In his Daily Friend piece of 29 March, Lion-hunting “poll” is advocacy masquerading as science, Trevor Oertel uses language that degrades evidence-based research and hinders constructive and progressive debate.
The objective of the opinion poll, commissioned by Blood Lions and World Animal Protection and conducted by Savanta, a professional data & market research company, was to examine:
- how commercial captive lion breeding influences international tourist perceptions, travel intentions and views of South Africa’s global reputation, and
- South African citizens’ attitudes toward captive lion breeding in relation to tourism, ethics, governance and the future of the country’s wildlife economy.
The poll was not designed to focus on any type of tourist in particular, such as hunters or photographic safaris visitors, but merely to provide a better understanding of how a particular industry, in this case the captive lion breeding industry, could potentially impact South Africa’s broader tourism sector, which contributes around 9% to our GDP.
An opinion poll is by its very nature a survey of public opinion obtained by questioning a representative sample of individuals selected from a clearly defined target audience or population. To be accurate, polls must survey a representative sample, not just a large number of people, ensuring the group reflects the broader population. Sample sizes are highly dependent on population size and the margin of error, i.e. the amount of variability we can expect around the responses. For populations of 100,000+, a sample size of 1,100 provides a margin of error of 3% and a sample size of 400 a margin of error of 5%.
The research comprised an online survey of 2,528 adults aged 18 and over across South Africa (519), the UK (502), the USA (502), Germany (504), and the Netherlands (501) – key tourism markets for South Africa, accounting for nearly 12% of total international arrivals in 2025.
These sample sizes provide a margin of error of around 4%. Respondents from these four key source tourist markets were those who have either travelled in the past three years or would consider travelling to South Africa for leisure purposes, which was established through qualifying questions.
Data were weighted to be representative of the adult population in each country by age, gender and region. Participants were recruited via established research panels, including platforms such as Cint and PureSpectrum, which support broad demographic and geographic coverage. The survey took place between 12 and 19 January 2026 and the respondents received a small incentive for completing the survey, consistent with standard market research practice.
Across the four key international tourism markets, the findings show high levels of public concern about both the continuation and any reversal or delay of the phase-out of the commercial captive lion industry in South Africa. The findings also reveal an alignment between international and domestic opinion: both audiences expressed a clear preference for wildlife-friendly tourism and viewed captive lion breeding as incompatible with South Africa’s long-term economic, ethical, and reputational interests.
In addition to the rigorous methodology of the opinion poll, the team interpreting the data are accomplished, published scientists with doctorates and a combined body of evidence-based scientific work of nearly 130 peer-reviewed journal articles. The full questionnaire data is available on request.
Beyond the particular issues relating to his misapprehension about our poll and polling in general, we wish to point out that this article, and three others by Oertel published in the Daily Friend, contain several inaccuracies regarding the legality of “canned” or captive hunting in South Africa.
His assertions that the practice is strictly illegal misrepresents the varying legislation across South Africa’s provinces and the manner in which captive lion hunts occur. A more nuanced and detailed account of captive lion hunting is available here.
Secondly, statements regarding low animal cruelty prosecutions in South Africa do not account for the many ways in which our legal system and judges struggle to deal with animal cruelty cases (such as an outdated Animals Protection Act, legal resources, training and capacity, and legislative restrictions on what is deemed as cruelty or “unnecessary suffering”).
A low prosecution rate for animal cruelty is also symptomatic of systemic issues in our justice system as opposed to an absence of animal cruelty and animal welfare transgressions. A third inaccuracy which has not been corrected in his article (When wildlife has value, it lives – when it does not, it dies) is his reference to the NSPCA as an animal rights organisation, which amounts to using inaccurate language to discredit South Africa’s statutory animal welfare body.
Furthermore, something that we believe is not aligned with a fair, ethical and accurate reflection of the poll data is Oertel’s use of inflammatory language and often-times personal attacks on organisations and the people involved.
Labelling investigative journalists as “mouthpieces” serves to discredit and degrade them on a personal level rather than constructively engaging with the information and arguments they present. Phrases such as “emotionally hamstrung”, “pander to”, “animal rightist broom of Barbara Creecy” and questioning individuals’ capacity and intelligence, in addition to “failed moralism”, do not speak to unbiased writing, but rather engage in rhetoric that slanders.
We are concerned that words such as “rabid” in describing animal advocacy, (specifically referencing Blood Lions and World Animal Protection in his latest piece), represent a severe bias that could be construed as defamatory and degrades our large body of work, which has been based on peer-reviewed research by established academics and experts. Where animal welfare is concerned, the writer has repeatedly used words such as “ideological”, “dogma”, “extremist” and “radical” to undermine animal welfare work.
Language use matters and Oertel’s language has been crafted to entrench connotations of extremism alongside incorrectly using terms, such as “activist” and “rights”, to cover all organisations that focus on overcoming unethical wildlife practices and improving animal welfare, whether a statutory body, like the NSPCA, or independent NGOs. It is both inflammatory and inaccurate to paint all organisations with the same brush, and to portray organisations and individuals as extremists merely for considering perspectives outside his own wildlife-use model.
Potentially defamatory and inflammatory language can have the effect of oppressing idea sharing and constructive debate, which hinders the search for progressive ways forward and the sharing of diverse perspectives.
We fully embrace our democracy with all its associated rights, including freedom of speech, but this should not permit anyone to broadcast false, malicious statements, presented as fact, that can cause reputational damage.
Dr Louise de Waal (Director)
Dr Stephanie Klarmann (Campaign Manager)
Blood Lions