Month: September 2015

Ahead of the World Youth and Student Travel Conference (WYSTC) to be held in Cape Town next week, Fair Trade Tourism today announced that it is collaborating with global and local NGOs to develop additional certification criteria that will address the potential exploitation of children and captive-held wildlife within the volunteerism sector.

Fair Trade Tourism is the first certification scheme to develop specific criteria for the multi-billion dollar global volunteerism industry. The social and economic contribution of volunteers in developing countries is potentially huge, yet there is little oversight of this burgeoning industry, which largely targets the youth.

A recent Human Sciences Research Council report warns of voluntourists crowding out local workers and of unstable attachments and losses experienced by children who bond with short-term, foreign caregivers. According to the United Nations Children’s Fund, in some African countries the rise in volunteerism is associated with a boom in unregistered orphanages where children’s welfare is secondary to profits. Leading environmental NPO, Wildlands, has warned of the proliferation of captive lion breeding outfits where volunteers sign up to hand-rear cubs that have been forcibly removed from their mothers and are destined to be sold for canned lion hunting.

In 2009, Fair Trade Tourism played a pioneering role by developing certification criteria for voluntourism, focusing on the involvement of local communities, the fair share of benefits, adequate screening and training of volunteers, and preventing child labour. By end 2015, it will develop additional criteria to specifically protect volunteers, as well as children and wildlife involved in volunteer programmes, from exploitation or abuse.

Fair Trade Tourism Managing Director Nivashnee Naidoo said responsible voluntourism players wanted to differentiate themselves by adopting best-practice standards that avoided the exploitation of local communities, wildlife or the volunteers themselves. “We believe we have a leading role to play in setting the best-practice benchmark”.

Non-executive director Jane Edge said Fair Trade Tourism was consulting with a range of concerned NGOs, including Tourism Watch, Akte, ECPAT, Wildlands and Endangered Wildlife Trust. “Our new criteria will focus more carefully on the way volunteer programmes market themselves, whether programmes are responsible and sustainable, and how carefully volunteers are prepared. With programmes involving children, such as orphanage or school placements, we will look at issues around child protection and well-being, including the risk of bonding abnormalities and of sexual exploitation.

“With captive wildlife programmes, we will look at issues around the well-being of animals, the level of human-animal interaction, potential dangers to volunteers, and the verification of conservation claims made.”

Dr Andrew Venter, CEO of Wildlands, said: “There is a cynical relationship between programmes that offer cub petting and walking with young lions and their eventual demise in canned lion hunts.” Kelly Marnewick, carnivore conservation manager for the Endangered Wildlife Trust, said the containment and breeding of lions was usually done under the banner of conservation, “but the bottom line is that the lion encounter industry does nothing to conserve wild lions”.

Fair Trade Tourism Programme Development Manuel Bollmann said while European Governments support the volunteer services of young adults in developing countries, this support is linked to obligations, with increasing pressure for volunteer organisations to subject themselves to due diligence and for volunteers to attend comprehensive preparation programmes. “Fair Trade Tourism certified organisations will receive increasing market support in future as the need to differentiate the credible players grows.”

Fair Trade Tourism plans to release its revised certification criteria by December 2015 following a period of consultation with relevant NGOs and the volunteer tourism sector.

 

Nearly 100 animals were recently killed on a property in South Africa, shot dead in an activity so unseemly that even those who paid top dollar to participate in it couldn’t bear to show their faces.

Last week, 13 wealthy European tourists descended on three farms near the rural town of Alldays, where one of the most shameful events ever conceived had been planned for their amusement — a “driven hunt.” Unlike traditional hunting, in which target animals have a reasonable chance of escape, all the group had to do was aim and shoot at the terrified targets who were forced into their line of sight.

“No hunting actually took place in the practical sense of the word,” Paul Oxton, founder of the Wild Heart Wildlife Foundation, told The Dodo. “There’s really no sport in it.”

Wild Heart Wildlife Foundation Wooden platforms were built along corridors in the middle of the bushland for the hunters to stand on as 83 brightly-dressed event staffers did their job to make animals appear for them. These individuals, called “chasers,” walked shoulder to shoulder in a kilometer-wide sweep through the surrounding area, forcing wildlife to flee in the direction of the corridor where the hunters were waiting with guns leveled.

“Any animals in the middle get shot dead,” said Oxton. “They literally just stand there and take pot shots. There is no fair chase whatsoever. It’s a completely different way of killing animals. It’s highly unethical. ”

An estimated 98 animals were killed using this method, including baboons, antelope and warthogs. The hunters were not selective, but instead seemed to fire at any creature big or small. Critics have dubbed the incident a “massacre.”

Wild Heart Wildlife Foundation Despite the disturbing nature of the “driven hunt,” there is evidently no legislation on the books prohibiting it. In fact, the Environmental Affairs Department says it was all above-board, which has come as a shock to local animal welfare groups and traditional hunters alike.

Such hunting methods have been used by South African safari lodges for over a decade, says Oxton, but operators have been successful in keeping them under wraps. This recent incident was only brought to the public’s attention due to the fact that some of the wooden platforms were visible from a roadway.

The director of the National Council of SPCAs (NSCPA) in South Africa has urged for “driven hunts” to be banned on account of being cruel to animals.

Wild Heart Wildlife Foundation Little is known about the 13 tourists who participated in the hunt, other than that they include nationals of Belgium, Holland and possibly Denmark — and that they have enough extra money to throw around on killing sprees in lands abroad.

“It is the wealthy who are doing this,” said Oxton. “It is people who can afford to go out and kill for fun. I don’t object to people having money, but to choose to spend it on killing wildlife in this manner is disgraceful. It’s only when something like this is brought to light that it can be stopped. It’s not that people ever approved of this — they just didn’t know about it. ”

Wild Heart Wildlife Foundation Regardless of the fact that the massacre was legal, the hunters apparently understood that their bloody pastime was nothing to be proud of. As the group was being shuttled from killing field to killing field, Oxton had the opportunity to snap a few pictures of the gun-toting group of foreign tourists. They were less than eager to receive the attention.

“They all started putting jackets and hats over their faces,” Oxton said. “They were ashamed. These people were ashamed. They obviously don’t care, but they care enough to where they don’t want to be seen for having done this shameful thing.”

Wild Heart Wildlife Foundation With the added awareness of “driven hunts” that has been raised in the wake of the Alldays Massacre, it may only be a matter of time before government officials are forced to act. Meanwhile, the exposure of those folks who participated in it will hopefully dissuade others like them from doing the same.

“These people are going to be identified, and they’re going to have problems,” Oxton said. “I can see that there’s going to be some major fallout for them. In my mind, that’s the price they have to pay. My goal was to show the unethical manner of what they were doing. People shouldn’t be allowed, just because they have enough money, to pay to kill animals using this method. It’s terrible.”

 

Acclaimed South African documentary Blood Lions has been making waves both at home and internationally.

Along with attending a screening of the documentary, we spoke to Ian Michler, the documentary’s specialist consultant and lead character

Here are some things the documentary team hopes that viewers learn from the film.

1. The scope of captive breeding
“There are approximately 200 facilities holding somewhere between 6 000 and 8 000 predators in captivity,” Michler told iafrica.com.

The majority of these, around 7 000, are lions.

This number could increase past 12 000 in the next few years.
But what’s the problem with this?
The mass breeding of lions leads to overcrowding in confined spaces. Lion breeders only need to obtain a permit by meeting minimum standards for fencing and enclosure sizes. Most of these farms are on private property.
Footage from Blood Lions shows the overcrowding on several farms, with large groups of lions kept in small enclosures.

2. Many captive-bred lions end up in canned hunts or the bone trade
“Over 800 lions are being shot annually in canned or captive hunts, and another 1 100 plus carcasses are being shipped to Asia in the lion bone trade,” Michler said.
Canned hunting has been condemned worldwide, with many hunters not condoning the practice.
In fact, American hunter Rick Swazey works with the Blood Lions team to help expose the industry in the documentary.
3. Captive breeding serves no conservation value
The vast majority of lions bred in captivity are not bred for conservation and most of these animals cannot be released into the wild.
“There has not been a successful lion reintroduction programme using captive bred and reared lions into any free-ranging park or reserve in South Africa. Lion conservationists warn that captive bred lions are not suitable for reintroduction programmes,” the Blood Lions team explained on their site.
“Not a single recognized lion ecologist or conservation agency is involved with any of South Africa’s lion facilities as they serve no conservation value whatsoever ,” Michler said.
Furthermore, wild lions are used for breeding with the aim of conservation. This is because they’re genetically stronger than captive lions, which are often inbred.
4. How to determine a true sanctuary
Blood Lions is not trying to stop people from viewing wildlife, but rather it aims to lift the lid on unethical practices and fallacies.
With that in mind, there are real sanctuaries in South Africa for lions.
These sanctuaries offer a life-long home to the animals and do not trade lions, so they are not sold off when they reach a certain age.
True sanctuaries also do not offer interaction with or petting of the animals, according to the Blood Lions team.
The problem with cub petting is that the cubs are taken away from their mothers within a few days of being born – when in the wild they stay with their mothers for up to almost two years.
When these cubs become habituated to humans, there is no way to release them back into the wild.
When these cubs become too large to safely interact with tourists, they are often sold to private farms. Their habituation to humans is then often exploited for canned hunting, as the animal will not run away when the hunter approaches.
5. How you can help
The Blood Lions team recommends not visiting any lion parks which allow interaction, petting or the trade of lions.

You can also express your opinions to any tourism, hunting or government body. Go to the Blood Lions campaign page to see who you can contact in this regard.

You can also watch the documentary to learn much more. However, it is not available on DVD yet. Screenings of the film are announced on the documentary’s Twitter and Facebook pages.

15 Sep 19:45 – 22:00 – Stellenbosch
Pulp Cinema- Neelsie

Plant the Seed Education is starting a film festival to engage the Stellenbosch campus , its students and its staff, with the vitally important global conversation about Sustainable Development.

PtS Education has chosen BLOOD LIONS to kick-off the festival and get the conversation going.

What is BLOOD LIONS:

Blood Lions follows acclaimed environmental journalist and safari operator Ian Michler, and Rick Swazey, an American hunter, on their journey to uncover the realities about the multi-million dollar predator breeding and canned lion hunting industries in South Africa.

It is a story that blows the lid off claims made by these operators in attempting to justify what they do. Last year alone over 800 captive lions were shot in South Africa, mostly by wealthy international hunters under conditions that are anything but sporting.

There will be two FREE screenings:

Tuesday 15th of September – 19h45 & Wednesday 16th of September – 17h00

 

Cape Town – The profits of Taylor Swift’s latest music video will go to African conservation, the Hollywood superstar’s video states.

“Wildest Dreams,” the newest Swift song, debuted at the Video Music Awards (VMA) Awards on Sunday, 30 August, and has already been viewed almost 20 million times on YouTube at the time of publishing.

The video concludes with a disclaimer saying, “All of Taylor’s proceeds for this video will be donated to wild animal conservation efforts through the African Parks Foundation of America”.

The video was mostly shot around Maun, Botswana, while the elephant scenes were shot at Meno a Kwena, also in Botswana. Shooting only finished last week, just in time for the VMAs.

Many of the scenes with Swift were added into the wildlife scenes later on.

Regardless of the charity the video supports, Swift has been criticised for fueling a highly westernised stereotype of Africa. The video resembles an old 1950s Utopian view of an ‘African safari’ and many critics have labelled it as racist, saying it romanticizes a white, colonialist Africa.

The African Parks Foundation of America partners with governments throughout Africa to handle the management of parks like Akagera in Rwanda, Garamba in Congo, and Zakouma in Chad.

Talle jagluiperds word oor die land heen as toeristetrekpleister aangehou. Maar die getal aanvalle wat voorkom, wys hulle is minder mak as wat hierdie ‘cheetah-ervaring-plekke ons wil wysmaak.

Dis is nie maklik om aan knaende joernaliste te verduidelik hoe- kom mak jagluiperds mense byt nie. Daar- om beny ek Clarke Smith, woord- voerder van KwaCheetah, nie sy werk nie.

Op 6 Augustus is ‘n twiet uitge- stuur wat st Aiden Fry, ‘n leerling van Cowan House Preparatory School, is aan die skouer gebyt toe ‘n jagluiperd by KwaCheetah teen die heining gespring en hom gegryp het. ‘n Oproep na die skoolhoof, Rob Odell, het dit dui- delik gemaak dié is nie bereid om oor die voorval te praat nie.

 Vyf dae later, ml verdere na- vraag, was daar ‘n verklaring van Smith, wat ook een van die direk- teure is van die Nambiti-wildre- servaat naby Ladysmith, waar KwaCheetah gehuisves word. Die verklaring lui dat die kat die seun se rug bygekom het, en hom ge- krap en gebyt het. Die seun is be- handel en is op die dag van die verklaring weer terug skool toe.

 Luidens die verklaring het geen jagluiperd van die projek voor- heen sulke gedrag getoon nie en kinders word nie in enige van die kampe toegelaat nie.

Volgens dr. Andrew Venter, wie se kind in dieselfde skool is, kan die mediese onkoste ml die voor- val R200 OOO beloop.

Maar dit eindig nie daar nie, st hy. Die dag voordat die kind ge- byt is, is ‘n 73-jarige vrou, Glen Dixon, en haar kleinkind by Kwa- Cheetah aangeval. Die vrou is teen die grond gegooi en aan haar arm en kop gebyt. Die kat se tande het haar skedel binnege- dring.

Volgens haar seun, Brett, is haar heup gebreek toe sy geval het. Met die skryf hiervan, is sy in die hoésorgeenheid.

“Ons is natuurlik vreeslik be- kommerd oor haar. Hierdie ding gaan haar lewe vir altyd veran- der,” st Brett.

Daar is meer: Dit blyk dat nog ‘n besoeker aan KwaCheetah, Lesley-Ann Marais op 28 Junie aan haar arm gebyt is tydens ‘n interaksie met die katte. Sy moes steke kry.

Toe ek die voorvalle aan Smith noem, het hy ingestem dat die vroeere verklaring ontoereikend was. Hy het ‘n nuwe een uitgereik wat die feit ingesluit het van ‘n “ouer dame wat omgegooi is deur dieselfde jagluiperd in die besig- tigingskamp”. Dit het ook genoem dat ‘n “vroulike besoeker ‘n krap aan haar arm en vlak bytmerke van ‘n ander jagluiper ” opge- doen het.

Die gedrag is, luidens die ver- klaring “strook glad nie met die aard van die betrokke jagluiperd en word ondersoek”. Die projek is ook nou gesluit terwyl die voor- valle bekyk word.

 KwaCheetah het duidelik pro- bleme met knabbelende jaglui- perds en Smith is heldhaftig besig met skadebeheer.

Toe maak ‘n kommerwekkende verslag oor ‘n luiperd sy opwag- ting. ‘n Informant wat nie haar naam genoem wil he nie, het e-pos (met foto’s) aangestuur van ‘n interaksie op die terrein.

 “Ons was in 2012 by KwaChee- tah met ons familie. Hulle het jag- luiperds, rooikatte, tierboskatte en luiperds in die kampe gehad. Die luiperds en jagluiperds was op die oog af ongemaklik met al die besoekers.

 “Die hanteerder was bekom- merd oor die luiperd, so hy het ‘n harnas soos vir ‘n hond aan die kat gesit voordat hy mense in- genooi het om aan hom te raak.

 “My familie wou nie ingaan nie, want hulle was bekommerd dat die kinders aangeval sou word. Die luiperd het herhaaldelik die hanteerder probeer bykom, en die het hom met ‘n kussing ge- slaan.

 “Die dier het erger geraak en die hanteerder het die paartjies in die kamp gevra om te gaan. Die hanteerder was erg omgekrap deur die hele ding en hy het ons vertel hy was van plan om die volgende dag weg te gaan.

“Hy se hy het sy base herhaal- delik vertel hy is ongelukkig met die situasie, maar hulle het gese alles is in die haak en hy moet voortgaan om besoekers in die kamp te neem.”

Met ‘n paar Google-soektogte het ‘n YouTube-video aan die lig gekom van ‘n jong toeris wat voor ‘n jagluiperd uithardloop en ‘n kartonboks sleep. Die titel van die video, gemaak deur die Ame- rikaner John Watson van Volun- teer South Africa, is “Getting Chased by Cheetahs”.

 “Dis ‘n ervaring sonder gelyke,” se hy. “Dis ‘n plek waar vrywilli- gers met jagluiperds kan rond- hang terwyl hulle in die natuur hervestig word.”

“Ek haat troetelplase,” se Wat- son vir die kamera, “maar hierdie is ten bate van die diere. Dit gaan ‘n “Mak” jagluiperd. regtig daaroor om ‘n verskil te maak.” En daar praat hy van Kwa- Cheetah.

Hy was beslis nie daarvan be- wus dat jagluiperds, soos alle roofdiere, geprogrammeer is om te jaag nie, en die verskil tussen ‘n kartondoos en ‘n sagte, pienk naelloper is bitter klein uit die oogpunt van ‘n jagluiperd.

 Volgens Smith se mediaverkla- ring is KwaCheetah in 2011 begin om bewaring van die bedreigde jagluiperds in Suider-Afrika te bevorder. Op hul webwerf skryf die eienaars “die hoofdoel is nie om jagluiperds aan dieretuine en soortgelyke plekke te verkoop nie, maar om die katte in die wil- dernis van Afrika te hervestig”.

Maar volgens ‘n bron het Kwa- Cheetah al die afgelope vier jaar nie die nodige permitte om jaglui- perds aan te hou of in die natuur te hervestig nie, al is dit kwansuis die hoofdoel van sy bestaan.

Die aanvalle het uiteindelik die KwaZulu-Natalse owerheid die afgelope week tot optrede aange- spoor. Alle kommersiéle bedry- wighede op die terrein is stopgesit.

Ek het probeer om hieroor dui- delikheid te kry by die eienaar van KwaCheetah, Rob le Sueuer. Hy se hy neem alle oproepe op, want hy wil nie he woorde moet in sy mond gele word nie en hy is allermins bereid om die kwessie te bespreek.

Om by al die regulasies oor in- teraksies met jagluiperd te hou, is ‘n kopseer. Volgens die KwaZulu- Natalse standaardprosedure vir wilde diere in ‘n rehabilitasiesen- trum, mag die diere glad nie aan die publiek vertoon word nie en niemand behalwe personeellede mag met hulle in kontak kom nie.

Voorts mag geen dier langer aangehou word as wat absoluut nodig is om die dier in die natuur te hervestig nie. Diere mag nie fisiek in toom gehou word nie. “Geen kettings, toue of dergeli- ke”, en geen huisdiere mag op die sentrum se terrein aangehou word nie. Op KwaCheetah se webwerf is daar verskeie foto’s van honde en ander huisdiere wat met die jagluiperds speel.

Help KwaCheetah dus, soos wat Watson aanvoer, regtig met bewaring?

 ‘n Verslag deur die Trust vir Bedreigde Natuurlewe (EWT) laat dit nie so lyk nie. Twee wyfie-jag- luiperds wat wild gebore is, is met die hand grootgemaak en toe teen sowat R400 000 deur die EWT en ‘n vennoot “wild ge- maak” Cre-wilded” is die term wat hulle gebruik). Hulle is toe aan Nambiti gegee om in die re- servaat vrygelaat te word. ‘n Man- netjie is ook teen sowat R100 000 gerehabiliteer en in die reservaat vrygelaat.

Volgens die EWT het hulle in Junie 2012 agtergekom die drie jagluiperds word in werklikheid in aanhouding gehou. Die verslag lui: “Mnr. Le Sueur het glo die jagluiperds vanaf Nambiti ge- bring, waarvan hy mede-eienaar is. Die jagluiperds en hul klein- tjies word aangehou vir geldelike gewin. Die rede is dat leeus hulle in die reservaat bedreig. Die hui- dige permitstelsel in KwaZulu-Natal laat nie toe dat wilde diere na aanhouding verplaas word nie.”

 Kelly Marnewick, EWT se be- stuurder van roofdier-bewaring, st die aanvalle verbaas haar glad nie. “Geen wilde jagluiperd het nog mense aangeval nie. Maar jagluiperds in aanhouding kan baie gevaarlik wees omdat hulle hul vrees vir mense verloor het.”

Die onlangse dokumentér Blood Lions laat geen twyfel oor die ver- band tussen troetelplase vir klein- tjies en die uiteindelike dood van leeus in geblikte jag en die ver- koop van hul bene vir Chinese “tierbeenwyn” nie.

Jagluiperds wat in aanhouding geteel is, volg ‘n ander lewens- pad, minder grusaam, maar word net soveel uitgebuit. Anders as leeus, is jagluiperds betreklik maklik om mak te maak (hoewel onmoontlik om tot troeteldier te maak) en dit maak hulle aantrek- lik vir menslike interaksie.

Die konvensie oor die interna- sionale handel in bedreigde spesies (Cites) klaSSifiseer jagluiperds as ‘n hoogs bedreigde spesie.

Daar is minder as 1000 jagluiperds in Suid-Afrika oor, met ‘n paar honderd wat aangehou word in 79 aanhoudingsplekke. Aanhouding en teel geskied onder die vaandel van bewaring en opvoeding. Die publiek word vertel die jagluiperds sal weer vrygelaat word of dat teling die spesie terugbring van die rand van uitwissing.

Volgens Marnewick is daar bit- ter min sentrums wat regstreeks betrokke is by bewaringswerk wat ‘n voordeel inhou vir die oorbly- wende wilde jagluiperds. Die res het slegs waarde as “opvoedver- maak”. Rehabilitasie behels dat diere vinnig deur die sentrum beweeg sonder enige kontak met toeriste of vrywilligers.

 Jagluiperds in aanhouding bring geld in vir hul eienaars. Dit kos sowat R300 vir ‘n volwasse besoeker om ‘n paar minute met een deur te bring en buitelandse vrywilligers betaal tot $2 OOO per week om te “help rehabiliteer”. Hulle hou gereeld aan om te betaal om “hul” jagluiperd te voer lank nadat hulle terug huis toe is.

 “Daar’s geen bewaringsnood om jagluiperds in aanhouding te teel nie. Dit het geen invloed op die werklike bedreiging nie: jag, ‘n gebrek aan ruimte en verkope aan aanhoudingsplekke. Die re- habilitasiesentrums’ kan ook bewaring skade aandoen deur genetiese wanbestuur (inteling),” se sy.

Om jagluiperds as toeriste-lok- aas te gebruik, is volgens haar on- eties en die teenoorgestelde van bewaring. “Die meeste van hier- die plekke moet gesluit word.”

Die KwaZulu-Natalse owerheid en KwaCheetah sit nou met ‘n ta- meletjie. As die sentrum nie ‘n permit kan bekom om jagluiperds in die natuur te hervestig nie, hoe kan hy sy voortbestaan as “reha- bilitasiesentrum” regverdig?

En as hulle dié permit kry, hoe kan hulle dit regverdig om jagluiperds wat in aanhouding geteel is, in die natuur vry te laat as dit skadelik is vir die bewaring van jagluiperds?

Keeping cheetahs as tourist attractions is widespread in South Africa. But, as a number of attacks have proved, they’re far less tame than ‘cheetah experience’ establishments would have you believe. As a series of attacks have proved, they can be downright dangerous.

Explaining to a persistent journalist why tame cheetahs are biting people is not easy, so I didn’t envy KwaCheetah spokesman Clarke Smith his job.

On 6 August a Tweet said a pupil from Cowan House Preparatory School, Aiden Fry, had been bitten on the shoulder when a cheetah at KwaCheetah launched itself at the fence and grabbed him. A call to the principal, Rob Odell, made it clear he would say nothing about it.

Five days later, following further inquiries, a press release from Smith – who is one of the directors of Nambiti Private Game Reserve near Ladysmith on which KwaCheetah is situated – said a cat had grabbed at the boy’s back, scratching and biting him. It added that the boy was treated and “is back at school today”. It noted that “none of the cheetah at the project has displayed behaviour of this nature before”, and that “children are not allowed in any of the enclosures”.

According to Dr Andrew Venter, whose child is at Aiden’s school, medical bills for the ‘bite and scratch’, could run to R200,000. But, he said, there was more. The day before this incident, a 73-year-old woman, Glen Dixon, and her grandson were attacked at KwaCheetah. The woman was thrown to the ground and bitten on her arm and head, the cat’s teeth puncturing her skull.

According to her son, Brett Dixon, her hip was broken in the fall and she requires reconstructive surgery to her ear. At the time of writing she was in intensive care. “We are of course extremely worried about her,” he said. “This will change her life forever.”

There was still more: it turns out that on 28 June another visitor to KwaCheetah, Lesley-Ann Marais, was bitten on her arm during an interaction. She had to receive stitches.

When I mentioned these attacks to Smith, he agreed the earlier press release was somewhat limited and issued another one which included the fact that “an elderly lady was knocked down by the same cheetah while inside the viewing enclosure” but it did not explain why her grandson was in the enclosure with her. It also mentioned that previously “a lady visitor had her arm scratched and suffered shallow punctures from a nip by a different cheetah”.

It noted that “this behaviour is totally out of character for the individual cheetah and is being investigated”. The project, he said, had now been closed to visitors while the incidents were being investigated.

KwaCheetah was clearly having problems with ‘nipping’ cheetahs and Smith was manfully running damage control. Then came a worrying report about a leopard. An informant, who did not want her name mentioned, e-mailed (with photos) about an interaction at the facility.

“We were at KwaCheetah with our family in 2012. They had cheetah, caracal, serval and a leopard in various enclosures and the cheetah and leopard were clearly agitated by all the visitors. The handler was particularly worried about the leopard so went into his enclosure to put what appeared to be a dog harness on him to control him before inviting people in to pet him.

“My family would not go in because they were worried about the children being attacked, as it kept going for the handler, who hit it with a pillow.

‘The leopard got more and more excited so he asked the few visitors who had gone into the enclosure to leave. The handler was really freaked out by whole situation and told us he was leaving Nambiti the next day.

“He said he had repeatedly told his bosses that he was very unhappy about the situation, but they kept saying it was fine and that he had to continue taking guests into the enclosure.”

Trawling Google for cheetah encounters, a YouTube video came to light which begins with a young tourist sprinting ahead of a cheetah and trailing a cardboard box. The title of the film, made by American John Watson for Volunteer South Africa, is Getting Chased by Cheetahs.

“It’s an experience like no other,” he says, “it’s a place where volunteers can mingle with cheetahs while helping rehabilitate them into the wild.

“I don’t like petting zoos,” Watson comments to camera, “but this is for the benefit of the animals. It’s about truly making a difference.” The facility is KwaCheetah.

He was clearly not aware that, like most predators, cheetahs are programmed to chase what runs and that the difference between a cardboard box and pink sprinting prey, in the mind of a cheetah, is a small one.

According to Smith’s press release, KwaCheetah was established in 2011 to support the conservation of vulnerable cheetah in Southern Africa. The website says “the main goal behind the project is not to sell cheetah to zoos or any other likewise place, but to release our cats back into the African wilderness”.

The release adds that “there are currently at least seven cheetah set to be released into the wild as part of a carefully planned phased release process once the relevant permits, which were applied for some time ago, have been received from Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife”.

According to a source, for the past four years, KwaCheetah has not had permits to hold or release cheetah into the wild, its stated primary reason for existence. The attacks seem to have forced KZN Wildlife into action and this week it suspended all commercial operations at the facility.

I tried to get clarity on this from KwaCheetah owner Rob Le Seuer, but he said he was recording the phonecall, was not prepared to have words put into his mouth and was not prepared to discuss the issue.

Complying with regulations, however, is a problem for cheetah encounters. According to KwaZulu-Natal’s standards and procedures for keeping wild animals in captivity in a rehabilitation facility, no animals there may be displayed to the public, or have contact with people other than facility staff.

In addition, no animal may be held in a rehabilitation facility for longer than is required for successful rehabilitation and its return to the wild. It may not be physically restrained “by means of chains, ropes or the like” and no domestic animals are allowed onto the premises of a rehabilitation facility (the KwaCheetah website shows cheetahs playing with dogs and other animals).

So is KwaCheetah, as Watson suggests, truly aiding conservation and making a difference? A report by the Environmental Wildlife Trust (EWT) suggests otherwise. Two wild-born female cheetahs now at the facility were hand-reared then ‘re-wilded’ by EWT and a partner at a cost of around R400,000 and were given to Nambiti for release on the reserve. A male cheetah from a different mother was re-wilded at a cost of around R100,000 and also relocated there.

According to EWT: ‘In June 2012 [we] realised that these three cheetahs had been held in captive conditions by the Rob Le Sueur Cheetah Project [now KwaCheetah]. Mr Le Sueur had reportedly bought the cheetahs from Nambiti – in which he is a part owner. The cheetah and their offspring are currently being utilised for financial gain in a walk, pet and drive with cheetahs initiative. The reason given was that they were being threatened by lions on the reserve. The current permitting system in KwaZulu-Natal does not allow the movement of wild animals into captivity.”

EWT carnivore conservation manager Kelly Marnewick said she was not surprised at the attacks. “Wild cheetahs have never been reported to attack humans,” she said, “but captive ones can be very dangerous, having lost their fear of humans. They are often bored and associate humans with food.”

The recent film Blood Lions leaves no doubt about the cynical relationship between cub petting, walking with young lions and their eventual demise in ‘canned’ hunts, followed by sale of their bones for Asian ‘tiger bone wine’.

Captive-bred cheetahs have a different, less gruesome trajectory, though no less exploitative. Unlike lions, cheetahs are fairly easily tamed in captivity (but never domesticated), making them attractive animals for human interaction. They are currently listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora as threatened with extinction (Appendix 1).

In South Africa there are fewer than 1,000 cheetahs, several hundred of them captive in 79 facilities. Containment and breeding is usually done under the banner of conservation and education. The public are told the cheetahs will be released into the wild or that breeding is bringing the cheetah back from the brink of extinction.

According to Marnewick: “Very few facilities appear to be directly involved with any type of conservation work that directly benefits the free-roaming cheetah population through funding or field projects. The rest appear to have value only in terms of ‘edutainment’. Rehabilitation needs to have cheetahs move through fast and not have tourist or volunteer contact.”

Beyond the cost of meat and housing them, captive cheetahs make money for their captors. It costs around R300 for an adult to spend a few minutes with a cheetah and foreign volunteers can pay between $1,000 and $2000 a week to help ‘rehabilitate’ them by handling them and ‘teaching’ them to hunt. They often continue to pay to feed ‘their’ cheetah after they return home, trusting they are helping to re-wild it.

Marnewick disagrees with the value of their endeavours. “There’s no conservation need for cheetahs to be bred in captivity as they do not address the key threats to cheetahs: persecution, lack of space and sale into captivity. Furthermore, these institutions can have a negative impact on conservation through the sourcing of wild animals to supply captive populations, as well as through the risk of genetic mismanagement (inbreeding,) and providing the wrong conservation message.”

According to Marnewick, using cheetahs as ‘tourist bait’ is unethical and exploitative and antithetical to conservation. “Most of those outfits should be closed down.”

Both KZN Wildlife and KwaCheetah now have a complex conundrum to deal with. If the facility doesn’t get a permit to release cheetahs, can they justify their claim that they’re rehabilitating them?

And if they do, can they justify the release of captive-bred cheetahs into the wild despite the findings of a respected conservation organisation that this would be detrimental to cheetah conservation?

Trophy hunting has been the subject of much media attention amid the backdrop of declining populations of big game animals in Africa. But is a blanket ban really the answer?

At the end of June 2015, a Zimbabwe lion known as Cecil was wounded by a crossbow bolt shot by American dentist Walter Palmer.

Sometime later Cecil was shot and finally killed.

The media attention that followed made it clear that many people were unaware of the realities of modern-day African hunting.

In fact, if you have enough money and are so inclined, you can legally hunt pretty much any African animal, including lion, leopard, elephant, buffalo and hippo.

You’ll need the right permits and it’s subject to quotas and regulations but if you do it by the book, then it’s perfectly legal. And once you’ve killed it you can export the “trophy” home.

‘Moral objection’

Following Cecil’s death, many have called for a blanket ban on trophy hunting. Calls for a ban come from a number of different directions.

For some, there is a moral objection to the killing of animals for pleasure, for others an understandable emotional response to images of hunters posing with their kills or concerns over conservation.

But calls for a blanket ban on trophy hunting fail to take into account the complex relationship between hunting and conservation.

Some trophy kills are hard to justify no matter which side of the fence you sit on. Leopard for example are a CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) Appendix I species.

As the human population in Africa expands, conflict between humans and wildlife increases

Such species are threatened with extinction and the commercial trade in wild-caught specimens is illegal. Despite this, it is still possible to hunt one “on trophy” (subject to quotas) for personal, non -commercial purposes.

Another hunting practice that has come under the spotlight is “canned hunting” of lions. There is considerable confusion between, and conflation of, trophy hunting and canned hunting. Canned hunting, where captive bred lions are released into small enclosures to be hunted in a “no kill no fee” arrangement, “hits the bottom of the barrel” according to Will Travers, President of wildlife charity the Born Free Foundation.

Poor welfare

Largely based in South Africa, the welfare issues involved in canned hunting, which include severe over-crowding and inadequate access to food and water, have recently been exposed by environmental film maker Ian Michler in his film Blood Lions.

However, as lion conservation expert and author of Lions in the Balance: Man-eaters, Manes and Men with Guns, Professor Craig Packer, says: “These animals are not part of the wild population and so, there’s no real immediate impact on conservation… I view canned hunting mostly as an animal welfare issue.”

Many sought-after trophy animals, such as kudu and impala, are maintained in large numbers across Southern Africa, especially South Africa, within large, fenced, privately-owned reserves.

Animal numbers need to be controlled to prevent over-stocking and over-grazing. Surplus animals are harvested for meat but larger males can generate far more revenue if they’re taken by a trophy hunter.

The taking of trophy animals in such reserves is of limited conservation concern and the money generated helps to pay for the management that is required to keep reserves in good condition.

In fact, the impact of trophy hunting depends on the species and the region being considered. So the past few decades in South Africa have seen a landscape-level replacement of cattle farming with wildlife farming.

As a consequence: “Southern Africa’s seen large scale recoveries of wildlife in the 20th century, built around hunting,” says Rosie Cooney, who heads the IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group.

Trophy hunting of many species was, and continues to be, vital in funding this reversal and a blanket ban there is neither needed nor desirable.

It pays, it stays?

This “consumptive utilisation of wildlife” model (“it pays it stays”) also works well in some other regions. The Bubye Valley Conservancy in Zimbabwe for example has more than 400 lions and one of the most important populations of rhino still in existence.

The Conservancy is funded entirely by hunting and, according to the reserve manager Blondie Leathem, a ban would be “devastating”.

However, trophy hunting is not always beneficial for wildlife. Over-harvesting can clearly have a detrimental effect on numbers.

Also, trophy hunters select large males and this can have more profound effects on the breeding dynamics of animals in that region. These problems are greatest when land is not stably owned and a “tragedy of the commons” (when everyone harvests as much as they can for short-term gain) can result.

It is tempting to suggest that hunting could be replaced by tourism and in some places this is indeed the case. However, as Rosie Cooney points out, tourism is only possible in regions that “are accessible…a few hours generally from a major hub…with good roads”.

They also need to be safe, “lacking in dangerous diseases….and politically stable”. There needs to be the infrastructure to look after tourists and you need capital to invest in it. Many hunting concessions operate successfully in areas where none of these conditions are in place, at least for now.

The pro-hunting argument is simple. Hunting provides revenue that directly funds conservation. Anti-hunters often claim that this hunting-conservation link doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The problem in deciding whether hunting is beneficial or not is that both sides are right.

How can both sides be right? The answer to that lies in the fact that Africa is not a single entity.

Different countries and even regions within those countries have different histories, geography, politics, governance, infrastructure, economics, population demographics and tribal politics. In some regions hunting is vital for conservation. In such regions “it pays it stays” works and a ban would be detrimental to wildlife.

In other regions, hunting could be replaced or at least supplemented by tourism. In still other regions, and certainly for some species, a ban on hunting could be a sensible move for conservation. A “one size fits all” solution is not what is required.

Last wilderness

In fact, Prof Craig Packer says that across Africa overall “neither trophy hunting nor phototourism is sufficient to cover the costs [of conservation]”.

Whilst these activities can and do work in some places, he thinks that “we need to move away from the standard model of wildlife conservation in Africa, which has always been ‘wildlife must pay its own way'”. Overall, the approach doesn’t generate enough money and consequently, “we’re seeing dramatic losses of wildlife numbers throughout a lot of Africa.”

It is interesting that the killing of a single lion by a wealthy, white, American attracted so much attention.

As Will Travers explains: “I don’t think we should fool ourselves that it’s all about trophy hunting. Lions are threatened by habitat loss, habitat fragmentation…human activities that disperse and displace lions [and] the loss of prey species.”

There are few true wildernesses left, and as the human population in Africa expands, conflict between humans and wildlife gets ever greater. Far more lions are killed by cattle herders defending their livestock and their families than by trophy hunters. Don’t forget, in the UK, we long ago killed our apex predators so that we could sleep soundly.

To conserve wildlife we need to find ways to protect animals from people and people from animals. We also need to find ways to ensure animal populations are more valuable alive in the long-term (even if that means sustainable harvesting) than dead in the short-term.

Conservation is an extraordinarily complex problem but it is also one of the most significant problems we now face. The solution will not be found in knee-jerk responses driven by emotion and fuelled by social media.

Prof Adam Hart is professor of science communication at the University of Gloucestershire. He presents Big Game Theory on BBC Radio 4 at 20:00 on Tuesday 1 September.

The impact of the new documentary film Blood Lions on audiences is such that additional screenings have been arranged in Cape Town.

Tickets sold out over all three days of the film’s launch in Cape Town’s Labia theatre last week, and additional screenings have been arranged in Cape Town for Friday 28 August and Tuesday 1 September. Proceeds from ticket sales will go towards the campaign to stop captive hunting and breeding. Tickets can be booked on webtickets for the 28th of August and the 1st of September.

Aside from influencing public opinion, the film is having a marked affect on the hunting industry in South Africa with a call by the president of PHASA (Professional Hunters Association of South Africa), after viewing the film, for a review of lion hunting.

The Africa Geographic team and I attended the first screening in Cape Town. Despite having reported on canned hunting and lion breeding relatively often, the film had a profound affect on me. Not only are scenes very graphic in nature, but candid interviews give valuable insight is given into the mindsets of breeders, hunters, government officials and tourists who have been duped into contributing to the brutal industry by paying to pet cubs and walk with lions. Understanding these mindsets is crucial in achieving a ban of canned hunting, and the challenges involved are apparent in a dramatic scene in which the undercover film team are accosted by a hunting operator – only they keep the cameras rolling.

The lengths to which director and filmmaker Nick Chevalier, conservationist and journalist Ian Michler, and Rick Swayze – an American who poses as a trophy hunter – have gone to to expose this industry is remarkable, as is the determination and passion of first time producer Pippa Hankinson who brought the Blood Lions team together.