SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Information and Discussions on General Conservation Issues
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Lisbeth »

In one thing you are right, most people wouldn't even know where to begin if they were given a piece of land.

We have seen farms and vineyards falling to pieces after they had been taken over from people with a land claim and now what used to be a thriving business is worth nothing 0-


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75838
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Richprins »

:yes:

On the other hand community game farming, hunting and ecotourism are low-maintenance, create employment, and good for general conservation. Not so easy to destroy, relatively-speaking, if done correctly and without politics \O


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Lisbeth »

if done correctly
O**


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Lisbeth »

Government ignored its own science task team by redefining 32 wild species as farm animals

By Don Pinnock• 28 January 2020

Image
Lionesses rub against a cage fence at a captive breeding centre for large predators at an undisclosed location in the Free State in an undated photograph

In listing 32 wild animal species as farm animals under the Animal Improvement Act in 2019, the Department of Agriculture went against the recommendations of the government’s own scientific authority.

The scientific report on wildlife breeding was called for by the former Minister of Environmental Affairs (DEFF) and authored by 14 of the country’s top wildlife scientists. It warned that the listing of indigenous game animals under the Animal Improvement Act (AIA) would “entrench and exacerbate many of the risks highlighted in this report… It is strongly recommended that no further indigenous species are listed”.

This is precisely what happened. The Department of Agriculture – which virtually sneaked the new listing on to the statute books as a two-page amendment to an addendum – either failed to read or simply ignored the extensive 170-page peer-reviewed DEFF report. Or was it all simply bad timing? There was no public consultation. The Department of Agriculture admitted in Parliament that no scientific study had been done in redefining the animals incorporated under the AIA.

The DEFF report is likely to be the centrepiece of a court challenge by two civil society organisations. Review processes have been independently filed by the Endangered Wildlife Trust and the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association to have the amendment rescinded. They will, among other things, seek to establish why breeder profits were favoured over sound science, why the process was not followed and how this move could impact on conservation principles.

SA Hunters say intensive breeding can have conservation value where there are critically low populations. But it has noted “growing concerns and evidence from various sectors regarding the potential cumulative impacts of intensive and selective breeding of game for the commercial benefit by game breeders and how this may impact on the status of game species”.

The DEFF report notes similar concerns. It emphasises that, far from being a conservation measure, captive breeding is a potential danger to wild populations through “leakage” to free-roaming populations.

It added that “intensive management and selective breeding of game poses a number of significant risks to biodiversity [and] the biodiversity economy… and may compromise the current and future contribution of the wildlife industry to biodiversity conservation”.

Other dangers include a venison health risk from over-medication of intensely bred wild animals, parasite infections on farms being transferred to wild animals, reputational damage to South Africa from “canned” hunting of captive-bred animals as well as aberrant traits from increasing domestication, intensive breeding, hybridisation, genetic manipulation and selective inbreeding.

The report concludes that “the practice of intensive and selective breeding based on the findings of this assessment may not meet the criteria for sustainability”.

There’s a fundamental truth underlying the report: wild animals know how to look after themselves – they’ve been perfecting it for millions of years. When their environment is controlled by humans, however, there are problems. In general, we act in our best interests, not theirs.

For this reason, according to the Scientific Report, it’s essential to use a precautionary principle in our relationship to wild animals, because some actions cannot easily be undone and could precipitate a disastrous cascade.

The report also cautions against creating market hype to push prices above the intrinsic value of the asset. This has led to market crashes in canned lion hunting and the breeding of colour variants in SA, the ostrich market in the United States, the hybrid tulip market in the Netherlands and the emu market “bubble” in Canada. In each case, millions of dollars were lost.

“Speculation linked to investment interest in a market can lead to an escalation of prices as new investors buy into this market,” it notes. “This can lead to inflated prices and oversupply, especially in cases of poorly developed consumer markets, as is the case for colour variants. The common outcome of such is massive profit for the originators and early investors and significant financial loss.”

According to the report, potential impacts related to the intentional breeding for selective traits such as colour variation or increased horn or body size include the expression of “warped” genes, the loss of genetic diversity, outbreeding depression, physiological stress and domestication.

If these animals are released into the wild – and the report says it would be very difficult to prevent this over time – weakened genetic strains could “infect” wild herds and could lead to gradual extinction.

“A loss of genetic diversity is highly likely to result in decreased fitness and in the long term reduce the evolutionary potential of populations to adapt to environmental change.”

Another problem is the inappropriate use of products to reduce parasites which leads to them developing resistance and then spreading to other farms and wild animals. It could also lead to the entire failure of the veterinary product. There is also the problem of residual chemicals in venison that’s marketed locally and internationally.

Continuous management will also entrench the domestication process, the report says.

“Domestication leads to the habituation of animals to humans, but in the long term to the selection of more timid animals that adapt better to a captive environment.

“Erosion of the social structure and behaviour of intensively bred animals over time results in a loss of their natural ability to adapt to wild conditions.”

It also causes physical and behavioural changes, including decreased flight responses, increased sociality, earlier reproduction and modification of endocrine and metabolic systems.

“The probability that the process of domestication will take place within intensive breeding facilities is virtually certain and the impacts or effects of domestication are likely to be permanent with respect to the individuals within intensive breeding facilities.”

Deliberate or accidental introductions of captive populations which have undergone genetic changes, says the report, could compromise the evolutionary trajectory and adaptive potential of wild populations.

There are also welfare considerations about individual animals. If released into the wild, manipulated game animals are likely to suffer high levels of mortality through predator naivety.

Another problem, says the report, is the “sterilisation” of environments to prevent predation by natural predators. The misuse of pesticides and hazardous substances to control damage-causing animals including predators, birds of prey, primates and warthogs is common practice within certain sectors of the game-breeding industry.

Because no environmental impact assessment needs to be done when erecting small game-breeding camps, they can be set up in sensitive areas on the borders of protected areas. This can negatively impact the ecosystems of protected areas.

“These impacts,” says the report, “include habitat fragmentation, animals killed in fences and reduced tolerance towards free-ranging threatened predators.”

The report notes that the killing of predators and other conflict species may result in a reduction in their population numbers or elimination from certain areas with limited opportunity for recolonisation. This could lead to a change in the conservation status of species such as leopards, caracal and jackals and pose an extinction risk.

“The disruption of natural predation interactions, through the exclusion of apex predators from the agricultural landscape may result in an increase of smaller to medium-sized predators. This, in turn, may lead to a disproportionate impact upon smaller prey species, also potentially increasing human-wildlife conflict.”

The report flags another concern. Some high-value species do not breed well in captivity, so the temptation will be to source these from the wild. The removal of rare wild species with small population sizes can lead to population declines resulting in a lower overall conservation status.

“A number of high-value game species are presently being captured from the wild and brought into intensive-breeding facilities. For species with small population sizes in the wild or rare species, capture “will reduce wild population sizes and can increase their extinction risk”.

The Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (Phasa) has also expressed concern over intensive breeding of wildlife and is opposed to the “highly controversial practices such as artificial insemination, cloning, genetic manipulation and any procedure that produces artificial colour variants”.

SA Hunters have pointed out that the game species listed in terms of the AIA do not refer to scientific names. As a result, this creates confusion as several of the species listed have more than one subspecies. Some of these do not occur naturally in South Africa and are listed as alien invasive species.

Concern has also been expressed by the EMS Foundation. In a letter to environment minister Barbara Creecy, it says no public consultation took place in the amendment. Her department, it says, seems to have washed their hands of the process, proclaiming it an agricultural concern.

“The amendments to the AIA entrench the idea that wild animals are merely commodities with no inherent right to live in the ecosystems and social systems in which they belong and in which they play an essential role. They are likely to endanger the genetic health of wild populations. Weak enforcement of laws means that there is high possibility of genetically manipulated specimens coming into contact with wild populations.

“Environmental authorities within all spheres of government have also consistently denied that they have a mandate to deal with welfare.”

The foundation called on the minister to roll back the amendment and prohibit the intensive breeding for commercial purposes of any wild animals – particularly the indigenous species of wild animals recently listed in the Animal Improvement Act. DM


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Klipspringer »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -pollution

Writing in the latest issue of the South African Journal of Science, a group of 10 senior wildlife scientists and researchers have criticised the government for quietly amending the country’s Animal Improvement Act last year to allow for the domestication and “genetic improvement” of at least 24 indigenous wildlife species – including rare and endangered animals such as rhino, cheetah, lion, buffalo and several antelope species.

Advertisement
The researchers warn that: “A logical endpoint of this legislation is that we will have two populations of each species: one wild and one domesticated … domesticated varieties of wildlife will represent a novel, genetic pollution threat to South Africa’s indigenous wildlife that will be virtually impossible to prevent or reverse.”

Lead author Prof Michael Somers, a senior researcher at the Mammal Research Institute at the University of Pretoria, says the government should scrap the controversial law amendment which lumps together rare and endangered species such as rhinos with rabbits and domesticated dog breeds.

Somers and his colleagues say the act typically provides for domesticated species to be bred and “genetically improved” to obtain “superior domesticated animals with enhanced production and performance”.

These animals “can also be used for genetic manipulation, embryo harvesting, in-vitro fertilisation and embryo transfers,” say the scientists.

They argue that the law will not improve the genetics of the affected wildlife species but rather will pose ecological and economic risks as it will be expensive and almost impossible to maintain a clear distinction between wild and domesticated species.

Somers and his colleagues say the government did not appear to have consulted either scientists, government wildlife agencies or the general public about the controversial move.

Last year, in response to concerns that the legal amendment would remove the listed species from the ambit of conservation legislation, the government’s environment department issued a statement to emphasise that that game breeders would still have to comply with the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act and regulations concerning threatened or protected species.

But Somers and his co-authors remain concerned, saying that in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, where there is close cooperation between game breeders and the provincial conservation organisation, the authorities still had difficulty keeping track of what happens on game farms and in enforcing legislation.

“This new law will add to this difficulty, and will likely be less controlled in some other provinces,” they said, adding that the genetic consequences of intensive or semi-intensive breeding of wildlife species were “negative and considerable”.

“Intensive breeding through artificial (non random) selection of individuals for commercially valuable traits (eg horn size/shape, coat colour) represents humans taking over this natural process. Such artificial selection by humans is even more powerful than natural selection in creating distinct phenotypes within very short time frames.”

Michael Bruford, a professor of biodiversity at the University of Cardiff and co-chair of the Conservation Genetics Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission, added his support to the concerns raised. “The Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2020 targets clearly state that signatory countries should minimise genetic erosion (loss of genetic diversity) in domestic, socio-economically and culturally valuable species,” he said.

“However you regard these species – and they cannot reasonably be classified as domestic animals – South Africa’s proposal will very likely lead to genetic erosion, in contravention of the CBD target,” he added. “This proposal also comes at a time of rapid environmental deterioration, when we need to be increasing the resilience of our species by ensuring they retain as much genetic diversity as possible”.

Link to the article:
https://www.sajs.co.za/article/view/7724/9743

In conclusion
We provide concerns and threats which arise from the amended Table 7 of the Animal Improvement Act (Act no. 62 of 1998). Most importantly, we point out that the main aim of the law, which is ‘To provide for the breeding, Reclassification of South African wildlife as farm animals identification and utilisation of genetically superior animals to improve the production and performance of animals in the interest of the Republic…’ is fundamentally flawed when applied to wild animals on this amended table.


User avatar
Peter Betts
Posts: 3084
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:28 am
Country: RSA
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Peter Betts »

Forgive them for they know not what they do


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Lisbeth »

Image
Zebras at Sango. Photograph: Sango Wildlife Conservancy

South Africa wants to promote wildlife consumption

BY ELISABETTA CORRÀ - 25TH MARCH 2020 - ACF

South Africa is turning towards the implementation of new laws that fully allows the economic exploitation of wildlife. The intention is to market the use of all kinds of wild species, including giraffes, zebras, emu, and duikers, in order to produce cheap meat. However, the current corona virus crisis shows this can be a public health, economic and ecological disaster.

Despite the pandemic, and despite the causes of this zoonosis, South Africa is preparing to expand and intensify captive breeding of wild species and sell their meat in the food markets. This is an alarming turning point in the nation’s immense biological heritage management policies. The plan was published in the Official Gazette on 28 February in a proposal to revise the Meat Safety Act, the law that has regulated meat production since 2000. The proposal is to expand the number of non-domestic but edible species “that can be slaughtered as food for humans or for animal consumption”.

The list contains 104 species, including: zebras, red hartebeest, wildebeest, springbok, dik dik, lechwe, kudu, duiker, gemsbok, eland, impala, rhinos (black and white), hippos, giraffes, elephants and crocodiles. The proposal also points out that “this scheme includes animals that are listed as endangered species, in accordance with conservation measures, and therefore their slaughter for both human and animal consumption must be in line with the most relevant conservation indications”.

For some time, conservation and breeding have been going on the same track in South Africa.

The move by the Government, in which the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture move along a concerted path dotted with legal gaps, has not surprised those in South Africa working in the conservation and in the wildlife farming industry, which supplies trophy animals to hunters and lion bones to Chinese and South East Asian buyers.

In May 2019, the previous Minister of Agriculture had passed an amendment to a 1998 law, the Animal Improvement Act (AIA), to reclassify 33 wildlife species as farm animals, including lions, cheetahs, rhinos and zebras, without public consultation. This allow these animals to be used for breeding, slaughtering and genetic manipulation in farms scattered across the country, the notorious wildlife farms.

As a result, these wildlife farms can use artificial insemination and genetic manipulation to obtain animals with special characteristics, for example faster, larger or of a different colour. These animals are highly sought after by hunters, who seek out-of-norm trophies for their collections.

The government of South Africa has decided to turn towards a complete “wildlife economy” where wild animals are a raw material on which to plan profits. South Africa has now taken a path of use of its fauna which is transforming the country into a genetic laboratory in the name of “sustainable development”. In the midst of an increasingly serious economic crisis, while education levels in the country are also decreasing, the government turns to extraction of resources at all costs for an immediate profit.

While China, on February 24, decided to ban wildlife trade by also asking CITES for more stringent measures, South Africa seems to want to take a completely opposite path, in defiance not only of the precautionary principle, but of international concerns Nobody knows how many of the animals on the Chinese markets came from South Africa and the country is preparing to expand a market that hides unknown oublic health dangers.

For this reason, on March 21, which is Human Rights Day in South Africa, the EMS Foundationtogether with about sixty other organizations and institutions will demonstrate in Cape Town to ask the Minister of the Environment Barbara Creecy to close the meat industry and to take a position against Covid-19 and against the consumption of wild meat. People will be virtually united for animal, environmental and human rights, which are strictly related.

Please find the full story here: La Stampa (in Italian)
Original article: https://africanconservation.org/south-a ... nsumption/


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Lisbeth »

A logical step after "SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals".


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Lisbeth »

Prohibit Venison consumption in South Africa

BY ELISE TEMPELHOFF - 22ND APRIL 2020 - NETWERK24

In the light of Covid19, the EMS Foundation called on three South African government departments to put in place a moratorium on the slaughter and eating of venison in South Africa.

In three attorney’s letters , addressed to the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, as well as those of Health and Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries, Cullinan & Associates writes on behalf of The EMS Foundation, that these departments must take immediate steps to forbid the consumption of venison in South Africa.

According to the letter to the Minster of Agriculture Minister, Thoko Didiza, it is clear that Covid19 has been transmitted from wild animals to humans and therefore the eating of venison should be prohibited. This comes after Didiza’s department recently began making changes to animal breeding legislation.

In terms of these amendments, Didiza’s department has reclassified 32 wildlife species as farm animals so that they can be intensively farmed.

According to the lawyer’s letter, these plans pose a great danger to human health because it is clear that animal breeding is aimed at humans being able to eat their products. Michele Pickover, of EMS, said on Monday that the slaughter of wild animals also poses a great danger to people working in slaughterhouses because viruses can be transmitted to them. “We are therefore calling for a ban on any use of wild animal products,” she said.

In the letter, EMS also asked Didiza’s department to withdraw the amendments.

The Endangered Species Trust (EWT) has indicated that they are taking legal action against Didiza and her department on this matter.

In EMS’s letter of attorney to Barbara Creecy, Minister of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries, the Foundation requests that a moratorium be placed on the export of lion bones, as well as on the slaughter of lions for this industry.

The letter refers to the four-year-old tiger female, Nadia, from the Bronx Zoo in New York who was infected with Covid19 by a gardener at this facility.

According to Pickover, more than 8,000 lions in South Africa are exposed to Covid19 as people on the lion farms come into close contact with the big cats. It also exposes the workers to the lions that could possibly transmit Covid19 to them, Pickover says. In the letter to Health Minister, Dr. Zwelini Mkhize, from Cullinan & Associates, it’s noted that EMS has already sent him three letters over the past few months warning him about vulnerability of people working at slaughterhouses, especially those involved in the slaughter of lions to send lion bones to Asia.

EMS asks Mkhize to investigate the welfare of workers at slaughterhouses where wild animals in particular are being slaughtered.

EMS reminds Mkhize that the Covid19 epidemic originated in a market in Wuhan, China where wild animals are kept and slaughtered for people to eat the meat.

In the letter to Mkhize, he was warned that he should take note of the game products exported from South Africa and that he should place a ban on it.

Pickover said EMS had sent numerous letters to Barbera Creecy of DEFF in the past about the phasing out of the lion industry, but never received any acknowledgment of receipt.

Beeld also inquired, but received no response from her department.

Neither Mkhize nor Didiza’s departments responded to EMS or their attorneys’ letters.

Pickover said EMS keeps a close record of all the unanswered letters.

Original article: https://www.netwerk24.com/Nuus/Omgewing ... a-20200421


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75838
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: SA reclassifies 33 wild species as farm animals

Post by Richprins »

According to the letter to the Minster of Agriculture Minister, Thoko Didiza, it is clear that Covid19 has been transmitted from wild animals to humans and therefore the eating of venison should be prohibited.

0*\ 0*\


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
Post Reply

Return to “Other Conservation Issues”