ConCourt to hear NSPCA's animal care case
The SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association has no regard for the well-being of animals and is merely driven by commercial interests, the NSPCA will tell the Constitutional Court this month.
The association looks to challenge the inclusion of ‘well-being’ in the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment (Nemla) Bill and eventually in the Biodiversity Act – arguing this was done by Parliament without sufficient public involvement.
TimesLIVE reports that in a rare direct access application to the country’s apex court, the association – which has 40 000 members, including about 500 game farmers – says the inclusion of the well-being provision in the statutes puts the government in a position to prohibit any activity that negatively impacts the well-being of an animal.
It said this would be detrimental to the industry, which it says spends about R23bn a year in furtherance of its hunting activities – putting an emphasis on its main argument that the Biodiversity Act, prior to the passing and subsequent promulgation of the Nemla Act, did not contain any definition of ‘well-being’.
According to the association’s court papers about 130 000 animals are hunted in SA annually by international hunters and about 277 000 animals by local hunters.
It is these lucrative activities the NSPCA takes umbrage over, saying the legal challenge by the association to the inclusion of the well-being of animals in the Act is self-serving and asking the court to be an intervening party.
According to TimesLIVE, the NSPCA will argue that animals are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pain and suffering.
NSPCA CEO Esté Kotzé said in her affidavit: ‘Given the almost garish focus of the hunting industry on profit and money with a refusal to acknowledge animal sentience, it is of utmost import that the NSPCA, the Minister of Environmental Affairs, and the courts provide means to buffer commercial use against aspects of sustainability, ethics and outright animal abuse. Animals are, in our law, seen as worthy of protection.’
The association is asking the court to reject the application with costs.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
