Fig 1.
Policy interventions and annual exports of lion products from South Africa to East-Southeast Asia.
Lettered vertical lines indicate the years that measures (policy interventions and regulations) aimed at protecting tigers, other Asian big cats and/or lions were introduced or implemented. a = 1993: Chinese ban on the domestic trade in tiger bone; b = 1994: adoption of CITES Res. Conf. 9.13 (CoP9); c = 2002: adoption of CITES Res. Conf. 12.5 (CoP12); d = 2006: China bans leopard hunting and purchase of leopard bones; e = 2007: CITES (CoP14) Decision 14.69 against tiger farming and breeding for trade in their parts and products; f = 2015: introduction of lion trophy import bans (Australia and France, in March and November respectively), and the USA lists lions in southern and eastern Africa as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in December; g = 2016: USA import suspension of trophies from captive-bred lions implemented from 22 January, and a lion trophy import ban by the Netherlands in May; CITES adoption of Appendix II annotation for African lion (CoP17) mandates SA to introduce a lion bone quota from 2017. Histogram legend: CITES permits issued for export of lion trophies (TRO), live lions (LIVE), bodies (BOD) and skeletons (SKE) from South Africa. Line graph: air waybill (AWB) records of actual skeleton exports from South Africa in 2014–2016 (see also [1]). Note: The actual annual legal exported quantities are less than what are listed on the issued CITES permits because traders do not typically export all of what they apply to export, and/or they do not use the permit in the same year it was issued.
Table 1.
Number and proportion of survey respondents by province and in relation to the total number of registered ToPS (Threatened or Protected Species) breeding and hunting facilities per province.
Fig 2.
Core purposes of the facilities, expressed as the overall mean rank per purpose plotted against the number of facilities that ranked the purpose.
Results correspond to Question 11. Respondents selected and ranked as many of the 13 pre-listed purpose categories that applied to their facilities.
Table 2.
Mean (±SD) (a) sizes of 99 properties and, depending on the province and farm purpose, the areas set aside for breeding, keeping, hunting and/or displaying lions, and (b) percentage of the total farm area set aside for the listed activities.
Not every activity took place on the respondents’ properties. Results correspond to Question 13. (100 hectares equals 1km2 or 0.39mi2). This table excludes sample sizes per cell; the complete table with all values are in Table G in S1 Tables.
Table 3.
The mean (± SD) size of hunting areas set aside on the properties of 33 respondents, and the number of lions per camp.
Results correspond to Question 56.
Table 4.
Total proportion of lions listed by all responding facilities per age and/or sex group.
The number of responding facilities differs annually, and 95 respondents provided data for ≥1 year. Results for the proportion and range in the number of lions per facility, facility type, and the proportion per province are in Tables H–J of S1 Tables. Results correspond to Questions 25–28.
Fig 3.
Estimated mean annual value of sales (in ZAR) per facility for income-generating activities from lions.
Graph showing values in USD in Figure E in S1 Figs, where mean annual ZAR:USD exchange rates: 2012 (1: 0.122); 2013 (1: 0.104); 2014 (1: 0.092); 2015 (1: 0.078); 2016 (1: 0.068); 2017 (1: 0.075). Results correspond to Questions 15 and 16.
Fig 4.
Mean number of live lion sales per responding facility from 2014 to 2017.
Note: international hunting operators are not based in South Africa and the lions are hunted in the country they are exported to. Results correspond to Question 39.
Fig 5.
The mean annual sale price of a live adult lion per purpose (rounded up to the nearest R1000).
All means, medians, standard deviations and sample sizes are in Tables L & M of S1 Tables, and Figures J & K in S1 Figs. Graph showing values in USD in Figure I in S1 Figs, where mean annual ZAR:USD exchange rates: 2015 (1: 0.078); 2016 (1: 0.068); 2017 (1: 0.075). Results correspond to Questions 41–43.
Fig 6.
Number of facilities aware of having sold/supplied specific lion products to different clientele.
Total respondents n = 52 facilities, where multiple categories and products could be selected for. A ‘full trophy’ includes skeleton, skull, skin, teeth and claws. No responses received for the category ‘Customers in other African countries’. (SA = South Africa; E-SEA = East-Southeast Asia). Results correspond to Question 45.
Fig 7.
Annual provincial growth in the number of responding facilities saying that lion skeletons from their facility were exported to E-SEA at least once from 2008–2017 (that they were aware of).
Legend: FS = Free State, NW = North West, LP = Limpopo, EC = Eastern Cape; the suffix *Pr refers to facilities predicting they would sell bones in either 2017/2018 (depending on the year they took the survey). Results correspond to Question 49.
Fig 8.
Primary purposes of the facilities exporting skeletons to Asia annually, based on hunting and breeding (sample size, n, after the year).
Some facility purposes were documented as dual purpose (hunting and breeding), or a farmer owned a facility with a different purpose in a different province. Results correspond to Question 49.
Fig 9.
Comparative annual mean, median and modal prices of male and female lion skeletons (2012–2017) sold by responding facilities (n = 35) (mean annual prices, and sample sizes, for male and female lions in Figures Q–T in S1 Figs).
Graph showing values in USD in Figure O in S1 Figs, where mean ZAR:USD exchange rates: 2012 (1: 0.122); 2013 (1: 0.104); 2014 (1: 0.092); 2015 (1: 0.078); 2016 (1: 0.068); 2017 (1: 0.075). Results correspond to Questions 50–51.
Fig 10.
Comparative annual mean number of skeletons sold by responding facilities according to the primary purpose of the facilities (hunting and/or breeding).
Dual-purpose facilities (‘Both’ hunting and breeding) were delimited based on answers to Question 11 and other survey questions. (Annual sample sizes and standard deviations are in Table N in S1 Tables). The inset Figure U in S1 Figs simplifies these results to three series. Results correspond to Question 52.
Fig 11.
Mean (±SD) number of lions hunted per facility (all facilities, plus the 10 accounting for most of the lion hunts in the period) from 2012 to 2017.
Sample sizes in brackets after the year. Results correspond to Question 59.