Inaccurate and misleading language is being used to justify the commercial exploitation of wildlife and discredit those who advocate for animal welfare and wellbeing. Antagonistic narratives surrounding the commercial use of wildlife have seen a significant upswing in recent months with renewed vigour given to the dated notion of “if it pays, it stays”. But there’s a major omission: any vestige of a solid, evidence-based supporting argument rooted in rigorous scientific processes.
There’s a second striking concern in these arguments that centre on the rise of inaccurate and misleading language when talking about those who advocate for animal welfare and wellbeing. Pro-commercial use language now disingenuously attempts to position wellbeing-oriented conservationists and welfare advocates, including the NSPCA, as “animal rightists” in an effort to paint these professionals as inexpert and radical extremists. The NSPCA itselfhighlightedthat media articles portraying the organisation as an animal rightist group are inaccurate and set the record straight that it is an animal welfare organisation and a statutory body mandated to enforce the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 throughout South Africa.
Such blatant misrepresentation serves only to discredit and minimise the validity of the work undertaken by conservation and animal welfare professionals. One such example was the High Level Panel’s 2021 recommendation that wellbeing and welfare of wildlife ought to be integral elements of all wildlife practices so that animal sentience is recognised in policy and practice. This was not just an empty recommendation: in 2022, the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act integrated animal wellbeing into the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Nemba) 10 of 2004.
Read Full Article on Daily Maverick
[paywall]
Unfortunately, key industry players including the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association argued that inclusion of wellbeing in Nemba could harm hunting and game farming and launched a legal challenge in response. With this language arises a fundamental question: when did simply ensuring basic animal wellbeing become a radical or extremist movement? It stirs up reminders of those who advocated against women’s rights (interestingly, research has demonstrated starksimilarities between the oppression of women and the abuse of animals), a movement in itself that was considered extreme and unrealistic even for basic activities, such as giving women the right to vote and workplace equality.
The parallel I am drawing is based on the language used to justify the commercial exploitation of wildlife and discredit those seeking new ways forward that prioritise wellbeing. Anti-suffrage claims positioned women as too emotional and now the same brush is being used to paint advocates of animal wellbeing as biased in an attempt to diminish sound scientific and legal thinking that has gone into showing the sentience of wildlife, compromised quality of life in commercial pursuits such as captivity and trade, and the need to rethink the extractive basis that continues to inform policy. Ironically, key role players in the commercial wildlife industry have provided scant science to back up claims that, for example, breeding and trading lions in captivity prevent poaching of wild lions or will bolster declining populations in other African range states.
No evidence has been provided regarding assertions that the Kruger National Park’s lions are in danger of dying from bovine tuberculosis, and captive populations will resolve this. To the contrary, these claims were specifically refuted in an answer to aparliamentary question– while bovine tuberculosis does affect lions in the Kruger, deaths are not detectable at a population level and research shows minimal disease effects, with lions actually demonstrating resilience. Overall, the threat of bovine tuberculosis does not pose a significant threat to lion survival in the park.
As a result, the park has said there is no need to introduce captive-bred lions because the wild population remains stable. These are only some of the claims that have been made on numerous occasions, but still the peer-reviewed science has not been produced. To attempt to portray the captive lion industry as a conservation success story without demonstrable evidence is disingenuous.
Further to the issue of captive lion breeding are claims that South Africa’s captive population is the healthiest and taken care of under the strictest animal welfare conditions. Yet, NSPCA inspections carried out in 2022 show that of 75 facilities that were inspected, six were issued with noncompliance welfare notices and 65.3% were issued with warnings for contravening the Animals Protection Act. Twenty-three lions had to be humanly euthanised based on their compromised conditions.
The NSPCA pursued seven dockets and one case went to trial. The NSPCA’s inspections highlighted ongoing and repeated violations, including poor hygiene, lack of potable water, lack of suitable and adequate nutrition, resulting in underweight lions and health issues, unsatisfactory enclosure designs, including safety for animals and people, lack of adequate shelter, lack of veterinary care and husbandry, incompatible species in adjacent camps, and lack of enrichment.
[/paywall]
