| ||||||||
|
ALERT Communities Trust (ACT) and Conservation Centre for Wild Africa (CCWA)
|
|
Frequently asked Questions Is there a conservation need for an African lion captive breeding program? Why have you chosen popular tourist locations for the lion walks? Are you concerned about the growth of copy-cat operations? Why do you remove cubs from their mother at three-weeks old? What about over-production in any of the stages of the release program? Breeding of “special” breeds of a species is common. Is this a practice of the program? Do you consider the genetics of the lions and the implications to biodiversity in your program?
Is there a conservation need for an African lion captive breeding program? It is widely accepted that lion populations in Africa are in serious decline (Bauer et al., 2008; Bauer & van der Merwe, 2004; Chardonnet, 2002; Nowell & Jackson, 1996; Myers, 1984, 1975). The IUCN states “A species population reduction of approximately 30% is suspected over the past two decades (approximately three lion generations)” (Bauer et al., 2008). Such declines appear to be continuing: Kenya was estimated to have more than 20,000 lions in 1963, dropping to 2,749 in 2002 and 1,970 in 2008 (Omondi, 2009) representing a 28% decline in lion numbers over the past six years, indicating that lion populations in Kenya, and likely elsewhere, have yet to stabilize since the 2002 published estimates. With few exceptions, lion populations now occur as isolated remnants with doubtful long-term viability. Natural re-colonization of areas in which populations have decreased or have been eliminated is unlikely given continued fragmentation of remaining suitable habitat. This raises the importance of interventionist approaches in lion conservation through translocation and reintroduction programs. Ex-situ management of species, and in particular, captive breeding, is considered by many scientific authorities to be the last resort in wildlife management. The IUCN holds the following view: “If the decision to bring a taxon under ex situ management is left until extinction is imminent, it is frequently too late to effectively implement, thus risking permanent loss of the taxon. Moreover, ex situ conservation should be considered as a tool to ensure the survival of the wild population. Ex situ management should be considered only as an alternative to the imperative of in situ management in exceptional circumstances, and effective integration between in situ and ex situ approaches should be sought wherever possible. The decision to implement an ex situ conservation programme as part of a formalised conservation management or recovery plan and the specific design of and prescription for such an ex situ programme will depend on the taxon’s circumstances and conservation needs. A taxonspecific conservation plan may involve a range of ex situ objectives, including short, medium and longterm maintenance of ex situ stocks. This can utilise a variety of techniques including reproduction propagation, germplasm banking, applied research, reinforcement of existing populations and reintroduction into the wild or controlled environments.” (IUCN 2002) African lion populations might still exist in theoretical numbers to support their conservation status as “vulnerable” by IUCN standards. We estimate that only six geographically clustered populations contain sufficient individuals to potentially serve as a source for reintroduction programs but analyses of population structure, geographical fragmentation, risks from inbreeding depression and subsequent loss of evolutionary potential, and probable/actual disease threats, provide many additional causes for concern for the long-term viability of this species and precludes the use of free-ranging populations in reintroduction programs even if genetic, political and economic barriers to their use could be overcome. The use of captive bred lions potentially allows barriers that make wild-caught lions non-viable as a source to be removed; however, reintroduction of captive bred stock brings additional complexity in reintroduction methodology. The African Lion Rehabilitation & Release into the Wild Program aims to create a reserve pool of lions than can be released into National Parks and reserves across the African continent as and when needed to restore lions to areas where they used to roam freely, and where conditions still exist to support those re-introduced lion populations. ALERT was founded to develop a holistic view to lion conservation to ensure that wild and reintroduced prides can survive in viable numbers. ALERT fully believes in habitat protection for the long term sustainability of the species, and there have been some success stories to applaud, but given we are clearly failing the lion we believe that a range of both in-situ and ex-situ solutions must be found before the lion becomes critically endangered. We believe that these solutions should include a workable reintroduction program from captive stock that can be implemented as part of eco-system restoration projects across the continent. Conservation of one species in isolation is unlikely to provide a sustainable future for that species; only through greater understanding of the environment within which the lion lives and its interactions with that environment can sound conservation and management decisions be made. To this end CCWA was formed to specifically consider these wider issues and engage in in-situ and ex-situ conservation and research of other species with which the lion shares its environment. Only through real community participation in conservation does the lion, or any of Africa’s wildlife, have a long term future. At present most communities receive little benefit from the wild areas around them and therefore many over-utilize those resources. If we can assist the African people to develop opportunities to improve their livelihood through sustainable use of those natural resources then those communities will have reason to make rational decisions to protect these wild areas. ALERT, through our developing community programs, is working towards practical ways to empower communities for the benefit of truly sustainable use of land; motivated by Africans to the benefit of Africans. References Bauer, H., Nowell, K., Packer, C. & K. (2008) Panthera leo. In: 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. http://www.iucnredlist.org. [accessed 16 March 2009]. Bauer, H., van der Merwe, S. (2004) Inventory of free-ranging lion Panthera leo in Africa. Oryx 38(1): 26–31. Chardonnet, P. (ed.) (2002) Conservation of the African Lion: Contribution to a Status Survey. International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife, France & Conservation Force, USA. Ferreras, P., Cousins, S.H. (1996) The use of a Delphi technique with GIS for estimating the global abundance of top predators: The lion in Africa. Unpublished report, International Eco Technology Research Centre, Cranfield University, UK. IUCN (2002) Technical guidelines on the management of ex situ populations for conservation. Approved at the 14th Meeting of the Programme Committee of Council, Gland Switzerland,10 Dec 2002 Myers, N. (1975) The silent savannahs. International Wildlife 5(5): 5-10 Myers, N. (1984) Conservation of Africa’s cats: Problems and opportunities. In: Cats of the world: Biology, conservation and management (1986) (eds Miller, S.D. and Everett, D.D.) pp. 437 - 446. National Wildlife Federation, Washington DC. Nowell, K., Jackson, P. (1996) Wild Cat. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, 382 pp. Omondi, P. (2009) In: Kenya on the brink of recording big five extinction. http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=1144016253&cid=4. [accessed 7 June 2009]..
There are numerous lion breeding programs in Africa, many of which are criticized for breeding lions purely for commercial gain, either through allowing tourists to interact with the lions or for canned hunting. Is the Lion Rehabilitation & Release into the Wild Program not just another commercial breeding program? Unfortunately, it is true that there are many breeding programs using the cloak of conservation to hide their true intentions. There has to be a business aspect to our work, as the lions have to eat, and personnel with considerable training need to be employed. The infrastructure for release sites is also expensive to put into place ensuring that the area is properly fenced to protect the lions inside from being illegally hunted and to protect local communities on the outside. In addition, where necessary, the release site needs to be stocked with suitable game. African Encounter, trading as Antelope Park and Lion Encounter (the latter in partnership with external investors) operate the commercial aspects of the program and as such bear the full costs of the program which includes land rent, enclosures, vets bills, vaccination drug costs, staffing, maintenance, DNA testing, micro-chipping, replacement of game killed by the lions, agent commissions etc. These programs also make donations to community groups for a variety of conservation and community development programs as well as donating to ALERT directly to further its work. What profit is left is kept by the operator which is reasonable given the financial risk taken by it for operating stage one on behalf of ALERT. In locations where the program is funded by ALERT then commercial rights are retained by the Trust. ALERT also oversees the release program and provides scientific, operational and ethical procedures that must be adhered to. African Encounter and ALERT attempt to build commercial operations around as many aspects of the program as possible in order to raise finance for the various programs and thus limiting the reliance on limited and insecure donor funding.
I have read a lot of negative press about the program on the internet, particularly as regards the program’s links to the canned hunting industry. Surely there is no smoke without fire! Unfortunately some people who for reasons unknown to us have decided that ALERT and African Encounter only operate for commercial gain and the conservation aspects of the program are a front to hide this fact, concluding that the lions must eventually end up in the canned hunting industry. Such thoughts culminated in an article making such accusations in the Times Newspaper. In response to this article the following press release was published along with a full retraction of the article and a printed apology by the newspaper following an investigation by the Press Complaints Commission. PRESS RELEASE ISSUED JOINTLY BY ANTELOPE PARK, ALERT, AND SIR RANULPH FIENNES IN RESPONSE TO THE SUNDAY TIMES ARTICLE “AFRICAN LION ENCOUNTERS: A BLOODY CON,” PUBLISHED ON 10th FEBRUARY, 2008 The article “African Lion Encounters: A Bloody Con,” which was written by Chris Haslam, and published in the Sunday Times on Sunday 10th February, 2008, is full of inaccuracies. We feel that this article strongly misrepresents ALERT, a trust that is dedicated to ensuring the future of the African Lion, and Antelope Park, where the program is based. The article claims that “as many as 59 lion cubs raised at Antelope Park have been sold to big-game-hunting operations to be shot for sport.” No lion from Antelope Park has ever been, and never will be, intentionally sold for canned hunting. African Encounter is completely against canned hunting. Our freely available information clearly states this. A total of 39 lions have been sold by Antelope Park since the current owners acquired the property in 1987. Thirty seven of those lions were sold, in two groups, one in 1999 and the majority in 2002 to a captive centre in South Africa. There was a pre-condition on the provision of an export permit by the Zimbabwe Wildlife Authority that those lions could not be used for canned hunting. Furthermore, the lions that were exported were to be monitored by the relevant wildlife authorities within South Africa to ensure that the provisions of the sale were upheld. Two further lions were sold to a private breeder within Zimbabwe, not associated in any way with hunting, in 2005. No other sales of lions have ever taken place. The article also states that tourists and volunteers “are told that the lion cubs are being raised for release in the wild,” and that “captive-bred, hand-reared lions have the potential to become man-eaters, and thus can never be allowed to roam free.” At no time are any visitors to the project informed that the captive bred lions will be released into an unfenced area. We are fully aware of the fact that captive bred lions without a natural fear of humans can become man-eaters, and this is why this form of release has never formed part of the release program. All the information provided by Antelope Park and ALERT clearly states that the captive lions are rehabilitated into a fenced, managed eco-system, free of humans, where they will have offspring. These cubs are raised by the pride (stage three of the program), in a natural environment free of any human contact. They will therefore be able to be released into the wild with the same avoidance behaviours towards humans as any wild born lion. Furthermore, the article states that Antelope Park employs tourists and gap-year students as guides. Antelope Park does not use fee-paying tourists or gap-year students as guides. These self-funded eco-tourists pay for the opportunity to work alongside our guides and lion handlers to further the conservation, research and community work that we undertake. As a specific example of these eco-tourists, the article mentions “agencies such as Real Gap.” David Stitt, Managing Director of Real Gap comments: "As market leaders in the gap break market, Real Gap's policy is to endorse responsible conservation programs. Antelope Park is an ethical, well-managed program. It is clear in all our correspondence with our volunteers that the lions that they work with are part of a captive program. Our volunteers do not have physical contact with those lions in the stages of the program where the aim is eventual release into the reserves and National Parks." In addition, the Sunday Times article quotes two scientists, Dr Sarel van der Merwe and Dr Luke Hunter of the Wildlife Conservation Society, on the pitfalls of releasing lions into the wild. Antelope Park has actually received a letter from Dr van der Merwe advising us and supporting us on the work and research that we were doing. In an email that was sent on 12th June, 2004, he told us the following: "Generally speaking, the feeling amongst scientists is that captive bred lions cannot survive in a natural environment. I beg to differ. I have reviewed too many reports to the contrary…I believe one can rehabilitate the lions." Additionally, we have also received the following from Dr Pieter Kat, a senior lion expert, in June 2005: "…we can begin programs of lion reintroduction in a wide variety of depopulated areas. Such programs will not only be immediately positive, but will also place lions squarely in the category of animals like rhinos whose plight seems to be better appreciated by the international conservation community. This is why I am appreciative and excited to be involved by the initiatives taken by Antelope Park. Through years of self-funded and determined effort, they have developed a program of re-introduction that has a very good chance of success. Predators of any description are notoriously difficult to reintroduce, but now we have at least a workable plan. As I said, the future of African lions is in African hands. Let us salute those who have been steadfast to ensure this future, and recognize that any action is better than the currently looming extinction of an African icon if we do nothing." In August 2007, we released our first pride of lions into stage two; a managed eco-system where the lions have been successfully hunting for six months now. They have brought down prey from warthog to adult giraffe, which is a remarkable achievement from the captive cubs that they were. The ALERT and Antelope Park program is also involved in conservation of other species, research and community development in order to provide sustainable programs to the benefit of Africa's wildlife and its people. With regards to the treatment of our lions, a letter we received from WWF Southern Africa Regional office (written on 10th January, 2005) following visits by independent ecologists, Zimbabwe Park And Wildlife Authority, and Society for the Protection of Animals, states that the Antelope Park program is "highly ethical and extremely well managed." Keith Dutlow BVSc, MRCVS, and Lisa Marabini BVSc, MRCVS, two vets we have been working with during the past two years, complied to this in a reaction to the article, stating that “as independent consultant vets to Antelope Park since February 2006, we can attest that since that time, no animal has ever been de-clawed, de-fanged, or drugged for entertainment purposes. Also, every lion at Antelope Park has been micro-chipped and no lions have been sold to other operators nor removed from the program under suspicious circumstances since our involvement.” Furthermore, according to the article, “[n]either the Alert program nor Sir Ranulph Fiennes could be reached for comment.” Neither Antelope Park nor ALERT are aware of any attempts of the Sunday Times to contact them for information. In fact, the email below sent to us by Sacha Lehrfreund from the Sunday Times Picture Desk, on 6th February, requesting photographs was responded to immediately with an offer of furnishing The Times with details of our lion rehabilitation and release program, but no such offer was accepted. When no response was received, our marketing department placed a call to the picture desk on Thursday 7th February, but this was rudely dismissed. The paper’s representative claimed to have no time to talk to us, and refused to transfer us to any of her colleagues. From: Evans, Sara [mailto:sara.evans@sunday-times.co.uk] Hello We are running a feature in the Travel section about 'Walking with Lions' and I'm hoping that you could supply us with some photographs from Antelope Park, preferably of people walking alongside lions. We will of course credit your organisation. The article would appear on 10th February and we go to press tomorrow, so I'm hoping that you are able to help at such short notice. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sacha Lehrfreund Contrary to the article’s claims, Sir Ranulph Fiennes was never contacted by the Sunday Times either. His response to the article is as follows: “I am proud to be a small part of ALERT and I am ashamed of the uninformed Sunday Times article “African lion encounters: a bloody con” as an example of the worst type of libelous, inaccurate writing. This by a journalist bent on thrashing ALERT, a highly worthwhile body of individuals, black and white, in Zimbabwe whose sterling efforts to protect the endangered African lion deserve praise not lies.” Anyone is free to visit Antelope Park to see for themselves how we operate, and how our various conservation, research and community programs are benefiting Africa. We feel that anyone wanting to make comment about the veracity of our aims should at least make an effort to find out about the program and read the freely available literature. RETRACTION The following retraction was printed in the Sunday Times following an investigation by the Press Complaints Commission on 6th April 2008: “An article “African lion encounters: a bloody con” (Travel, February 10) said that as many as 59 lion cubs raised at Antelope Park, in Zimbabwe, had been sold to big game hunting operations to be shot for sport. We accept that the owners of the park never have and never will intentionally sell lions for “canned” hunting. We regret any impression that Antelope Park co-operated in the supply of animals for hunting.”
Why have you chosen popular tourist locations for the lion walks? This is very simple. It is to create international exposure to the project and the plight of the African lion. Locations such as Victoria Falls, which is one of the seven natural wonders of the world and one of Africa’s foremost tourist attractions, attracts people from all walks of life and all parts of the world. We want to make everyone aware of the program and places like Victoria Falls provide an ideal location.
Are you concerned about the growth of copy-cat operations? The simple answer is yes, although it should be considered that lion cub-petting and similar encounters with the young of other large cats, bears, elephants, rhino etc have been operating long before ALERT started operations; in fact probably long before the Middle Ages, and to charge ALERT with the birth of such an “industry” is nonsense. Although some of these organizations have been developed with conservation in mind, there are many that have developed purely for commercial gain and have no long term plan for the animals that are bred. Such operations need to come under careful scrutiny from the relevant authorities and be subject to appropriate legislation.
Why do you remove cubs from their mother at three-weeks old? There are several reasons for this practice, the principal one being that the lions can be given the chance to experience the natural surroundings of the African Bush. One reason for the limited success of previous predator release programs is that the animals were given no pre-release training. By giving the lions a chance to spend time in the Bush we are building their confidence as well as giving them the opportunity to practice and perfect their natural hunting ability. The lions are also able to start developing a natural pride social system. As a result of this practice we have seen the lions becoming adept hunters, without human assistance, such that we are able to stop feeding the cubs as they are capable of catching sufficient prey to sate their appetites themselves. Removing cubs from their mother is standard practice for carnivores in most zoos and captive breeding centres. Removing cubs from their mother does cause the mother to re-enter her oestrus cycle, which is a natural phenomenon in the wild when males take over a pride and kill all the offspring present. This allows them to start producing their own cubs as soon as possible, therefore passing on their own genes. However, we do not take advantage of this natural event in order to produce higher numbers of cubs. Females within our breeding centres are not forced-bred and as much as possible we allow them to maintain a natural cubbing interval of 530 days. Over the period 2004 to 2011 (to date) the average cubbing interval for the 17 female lions that have bred is 495 days.
What about over-production in any of the stages of the release program? Controls such as temporary contraception are possible in each stage of the program to reduce the number of cubs born, and if necessary, commercial walks can be suspended at any of our lion walk locations until such time that the demand for lions in stage four increases.
Breeding of “special” breeds of a species is common. Is this a practice of the program? It is not uncommon for breeding programs to “force-breed” certain characteristics or a recessive gene such as breeding white lions, often through cross or inbreeding. It is done to gain a higher price available in the market for those traits. The result is usually animals with poor immune systems and impaired survival skills. Our commitment is to breeding a reserve pool of lions with the maximum chance of survival in the wild and to preserve biological diversity. Our program therefore follows sound conservation management policies in terms of breeding, in line with the best available scientific knowledge.
Do you consider the genetics of the lions and the implications to biodiversity in your program? Lions are most commonly described using seven or eight sub-species classifications, although 24 have been suggested, however these descriptions have been based not on substantial genetic diversity but on external morphological differences of lions in different geographical regions, such as body size, coat thickness and colour, retention of juvenile spots, mane size, density and colouration. Recent studies have shown that external factors influence morphological differences such as nutrition and physiological stress. For example, West and Packer (2002) scientifically demonstrated a strong positive correlation between mane size and cooler temperatures. A lion translocated to a European zoo for example would have a larger mane than a lion from its warmer home region. In the 1980s advancements in molecular phylogenetics proposed that modern lions share a common ancestor in the recent past, estimated at between 55,000 and 200,000 years ago. A question arose therefore about the status of lion sub-species. Genetic studies have shown that European cave lions differed far more from modern populations in East and South Africa than those modern populations do from one another (5% sequence divergence vs. ca. 1%). Since the late 1980s the main trend has been towards sorting all previous lion sub-species into two, African and Asiatic. Two studies of extracted mitochondrial DNA by Dubach et al (2005) and Barnett et al (2006) have produced genetic distinctions between lions of different geographical regions. The former study, concentrating on samples from more southern regions of the lions range shows six haplotypes within two distinct clades of lions; those in south western Africa and those to the east, extending from eastern Kenya south to KwaZulu-Natal. The eastern lions can be further subdivided along each side of the Great African Rift Valley that stretches into South Africa. A similar east-southwest dichotomy among genetic haplotypes was observed in seven African bovid. The latter study produced similar results, but with DNA samples from a wider geographical range identified 11 haplotypes (including Asia and West Africa, areas not included in the former study). The results are consistent with previously determined phylogeographic patterns in eastern–southern African lions in which two major clades were identified. These recent findings have implications for lion conservation. As lion populations are increasingly confined to reserves that are closed to gene flow, management of these populations must balance the need to maintain stable densities at or below the carrying capacity of the reserve and, at the same time, minimize loss of genetic variability through drift or inbreeding. Ideally, translocations to increase genetic diversity would mimic natural gene flow by moving only individuals from the nearest areas with similar haplotypes. ALERT and our partner organisation, African Encounter, are committed to research for a better understanding of genetic diversity in lions and maintaining such diversity within wild populations. As such, we have provided DNA samples of our lions to extend the research of Dr. Jean Dubach at the Chicago Zoological Society and will continue to provide support to this valuable project as and when we are able. References West, P.M., Packer, C. (2002) Sexual selection, temperature, and the lion’s mane. Science, 297: 1339–1343. Dubach, J., Patterson, B.D., Briggs, M.B., Venzke, K., Flamand, J., et al. (2005) Molecular genetic variation across the southern and eastern geographic ranges of the African lion Panthera leo. Conservation Genetics 6: 15–24. Barnett, R., Yamaguchi, N., Barnes, I., Cooper, A. (2006) The origin, current diversity and future conservation of the modern lion (Panthera leo). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B, 273: 2119–2125. |
|
