Citizens should be concerned when the government enacts laws without consulting those affected. Parliament defined animal well-being in conservation law, requiring mental health consideration for all wild animals, from earthworms to elephants when making decisions about conservation, management, and utilisation.
This definition of animal well-being and its implications were developed without consultation with the public, the agricultural sector, conservation organisations, or the wildlife sector, despite the potentially significant impact on South Africa’s wildlife. It is impractical and unworkable. SA Hunters’ discussions with the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE) regarding this issue were unsuccessful. Consequently, the association has approached the court to declare the process unconstitutional and compel the authorities to consult properly.
SA Hunters is deeply concerned about the welfare of our wildlife, as reflected in our codes of conduct, conservation work, and policy positions. A recent example is our successful court case against the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development to prevent the inclusion of indigenous wildlife species on the list for animal improvement. The unplanned negative implications of this ill-considered definition of well-being on food production, wildlife management, conservation, and the wildlife economy urgently require attention. Members of SA Hunters can take pride in supporting this case. The case is sub-judice.
