provinces to supply “canned” hunting farms and tourism facilities. They also prepare lion body parts for export, such as taxidermy for trophies, and skeletons for the bone trade with Southeast Asia.

Lion cubs on a commercial lion farm in South Africa. Photo by Blood Lions

Data legally obtained from the Free State Department of Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs show hundreds of reused microchip numbers across permits for keeping, euthanising and transporting captive lions, indicating potential non-compliance with national and provincial regulations.

During a four-year period (2017-2020), more than 500 unique microchips (11% of the total microchip numbers) could not be followed through the system. For euthanasia permits, the number of potentially fraudulently used microchip numbers of lions was as many as 15%, and in some cases a microchip number had been reused up to four times.

This raises serious concerns that lion farm owners may deliberately be reusing microchip numbers to launder wild-caught and/or unregistered captive-bred lions.

A lion. Photo by Matthias Appel under a CC0 1.0 license

“Although some of these inconsistencies may have legitimate explanations, the number of times microchip numbers were reused is worrisome and requires further investigation by the authorities”, states Dr Sarah Heinrich of MONITOR, one of the researchers behind the study, which was published in the journal Nature Conservation.

The laundering of lions and/or other predators through the fraudulent use of microchips has implications beyond South Africa’s borders, in particular, in the trade in lion bones for traditional medicine, where bones, claws, skeletons, and skulls are exported to Southeast Asia. “Looking at live lion exports through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), it is unclear what happens to these animals once they arrive at their international destinations. It is possible that some of these live exports circumvent the zero CITES lion bone export quota and are eventually euthanised at their import destinations to feed the persisting demand for lion bones”, said Dr Jennah Green of World Animal Protection.

CITES is the main regulatory mechanism governing the commercial international trade in certain wildlife species, including lions, their body parts, and derivatives. Under CITES, (African) lions are listed in Appendix II. A screenshot from Speciesplus.net, taken 31 January 2023.

Lions that were euthanised in the Free State in 2019 and 2020, during a CITES zero export quota for lion bones, most likely became part of a growing and largely unregulated stockpile of lion bones that exists in South Africa, which warrants further investigation.

Ensuring regulatory compliance in all areas of the commercial captive lion industry is more important now than ever. In 2021, Minister Barbara Creecy of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DEFE), stated that the South African government intends to effectively end the commercial captive lion industry through a mandatory phase-out, which eventually was changed to a voluntary scheme.

In its current state, the lion farming industry is governed by a patchwork of contrasting legislation across multiple provincial and national authorities, with disparities and legal loopholes, which create opportunity for harmful and fraudulent activity.

“Our research highlights many areas of grave concern and these issues need the urgent attention of the Minister and the DFFE, as well as the nine provincial nature conservation authorities, to put stricter enforcement of the TOPS Regulations in place”, concludes Dr Louise de Waal, Director of Blood Lions.

Original source:

Heinrich S, Gomez L, Green J, de Waal L, Jakins C, D’Cruze N (2022) The extent and nature of the commercial captive lion industry in the Free State province, South Africa. Nature Conservation 50: 203-225. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.50.85292

Australian study into how seals react to boats prompts new ecotourism regulations

*Australian fur seals alert to the presence of the potential danger. Photo: Julia Back*

Unable to differentiate between a predator and a tourist boat carrying humans curious to view a colony of seals while resting in their natural habitat, pinnipeds are quick to react defensively as soon as they sense what they perceive as a potential life threat. The closer the vessel approaches, the more likely it is for the animals to rush into the sea in an attempt to escape and the greater the risk of injury and even death in the event of a stampede, or predation once they are in the water. In fact, just the act of remaining alert comes at potentially high energetic costs for the animals.

“Although the purpose of ecotourism is to give patrons the opportunity to observe animals in the wild engaging in typical behaviors, ecotourism-based human interactions may instead alter pinniped behavior by initiating responses indicative of predation avoidance,” explain the scientists.

“The periods fur seals spend ashore at colonies are particularly important for resting, evading predators, molting, breeding and rearing young. Fleeing behaviors in themselves expend energy, and time spent in the water as a result of flight responses can also be energetically costly,” they add.

*Australian fur seals begin to flee into the water as a boat approaches Kanowna Island. Photo: Julia Back*

To provide recommendations for appropriately informed management guidelines, so that ecotourism does not clashes with the animals’ welfare, the Australian research team of Julia Back and Prof John Arnould of Deakin University, Dr Andrew Hoskins, CSIRO, and Dr Roger Kirkwood, Phillip Island Nature Park, observed the response to approaching boats of a breeding colony of Australian fur seals on Kanowna Island in northern Bass Strait, southeastern Australia. Their study is published in the open-access journal Nature Conservation.

*A female Australian fur seal calling for her pup. Photo: Andrew Hoskins*

Whenever a seal detects a threat while onshore, they first change posture, watch the object and remain alert and vigilant until the danger is gone. In the field survey, such a response was triggered when the research boat approached the colony at a distance of 75 m. Interestingly, this reaction would be more pronounced in the morning (the researchers would normally visit the colony twice a day), while in the afternoon the seals would demonstrate a reduced response. Why this is so, remains unclear.

When there was only 25 m between the seals and the boat, the scientists observed many of the animals fleeing to the safety of the water. This kind of reaction is particularly dangerous for the seals and especially their young, as these animals tend to perceive risk based on the responses of the individuals around them. In such a cascading response, a large-scale stampede is likely to occur, where pups could easily get trampled to death or fall from cliffs.

“While the infrequency of these events suggests they are unlikely to have population-level effects, such disturbance impacts are in violation of state and federal regulations protecting marine mammals”, note the authors, citing the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

As a result of the study, the management guidelines were updated, so that they currently restrict boat approaches to 100 m at Kanowna Island from March through October, when the rearing of the pups takes place. During the breeding period, vessels need to keep a distance of at least 200 m, as previously.

In conclusion, the authors also note that their findings are limited to a single colony and are therefore insufficient to make any generalisations about other species or even other Australian fur seal populations.

###

Original source:

Back JJ, Hoskins AJ, Kirkwood R, Arnould JPY (2018) Behavioral responses of Australian fur seals to boat approaches at a breeding colony. Nature Conservation 31: 35-52. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.31.26263

Thousands of illegally traded wild animals at risk due to gaps in data

The fate of over 64,000 live wild animals officially reported to have been confiscated by CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) enforcement agencies between 2010 and 2014 remains untraceable, according to a new report released by the University of Oxford Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) and World Animal Protection.

In their publication in the open access journal Nature Conservation, the researchers document merely one in three partnering to CITES countries providing any data on seizures, and also highlight the importance of having this changed.

Although the reported number of confiscated animals is staggering, the researchers warn that these are likely to be only a fraction of the actual seizures. The study found two out of three countries did not report any live wildlife seizures, despite poaching of endangered species and supplying the illicit global wildlife trade being estimated to be worth between $8-10 billion per year.

The figures have prompted calls for better reporting of seizures and what happens to confiscated live wild animals.

The ultimate fate of seized live wild animals is unknown, the researchers found. Once animals have been confiscated, national authorities must decide whether to: keep them in captivity, return them to the wild or euthanize them. CITES provides guidelines to aid this decision-making based on the conservation status and welfare needs of the animals.

However, information about the fate of these wild animals is not a formal CITES requirement and as a result, there are no official numbers on just how many were euthanized, placed in captivity or returned to the wild.

Researchers are concerned this lack of data is placing the well-being and survival of seized wildlife at risk – many wild animals could be re-entering the wildlife trafficking industry as they simply can’t be accounted for.

University of Oxford‘s Professor David Macdonald, senior researcher for the study, said:

“We fear this staggering number is just the tip of the iceberg. Only a relatively small proportion of wild animals involved with illegal trade are thought to be intercepted by enforcement agencies – confiscation records were completely missing for 70% of countries Party to CITES. Given the rapidly growing global trends in illegal wildlife trade activity, it is highly unlikely that no live wildlife seizures were made on their borders.

“The records that were provided show that around 20% of all live wild animals reported as seized are currently considered to be threatened by extinction. We strongly recommend that the CITES trade database should include information on the fate of all live wild animal seizures, so we know what happens to these animals, and we can reduce the risk of them re-entering the illegal wildlife trade.”

World Animal Protection’s Dr Neil D’Cruze, lead researcher for the study, said:

“The illegal wildlife trade is a big, complex and dirty business. National authorities play a key role, facing some tough choices when they seize animals – whether they release them in the wild, place them in care in captivity or euthanize them.

“Improved data recording is critical to knowing what happens to each animal, and can help in looking at the challenges and issues enforcement agencies face in managing animals after seizure. Without this transparency, there’s a real possibility that endangered species may be put back into the hands of the same criminals whom they were taken from. We need to be able to account for these wild animals.

“If we’re really serious about protecting wildlife, action needs to be taken at all levels. It’s unfathomable that 70% of countries recorded no seizures when we know a global, multi-billion wildlife trafficking industry is flourishing.”

###

The findings and recommendations of this research were presented at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) in Johannesburg, South Africa on 27 September 2016 during a side event focused on the confiscation of live wild animals organised by the Species Survival Network (SSN).

###

Original source:

Citation: D’Cruze N, Macdonald DW (2016) A review of global trends in CITES live wildlife confiscations. Nature Conservation 15: 47-63. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.15.10005