SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

[Flutterby]

The Daily Maverick
By Don Pinnock• 16 October 2019

By the stroke of a legislative pen, a list of iconic and in some cases endangered wild animals can now be manipulated as farming stock. What happens next is anyone’s guess.

Lions, cheetahs, rhinos and zebras were among 33 wild species which became farm animals as of May this year when the South African Parliament approved a brief amendment to the Animal Improvement Act (AIA) which governs livestock breeding.

There has been virtually no mention of this in the media, as the legislation was slipped through without public consultation. There’s no international precedent for such an extraordinary “domestication” of wild animals.

This act permits “improvement” of “genetically superior” animals to “increase production or performance” by licensed animal breeders. It states “different kinds of animals or breeds of such kinds of animals may be so declared,” but it is unlikely, at the time the legislation was promulgated in 1998, that such a declaration would include wild and especially endangered and iconic species.

AIA permits “animal breeder societies” to manipulate breeding outcomes in the way we have altered aurochs into docile cows, the grey wolf into the many breeds of dogs and produced “golden” impala. Most of these breeds can no longer survive in the wild.

The list includes Cape buffalos, mountain zebras, lions, giraffe, white and black rhinos, cheetahs, a large number of plains game in addition to curiosities like ankole cattle, water buffaloes, Tankwa and veld goats, bulldogs, keeshonds, pugs and rottweilers.

The legislation allows artificial insemination, the collection of semen and embryos as well as the transfer of embryos and “genetic material.” Such material can be collected, evaluated, processed, packed and sold. Though this is common practice with traditional farm animals, it carries considerable risks for wild ones.

The Department of Environment Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) advised that the amendment was made “due to changing farming systems in South Africa, game animals are included as these are already part of farm animal production systems in the country”.

When it was questioned by the Democratic Alliance in Parliament, a written reply stated no public participation process to such an amendment was required and that it followed a 2017 request “from the industry” to facilitate game farming production.

It defined this industry as representing “game breeder societies” whose role was “to ensure genetic purity and sustainable utilisation; do research on feeding and nutrition; define and measure traits of economic importance; and study regulatory gaps on game for food production”.

According to NSPCA director Karen Trendler, there has been a strong lobby from the wildlife industry to have control of wildlife breeding moved to agriculture, which she says has many worrying implications.

“The problems associated with semi-intensive and intensive farming are well known,” she said, “such as increased occurrence of disease and increased need for routine use of antibiotics and growth promotants, vaccinations” and so on.

In response to a comment in Farmer’s Weekly saying game listed under the amendment would no longer be protected by conservation legislation, DEFF issued a statement saying they would still be subject to requirements of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA).

However, NEMBA actually offers very little protection against exploitation. It forbids hybridisation between different species and states that permits to keep or utilise animals would be revoked if treatment is “detrimental”, but does not specify what is meant by this. It has no provision for the welfare of individual animals. The act deals mainly with licencing of commercial use of listed or threatened species.

The National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Bill, presently under review, appears to slightly increase protection, stating that the minister may “prohibit acts that impact negatively on well-being of a faunal biological resource”. Well-being, not being defined in the bill, could mean almost anything. This also means that a wild animal would only be protected in terms of its value as a human resource and not for its own sake.

So this raises the question: if the AIA amendment is not for the protection of the 33 wild animals that now fall under the act, what was behind the request from “the industry”? A clue might be in the permit restrictions and constraints imposed by NEMBA on the hunting and particularly the movement of listed and protected animals.

The act requires strict control over conveying, moving or otherwise translocating any specimen of a threatened or protected species, as well as “selling or otherwise trading in, buying, receiving, giving, donating or accepting as a gift, or in any way acquiring or disposing of any specimen of a listed threatened or protected species”. The AIA has none of these restrictions in pursuit of “improved” stock.

So does the amendment tighten or loosen the control of farmed wildlife? It’s a grey area within which violations of animal welfare could flourish.

Although the amendment has undoubtedly been celebrated by the many captive lion and rhino breeders desperate to market their products in a public environment increasingly hostile to canned hunts and the sale of rhino horn, other sectors concerned with wildlife have expressed alarm.

The South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association says it’s gravely concerned about the amendment that puts animals such as black wildebeest, blue wildebeest, blue duiker, bontebok, gemsbok, impala, oribi, red hartebeest, roan, sable, springbok, and tsessebe at risk of genetic manipulation and genetic pollution.

Lizanne Nel, conservation manager at SA Hunters, said breeding practices such as genetic manipulation and cross-breeding of wildlife were in conflict with existing biodiversity conservation legislation that protects indigenous wildlife and maintains the genetic integrity of wildlife species for current and future generations.

“How the same government could allow listing of some wildlife species, including some that are threatened, with domestic stock for genetic manipulation is just beyond comprehension,” she said.

“The intention of the Animal Improvement Act is predominantly to enhance animal species through breeding practices for improved food production. This practice certainly cannot be argued to be beneficial for threatened species.

“It will be problematic to distinguish between, or permanently separate, domesticated game and free-roaming game, with potential reputational risks to the hunting sector that already bears the brunt of local and international criticism because of unacceptable hunting practices.

“The only wild animal that was previously listed under the Animal Improvement Act was the ostrich. Scientific reports indicate that haphazard breeding and cross-breeding between, for instance, the Northern African ostrich and the Southern African ostrich was done to improve feather production. The South African ostrich industry is known to experience reproduction and chick survival problems as a result of breeding practices.

“Intensive and selective breeding of wildlife already resulted in illegal cross-breeding between West African roan, a declared alien invasive species, with local Southern roan to create so-called genetically superior animals.”

According to NSPCA director Karen Trendler, there are major welfare concerns about practices the new amendment permits. These include withdrawing young shortly after birth to encourage females to come into oestrus sooner so she breeds many more times in her lifetime than she would under normal circumstances.

“Conservation of wildlife is best done by preserving wild animals in their natural habitat. In this way, whole ecosystems and a range of other species are protected. The story sold by the wildlife industry is that so many more hectares are under wildlife — but farming is not in a natural habitat and becomes just farmland when done intensively.

“Intensive and semi-intensive wildlife production is not conservation-friendly and is usually specie-specific. Camps are denuded, there’s aggressive predator eradication, other species are excluded with higher value game chosen over species seen as having no value.”

The shocking state in which many captive-bred lions have been found also raises concerns about the ability of the newly formed Ministry of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and the departments under its watch to ensure the welfare of wild species now legally defined as farm animals. With land reform and rural development being key priorities for the new minister, Thoko Didiza, wildlife farming practices are unlikely to get much attention.

“Wildlife welfare falls through the cracks and is not adequately protected with ongoing mandate issues between departments,” says Trendler. “Regulations like this can be formulated without having to go through stakeholder or public consultation processes.

“The NSPCA has the legal mandate for all animal welfare, but we have been excluded from many of the processes around utilisation of wildlife and its welfare. We should be at the table. But we think wildlife should be in the wild so the industry and government excludes us from having a say.”

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article ... SsoG5TL4Fk

[Alf]

Because lions and cheetahs are now farm animals you can just get out of your car and go pet them

[Lisbeth]

The Government has passed the red line.

Obviously genetic manipulation is allowed in SA. That is another red line that experience has proven is better not to cross

That's what they are doing to lions and look how they are treated

In Switzerland, there is a continuous battle about the rights of the cows and the cows are slowly winning the battle

[Flutterby]

Humans are evil creatures!!

[Lisbeth]

Generally speaking, there are no limits to what they will do for their own convenience

[Richprins]

SA game ranchers accept responsibility for self-regulation of wildlife species
About 100 wildlife farmers gathered in Pretoria on 25 October 2019, to establish various species and game societies that will regulate the 33 wildlife species that had been listed under the Animal Improvement Act (AIA) through a notice in the Government Gazette in May this year.
17 hours ago

This Act, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, allows for the breeding of animals and for the establishment of societies to develop best practices, by-laws and standards to self-regulate the breeding of species listed in its regulations.

This recent listing follows on a similar listing in 2016 when 12 antelope species were included.

Last Friday’s meeting was convened by the Game Ranchers’ Forum (GRF) which is an unaffiliated initiative led by Dr Gert Dry and Dr Peter Oberem, both well-known role-players in the wildlife sector.




Photo: Farmer’s Weekly

Eight interim species societies were established to make provision for all listed game species; grouped under a society.

The interim societies will cater for Roan and Sable; Rhinoceros (black and white); Bontebok and Blesbok; Buffalo; Megafauna (Elephant, Hippopotamus, Giraffe); Predator (Cheetah, Leopard, Lion, Wild Dog, Brown Hyena, Spotted Hyena); Game Cluster 1 (small antelope species such as Klipspringer, Springbok, Steenbok etc); and Game Cluster 2 (large antelope and Zebra).

It was agreed that an AGM for each of the species societies will be held before the end of April 2020.

A Game Meat Value Chain Society will develop a roll-out plan for the game production value chain and increase consumer access to safe and healthy game meat products.

Over the next three months, these societies will develop governance structures and best practice models to mitigate and prevent prohibited game ranching practices and in doing so, ultimately contribute to food and economic security in South Africa.

Game ranchers will be able to register with an appropriate species society and at the same time qualify to be a multi-species member of all the species societies.



According to Dr Gert Dry, the inclusion of wildlife species under the AIA is widely welcomed by game ranchers because it removes the irrational biocentric-driven regulatory jurisprudence of the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) that had prevented the game farming sector from reaching its full potential for the past 15 years.



Photo: Farmer’s Weekly

“We will no longer have to negotiate with a department that applies an arbitrary approach to environmental legislation and gives officials discretionary powers to issue a permit, or not.”

Game ranchers that are part of this initiative believe that the listing of wildlife species under the AIA will contribute to the four pillars of the industry, i.e. eco-tourism, hunting, game meat production and breeding.

According to Dr Peter Oberem this move will allow the industry to reach its potential unfettered by rules made by those that do not understand the industry. He listed some of the benefits of this development to both game ranchers and conservation, namely:

Self-regulation of the industry versus imposed regulations, rules, and norms and standards;
Protection of species’ integrity through scientifically developed standards of excellence;
Enhancing the responsibility of population management;
Establishing a database with accurate information on the numbers of game ranches, hectares under game ranching, numbers of animals per species, and the movement of animals;
Access to the same tax benefits, disaster and drought relief as domestic stock farmers; and
Creating a better platform for research and access to funds.



Dr Oberem said that there were numerous other advantages for game farmers under the Department of Agriculture which recognises game farming as a commodity producing activity that takes place on agricultural land and not an extension of state conservation activities.

However, there are concurrently huge conservation benefits that will accrue. It will also enhance transformation in the sector which is long overdue.


https://lowvelder.co.za/510622/sa-game- ... e-species/

[Lisbeth]

I'm afraid that it will not stop snaring

Was there someone present taking care of animal rights?

In Switzerland we have a special lawyer taking care of animal rights

[Lisbeth]

Reclassification of 33 species under Animal Improvement Act – Coalition Media Statement

BY THE COALITION - 30TH OCTOBER 2019

On the 17th May 2019, the former Minister Senzeni Zokwana of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries made an amendment to the Animal Improvement Act, 1998 (Act No. 62 of 1998) (AIA) to include 33 wild mammal species, commonly bred by wildlife ranchers, under Table 7 of these regulations.

The AIA is enacted “to provide for the breeding, identification and utilisation of genetically superior animals in order to improve the [food]production and performance of animals in the interest of the Republic”. The 33 species, including Black & White rhino, cheetah, giraffe, lion and 28 indigenous and non-indigenous game species, are in effect now treated in the same manner as livestock in so far as the recognition of breeders’ rights is concerned.

Under the AIA, the collection of semen, embryos and other genetic material, artificial insemination, as well as the import and export of such materials is permitted by licenced breeders. This enables breeders to create genetically manipulated animals, in addition to breeding rarities and colour variants.

This week, around 100 wildlife farmers gathered in Pretoria to establish eight interim species societies to regulate the 33 wildlife species listed under the AIA, as well as a Game Meat Value Chain Society to develop a roll-out plan for the game production value chain and increase consumer access to safe and healthy game meat products.

According to the Game Ranchers’ Forum (GRF) media statement, the inclusion of wildlife species under the AIA is welcomed by game ranchers, as they “will no longer have to negotiate with a department [Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF)] that applies an arbitrary approach to environmental legislation and gives officials discretionary powers to issue a permit, or not”.

DEFF however made it very clear that the animals listed under the AIA amendment are still subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) and provincial conservation legislation, including the issuing of relevant permits.

In a media statement DEFF said that “any person who carries out a restricted activity, such as the keeping, breeding, selling or transporting of an animal of a listed threatened or protected species, must still comply with the provisions of NEMBA and its associated Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations”.

“The inclusion of species, such as white and black rhinoceros, lion and cheetah, in the amended AIA list by no means removes these animals from the jurisdiction of DEFF. It is a punishable offence if a person does not comply with the requirements of NEMBA and provincial conservation legislation”, the DEFF statement continues.

The move to include these 33 wild mammal species under Table 7 of the AIA has been driven by the wildlife farming industry, as they see it as their Constitutional right to drive the “Wildlife Economy”.

The GRF believes legislation under DEFF is too restrictive and highlighted numerous advantages for game farmers to fall under the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), as they “recognise game farming as a commodity producing activity…and not an extension of state conservation activities”.

The game ranchers’ industry is also pushing to have farmed wild animals listed with a new and separate CITES purpose code, which may come up at CoP19.

Even though many of the 33 wild animal species reclassified under the AIA are already widely bred in captivity in South Africa, the further legalisation of intensive breeding of these species raises alarm bells and the Coalition wants clarification and/or immediate action taken on the following issues:

- Neither the AIA nor NEMBA make provision for animal welfare in the captive breeding and keeping of wild animals, in particular lions and other big cats, which continues to straddle the mandates of DEFF and DALRRD, and even the provincial nature conservation authorities.

In August 2019, Judge Kollapen ruled in the Gauteng High Court that the setting of the lion bone quota in 2017 & 2018 is “unlawful and constitutionally invalid. Even if they [lions]are ultimately bred for trophy hunting and for commercial purposes, their suffering, the conditions under which they are kept and the like remain a matter of public concern and are inextricably linked to how we instil respect for animals and the environment of which lions in captivity are an integral part of.” He further stated that “….then it is inconceivable that the State Respondents could have ignored welfare considerations of lions in captivity in setting the annual export quota”.

- A Parliamentary Resolution by the 5th Parliament states that DEFF and DALRRD should present a clear programme of work on how they intend to address animal welfare and health issues that had been raised during the Colloquium, which straddle the mandates of the two departments, outlining clear timeframes for achieving this. We request that the amendments to the AIA be reviewed under this programme prior to implementation.

- The AIA Amendment seems to be implemented by DALRRD without consulting DEFF, or any public consultation for that matter, and with the apparent assumption that AIA takes precedence over NEMBA and TOPS.

- The AIA Amendment also seems to undermine the recent appointment of a High-Level Panel by Minister Barbara Creecy (DEFF) with the mandate to review policies, legislation and practices related to the management, breeding, hunting, trade and handling of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros.

- The AIA Amendment may potentially loosen restrictions on hunting and the movement of NEMBA listed species and the GRF have already hinted to self-regulation of the industry, which is hugely problematic. Membership of a professional forum or association is ultimately voluntary and its norms and standards cannot be enforced. In addition, self-regulatory standards can neither supersede nor ignore other regulations, acts and/or provincial and national legislation.

- The splitting of a species into “wild”, “wild-managed” and “captive” opens up loopholes in terms of laundering wild sourced live animals and their parts and derivatives into the captive industry and trade.

- The AIA amendment puts the 33 listed species at risk of further genetic manipulation and cross-breeding, and may now also be used for meat production, without any national norms and standards in place on the breeding, keeping, transport and slaughter of these animals.

- The formation of a joint DEFF and DALRRD working group, as was recommended in the Colloquium report in August 2018.

As a matter of urgency, the Coalition urges DEFF to commence immediate engagement with DALRRD on the issues above and for the two departments to collaborate rather than work in silos on matters that are clearly of inter-departmental and national importance, until such time that the AIA Amendment will be repealed.

[Lisbeth]

South Africa struggles to manage wildlife ranching: why it’s a problem

BY TARIRO KAMUTI, University of Cape Town - NOVEMBER 14TH 2019 - THE CONVERSATION


Game farms in South Africa often supply the canned hunting sector. Shutterstock

Over the past few decades, South Africa has seen a dramatic conversion from livestock or crop farming to wildlife ranching – known locally as game farming. The result has been a rapid rise in areas enclosed by game fences and a high demand for wildlife. Animals are increasingly being traded privately and at wildlife auctions.

But regulation hasn’t kept up with this growth. This is despite the fact that key environmental and agricultural laws have been passed since 1994 that affect the wildlife sector in a number of ways. This includes property rights, the redistribution of land and the conservation of biodiversity. The policy changes were driven mainly by the need to integrate South Africa into the international community and to bring about economic and social transformation in a democratic state.

In the 1990s the state facilitated the early development of game farming by passing favourable legislation. The Game Theft Act of 1991 was hailed as a “game changer” in the wildlife industry as the law gave farmers the right to own game as long as they had appropriate fencing.

Eight years later the Animal Improvement Act tightened up breeding rules in the livestock sector. But certain species of wildlife were exempted under this act. The result is that the law hasn’t kept up with developments in the private wildlife sector. These include new challenges that have emerged like breeding for colour variants, exotic species and canned hunting.

The result has been huge gaps in the way that game farms are regulated by the state at national and provincial levels. In a paper published in 2014 I looked at how the fractured state in the governance of private game farming in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa was affecting the sector. My findings remain relevant.

In the intervening years, the power of the private wildlife sector has been entrenched. Game farmers in KwaZulu-Natal often complain about strict local wildlife regulations. But, as my research showed, they benefit from the fact that there are holes in the law, plus the fact that there’s a strong, autonomous conservation body at provincial level that has historically acted in their favour.

I concluded that schisms between the various government departments, locally and nationally, combined with a lack of clear direction on the private game farming sector have meant that their operations haven’t been directed towards being more socially or environmentally sustainable.

What’s wrong

Game farming connects the wildlife and agricultural sectors. Both are inherently connected to land.

Land needs to be equitably distributed and sustainably utilised to meet varied needs of a diverse South African population. The country has a long way to go on both scores.

Land distribution remains persistently skewed. At least 80% of the country’s land is privately owned, most of it in the hands of white farmers. On top of this there are still mass evictions of former farm workers, former labour tenants and even land restitution claimants. These evictions have mostly happened during the past two decades. It has also been the period during which wildlife farming has grown.

Game farming also has environmental consequences. Take the issue of game breeding. The high demand for the “new forms” of species puts pressure on game farmers to increase introduction of exotic species. The genetic manipulation of species, for example to create unusual colour variants, as well as intensive captive breeding methods are being used to produce “new” variants.

Variant species are seen as problematic because they have the potential of affecting species in the wild if they’re released to intermingle.

In addition, trophy hunting remains a controversial issue on its contribution to conservation.

What’s missing

At the national level, there is a schism between government departments.

The first area of tension is over which department should take the lead. Should it be the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries or the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development?

The issues being played out include:

- whether game farmers should be regulated as just another agricultural activity.

- whether biodiversity conservation concerns should take precedence.

- whether wildlife should be treated in the same way as livestock.

The government recently gazetted a list of 33 wildlife species that will now be treated as livestock. This opens the door to these species being treated as farming stock.

The change surprised environmentalists. It suggests that the government is gradually yielding to the demands of game farmers.

My research also found that game farmers in KwaZulu-Natal are protected by the semi-autonomous conservation authority, Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife, to their advantage. The organisation has a strong tradition of cooperation with private landowners in the province which has ensured that their interests are protected. However, the conservation authority still has difficulty in keeping track of what happens on game farms and enforcing legislation.

Recommendations

There is a need for a coherent policy which clarifies the position and role of game farming in South Africa. This needs to take on board the country’s political and socioeconomic context, including the land question.

Government and all other institutions need to have the capacity to safeguard natural resources as well as to ensure marginalised communities are looked after. One possible route could be to delegate powers to local level, though this would not necessarily be regarded as a positive move by game farmers.

This article is based on a longer article first published in the Journal of Contemporary African Studies. The study and the publication of the special issue were funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (grant number W01.65.306.00) and the South Africa Netherlands Research Programme on Alternatives in Development.

Tariro Kamuti, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Cape Town

[Richprins]

Land needs to be equitably distributed and sustainably utilised to meet varied needs of a diverse South African population. The country has a long way to go on both scores.

Says you.

Actually land is very low on the list of priorities for most citizens, they want jobs, security, education etc.

But politicians and liberals love beating the land drum.

Most game farming land is useless for agriculture and marginal for any meaningful stock farming. It is the biggest free gift to the SA economy, in fact, especially as climate change increases.