July 26th, 2010 - How to strangle animal welfare

Monday, 26 July 2010

HOW TO STRANGLE ANIMAL WELFARE

Two apparently unrelated events took place recently in the Western Cape province of South Africa. First, was the publication in Cape Nature’s website of an undertaking to process all hunting permits within two days of application. Just two days. A sort of fast track killing system. No wonder there are more than 9000 hunting farms in SA.
The second event concerns a troop of 19 perfectly healthy baboons, who were shot in their cage at the Cape Centre for Wildlife Rehabilitation near Barrydale. The bloody massacre was done at the instance of Cape Nature authorities, with the approval of the Cape SPCA, allegedly because the baboons could not be released into any wilderness, and because there are no sanctuaries where they could receive lifetime care.

The full horror of this killing spree, as one trapped, intelligent primate after another died trying to escape the pandemonium, the bloodshed and the bullets, does not bear thinking about.

Now what is wrong with Conservation here, that such atrocities are permitted? At the outset, we must stress that there are many dedicated and hard-working conservationists who battle to do their jobs well, under trying conditions. Yet, they seem powerless to prevent the invasion and occupation of the area of wildlife conservation by the hunting fraternity. One consequence of that is the displacement and belittling of animal welfare concerns. So, for example, let’s compare our own wildlife rehab permit experience, to see why there is no suitable wildlife facility able to offer sanctuary to 19 (allegedly) unreleasable baboons.

When we retired to the Kalahari in 1998, and spent our life savings on establishing a wildlife rehab centre and sanctuary there, Northern Cape conservation officials refused to grant us permits. They even refused to give reasons for their refusal. When we carried on anyway, with the support of the veterinarians and of the local farming community, they finally came up with a temporary permit, subject to a host of conditions designed to obstruct our work. For example, there was a weight limit of 4kgs on any bird or animal we could take in to care. The only wildlife sanctuary in the largest and wildest province in SA, covering a vast area larger than some European nations, was restricted to caring for animals that weighed less than 4 kgs.
Regardless, we continued to rescue orphaned and injured animals as needed. The conservation officials tried to close us down. Vets were warned not to deal with us. On one occasion a whole convoy of armed policemen and conservation officials invaded our care centre, confiscating three caracals (lynx) who were in rehab. The confiscation was unlawful and we obtained a High Court order in Kimberley forcing the conservation officials to return the animals to us. Thereafter, we spent more than R165,000 on legal expenses, reaching right through to the Constitutional Court, to try to protect our wildlife shelter from the routine, mindless obstruction by conservation officials.

Other provinces are no better when it comes to animal welfare. In 2004, we moved to the Cape. In early 2006, we submitted a request for a permit in principle to establish a wildlife sanctuary there. Despite letters and phone calls, meetings and threats of legal action, the months, and then the years, went by. In April 2007, we wrote: We continue to look for suitable property upon which to set up a wildlife sanctuary without any guidelines from the department to assist us, even though we asked for them eighteen months ago.
In the end, no sanctuary was founded in the Western Cape.

So we turned our attention to the Eastern Cape. Here there was suitable land available within the Greater Baviaans Mega Reserve.
At the end of 2008, we submitted a formal written application to Eastern Cape Conservation authorities for permits to found a wildlife rehab centre and sanctuary on a specific piece of land, 2,500 hectares in extent. The application was buttressed by a comprehensive document covering every conceivable bureaucratic need, including proof of means, experience, risk and threat analyses, EIA information, food flow etc etc.
Once again, the pattern was repeated. Months and then years slipped by without any written response from the Department. In desperation, we turned to lawyers. Finally, on 20th February 2010, our attorney received a letter from the Department in Port Elizabeth stating that no permit could be considered until we had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU was being drafted and would then be referred to their legal office in Bisho for vetting.
As at August 2010, nothing further has been heard from the Department.

So the policy of South African conservation departments can be summed up thus: If you wish to kill an animal, government will fall over itself to issue you with a hunting permit. But if you want to care for orphaned and injured wildlife, government will do everything in its power to stop you.

One stratagem employed to strangle animal welfare is the ‘one size fits all’ trick. The Policy document now adopted imposes wholly unnecessary administrative burdens on anyone impertinent enough to want to help animals in need of care. Whether you want to establish a large Zoo with a thousand animals in a municipal area, or you are a farmer’s wife who just wants to take in the occasional sparrow, the bureaucratic obstacles are the same. You will have to climb a mountain of paperwork, find yourself forced to employ consultants at great expense to prepare various useless documents, and suffer endless delays. No fast track solution for you.
Yet, if animal welfarists were given permits within two days, like the hunters, there would by now be a sophisticated network of wildlife care centres; hubs with satellite facilities, all across the country. Every second farmer’s wife would be linked in to the system. Rehab costs would be minimised, and spread over the whole system. Dependence on sponsorship would be drastically reduced.

And 19 (allegedly) unreleasable baboons could have been quietly cared for within the system, living out their lives in relative safety and comfort, instead of being shot to death, one by one, in their cage.