Could Culling of Elephants Be Considered Inhumane and ...
Transcript of Could Culling of Elephants Be Considered Inhumane and ...
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uwlp20
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uwlp20
Could Culling of Elephants Be ConsideredInhumane and Illegal in South African Law?
Rob Slotow, Andrew Blackmore, Michelle Henley, Karen Trendler & MarionGaraï
To cite this article: Rob Slotow, Andrew Blackmore, Michelle Henley, Karen Trendler & MarionGaraï (2021): Could Culling of Elephants Be Considered Inhumane and Illegal in South AfricanLaw?, Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529
Published online: 29 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Journal of InternatIonal WIldlIfe laW & PolIcy
Could Culling of Elephants Be Considered Inhumane and Illegal in South African Law?
Rob Slotow* , Andrew Blackmore* , Michelle Henley , Karen Trendler and Marion Garaï
ABSTRACTElephant culling is included in National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in the Republic of South Africa, as a last-resort option to reduce elephant population size when required to meet reserve objectives. Recent judg-ments in South African courts have emphasised the importance of considering animal welfare in conservation. We assess the approved method of culling elephant family units, in terms of the legal and policy framework in South Africa, as well as considering elephant welfare and wellbeing. We find that the current culling method is likely to be inhumane, and potentially inconsistent with the Constitution, as interpreted by the judi-ciary. In addition, in certain circumstances, culling is illegal in terms of the Animals Protection and Meat Safety Acts, and contravenes World Organisation for Animal Health and global standards for the slaughter of animals. We recommend con-sidering a moratorium on culling of elephant family units, as well as of lone bulls, until humane slaughter methods, and standard operation procedures that ensure an extremely high probability of instantaneous (“clean”) kill, are developed and approved. We recommend an ethics review process for con-servation management interventions involving wellbeing risks to animals, such as is required for animal research. Notwithstanding other imperatives that need consideration, conservation practice should better balance welfare, to align with both South African legislation and global norms.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. —attributed to Mahatma Gandhi
1. Introduction
With rapidly expanding human pressure and global change, there is increas-ing pressure on wildlife populations across Africa, as well as increasing
https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529
© 2021 taylor & francis Group, llc
CONTACT rob Slotow [email protected] School of life Sciences, university of KwaZulu-natal, P Bag X01 Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South africa; andrew Blackmore School of law, university of KwaZulu-natal, P Bag X01 Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South africa; Michelle Henley applied Behavioural ecology and ecosystem research unit, School of environmental Sciences, university of South africa, Private Bag X5, florida 1710, South africa; Karen trendler elephants alive, Po Box 960, Hoedspruit, 1380, South africa; Mariaon Garaï elephant Specialist advisory Group, Vaalwater, limpopo, South africa.*these authors share joint first authorship of this article.
2 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
human–wildlife interaction and conflict.1 This may necessitate more man-agement interventions to mitigate anthropogenic effects, as well as ensuring the sustainability of populations and ecosystems in areas that are increas-ingly constrained by development.2 African savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana) are globally endangered,3 with declining populations across much of Africa, but increasing populations in southern Africa.4 Within South Africa, elephants are not classified as threatened, increasing by more than 40% since 2006, and occurring in 80 reserves or extensive wildlife areas, including small fenced areas with increasing populations.5 South African National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephant (N&S)6 require an elephant management plan for areas with elephants, which needs to consider the purpose of the reserve and the long-term survival of the species and ecosystem, and indicate any planned management interventions.7 As such, conservation managers will need to balance many different imperatives that come to bear on decisions, as elaborated in the Assessment of South African Elephant Management.8
Elephant management is contentious, and both the N&S and the man-agement assessment emerged from a Ministerial Scientific Round Table of experts that concluded that “there is no compelling evidence for immediate, large-scale reduction of elephant numbers in the Kruger National Park (KNP),” but that “in some protected areas including the KNP, elephant density, distribution and population structure may need to be managed locally.” 9
1See generally Richard Hoare, Lessons From 20 Years of Human Elephant Conflict Mitigation in Africa, 20 Human Dimensions of Wildlife 289-295 (2015); Enrico Di Minin et al., A Pan-African Spatial Assessment of Human Conflicts With Lions and Elephants, 12 Nature Communications 2978 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23283-w.2See generally Peter A. Lindsey et al., More Than $1 billion Needed Annually to Secure Africa’s Protected Areas With Lions, 115 Proceedings of the Nat’l Academy of Sciences E10788-E10796 (2018); Hoare, supra note 1; Di Minin et al., supra note 1.3See generally K. S. Gobush et al., Loxodonta africana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T181008073A181022663 (2021),https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T181008073A181022663.en (last visited 2 July 2021).4C. R. Thouless et al., African Elephant Status Report 2016: An Update from the African Elephant Database (2016), https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SSC-OP-060_A.pdf.5See generally SA Jeanetta Selier et al., The Legal Challenges of Transboundary Wildlife Management at the Population Level: The Case of a Trilateral Elephant Population in Southern Africa, 19 J. of Int’l Wildlife Law & Pol’y 101-135 (2016), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13880292.2016.1167460; Andy Blackmore, Climate Change and the Ownership of Game: A Concern for Fenced Wildlife Areas, 62 KOEDOE—African Protected Area Conservation and Science (2020), http://www.koedoe.co.za/index.php/KOEDOE/art./view/1594.6National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, (10/2004) (S.Afr.): National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in South Africa, GN 251 in GG 30833 of 29 February 2008 (2008), § 6.7Within the context of the RSA, National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004; National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (S. Afr.).8Assessment of South African Elephant Management (R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell eds., 2008).9Norman Owen-Smith et al., A Scientific Perspective on the Management of Elephants in the Kruger National Park and Elsewhere: Elephant Conservation, 102 S. African j. of science 389-394, 389 (2006).
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 3
Culling is the last resort option in elephant population management, and all other interventions need to have been seriously considered prior to consideration of culling.10 The history of elephant culling, methods, economics, management context, approaches, demographic effects, distur-bance culling, short- and long-term consequences of culling in terms of stress, behaviour, demography, and gaps in our knowledge, have been reviewed by Slotow et al.11 An assessment, by Lötter et al. of the ethical considerations for elephant management by culling included significant ethical issues, analogous to justifying killing fellow humans in a war, and “can be justifiable only as an ethically flawed procedure to be employed under strict conditions.”12 Lötter et al. further emphasised the weightiest moral considerations of making a decision to cull elephants, and that one should “avoid prolonging any suffering by killing them as humanely as possible, in as short a time as possible, and with the least possible dis-turbance.”13 Hopkinson et al. undertook an assessment of the legal context for the management of elephants in South Africa, and most of the legis-lative framing they provided is still relevant.14 However, there have been important developments since their assessments, mainly in the subsequent proclamation of the N&S, and court judgements that highlight the impor-tance of considering animal welfare and wellbeing in conservation, which are reviewed in the following in Section 3 and Table 1.
In addition, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act of 2004 (NEMBA)15 is currently under revision,16 and will require animal
10Biodiversity Act, supra note 6 at §§ 3(i), 15 (3) & § 19(b)(ii).11See generally Rob Slotow et al., Lethal Management of Elephants, in Assessment of South African Elephant Management 370-405 (R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell eds., 2008).12Hennie P. Lötter et al., Ethical Considerations in Elephant Management, in Assessment of South African Elephant Management 307–338 (R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell eds., 2008).13Id. at 328.14See generally Lisa Hopkinson, Marius van Staden, and Jeremy Ridl, National and International Law, in Assessment of South African Elephant Management 363-409 (R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell eds., 2008).15National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (S. Afr.), https://www.gov.za/docu-ments/national-environmental-management-biodiversity-act-0.16Draft National Environmental Laws Amendment Bill, B 14—2017 (2017) (S. Afr.), https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201902/b14d2017a.pdf (last visited 27 Sep. 2020). At the time of drafting this article, this draft bill had been provisionally endorsed by the National Government’s Portfolio Committee on the Environment for public consultation. In this bill, “wellbeing” is currently defined as a “state where the living conditions of a faunal biological resource are conducive to its health.’’ This definition has subsequently been amended in the Draft Policy Position on the Conservation and Ecologically Sustainable Use of Elephant, Lion, Leopard and Rhinoceros (Government Notice No. 566 in Government Gazette 44776 of 24 June 2021 section 2 (2021)) as the “holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, and its ability to cope with its environment.” This policy has also defined “welfare” as an animal that “is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence), it is healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress.” Furthermore, section 2 of this policy indicates that both these defini-tions are due to be incorporated into the bill in the forthcoming round of its revision.
4 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
wellbeing to be taken into account in biodiversity management, as dis-cussed in Section 3.
In this article, we review the legal and policy context for elephant culling in South Africa, considering animal welfare and legal requirements for humane killing of animals, including within the context of consumptive use of products. We recommend policies regarding the future of elephant culling in South Africa. Importantly, we do not address the question as to whether a reduction in elephant population size by culling may or may not be necessary, but rather, whether the current method of culling, as provided for in the N&S, is justifiable and appropriate. As such, this article takes a narrow perspective addressing welfare concerns of the method, and does not undertake a balancing of other conservation imperatives that would be brought to bear on any specific decision to cull, which we will address elsewhere.
2. Culling Methods
We consider culling in terms of the two different contexts in which ele-phants are killed to reduce population size: (1) the killing of male elephants (“bulls”) that are separate from the females, and (2) the killing of family units of elephants, comprising related adult females, their various aged offspring, and associated adult males present at the time of the cull. Minimum standards for culling have been set in the N&S, requiring that culling must be done with quick and humane methods, with a rifle of minimum specified calibre.17 The killing of male elephants is through shooting with the appropriate calibre weapon, which can ensure a quick, clean, and humane kill. If the animal is killed quickly, while alone, there may be little medium- or long-term effect on the remaining elephants.18 The “clean kill” spots for elephants are brain shots (frontal or temporal).19 Given the size and thickness of the skull, and the circumstances of the cull, however, achieving “clean/outright” kills is difficult, even with con-trolled hunting situations.20 This is especially challenging when attempting a high kill rate when culling family units. An additional consideration is when groups of bulls are culled, in which case the first bull is killed, and
17National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10/2004): Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, Government Notice No.R.152 in Gazette 29657 of 23 Feb. 2007 (2007) § 26(1)(vii).18See generally Tarryne Burke et al., Risk and Ethical Concerns of Hunting Male Elephant: Behavioural and Physiological Assays of the Remaining Elephants, 3 PLoS ONE e2417 (2008).19Review of Options for Managing the Impacts of Locally Overabundant African Elephants, 62 (D. Balfour et al. eds., 2007); Slotow et al., supra note 11, at 379.20For examples of elephant shots, see the following videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puy-rAgAMvPk; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgInE3VJoTw; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxcRt-c7Z6R8; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erLeqZd_XmE; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5vXHV3k54; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v7KShq0yMw.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 5
the others are herded to the proximity of the carcass, and then shot21; this results in a delay in killing subsequent bulls.
The killing of family units is more complicated, and the N&S require the entire family unit and associated juvenile bulls to be killed. The acceptable practice for culling family units is by shooting from a helicop-ter.22 A group is herded by the helicopter to a place where ground teams can access the carcasses, and animals are killed by shooting from the helicopter while they are being herded, with the matriarch shot first.23 This causes confusion as the others mill around the matriarch.24 Then, the next oldest elephants are systematically killed, with the youngest calves last, until the whole group is down.25 Thereafter, the ground teams move in and prepare the carcasses for processing 26 in line with the N&S, one purpose of which is to ensure that elephants are managed in a way that ensures the sustainable use of hair, skin, meat, and ivory products.27
Although the intention is to kill the elephants as cleanly and quickly as possible with a brain shot, in practice this is difficult to achieve, and it is inevitable that the process takes several minutes to complete: up to 19 minutes for a group of seven from initial herding to last shot,28 and about 10 minutes average for more than 10 culls in KNP conducted when the highly trained team was still in place in 1994.29 Once the shots start, the elephants mill about distressed, vocalising loudly with young elephants bellowing, until the process is completed, making it increasingly difficult to get “good” shots. Some individuals are wounded, or trapped under others, rather than instantaneously dispatched.30 The required checking of carcasses to ensure death is not as thoroughly done as would be consid-ered acceptable from a good slaughter practice, and cull officials often do not look for the five signs used to confirm death.31 Even when using drugs for culling, such as Scoline in KNP, the process takes up to 20 min-utes to complete, with similar behaviours by the matriarch and other herd
21Slotow et al., supra note 11, at 379.22Id. at 379; Balfour et al., supra note 19, at 62.23Roy G. Bengis, Elephant Population Control in African National Parks, 22 Pachyderm 83-86, 86 (1996).24Id. at 85.25Slotow et al., supra note 11, at 380.26Bengis, supra note 23, at 85.27National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004: Norms and Standards for the management of damage-causing animals in South Africa, GN 512 in GG 40236 of 30 Aug. 2016 (2004) § n 2 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( v ) , h t t p : / / w w w. s h a n g o n i . c o . z a / n o r m s - s t a n d a r d s - m a n a g e m e n t - d a m a g e - causing-animals-south-africa/.28J. Hattingh et al., Blood Composition in Culled Elephants and Buffaloes, 55 J. of the S. African Veterinary Ass’n 157-164, 158 (1984).29The third author’s personal observation of a number of culling exercises that took place in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, during May 1994.30Fourth author’s personal observation of one culling exercise that took place within Kruger National Park, South Africa, during 1994.31Fourth author’s personal observation one of the final culls taking place in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, in 1994.
6 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
members as just outlined.32 Noting that use of Scoline is now prohibited in the N&S as the elephants remain fully conscious until subsequently shot,33 these observations are still relevant for any alternative method that may be considered that involves tranquillisation.
Non-fatal wounding of animals does occur. For example, Hattingh et al.34 note that most animals die instantaneously, implying that some do not, and Whyte35 indicates that Scoline had the advantage of obviating wound-ing and providing a far greater safety margin for staff and scientists attending such culls. Balfour et al.36 indicate that “any of the culled animals still showing signs of life when the ground crew moved in were imme-diately brain shot by a marksman on the ground,”37 and “in the unfortunate event that elephants are wounded, or managed to escape from a group identified for elimination, the operators must act to ensure that such situations are dealt with as quickly as possible to minimise emotional or physical suffering,”38 implying that such events do occur. It should also be noted that, as the last large-scale culls took place in the mid 1990s, there is a now general lack of expertise, requiring training,39 posing a risk to effective slaughter.
It should be noted that additional culling methods not currently allowed by the N&S have been proposed in the KNP Elephant Management Plan (EMP).40 The proposed interventions include the creation of a landscape of fear for elephants by disturbance culling and elephant pitfalls with stakes, with the aim of provoking distress calls to scare other elephants.41
3. Legal and Policy Context
3.1. The Constitution
Notwithstanding that prima facie reading of the South African Constitution42 is anthropocentric in its foundation, it has been argued that the “Environmental Right” of section 24 in the Bill of Rights is the primary
32Hattingh et al., supra note 28, at 158. Fifth author’s personal observation in in 1993.33National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in South Africa, supra note 6, § 19(e).34Hattingh et al., supra note 28, at 157.35Ian J. Whyte, Headaches and Heartaches—The Elephant Management Dilemma, in Environmental Ethics: Introductory readings 293-305, 14 (D. Schmidtz & E. Willot eds., 2001).36Balfour et al., supra note 19.37Id. at 62.38Id. at 63.39Id. at 61.40Ferreira et al., Elephant Management Plan: Kruger National Park, 2011-2020 (2011). The same applies to the 2013-2022 version, which was published during November 2012. See https://www.sanparks.org/assets/docs/parks_kruger/elephants/knp-elephant-management-plan.pdf.41Id. Map 8 at 58, Table 4 at 56, and Box 15 at 57, in the 2013 version.42S. Afr. Const. 1996.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 7
right conferring protection to the natural environment. The Right (the “Environmental Right”) reads as follows:
Everyone has the right—
to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing; and
to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that—
prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
promote conservation; and
secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.43
The “environment” is defined in section 1 of NEMA, and encompasses “animal life”; hence, it is common cause that the Environmental Right applies, in some manner, to animals. Three arguments tie the Environmental Right to the welfare of animals. First is anthropogenic interpretation, in which animal welfare is given effect solely through the benevolence of humans.44 The repugnance, compassion, and empathy that people experience when an animal is treated in an inhumane manner are seated, as a minimum, in people’s wellbeing and, in its extreme, their health.45 Furthermore, some might argue that the repugnance and aver-sion to animal cruelty also degrade or harm a person’s right to dignity46 of the Constitution47 when this occurs. People’s right to have the envi-ronment protected48 is given effect through people being custodians of the environment, and, hence, animal welfare. Thus, it is common cause that people may exercise their right to have animals protected against cruel and inhumane treatment.49
Second, the ecocentric interpretation considers humans as part of the animal kingdom and an integral component of the environment; thus, the term “everyone has the right” should not be restricted to humans alone,
43Id. § 24.44David Bilchitz, Does Transformative Constitutionalism Require the Recognition of Animal Rights?, 25 S. African Public Law 267-300, 268 (2010), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1872936; Amy P. Wilson, (Non) Human(imal) Rights: Dismantling the Separateness in Law and Policy, 3 Society Reg. 39-65, 39 (2019), https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/sr/art./view/20641.45Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals in South Africa,, supra note 27, § 24(a).46S. Afr. Const. § 10 1996.47David Bilchitz, Exploring the Relationship Between the Environmental Right in the South African Constitution and Protection for the Interests of Animals, 134(4) S. African Law J. 740-777, 5 (2017); Wilson, supra note 44, at 40.48S. Afr. Const. 1996. § 24(b).49Bilchitz, supra note 47, at 16; Wilson, supra note 44, at n. 13 & n.15.
8 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
but includes, at least, non-human animals.50 Thereby, the Environmental Right would confer rights to the environment and components thereof. The conferring of constitutional-based rights to the environment is not novel or speculative; the National Water Act (NWA)51 underpins the bimodal nature of the Environmental Right by granting a water right to both people in terms of a “human needs reserve,” and to the environment—the “envi-ronmental reserve,” which is to protect aquatic ecosystems.52 The act places equal weight on these two reserves,53 and, in so doing, embraces the notion that non-human animals enjoy environmental rights similar to those their human counterparts. The corollary to this interpretation of the Constitution is that environmental decision makers, both private and public, have a non-discriminatory fiducial duty to give due consideration to these rights in a manner equivalent to what they do for people.54
Third, the Environmental Right is viewed as bimodal, being both anthro-pocentric and ecocentric.55 Irrespective of whether the interpretation is anthropocentric, ecocentric, or a combination, it is evident that the well-being of animals is entrenched within the Bill of Rights. This conclusion is echoed in the progressive and evolving recognition of animal rights in South African courts, as explained in Section 3.56 The generality and the transformative nature of the Constitution disavow parochial, narrow char-acterisation of what may be considered inhumane, and morally and eth-ically acceptable to society.57
The fiduciary need to reduce elephant numbers to prevent unsustainable impacts to their habitat is derived from the Environmental Right in that environmental degradation is to be prevented58 and the environment con-served59 for the benefit of present and future generations. Furthermore, consumptive use of elephant products is encapsulated within this right by the way the “use of natural resources” must be “ecologically sustainable.”60
50See generally Bilchitz, supra note 47; see generally Andrew Muir, Offences, Game and Property—Some Unresolved Issues Surrounding Ownership of Wild Animals in South Africa, 27 Stellenbosch Law Review 136-160 (2016).51National Water Act 36 of 1998 (S. Afr.)..52Id. § 24(b).53Andrew Craig Blackmore, Rediscovering the Origins and Inclusion of the Public Trust Doctrine in South African Environmental Law: A Speculative Analysis, 27 RECIEL 187-198, 12 (2018).54Bilchitz, supra note 42, at 268; Blackmore, supra note 53 at 9.55Bilchitz, supra note 45, at n. 42; Blackmore, supra note 53, at 12; Andrew Robert Muir, An Interpretation of the South African Constitutional “Environmental Right” (Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996) and an Assessment of Its Relationship to Sustainable Development (2014), https://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/12290.56National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2016 (CCT1/16) ZACC, at para. 55 (S. Afr.)57See generally Bilchitz, supra note 42.58S. Afr. Const. § 24(b)(i).59Id. § 24 (b)(ii).60Id. § 24(b)(iii).
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 9
Tabl
e 1.
ass
essm
ent
of l
egis
latio
n an
d Gu
idin
g d
ocum
ents
rel
evan
t to
ele
phan
t cu
lling
in S
outh
afri
ca, i
n ad
ditio
n to
the
tex
t d
iscu
ssio
n
legi
slat
ion/
judg
emen
t/po
licy
rele
vant
sec
tion/
aspe
ctre
leva
nce
to t
he c
ullin
g m
etho
d
Supr
eme
cour
t of
app
eal
Nat
iona
l Cou
ncil
of
Soci
etie
s fo
r th
e Pr
even
tion
of C
ruel
ty t
o An
imal
s v.
Ope
nsha
w61
15
Whi
le t
his
case
was
cen
tred
on
the
feed
ing
of a
ble
sbok
(D
amal
iscu
s py
garg
us p
hilli
ps)
to a
tig
er (
Pant
hera
tig
ris)
in s
mal
l enc
losu
re, a
nd s
uch
cons
titut
es c
ruel
mal
trea
tmen
t of
the
ant
elop
e, c
amer
on J
a in
his
diss
entin
g op
inio
n br
ough
t in
to c
ase
law
the
nee
d to
rec
ogni
se a
nd t
reat
ani
mal
s as
sen
tient
bei
ngs.
alth
ough
ca
mer
on f
ocus
ed o
n th
e pa
in f
elt
and
suffe
ring
endu
red
by c
ruel
ly t
reat
ed a
nim
als,
the
purp
osef
ul u
se o
f th
e te
rm “
sent
ient
” in
fers
an
appr
ecia
tion
for
the
abili
ty o
f no
n-hu
man
ani
mal
s to
ant
icip
ate,
lear
n, r
easo
n, a
nd
rem
embe
r ev
ents
in a
man
ner
not
diss
imila
r to
the
ir hu
man
-ani
mal
cou
nter
part
s.
the
rele
vanc
e of
cam
eron
’s di
ssen
ting
judg
emen
t is
tw
ofol
d. t
he fi
rst
cons
ider
atio
n is
tha
t in
divi
dual
ele
phan
ts, a
s hi
ghlig
hted
in t
his
artic
le, t
hat
are
not
inst
antly
kill
ed, o
r tr
appe
d un
der
an in
divi
dual
tha
t ha
s be
en s
hot,
are
likel
y to
be
seen
by
the
cour
ts a
s an
imal
s ex
perie
ncin
g bo
th s
igni
fican
t pa
in a
nd s
uffer
ing
until
suc
h tim
e as
the
y ar
e ki
lled
or d
ies.
the
seco
nd c
onsi
dera
tion
is t
hat
an e
leph
ant,
give
n th
is h
ighe
r or
der
of
sent
ienc
e, c
ompa
red,
for
inst
ance
, to
a bl
esbo
k , i
s lik
ely
to b
e tr
aum
atis
ed b
y th
e no
ise
of t
he c
ullin
g op
erat
ion,
and
by
both
the
dea
th a
nd s
uffer
ing
of w
ound
ed in
divi
dual
s, pa
rtic
ular
ly w
hen
thes
e an
imal
s ar
e th
e m
othe
r, si
blin
gs, o
r co
mpa
nion
.co
nstit
utio
nal c
ourt
N
atio
nal S
ocie
ty f
or t
he
Prev
entio
n of
Cru
elty
to
Anim
als
v. M
inis
ter
of
Just
ice
and
Cons
titut
iona
l D
evel
opm
ent62
16
the
swee
ping
fun
ctio
ns o
f th
is d
ecis
ion
are
in “
prev
ent[
ing]
the
ill-t
reat
men
t of
ani
mal
s”63
17 and
the
sta
tute
s “s
et t
he
stan
dard
for
how
ani
mal
s ar
e to
be
care
d fo
r, tr
eate
d an
d us
ed. u
nder
scor
ing
thes
e is
the
not
ion
that
the
pr
even
tion
of u
nnec
essa
ry c
ruel
ty t
o an
imal
s—in
clud
ing
thos
e w
hich
we
may
use
for
ser
vice
or
food
—is
a
goal
of
our
soci
ety.”
6418
emph
asis
ed s
ever
al a
dditi
onal
poi
nts
from
oth
er r
elev
ant
judg
emen
ts: (
1) “
the
2014
Sup
rem
e co
urt
of a
ppea
l de
cisi
on in
the
S v
lem
thon
gtha
i6519 s
ituat
ed t
he c
are
and
prot
ectio
n of
ani
mal
s w
ithin
the
am
bit
of t
he
cons
titut
ion”
as
wel
l as
the
stat
emen
t in
lem
thon
gtha
i tha
t “c
onst
itutio
nal v
alue
s di
ctat
e a
mor
e ca
ring
attit
ude
tow
ards
fel
low
hum
ans,
anim
als
and
the
envi
ronm
ent
in g
ener
al,”
and
that
the
Sup
rem
e co
urt
“con
clud
ed f
urth
er t
hat
this
obl
igat
ion
was
esp
ecia
lly p
ertin
ent
beca
use
of o
ur h
isto
ry,”66
20 and
lem
thon
gtha
i is
also
not
able
bec
ause
it r
elat
es a
nim
al w
elfa
re t
o qu
estio
ns o
f bi
odiv
ersi
ty. a
nim
al w
elfa
re is
con
nect
ed w
ith
the
cons
titut
iona
l rig
ht t
o ha
ve t
he “e
nviro
nmen
t pr
otec
ted
… t
hrou
gh le
gisl
ativ
e an
d ot
her
mea
ns”
[ref
sect
ion
24(b
) of
the
con
stitu
tion]
.6721 (2
) “ca
mer
on J
a’s
min
ority
jud
gmen
t in
ope
nsha
w68
22 rec
ogni
sed
that
ani
mal
s ar
e w
orth
y of
pro
tect
ion
not
only
bec
ause
of
the
refle
ctio
n th
at t
his
has
on h
uman
val
ues,
but
beca
use
anim
als
“are
sen
tient
bei
ngs
that
are
cap
able
of
suffe
ring
and
of e
xper
ienc
ing
pain
” an
d al
so t
he n
eed
for
“pre
vent
ing
ill-t
reat
men
t of
voi
cele
ss b
eing
s.”69
23 (3) “
the
Hig
h co
urt
in S
outh
afri
can
Pred
ator
Bre
eder
s as
soci
atio
n,70
24 a u
nani
mou
s fu
ll Be
nch
foun
d th
at c
anne
d-hu
ntin
g of
lion
s is
“ab
horr
ent
and
repu
lsiv
e” d
ue t
o th
e an
imal
s’ su
fferin
g. 71
25 on
appe
al, t
he S
upre
me
cour
t of
app
eal d
id n
ot d
ispu
te t
his
findi
ng.72
26 th
e co
nstit
utio
nal c
ourt
con
clud
ed: “
ther
efor
e, t
he r
atio
nale
beh
ind
prot
ectin
g an
imal
wel
fare
has
shi
fted
fro
m
mer
ely
safe
guar
ding
the
mor
al s
tatu
s of
hum
ans
to p
laci
ng in
trin
sic
valu
e on
ani
mal
s as
indi
vidu
als,”
and
“g
uard
ing
the
inte
rest
s of
ani
mal
s re
flect
s co
nstit
utio
nal v
alue
s.” f
urth
erm
ore,
“th
is in
tegr
ativ
e ap
proa
ch
corr
ectly
link
s th
e su
fferin
g of
indi
vidu
al a
nim
als
to c
onse
rvat
ion,
and
illu
stra
tes
the
exte
nt t
o w
hich
sho
win
g re
spec
t an
d co
ncer
n fo
r in
divi
dual
ani
mal
s re
info
rces
bro
ader
env
ironm
enta
l pro
tect
ion
effor
ts. a
nim
al w
elfa
re
and
anim
al c
onse
rvat
ion
toge
ther
refl
ect
two
inte
rtw
ined
val
ues.”
7327
thes
e st
atem
ents
fro
m t
he c
onst
itutio
nal c
ourt
em
phas
ise
that
it is
a g
oal o
f so
ciet
y th
at
anim
als
are
wid
ely
prot
ecte
d fro
m il
l-tre
atm
ent,
incl
udin
g in
the
ir us
e.
alth
ough
not
exp
licitl
y st
ated
in t
he c
onst
itutio
n, a
nim
al w
elfa
re is
a c
onst
itutio
nal
valu
e, li
nked
bot
h to
Sec
tion
24 (
a) in
saf
egua
rdin
g th
e m
oral
sta
tus
of h
uman
s, i.e
., hu
man
wel
lbei
ng, a
nd t
o Se
ctio
n 24
(b)
gua
rdin
g th
e in
tere
st o
f an
imal
s—pr
otec
ting
the
envi
ronm
ent.
an
imal
wel
fare
is n
ot s
econ
dary
or
subs
idia
ry t
o co
nser
vatio
n, in
tha
t “a
nim
al w
elfa
re
and
anim
al c
onse
rvat
ion
toge
ther
refl
ect
two
inte
rtw
ined
val
ues.”
a c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
e to
be
achi
eved
by
culli
ng c
anno
t be
giv
en m
ore
wei
ght
than
con
cern
s ov
er
the
impa
ct o
n th
e w
elfa
re o
f el
epha
nts,
whe
n ju
stify
ing
a de
cisi
on, u
nles
s th
ere
is s
ome
imm
edia
te a
nd p
rese
nt d
ange
r to
hum
an li
fe o
r w
ellb
eing
.
61 2
008,
462
/07
ZASC
A,
78 (
S. A
fr.).
62(C
CT1
/16)
[20
16]
ZACC
46
(S.A
fr.).
63Id
. at
par
a. 4
0.64
Id.
at p
ara.
58.
65Le
mth
ongt
hai
v. S
201
3, Z
ASC
A 1
31 (
S. A
fr.).
66Id
. at
par
a. 5
7.67
Id.
at p
ara.
58.
68O
pens
haw
, su
pra
note
61.
69Id
. at
par
a. 6
0.70
Sout
h Af
rican
Pre
dato
r Br
eede
rs A
ssoc
iatio
n an
d O
ther
s v.
Min
iste
r of
Env
ironm
enta
l Affa
irs a
nd T
ouris
m 2
009
(190
0/20
07)
ZAFS
HC
68,
2009
) (S
. A
fr.).
71Id
. at
par
a. 7
2.72
See
SA P
reda
tor
Bree
ders
Ass
ocia
tion
and
Oth
ers
v. M
inis
ter
of E
nviro
nmen
tal A
ffairs
and
Tou
rism
(72
/10)
[20
10]
ZASC
A 1
51.
73N
atio
nal S
ocie
ty f
or t
he P
reve
ntio
n of
Cru
elty
to
Anim
als
v. M
inis
ter
of J
ustic
e an
d Co
nstit
utio
nal D
evel
opm
ent
and
Anot
her
(CC
T1/1
6) [
2016
] ZA
CC 4
6 at
57
and
58.
(Con
tinue
d)
10 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
Gau
teng
Hig
h co
urt
nat
iona
l Soc
iety
for
the
Pr
even
tion
of c
ruel
ty t
o an
imal
s v.
Min
iste
r of
en
viro
nmen
tal a
ffairs
an
d ot
hers
7428
In t
his
nSP
ca c
onst
itutio
nal c
ourt
cas
e, J
ustic
e Ko
llape
n co
nclu
ded
that
“Its
vie
ws
are
loca
ted
in t
he r
ecog
nitio
n th
at a
nim
al c
ruel
ty w
as p
rohi
bite
d bo
th b
ecau
se o
f th
e in
trin
sic
valu
es w
e pl
ace
on a
nim
als
as in
divi
dual
s bu
t al
so t
o sa
fegu
ard
and
prev
ent
the
dege
nera
tion
of t
he m
oral
sta
tus
of h
uman
s.”75
29 “t
hese
una
mbi
guou
s an
d co
mpe
lling
sen
timen
ts r
equi
re c
aref
ul c
onsi
dera
tion
in t
hat
not
only
do
they
pro
vide
gu
idan
ce in
ter
ms
of t
he le
gal c
ondu
ct t
hat
is e
xpec
ted
of u
s bu
t ra
ther
tha
t it
also
spe
aks
to t
he k
ind
of
cust
odia
l car
e w
e ar
e en
join
ed t
o sh
ow t
o th
e en
viro
nmen
t fo
r th
e be
nefit
of
this
and
fut
ure
gene
ratio
ns.”76
30 “t
here
is a
diff
eren
ce in
law
in h
avin
g re
spon
sibi
lity
for
the
wel
fare
man
date
and
tak
ing
wel
fare
con
side
ratio
ns
into
acc
ount
. the
latt
er d
oes
not
depe
nd o
n th
e le
gal r
espo
nsib
ility
to
set
and
enfo
rce
stan
dard
s bu
t ra
ther
on
an u
nder
stan
ding
tha
t ev
en if
the
man
date
doe
s no
t re
side
with
the
dec
isio
n m
aker
, thi
s do
es n
ot p
recl
ude
the
deci
sion
mak
er f
rom
con
side
ring
them
if in
deed
the
y ar
e re
leva
nt.”77
31
In in
terp
retin
g th
e co
nstit
utio
nal j
udge
men
t, an
imal
cru
elty
is p
rohi
bite
d; w
e ha
ve t
o va
lue
anim
als
as in
divi
dual
s; it
is a
mor
al o
blig
atio
n; a
nd d
egen
erat
ion
or e
rosi
on o
f hi
gh
mor
al s
tatu
s m
ust
be p
reve
nted
. th
is de
cisio
n em
phas
ised
the
high
sta
ndar
d of
cus
todi
al r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s th
at p
erso
ns a
nd
agen
cies
hav
e to
sho
w, i
nclu
ding
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f ca
re f
or t
he e
nviro
nmen
t, an
d th
at
such
car
e is
seen
as
bene
ficia
l to
peop
le m
ost
broa
dly.
a de
cisio
n to
cul
l sho
uld
not
be
base
d on
per
sona
l vie
ws
or o
pini
ons,
or r
eal o
r pe
rcei
ved
loca
l or
shor
t-te
rm n
eed
alon
e.
this
hig
hlig
hted
the
fac
t th
at t
he M
inis
ter
of e
nviro
nmen
tal a
ffairs
was
req
uire
d to
co
nsid
er w
elfa
re is
sues
, eve
n if
the
man
date
for
ani
mal
wel
fare
fel
l und
er t
he a
nim
als
Prot
ectio
n ac
t ad
min
iste
red
by t
he M
inis
ter
of a
gric
ultu
re, f
ishe
ries,
and
fore
stry
. thi
s ju
dgem
ent
is im
port
ant,
beca
use,
pre
viou
sly,
the
dep
artm
ent
of e
nviro
nmen
tal a
ffairs
ha
d ab
roga
ted
wel
fare
con
cern
s fo
r el
epha
nts
on t
his
basi
s (s
ee b
elow
).Su
prem
e co
urt
of a
ppea
l Le
mth
ongt
hai v
. Sta
te78
32
“the
dut
y re
stin
g on
us
to p
rote
ct a
nd c
onse
rve
our
biod
iver
sity
is o
wed
to
pres
ent
and
futu
re g
ener
atio
ns. I
n so
do
ing,
we
will
als
o be
red
ress
ing
past
neg
lect
. con
stitu
tiona
l val
ues
dict
ate
a m
ore
carin
g at
titud
e to
war
ds
fello
w h
uman
s, an
imal
s an
d th
e en
viro
nmen
t in
gen
eral
. allo
win
g th
e ki
nd o
f be
havi
our
that
res
ulte
d in
the
co
nvic
tions
in t
he p
rese
nt c
ase
to b
e de
alt
with
too
leni
ently
will
hav
e th
e op
posi
te e
ffect
to
wha
t w
as
inte
nded
by
the
neM
Ba. a
non
-cus
todi
al s
ente
nce
will
sen
d ou
t th
e w
rong
mes
sage
.”
the
judg
emen
t lin
ks c
arin
g fo
r an
imal
s to
red
ress
of
past
neg
lect
. It
also
em
phas
ises
tha
t th
e ki
nd o
f be
havi
our
shou
ld b
e co
nsid
ered
sev
ere,
and
req
uirin
g a
cust
odia
l sen
tenc
e.
alth
ough
thi
s is
link
ed t
o th
e w
hole
cas
e, a
nd n
ot j
ust
anim
al w
elfa
re, t
his
still
has
re
fere
nce.
und
erst
andi
ng t
hat
thou
sand
s of
ele
phan
ts w
ere
culle
d w
ithou
t re
ason
able
co
nsid
erat
ion
for
thei
r w
elfa
re, w
e ne
ed t
o be
mor
e ca
ring
now
.Go
vern
men
t fa
ct S
heet
fa
ct s
heet
for
the
la
unch
of
the
2008
n
orm
s an
d St
anda
rds
for
the
Man
agem
ent
of
elep
hant
s in
Sou
th
afric
a 79
33
”not
with
stan
ding
the
dep
artm
ent’s
will
ingn
ess
to t
ackl
e th
e is
sue
of e
leph
ant
wel
fare
in c
aptiv
ity, l
egal
adv
isor
s ar
gued
tha
t re
spon
sibi
lity
for
anim
al w
elfa
re r
esid
ed w
ith t
he d
epar
tmen
t of
agr
icul
ture
and
lan
d aff
airs
.”8034
“It w
as e
vent
ually
dec
ided
tha
t is
sues
rel
atin
g to
the
man
agem
ent
of e
leph
ants
in c
aptiv
ity w
ould
be
deal
t w
ith a
s M
inim
um S
tand
ards
in t
he e
nS,
whi
le t
he d
epar
tmen
t of
agr
icul
ture
and
lan
d aff
airs
wou
ld b
e in
vite
d to
dev
elop
nor
ms
(or
a co
de o
f co
nduc
t) d
ealin
g w
ith t
he t
rain
ing
and
ethi
cal t
reat
men
t of
ele
phan
ts. t
he
enS
ther
efor
e pr
ovid
es f
or t
he M
inst
er t
o de
velo
p M
inim
um S
tand
ards
with
in 1
2 m
onth
s.”81
35
ther
efor
e, in
the
n&S
, ani
mal
wel
fare
was
not
con
side
red
expl
icitl
y, b
ut r
athe
r th
e fo
cus
was
on
the
man
agem
ent
of e
leph
ants
, im
plyi
ng w
elfa
re w
as s
econ
dary
to
man
agem
ent
of
elep
hant
s, an
d th
at t
he d
epar
tmen
t of
env
ironm
enta
l affa
irs a
nd t
ouris
m a
brog
ated
w
elfa
re c
once
rns
for
elep
hant
s at
the
dra
ftin
g of
the
n&S
.
nat
iona
l act
n
atio
nal e
nviro
nmen
tal
Man
agem
ent
act82
36
this
is t
he p
rimar
y le
gisl
atio
n gi
ving
effe
ct t
o Se
ctio
n 24
of
the
Sa c
onst
itutio
n, a
nd c
onta
ins
a nu
mbe
r of
key
pr
inci
ples
, inc
ludi
ng:
“en
viro
nmen
tal m
anag
emen
t m
ust
plac
e pe
ople
and
the
ir ne
eds
at t
he f
oref
ront
of
its c
once
rn, a
nd s
erve
th
eir
phys
ical
, psy
chol
ogic
al, d
evel
opm
enta
l, cu
ltura
l and
soc
ial i
nter
ests
equ
itabl
y.”83
37 “S
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent
requ
ires
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
all
rele
vant
fac
tors
incl
udin
g th
e fo
llow
ing:
(i)
that
the
di
stur
banc
e of
eco
syst
ems
and
loss
of
biol
ogic
al d
iver
sity
are
avo
ided
, or,
whe
re t
hey
cann
ot b
e al
toge
ther
av
oide
d, a
re m
inim
ised
and
rem
edie
d.”84
38 “t
hat
a ris
k-av
erse
and
cau
tious
app
roac
h is
app
lied,
whi
ch t
akes
into
acc
ount
the
lim
its o
f cu
rren
t kn
owle
dge
abou
t th
e co
nseq
uenc
es o
f de
cisi
ons
and
actio
ns.”85
39 “t
hat
nega
tive
impa
cts
on t
he e
nviro
nmen
t an
d on
peo
ple’s
env
ironm
enta
l rig
hts
be a
ntic
ipat
ed a
nd
prev
ente
d, a
nd w
here
the
y ca
nnot
be
alto
geth
er p
reve
nted
, are
min
imis
ed a
nd r
emed
ied.
” 86
40 “(
4)(o
) th
e en
viro
nmen
t is
hel
d in
pub
lic t
rust
for
the
peo
ple,
the
ben
efici
al u
se o
f en
viro
nmen
tal r
esou
rces
m
ust
serv
e th
e pu
blic
inte
rest
and
the
env
ironm
ent
mus
t be
pro
tect
ed a
s th
e pe
ople
’s co
mm
on h
erita
ge.”87
41
neM
a pu
ts t
he n
eeds
of
peop
le a
t th
e fo
refro
nt o
f its
con
cern
, and
doe
s no
t ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt
anim
al w
elfa
re a
s a
bala
ncin
g re
quire
men
t as
inhe
rent
in S
ectio
n 24
(se
e ca
se la
w).
dis
turb
ance
, whi
ch w
ould
incl
ude
dist
urba
nce
to a
nim
als,
is a
void
ed a
s th
e fir
st p
riorit
y,
and
seco
nd t
o th
at, i
f it
cann
ot b
e av
oide
d it
mus
t be
min
imis
ed.
If w
e ar
e un
cert
ain
as t
o pa
rtic
ular
ris
ks o
r co
nseq
uenc
es, w
e m
ust
err
on t
he s
ide
of
caut
ion,
and
if w
e ar
e un
cert
ain
as t
o th
e de
gree
of
suffe
ring
caus
ed, a
ssum
e it
is h
igh,
be
cau
tious
to
avoi
d ca
usin
g un
know
n su
fferin
g.
cont
rave
ning
ani
mal
wel
fare
pro
visi
ons
has
nega
tive
impa
cts
on e
nviro
nmen
tal r
ight
, w
hich
mus
t be
ant
icip
ated
and
pre
vent
ed, i
.e.,
is r
equi
red
to b
e ta
ken
into
prim
ary
cons
ider
atio
n.
Man
ager
s of
ele
phan
ts a
re r
equi
red
to a
ct in
the
pub
lic t
rust
, ser
ve t
he p
ublic
inte
rest
, an
d pr
otec
t th
e en
viro
nmen
t as
a c
omm
on h
erita
ge f
or a
ll pe
ople
. dec
isio
ns o
r ac
tions
re
gard
ing
elep
hant
man
agem
ent
cann
ot b
e ta
ken
or a
cted
on
in is
olat
ion,
and
onl
y on
co
nsid
erin
g lo
cal a
nd im
med
iate
circ
umst
ance
s.
74 2
019
(865
15/2
017)
ZA
GPP
HC
367
(S.
Afr.
).75
Id.
§ at
par
a. 6
4.76
Id.
77Id
. §
at p
ara.
67.
78Le
mth
ongt
hai
v. S
201
4 (8
49/2
013)
ZA
SCA
131
(S.
Afr.
).79
Issu
ed b
y th
e D
epar
tmen
t of
Env
ironm
ent
and
Tour
ism
on
25 F
ebru
ary
2008
for
the
med
ia l
aunc
h of
the
N&
S. S
loto
w,
pers
onal
cop
y.80
Id.
pt 7
.81
Id.
pt 8
.82
Nat
iona
l En
viro
nmen
tal
Man
agem
ent
Act
107
of
1998
(S.
Afr.
), ht
tps:
//w
ww
.gov
.za/
docu
men
ts/n
atio
nal-e
nviro
nmen
tal-m
anag
emen
t-ac
t.83
Id.
§ 2(
2).
84Id
. §
2(4)
(a).
85Id
. §
2(4)
(vii)
.86
Id.
§ 2(
4)(v
iii).
87Id
. §
2.
Tabl
e 1.
con
tinue
d
legi
slat
ion/
judg
emen
t/po
licy
rele
vant
sec
tion/
aspe
ctre
leva
nce
to t
he c
ullin
g m
etho
d
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 11
nat
iona
l env
ironm
enta
l M
anag
emen
t: Bi
odiv
ersi
ty a
ct88
42
“a p
erso
n m
ay n
ot c
arry
out
a r
estr
icte
d ac
tivity
invo
lvin
g a
spec
imen
of
a lis
ted
thre
aten
ed o
r pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
with
out
a pe
rmit
issu
ed in
ter
ms
of [
this
act
].”89
43 th
e Sc
ient
ific
auth
ority
mus
t m
ake
reco
mm
enda
tions
9044 t
o an
issu
ing
auth
ority
on
appl
icat
ions
rec
eive
d fo
r pe
rmits
.9145
“In p
erfo
rmin
g its
dut
ies,
the
scie
ntifi
c au
thor
ity m
ust—
(a)
base
its
findi
ngs,
reco
mm
enda
tions
and
adv
ice
on a
sc
ient
ific
and
prof
essi
onal
rev
iew
of
avai
labl
e in
form
atio
n; a
nd (
b) c
onsu
lt, w
hen
nece
ssar
y, o
rgan
s of
sta
te, t
he
priv
ate
sect
or, n
on-g
over
nmen
tal o
rgan
isat
ions
, loc
al c
omm
uniti
es a
nd o
ther
sta
keho
lder
s be
fore
mak
ing
any
findi
ngs
or r
ecom
men
datio
ns o
r gi
ving
any
adv
ice.”
9246
“a d
ecis
ion
of t
he is
suin
g au
thor
ity t
o is
sue
or r
efus
e a
perm
it or
to
issu
e it
subj
ect
to c
ondi
tions
, mus
t be
co
nsis
tent
with
—(a
) th
e ap
plic
able
pro
visi
ons
of t
his
act;
(b)
the
natio
nal e
nviro
nmen
tal m
anag
emen
t pr
inci
ples
; (c)
the
nat
iona
l bio
dive
rsity
fra
mew
ork;
(d)
any
oth
er r
elev
ant
plan
s ad
opte
d or
app
rove
d in
ter
ms
of [
of t
his
act]
; (e)
any
app
licab
le in
tern
atio
nal a
gree
men
ts b
indi
ng o
n th
e re
publ
ic.”93
47
any
culli
ng o
f el
epha
nts
is a
res
tric
ted
activ
ity, a
nd w
ould
req
uire
a p
erm
it to
be
issu
ed b
y th
e is
suin
g au
thor
ity. H
owev
er, i
n te
rms
of t
he c
urre
nt n
eMBa
, the
re is
no
requ
irem
ent
for
the
issu
ing
auth
ority
to
cons
ider
asp
ects
of
anim
al w
elfa
re, a
s th
e el
emen
ts u
nder
cl
ause
88
do n
ot m
ake
refe
renc
e to
tha
t. H
owev
er, t
his
will
cha
nge
once
the
dra
ft
neM
Ba c
hang
es h
ave
been
pro
mul
gate
d (s
ee b
elow
). th
e on
e el
emen
t th
at m
ay b
e pr
escr
iptiv
e is
with
ref
eren
ce t
o in
tern
atio
nal a
gree
men
ts, i
nclu
ding
the
Wor
ld
org
anis
atio
n fo
r an
imal
Hea
lth p
olic
ies
(see
bel
ow).
W
hile
it m
ay n
ot h
ave
been
the
inte
nt o
f th
e ac
t, a
pote
ntia
l ele
men
t fo
r a
chec
k an
d ba
lanc
e is
in t
erm
s of
the
req
uire
men
t fo
r th
e Sc
ient
ific
auth
ority
to
mak
e re
com
men
datio
ns t
o th
e is
suin
g au
thor
ity o
n pe
rmit
appl
icat
ions
. the
lack
of
accr
edite
d an
imal
wel
fare
exp
ertis
e w
ithin
the
issu
ing
auth
oriti
es o
r Sc
ient
ific
auth
ority
wou
ld
indi
cate
the
nee
d to
con
sult
expe
rtis
e pr
ior
to r
ecom
men
ding
or
appr
ovin
g a
culli
ng
plan
, or
culli
ng p
erm
it ap
plic
atio
n.
alth
ough
the
re is
not
a r
equi
rem
ent
for
the
issu
ing
auth
ority
to
cons
ult
the
scie
ntifi
c au
thor
ity, t
he in
clus
ion
of “
mus
t,”94
48 with
the
res
t be
ing
sile
nt o
n th
e re
quire
men
t fo
r th
e is
suin
g au
thor
ity t
o co
nsul
t, im
plie
s th
at t
his
is a
req
uire
men
t in
the
per
mit
eval
uatio
n an
d ap
prov
al p
roce
ss.
dra
ft a
men
dmen
ts
dra
ft n
atio
nal
envi
ronm
enta
l law
s am
endm
ent
Bill,
9549
neM
Ba is
cur
rent
ly u
nder
rev
isio
n an
d, b
ased
on
the
lega
l jud
gem
ents
men
tione
d ab
ove,
“
wel
l-bei
ng” “
mea
ns a
sta
te w
here
the
livi
ng c
ondi
tions
of
a fa
unal
bio
logi
cal r
esou
rce
are
cond
uciv
e to
its
heal
th;”96
50 “t
o em
pow
er t
he M
inis
ter
to p
rohi
bit
cert
ain
activ
ities
tha
t m
ay n
egat
ivel
y im
pact
on
the
wel
lbei
ng o
f fa
unal
bi
olog
ical
res
ourc
es.”97
51 “
the
use
of in
dige
nous
bio
logi
cal r
esou
rces
in a
man
ner
that
is e
colo
gica
lly s
usta
inab
le, i
nclu
ding
tak
ing
into
ac
coun
t th
e w
ellb
eing
of
any
faun
al b
iolo
gica
l res
ourc
e in
volv
ed,”98
52 “t
he M
inis
ter
may
, by
notic
e in
the
Gaz
ette
and
sub
ject
to
such
con
ditio
ns a
s th
e M
inis
ter
may
spe
cify
in t
he
notic
e, p
rohi
bit
any
activ
ity t
hat
may
neg
ativ
ely
impa
ct o
n th
e w
ellb
eing
of
a fa
unal
bio
logi
cal r
esou
rce,”
9953
“the
Min
iste
r m
ay m
ake
regu
latio
ns r
elat
ing
to “
the
wel
l-bei
ng o
f a
faun
al b
iolo
gica
l res
ourc
e.”10
0 54
alth
ough
ani
mal
wel
fare
is n
ot e
xplic
itly
brou
ght
into
the
sta
tute
, it
is n
ow in
clud
ed t
hrou
gh
the
incl
usio
n of
wel
lbei
ng o
f an
imal
s. th
is is
to
ensu
re t
hat
ther
e is
no
over
lap
with
the
an
imal
s Pr
otec
tion
act10
1 55 and
ser
ves
to e
mpo
wer
the
Min
iste
r to
be
acco
unta
ble
to t
he
wel
fare
req
uire
men
ts in
here
nt in
the
con
stitu
tion
(see
abo
ve).
th
e va
rious
cla
uses
em
pow
er t
he m
inis
ter
to p
rohi
bit
activ
ities
tha
t im
pact
neg
ativ
ely
on t
he w
ellb
eing
of
anim
als,
whi
ch w
ould
incl
ude
inhu
man
e cu
lling
of
elep
hant
fam
ily
grou
ps, a
nd m
ay m
ake
regu
latio
ns e
nsur
ing
the
wel
lbei
ng o
f an
imal
s.
the
revi
sion
s al
so r
equi
re a
man
ager
impl
emen
ting
any
actio
n in
ter
ms
of u
se o
f in
dige
nous
res
ourc
es t
o ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt t
he w
ellb
eing
of
any
anim
al in
volv
ed, i
.e.,
may
no
t co
nduc
t an
act
ion
that
is u
ncon
duci
ve t
o its
hea
lth, w
hich
wou
ld in
clud
e in
hum
ane
activ
ities
suc
h as
cul
ling
elep
hant
fam
ily g
roup
s.
88N
atio
nal
Envi
ronm
enta
l M
anag
emen
t Bi
odiv
ersi
ty A
ct 1
0 of
200
4.89
Id.
§ 57
(1).
90Id
. §
61(1
)(a)(c
) .
91Id
. §
57(1
) an
d 57
(2).
92Id
. §
61(2
)(b).
93Id
. §
88(3
).94
Id.
§ 59
(b).
95Su
pra
note
16.
96Id
. at
cla
use
41(1
)(c).
In t
he D
raft
Pol
icy
posi
tion
on t
he C
onse
rvat
ion
and
Ecol
ogic
ally
Sus
tain
able
Use
of
Elep
hant
, Li
on,
Leop
ard
and
Rhin
ocer
os (
GG
Vol
. 67
2, N
o. 4
4776
, 28
Jun
e 20
21,
at 1
1),
the
defin
ition
has
bee
n up
date
d to
: Wel
lbei
ng m
eans
the
hol
istic
circ
umst
ance
s an
d co
nditi
ons
of a
n an
imal
s ar
e co
nduc
ive
to it
s ph
ysic
al, p
hysi
olog
ical
and
men
tal h
ealth
and
qua
lity
of li
fe, a
nd it
s ab
ility
to
cope
with
its
envi
ronm
ent
(NEM
LA B
ill).
97Id
. pr
eam
ble.
98Id
. at
cla
use
44.
99Id
. at
cla
use
42.
100 Id
. at
cla
use
48.
101 Th
e A
nim
als
Prot
ectio
n A
ct 7
1 of
196
2 (S
. A
fr.).
(Con
tinue
d)
12 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
nor
ms
and
Stan
dard
s n
orm
s an
d St
anda
rds
for
the
Man
agem
ent
of
elep
hant
in S
outh
af
rica10
2 56
the
purp
ose
of t
he n
&S is
to
“ens
ure
that
(a)
ele
phan
ts a
re m
anag
ed [
…]
in a
way
tha
t (v
i) is
eth
ical
and
hum
ane
and
(vii)
rec
ogni
ses
thei
r se
ntie
nt n
atur
e, h
ighl
y or
gani
sed
soci
al s
truc
ture
and
abi
lity
to c
omm
unic
ate.”
103 57
“the
se n
orm
s an
d st
anda
rds
are
info
rmed
by
the
prin
cipl
es [
cont
aine
d in
the
sub
sequ
ent
para
grap
h].”
104 58
In t
erm
s of
Gui
ding
Prin
cipl
es, “
[a]n
y pe
rson
exe
cutin
g a
func
tion
or e
xerc
isin
g a
pow
er o
r ca
rryi
ng o
ut a
n ac
tivity
tha
t re
late
s, di
rect
ly o
r in
dire
ctly
, to
an e
leph
ant
mus
t do
so
with
reg
ard
to t
he f
ollo
win
g fu
rthe
r pr
inci
ples
: (a)
ele
phan
ts a
re in
telli
gent
, hav
e st
rong
fam
ily b
onds
and
ope
rate
with
in h
ighl
y so
cial
ised
gro
ups
and
unne
cess
ary
disr
uptio
n of
the
se g
roup
s by
hum
an in
terv
entio
n sh
ould
be
min
imis
ed; [
…]
(h)
man
agem
ent
inte
rven
tions
mus
t, […
] (i)
tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt t
he s
ocia
l str
uctu
re o
f el
epha
nts;
(ii)
be b
ased
on
mea
sure
s to
av
oid
stre
ss a
nd d
istu
rban
ce t
o el
epha
nts;
[…]
and
(l) e
very
effo
rt m
ust
be m
ade
to s
afeg
uard
ele
phan
ts f
rom
ab
use
and
negl
ect.”
105 59
“[…
] m
anag
e th
e si
ze, o
r co
mpo
sitio
n or
rat
e of
gro
wth
of
a w
ild e
leph
ant
popu
latio
n it
mus
t—(b
) us
e on
e or
a
com
bina
tion
of t
he f
ollo
win
g m
anag
emen
t op
tions
(vi
) cu
lling
in t
erm
s of
the
se n
orm
s an
d St
anda
rds
as
wel
l as
the
thre
aten
ed o
r Pr
otec
ted
Spec
ies
regu
latio
ns.”10
6 60 cu
lling
may
be
used
to
redu
ce t
he s
ize
of a
n el
epha
nt p
opul
atio
n su
bjec
t to
the
fol
low
ing
cond
ition
s: cu
lling
may
be
unde
rtak
en o
nly
in t
erm
s of
a c
ullin
g pl
an p
repa
red
by t
he r
espo
nsib
le p
erso
n w
ith t
he
assi
stan
ce o
f an
eco
logi
st w
ho is
a r
ecog
nise
d el
epha
nt m
anag
emen
t sp
ecia
list
and
appr
oved
by
the
rele
vant
is
suin
g au
thor
ity t
hat
sets
out
the
con
ditio
ns u
nder
whi
ch c
ullin
g w
ould
tak
e pl
ace
and
the
man
ner
in w
hich
th
e cu
ll w
ould
be
impl
emen
ted.
107 61
“[…
] ev
iden
ce t
hat
all o
ther
pop
ulat
ion
man
agem
ent
optio
ns [
…]
have
bee
n re
ject
ed.”10
8 62 “p
ropo
sed
culli
ng m
etho
ds”
and
“inte
nded
use
of
prod
ucts
.” 10
9 63 “a
n el
epha
nt m
ay n
ot b
e cu
lled
if it
is—
(i) p
art
of a
cow
-cal
f gr
oup
unle
ss t
he e
ntire
cow
-cal
f gr
oup,
incl
udin
g th
e m
atria
rch
and
juve
nile
bul
ls, is
cul
led.
”110 64 t
he n
&S r
equi
re c
ullin
g to
be
done
with
“qui
ck a
nd h
uman
e m
etho
ds”
thro
ugh
shoo
ting.
111 65 I
t sh
ould
be
note
d th
at t
he n
&S p
rohi
bit
hunt
ing
by “d
rivin
g an
ele
phan
t by
an
y m
eans
,” or
“us
ing
a pi
tfal
l.”11
2 66 n
ote
that
the
n&S
mak
e re
fere
nce
to b
oth
the
aPa
and
the
MSa
und
er d
efine
d ap
plic
able
legi
slat
ion.
113 67
at a
hig
her
leve
l, th
e n
&S g
ive
stro
ng r
ecog
nitio
n to
ani
mal
wel
fare
as
thei
r pu
rpos
e is
to
ensu
re e
leph
ants
are
man
aged
in a
way
tha
t is
eth
ical
and
hum
ane,
and
rec
ogni
se t
he
sent
ient
nat
ure
of e
leph
ants
, and
the
ir so
cial
sys
tem
as
fund
amen
tal,
and
seve
ral
prin
cipl
es s
peak
to
this.
How
ever
, oth
er p
urpo
ses
are
prom
otin
g br
oade
r bi
odiv
ersi
ty a
nd
soci
o-ec
onom
ic g
oals,
not
dis
rupt
ing
the
ecol
ogic
al in
tegr
ity o
f ec
osys
tem
s, an
d en
ablin
g th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
spe
cific
man
agem
ent
obje
ctiv
es. t
hese
thr
ee a
spec
ts a
re p
art
of
argu
men
ts p
ut f
orw
ard
to u
nder
take
cul
ling,
and
it is
not
cle
ar h
ow t
hese
pot
entia
lly
cont
radi
ctor
y pu
rpos
es o
f th
e n
&S a
re t
o be
bal
ance
d in
pra
ctic
e, a
lthou
gh t
he n
&S d
o in
dica
te t
hat
culli
ng is
a la
st r
esor
t to
man
age
popu
latio
n si
ze, a
nd t
hat
the
met
hod
mus
t be
qui
ck a
nd h
uman
e.
How
ever
, alth
ough
the
n&S
req
uire
tha
t cu
lling
mus
t be
qui
ck a
nd h
uman
e, t
he c
ullin
g pl
an is
pre
pare
d by
the
res
pons
ible
per
son
(the
man
ager
of
the
rese
rve)
with
the
as
sist
ance
of
an e
colo
gist
. fur
ther
mor
e, t
he p
lan
is a
ppro
ved
by t
he r
elev
ant
issu
ing
auth
ority
. non
e of
the
peo
ple
invo
lved
in t
he p
roce
ss o
f pl
anni
ng o
r ap
prov
al a
re
qual
ified
to
asse
ss w
heth
er t
he m
etho
d sp
ecifi
ed11
4 68 is q
uick
and
hum
ane
in t
erm
s of
ac
cept
ed a
nim
al w
elfa
re a
ppro
val p
roce
sses
. ac
cord
ing
to t
he n
&S, c
ullin
g is
not
per
mitt
ed t
o m
anag
e th
e sp
atia
l dis
trib
utio
n of
a
wild
ele
phan
t po
pula
tion
with
in t
he b
ound
arie
s, as
it is
not
incl
uded
und
er t
he
perm
itted
man
agem
ent
optio
ns.11
5 69 dis
turb
ance
cul
ling
is, t
here
fore
, not
per
mitt
ed a
s a
man
agem
ent
actio
n un
der
the
n&S
. Im
port
antly
, for
her
ds, t
he n
&S r
equi
re t
hat
the
who
le h
erd
and
asso
ciat
ed m
ales
be
culle
d, a
nd d
oes
not
perm
it fo
r in
divi
dual
s to
be
culle
d fro
m w
ithin
her
ds.
ther
e is
som
e co
ntra
dict
ion
betw
een
the
n&S
and
the
to
PS r
egul
atio
ns, i
n th
at in
the
n
&S H
untin
g is
pro
vide
d as
a m
etho
d to
man
age
elep
hant
pop
ulat
ion
size
, com
posi
tion
or r
ate
of g
row
th in
add
ition
to
culli
ng, a
nd in
to
PS t
hat
wou
ld b
e in
clud
ed u
nder
the
de
finiti
on o
f cu
lling
(se
e be
low
).116 70 t
he n
&S p
rovi
de f
or c
ullin
g in
ter
ms
of t
he t
oPS
de
finiti
on.
Impo
rtan
tly, u
nder
the
n&S
, hun
ting
does
not
req
uire
“qui
ck a
nd h
uman
e m
etho
ds,”
as
that
is n
ot in
clud
ed u
nder
the
pre
scrip
tions
, but
it d
oes
prec
lude
som
e sp
ecifi
c m
etho
ds
not
incl
uded
as
pres
crip
tions
und
er c
ullin
g, s
uch
as d
rivin
g or
usi
ng p
itfal
ls. H
untin
g al
so
does
not
req
uire
a s
peci
fic p
lan
as p
er t
he c
ullin
g pl
an, o
r ap
prov
al in
depe
nden
t of
the
m
anag
emen
t pl
an.
for
esca
ped
or r
oam
ing
elep
hant
s, w
hich
wou
ld in
clud
e da
mag
e-ca
usin
g an
imal
s as
per
th
e to
PS (
belo
w),
the
n&S
pro
vide
s fo
r th
e an
imal
to
be h
unte
d or
des
troy
ed, b
ut d
oes
not
requ
ire t
he m
etho
d to
be
quic
k or
hum
ane.
102 Su
pra
note
6.
103 Id
. at
par
a. 2
.10
4 Id.
at p
ara.
2(3
).10
5 Id.
at p
ara.
3.
106 Id
. at
par
a. 1
5(1)
.10
7 Id.
at p
ara.
19(
a).
108 Id
. at
par
a. 1
9(b)
(ii).
Man
agem
ent
optio
ns a
re l
iste
d in
par
a. 1
5.10
9 Id.
at p
ara.
19(
b)(v
i). M
anag
emen
t op
tions
are
lis
ted
in p
ara.
15.
110 Id
. at
par
a. 1
9(c)
.11
1 Id.
at p
ara.
19(
d).
112 Id
. at
par
a. 2
1(a)
and
21(
c).
113 Id
. at
par
a. 1
(1).
114 Id
. pa
ra.
19(b
)(vi).
115 Id
. pa
ra.
15 (
2).
116 Su
pra
note
17,
at
Regu
latio
n 15
(1)(b
)(v).
Tabl
e 1.
con
tinue
d
legi
slat
ion/
judg
emen
t/po
licy
rele
vant
sec
tion/
aspe
ctre
leva
nce
to t
he c
ullin
g m
etho
d
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 13
(Con
tinue
d)
regu
latio
ns
the
thre
aten
ed a
nd
Prot
ecte
d Sp
ecie
s re
gula
tions
117 71 (
toPS
)
und
er d
efini
tions
: “cu
lling
” as
“in
rel
atio
n to
a s
peci
men
of
a lis
ted
thre
aten
ed o
r pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
in a
pro
tect
ed
area
, mea
ns a
n op
erat
ion
exec
uted
by
an o
ffici
al o
f, or
oth
er p
erso
n de
sign
ated
by,
the
man
agem
ent
auth
ority
of
the
are
a to
kill
a s
peci
fic n
umbe
r of
spe
cim
ens
of a
list
ed t
hrea
tene
d or
pro
tect
ed s
peci
es w
ithin
the
are
a in
ord
er t
o m
anag
e th
at s
peci
es in
the
are
a in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
man
agem
ent
plan
of
the
area
; or
in
rela
tion
to a
spe
cim
en o
f a
liste
d th
reat
ened
or
prot
ecte
d sp
ecie
s w
hich
has
esc
aped
fro
m a
pro
tect
ed a
rea
and
has
beco
me
a da
mag
e ca
usin
g an
imal
, mea
ns a
n op
erat
ion
exec
uted
by
an o
ffici
al o
f, or
a p
erso
n de
sign
ated
by,
the
pro
vinc
ial d
epar
tmen
t or
the
man
agem
ent
auth
ority
of
the
prot
ecte
d ar
ea t
o ki
ll th
e an
imal
as
a m
atte
r of
last
res
ort;
in r
elat
ion
to a
spe
cim
en o
f a
liste
d th
reat
ened
or
prot
ecte
d sp
ecie
s on
a r
egis
tere
d ga
me
farm
, mea
ns a
n op
erat
ion
exec
uted
by
the
land
ow
ner
or o
ther
per
son
desi
gnat
ed b
y th
e la
nd o
wne
r, to
ki
ll a
spec
ific
num
ber
of s
peci
men
s of
a li
sted
thr
eate
ned
or p
rote
cted
spe
cies
with
in t
he r
egis
tere
d ga
me
farm
in o
rder
to
man
age
that
spe
cies
on
the
farm
;” an
d “t
rade
” as
“th
e im
port
into
the
rep
ublic
, exp
ort
from
th
e re
publ
ic, s
ellin
g or
oth
erw
ise
trad
ing
in, b
uyin
g, r
ecei
ving
, giv
ing,
don
atin
g, o
r ac
cept
ing
as a
gift
, or
in
any
way
acq
uirin
g or
dis
posi
ng o
f an
y sp
ecim
en.”11
8 72
the
toPS
defi
nitio
n of
cul
ling
wou
ld in
clud
e hu
ntin
g to
man
age
the
size
, com
posi
tion,
or
rate
of
grow
th o
f an
ele
phan
t po
pula
tion,
whe
reas
n&S
pro
vide
for
hun
ting
as a
se
para
te o
ptio
n.11
9 73 In
add
ition
, to
PS in
clud
es k
illin
g of
dam
age-
caus
ing
anim
als
unde
r cu
lling
, whe
reas
the
y ar
e de
alt
with
sep
arat
ely
in n
&S, u
nder
esc
aped
and
roa
min
g an
imal
s.120 74
the
defin
ition
of
trad
e is
impo
rtan
t in
tha
t th
is d
oes
not
appe
ar in
oth
er b
iodi
vers
ity
legi
slat
ion,
and
wou
ld b
e ap
plic
able
to
the
disp
osal
of
any
elep
hant
par
ts o
r de
rivat
ives
ar
isin
g fro
m a
cul
l.
anim
als
Prot
ectio
n ac
t121 75
(aPa
)ai
ms
to c
onso
lidat
e an
d am
end
the
law
s re
latin
g to
the
pre
vent
ion
of c
ruel
ty t
o an
imal
s. th
e ac
t ap
plie
s to
“an
y pe
rson
who
[…
] w
anto
nly
or u
nrea
sona
bly
or n
eglig
ently
doi
ng o
r om
ittin
g to
do
any
act
or c
ausi
ng o
r pr
ocur
ing
the
com
mis
sion
or
omis
sion
of
any
act,
caus
es a
ny u
n-ne
cess
ary
suffe
ring
to a
ny a
nim
al [
…].”
122 76
Her
e “a
nim
al”
mea
ns “
[…]
any
wild
ani
mal
[…
] w
hich
is in
cap
tivity
or
unde
r th
e co
ntro
l of
any
pers
on.”12
3 77
the
anim
als
Prot
ectio
n ac
t w
ould
app
ly t
o an
y pe
rson
who
cau
ses
suffe
ring
to a
mem
ber
of
an e
leph
ant
fam
ily g
roup
dur
ing
the
culli
ng p
roce
ss, i
nclu
ding
bot
h th
e m
embe
rs o
f th
e te
am c
ondu
ctin
g th
e w
ork,
but
als
o th
ose
plan
ning
and
aut
horis
ing
the
act
to t
ake
plac
e. K
now
ing
that
the
pro
cess
can
not
be c
ompl
eted
qui
ckly
for
all
indi
vidu
als,
and
that
inju
ry is
pos
sibl
e to
hap
pen,
rat
her
than
imm
edia
te d
eath
, the
cul
ling
act
coul
d be
co
nsid
ered
bot
h w
anto
n an
d un
reas
onab
le. I
t is
diffi
cult
to im
agin
e th
at t
he s
uffer
ing
caus
ed d
urin
g cu
lling
fam
ily g
roup
s us
ing
the
curr
ent
met
hod
coul
d be
con
side
red
nece
ssar
y, u
nles
s th
ere
is d
irect
and
imm
edia
te t
hrea
t to
hum
an li
fe o
r w
ellb
eing
, whi
ch
ther
e w
ould
not
be.
Inde
pend
ent
asse
ssm
ent
chap
ter
from
the
M
inis
ter
com
mis
sion
ed
asse
ssm
ent
of e
leph
ant
Man
agem
ent
in S
outh
af
rica12
4 78
In it
s re
view
of
the
law
as
appl
ying
to
elep
hant
s, th
is a
sses
smen
t in
dica
ted
that
“[a
]n a
ct o
f cr
uelty
per
form
ed o
n an
ele
phan
t w
hich
is in
a f
ree
roam
ing
stat
e w
ould
not
how
ever
fal
l with
in t
he a
mbi
t of
the
act
,”125 79 b
ut t
hat
“[c]
ontr
ol f
or t
his
purp
ose
wou
ld m
ean
de f
acto
con
trol
or
deem
ed c
ontr
ol u
nder
any
law
.” W
hen
cons
ider
ing
owne
rshi
p of
ele
phan
ts, i
t in
dica
tes
that
“in
the
ligh
t of
the
ext
ensi
ve m
anag
emen
t pr
actic
es a
dopt
ed f
or
elep
hant
s in
pro
tect
ed a
reas
and
priv
ate
land
, the
use
of
a w
ide
rang
e of
art
ifici
al m
echa
nism
s to
con
trol
m
ovem
ent,
popu
latio
n an
d di
seas
e, t
he m
anag
emen
t of
hab
itats
and
the
pro
visi
on o
f su
pple
men
tary
foo
d, it
is
diffi
cult
to c
once
ive
of c
ircum
stan
ces
in w
hich
ele
phan
t m
anag
emen
t w
ould
am
ount
to
no m
ore
than
‘nat
ure
taki
ng it
s co
urse
.’”12
6 80 Whe
n in
terp
retin
g th
e im
plic
atio
ns o
f th
e co
nstit
utio
n fo
r el
epha
nt m
anag
emen
t, H
opki
nson
et
al. i
ndic
ate
that
“[a
]s s
uch,
ele
phan
ts f
orm
par
t of
and
mus
t be
pro
tect
ed a
s th
e pe
ople
’s co
mm
on h
erita
ge, m
ust
be h
eld
in p
ublic
tru
st f
or t
he p
eopl
e, a
nd t
heir
bene
ficia
l use
mus
t se
rve
the
publ
ic
inte
rest
. any
cla
ssifi
catio
n of
ele
phan
ts in
pro
tect
ed a
reas
und
er s
tate
con
trol
as
res
nulli
us is
cle
arly
in
cons
iste
nt w
ith t
his
as w
ell a
s w
ith [
the
envi
ronm
enta
l rig
ht]12
7 81 of
the
cons
titut
ion
and
does
not
pro
mot
e co
nser
vatio
n or
the
pro
tect
ion
of o
ur e
nviro
nmen
t fo
r th
e be
nefit
of
pres
ent
and
futu
re g
ener
atio
ns.”12
8 82
Whe
n co
nsid
erin
g ow
ners
hip
of e
leph
ants
, it
indi
cate
s th
at e
leph
ants
are
und
er c
ontr
ol o
f m
anag
emen
t, i.e
., no
t re
s nu
llius
. thi
s is
fur
ther
em
phas
ised
by
the
requ
irem
ent
in t
he
n&S
for
an
elep
hant
man
agem
ent
plan
, inc
ludi
ng f
or t
hose
res
erve
s w
here
ele
phan
ts
may
be
cons
ider
ed r
es n
ulliu
s. In
oth
er w
ords
, ele
phan
ts w
ithin
pro
tect
ed a
reas
and
pr
ivat
e la
nd s
houl
d be
con
side
red
unde
r th
e co
ntro
l of
the
man
ager
of
that
land
, and
, th
eref
ore,
eve
n if
that
ele
phan
t is
con
side
red
res
nulli
us, t
he a
Pa w
ill a
pply
to
the
man
agem
ent
of a
ll el
epha
nts
with
in S
outh
afri
ca (
see
abov
e).
117 Id
.11
8 Id.
at R
egul
atio
n 1.
119 Id
. at
Reg
ulat
ion
15(b
)(v).
120 Id
. at
Reg
ulat
ion
25(3
)(b)(i
).12
1 Supr
a no
te 8
1.12
2 Id.
§ 2(
r).
123 Id
. §
1(i).
124 H
opki
nson
, va
n St
aden
, an
d Ri
dl,
supr
a no
te 1
4.12
5 Id a
t 39
0.12
6 Id a
t 37
3.12
7 S. A
fr.
Con
st.
§ 24
.12
8 Hop
kins
on,
van
Stad
en,
and
Ridl
, su
pra
note
14.
14 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
Mea
t Sa
fety
act
129 83 (
MSa
)th
e Pu
rpos
e of
the
MSa
is “
to p
rovi
de f
or m
easu
res
to p
rom
ote
mea
t sa
fety
and
the
saf
ety
of a
nim
al p
rodu
cts,
to
esta
blis
h an
d m
aint
ain
esse
ntia
l nat
iona
l sta
ndar
ds in
res
pect
for
aba
ttoi
rs [
…]
and
to p
rovi
de f
or m
atte
rs
conn
ecte
d th
erew
ith.”13
0 84 th
e M
Sa d
efine
s an
ani
mal
pro
duct
as
“any
by-
prod
uct
obta
ined
fro
m t
he c
arca
ss o
f an
ani
mal
oth
er t
han
the
mea
t th
ereo
f.”13
1 85 fur
ther
mor
e, n
o pe
rson
may
—“(
a) s
laug
hter
any
ani
mal
at
any
plac
e ot
her
than
an
abat
toir;
(b
) pe
rmit
the
slau
ghte
r of
any
ani
mal
at
any
plac
e un
der
his
or h
er c
ontr
ol u
nles
s th
e pl
ace
is a
n ab
atto
ir; o
r (c
) se
ll—or
pro
vide
mea
t fo
r hu
man
and
ani
mal
con
sum
ptio
n un
less
is h
as b
een
slau
ghte
red
in a
n ab
atto
ir.”13
2 86 th
e M
Sa a
lso
prov
ides
for
ess
entia
l nat
iona
l sta
ndar
ds, i
nclu
ding
“[t
]he
follo
win
g es
sent
ial n
atio
nal s
tand
ards
ap
ply
to a
ll ab
atto
irs: [
…]
an a
nim
al p
rese
nted
for
sla
ught
er a
t an
aba
ttoi
r m
ust
be h
andl
ed h
uman
ely
durin
g lo
adin
g, t
rans
port
atio
n, o
ff-lo
adin
g, h
ousi
ng, i
mm
obili
sing
and
kill
ing
as p
resc
ribed
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith t
he
requ
irem
ents
of
the
anim
als
Prot
ectio
n ac
t.”13
3 87 the
MSa
app
lies
to t
he a
frica
n el
epha
nt in
tha
t it
is li
sted
with
an
arr
ay o
f “W
ild G
ame.”
134 88
the
MSa
defi
nes
a “s
ale”
to
incl
ude
an “
agre
emen
t to
sel
l, an
y off
er, a
dver
tisem
ent,
expo
sure
, tra
nsfe
r of
ow
ners
hip,
con
veya
nce
or d
eliv
ery
for
sale
, exc
hang
e or
dis
posa
l in
any
man
ner,
whe
ther
for
any
con
side
ratio
n or
oth
erw
ise,
and
[to
] ‘se
ll’ ha
s a
corr
espo
ndin
g m
eani
ng.”
fu
rthe
rmor
e, “
slau
ghte
r” m
eans
“th
e ki
lling
of
an a
nim
al a
nd t
he p
erfo
rman
ce o
f th
e us
ual a
ccom
pany
ing
acts
in
con
nect
ion
ther
ewith
in o
rder
to
obta
in m
eat
and
anim
al p
rodu
cts
ther
efro
m.”13
5 89 a
“sla
ught
er f
acili
ty”
is d
efine
d as
“an
y fa
cilit
y, w
heth
er s
tatio
nary
or
mob
ile, a
t or
on
whi
ch a
nim
als
are
slau
ghte
red
or in
tend
ed t
o be
sla
ught
ered
, and
incl
udes
are
as in
or
adja
cent
to
such
fac
ilitie
s […
].” 13
6 90
ther
efor
e, in
ter
ms
of t
he M
Sa, k
illin
g an
imal
s fo
r m
eat
or o
ther
ani
mal
pro
duct
s m
ay o
nly
be u
nder
take
n at
an
abat
toir,
and
thi
s do
es n
ot m
ake
prov
isio
n fo
r ki
lling
wild
ani
mal
s in
the
vel
d (fi
eld)
. the
MSa
pro
vide
s fo
r th
e M
inis
ter
to e
stab
lish
Sche
mes
by
publ
icat
ion
in t
he n
atio
nal G
azet
te.13
7 91 tw
o dr
aft
Sche
mes
hav
e be
en p
ropo
sed,
but
not
fin
alis
ed (
see
belo
w).
as it
cur
rent
ly s
tand
s, it
is il
lega
l to
kill
elep
hant
s an
d th
en u
se
the
prod
ucts
fro
m t
he c
arca
sses
. th
e M
Sa r
equi
res
that
any
ani
mal
tha
t is
bei
ng k
illed
for
use
mus
t be
han
dled
hu
man
ely
prio
r to
kill
ing,
and
in t
he k
illin
g pr
oces
s. d
rivin
g of
ele
phan
ts u
sing
a
helic
opte
r pr
ior
to t
he k
illin
g at
the
sel
ecte
d lo
catio
n ca
uses
dis
tres
s, as
doe
s th
e se
quen
tial k
illin
g of
indi
vidu
als
over
a p
erio
d, a
s w
ell a
s th
e ris
k of
wou
ndin
g ra
ther
th
an im
med
iate
dea
th.
Mea
t sa
fety
sch
emes
th
e d
raft
Gam
e Sc
hem
e138 92
a M
eat
Safe
ty S
chem
e (S
chem
e) w
as p
rovi
ded
for
publ
ic c
omm
ent,
but
was
nev
er fi
nalis
ed. t
he in
tent
ion
of t
he
Sche
me
was
“to
est
ablis
h a
soun
d in
frast
ruct
ure
for
prod
ucin
g sa
fe g
ame
mea
t fo
r th
e co
untr
y by
ena
blin
g [h
untin
g or
gani
satio
ns]
to c
ondu
ct li
mite
d ha
rves
ting
utili
sing
sla
ught
er f
acili
ties
on g
ame
farm
s, re
gist
ered
un
der
the
Sche
me
[…].”
139 93 t
he d
raft
Gam
e Sc
hem
e sp
ecifi
es t
hat
elep
hant
mus
t be
sho
t as
a r
elia
ble
mea
ns
to c
ause
imm
edia
te d
eath
.140 94
this
wou
ld h
ave
prov
ided
for
the
opp
ortu
nity
for
kill
ing
in e
xten
sive
nat
ural
are
as, b
ut n
ote
that
it d
oes
requ
ire s
hoot
ing
to b
e do
ne s
o th
at it
is r
elia
bly
expe
cted
to
caus
e im
med
iate
dea
th. t
his
wou
ld n
ot b
e th
e ca
se in
situ
atio
ns w
here
the
re is
a c
hanc
e of
w
ound
ing
anim
als,
besi
des
the
dela
y in
com
plet
ing
the
proc
ess.
129 M
eat
Safe
ty A
ct 4
0 of
200
0 D
raft
Gam
e M
eat
Sche
me,
Dep
art
men
t o
f A
gri
cult
ure
, Fo
rest
ry a
nd
Fis
her
ies
(201
2) (
S. A
fr.),
http
s://
ww
w.n
da.a
gric
.za/
vetw
eb/L
egis
latio
n/M
eat%
20sa
fety
/R_M
eat_
Safe
ty_A
ct_4
0.ht
m (
last
vis
ited
20
Sep.
202
0).
130 Id
. Pr
eam
ble.
131 Id
. §
§ 1(
1)(ii
i).13
2 Id.
§ 7(
1).
133 Id
. §
11(1
)(h).
134 Id
. Sc
hedu
le 1
to
§ 1(
2).
135 Id
. §
1(1)
(xx
ii).
136 Id
. §
1(1)
(xxi
ii)].
137 Id
. §
12.
138 D
raft
Gam
e M
eat
Sche
dule
to
the
Mea
t Sa
fety
Act
40
of 2
000
(201
2) (
S. A
fr.).
139 Id
. §
4(1)
.14
0 Id.
§ 8(
1).
Tabl
e 1.
con
tinue
d
legi
slat
ion/
judg
emen
t/po
licy
rele
vant
sec
tion/
aspe
ctre
leva
nce
to t
he c
ullin
g m
etho
d
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 15
(Con
tinue
d)
regu
latio
ns
the
dra
ft G
ame
Mea
t re
gula
tions
(d
GMr
)141 95
thes
e re
gula
tions
wer
e pr
ovid
ed f
or p
ublic
com
men
t, bu
t ha
ve n
ot b
een
gaze
tted
for
impl
emen
tatio
n. t
he
inte
ntio
ns o
f th
e re
gula
tions
wer
e to
pro
vide
an
exem
ptio
n fro
m o
f th
e M
Sa f
or t
he s
laug
hter
of
gam
e an
imal
s, to
allo
w g
ame
anim
als
that
hav
e be
en s
hot
outs
ide
an a
batt
oir
to b
e pr
esen
ted
at a
n ab
atto
ir fo
r dr
essi
ng. t
he d
GMr
defin
e “h
arve
stin
g or
har
vest
” as
all
the
“act
iviti
es in
volv
ed in
the
sho
otin
g, k
illin
g,
blee
ding
and
har
vest
ing
insp
ectio
n of
gam
e an
imal
s to
obt
ain
part
ially
dre
ssed
gam
e ca
rcas
ses,”
whi
le
harv
este
d ga
me
is d
efine
d as
a “g
ame
anim
al im
med
iate
ly a
fter
bei
ng s
hot
until
it b
ecom
es p
artia
lly d
ress
ed
gam
e ca
rcas
s as
defi
ned.
”142 96 t
he d
raft
reg
ulat
ions
spe
cifie
s th
e st
anda
rds
for
“veh
icle
s”14
3 97 tha
t ar
e us
ed f
or
harv
estin
g an
imal
s lis
ted
in c
ateg
ory
a, w
hich
incl
udes
ele
phan
t an
d la
rge
gam
e.14
4 98 In
addi
tion,
the
veh
icle
s us
ed f
or “
harv
estin
g ca
tego
ry a
or
larg
e ga
me
will
be
dete
rmin
ed b
y th
e sp
ecie
s ha
rves
ted
and
a pr
otoc
ol
appr
oved
by
the
Peo
145 99 w
ill b
e re
quire
d to
ens
ure
an a
ppro
ved
met
hod
of k
illin
g an
d ha
ndlin
g pr
oced
ures
for
ea
ch s
peci
e.”14
6 100 the
dGM
r re
quire
s th
at “
[s]h
ootin
g m
ust
be d
one
hum
anel
y so
tha
t it
is r
elia
bly
expe
cted
to
caus
e im
med
iate
dea
th.”14
7 101 In
addi
tion,
the
dGM
r re
quire
s th
at “c
are
mus
t be
tak
en t
o av
oid
the
shoo
ting
of
heav
ily p
regn
ant
gam
e an
imal
s.”14
8 102 It
is n
otab
le t
hat
dGM
r do
es n
ot in
clud
e pr
ovis
ion
for
cate
gory
a a
nim
als
for
slau
ghte
r [n
ot in
an
abat
toir]
for
ow
n co
nsum
ptio
n.14
9 103
If th
is is
pro
mul
gate
d, t
he m
etho
d w
ould
hav
e to
be
appr
oved
by
the
Prov
inci
al e
xecu
tive
offi
cer,
whi
ch h
as n
ot y
et b
een
done
. thi
s w
ould
hav
e to
be
done
for
any
pro
vinc
e w
here
thi
s w
ere
to o
ccur
, not
ing
that
som
e re
serv
es w
ith e
leph
ants
, inc
ludi
ng K
ruge
r n
atio
nal P
ark,
spa
n ac
ross
tw
o pr
ovin
ces.
th
e re
gula
tions
stil
l req
uire
sho
otin
g to
be
hum
anel
y an
d re
liabl
y be
exp
ecte
d to
cau
se
imm
edia
te d
eath
. the
pro
babi
lity
of w
ound
ing
usin
g th
e cu
rren
t m
etho
d pr
eclu
des
the
met
hod
bein
g co
nsid
ered
rel
iabl
e in
thi
s co
ntex
t.
By d
efini
tion,
som
e m
embe
rs o
f a
fam
ily u
nit
of e
leph
ants
, unl
ess
they
hav
e al
l bee
n co
ntra
cept
ed (
as m
ay b
e th
e ca
se in
a f
ew s
mal
l res
erve
s), w
ill b
e pr
egna
nt. I
t is
thu
s im
poss
ible
to
avoi
d sh
ootin
g of
a h
eavi
ly p
regn
ant
elep
hant
, as
this
wou
ld p
recl
ude
shoo
ting
of t
he w
hole
gro
up (
as t
he w
hole
gro
up is
req
uire
d to
be
culle
d as
per
the
n
&S a
bove
).
Inte
rnat
iona
l Glo
bal P
olic
y Gu
idel
ine
foa
Guid
elin
es f
or
Hum
ane
Han
dlin
g,
tran
spor
t an
d Sl
augh
ter
of l
ives
tock
150 104
thes
e gu
idel
ines
hig
hlig
ht t
he n
eed
to im
prov
e an
imal
wel
fare
“to
red
uce
suffe
ring,
in li
ne w
ith r
equi
rem
ents
of
Gove
rnm
ents
, nGo
s, an
d co
nsum
ers,
who
are
bec
omin
g m
ore
conc
erne
d w
ith w
elfa
re o
f fo
od a
nim
als.”
151 105
(1) “
Whe
n an
imal
s ar
e su
bjec
ted
to u
nusu
al c
ondi
tions
or
circ
umst
ance
s du
e to
the
wilf
ul a
ctio
ns o
f pe
ople
, it
is p
eopl
e’s m
oral
res
pons
ibili
ty t
o en
sure
tha
t th
e w
elfa
re o
f th
ese
anim
als
is c
ared
for
and
tha
t th
ey d
o no
t su
ffer
unne
cess
ary
disc
omfo
rt, s
tres
s or
inju
ry.”15
2 106 (2)
“th
e ob
ligat
ion
in t
he c
onve
rsio
n of
foo
d an
imal
s in
to
edib
le p
rodu
cts
and
usef
ul b
y-pr
oduc
ts is
to
slau
ghte
r th
e an
imal
in a
hum
ane
man
ner.”
153 107 (
3) “a
t th
e tim
e of
sl
augh
ter,
anim
als
shou
ld b
e he
alth
y an
d ph
ysio
logi
cally
nor
mal
. Sla
ught
er a
nim
als
shou
ld b
e ad
equa
tely
re
sted
.”154 108 (
4) “
Whe
n re
ady
for
slau
ghte
r, an
imal
s sh
ould
be
driv
en t
o th
e st
unni
ng a
rea
in a
qui
et a
nd o
rder
ly
man
ner
with
out
undu
e fu
ss a
nd n
oise
.”155 109
the
curr
ent
met
hod
of c
ullin
g fa
mily
uni
ts w
ould
be
coun
ter
to a
ll of
the
se e
lem
ents
of
acce
pted
glo
bal p
ract
ice,
to
whi
ch S
outh
afri
ca is
a s
igna
tory
.
141 D
raft
Gam
e M
eat
Regu
latio
ns t
o th
e M
eat
Safe
ty A
ct 4
0 of
200
0, N
otic
e 13
71 i
n G
over
nmen
t G
azet
te 4
0402
of
4 N
ovem
ber
2016
277
1 (2
016)
, D
epar
tmen
t of
Agr
icul
ture
and
Fis
herie
s (S
. A
fr.).
142 Id
. pt
. 1.
143 Fo
r in
stan
ce,
a de
dica
ted
trai
ler
for
the
field
dre
ssin
g (o
r gr
allo
chin
g),
i.e.,
the
proc
ess
of d
isem
bow
elin
g ha
rves
ted
gam
e, w
hich
may
als
o in
clud
e re
mov
ing
the
skin
hea
d an
d ho
oves
.14
4 Supr
a no
te 1
20,
pt.
23(1
).14
5 Prov
inci
al E
xecu
tive
Off
icer
.14
6 Supr
a no
te 1
20,
pt.
23(3
).14
7 Id.
Pt.
63(4
).14
8 Id.
Pt.
63(8
).14
9 Id.
see
Pt.
116.
150 Ph
ilip
G.
Cham
bers
and
Tem
ple
Gra
ndin
, G
uide
lines
for
Hum
ane
Han
dlin
g, T
rans
port
and
Sla
ught
er o
f Li
vest
ock,
FA
O 9
1 (2
001)
, ht
tp://
ww
w.fa
o.or
g/su
stai
nabl
e-fo
od-v
alue
-cha
ins/
libra
ry/d
etai
ls/e
n/c/
2660
14/.
151 Id
. at
5.
152 Id
. at
1.
153 Id
. at
1.
154 Id
. at
49.
155 Id
. at
49.
16 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
Inte
rnat
iona
l Glo
bal P
olic
y Gu
idel
ine
Wor
ld o
rgan
isat
ion
for
anim
al H
ealth
oIe
Gl
obal
ani
mal
Wel
fare
156 110
the
visi
on o
f th
e o
Ie, a
s pe
r th
e ad
opte
d o
Ie G
loba
l ani
mal
Wel
fare
Str
ateg
y,15
7 111 is
“a w
orld
whe
re t
he w
elfa
re o
f an
imal
s is
res
pect
ed, p
rom
oted
and
adv
ance
d, in
way
s th
at c
ompl
emen
t th
e pu
rsui
t of
ani
mal
hea
lth, h
uman
w
ellb
eing
, soc
ioec
onom
ic d
evel
opm
ent
and
envi
ronm
enta
l sus
tain
abili
ty.”15
8 112 “ani
mal
wel
fare
is c
lose
ly li
nked
to
anim
al h
ealth
, the
hea
lth a
nd w
ell-b
eing
of
peop
le, a
nd t
he s
usta
inab
ility
of
soci
o-ec
onom
ic a
nd e
colo
gica
l sy
stem
s.”15
9 113 “[…
] as
soci
ated
eth
ical
res
pons
ibili
ty t
o en
sure
any
suc
h us
e is
hum
ane,
as
defin
ed t
hrou
gh t
he
oIe
’s in
tern
atio
nal s
tand
ards
for
ani
mal
wel
fare
, in
reco
gniti
on o
f th
e se
ntie
nce
of a
nim
als.”
160 114
the
oIe
has
dev
elop
ed t
he t
erre
stria
l ani
mal
Hea
lth c
ode
whi
ch h
as b
een
adop
ted
by t
he W
orld
ass
embl
y of
th
e d
eleg
ates
, with
the
late
st a
men
dmen
ts t
o th
e 28
th e
ditio
n at
the
87t
h Ge
nera
l Ses
sion
in M
ay 2
019.
161 115
the
guid
ing
prin
cipl
es f
or a
nim
al w
elfa
re s
peci
fy t
hat
the
“use
of
anim
als
carr
ies
with
it a
n et
hica
l re
spon
sibi
lity
to e
nsur
e th
e w
elfa
re o
f su
ch a
nim
als
to t
he g
reat
est
exte
nt p
ract
icab
le.”16
2 116 In
addi
tion,
alth
ough
ap
plyi
ng t
o th
e w
elfa
re o
f an
imal
s in
live
stoc
k pr
oduc
tion
syst
ems,
thes
e in
dica
ted
that
“[s
]oci
al g
roup
ing
of
anim
als
shou
ld b
e m
anag
ed t
o al
low
pos
itive
soc
ial b
ehav
iour
and
min
imis
e in
jury
, dis
tres
s an
d ch
roni
c fe
ar.”16
3 117 und
er t
he c
hapt
er o
n Sl
augh
ter,
the
Gene
ral P
rinci
ples
app
ly t
o th
e m
anag
emen
t of
foo
d an
imal
s th
at
will
be
slau
ghte
red,
and
par
ticul
arly
the
rec
omm
enda
tion
that
“th
e w
elfa
re o
f fo
od a
nim
als
durin
g pr
e-sl
augh
ter
and
slau
ghte
r pr
oces
s, un
til t
hey
are
dead
.”164 118 f
urth
erm
ore,
thi
s pr
inci
ple,
as
for
the
all t
he
Gene
ral P
rinci
ples
, is
to b
e ap
plie
d to
“al
l ani
mal
s sl
augh
tere
d ou
tsid
e sl
augh
terh
ouse
s [o
r] ab
atto
irs,”
and
the
food
ani
mal
s sh
ould
be
man
aged
in a
man
ner
“to
ensu
re t
hat
thei
r tr
ansp
ort,
laira
ge, r
estr
ain
and
slau
ghte
r is
carr
ied
out
with
out
caus
ing
undu
e st
ress
to
the
anim
als.”
165 119 t
he c
hapt
er o
n sl
augh
ter
stat
es t
hat
for
slau
ghte
r w
ith n
o re
stra
int
in t
he fi
eld,
whe
n an
imal
s ar
e gr
oupe
d, a
nd a
fre
e bu
llet
is u
sed,
tha
t th
e w
elfa
re c
once
rn o
r im
plic
atio
n is
“in
accu
rate
tar
getin
g an
d in
appr
opria
te b
allis
tics
not
achi
evin
g ou
trig
ht k
ill w
ith fi
rst
shot
,” an
d ke
y to
thi
s is
“ope
rato
r co
mpe
tenc
e.”16
6 120
the
oIe
spe
cific
ally
rec
ogni
ses
the
sent
ienc
e of
ani
mal
s as
bei
ng a
n im
port
ant
elem
ent
of
conc
ern
whe
n co
nsid
erin
g st
anda
rds
of h
uman
e pr
actic
e in
ter
ms
of a
nim
al w
elfa
re.
ther
e is
ref
eren
ce t
o re
duct
ion
of c
hron
ic f
ear,
whi
ch is
inhe
rent
in t
he c
urre
nt p
roce
ss,
mos
t es
peci
ally
for
the
cal
ves,
whi
ch a
re k
illed
last
. th
e cu
rren
t m
etho
d of
cul
ling
fam
ily u
nits
wou
ld b
e co
unte
r to
all
of t
he e
lem
ents
of
acce
pted
glo
bal p
ract
ice
as c
aptu
red
in t
hese
doc
umen
ts, t
o w
hich
Sou
th a
frica
is a
si
gnat
ory.
euro
pean
uni
on S
tand
ards
th
e Pr
otec
tion
of
anim
als
at t
he t
ime
of
Killi
ng16
7 121
Prov
ides
rul
es f
or “
the
killi
ng o
f an
imal
s fo
r th
e pu
rpos
e of
dep
opul
atio
n an
d fo
r re
late
d op
erat
ions
,” w
here
“d
epop
ulat
ion”
mea
ns “
the
proc
ess
of k
illin
g an
imal
s fo
r pu
blic
hea
lth, a
nim
al h
ealth
, ani
mal
wel
fare
or
envi
ronm
enta
l rea
sons
und
er t
he s
uper
visi
on o
f th
e co
mpe
tent
aut
horit
y.”16
8 122 th
ese
stan
dard
s pr
ovid
e “g
ener
al r
equi
rem
ents
” fo
r ki
lling
and
rel
ated
ope
ratio
ns.16
9 123 the
se in
clud
e: “a
nim
als
shal
l be
spar
ed a
ny a
void
able
pai
n, d
istr
ess
or s
uffer
ing
durin
g th
eir
killi
ng a
nd r
elat
ed o
pera
tions
,”170 124 a
nd “d
o no
t sh
ow s
igns
of
avoi
dabl
e pa
in o
r fe
ar o
r ex
hibi
t ab
norm
al b
ehav
iour
.”171 125
“any
suc
h am
endm
ents
sha
ll en
sure
a le
vel o
f an
imal
wel
fare
at
leas
t eq
uiva
lent
to
that
ens
ured
by
the
exis
ting
met
hods
.” 17
2 126 “K
illin
g an
d re
late
d op
erat
ions
sha
ll on
ly b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t by
per
sons
with
the
app
ropr
iate
leve
l of
com
pete
nce
to d
o so
with
out
caus
ing
the
anim
als
any
avoi
dabl
e pa
in, d
istr
ess
or s
uffer
ing.
”173 127
alth
ough
the
se a
re n
ot b
indi
ng o
n So
uth
afric
a, t
hey
do in
dica
te g
loba
l sta
ndar
ds, a
nd
mak
e re
fere
nce
to k
illin
g of
ani
mal
s no
t on
ly f
or u
se o
f m
eat
or p
rodu
cts,
whi
ch w
ould
be
dire
ctly
app
licab
le t
o cu
lling
ele
phan
ts t
o re
duce
pop
ulat
ion
size
, com
posi
tion,
or
grow
th.
thes
e re
quire
men
ts s
houl
d be
app
lied
to a
sses
s th
e ac
t of
cul
ling,
and
the
cur
rent
m
etho
d vi
olat
es b
oth
of t
hese
req
uire
men
ts.
156 So
uth
Afr
ica
is a
Mem
ber
Coun
try.
157 O
IE G
loba
l A
nim
al
Wel
fare
, (2
017)
, ht
tp://
ww
w.o
ie.in
t/fil
eadm
in/H
ome/
eng/
Ani
mal
_Wel
fare
/doc
s/pd
f/O
ther
s/EN
_OIE
_AW
_Str
ateg
y.pd
f (la
st v
isite
d 19
Sep
. 20
20).
158 Id
. at
Vis
ion.
159 Id
. at
Con
text
.16
0 Id.
at C
onte
xt.
161 O
IE, T
erre
stri
al
An
ima
l H
ealt
h C
od
e, (2
019)
, ht
tps:
//w
ww
.oie
.int/
en/w
hat-
we-
do/s
tand
ards
/cod
es-a
nd-m
anua
ls/t
erre
stria
l-cod
e-on
line-
acce
ss/.
162 Id
. A
rt.
7.1.
2.16
3 Id.
Art
. 7.
1.5.
164 Id
. A
rt.
7.5.
1.16
5 Id.
Art
. 7.
1.5.
166 Id
. A
rt.
7.5.
6.16
7 Coun
cil
Regu
latio
n, N
o 10
99/2
009
of 2
4 Se
ptem
ber
2009
on
the
prot
ectio
n of
ani
mal
s at
the
tim
e of
kill
ing,
303
Off
icia
l J.
of
the
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n L
30
(200
9).
168 Id
. A
rt.
2(n)
.16
9 Id.
Art
. 3.
170 Id
. A
rt.
3.1.
171 Id
. A
rt.
3.2(
d).
172 Id
. A
rt.
4.2.
173 Id
. A
rt.
7.1.
Tabl
e 1.
con
tinue
d
legi
slat
ion/
judg
emen
t/po
licy
rele
vant
sec
tion/
aspe
ctre
leva
nce
to t
he c
ullin
g m
etho
d
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 17
(Con
tinue
d)
Publ
ishe
d n
atio
nal S
tand
ard
amer
ican
Vet
erin
ary
Med
ical
ass
ocia
tion
(aVM
a) h
as g
uide
lines
fo
r th
e sl
augh
ter
of
anim
als
(aVM
a 20
16).
this
pro
vide
s gu
idel
ines
for
hum
ane
slau
ghte
r of
ani
mal
s in
tend
ed f
or u
se a
s fo
od. “
Whe
n an
imal
s ar
e de
sign
ated
fo
r sl
augh
ter,
they
sho
uld
be t
reat
ed w
ith r
espe
ct a
nd h
andl
ed a
ppro
pria
tely
, and
the
sla
ught
er p
roce
ss s
houl
d lim
it th
e ha
rms
expe
rienc
ed b
y th
ese
anim
als.
Hum
ane
slau
ghte
r m
etho
ds a
nd a
gent
s ar
e de
sign
ed t
o br
ing
abou
t ra
pid
loss
of
cons
ciou
snes
s an
d, u
ltim
atel
y, a
com
plet
e lo
ss o
f br
ain
func
tion
in a
nim
als
dest
ined
for
use
as
foo
d. t
his
mea
ns m
inim
isin
g (a
nd, w
here
pos
sibl
e, e
limin
atin
g) a
nxie
ty, p
ain,
and
dis
tres
s as
soci
ated
with
te
rmin
atin
g th
e liv
es.”
th
ey in
dica
te t
hat
the
aVM
a Gu
idel
ines
for
the
eut
hana
sia
of a
nim
als
editi
on17
4 128 sho
uld
be c
onsu
lted
if in
divi
dual
ani
mal
s ar
e de
emed
inap
prop
riate
for
the
foo
d ch
ain.
Whi
ch o
ne is
use
d w
ould
, the
refo
re, d
epen
d on
whe
ther
the
cul
led
anim
als
wer
e in
tend
ed f
or h
uman
use
or
not.
alth
ough
the
se a
re n
ot b
indi
ng o
n So
uth
afric
a, t
hey
do in
dica
te g
loba
l sta
ndar
ds. t
hese
are
ap
plic
able
for
ani
mal
s ki
lled
whe
re t
here
is a
n in
tent
ion
of u
se o
f th
e m
eat
or p
rodu
cts.
the
curr
ent
met
hod
of c
ullin
g do
es n
ot m
eet
the
requ
irem
ents
.
Guid
elin
es
aVM
a Gu
idel
ines
for
the
eu
than
asia
of
anim
als17
5 129
thes
e gu
idel
ines
pro
vide
crit
eria
and
met
hods
for
eut
hana
sia
of a
nim
als.
“[t]
he v
eter
inar
ian’
s pr
ima
faci
e du
ty in
car
ryin
g ou
t eu
than
asia
incl
udes
, but
is n
ot li
mite
d to
, (1)
the
ir hu
man
e di
spos
ition
to
indu
ce d
eath
in a
man
ner
that
is in
acc
ord
with
an
anim
al’s
inte
rest
and
/or
beca
use
it is
a m
atte
r of
wel
fare
, and
(2)
the
use
of
hum
ane
tech
niqu
es t
o in
duce
the
mos
t ra
pid
and
pain
less
and
di
stre
ss-fr
ee d
eath
pos
sibl
e. t
hese
con
ditio
ns, w
hile
sep
arat
e, a
re n
ot m
utua
lly e
xclu
sive
and
are
co
-dep
ende
nt.”17
6 130 “th
e ne
ed t
o m
inim
ise
anim
al d
istr
ess,
incl
udin
g ne
gativ
e aff
ectiv
e or
exp
erie
ntia
lly b
ased
st
ates
like
fea
r, av
ersi
on, a
nxie
ty, a
nd a
ppre
hens
ion,
mus
t be
con
side
red
in d
eter
min
ing
the
met
hod
of
euth
anas
ia.”17
7 131
alth
ough
the
se a
re n
ot b
indi
ng o
n So
uth
afric
a, t
hey
do in
dica
te g
loba
l sta
ndar
ds. t
hese
are
ap
plic
able
for
ani
mal
s ki
lled
whe
re t
here
is n
ot a
n in
tent
ion
of u
se o
f th
e m
eat
or
prod
ucts
, and
wou
ld in
clud
e cu
lling
whe
re t
here
was
no
use
of m
eat
or o
ther
pro
duct
s, w
hich
may
be
the
case
in s
ome
inst
ance
s of
cul
ling.
the
cur
rent
met
hod
of c
ullin
g do
es
not
mee
t th
e re
quire
men
ts.
Guid
elin
es
aVM
a Gu
idel
ines
for
the
d
epop
ulat
ion
of
anim
als
178 132
thes
e gu
idel
ines
rec
ogni
se t
he d
ifficu
lty o
f gu
aran
teei
ng p
ainl
ess
and
dist
ress
-free
dea
th in
an
emer
genc
y si
tuat
ion.
How
ever
, the
y em
phas
ise
that
thi
s ap
plie
s on
ly in
em
erge
ncy
situ
atio
ns r
equi
ring
imm
edia
te
depo
pula
tion,
and
doe
s no
t ap
ply
to p
roph
ylac
tic c
ullin
g or
pre
caut
iona
ry k
illin
g of
ani
mal
s, in
whi
ch c
ase
the
guid
elin
es f
or s
laug
hter
179 133 o
r eu
than
asia
180 134 a
pply
.181 135
alth
ough
the
se a
re n
ot b
indi
ng o
n So
uth
afric
a, t
hey
do in
dica
te g
loba
l sta
ndar
ds. t
hese
in
dica
te t
hat
in a
n em
erge
ncy
situ
atio
n on
e ca
nnot
gua
rant
ee p
ainl
ess
and
dist
ress
fre
e de
ath.
How
ever
, the
se a
re li
nked
to
emer
genc
y di
spat
ch o
f po
pula
tions
bec
ause
of
cata
stro
phic
eve
nts,
and
do n
ot a
pply
to
prop
hyla
ctic
cul
ling
or p
reca
utio
nary
kill
ing
of
anim
als,
whi
ch w
ould
be
the
situ
atio
n fo
r el
epha
nt c
ullin
g. t
he im
plic
atio
n of
app
lyin
g th
ese
stan
dard
s, th
eref
ore,
is t
hat
one
cann
ot j
ustif
y us
ing
met
hods
tha
t do
n”t
guar
ante
e pa
inle
ss a
nd d
istr
ess
free
deat
h in
cul
ling
of e
leph
ants
. fu
rthe
rmor
e, a
rgum
ents
tha
t sp
ecia
l dis
pens
atio
n fo
r le
ss h
uman
e ki
lling
of
elep
hant
s sh
ould
be
allo
wed
bec
ause
of
the
impo
rtan
ce t
o re
duce
pop
ulat
ions
to
mee
t re
serv
e ob
ject
ives
are
not
val
id.
174 A
mer
ica
n V
eter
ina
ry M
edic
al
Ass
oci
atio
n,
AVM
A G
uid
elin
es f
or
the
Euth
an
asi
a o
f A
nim
als
(20
20 e
d.),
http
s://
ww
w.a
vma.
org/
site
s/de
faul
t/fil
es/2
020-
01/2
020-
Euth
anas
ia-F
inal
-1-1
7-20
.17
5 Id.
176 Id
. at
6.
177 Id
. at
13.
178 A
mer
ica
n V
eter
ina
ry M
edic
al
Ass
oci
atio
n,
AVM
A G
uid
elin
es f
or
the
Dep
opu
lati
on
of
An
ima
ls(2
019
ed.),
htt
ps://
ww
w.a
vma.
org/
site
s/de
faul
t/fil
es/r
esou
rces
/AVM
A-G
uide
lines
-for
-the
-Dep
opul
atio
n-of
-Ani
m(2
019
ed.),
htt
ps://
ww
w.
avm
a.or
g/si
tes/
defa
ult/
files
/res
ourc
es/A
VMA
-Gui
delin
es-f
or-t
he-D
epop
ulat
ion-
of-A
nim
als.
pdf.
179 A
mer
ica
n V
eter
ina
ry M
edic
al
Ass
oci
atio
n,
AVM
A G
uid
elin
es f
or
the
Hu
ma
ne
Slau
gh
ter
of
An
ima
ls,
http
s://
ww
w.a
vma.
org/
site
s/de
faul
t/fil
es/r
esou
rces
/Hum
ane-
Slau
ghte
r-G
uide
lines
.18
0 AVM
A G
uid
elin
es f
or
the
Euth
an
asi
a o
f A
nim
als
, su
pra
note
177
.18
1 AVM
A G
uid
elin
es f
or
the
Dep
opu
lati
on
of
An
ima
ls,
supr
a no
te 1
81,
at 4
.
18 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
Guid
elin
es
Iucn
rev
iew
of
opt
ions
fo
r M
anag
ing
the
Impa
cts
of l
ocal
ly
ove
rabu
ndan
t af
rican
el
epha
nts18
2 136
Prov
ides
tec
hnic
al c
onsi
dera
tions
and
wei
ghin
g of
opt
ions
to
man
age
nega
tive
effec
ts o
f el
epha
nts
from
ov
erpo
pula
tion.
“th
e gr
oup
sele
cted
for
cul
ling
shou
ld t
hus
usua
lly c
ompr
ise
one
or m
ore
fam
ily g
roup
s. ex
perie
nce
has
show
n th
at e
ntire
fam
ily g
roup
s co
mpr
isin
g m
ainl
y ad
ult
fem
ales
and
imm
atur
e an
imal
s of
bo
th s
exes
sho
uld
be k
illed
in a
cul
ling
sess
ion.
”183 137
“cul
ling
(or
crop
ping
) sh
ould
onl
y be
car
ried
out
by a
pro
fess
iona
l tea
m w
ith p
rove
n ex
perie
nce.
Bec
ause
the
re
have
bee
n fe
w if
any
cul
ls d
urin
g th
e re
cent
pas
t, th
ere
is a
gen
eral
lack
of
expe
rtis
e, w
hich
wou
ld n
eed
to b
e ad
dres
sed
thro
ugh
trai
ning
by
the
few
peo
ple
who
hav
e be
en in
volv
ed in
cul
ls in
the
pas
t.”18
4 138 “a
fter
sel
ectin
g a
suita
ble
herd
, all
anim
als
in t
he h
erd
mus
t be
sho
t. th
e m
atria
rch
is u
sual
ly t
arge
ted
first
as
once
she
has
fal
len
this
“an
chor
s” t
he h
erd
and
prev
ents
the
res
t fro
m d
ispe
rsin
g.”18
5 139 “K
illin
g sh
ould
be
done
by
a br
ain
shot
usi
ng h
eavy
cal
ibre
rifl
es. t
he c
orre
ct c
hoic
e of
wea
pon
is im
port
ant.
Both
.458
and
.375
cal
ibre
s ar
e us
eful
for
bul
ls, a
nd t
he .7
62 is
ade
quat
e fo
r sm
alle
r an
imal
s in
the
fam
ily
herd
, but
a h
eavi
er c
alib
re r
ifle
shou
ld b
e on
han
d as
bac
k-up
, to
be u
sed
if ne
cess
ary.”
186 140
“for
rea
sons
of
the
safe
ty o
f pe
rson
nel c
ondu
ctin
g th
e op
erat
ion,
cul
ling
elep
hant
s in
Kru
ger
has
alw
ays
been
co
nduc
ted
from
a h
elic
opte
r. th
e he
licop
ter
was
use
d to
sea
rch
for
a su
itabl
e gr
oup
to c
ull a
nd w
as a
pla
tform
fro
m w
hich
to
shoo
t th
e an
imal
s at
clo
se r
ange
at
the
sele
cted
cul
ling
site
—us
ually
an
open
are
a fre
e of
tal
l tr
ees.
all m
embe
rs o
f th
e se
lect
ed h
erd
wer
e br
ain
shot
by
a m
arks
man
in t
he h
elic
opte
r.”18
7 141 “a
ny o
f th
e cu
lled
anim
als
still
sho
win
g si
gns
of li
fe w
hen
the
grou
nd c
rew
mov
ed in
wer
e im
med
iate
ly b
rain
sh
ot b
y a
mar
ksm
an o
n th
e gr
ound
. the
thr
oat
of e
ach
dead
ani
mal
was
cut
to
ensu
re p
rope
r bl
eedi
ng a
s m
any
of t
he p
rodu
cts
of t
he c
arca
sses
wer
e us
ed f
or h
uman
con
sum
ptio
n. c
arca
sses
wer
e th
en lo
aded
ont
o la
rge
truc
ks a
nd t
rans
port
ed t
o an
aba
ttoi
r.”18
8 142 “t
he u
se o
f hi
gh-p
ower
ed r
ifles
to
kill
elep
hant
fro
m t
he g
roun
d w
as t
he p
refe
rred
met
hod
in a
num
ber
of
coun
trie
s. a
smal
l spo
tter
airc
raft
was
use
d to
loca
te a
sui
tabl
e gr
oup
for
the
cull,
and
to
guid
e th
e sh
arps
hoot
ers
to t
he g
roup
via
rad
io. a
tea
m o
f th
ree
high
ly e
xper
ienc
ed s
harp
shoo
ters
, eac
h ba
cked
by
an
arm
ed r
ange
r, ap
proa
ched
the
gro
up f
rom
dow
nwin
d. t
he le
ad h
unte
r oc
cupi
ed t
he c
entr
al p
ositi
on a
nd t
he
two
subo
rdin
ate
hunt
ers
posi
tione
d th
emse
lves
on
his
left
and
rig
ht, a
nd t
hey
appr
oach
ed t
he h
erd
as c
lose
as
the
y co
uld
get.
adul
ts w
ere
shot
firs
t, pa
rtic
ular
ly t
he m
atria
rch
to r
educ
e th
e lik
elih
ood
of t
he r
est
disp
ersi
ng. a
ny b
ulls
wer
e sh
ot q
uick
ly a
s th
ey w
ould
bre
ak a
way
and
run
, tak
ing
the
herd
with
the
m. o
nce
all t
he a
dults
wer
e do
wn,
the
res
t w
ere
quic
kly
disp
atch
ed. a
n effi
cien
t te
am c
ould
cul
l up
to 4
0 el
epha
nts
in
less
tha
n tw
o m
inut
es.”18
9 143 “H
uman
e co
nsid
erat
ions
are
of
para
mou
nt im
port
ance
whe
n co
nsid
erin
g th
e op
tion
of c
ullin
g el
epha
nts.”
190 144
“It is
of
cruc
ial i
mpo
rtan
ce t
hat
the
oper
ator
s ar
e ex
perie
nced
to
ensu
re t
hat
ther
e is
min
imal
pos
sibi
lity
of
wou
ndin
g an
imal
s or
spl
ittin
g fa
mili
es. I
n th
e un
fort
unat
e ev
ent
that
ele
phan
ts a
re w
ound
ed, o
r m
anag
e es
cape
fro
m a
gro
up id
entifi
ed f
or e
limin
atio
n, t
he o
pera
tors
mus
t ac
t to
ens
ure
that
suc
h si
tuat
ions
are
dea
lt w
ith a
s hu
man
ely
as p
ossi
ble
to m
inim
ise
emot
iona
l or
phys
ical
suff
erin
g.”19
1 145
Sout
h af
rica
is a
mem
ber
of t
he I
ucn
, and
alth
ough
Iu
cn d
ocum
ents
are
not
bin
ding
, the
y ar
e in
tern
atio
nal d
ocum
ents
tha
t pr
ovid
e gu
idan
ce t
o pr
actic
e in
Sou
th a
frica
. th
is d
ocum
ent
prov
ides
des
crip
tion
of t
he t
wo
alte
rnat
ive
met
hods
for
cul
ling
herd
s, fro
m h
elic
opte
r (a
s is
cur
rent
ly t
he a
ccep
ted
prac
tice
in S
outh
afri
ca),
and
from
the
gr
ound
. Bo
th m
etho
ds t
ake
at le
ast
seve
ral m
inut
es t
o co
mpl
ete,
and
the
re a
re in
jure
d an
imal
s to
con
tend
with
(se
e te
xt).
182 Re
view
of
Opt
ion
s fo
r M
an
ag
ing
th
e Im
pac
ts o
f Lo
call
y O
vera
bun
da
nt
Afr
ica
n E
leph
an
ts,
supr
a no
te 1
9.18
3 Id.
at 6
0.18
4 Id.
at 6
1.18
5 Id.
at 6
1.18
6 Id.
at 6
1.18
7 Id.
at 6
2.18
8 Id.
at 6
2.18
9 Id.
at 6
2.19
0 Id.
at 6
3.19
1 Id.
at 6
3.
Tabl
e 1.
con
tinue
d
legi
slat
ion/
judg
emen
t/po
licy
rele
vant
sec
tion/
aspe
ctre
leva
nce
to t
he c
ullin
g m
etho
d
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 19
3.2. South African Case Law
Animal welfare and prevention of cruelty to animals have a deep legislative history, dating to the establishment of the South African Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (SPCA Act) in the 1870s, and later in the 1914 SPCA Act.192 The duty of the Legislature to entrench the need to protect animals from cruel treatment was originally founded in Rex v. Masow.193 In R v. Smit,194 the court found that the action of destroying an animal must be done “humanely” and with “as little suffering as pos-sible” and established the principle that animals are no longer considered to be and treated as “things,” and overrode this provision in South Africa’s Roman-Dutch-derived Common Law.195
Recognition that animal welfare is intertwined with people’s dignity was grounded in R v. Moato,196 which found “cruelty to animals […] offends the finer feelings and sensibilities of his fellow humans,” and affirmed in S v. Edmunds,197 that cruelty to animals was prohibited to “prevent degen-eration of the finer human values in the sphere of treatment of animals.” S v. Edmunds, however, confirmed the purpose of the SPCA could not be extended beyond safeguarding animals from cruel treatment to con-ferring them with “human status,”198 effectively contextualising the inter-pretation of this act within an anthropogenic construct of the Constitution.
The requirement of South African courts to take into consideration the sentience of animals appeared in Justice Cameron’s minority opinion in NCSPCA v Openshaw.199 By emphasising that animals are “sentient beings,” Justice Cameron recognised that animals are able to perceive and reason, and experience feelings that includes a capacity to “suffer and experience immense pain.”200 Justice Cameron further observed that, despite being sentient, animals “have no voice of their own,” and, in so doing, high-lighted the important of the role the courts in this regard.201 This under-standing was subsequently advocated by the courts in South African Predator Breeders Association v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and
192National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another, para. 54.193Ex Parte: The Minister of Justice: In re Rex v. Masow 1940 AD 75 at para. 81 (S. Afr.).194R v. Smit 1929 TPD 397 (S. Afr.).195Id. at para. 401.196R v. Moato 1947 (1) SA 490 (O) (S. Afr.).197S v. Edmunds 1968 (2) PH H398 (N) (S. Afr.), quoted in National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another, at para. 55.198S v. Edmunds, supra note 200, at para. 55.199National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Openshaw, supra note 61.200Id. at para. 38.201Id. at para. 39.
20 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
Tourism,202 and, thereafter, in South African Predator Breeders Association v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.203
Animal welfare is not secondary or subsidiary to conservation, as Justice Khampepe stated, “Animal welfare and animal conservation together reflect two intertwined values,” coupling animal welfare with the constitutional right to have the environment protected in accordance with part (b) of the Environmental Right.204
Irrespective of the various forgoing interpretations of the Environmental Right, the South African Courts have become progressively more willing to embrace the notion of animal welfare being a fundamental component of what is considered to be the “environment.” Furthermore, there appears to be a clear evolution of thought in South Africa’s courts from animals being mere objects of possession without protection against inhumane treatment and cruelty, to a realisation of the sentience of non-human animals being a key consideration in their treatment by human counter-parts. As stated in one court judgment, “Therefore, the rationale behind protecting animal welfare has shifted from merely safeguarding the moral status of humans to placing intrinsic value on animals as individuals” and “guarding the interests of animals reflects constitutional values.”205 Our actions must not be inhumane or cause suffering; must prevent “ill-treat-ment of voiceless beings”206; human-induced “suffering is abhorrent and repulsive”;207 should be placing intrinsic value on animals as individuals and dictating a more caring attitude to animals as a being capable of suffering and experiencing pain208; all of which speak to part (a) of the Environmental Right. Taken together with part (a) of the Environmental Right, positions taken by the courts “speak to the kind of custodial care we are enjoined to show to the environment for the benefit of this and future generations,” “including the prevention of unnecessary cruelty to animals—including those which we may use for service or food is a goal
202South African Predator Breeders Association and Others v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, supra note 70.203South African Predator Breeders Association v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2010, (72/10) ZASCA 151 (S. Afr.).204National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development ZACC 46 (S.Afr.), supra note 60, at para. 58.205National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another, supra note 60, at para. 61.206Openshaw, supra note 59 at paras. 40 and 47.207South African Predator Breeders Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, supra note 63, at para. 72.208National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Openshaw, supra note 59, at para. 38.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 21
of our society.”209 In terms of the act of culling, if it is inhumane, or adversely affects the welfare of animals, then it can be argued that this contravenes the Environmental Right within the Constitution.
3.3. Other South African Legislation
In terms of the biodiversity legislation (see Table 1), culling of elephants requires an approved elephant management plan and culling plan. Culling has to take into account the sentient nature and highly organised society of elephants, be in line with the principles outlined in the N&S, and in a quick and humane manner, through shooting, and, from the hunting clause, without driving an elephant by any means, or using a pitfall.210 As culling is a restricted activity, a permit is required to be issued, and must comply with the N&S.211
Culling has to comply with the Animals Protection Act,212 which states that “any person who—by wantonly or unreasonably or negligently doing or omitting to do any act or causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, causes any unnecessary suffering to any animal” is criminally liable.213 This will become more explicit with the revision of NEMBA to include the wellbeing of fauna at a high level (Table 1), which will require all permitting, management plans, culling plans, and so on to consider animal wellbeing explicitly.
The Meat Safety Act (MSA)214 currently precludes the culling of any elephant in the field if any parts are used for consumption, as this act requires the slaughter of these animals to be undertaken in a registered abattoir.215 Once regulations are promulgated to provide for the killing of game animals on the hoof (see Table 1), which are long overdue, this restriction may no longer apply. The MSA also requires humane killing, and immediate death, and restricts shooting of heavily pregnant game animals.216 The Animal Protection Act (APA)217 prohibits wantonly, unrea-sonably, or negligently causing any unnecessary suffering to any animal.218
209National Council of The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others, at para. 65.210National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, supra note 6, § 21(a) and § 21(c).211Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, supra note 17, § 83(1).212The Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 (1962) (S. Afr.).213Id. at § 2(r).214Meat Safety Act No 40 of 2000 (S, Afr.)215Id. § 11(1)(a).216Meat Safety Act 40 of 2000 Draft Game Meat Scheme, supra note 109 §§ 63(4) and 63(8).217The Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962, supra note 81.218Id. § 2(r).
22 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
Such prohibition is in accord with international agreements on animal slaughter to which South Africa is a party (e.g., OIE),219 as well as being in accord with global standards for slaughter or euthanasia of animals (e.g., EU 2009, AVMA220) (see Table 1).
3.4. Assessment of Culling
Any or all of the following actions likely make culling of elephant family units illegal in terms of the current legislation, and inhumane by South African and global standards, and by the arguments presented in the preceding, in contravention of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution:
1. Driving animals using a helicopter to an appropriate location for culling, that can be accessed for processing the carcasses by a ground team, causes distress to the elephants, and constitutes causing unnec-essary distress in transporting animals to slaughter.
2. The current procedure for culling of groups is inhumane in that, even if all individuals could be accurately shot to ensure an instant kill, the method of first killing the matriarch, and then subsequently killing the other animals in the group, causes the animals that are being slaughtered to suffer distress of the highest level, including by calves who suffer the longest, for a substantially longer period than would be acceptable by any standards of slaughter or euthanasia.
3. There is a demonstrated probability of wounding in the process, rather than a clean kill.
4. The process of verification of death by the ground team takes too long from the time of shooting to be considered acceptable by the standards.
5. It is unavoidable that pregnant females are shot.
The method for culling of individual bull elephants may provide for humane slaughter if it is conducted in such a manner as to ensure an extremely high probability of instant death with no prior distress. This is possible if the elephant is alone, is approached on the ground, and the marksman is proficient enough to ensure a clean shot. Killing of game in
219Terrestrial Animal Health Code, supra note 141, Art. 7.1.2.6, Art. 7.1.5.5, Art. 7.51, and Art. 7.5.6.220American Veterinary Medical Association, AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals, in American Veterinary Medical Association, 5 (2016); American Veterinary Medical Association, AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals 6, 13 (2020 ed. 2013); Council Regulation, No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing, 303 Official J. of the European Union L 30 (2009), Art. 3.1, Art. 3.2 (d), Art. 4.2, and Art. 7.1.
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 23
the field through a head shot is acceptable, under the global standards.221 However, the global standards do raise the concern of welfare risk from “[i]naccurate targeting and inappropriate ballistics not achieving outright kill with first shot.”222 It is also critical, from a welfare perspective, that bulls are alone, as there is a reaction from other animals if not bulls are alone when killed.223 Culling individuals from a helicopter will result in distress in the animal prior to shooting, which would contravene the APA and MSA, as well as global agreements.
The proposal in the SANParks KNP Elephant Management Plan to intentionally create landscapes of fear in elephants through methods such as disturbance culling is of major concern.224 To plan to or intentionally distress animals through culling or initially wounding an individual within a group to create landscapes of fear for animals constitutes wantonly and unreasonably causing unnecessary suffering to any animal, thereby con-travening the APA, as well the constitutional Bill of Rights (argued in the preceding), and is counter to the principle and purpose of a protected area.
The consumptive use of elephant products from culled animals to benefit the local community, or to be reinvested in conservation, should be a requirement in terms of ethics.225 Because this constitutes trade,226 however, and the sale or provision of meat for consumption,227 a burden of proof of compliance with humane slaughter is required for each instance. This cannot be met by current practice in terms of culling of either individual males or family units.
4. Discussion
Lötter et al. indicated that culling raises serious concerns,228 justifiable only as an ethically flawed procedure to be employed under the strictest conditions.229 They furthermore explored the interplay between ethics and practice of professionals in the context of elephant management, empha-sising that human power, as encompassed within the scientific and tech-nological expertise of professions, must be moderated in the best interests of humanity.230 “Elephants thus need protection from us, something that
221Terrestrial Animal Health Code, supra note 141, Art. 7.5.6; RSA, supra note 193, Regulation 63; American Veterinary Medical Association, supra note 154, M3.5 GUNSHOT at 42.222Terrestrial Animal Health Code, supra note 141, Art. 7.5.6.223Burke et al., supra note 18, at 1.224Ferreira et al., supra note 38. Map 8, Table 4 and Box 15.225Lötter et al., supra note 12, at 330.226Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, supra note 17, Regulation 1(1).227Meat Safety Act No 40 of 2000, supra note 193, Regulation 1(1)(xx).228Lötter et al., supra note 12, at 331.229Hennie Lötter, The Ethics of Managing Elephants, 38 Acta Academica 55, 71 (2006).230See generally H. P. P. Lötter, Humans as Professional Interactants With Elephants in a Global Commons, 12 Journal of Global Ethics 87-105 (2016).
24 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
we must give them by means of ethical values strong enough to restrain our activities,”231 they wrote, adding, “We have a prima facie case not to kill elephants, as all humans have both a moral reason not to kill, as well as an absence of economic or survival reasons to kill” such that the premise of ethics based on hunter-gatherer relations with elephants no longer applies.232 The Environmental Right would apply to other species besides elephants, and to ecosystems. If these are threatened, for example, with extinction by elephants, any rights enjoyed by elephants would have to be balanced against rights of other components of the environment, in compliance with limitation of rights in section 36 of the Constitution. Such balancing would need to be part of the decision to cull as an inter-vention to protect the broader environment, but, in addition to factoring in any rights that elephants may have as a component of the environment, the decision must also balance whether a humane method is available or not, as this impinges more strongly on s10 and s24(a) of the Constitution.
Managers of elephants act as moral agents on behalf of humanity, and as professionals who need to abide by generic professional and ethical values of justice, non-maleficence, beneficence, and autonomy.233 Furthermore, as stated by a veterinary association, “changing societal attitudes toward animal care and use have inspired scrutiny of some tra-ditional and contemporary practices applied in the management of … animals encountered in the wild.”234 Academic conservation thinking has evolved, from notions of protecting the environment or approaches in which conservation has to pay for itself, to recent formulations such as compassionate conservation and convivial conservation,235 with an increas-ing emphasis on the need to consider animal welfare in conservation.236
5. Recommendations
While it may be with the best intentions that conservation managers propose to cull elephants and attempt to complete the task as well as possible, we have identified the current method as likely to be inhumane and illegal. Notwithstanding the need for balancing different imperatives in the decision to cull, our assessment of the welfare concerns of the current methods leads us recommend:
231Lötter et al., supra note 12, at 91.232Lötter, supra note 209, at 95.233See generally Lötter, supra note, 209.234American Veterinary Medical Association, supra note 154, at 4.235See generally Bram Büscher and Robert Fletcher, Towards Convivial Conservation, 17 Conservation and Society 283 (2019).236See generally Nitin Sekar and Derek Shiller, Engage With Animal Welfare in Conservation, 369 Science 629-630 (2020).
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 25
1. Consider a moratorium on culling of elephants in family units until a humane slaughter method that causes the least, and acceptable, distress to all target animals has been developed and approved.
2. Consider a moratorium on culling of individual male elephants until development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that ensure an extremely high probability of instantaneous clean kill, with clear indications of the circumstances that ensure this, and of the risks that have to be mitigated. These might include a prohibition of driving males to a killing area or culling of male elephants from a helicopter, to reduce distress prior to slaughter, or of male elephants who are part of a group.
3. Align conservation planning and management interventions with legal provision, including reasonable balancing of animal welfare and wellbeing implications into plans and actions. More discussion and understanding is required as to the Environmental Right as it applies to animals and ecosystems, and how these can be reasonably balanced when anthropogenic disturbance creates direct threats to intergenerational sustainability from one component of the environ-ment to others.
4. Require of an ethics review process for all conservation management implementations and interventions involving wellbeing risk to ani-mals, such as is required for animal research.237 This is especially true for the culling plan as envisaged by the N&S.
5. Require accreditation with stringent training (excluding on-the-job practices) in terms of technical competency (previously specialised and trained people may no longer be available), and assessment in terms of psychological ability, for those tasked with culling.
6. Conclusion
We have demonstrated the misalignment of policy when it is sector based, that is, biodiversity policy developed by an environmental department that does not consider legislation that mandates a different department: in this case, Agriculture has the mandate for both animal welfare and slaughter. Policies were not necessarily developed in ignorance of welfare, but this was excused away as being out of mandate. The South African Constitution and legal judgements have emphasised the constitutional basis of animal welfare in section 24, and the revised NEMBA considers animal wellbe-ing.238 We believe that culling of elephants provides an extreme example
237Id.238National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act, supra note 16, Definitions, clauses 41, 42, 44, 48.
26 R. SLOTOW ET AL.
of historical practice entrenched as a norm, where technicist/militarist approaches239 tend to shield social reflection, and there is a cultural back-lash to hold on to conservative tradition.240 We highlight the urgent need to prioritise a shift in conservation practice to align with both South African legislation and global norms, and prevent the inhumane culling of elephants using the current approaches. Alternative methods and solu-tions are required for reduction of elephant numbers, if this is indeed required—methods and solutions that are less biophysical, technical, or exploitative in terms of commodification, and that reflect a more “convivial conservation.”241
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the discussions with many colleagues about the issues of concern around elephant culling, which have assisted in our formulation of this article. We thank Lucy Bates for her inputs during a review of an earlier version of the article. The enabling environment of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the University of KwaZulu-Natal is acknowledged.
Disclaimer
The ideas, arguments and opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily represent those of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife or other institutions of affiliation of the authors.
ORCID
Rob Slotow http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9469-1508Andrew Blackmore http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3271-9645Michelle Henley http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1675-7388Karen Trendler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8633-8410Marion Garaï http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3884-624X
239See generally Elizabeth Lunstrum, Conservation Meets Militarisation in Kruger National Park: Historical Encounters and Complex Legacies, 13 Conservation and Society 356 (2015); Rosaleen Duffy et al., Why We Must Question the Militarisation of Conservation, 232 Biological Conservation 66-73 (2019).240Michael J. Manfredo et al., Values, Trust, and Cultural Backlash in Conservation Governance: The Case of Wildlife Management in the United States, 214 Biological Conservation 303-311 (2017).241Büscher and Fletcher, supra note 214.