WHAT IS A GIN-TRAP?

Gin traps are commonly used on production landscapes in attempt to kill predators and prevent livestock losses. These devices catch animals by the limbs. They are typically set along fence lines, in holes or gaps where animals naturally move, then slam shut with force on the animal's leg, often crushing bones on impact.

Once caught, animals are unable to release themselves and endure prolonged agony, trauma, and fear until the trapper returns to kill them. Legally, traps should be checked every 24 hours, but in practice this often does not always happen.

Shockingly, these devices remain legal to set in South Africa and are widely used in livestock production industry.

WHY THEY DON'T WORK?

They are ineffective in reducing livestock losses. Predators, when given the choice, almost always prefer wild prey over livestock. By killing biodiversity, reducing prey populations, and injuring or killing predators, gin traps actually increase the likelihood of predators turning to livestock.

In short, these devices work agains the very reason they are employed.

THE DAMAGE THEY CAUSE

THE GREENWASHING PROBLEM: "SOFT TRAPS"

At the time when public and legal pressure was building to ban gin traps entirely, conservation organisations had a pivotal opportunity to support progressive reform. Instead, bodies including the Cape Leopard Trust (CLT) publicly endorsed these traps as “tools” for predator management—a misleading euphemism. In reality, “soft traps” are mechanically identical to commercial gin traps widely available under names such as the Terminator, Leopard Trap, and Super Trap. The minor modifications do nothing to lessen the barbaric cruelty, injury, and suffering inflicted on trapped animals.

It was widely rumoured that CLT received a R50,000 donation from the Red Meat Producers Organisation (RPO) to participate in this campaign. Whether or not this payment occurred, the outcome is indisputable: CLT lent its credibility to a framework that entrenched, rather than dismantled, one of the most inhumane practices in predator management. By legitimising these devices, CLT and others undermined the growing momentum to ban them, and instead helped enshrine their use in the National Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage Causing Animals. This policy framework persists to this day.

Although CLT has since tried to distance itself from its earlier position—issuing contradictory statements and revising its website—the public record remains clear. Its CEO openly stated the organisation “advocates soft traps” and regards them as “tools” to manage problem animals. Such statements cannot be erased.

In Landmark’s view, this stance was irresponsible, and a betrayal of the very wildlife conservation bodies are meant to protect. By greenwashing archaic and inhumane methods under the banner of sustainable husbandry, CLT and its allies set conservation policy back by decades. Their actions have not only killed wild animals, including leopards and countless non-target species, but condemned them to the most torturous deaths imaginable.

If conservation is to have any meaningful effect and integrity, we must ensure no such move away from complicity in cruelty. 

LANDMARK'S POSITION & SOLUTION

Landmark has consistently opposed gin traps and all derivatives of leg-hold and snare traps. We recognise the pressures farmers face, but decades of evidence show that lethal methods do not reduce livestock losses. There are proven, non-lethal alternatives that protect both livestock and biodiversity that we Landmark promotes and assists with implementation on livestock farms. 

We call for:

• An immediate and complete ban on gin traps in South Africa.
• The meat, wool, and fibre industries to end reliance on outdated, unethical practices that threaten biodiversity.
• Farmers to take responsibility for adopting ethical, wildlife-considerate management methods.

Effective non-lethal alternatives include:

• deterrents such as lights,
• barriers such as kraals or electric fencing in vulnerable areas,
• herding animals and human shepherds in high-risk areas,
• livestock guarding dogs,
• protective livestock collars.

It is unacceptable that in the 21st century, animals are still subjected to such cruel, indiscriminate suffering in the name of livestock protection. We can’t continue to torture animals for livelihoods and profits. 



We urge government to urgently review and amend policy, abolish the legal use of gin traps, and promote non-lethal, sustainable solutions that allow farmers and wildlife to coexist.