Longitudinal assessment of illegal leopard skin use in ceremonial regalia and acceptance of faux alternatives among followers of the Shembe Church, South Africa

Abstract

Despite having protected status, poaching for the illegal trade and traditional use remains a primary threat to leopards (Panthera pardus) across southern Africa. Addressing this threat is challenging, not only because it is difficult to uncover and monitor illicit behavior, but because law enforcement and alternative intervention strategies need to account for cultural and political sensitivities to prove effective and sustainable. With up to 4 million followers in southern Africa, the recently-established Nazareth Baptist "Shembe" Church represents the principal culturo-religious use of illegal leopard skins in the world. This longitudinal study used in-person questionnaires (n = 8,600) and telephone follow-ups (n = 2,300) with Shembe followers to explore socioeconomic and experiential factors related to the desirability and possession of illegal leopard skins before and after receiving a faux alternative through the Furs for Life (FFL) intervention program. Proportional possession of authentic skins was relatively low among followers who received faux skins (21%), with declines of 7 and 13% in subsequent authentic skin acquisition and desirability, respectively. Logistic regression models revealed that authentic skin possession, both before and after receiving a faux skin, was primarily related to employment status. Desire for authentic skins increased with recipient age, but decreased with improved knowledge of leopard population status since receiving the faux skin. Followers who were dissatisfied with faux skins were likely to express a continued desire for authentic skins. Most followers (95%) were, however, satisfied with the faux alternative, having retained and worn it at gatherings, with little noticeable damage or perceived societal judgment. These results support the FFL intervention as a means of protecting leopards: Although authentic skins were still acquired, demand decreased significantly over 3 years with shifts in perception favoring faux leopard skin alternatives.

Understanding why consumers in China switch between wild, farmed, and synthetic bear bile products

“…Farmed versions of an original wild product have increased the diversity of a number of wildlife markets, such as ornamental plants (e.g., orchids [Hinsley et al., 2015]), wild meat (e.g., turtles [Nuno et al., 2018], porcupines [Brooks et al., 2010]), and traditional medicines (e.g., bear bile [Dutton et al., 2011]). There are also examples of synthetic alternatives or those derived from other wild or domesticated species, including furs and skins (e.g., synthetic leopard skins [Naude et al., 2020]) and medicines (e.g., lion bone or herbal alternatives for tiger bone [Moorhouse et al., 2020]). For these supply‐side approaches to be effective at reducing demand for wild products, a large proportion of consumers of wild products must switch to the alternatives when they become available (Mi et al., 2019).…”

“…Several studies of wildlife markets with legal and illegal alternatives report that farming does not effectively reduce demand for preferred wild‐sourced products (e.g., bear bile [Dutton et al., 2011], turtle meat, or eggs [Nuno et al., 2018]). Although fewer studies of synthetic alternatives exist, some report preferences for (e.g., wildlife‐based medicines [Davis et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016]) and uptake of synthetic alternatives (Naude et al., 2020). Furthermore, interest in the use of herbal over animal‐based products has been found (Moorhouse et al., 2020).…”

Troubled spots: Human impacts constrain the density of an apex predator inside protected areas

“…The mere presence of humans is not inherently detrimental to wildlife (Bruskotter et al, 2017; Chapron et al, 2014). But it is well established that people kill carnivores worldwide, including around these study sites (Balme et al, 2010; Naude, Balme, Rogan, et al, 2020; Pitman et al, 2017; Swanepoel et al, 2015), and otherwise interfere with ecological processes. Likely because of these killings, where indices of human presence were greatest, leopard density was lowest.…”

“…South Africa is a long way from the favorable policy framework that has coincided with large carnivore recovery in the northern hemisphere (Chapron et al, 2014; Linnell et al, 2001). Laws meant to prevent the illegal trade in leopard products are seldom enforced (Naude, Balme, Rogan, et al, 2020) and many of the study sites have hosted legal leopard hunts within the last leopard generation. Most of all, the prevalence of domestic animals across as much as three‐quarters of select reserves speaks to the nominal status of many of the “protected” sites in this study.…”

“…Some localized evidence suggests that such reserves host dense leopard populations (Balme et al, 2019;Noack et al, 2019), but it is difficult to extrapolate from a few, small-scale examples to widespread populations generally. Of particular concern regionally, human persecution (both legal and illegal) and demand for leopard furs and other body parts are prevalent (Naude, Balme, Rogan, et al, 2020;Pitman et al, 2017;Swanepoel et al, 2014Swanepoel et al, , 2015 but we lack sufficient data to determine how much these factors affect most populations. Nevertheless, in a few documented instances, they have driven localized population declines (Balme et al, 2010;Williams et al, 2017).…”