Commercially-driven lion part removal: What is the evidence from mortality records?

Contemporary Cultural Trade of Lion Body Parts

Trade in lion parts associated with cultural and traditional use is poorly understood. Here we sought to better understand the role and use of lion body parts in the commercial traditional medicine (muthi) trade of South Africa. In 2019 we conducted a semi-structured questionnaire survey of muthi traders (n = 10) and traditional healers (n = 20) which explored the significance and symbolism of lions, traded parts and preferences, sources and supply of lion parts, and perceived sustainability of lion derivatives in the South African muthi trade. Our results suggest a cultural importance of lion associated with the umndawu ancestral spirit in particular, as well as in the training and practice of cultural-spiritual healers. Lion paws and parts thereof were most frequently reported as sold by traders and demanded by healers, correlating with recent trends in body-part removals from lion mortalities. Respondents indicated that lion parts were obtained from a variety of sources including wild lion populations in neighbouring countries and captive-breeding farms. Our findings are discussed relative to current concerns in lion conservation and highlight a need for further understanding of the traditional medicine complex, the influence that ancestral spirits have on lion body-part trade, and increased engagement with traditional medicine stakeholders.

Trading Animal Lives: Ten Tricky Issues on the Road to Protecting Commodified Wild Animals

Wildlife commodification can generate benefits for biodiversity conservation, but it also has negative impacts; overexploitation of wildlife is currently one of the biggest drivers of vertebrate extinction risk. In the present article, we highlight 10 issues that in our experience impede sustainable and humane wildlife trade. Given humanity's increasing demands on the natural world we question whether many aspects of wildlife trade can be compatible with appropriate standards for biodiversity conservation and animal welfare, and suggest that too many elements of wildlife trade as it currently stands are not sustainable for wildlife or for the livelihoods that it supports. We suggest that the onus should be on traders to demonstrate that wildlife use is sustainable, humane, and safe (with respect to disease and invasion risk), rather than on conservationists to demonstrate it is not, that there is a need for a broad acceptance of responsibility and, ultimately, widespread behavior change. We urge conservationists, practitioners, and others to take bold, progressive steps to reach consensus and action.