STEPHANIE KLARMANN | Claims that legitimate lion bone trade aids conservation are unfounded

In a recent article, Richard York, CEO of Wildlife Ranching South Africa, stated that an export market for lion bones is vital to protecting wild lion populations in South Africa. He claims that lion breeders are responsible for a “well-secured and looked-after” wild lion population.

However, such opinions remain unfounded and unsubstantiated by science.

Recent research led by conservation scientists from Blood Lions and World Animal Protection examined the existing scientific evidence to assess the validity of claims that breeding lions commercially can aid the conservation of wild lion populations.

In the interview, York further claimed that a legal market in lion bones would significantly decrease the poaching of lions for their bones.

Our systematic review of the scientific literature revealed a more complex reality and highlights an urgent need for cautionin assuming that a legal trade would protect wild populations.

Claims by the industry that South Africa’s wild lion population is secure due to the captive breeding industry are unsubstantiated.

South Africa’s wild lion population in national parks and private game reserves is healthy thanks to dedicated conservation efforts and income generated through ecotourism.

Captive-bred lions are not used for any conservation purposes and therefore do not contribute to wild lion conservation. These lions exist purely for commercial purposes and should not be conflated with wild populations.

In our research, we examined 126 scientific papers and 37 organizational reports published between 2008 and 2023, identifying three major concerns:

Currently, there is no evidence that the commercial predator industry aids conservation.

Captive breeding may even increasethe demand for lion parts.

Existing links between legal and illegal trade could be further exacerbated by captive breeding and trade.

While supporters of the commercial captive predator industry claim that farming lions for bones offers an effective means to meet the demand for wildlife commodities and relieve pressure on wild populations, our analysis of existing research shows that the situation is far more complex and that this approach may be counterproductive.

Farming lions may actually increase pressure on wild populations across African range states by promoting demand for lion products, which in turn raises the risk of poaching and laundering through existing legal channels.

Other research has demonstrated that breeding tigers for bones and other body parts, bears for bile, and Southeast Asian porcupines for meat consumption has similarly increased pressure on their wild populations.

In addition, consumer demand studies havehighlighted a preference for products sourced from wild-caught animals rather than captive-bred ones, based on perceptions of medicinal potency or meat quality.

Our research underscores the urgent need for scientific, peer-reviewed studies to better understand consumer demand, economic comparisons between wild and farmed products, the genetics of captive lions, and the scale of illicit trade.

This will help provide a more complete picture of the impact of commercial lion farming on wild populations. Considering the already precarious state of lions across Africa, extreme caution is required rather than the promotion of unproven statements that serve a commercial agenda.