The so-called “international poll” – the “South African Lion Farming Poll: International and Domestic Tourist Opinions” promoted by World Animal Protection and Blood Lions – is a textbook example of advocacy masquerading as science.
In his Daily Maverick opinion piece of 17 March (“The reputational cost of lion farming in South Africa’s wildlife economy”) Adam Cruise tries to give this clearly biased report legitimacy; however, once the methodology, scale, and internal contradictions of the report are properly examined, the credibility of its conclusion collapses.
A poll built for headlines, not for truth
At the heart of the campaign is a 7-day survey conducted in January 2026 of just 2,528 respondents across five countries, South Africa (519), the UK (502), the USA (502), Germany (504), and the Netherlands (501). It is presented as evidence of “global tourist sentiment”: a claim that is simply untenable. Based on statistics published by Statistics South Africa, the report acknowledges that South Africa received approximately 10.5 million international tourists in 2025. The poll, therefore, represents roughly 0.02% of the actual visitors, yet is used to predict large-scale tourism behaviour.
This is not statistically robust for policymaking. It is a small, selectively-framed opinion sample, not a representative dataset of global travel patterns.
More importantly, the survey focuses on only four key markets, ignoring the diversity of global tourism flows. The report also does not recognise what percentage of the international tourists visiting South Africa are trophy hunters and their families. Hunters from the U.S. represent the vast majority of foreign trophy hunters visiting South Africa, with hunters from Germany, the UK and the Netherlands among the top ten countries hunting in South Africa.
Respondents rely on hypothetical questions (“would you avoid visiting…”) rather than real-world behaviour. The poll also does not provide for evidence of behavioural validation; what people say in a survey is notoriously different from what they actually do.
In short, it measures perception under prompting, not reality.
Leading questions, predetermined outcomes
As with most polls of this nature, the wording and framing of the poll are clearly designed to produce emotive responses.
Surprisingly, with the relentless global animal-rights onslaught on captive lion breeding, misinformation, blatant lies and the emotive “canned hunting” rhetoric, in response to the question, “To what extent are you aware of the practice of lions being bred and kept in captivity in South Africa for commercial purposes?” only 34% of respondents reported being very or relatively aware of the practice. In light of this, the question must be asked: Why were the other 1668 respondents not disqualified from participating in the poll?
Respondents are asked about lions “bred and kept in captivity for profit” and the industry being associated with “exploitation”, “cruelty”, and “risk”. This is not neutral language; it is loaded terminology that predisposes respondents toward negative answers. Any survey built on such framing will inevitably produce the “outrage” it seeks to demonstrate.
I have contacted Savanta (Pty) Ltd., the marketing and research company that conducted the poll on behalf of World Animal Protection and Blood Lions, for a copy of the original poll: not only the questions asked (these were obviously in the report), but also for the introduction and background to the poll. After my second request, I’m still waiting for this. There is no indication that respondents were presented with:
- The legal and regulated framework governing wildlife use in South Africa
- The distinction between legal hunting practices and illegal activities
- The conservation and economic contributions of the broader wildlife sector
Without a balanced context, the poll is not measuring informed opinion; it is manufacturing it.
The contradiction that World Animal Protection and Blood Lions cannot escape
Perhaps the most damaging flaw in the report is that it undermines itself. The report acknowledges that South Africa recorded a surge in tourism, reaching around 10.5 million visitors in 2025: a record.
This is critical.
If 70% of tourists are supposedly deterred by captive lion issues, as claimed, then:
- Why is tourism growing, not declining?
- Why are key markets continuing to visit in large numbers?
The answer is obvious. Real-world behaviour does not support the narrative constructed by the poll.
Speculative economic scare tactics
The report goes further by projecting that South Africa could lose 860,000 tourists and 66,000 jobs. These figures are not empirical; they are extrapolated from hypothetical survey responses based on the false assumption that stated intent is actual behaviour. This is economic modelling built on opinion, not data.
It ignores:
- The resilience and diversity of South Africa’s tourism offering
- The continued global demand for authentic African wildlife experiences
- The fact that tourism growth has occurred despite years of relentless anti-industry campaigning
The deliberate conflation of illegal and legal activity
A central tactic used by both World Animal Protection and Blood Lions is the repeated invocation of “canned hunting”. Let’s be clear:
- “Canned lion hunting” is illegal in South Africa under existing regulations.
- It is not representative of the regulated wildlife economy.
Yet the report and associated campaigns continually blur the line between illegal practices and lawful activities. They unashamedly use emotionally-charged imagery, as is used in their report, and terminology to imply systemic abuse. Constant references are made to welfare concerns, and yet there are very few prosecutions for animal cruelty for an industry that is under the microscope. This is not an honest portrayal; it is deliberate narrative manipulation.
Reputation damage is self-inflicted by animal rights activists
The report claims that South Africa’s reputation is at risk. But the evidence suggests otherwise, with tourism growing strongly and South Africa remaining one of the world’s premier wildlife destinations.
The real reputational harm comes from the constant global campaigns by Blood Lions, World Animal Protection and similar animal rights groups, as well as unscrupulous journalists and media who give them a voice and platform to portray South Africa as unethical. This is nothing more than sensationalist messaging designed to provoke outrage and donations.
These organisations rely on:
- Perpetual crisis narratives
- Graphic and emotive claims of cruelty
- Simplified, one-sided storytelling
This is not conservation, it is fundraising-driven activism.
A campaign built on advocacy, not science
Even their own broader reports reveal a consistent pattern of assertions that the industry has “no conservation value” and is “exploitative”. It calls for predetermined policy outcomes (a total shutdown), regardless of nuance. This is advocacy first, evidence second.
There is:
- No balanced cost-benefit analysis
- No engagement with opposing scientific or economic perspectives
- No recognition of sustainable use principles that underpin conservation success in southern Africa
The bottom line
This poll is not a credible basis for policy. It is a small, unrepresentative sample built on leading questions and emotive framing. It is contradicted by real-world tourism data and used to generate speculative economic fear embedded in a broader campaign that misrepresents legal wildlife practices.
And most tellingly, it is produced by organisations whose continued relevance and funding depend on portraying South Africa as a conservation failure.
South Africa’s wildlife model has been shaped by science, regulation, and economic reality, not by online surveys designed to produce headlines.
The real danger to the country’s reputation is not its wildlife sector, it is the relentless, one-sided narrative pushed by activist groups who benefit from undermining it.
Should South Africa or any other country shut down their meat, dairy, wool, egg or any other legal industry that offends the sensitivity of some, because a group of rabid animal rights activists commissioned a poll calling for such closure?
*Blood Lions has responded to this piece in a letter to the Editor, Captive lion breeding: Why evidence-based research and language matter (10 April 2026)
[Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Captive_lion_at_a_breeding_center.jpg]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend