March 01st, 2009 - Damage causing farmers

DAMAGE CAUSING FARMERS vs DAMAGE CAUSING ANIMALS
Environmental Terrorism licensed by the South African government.

After much ducking and diving by Government, some of which has been reported in the Press, the new draft Policy for the “management” of damage causing animals in South Africa has finally come to light.

However, many concerned citizens may not be familiar with tricks of drafting, or the realities of the situation, so here is a critique of the new Policy.

Before we get into the detail, here is a Preface.

First, any wildlife whose natural habits impact upon agribusiness in any way, have been routinely poisoned, gin-trapped and shot for generations. Compared to the indiscriminate massacre of wild animals by farmers, all other threats to their survival pale to insignificance. There has been no realization that poor farming practices are responsible for most of the conflict, or that the indiscriminate methods of killing animals were destroying our wildlife heritage, and causing regional extinctions, mainly to non-target species. As for the ghastly cruelty involved, no one ever gave it a thought. At first, such animals were termed ‘vermin’, then the term became ‘problem animals’ and now it has become ‘damage-causing animals’ - DCAs for short. Apart from the terminology, nothing has changed. The new draft policy specifically allows for the use of inhumane methods of extermination, including banned poisons, certain gin-traps etc.
Second, even if I were to draft the Policy myself to put the protection with the animals, where it belongs, and not with the financial interests of agribusiness, it would not make the slightest difference to the plight of the wild animals. There is a culture of defiance in many farming circles, a mindset that says: no one is going to tell me what to do on my land - regardless of the law.
So even if the use of poison, gin-traps, and denning were legally banned, many farmers would continue to use them regardless. And if government is unable to effectively combat crime in urban areas, where there are witnesses and a police presence, how on earth could it possibly control the setting of snares and traps on rural, private land, out of sight and out of mind.
So the reality of the situation is the farmers will continue to do as they please, and the vicious slaughter of our wildlife by inhumane means will continue unabated.
Tragically, the new draft policy makes no attempt to protect the animals but it makes every effort to entrench poor farming management - which is the real cause of the conflict.
Accordingly there seems to be little point in nit picking through the Policy, pointing out all the flaws and loopholes. After all, the reality is that the policy will signify nothing.
So, for those who want to see a detailed critique of the new Policy, go to our website www.cannedlion.org/ For the others, just spare a thought for the thousands of unfortunate victims who, while you read this, are convulsing in agony after being poisoned; who are struggling with shattered limbs, in medieval gin traps, or being twisted up in barbed wire and hauled out of their dens into the jaws of the waiting dog pack. All for the greater glory of the Supreme God, money.

DRAFT DISCUSSION DOCUMENT ON NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DAMAGE-CAUSING ANIMALS IN S.A. (DEAT)

Below, I draw attention to some of the main clauses in the Document. My comments are in italics.

1. Definitions:-
“Environmental Management must place people and their needs high on the agenda of its concern”
Translation: Screw the animals and just keep the farmers happy.

“humane”- definition absent, because the draftsman says. “We cannot by default give rights to any animals, especially not to Damage Causing Animals (D.C.A’s).”
Translation: When the draftsman finally devises a definition which the farmers will accept, you can be sure that it will be some pious, unenforceable aspiration such as “to kill the animal as quickly as circumstances allow”.

Poison Collar must contain Compound 1080.
For details of this ghastly poison, read more on our website.

Stakeholder - means people with a financial interest and experts.
Translation: No bunny huggers included in this aspect of environmental governance, regardless of the Constitution.

Welfare: refers to the general welfare of animals, meeting their basic requirements. Suggestions of specifying the details (quote) dismissed with the comment: we cannot give rights to animals, especially not DCA’s.

2. Statement of Intent:
The DCA’s must be managed to limit losses.
Translation: screw the animals. Kill, kill, kill.
“ The primary responsibility of government conservation authorities is:
a. to give advice to stakeholders WITH THE EMPHASIS ON MINIMISING THE ECONOMIC LOSSES CAUSED BY ANIMALS.
Translation: the animals lose again, because the emphasis should be on implementing non-lethal methods.

b. to research the development of systems, including suitable poison:
Translation: drug companies will make money selling patented poisons to conservation structures for testing on luckless animals to see which kills most animals for least money.

c. Government must direct its services at activities which require special expertise, such as research on human/wildlife conflict.
Translation: government will provide funds to re-open dreadful institutions like the problem animal research laboratory at Bloemhof, where ‘scientists’ routinely poisoned captured cheetah, caracal and other predators to see how long it took for them to die, and which was the cheapest and most cost effective poison.

d. Government will participate in the training of hunters and landowners where needed.
Translation: local communities will be taught how best to kill DCAs, and the hunting industry is going to involve itself too. Why should locals have all the fun, when you can call an animal a DCA, and thus turn it into a resource to be exploited for financial gain.

3. Purpose of Policy
a. To ensure that equipment and control methods are socially and ecologically acceptable, cost effective, approved in legislation and as far as possible selective towards the target animals.
Translation: this is meaningless drivel. Note the absence of the word ‘humane.’ This section is a legal draftsman’s trick to make the policy look like what it is not - ie humane. The need for humane treatment of animals is being carefully avoided, and until the draftsman finds a definition of ‘humane’ which robs the word of its ordinary meaning, he cannot use it.

b. To set minimum standards for professional hunters including conservation authorities, to render their services.
Translation: professional problem animal killers, who are paid by the skull and therefore have no incentive to minimise the slaughter, will not be banned but rather assisted in their grim business.

4. The policy will not apply to listed species such as leopards and hyenas.
( who will continue to be mismanaged under sec 14 of the TOPS regulations.)
5.
6. Minimum standards.
Procedures are laid down whereby conservation officials can make a damage assessment including incident reports, police reports, damage costing etc record keeping.
Translation. Never mind the animals, let’s just create a nice big bureaucratic paper trail so everyone can pretend government is doing its job of protecting our environment.

A sensible suggestion, namely, that animals should not be destroyed when the losses are caused mainly by human error or negligence, has been deleted from the draft policy with the comment that ‘it is too broad.’

7. Control rules.
An animal escaping from a nature reserve and liable to cause damage may be sold to hunters. Further the hunters may use prohibited methods of hunting.
Translation. Hey, let’s bring in the hunters so we can have some fun and make some more money killing escapees. And we can now use inhumane hunting methods too. What a loophole for unscrupulous hunters/landowners to put down the fences or bait valuable animals out of game parks for private gain.

8 Management rules.
DCAs may be hunted with permits allowing the use of poison, bait, traps, leghold devices, dog packs, automatic weapons, shotguns and even pellet guns. The hunter of a DCA may also use lures and bait, and hunt from aircraft or motor vehicle, using spotlights at night.
This is the core of the policy. All these old cruel methods allowed under outdated problem animal control ordinances have been re-stated and approved. So nothing has changed, and the slaughter goes on. This section is aimed at making life easier for the most cynical environmental terrorists of all - the so -called problem animal control specialist.

Sec11(2) a DCA ma not be hunted with bow and arrow. “except in areas where gunshot sound might be a problem, like on golf course.”
Critique: keep a look out, golfers. You may be lucky enough to see hunters crawling around your course, shooting DCAs with bow and arrow. Anyway, it is hard to understand why you may use a pellet gun on a DCA, but not a bow and arrow.

12. Leghold traps may be used, subject to certain design characteristics.
This section allows the use of so called ‘soft’ gin traps. However the possession, sale, import and use of the existing medieval gin traps has not been criminalized, so what is to stop farmers from continuing to use them? Why will a farmer buy an expensive new gin trap when he already has half a dozen old ones which work perfectly well in his eyes?

13. The setting of traps in areas without shade is permitted, to keep the Free State farmers happy.
Critique: so trapped animals can die of thirst in the blazing hot sun. Further restrictions such as the need to check traps at least every 24 hours and not to allow a trapped animal to be left ‘intentionally’ in a trap cage for longer than 48 hours, are yet more pious aspirations, utterly unenforceable.