Position Statement 3.1 Transport of Live Animals
POSITION STATEMENT 3.1
TRANSPORT OF LIVE ANIMALS The SPCA is opposed to all forms of transportation which compromise the well-being of all animals or which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
TRANSPORTATION OF ANIMALS
Animals are transported nationally and internationally for various reasons and purposes such as farm animals destined for sale, breeding or slaughter; wildlife industry operations; animals used for scientific purposes; animals moved to sporting events; legal and illegal pet trade; and travelling companion animals. The methods of transporting animals vary greatly from species to species and animals are transported via road, air and sea.
The transportation of animals have known risks to animals and general animal well-being issues prior to, during and after transportation include but may not be limited to pain; suffering; distress; injuries; hunger; dehydration; heat stress; cold stress; diurnal variation; exposure to noxious gases; incorrect handling; risk of disease; unsuitable vehicles; long distances; unpredicted travelling durations; exposure to the elements; and death.
The SPCA advocates that the most expedient means of transport must be used to ensure that all animals are loaded, transported, off-loaded and handled correctly and humanely. The well-being of any animal should not be compromised and there should be minimal stress to the animals during the journey. Regardless of the animal being transported and the purpose thereof, individuals have a legal responsibility to ensure that transportation procedures do not result in any pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm of any animal. This includes compliance with relevant legislation, including local and international codes, standards and regulations.
The documents below have relevance to the transportation of animals; some required by law; some influenced by international treaties and conventions to which South Africa is a signatory; and some are based on a voluntary basis, unless it is incorporated by legislation or permit conditions; which include but are not limited to the:
Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962; Animal Diseases Act No. 35 of 1984; Animal Identification Act. No. 06 of 2002; Performing Animals Protection Amendment Act No. 4 of 2016; National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act No. 10 of 2004: Threatened and Protected Species Regulations (TOPS); Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulations and permit conditions; South African Bureau of Standards / SABS 0331: Translocation of certain species of wild herbivore; South African National Standard / SANS 10391:2012: The welfare of wild animals transported by sea; South African National Standard / SANS 1884-2:2007: Vehicles for the transportation of wild herbivores by road to holding pens and other facilities; South African National Standard / SANS 1884-3:2008: Vehicles for the transportation of wild carnivores by road to holding pens and other facilities; South African National Standard / SANS 10379:2005: Zoo and aquarium practice; South African National Standard / SANS 1488:2014: Humane transportation of livestock by road; South African National Standard / SANS 10386:2008 (or latest version): For the care and use of animals for scientific purposes; Cape Nature Game Translocation and Utilization Policy for the Western Cape Province; Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Procedures and Standard Terms and Conditions for Keeping Wild Animals in Captivity; International Air Transport Association (IATA) Regulations; and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) - World Minimum Standard.
TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE ANIMALS BY LAND
Animal well-being concerns with regards to the transportation of live animals by land include but are not limited to: The capturing and handling of animals before loading; The incompatibility of animals being transported together such as mothers and calves transported with other adult animals or unsuitable species transported together; Disregard for the social grouping or structure of animals such as solitary and social animals transported together; Use of vehicles not suited for the species or specific animals; Exposure to unfamiliar sounds, smells and new environments; Exposure to unfamiliar temperatures such as vehicles parked in the sun or a wind chill factor that may result in heat or cold stress; No shading provided for animals during transport; Inadequate ventilation in vehicles; Overcrowding; Inadequate non-slip flooring; Starving and dehydration; Health and condition of the animals being transported; Use of vehicles that are not roadworthy; Adequate driver training and route plans to ensure the shortest and safest route; and Lack of emergency plans in case of breakdowns or accidents, including sick or injured animals resulting in animals left to suffer until the end of the journey before veterinary care can be provided.
TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE ANIMALS BY SEA
The transportation of live animals by sea, in particular, livestock intended for slaughter holds serious animal well-being concerns. It is unnecessary to transport animals intended for slaughter by sea, especially if viable and humane alternatives exist close to the point of production. This method of trade causes pain, suffering and distress to many animals, including high mortality rates occurring during the voyage. The SPCA advocates that the animals should be transported in carcass form.
Animal well-being concerns with regards to the transportation of live animals by sea include but are not limited to:
The conditions on the vessels are totally unnatural and do not provide for a suitable environment for the intended cargo of animals; Animals have to endure extended periods in inadequate and/or unnaturally small spaces including within the confinement of transport crates; Excessive lighting exposure resulting in lack of rest; Animals are subjected to unhygienic husbandry conditions during the voyage such as the build- up of faecal matter and urine; Build-up of noxious gases such as ammonia; Faulty or broken ventilation systems may result in animals suffering from heat stress or exposure to high levels of noxious gases such as ammonia; Due to the movement of the vessel, the animals may become injured or experience motion sickness; Unsuitable non-slip flooring may cause the animals to slip and become injured; Animals are at risk of being trampled by their companions; Water provision and suitable food for the animals may be compromised during the voyage; Provision of food and water is not necessarily accessible to every animal; Animals are forced to endure close proximity to humans for extended periods of time; Animals are transported without being accompanied by a veterinarian or experienced, trained and competent staff, resulting in a lack of provision of emergency treatment or euthanasia of animals where necessary; There is a lack of adequate treatment or quarantine sections on ships; and The offloading of animals is not necessarily monitored by any welfare organisation at the intended destination.
TRANSPORTATION OF ANIMALS BY AIR
Transportation of live animals by air must be done in accordance with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Regulations, including relevant legislation, regulations, standards and codes of practice.
Animal well-being concerns with regards to the transportation of live animals by air include but are not limited to:
Exposure to unfamiliar sounds, smells and new environments; Disregard and negligence, as well as unforeseeable circumstances causing unnecessary delays at Cargo companies before flights; Lack of water provision prior, during and after transits; Lack of suitable species-specific transport crates; Poorly constructed transportation crates hold the risk of escape or injury to the animals in transit; Animals are loaded and flown to destinations without the necessary vaccinations; Animals are left on the apron in the sun and other weather elements for extended periods of time; Mixed species of animals are kept in close proximity with the risk of disease transmission, including predators in view of prey animals; Biosecurity protocols are not being adhered to; Incorrect and inhumane handling of animals by cargo company staff; and Inhumane methods used to smuggle animals via cargo flights.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 3.2
LIVE ANIMALS AS PRIZES The SPCA is opposed to the award of live animals as prizes.
WHY ARE LIVE ANIMALS USED AS PRIZES?
Live animals are sometimes awarded as prizes in raffles, competitions or other fundraising events as a marketing tool or as a way to publicise and capitalise on sales, whilst animal well-being is not always considered. These competitions or events result in the winning person becoming responsible for the care of an animal without any prior consideration or proper planning taking place. The type of animals used depends on the target audience from domestic farm animals, companion animals to both indigenous and exotic wild species. The attraction of possibly winning a live animal whilst purchasing other commodities, is a marketing strategy which successfully promotes sales and is a lucrative drawcard, which the SPCA considers as exploitation to both the consumer and the animal.
CONCERNS RELATING TO THE USE OF LIVE ANIMALS GIVEN AS PRIZES. Concerns relating to live animals given as prizes include but are not limited to:
The winner may not be in a financial position to adequately care for the animal/s; The winner may have little to no knowledge in terms of how to care for the animal/s with regards to species-specific needs, resulting in compromised animal well-being; Humane transportation of the animal/s are not always catered for; No control over how the animals will be slaughtered; No control over how the animals will be treated or housed prior to slaughter; Sometimes young and/or unweaned animals are given as prizes, thus abusing the cute factor as a marketing tool. Please refer to Statement of Policy 3.9 – Infantile or Dependent Animals for concerns from an animal well-being perspective; and Whatever the conditions the prize giver attempts to impose, if any, are usually inadequate to secure the future well-being of an animal which comes to be owned by chance.
Product prizes are more appropriate. If this includes animals then the prize should be packaged meat of an animal euthanased at a registered abattoir and the food cleared for human consumption. The SPCA places on record its appreciation to all companies who have not taken this route to offer live animals as prizes. It is acknowledged that other companies that did go this route decided against it after the SPCA’s intervention. Hopefully, this dated practice will cease and responsibility will prevail. The threat to animal well-being by this practice cannot be emphasised enough.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 3.3
LIVE ANIMALS USED AS FOOD The SPCA is opposed to the feeding of live animals to other animals.
BACKGROUND TO THE FEEDING OF LIVE ANIMALS TO OTHER ANIMALS
The practice of live feeding involves placing one animal into the immediate environment or close proximity of a predator, typically within a captive environment, with the intention of the predator killing and/or eating the prey animal, whether for food, sport or entertainment purposes. Hunting of prey remains a natural instinct for predators and some institutions such as zoos, pet shops, captive wildlife facilities and breeders may perceive the practice of feeding live animals to other animals as a natural process. The reality is that it does not occur in nature in the same way as programmed via evolutionary processes, but is completely controlled by human beings, making hunting in a captive environment unnatural for both predator and prey. When animals are kept in captivity, i.e. an unnatural environment, then this argument cannot satisfactorily justify the terror experienced by the prey species who have no opportunity to escape or avoid the threat.
Predators can successfully receive adequate nutrition from humanely pre-killed prey such as full carcass feeding and there is no justifiable reason that live feeding contributes to the well-being of captive predators. Leading zoo collections no longer regard the practice of feeding live prey as a necessity. Codes and standards, including changes in legislation, will be an ongoing focus due to the cruelty involved in keeping wild predators that require the killing of other live animals as a food source. In many cases the owner assumes the attitude of “the animal is going to die anyway” and fails to properly care for the well-being of the feeder animals. The SPCA advocates that all animals used for food consumption must be humanely slaughtered, which applies to and includes feeder animals for other animals. The SPCA is opposed to the use of inhumane methods to kill any animal (Please refer to Statement of Policy: 3.11 - End of Life).
Examples of live feeding include but are not limited to:
Captive wildlife facilities that use live prey animals to feed predators such as lions, tigers, crocodiles and caracals in order to attract more visitors as a tourist attraction and for human entertainment; Herpetology, including the keeping, breeding and trading of snakes as pets and for commercial purposes is a known industry for feeding live prey to snakes, typically rodents and snakes; The use of live bait is a common practice for both recreational and subsistence fishing purposes. It involves the use of live animals such as frogs, crabs, fish, octopus and juvenile sharks as bait to lure in a larger fish or a specific target species; and Live bait is used for the practice of training racing dogs, of which dog racing in South Africa is illegal. A bait animal such as a rabbit or cat is released to encourage the dogs to pursue and catch the bait animal.
The Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962 clearly states that it is a contravention to feed a live animal to another animal, i.e.
It is a contravention to liberate any animal in such manner or place as to expose it to immediate attack or danger of attack by other animals or by wild animals; It is a contravention to bait or provoke or incite any animal to attack another animal; and It is a contravention to liberate any bird in such a manner as to expose it to immediate attack or danger of attack by animals, wild animals or wild birds.
ETHICAL AND ANIMAL WELL-BEINGS CONCERNS
The practice of feeding a live animal to another animal includes but is not limited to the following ethical and animal well-being concerns:
Suffering of feeder animals: Live animals used as feeder animals placed within the captive environment of the predator causes distress and suffering to the prey animal as there is no fair chance of escape. There is a possibility that the prey animal might hide or elude the predator initially, but all evasive behaviours within the confines of an enclosure are likely only going to prolong the prey’s potential state of stress before it is eventually caught and killed. There is also the risk that certain captive predators might not be efficient killers compared to their wild counterparts, which could result in a prolonged pursuit and failed attempts to capture and kill the prey animal effectively.
Safety of predator animals: Feeding humanely pre-killed ‘rations’ is safer for the predator, as the use of live prey increases the risk of the predator to be injured possibly during the process of catching and/or ingesting the prey animal. It is commonly known that prey such as mice have killed or seriously injured disinterested captive snakes. In general, live prey when under stress will instinctively fight back and in many cases the predator has been severely injured. Many will argue that this is a common occurrence in the wild, but in this unnatural environment the risks can be mitigated. Humans are responsible for the health and well-being of all animals in captivity and under their control.
Availability of humane alternatives: There are humane alternatives to this practice in most cases, but where there are none available then the predator should not be kept in a captive environment. All feeder animals should be euthanased in accordance with appropriate species-specific methods, which includes taking the responsibility in ensuring that if a supplier is used to provide pre-killed feeder animals that humane methods are followed. If this is not the case, then the offender should be reported to the authorities, including the SPCA, to ensure the necessary actions are taken.
Training a reptile to accept dead food usually takes time and depends on each specific animal and its disposition. Some reptiles are easier to deal with than others. Dedicated and educated herpetologists can train reptiles to eat dead food and achieve success, and should therefore be consulted for specific details on how to successfully accomplish this. A reptile not used to feeding on pre-killed prey items can easily be converted by making sure that the animal in question is actually hungry enough to take the offered prey item and mimicking “natural behaviour” by warming up the prey item to room temperature and then “dangling” the prey item in front of the snake. In some instances “dragging” the prey item across the enclosure floor to mimic the movement of a mouse running works better. This addresses the natural behaviour of the snake to strike towards movement and heat. Some snakes like fast-moving prey, some static prey and some like short sharp, jerky movements.
Limited to no regard for the well-being of invertebrates: Generally, invertebrate species are not regarded as animals that suffer and as a result their well-being is grossly neglected. Feeding of live food is often viewed as a good form of enrichment, with invertebrate species commonly used as live prey in various captive wildlife facilities. Modern research has proven that many invertebrate species do possess nociceptors, opioid receptors and demonstrate behavioural responses indicative of pain sensation. Some species display higher cognitive functions such as emotions and learning. This indicates that the possibility of suffering exists for many invertebrate species and captive wildlife facilities have an ethical responsibility to ensure that their well-being is taken into consideration.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Brooks, R. (no date) Live Rat Kills Ball Python. Available at: https://www.herpcenter.com/reptile- articles/live-rat-kills-ball-python/. (Accessed: 14 September 2018).
Hosey, G., Melfi, V. and Pankhurst, S. (2013) Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and Welfare. second. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://books.google.co.za/books?id=Ua2cAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.
India Today (2015) Cat thrown into crocodile-infested pond, sparks online outrage. Available at: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/cat-thrown-into-crocodile-infested-pond-in-peru-257204-2015- 06-12 (Accessed: 14 September 2018).
Keller, M. (2017) ‘Feeding live invertebrate prey in zoos and aquaria: Are there welfare concerns?’, Zoo Biology, 36(5), pp. 316–322. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/zoo.21378.
Red Tail Boa Breeder (2012) Live or Frozen Thawed Feeder Rats. Available at: http://www.redtailboabreeder.com/health-and-care/live-or-frozen-thawed-feeder-rats/ (Accessed: 14 September 2018).
Resende, L. S. et al. (2009) ‘The influence of feeding enrichment on the behavior of small felids (Carnivora: Felidae) in captivity’, Zoologia (Curitiba), 26(4), pp. 601–605. doi: 10.1590/s1984- 46702009000400003.
The Observers (2012) Video of live donkeys being fed to zoo lions sparks outrage in Iran. Available at: https://observers.france24.com/en/20120622-video-live-donkeys-fed-zoo-lions-sparks-outrage- iran-sari-spca-tehran-prevention-cruelty-animals.
POSITION STATEMENT 3.4
CONSUMPTION OF LIVE ANIMALS BY HUMANS The SPCA is opposed to the preparation and eating of live animals.
THE PRACTICE OF EATING LIVE ANIMALS
The practice of humans eating animals that are still alive stems partly from cultural traditions in various food cultures and is also considered a delicacy in some parts of the world. It is also an emerging trend based solely on human curiosity and a form of entertainment as extreme cuisine.
Examples of animals used in this practice include:
Live sushi, known as Ikizukuri, involves the preparation of live fish. This includes to scale and to fillet a fish whilst the animal is still alive. The fish is plated with the head so diners can still see breathing movements as an indication of its freshness.
Ying Yang Yu or Dead-or-Alive fish involves the body of the fish to be rapidly deep-fried and served while the head (not fried) is still moving. The fish is prepared very quickly in order not to damage the internal organs and for the fish to remain alive for consumption.
San Zhi Er or Three Squeaks involves a dish where newborn mice are dipped in a sauce and then eaten alive.
Drunken shrimp involves the process whereby these crustaceans are soaked in a strong liquor, basically intoxicating the animals, inducing what is to be considered a flavourful marinade and; for purposes of making the consumption process of live shrimp easier due to a decrease in activity and bodily movements.
Eating live octopus, known as Sannakji, involves either eating the entire animal wrapped around a chopstick or ordering pieces of a live octopus such as its tentacles. The octopus will be kept alive until the remainder of the animal is ordered by the next customer.
Apart from the well-known method of boiling lobster whilst the animal is still alive, another method involves cutting off the tail and preparing it sashimi style (thinly sliced meat served raw), followed by plating it right next to their living bodies. Some restaurants also prepare shrimp in this manner.
The unnecessary consumption of live animals by humans is also depicted on television programmes such as stunt/dare game shows that include mental challenges for contestants to eat various types of animals whilst still alive. Some reality competition television programmes themed towards surviving various challenges, usually in remote locations, also features unnecessary consumption of live animals and portrays these acts as an acceptable form of human entertainment. WHY IS IT CONSIDERED INHUMANE & A CRUEL PRACTICE
The practice of human consumption of live animals falls outside the legitimate and appropriate humane utilisation of animals.
The period of confinement and the conditions under which these animals are kept prior to preparation for consumption holds numerous animal well-being concerns. The specific needs of these animals are not always considered or incorporated.
The handling, preparation and eating of live animals exclude suitable and species-specific procedures necessary to ensure that these animals are insensible to pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
All vertebrate and some invertebrate species are considered as sentient beings, thus capable of feeling pain and experiencing distress. These animals are not provided with the option to be rendered unconscious and insensible to pain and distress prior to being eaten alive.
Animal suffering is not limited to the act of being eaten alive, but some dishes involve additional mutilation of the animal as part of the preparation process or specific culinary practice, thus prolonging animal suffering.
As an emerging trend, there is a danger that this practice can become more popular and acceptable by society. It promotes and exploits animals and causes cruelty, including directly contradicting the ethical, moral and scientific animal well-being principles of the modern world.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Musorrafiti, D. (2014) 8 Animals Eaten Alive in China – Graphic Content. Available at: https://china- underground.com/2014/08/16/7-animals-eaten-alive-in-china-graphic-content/ (Accessed: 30 May 2018).
People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (2016) Live-Animal Eating Exposed. Available at: https://investigations.peta.org/live-eating-octopus-lobster-shrimp/#lightbox[group-7764]/3/ (Accessed: 30 May 2018).
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2014) RSPCA Policies on Animal Welfare. Available at: file:///C:/Users/admin2/Downloads/SP03 RSPCA POLICIES WEB (2014) (2).pdf (Accessed: 29 May 2018).
Solar, I. I. (2014) Ikizukuri - For some, seafood that is too fresh to eat. Available at: http://www.digitaljournal.com/life/food/ikizukuri-for-some-seafood-that-is-too-fresh-to- eat/article/387314#ixzz44JxmqKlr (Accessed: 30 May 2018).
POSITION STATEMENT 3.5
HUMAN-ANIMAL CONFLICT The SPCA is opposed to the manufacture, sale and use of all snares, traps, trapping devices, substances or forms of animal control which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
CAUSES OF HUMAN-ANIMAL CONFLICT
Human-animal conflict occurs when either the need or the behaviour of an animal impacts negatively on humans or when humans pursue goals that impact negatively on the needs of animals. In addition, human-animal conflict is mainly caused as a result of humans living in close proximity to wildlife or human activities themselves, with conflicts becoming more frequent and severe as a result of human population growth. This further contributes to the ever-increasing encroachment on previously wild areas through expansion of urbanisation, agricultural and industrial activities. The alteration of natural areas and habitat fragmentation leads to a reduction in available natural resources necessary for survival and an increase in competition, including the availability of new resources created by humans such as shelter, food and to a lack of predators that draw in wildlife and other animals adapted to living in human-dominated landscapes. Other contributors include but are not limited to the introduction of exotic species and uncontrolled feeding of wild animals.
CONSEQUENCES OF HUMAN-ANIMAL CONFLICT
It is important to note that some human activities can cause a ripple effect in creating opportunities and consequences for human-animal conflict or problems of human origin to occur, which negatively affects both humans and animals. Animals perceived as pests or damage-causing can pose health risks and are vectors of various diseases and parasites, including causing major damages to property, crops and livestock. Apart from economic impacts, human-animal conflict carries a high financial cost to combat. Human-animal conflict is commonly addressed by using both lethal and non-lethal methods of control ranging from exclusion methods, trapping, hunting to poisoning all with an intended goal of preserving public health and safety; protecting property and livelihoods; and protecting biodiversity.
Social attitudes and labelling of animals viewed as pests or damage causing are often met with disregard in terms of their well-being. This leads to commonly used control methods that are inhumane and/or not based on accredited scientific research or not approached from an ethical, animal well-being and evidence-based approach. Some forms of animal control are inhumane by design and use such as drowning, glue traps, snares, pitfalls, gin traps and body grip traps. Snaring and trapping carry significant risks of pain, suffering, distress, injury and/or lasting harm and is indiscriminate by nature. Some approaches to animal control may have unplanned effects on target and non-target species, including on natural ecosystems. For instance, the use of chemical substances for animal control purposes may cause detrimental effects on living biota and the environment through the process of bioconcentration, bioaccumulation and biomagnification. Biomagnification refers to an increase in the concentration of a substance as you move up the food chain. Bioaccumulation occurs within an organism, where a concentration of a substance builds up in the tissues and is absorbed faster than it is removed, whilst bioconcentration occurs by eating contaminated food or via absorption directly from water. A classic example of bioconcentration includes the use of poison as a means for pest rodent control purposes, which raises specific concerns since it is considered cruel and inhumane towards target and non-target species via primary and secondary poisoning.
CONTROLLING WITH KINDNESS
The SPCA acknowledges that animal control may be necessary for various purposes, including but not limited to damage-causing animals; feral population management; disease control; conservation purposes and invasive species control. The SPCA also recognises that the trapping of animals may be necessary for various other management and animal well-being purposes, including but not limited to disease control and monitoring; relocation; rescue; treatment; rehabilitation; scientific purposes; and population management and control. Regardless of the reasons and circumstances, any method, technique or equipment used must at all times be humane and competently applied, including that all animals deserve the same level of consideration for their well-being.
In instances where trapping can be applied and its validity considered a sound approach, the SPCA believes that the following conditions must apply to ensure that animal suffering is avoided:
The person\s carrying out the trapping should be competent in using the equipment and techniques, including in the species involved; The traps should be in good repair and be tested prior to use; The traps and techniques should be of appropriate design, size and placement for the species involved; The trap must be designed and placed to prevent injury and stress; Measures should be taken to avoid unnecessary capture, trapping or killing of non-target animals; The traps must be checked regularly (every few hours) and/or the use of a trap alert systems can be used; Food, water and nesting material must be provided, including protection against all-weather elements; If the purpose is to relocate or euthanise the captured animal/s, then it must be carried out without delay, using humane methods suitable to the species only (Please refer to Statement of Policy 3.11 - End of Life); and Relevant national and provincial legislation, including municipal bylaws and regulations are applicable.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Amaja, L. G., Feyssa, D. H. and Gutema, T. M. (2016) ‘Assessment of types of damage and causes of human - wildlife conflict in Gera district , south western Ethiopia’, Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 8(5), pp. 49–54. doi: 10.5897/JENE2015.0543.
Dubois, S. et al. (2017) ‘International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control’, Conservation Biology, 31(4), pp. 753–760. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12896.
Makindi, S. M. et al. (2014) ‘Human-Wildlife Conflicts: Causes and Mitigation Measures in Tsavo Conservation Area, Kenya’, International Journal of Science and Research, 3(6), pp. 1025–1031.
State of Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (2016) Pest animal management in settled areas. Available at: https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/53753/IPA-Pest- Animal-Management-PA4.pdf (Accessed: 22 June 2018). van der Hoop, J. (2013) Bioamplification, Bioaccumulation and Bioconcentration. Available at: https://mercurypolicy.scripts.mit.edu/blog/?p=499 (Accessed: 31 March 2020).
POSITION STATEMENT 3.6
GENETIC MODIFICATION The SPCA is opposed to the manipulation of the genetic constitution of animals which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
WHAT IS GENETIC MODIFICATION?
Genetic modification involves the direct manipulation of an organism’s genetic material or genetic make-up of cells, known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which acts as an instructional manual for an organism’s entire body in terms of development, growth, reproduction and functioning. An organism refers to any living thing, such as humans, plants and animals. It basically involves the alteration of an animal’s genetic material, including the addition, deletion, or substitution of some part of the animal’s genetic material or insertion of foreign DNA through human technological intervention. It allows for individual genes to be transferred from one organism to another, including between non-related species. Genetic modification also involves altering the DNA of an organism in a way that does not occur naturally by mating. This technology is also referred to as modern biotechnology, genetic engineering or gene technology.
APPLICATIONS
Genetic modification technology has numerous applications in various industries from medicine, research, agriculture to conservation. The following serves to illustrate:
Medicine: The biomedical applications of genetically modified organisms is extensive. It includes the creation of genetically engineered model animals for various human diseases in order to either aid in drug development or to better understand disease mechanisms. Genetically modified mice, for example, is used to study and model different kinds of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and Parkinson’s disease.
Genetically modified animals are also created for xenotransplantation, which involves the transplant of cells, tissue or organs from animal donors into human recipients. Scientists have developed genetically engineered pigs with the aim of reducing rejection of pig organs by human recipients. The aim of this research is to alleviate the long waiting list for organ transplants.
Companion Animals: Gene knock-out techniques or gene deletion is used to create designer companion animals. For instance, hypoallergenic cats are created by removing the gene that causes major cat allergens. Ornamental pet fish species such as glow fish are created by using a technique where foreign genes are inserted into another animal. For example, genes taken from both the sea anemone and jellyfish resulted in genetically engineered zebrafish to express fluorescent proteins.
Conservation and Natural Area Management: Genetic engineering has a potential primary application in wild species conservation via cloning. The aim is to serve as an important tool to be used alongside other forms of assisted reproduction to help retain genetic diversity in small populations for endangered species. Other potential applications include genetic engineering
aimed towards facilitated adaptation, which involves endowing target populations or species in need with adaptive alleles, or gene variants in an attempt to safeguard biodiversity.
Farm Animals: There is a number of genetic engineering applications pertaining to agricultural livestock aimed at improving productivity, food quality, disease resistance and environmental sustainability. Examples of disease resistance include to grant immunity to offspring via antibody expression in the milk of the mother or mastitis resistance, particularly in cattle. Minimising agricultural pollution is another way in which farm animals are genetically engineered, such as the EnviroPig, which produces an enzyme capable of breaking down dietary phosphorus, thus minimising the amount of phosphorous in its manure. Genetic engineering has also allowed for cows, goats and sheep to express medically important proteins in their milk for patients that have hereditary antithrombin deficiency and would need to undergo surgical procedures.
ETHICAL AND ANIMAL WELL-BEING CONCERNS
Regardless of the fact that genetic engineering may possibly hold legitimate value in applications such as science, medicine, agriculture or conservation, including improvements from an animal well-being perspective, the SPCA believes that the production of genetically modified animals for various applications has serious ethical and animal well-being implications. The SPCA strives to ensure where genetic modification or associated work occurs, that full consideration and concern are afforded to the ethical and animal well-being aspects of producing and using genetically modified animals. Due to its close association, genetic modification should be read together with the Statement of Policy 6.4 - The 4 Rs Guiding Principles.
The following serves as an illustration of some of the ethical and animal well-being concerns that can arise from the genetic engineering of animals:
Large numbers of animals required: Many of the animals exposed to genetic engineering procedures do not survive, meaning that only a small percentage of animals that do survive carry the genetic alteration of interest. This means that a large number of animals are produced in order to create genetically modified organisms of scientific value and use. In addition, research projects that either use and/or create genetically modified animals have increased over the years. The rise in animal use contradicts the 4 Rs Guiding Principle of Reduction.
Invasiveness of Procedures: Typical genetic engineering procedures require surgery, such as genetically engineered embryos that are surgically implanted into female recipients. All offspring would also need to be genotyped, which would typically involve taking tissue samples such as tail biopsies or ear notching.
Unanticipated animal well-being concerns: The creation and use of genetically modified animals have been described to be unpredictable. One of the major limitations in cloning technology is that cloned animals are susceptible to abnormalities and high failure rates, which includes developmental abnormalities, extended gestation periods, large birth weights and inadequate placental formation. Other defects include malformed faces, intestinal blockages, deformed feet, weakened immune systems, respiratory distress, dysfunctional hearts, brains, livers and kidneys. In addition, animal well-being concerns for genetically modified animals may only become apparent at a later stage. For example, transgenic pigs inserted with human growth genes aimed to increase productivity and to develop more economically profitable pigs, resulted in numerous health problems such as arthritis, diarrhoea, lameness, mammary development in males, skin and eye problems, and peptic ulcers.
Beyond Animal Well-being: The creation and use of genetically modified animals does not only challenge the 4 Rs Guiding Principles, including issues pertaining to considerations of animal health and well-being but raises numerous ethical concerns relating to animal integrity and dignity.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Klymiuk, N. et al. (2010) ‘Genetic Modification of Pigs as Organ Donors for Xenotransplantation’, Molecular Reproduction & Development, 77, pp. 209–221. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mrd.21127.
National Human Genome Research Institute (2015) Knockout Mice. Available at: https://www.genome.gov/12514551/ (Accessed: 19 June 2018).
Ormandy, E. H., Dale, J. and Griffin, G. (2011) ‘Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns’, The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 52(5), pp. 544–550. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078015/.
The Humane Society of the United States (no date) An HSUS Report: Welfare Issues with Genetic Engineering and Cloning of Farm Anim. Available at: http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/HSUS-Report-on-Genetic-Engineering-and-Cloning- of-Farm-Animals.pdf (Accessed: 19 June 2018).
Thomas, M. et al. (2013) ‘Ecology: Gene tweaking for conservation’, Nature, 501(7468), pp. 485–486. Available at: https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.13790!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/501485a. pdf.
World Health Organization (2014) Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. Available at: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/ (Accessed: 19 June 2018).
POSITION STATEMENT 3.7
COMMERCIAL FISHING The SPCA is opposed to inhumane or environmentally unsound fishing methods and seeks the development of more environmentally friendly and eco-sensitive fishing techniques. The SPCA is opposed to fishing equipment or methods which are inhumane and the indiscriminate use of any fishing equipment or methods, which catches non-target species. The SPCA is opposed to fishing processing methods which cause or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
WHAT IS COMMERCIAL FISHING?
Commercial fishing is the activity of catching fish and other marine species for the production of food, and commercial profit derived from wild populations globally. It is carried out in all types of waters, in all parts of the world from oceans, rivers to lakes. Commercial fishing can be done simply with small vessels, little technical equipment and little to no mechanisation to being done on a large scale with deep-sea vessels with sophisticated mechanical equipment. Commercial fishing involves using many different methods to catch a large variety of species from fish, crustaceans (e.g. prawn, lobster and crabs), cephalopods (e.g. squid, octopus and cuttlefish) to echinoderms (e.g. sea urchins and sea cucumbers).
Fishing methods include the following:
Longline fishing: Fishing lines are hung at various depths containing hundreds to thousands of baited hooks stretched out for kilometres; Trawling: A fishing net is dragged through the water behind a moving fishing vessel at different depths and is divided into bottom trawling or midwater trawling depending on where the net is pulled in the water column; Purse seine: Involves a fishing net that hangs vertically in the water with its bottom edge held down with weights and its tops edge buoyed by floats. Nets up to 2km long are used to encircle a school on fish once located. The ends of the net are synched together and the captured fish are hauled unto the deck of the fishing vessel or pumps are used to retrieve the fish from the nets; Dredging is similar to bottom trawling, but instead of using a net, a metal rake of sorts is dragged across the ocean floor to collect shellfish; and Baited traps and pots are dropped to the bottom of the ocean floor used to catch crabs and lobster.
Commercial fishing not only involves the catching of aquatic fauna for human consumption purposes, but also for the production of fishmeal as feed in aquaculture and for raising livestock, pharmaceutical uses and ornamental purposes.
CONCERNS RELATING TO COMMERCIAL FISHING
Current commercial fishing practices result in non-sustainable fishing practices, with associated adverse impacts on fish stocks and other marine species unable to effectively recover via reproduction due to overfishing, including illegal, unregulated or unreported catches, known as IUU catches. Its impact collectively results in the continued depletion of various marine specie populations and is a major threat to aquatic biodiversity. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that a large percentage of the world’s fish stocks are either overexploited or fully exploited, with South Africa in a similar position.
The use of less-selective fishing gear such as longlines, trawling, treknet, line fisheries and purse seine nets result in substantial bycatch, which is the incidental catch of non-target species that are unused or unmanaged. It is estimated that 40% of global marine catches consists of bycatch. Part of this figure includes fisheries' discards which have been estimated at approximately 7.3 million tonnes per year globally. Some bycatch is used for non-food applications such as fertilisers and fishmeal, but discarded bycatch are returned to the sea often dead or dying with high mortality rates. Sharks, skates and rays are particularly vulnerable due to their slow growth and late maturity. In some instances, incidental capture of sharks on longlines or nets result in the sharks being finned (fins are cut off to be used for shark fin soup as a delicacy) and released back into the sea whilst still alive. Turtles move slowly and move to the surface often to breathe, getting hooked on lines and entangled in nets. Seabirds are frequently impacted by fisheries as they are attracted to the bait used and end up entangled in fishing gear such as hooks and lines. Finfish and marine mammal bycatch are also of high concern. Broken off, discarded and accidental pollution of fishing materials affect various non-target marine species known as ghost fishing which results in the entanglement of various marine life, further threatening their survival.
Current commercial fishing practices are very destructive and damaging to the marine environment, further threatening the survival of species dependant on various marine habitats. Bottom trawling, for example, involves towing heavy fishing gear over the seabed causing large scale destruction to the ocean floor, turning over large boulders and rocks that are dragged along the seabed, damaging and killing sessile organisms, causing large scale removal of aquatic plants, destroying rocky reefs and corals, including leaving corals open to infection due to tissue damage.
It has been scientifically proven and internationally recognised that fish and other higher invertebrate species such as cephalopods (octopus, squid, cuttlefish and nautilus) and decapod crustaceans (lobster, crab and crayfish) can experience pain, fear and distress. Yet, it remains unfamiliar to commercial fishing operators, resulting in the continuous use of capture, landing, handling and slaughtering methods with limited consideration for the well-being of marine animals. Fish are raised from deep waters and suffer decompression effects such as burst swim bladders and barotrauma. Fish are crushed under the weight of other fish in capture nets, with a large percentage of the fish dying due to crushing, suffocation or circulatory failure. Other animal well-being concerns include being pursued to exhaustion, physical injuries due to the gear or fishing technique used, snared in gill nets, being preyed on by predators and impaled with hooks as live bait especially to capture tuna. In many types of fisheries, the duration of the capture process can be long, leaving caught fish on hooks and nets often for hours or days. Fish often die or are fatally injured during this process. Fish that do survive capture and landing are either left to suffocate in air, placed on ice or into iced water or die during further processing which may include gutting, filleting, or placed in freezers whilst still alive and conscious, thus prolonging their suffering. The SPCA is opposed to the use of inhumane methods to kill any animal and an animal should be slaughtered in accordance to the principles laid out under the Statement of Policy 3.11 - End of Life to prevent the suffering of any animal.
The SPCA supports fishing practices that do not harm the oceans’ ecosystems, does not cause the killing or catching of non-target species, humanely slaughters commercial catch and does not cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to marine species. Mitigation techniques to minimise bycatch include the use of weights to ensure longlines sink quicker to avoid incidental catches of seabirds; the deployment of streamer lines to scare off birds; setting lines at night and at low light to avoid attracting seabirds; area and seasonal fishing closures; setting up temporary and permanent no catch zones; and the use of bycatch reduction devices such as specific mesh net sizes for immature or illegal size fish species to escape. The illegal use of live bait can be replaced with artificial baits or off-cuts instead. Capture nets can be manufactured using biodegradable materials that deteriorate more rapidly to prevent ghost fishing. The use of a turtle excluder device allows for captured sea turtles to escape shrimp trawling nets. Research has also shown that marine species that do escape various fishing techniques or are discarded as bycatch result in high mortality rates due to scale damage, exhaustion, injuries and the inability to escape predators, including delayed fatality some days or weeks later. Improved commercial fishing techniques and gear should, therefore, aim to minimise capture stress such as a reduction in the capture duration. Bottom trailing fisheries could cease the use of rockhoppers, which are heavy wheels attached to the trawl gear that enables it to travel over rocky terrain. More humane methods for slaughtering mass captured fish should be introduced and adapted to commercial fishing such as the use of suitable food grade anaesthetics, followed by methods such as percussive stunning or spiking and bleed out.
There is a growing awareness of the environmental impacts commercial fishing has on our oceans and consumers are becoming more aware of sustainable seafood challenges and holding their seafood vendors accountable in terms of the sustainability of the seafood being sold. Major seafood suppliers, restaurant chains and retailers have responded to consumer demands by seeking more sustainable strategies. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has developed a set of consumer-focused tools to help consumers make sustainable decisions via the Southern African Sustainable Seafood Initiative, known as the WWF-SASSI guide. WWF also works with major national retailers and restaurant franchises and their suppliers to develop sustainable policies to create market incentives that can drive transformation in key fisheries.
While the growing importance of managing fisheries remains crucial, legislation and regulations remain difficult to enforce by governing bodies, leaving domestic and international waters vulnerable to the continued destruction of the oceans’ ecosystems and the survival of numerous species, including continued compromised animal well-being and cruelty. There is a lack of government funding for appropriate data collection of bycatch and further research, poor compliance with existing management frameworks for target stocks and top-down fisheries management or co-management between government, industry, resource users and civil society is limited and lacks the required partnership geared towards more sustainable fishery strategies. Yet, the ocean is a critical life support system to humanity. Approximately 50% to 70% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, it regulates our climate, absorbs about one-third of our carbon dioxide emissions, an important source of protein for billions of people, provides livelihoods, beauty, wonder and untapped scientific discovery to improve human health and medications. Humanity needs to re-examine their relationship with nature and need to acknowledge humankind’s fundamental dependence on healthy ecosystems. Each person should play their part in the conservation of marine ecosystems by making environmentally friendly decisions regarding our marine resources. The substantial industrialisation of inshore and offshore fisheries must be appropriately understood, monitored and managed. A combination of the severity of suffering, the duration and the large number of animals and marine habitats involved, makes commercial fishing a major animal well-being issue, as wild-caught marine species are captured and killed in a manner entirely inconsistent with the well-known concepts of humane treatment and slaughter.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Duncan, J. et al. (2016) Valuing South Africa’s ocean economy. Available at: http://awsassets.wwf.org.za/downloads/wwf_oceans_facts_and_futures_report_oct16.pdf.
Encyclopaedia Britannica (2019) Commercial fishing. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/technology/commercial-fishing (Accessed: 20 August 2019).
Humane Slaughter Association (no date) Humane Harvesting of Fish. Available at: https://www.hsa.org.uk/humane-harvesting-of-fish-introduction/introduction-6 (Accessed: 6 September 2019).
Mood, A. (2010) Worse things happen at sea: the welfare of wild-caught fish. Available at: http://www.fishcount.org.uk/published/standard/fishcountfullrptSR.pdf.
RSPCA Australia (2019) What is the most humane way to kill a fish intended for eating? Available at: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-a-fish-intended-for- eating/ (Accessed: 6 September 2019).
WWF (2011) South African Fisheries: The real facts and trends. Available at: https://www.wwf.org.za/?4900/fisheriesfactstrends (Accessed: 21 August 2019).
POSITION STATEMENT 3.8
SEXUAL OFFENCES The use of any animal for human sexual acts is illegal.
THE PRACTICE OF BESTIALITY
All forms of sexual acts between humans and animals are illegal in South Africa and can result in severe penalties and imprisonment. Furthermore, the SPCA believes that animals cannot give consent to sexual acts with humans and therefore any sexual act with an animal is non-consenting, causes suffering and qualifies as abuse. Additionally, sexual acts with animals are commonly linked to other sexual offences and can be a predictor of future violence against vulnerable people.
WHAT IS BESTIALITY?
A Paraphilia Disorder is a sexual deviation whereby sexual arousal typically involves inanimate objects, animals, children or other non-consenting persons; and may require the suffering or humiliation of the subject in order to attain sexual gratification.
Zoophilia is a paraphilia involving a sexual fixation on animals, whilst bestiality refers to sexual acts with animals. The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred or the exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. This includes masturbation and/or any penetration whatsoever of the genital organs, mouth or anus of the animal or vice versa.
WHY IS IT CONSIDERED INHUMANE AND CRUEL
Injuries and physical findings with animal sexual abuse victims are similar to those found in human sexual assault victims. These may include but are not limited to:
Vaginal and/or anal trauma (haemorrhage, bruising, wounds, tears, scarring, dilation); Swelling, infection or necrosis around the genitalia; Intrauterine, intracervical, intrarectal or vaginal foreign bodies; Any abuse that results in injuries to the anorectal region or genitalia which, by definition, qualifies as sexual abuse; and Injuries to other parts of the body which can include trauma and cellulitis from grabbing/holding/shaking or restraining the animal, especially to areas such as ears, tail and neck and the ventral area of the hind legs.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
All bestiality cases must be investigated. When investigating an alleged animal sexual abuse case it is of utmost importance that the Inspector works closely with the South African Police Service (SAPS).
Bestiality is an offence in terms of Section 13 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act No. 32 of 2007:
A person (‘‘A’’) who unlawfully and intentionally commits an act—
(a) which causes penetration to any extent whatsoever by the genital organs of—
(i) A into or beyond the mouth, genital organs or anus of an animal; or
(ii) an animal into or beyond the mouth, genital organs or anus of A; or
(b) of masturbation of an animal, unless such act is committed for scientific reasons or breeding purposes, or of masturbation with an animal, is guilty of the offence of bestiality.
Bestiality may also constitute a contravention in terms of the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962. It is therefore very important that the case is also investigated by the SPCA.
INSPECTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY
Cases of bestiality reported to the SPCA requires that all aspects of the crime must be investigated and each case must be handled promptly and correctly. The Inspector needs to take the following into account when investigating bestiality cases:
Who committed the crime; Where was the crime committed; Any witnesses willing to give statements; How was the crime committed; How was the animal restrained; Was any injury caused to the animal; Behavioural and psychological damage; and Any other evidence of the crime, e.g. animal pornography, a used condom, objects used, etc.
If it is believed that bestiality occurred, then the Inspector must ensure that the following is conducted:
Working with the SAPS, a Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit (SAECK) should be obtained; The animal must be taken to a veterinarian for a full clinical examination to see if there are any visible signs of sexual assault or penetration; The veterinarian must secure the required samples by using the SAECK and must be used in accordance with instructions on the kit; It is strongly recommended that a second sample kit is kept by the veterinarian in the event of if the principal kit handed over to the SAPS becomes misplaced; If a SAECK cannot be sourced then the veterinarian must still secure samples as per standard veterinary sample collection protocols; Report must be compiled by the veterinarian based on clinical findings; and Photographs must be taken of any visible injuries or signs of sexual assault or penetration.
In addition to charges laid in terms of the Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act No. 32 of 2007, the Inspector should lay additional charges in terms of the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962. For more information please contact the National Council of SPCAs directly.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 3.9
INFANTILE OR DEPENDENT ANIMALS The SPCA is opposed to the sale, use and/or removal of animals who are not capable of independent physiological and behavioural functioning, except for bona fide conservation purposes or reasons based on animal well-being.
BACKGROUND TO THE REMOVAL OF OFFSPRING
In general, parental care strategies differ considerably between different species and is further influenced by factors such as available resources; energy and nutrient requirements; natural selection; role within the ecosystem; competition; survival strategies; etc. For some species, there is a difference in the number of offspring compared to the parent’s investment into the individual offspring, i.e. quantity versus quality. One form of parental care strategy is to produce a large number of offspring with small energy investments in each that do not provide for much parental care compared to species that have a few offspring, providing a lot of parental care and are heavily invested in the survival of each offspring. Some species may produce self-sufficient young for which no parental care is required, however, in other animal groups the offspring may be underdeveloped and lack independence at birth, thereby relying on the parents for nutrition and survival. There are numerous benefits to parental care to offspring which include but are not limited to:
It facilitates offspring performance traits that are ultimately tied to offspring fitness; Parents increase offspring survival during the stage when parent and offspring are associated such as protection from predators via defensive behaviour, increased vigilance, carrying offspring to safer locations, etc.; Parents provide proper nutrition to offspring via lactation, preparation of food and feeding of captured prey; Parents contribute towards minimising offspring energy expenditure via thermoregulation; Provide protection against parasites and diseases; and Provision of teaching and facilitated learning to increase the development rate in offspring.
The practice of removing offspring from parents occurs in a wide number of species for various purposes including but not limited to farming practices and systems of both domestic and wild animals; falconry; wildlife interactions; wildlife exhibitions; domestic companion animals; indigenous and exotic animals for the pet trade; illegal trade in wildlife; poaching; and for bona fide conservation purposes.
The SPCA recognises that care and rearing of young animals for bona fide conservation purposes does occur, such as the rehabilitation of orphaned animals (e.g. rhino calves due to poaching). However, the SPCA believes that strict protocols and procedures should be followed in accordance with the species and only be carried out by skilled, trained and experienced staff, which collectively ensures that the well-being of these animals is not compromised.
The SPCA believes that it is cruel and inhumane to remove offspring from parents for commercial purposes and viewed as an unnecessary practice. The removal of young from parents holds serious animal well-being and ethical concerns.
ANIMAL WELL-BEING CONCERNS RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF OFFSPRING
The following serves to illustrate animal well-being concerns relating to the sale, use and/or removal of animals who are not capable of independent physiological and behavioural functioning:
FARMED ANIMALS
Intensive animal farming, also known as factory farming, is based on a production approach towards farm animals in order to maximize production output, whilst minimising production costs with the main products of the industry being meat, eggs and milk.
In the intensive dairy industry calves are removed from their mothers shortly after birth in order to maximise milk production. Cattle have well developed maternal instincts, and this is distressing for the cow as well as the calf who is deprived of maternal care, nurturing and social contact. Male calves are typically sold at saleyards at a very young age, before they can drink from a trough or eat by themselves. There is generally no provision made for the calves to drink at the saleyards and they suffer from dehydration and stress, including their compromised well-being leads to increased health risk and mortality rates. In normal or usual circumstances, calves are naturally weaned between six to eight months and will remain with their dams for up to a year.
The sale of day-old chicks from hatcheries involves being physically handled by people, including exposure to high noise and disturbance levels whilst on display and being subjected to high levels of stress. The facilities and conditions under which these young, un-weaned animals are kept are generally unsuitable and do not meet the required well-being standards. Due to the animals being extremely young, the monetary value is normally very affordable for the buyer; and hence the market that has been created; compromised animal well-being and suffering is therefore exacerbated.
COMPANION ANIMALS
Removal of the puppies too early, either prior to weaning or not allowing for proper weaning to take place, may cause an increase in the risk of contracting diseases due to a compromised immune system. The physical development of companion animals is to a large degree dependant on their interaction with the mother and siblings. It is important for puppies to be sent to new homes once they are entirely weaned and no longer nursing. Adopting a puppy at eight weeks old, ensures puppies are on solid foods and ready for leaving their mom and embracing their new family. Puppies undergo developmental stages as they grow and some of these stages are very critical for the puppy's future well-being. In particular, the primary socialisation stage which takes place when the puppy is between three to five weeks of age is very important as it teaches the puppy species-specific social behaviours. During this phase, puppies learn how to inhibit their bite and relate to their littermates and mom. They learn submissive postures in order to accept their mother's discipline and several other subtleties of being a dog. Removal from the litter at this stage may result in social problems and even inter-dog intolerance at a later age. Research has shown that puppies removed from the litter around 30 to 40 days, develop several behavioural problems when compared to puppies removed at 60 days (eight weeks old). The behavioural problems entail food aggression, attention-seeking behaviours, destructiveness, reactivity to noises and more.
Kittens are usually weaned at six to seven weeks but may continue to suckle for comfort as their mother gradually leaves them for longer periods of time. Orphaned kittens, or those weaned too soon, are more likely to exhibit inappropriate suckling behaviours later in life, such as sucking on blankets, pillows, or your arm. Ideally, kittens should stay with their littermates or other “role-model” cats for at least 12 weeks.
WILDLIFE
Removal of offspring from parents of indigenous and exotic wild species is commonly practised in South Africa to allow for commercial practices such as hand-rearing volunteer programmes under false conservation claims; for the exotic pet trade; for exhibition purposes; and to allow for easier handling during wildlife interactions such as touch encounters, lion cub petting, lion and cheetah walks, elephant back safaris, and photographic and film production opportunities. Some practices involve the repetitive removal of offspring from the parent to increase the reproductive cycle of the parent for wildlife farming practices such as rhino farming and especially cub removal from mothers within the captive lion breeding industry.
Removing offspring to force faster breeding is also well known for the pet trade. Breeders of exotic bird species such as parrots and cockatoos, increase productivity through removal of eggs or hatchlings. Breeders and pet stores falsely market these hand-reared birds on the basis that it increases their bond with humans and increases tameness. Regardless, removal of a fledgling is considered inhumane, as baby parrots and cockatoos stay with their parents for months in the wild. Parrots and cockatoos are highly intelligent and social wild animals. Their physical, physiological and psychological needs cannot be catered for in a captive environment often leading to various animal well-being concerns due to their complex biology making them more susceptible to boredom; trauma; depression; self-mutilation such as feather plucking; biting; aggression; incorrect feeding methods; crop burns; infections; and injuries.
The use of young animals for animal touch encounters often does not take any animal well-being considerations into account. Similar to human infants, young animals require a long period of sleep to grow and develop well. The constant touching and handling of young animals disturb this much needed period of rest. It also leads to stress, irritability and aggression due to constantly being handled. Other factors of concern relating to animal touch encounters include forced interactions; not allowing the animals a safe avoidance space from paying visitors; lack of biosecurity protocols to prevent the spread of diseases and compromising the health of young animals; nocturnal animals are forced to interact with paying visitors during the day; lack of monitoring by staff; lack of expressing natural behaviours; lack of enrichment necessary for development; kept in unnatural captive conditions; and managed under inadequate husbandry protocols.
There is limited to no success relating to releasing hand-reared animals back to the wild since these animals have already imprinted on humans and they may seek out people causing a danger risk to both the animals and humans. There are also risks involved in introducing diseases and undesirable genetic faults to wild populations which may compromise genetic and survival fitness.
There are no national norms and standards for the rearing of wild offspring that is species-specific to allow for a more controlled industry; and to ensure that nutrition and diets of young animals are based on regulations compiled by input provided from professional industry expertise, including on a scientifically credible basis. Instead, numerous wild offspring are being hand-reared in an uncontrolled manner. Offspring from mammalian species that has never suckled or did not get any colostrum is handicapped from the start, due to a lack in obtaining essential substances such as antibodies against diseases; and nutrients such as protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals. Milk substitutes are expensive which leads to avoidance in providing the correct food in order to minimise costs; or milk formulas are provided at incorrect temperatures or fed in an unhygienic manner causing digestive problems. Once any diet-related diseases occur symptoms are not often clear, especially to a layperson; and often illnesses remain untreated until the animal dies.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Bradshaw, G. & Engebretson, M. (n.d.). Parrot Breeding and Keeping: The Impact of Capture and Captivity. Available at: http://www.animalsandsociety.org/public-policy/policy-papers/parrot-breeding- and-keeping-the-impact-of-capture-and-captivity/ (Accessed 21 September 2018).
Farricelli, A.J. (2016) Dog Behaviour: The Issue of Puppies Being Removed Too Early From Their Littermates and Mom. Article available at: https://pethelpful.com/dogs/Dog-Behavior-The-Issue-of- Puppies-Being-Removed-Too-Early-from-Their-Littermates-and-Mom (Accessed 19 December 2018).
Klug, H. and Bonsall, M. B. (2014) ‘What are the benefits of parental care? The importance of parental effects on developmental rate’, Ecology and Evolution, 4(12), pp. 2330–2351. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1083.
Kockott, F. (2018). Captive lion breeding industry under Parliament spotlight. Available at: https://www.iol.co.za/sunday-tribune/news/captive-lion-breeding-industry-under-parliament-spotlight- 16636295 (Accessed 18 September 2018).
Montgomery County Humane Society (n.d.). Your kitten’s behaviour and development. Article available at: https://www.mchumane.org/your-pet/resources/for-your-cat/understanding-your- kittens-behavior-and-development/ (Accessed 19 December 2018).
Wagner, K., Seitner, D., Barth, K., Palme, R., Futschik, A., & Waiblinger, S. (2015). Effects of mother versus artificial rearing during the first 12 weeks of life on challenge responses of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 164. 1-11.
POSITION STATEMENT 3.10
PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS The SPCA is opposed to the physical mutilation and/or alteration of any animal unless it is undertaken for therapeutic veterinary reasons, bona fide conservation or security reasons, where there are no other options available. Any procedures undertaken should be for the benefit of the animal, using methods that do not cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
PHYSICAL MUTILATION AND/OR ALTERATION OF FARM ANIMALS
Physical mutilation and/or alteration involves the modification, removal or destruction of a part of an animal. Physical alteration of farmed animals is predominately carried out in an attempt to “adapt” animals to inappropriate husbandry systems or to overcome problems associated with inappropriate husbandry systems. In such cases, it is the system, not the animal, which should be modified. Conditions in the systems are so severe that animals can injure or cannibalise one another and even practice self-mutilation. Animal owners try to suppress such behaviour by physically altering the animals. Physical mutilation and/or alteration are carried out for a number of reasons, some economic, some intended to aid the practical management of animals and some predominantly traditional.
Procedures such as the castration of piglets, calves and lambs without pain relief result in the suffering of a large number of young animals, while others, such as the de-beaking of laying hens can be sufficiently painful and disabling to prevent the animals from engaging in their full repertoire of natural behaviour for the remainder of their lives. Tail amputation using rubber castration rings was discovered at some dairy farms. Pregnant heifers have the rubber rings attached to the base of the switch which is the hairy section of the tail used to swat away flies and other annoyances. The reason this is done is to prevent soiling of the clusters during milking, however, simple trimmer of the hairs around the switch is a more humane approach. This is cruel and unnecessary practice, and is not one of the so-called acceptable husbandry practices. No anaesthesia or analgesia is administered. The Livestock Welfare Coordinating Committee issued a statement in 2015 condemning such practice and stated that dairy farms found to be doing this must be reprimanded or prosecuted accordingly.
Current legislation allows for many of the mutilations to be performed without any pain relief. These procedures are often carried out by unqualified persons rather than by veterinary surgeons. Many of the most common mutilations have been criticised both in principle and in practice by veterinarians, animal welfare scientists and animal welfare personnel. Most of the mutilations of farm animals that are currently practised, originated from traditional practices many generations ago, at times when both the scientific understanding of pain in animals and their capacity to suffer and the public’s ethical sense of responsibility to animals were very different from what they are today.
It is now time to re-assess all mutilations that cause either short-term or long-term pain or suffering to farm animals. Painful or disabling mutilations are often proposed as acceptable solutions to perceived problems in managing animals and are claimed to be in the animals’ best interests (for example by preventing injury from fighting), but this claim cannot always be justified. The problems that mutilations were intended to address, can almost always be solved by better management practices and/or the application of new technology. In the case of farming (the sector in which most of the mutilations are carried out), it is notable that most of the mutilations are already banned under organic farming standards. Given the current growing demand for organic food products, it is clear that farming can be carried out successfully without resorting to mutilations. Humane management practices include but are not limited to using suitable breeds; decreasing stocking densities; improved housing; improved herding/flock management; research into alternatives for physical alterations of farm animals in order to achieve freedom from pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
PHYSICAL MUTILATION AND/OR ALTERATION OF WILD ANIMALS
The SPCA considers the physical mutilation and/or alteration of any wild animal for any purpose other than for therapeutic veterinary reasons, bona fide conservation management or security reasons as unacceptable. The commercialisation of wildlife and the consequent growth of the wildlife industry, the legal and illegal trade in wildlife, tourism and the keeping of wild animals as companion animals has resulted in the physical alteration of wildlife to make them compatible with their exploitation. The SPCA is opposed to physical alterations that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. This includes but is not limited to declawing, pinioning, horn removal, castration, removal of/or cutting of teeth.
Declawing involves the surgical amputation of an animal’s claw/s and supporting bone structure in carnivores, most commonly in felid wild species. Declawing is done to prevent scratching in petting tourism interactions, for filming purposes, exhibition and in exotic pets. Declawing is a form of mutilation that causes lasting harm and long term suffering. Declawing alters the structure and function of the foot, forcing the animal to walk abnormally. This can cause long term chronic pain and further deformity of the foot. Some research indicates that it may cause behavioural problems and increased aggression associated with pain.
Removal of/or cutting of teeth is known to occur in captive situations where petting and interactions with wild species are permitted, which includes but is not limited to carnivores and primates. The canine teeth are either removed or cut to reduce the risks of the animal causing injury to humans. The removal or cutting of teeth may impact on the animal’s ability to chew properly or defend itself. The cutting may expose the root and nerves causing pain and infection. In the case of crocodile farming, teeth trimming is carried out to ensure that crocodiles do not damage the skin of other crocodiles. This is usually done using angle grinders to file teeth down to the gum line often resulting in injuries.
Pinioning is a process whereby the ‘finger’, or third and fourth metacarpal bones of the wing of the bird are amputated; either surgically or by constricting the blood flow to the area causing necrosis, resulting in that section of the wing to die off. By mutilating the wing, the bird is prevented from flying and can be kept captive such as large flocks of captive flamingos kept in open camps in zoos. In smaller and young birds, this is frequently done without anaesthesia with the wound left to heal. In older and larger birds, this may be done surgically. The bones are amputated and skin pulled and sutured over the stump. There are a number of animal well-being concerns associated with pinioning. A pinioned bird may repeatedly try to fly and fall or injure itself; research has shown that breeding may be compromised, and may render the birds more vulnerable to predation and attack.
With the increase in both wildlife crime and poaching, some physical alterations may be necessary to protect the animal – as is the case with the dehorning of rhino. Dehorning in rhino is not the same as dehorning in farming terms. Rhino dehorning involves the cutting or removal of the horn above the active growth point. Dehorning of rhino must be combined with other appropriate forms of protection and security. Dehorning must be carried out by registered and experienced wildlife veterinarians with experience in working with rhino, including utilising protocols and procedures that do not permanently damage the horn. The necessary precautions to prevent infection, problems associated with darting and immobilisation must be taken to ensure the well-being of the rhino. Rhino are also dehorned as a means of harvesting horn for trade. The SPCA is opposed to the removal of horn for trade purposes.
PHYSICAL MUTILATION AND/OR ALTERATION OF COMPANION ANIMALS
Physical alteration procedures performed on companion animals include but are not limited to tail myotomy, declawing, tongue myotomy, devocalization, ear cropping and tail docking. These procedures are extremely painful and can be permanently crippling for the animal. Often these procedures are done for convenience or cosmetic purposes and provide no medical benefit to the animals. Many practising veterinarians refuse to perform these procedures if not for therapeutic purposes. Ear cropping involves the removal of any part of an animal’s ear. It may serve as a certified medical procedure for the benefit to the animal, but in other instances, this procedure is done illegally for cosmetic purposes, i.e. an owner wants a more aggressive-looking dog. Tail docking involves the surgical removal of a dog’s tail for cosmetic purposes. This procedure is not sanctioned by the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC) and is a contravention to the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962 when carried out for any other reason except in the best interest of the animal. Ear cropping and tail docking of dogs is not only painful but can result in lasting pain and sensitivity in the affected area. In addition to the medical concerns these procedures also significantly and negatively affect the dog’s ability to communicate and can lead to behavioural concerns as a result. Dog’s ears and tails are important communication tools to other dogs and people. The SAVC has stated that they do not condone veterinarians docking dogs’ tails or cropping ears. This is an ethical issue and although not yet gazetted, has been effective since 1 June 2008.
De-barking involves the partial or entire removal of a dog’s vocal cords, as the dog may be perceived as a noise nuisance by the owner or neighbours. De-barking removes a basic communication tool, which is essential to a dog’s well-being. Other deterrent and training methods can be used as an alternative. This particular means of physical alteration to suit human needs is currently not illegal, however, attention must be paid to the ethical consideration thereof.
It is advised that if a member of the public maims any animal, then criminal charges in terms of the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962 may be laid.
Surgical procedures performed solely for the purpose of addressing an existing or recurring infection, disease, injury or abnormal condition that compromises the well-being of an animal; including spaying or neutering; and ear cropping of feral cat populations when performed for identification purposes are exempted provided that:
The surgery is performed by a duly licensed veterinarian in good standing at the time of operation; The animal is properly and adequately anaesthetised at the time of the surgery; The extent of the physical alteration is no more than necessary, as suggested by the SAVC and by community standards in order to achieve the desired result of the surgery; The extent of the physical alteration is explained to and consented to by the owner or guardian of the animal. If the owner or guardian is unavailable at the time a medical decision must be made, an agent of a humane society or animal control facility may give his or her consent; and All proper pre-operation tests have been conducted on the animal unless the surgery is of an emergency nature in which case only necessary pre-operation tests are carried out.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Bonner, J. (2018) Research discovers docking tails causes long-term pain. Available at: https://www.vettimes.co.uk/news/research-discovers-docking-tails-causes-long-term-pain/ (Accessed: 9 April 2020).
Pagan, C. (2014) Ear Cropping and Tail Docking. Available at: https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/ear-cropping-and-tail-docking#2 (Accessed: 9 April 2020).
POSITION STATEMENT 3.11 (a)
END OF LIFE
The SPCA is opposed to the use of inhumane methods to kill any animal.
ETHICAL AND ANIMAL WELL-BEING CONSIDERATIONS FOR END OF LIFE PURPOSES
The SPCA advocates for the humane treatment of all animals at every stage of their life, from birth to death. To ensure a humane death of any animal, the SPCA believes that the following principles should apply:
Like any other species, an animal must either be -
killed instantaneously; or stunned and killed by a method that they do not detect; or stunned by a method that they do not detect and then killed without recovering consciousness; or stunned by a method that they detect but that is not aversive and then killed without recovering consciousness. Stunning is the initiation of unconsciousness and should be instantaneous, not detected or not aversive.
Regardless of the circumstances, purpose and use of animals, the SPCA believes that the death of any animal should be done in a humane manner, which includes but is not limited to:
Suitable methods of euthanasia: Only suitable methods of euthanasia may be used dependent on the species and/or circumstances and verification of suitable humane methods of euthanasia should be verified with a veterinarian or professional; Maintenance of equipment: Suitable euthanasia equipment should be in a good state of repair and well maintained according to the manufacturers’ specifications; Compassion: The death of any animal should only be carried out by a skilled, trained and competent person exercising great compassion; Recovering consciousness: Any method that does not kill an animal instantaneously, but instead renders an animal unconscious and insensible to pain, requires a secondary suitable method to ensure the death of an animal before it regains consciousness; Death verified: It is essential that the death of any animal should be verified prior to proper disposal of such animal; Use of aversive substances: The SPCA is opposed to the use of aversive substances to pre- stun as well as to kill any animal. The opposition to the use of such substances is not limited to slaughter, but also extends to the control of animals regarded as problem or damage-causing animals. The aversive qualities of many gases result in significant suffering, cause pain and a feeling of suffocation. Slaughter: The SPCA is opposed to any form of slaughter that does not kill an animal instantaneously, or render an animal unconscious and insensible to pain through pre-stunning. Pre-stunning procedures differ in respect of the species concerned and may be electrical, gaseous or mechanical. While the SPCA acknowledges and respects the traditions, cultures and religions of South Africa, there is no acceptable reason for handling or slaughtering an animal in an inhumane manner. The effective pre-stunning of every animal prior to slaughter minimises distress and pain to the animal. Events preceding slaughter should be well planned, with responsible, highly skilled people nominated for specific tasks. All handling prior to slaughter should promote the animal’s well-being.
Humane slaughter involves a two-stage process. Animals are first stunned with a species- appropriate method such as a captive bolt device in the case of cattle. Sheep and goats, poultry, rabbits and pigs are usually electrically stunned in an abattoir. This renders them unconscious and insensible to pain. The second step to the process is a complete bleed-out while the animal remains unconscious. To achieve this, the bleeding incision must be made swiftly and completely, severing all arteries and veins. Scientific research shows that there can be a lengthy time gap between throat-cutting and loss of brain responsiveness (more than one minute), especially for large animals such as cattle.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Becerril-Herrera, M., et al. (2009). CO2 stunning may compromise swine welfare compared with electrical stunning. Meat Science, 81, 233-237.
Blackman, N., Cheetham, K., and Blackmore, D.K. (1986). Differences in blood supply to the cerebral cortex between sheep and calves. Research in Veterinary Science. 40:252-254.
Blackmore, D.K. (1984). Differences in behaviour between sheep and cattle during slaughter. Research in Veterinary Science. 37:223-226
Broom, D.M., and Fraser, Andrew (2015). Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare. Cambridge. Wallingford UK. Chapter 41.
Knowles, T.J., and Warris, P.D. (2007). Livestock handling and transport (3rd edition). CABI Publishing. Chapter 19.
POSITION STATEMENT 3.11 (b)
END OF LIFE
The SPCA advocates that any animal for consumption be slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible.
JUSTIFICATION
Animal well-being concerns arise when animals are transported to abattoirs throughout South Africa or to other countries to be slaughtered for consumption. There are various modes of transporting animals which include via land, air and sea.
The majority of animal well-being concerns associated with animals transported to abattoirs is dealt with under Statement of Policy 3.1 – Transport of Live Animals. The SPCA is opposed to all forms of transportation which compromise the well-being of all animals or which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. During transportation, animals risk pain, suffering, distress, injury, hunger, dehydration, heat stress, incorrect handling, risk of disease, unsuitable vehicles, exposure to the elements, long distances, and unpredictable travelling conditions and durations. Accordingly, they should be slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible. The duration of the transportation should be as short as possible, and the means of transport should endeavour to reduce any unnecessary stress to the animal.
Transport of livestock is a highly complex process and the longer a journey is, the more potential there is for a problem to arise in terms of animal well-being. It has been adequately proven that live animal exports over long distances will result in unnecessary suffering during long journeys, either by road or sea. The conditions are unnatural and it has been observed on many occasions that these animals do not cope very well in the environment in which they are placed. The ability to express natural behaviour and experience a healthy environment is denied for the duration of the journey. This includes lack of adequate space for long durations; lack of adequate ventilation; build-up of noxious gases; heat exhaustion; disease transmission; illness; inability to access sufficient feed and water; unnatural movements and lack of non-slip materials resulting in injury.
The SPCA advocates that the most expedient means of transport are used to reduce unnecessary stress to the animals. Reference can be made to the South African National Standard / SANS 1488:2014: Humane transportation of livestock by road. This can be read in conjunction with the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962 as well as with all other relevant codes, including all international, national, provincial and municipal legislation and regulations.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Knowles, T.J., and Warris, P.D. (2007). Livestock handling and transport (3rd edition). CABI Publishing. Chapter 19.
POSITION STATEMENT 3.11 (c)
END OF LIFE
The SPCA advocates that any animal for consumption which has to be emergency slaughtered should be promptly euthanased on site and appropriately disposed of.
JUSTIFICATION
Transportation of animals has known risks to animals which include but are not limited to pain, injury, disease, dehydration, stress, suffering, incorrect handling and death. Transportation of livestock can significantly contribute to poor animal well-being and loss of production. While the SPCA concedes that the cost of farmed animals lost due to injury can be substantial, the SPCA can neither condone nor ignore the pain involved in the transportation of injured animals to the abattoir in the interests of economics. It is unethical and illegal to prolong the suffering of any animal.
All animals shall be transported in conditions guaranteed not to cause them any pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. This includes but is not limited to adequate ventilation; non-slip flooring; easy access to feed and water; adequate space for animals; taking into consideration the length of the journey; protection from the elements; and ensuring that the animals are not exposed to noxious gases. (Please refer to Statement of Policy 3.1 – Transport of Live Animals).
A well-being assessment must be conducted on all animals prior to transportation. No animal shall be transported unless it is fit for the planned journey. Animals that are unfit for transport should be euthanased or treated by a veterinarian or appropriately qualified professional, and not be subjected to the additional stress of transportation.
If animals have to be emergency slaughtered, this must be undertaken by a skilled, trained and competent person with great compassion, using the appropriate equipment. Care must be taken not to stress or injure the animal any further and cause any additional suffering by moving the animal. Wherever possible, the environment should be manipulated instead of the animal to ensure a safe and effective emergency slaughter.
The SPCA is opposed to the use of inhumane methods to kill any animal (Please refer for Statement of Policy 3.11(a) – End of Life). This includes the use of any instrument, appliance, device or specific method on any animal that is not proved to be necessary and to the benefit of the animal, and which is undertaken without veterinary supervision or instruction/control.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 4.1
FARMING PRACTICES / SYSTEMS The SPCA is opposed to forms of farming, farming systems and animal husbandry practices which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
BACKGROUND TO FARMING PRACTICES AND SYSTEMS
Farming practices can be divided into two sectors, which are classified as intensive and extensive farming. Intensive animal farming or industrial livestock production, also known as factory farming, is a production approach towards farm animals to maximise production output while minimising production costs. The main products of this industry include meat, milk and eggs for human consumption. Other products such as skin, hides, wool and feathers are also derived from these practices.
Extensive farming or extensive agriculture, as opposed intensive farming, is an agricultural production system that uses small inputs of labour, fertilisers and capital relative to the land area being farmed. Extensive farming most commonly refers to sheep, mohair and cattle farming in areas with low agricultural productivity. The agricultural produce output is the same as with intensive farming.
CONCERNS RELATING TO FARMING PRACTICES AND SYSTEMS
Currently, most animals produced for consumption are farmed in intensive farming systems. Many of the facilities/systems and management methods implemented compromise the well-being of the animals. Animal well-being concerns vary for cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, alpacas, poultry, crocodiles, ostriches and rabbits, including for aquatic fauna such as fish, oysters, abalone and escargot. Animal well-being concerns include but are not limited to the following:
Laying birds: These birds are kept in battery cages throughout their productive lives and are usually confined to a space equal to less than an A4 size paper per bird. In addition, a number of birds will be kept together in these small wire cages. In these cramped conditions, the birds cannot stretch their wings, which is part of their normal behaviour and a way of cooling down when temperatures are high. Other compromised animal welfare concerns include skeletal abnormalities associated with mineral deficiencies and restricted movement. Due to close confinement, they constantly rub against the wire cages, causing them to suffer from severe feather loss, bruising and abrasions. Stereotypic behaviours such as feather pecking, cannibalism and depression are commonly observed.
End of lay birds: These are hens that have reached the end of their egg production laying cycle and are not producing sufficient eggs to warrant being kept by the producer. These birds may be sold live to hawkers and cull outlets for resale and kept under conditions that further compromise their well-being including but not limited to lack of adequate food, water, shelter, overcrowding, injures that go untreated and lack of emergency slaughter.
Broiler birds: Broilers are chickens reared for meat production. In intensive systems, they are crowded together in barren sheds. They have been selectively bred to grow very fast and reach slaughter weight at just five to six weeks old. The growth rate is so extreme that many suffer from skeletal abnormalities, due to their bodies growing at such as fast pace, whilst their bone structures are not fully developed yet to sustain their body mass. They may also suffer heart and lung failure, as their organs cannot keep pace with their bodily growth. As they grow, the birds occupy the entire shed. The crowding gives the birds limited opportunity to exercise and display normal behaviour. Leg weaknesses or skeletal abnormalities mean that the birds are often unable to reach food and water supplies and may, therefore, die of starvation and thirst. Others suffer breast burns, hock burns and skin diseases, as they constantly have to sit on faeces-drenched litter. In some deep litter systems, windrowing is practised, although not too commonly. This involves turning over the litter over a few cycles. If this is not done using the appropriate amount of chemicals to treat the litter, the day-old chicks suffer from conjunctival and respiratory conditions due to high ammoniates and may not be able to reach feed and water due to blindness, resulting in starvation.
Pigs: A pregnant sow will generally be kept in a gestation crate for the greater part of her gestation period, i.e. 107 days. A gestation crate is made from steel bars and prevents the sow from turning around or to lie down comfortably. This frustrates the natural behaviour of these intelligent animals, causing unnecessary suffering and leading to repetitive stereotypical unnatural behaviours such as bar biting and tail biting. Scientific research shows that prolonged confinement can affect health as well as animal well-being, causing lameness, urinary tract problems, foot injuries and bone weakness. As of 01st January 2017, all gestation crates were to have been modified to be able to allow sows to fully turn around and lie down fully stretched without touching the sides of the gestation crate. Lack in the required modification will result in legal action. Alternatively, they were to be placed into group housing. Sow crates or farrowing crates are similar to gestation crates and used just prior to giving birth until the piglets are weaned, three to four weeks later. These crates do not allow the sow to turn around. Sow crates or farrowing crates are currently accepted by the industry. All sorts of physical alterations including but not limited to ear notching, tail docking to teeth clipping are performed on piglets by untrained staff and mostly without the use of anaesthetics.
Dairy cattle: Through selective breeding and unnatural diets, dairy cows are pushed to their limits to produce huge amounts of milk, i.e. around 10 times as much as they normally would. Cows are forced to breed at an early age. Calves are taken away from their mothers as early as one day after birth. The dairy cow suffers the trauma of having her calf taken away and often bellows for days. After this, the cow is milked to capacity for about 8 months, after which she is impregnated again. The cycle is usually repeated two or three times before the cow becomes unhealthy or “uneconomic”. At this stage, the cow is physiologically exhausted and is no longer able to keep pace with economic demands. These cows, so weak from the physical demands, are unable to stand or move on their own and are considered “downers”. Downers are often moved with forklifts, straps or front loaders, while still alive, onto vehicles and taken to abattoirs for slaughter, instead of euthanizing them on-site to prevent further suffering.
Rabbits: Does (female) and bucks (male) are kept in individual wire mesh cages in a rabbit house (shed/barn). Cages may be single, double or triple tier and are either suspended from the roof or on legs. The rabbits will either be kept for slaughter or wool production. They are kept in barren environments. Their most normal behaviour patterns are restricted and this leads to overgrown teeth, nails and sore hocks. Breeding stock is kept in this environment for their entire reproductive lives. Rabbits grown for slaughter are kept in battery cage systems similar to laying hens. These cages are often overcrowded as the rabbits grow and fighting between rabbits is a common occurrence. Injuries from fighting often lead to infections that go unnoticed and untreated. Diseases such as Pasteurella and ear mites often spread rapidly through rabbit farms and animals often do not receive treatment or emergency slaughter.
Alpacas: Alpacas are primarily farmed for their fibre to be used locally or for export purposes. Shearing of alpacas is a welfare necessity and must be done at least once a year, otherwise, they may suffer extreme heat distress often leading to death. Pregnant females or hembras may abort due to heat stress if not shorn. Hembra is the term used for sexually mature females, whilst sexually mature males are called “machos” and offspring are called “cria/s”. Excess males are sold to sheep farmers as herd guards due to the herd instinct of these animals. Animal well-being concerns with regards to alpaca herd guards include not being shorn regularly and not receiving the correct vaccinations and parasite control. Injuries from predators may also be left untreated.
The Nile crocodile: Crocodiles are bred in captivity on farms, primarily for their skins. Crocodile skins are exported to manufacture high-end leather products marketed by international brands. Some of the farms sell carcasses for human consumption, but the majority of these carcasses are fed back to the breeder crocodiles. Due to preventing damage to skins, most crocodile farmers have now started resorting to confining crocodiles to single pens which do not afford much space and the ability to move around unhindered. The practice of teeth trimming ensures that crocodiles do not damage the skin of other crocodiles. This is usually done using angle grinders to file teeth down to the gum line often resulting in injuries. Unhatched eggs or deformed hatchlings are not always humanely disposed of. Some farms discard live deformed hatchlings and unhatched eggs on refuse dumps.
The SPCA firmly believes that the systems employed should suit the needs of the animals and that advanced technology and knowledge in the agricultural sector have made it possible to implement farming practices and systems to ensure that the well-being of farmed animals is not sacrificed in the interests of production.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 4.2
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
The SPCA is opposed to the development of farming systems which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
DEVELOPMENT OF FARMING SYSTEMS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Farming and the utilisation of animals has been a part of human society for most of history. Farming practices have various concerns in terms of food safety, animal well-being and environmental impacts to the extent that intensive farming is often referred to as factory farming. The farming systems to produce products for human consumption and for the production of other products using skins, hides, wool and feathers from animals pose ethical and animal well-being challenges. Despite that the general public’s level of concern for animal well-being in food production remains high, a comprehensive understanding and knowledge with regards to the realities of this sector remains poor. Most intensive farming systems strive to maximise output while minimising costs, always at the animals’ expense. Giant corporations that run most intensive farms have found that they can increase profits and productivity by housing as many animals as possible in small confined spaces, even though many of the animals die from disease, infection and injuries.
Farming systems in South Africa have changed radically in recent years. South Africa has what is known as a dual agricultural economy. On the one hand, it is a well-developed commercial sector, whilst on the other hand, the majority of people engaged in farming systems are involved in subsistence-oriented practices in rural areas. An increasing trend in human population growth with associated demands from the agriculture sector has consequently resulted in an increasing trend of developing more farming systems to meet demands. Various types of animals are now being farmed in South Africa, and these include apiculture (beekeeping), heliciculture (snail farming), aquaculture (farming of aquatic fauna), and livestock and poultry production.
CONCERNS RELATING TO SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
The information below serves to provide an overview of some of the animal well-being concerns with regards to animals that are intensively farmed. These include but are not limited to the following:
Cattle - Once they have grown large enough, cows raised for beef are sent to massive, unhygienic outdoor feedlots, where they are fattened for slaughter purposes; and - Cows on dairy farms are repeatedly artificially impregnated for purposes of increasing milk production; followed by traumatically separating a cow from her new-born calf and milked until such a point that the cow is regarded as economically unviable. Pigs - Pigs spend their entire lives in cramped unhygienic housing conditions; under the constant stress of intense confinement; and are unable to express natural behaviours important to their well- being; - Mother pigs (sows) spend most of their lives in small gestation and farrowing crates. These crates are so small that they cannot turn around. As of 01st January 2017, all gestation crates were to have been modified to be able to allow sows to fully turn around and lie down fully stretched without touching the sides of the gestation crate. Alternatively, they were to be placed into group housing; - Sows are impregnated repeatedly until their bodies give out and are then sent for slaughter; and - Piglets are torn away from their distraught mothers just a few weeks after birth. The young pigs then spend their short lives in cramped, crowded pens on slabs of unhygienic concrete. Aquatic Fauna - Fish are impaled; crushed; suffocated; or cut open and gutted whilst fully conscious; - Many fish on aquafarms suffer from parasitic infections, diseases and debilitating injuries; and - Lobsters can experience pain; and when kept in tanks, they may suffer from stress associated with confinement, low oxygen levels and overcrowding. Poultry/Birds - Ducks and geese are raised for foie gras which involves the fattening of the liver by force- feeding with feeding tubes. This fatty liver is considered a delicacy by some diners; - Chickens are deprived of the chance to take dust baths; feel the warmth of the sun on their backs; breathe fresh air; roost in trees and build nests; - Broiler chickens spend their entire lives in unhygienic housing conditions where intense overcrowding and confinement leads to the outbreak of diseases; - Broiler chickens are farmed under certain conditions in order for them to grow large very quickly. Their legs and organs cannot keep up, making heart attacks, organ failure, and crippling leg deformities a common occurrence. Many become crippled under their own weight and eventually die because they cannot reach food and water sources; and - Birds exploited for their eggs, called “laying hens”, are crammed together inside wire cages where they do not even have enough room to spread their wings. Because the hens are crammed so closely together, these normally clean animals are forced to urinate and defecate on one another. Bees - Like other factory-farmed animals, honeybees are victims of unnatural living conditions, genetic manipulation and stressful transportation; and - Since “swarming” (the division of the hive upon the birth of a new queen) can cause a decline in honey production, beekeepers do what they can to prevent it, including clipping the wings of a new queen; killing and replacing an older queen after just one or two years; and confining a queen who is trying to begin a swarm; Crocodiles - Keeping crocodiles in single pens limits them from exhibiting natural behaviour necessary for their well-being.
Since the SPCA believes that many of the farming systems employed hold serious animal well-being and ethical implications, the SPCA strives to ensure that consideration and concern for the well-being of the animals farmed is incorporated into such farming systems.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 4.3
CONSUMER AWARENESS The SPCA advocates that the consumer should know how all animal products (including non-food products) are produced and that products should thus be labelled with the method of production.
CONCERNS RELATING TO FOOD LABELLING
Many producers advertise methods of farming, such as “free-range”, “sow friendly”, “organic”, “barn”, and “free to roam”, to promote their products and increase sales by indicating animal-friendly production. As many of these labels are factually inaccurate and deliberately misleading, there should be specific criteria before such labelling is permitted to assure the consumer of authenticity. The same applies to slaughter methods. For example, all hindquarters of cattle slaughtered by kosher methods, where no pre-stunning takes place, is sold to the general consumer, because the Jewish community does not consume the hindquarters.
Consumers have the right to make informed purchasing decisions that support their moral and belief systems. There is a growing trend amongst consumers to be informed of the welfare standards and farming systems from which they purchase their meat, milk and eggs, including other products derived from animals such as hides, feathers, etc.
Consumers should be able to make informed decisions on their purchases and should insist on knowing who checks and verifies such labels. Without adequate labelling, consumers are not in a position to make informed choices and purchasing decisions. For complete transparency, the SPCA believes that these checks should be undertaken by totally independent bodies who have no vested interest in the specific industry. For example, the meat industry or poultry association would not be seen as an independent body.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 4.4
UNNATURAL ENHANCEMENT PRACTICES The SPCA is opposed to husbandry management practices intended to enhance the production, performance or growth of an animal, which causes or may cause pain, suffering, metabolic or skeletal defects, inhibit normal activity or other health conditions.
BACKGROUND TO UNNATURAL ENHANCEMENT PRACTICES
Most intensive farming systems strive to maximise output while minimising costs, resulting in seriously compromised animal well-being which include but is not limited to; animals confined to small spaces; overcrowding; unhygienic housing conditions; animals denied the freedom to express natural behaviours and risk of injury and disease. Certain farming systems also involve the use of accelerated growth and enhancement practices such as hormonal implants, growth stimulants, selective breeding and genetic engineering to further maximise profit.
CONCERNS RELATING TO UNNATURAL ENHANCEMENT PRACTICES
The below serves as some examples of the various industries which implement unnatural enhancement practices in South Africa with associated animal well-being concerns:
Approximately 927 million broiler birds are slaughtered for meat every year in South Africa. The majority are farmed intensively and are usually kept in windowless, barren and crowded broiler houses, holding tens of thousands of birds for the whole of their short five to six week lives. Selective breeding and growth stimulants in feed for an ever-increasing growth rate and feed conversion productivity is causing the majority of the animal well-being problems broiler birds suffer from today. Broiler chickens often have mortality rates of approximately 1% a week. Muscle mass in broiler chickens have been selectively bred to grow rapidly, however, growth of the skeleton and the internal organs cannot keep up. Every year numerous broiler chickens suffer from painful lameness due to abnormal skeletal development or bone disease. Many have difficulty in walking or even standing. Lame broilers spend the bulk of their time lying down. They are often unable to reach the water nipples and can go without water for several days. Lame or compromised birds are also targeted by predators if the poultry houses are not entirely secure. They frequently suffer from heart failure when they are only a few weeks old. Acute heart failure accounts for a large percentage of broiler bird deaths. A second form of heart failure known as ascites affects nearly 5% of broilers worldwide. Ascites is a direct result of unnaturally fast-growing chickens whereby fluid accumulates in the abdomen of chickens.
As a result of administering artificial hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), milk yield per cow has more than doubled in the last 40 years; and many cows now produce more than 20,000 kg of milk per lactation. The increase in production in dairy cattle has however led to numerous animal well-being concerns. Higher milk yield is genetically correlated with a higher incidence of lameness; higher somatic cell score and a higher incidence of mastitis. Metabolic or production diseases arise when cows are unable to meet the acute or chronic metabolic demands of maintenance, pregnancy and lactation. In the most acute forms such as milk fever or grass staggers, the cow simply runs out of calcium or magnesium respectively and, if untreated, will die in a matter of hours or minutes. Cattle are naturally adapted for a high fibre, low energy forage-based diet. The use of low fibre, high energy concentrate-based diets, in an attempt to meet the nutrient requirements of the high yielding cow, can lead to a range of production diseases. These all have serious animal well-being implications for dairy cows in particular. Most commercial feedlots in South Africa, make use of growth hormones which are available as dissolvable capsules that are implanted into the ears of livestock. The purpose of hormone implants is to increase the animal’s productivity and the efficiency of feed conversion into meat or milk. Hormonal implants interact with the animal’s natural hormones and side effects of their use may include aggressiveness (particularly in the first few weeks after implantation); difficulty in handling; nervousness; rectal prolapse; ventral oedema (swelling of the udder); and pronounced tail heads. The placement of the hormonal implant via injection also needs to be taken into account. The placement below the ear has significant muscle movement, and an implant in this area could cause the injection wound to enlarge and become irritated. This is a potential welfare issue which calls for the placement of the implant to avoid such areas. Failure to disinfect the implant site and not injecting the implant properly are common causes of problems at the injection site.
Animals can be altered by genetic selection to such an extent that critical structural or neurological defects are apparent. These defects may cause great stress and discomfort to the animal. Animals with bowed legs or other structural malformation may have mobility difficulty. Research indicates that animal well-being is compromised if high-producing meat animals are chronically lame due to weak legs. Research further indicates that it is not possible to have an adequate level of animal welfare if a selected genetic trait becomes so extreme that it causes obvious mobility problems, or if it causes a condition that is known to be painful in humans. Such an example is arthritis.
In the aquaculture sector, sex reversal techniques are used to produce batches of all-female fish as they usually mature sexually later than males, thereby enabling them to grow to greater weights. Sex reversal is achieved by feeding the male sex hormone, testosterone to young female fish. Sterile fish are produced by Triploidy, which is a genetic engineering technique whereby newly fertilised eggs are exposed to heat or pressure shock. The resulting fish are induced to triploid (three) sets of chromosomes instead of the usual diploid (two). This process is used concurrently with sex reversal to produce sterile all-female fish. The sterile female fish will not reach sexual maturity and can, therefore, be reared to exponential weights without reduced flesh quality that accompanies maturation. Triploids are susceptible to a range of health and animal well-being problems, including higher levels of spinal deformities, eye cataracts, poorer growth and lower survival rates. These are all indicators of poor animal well-being.
Since the accelerated growth and unnatural enhancement of production animals cause suffering, the SPCA condemns such practices and advocates the use of scientifically evaluated alternatives which take into account the well-being of the animal.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 4.5
ELECTRO-IMMOBILISATION The SPCA is opposed to the electro-immobilisation of animals.
ELECTRO-IMMOBILISATION OF ANIMALS
Electro-immobilisation involves passing a pulsed, low-voltage electrical current through the body of an animal. Usually, electrodes are applied to two parts of the animal’s body and the electric current is delivered along the animal’s spine. The electrical current induces contraction of the muscles supplied by the nerves of that segment of the spine, preventing voluntary movement of the animal. The electrical current does not reach the brain, which means the animal remains conscious and sensitive to pain during procedures.
ANIMAL WELL-BEING CONCERNS RELATING TO ELECTRO-IMMOBILISATION OF ANIMALS
Electro-immobilisation devices have been used to immobilise animals in order to perform animal husbandry procedures. Electro-immobilisation is mostly used in the livestock sector, particularly in cattle, to perform painful husbandry procedures such as dehorning, castration and branding. Crocodiles are also immobilised for the purpose of checking hide quality. It is even known that crocodiles are electrically immobilised prior to being slaughtered. This method is also used in fisheries and some research facilities to capture juvenile and adult fish for tagging or other scientific purposes. The SPCA is also concerned that electro-immobilisation may be used to facilitate the undertaking of surgical procedures on animals. Electro-immobilisation should not be used as a substitute for effective holding and restraining purposes. The use of electricity to immobilise and paralyse animals as a method of restraint is regarded as aversive and immoral in terms of animal well-being.
Electro-immobilisation must not be confused with electric stunning. When electric stunning is correctly applied, a high amperage current is passed through the brain which renders the animal instantly unconscious. When electro-immobilisation is used, a very small current is passed through the body that paralyses the muscles. It does not render the animal unconscious and insensible to pain. The animal is paralysed but remains conscious.
Research on electro-immobilising units clearly indicates that the animal still feels pain, as opposed to the use of anaesthetics, even though it is immobilised and therefore cannot indicate its pain by moving or vocalising. Performing either surgical or any other procedure on any animal that is immobilised using electro-immobilisation is a contravention of the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962.
Animal well-being concerns with regards to electro-immobilisation of animals include but are not limited to the following:
It may cause difficulty in breathing followed by suffocation. There have been some reports of death associated with the use of electro-immobilisation, presumably from lack of oxygen due to respiratory paralysis combined with an abnormally high heart rate; It may cause profound cardiac effects; It prevents the animal from appropriately responding to pain and distress due to temporary paralysis (the device does not prevent pain or provide pain relief); It may reduce the incentive for pain relief used during painful procedures; It may impact the affective (emotional) state of animals, producing damaging emotional experiences; It may encourage misuse and prolonged use on animals; and There is a risk of injury to animals and humans.
The SPCA reiterates that the use of electro-immobilisation is not a humane method of restraint. Farmers should be encouraged to select for good temperament in their livestock breeding programs to reduce the need for such devices. The handling and restraining of animals must be performed in appropriate facilities where animals can be safely restrained; and workers can securely perform management and husbandry procedures. In cattle, humane alternatives should be used, such as good quality crush and chutes, or head and shoulder restraints that will allow handlers to perform practices or procedures that do not require the use of electro-immobilisation.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Kim T. Fredricks, Jeffery R. Meinertz, Ryan D. Ambrose, Leanna M. Jackan, Jeremy K. Wise & Mark P. Gaikowski (2012) Feeding Response of Sport Fish after Electrical Immobilization, Chemical Sedation, or Both, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 32:4, 679- 686, DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2012.686955
Fish Anaesthetics - CCAC - Canadian Council on Animal Care. https://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Add_PDFs/Fish_Anesthetics.pdf pg. 11 (Accessed 9 January 2020)
POSITION STATEMENT 4.6
ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION The SPCA is opposed to all forms of animal identification which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
WHAT DOES ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION ENTAIL
The Animal Identification Act No. 6 of 2002 serves as a national regulatory mandate that provides for an animal identification system which acts as the first line of defence against stock theft, enhances identification of property and supports tracing of animals.
In terms of the Animal Identification Act No. 6 of 2002, the permanent marking of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs is compulsory in South Africa. Livestock owners must have a registered identification mark for their animals, indicating who the animal belongs to. If the animal is lost or stolen and is found; it will be possible to trace the owner. An identification mark consists of not more than three letters of the alphabet or symbols (characters).
Permanent identification marks can be put on animals by means of hot iron branding, freeze branding or tattooing. If you buy animals or receive them as a gift, you must put an identification mark on them within two weeks. Animals that you sell should also carry your identification mark. Your mark is put on an official list and no one may use it or brand your animal without your permission.
In addition, you may not put an identification mark on your animals if you have not registered the identification mark. Temporary markings such as non-toxic paint may be applied to animals at sale yards and livestock auctions to indicate that the animals were purchased prior to being transported.
CONCERNS RELATING TO ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION OF FARM ANIMALS
Branding of livestock is accomplished by thermal injury of the skin. Most commonly, a hot iron is placed on the unanaesthetised skin for the amount of time needed to remove all hair and burn the skin sufficiently to leave a permanent scar in the shape of a symbol. The hot-iron induced scar results in permanent alopecia. Freeze branding causes the death of pigment-producing cells in the hair follicles. This results in an area of depigmented hair upon regrowth. Both hot-iron and freeze branding are considered to be painful for livestock.
Ear notching involves a method of identifying animals by cutting notches into the ears of animals without anaesthetic. A notch represents a number based on its location such as on the bottom, top or end of the ear. This method is commonly used on pigs, rabbits, donkeys, goats and sheep. This method is not animal welfare friendly and involves unnecessary pain and suffering. Ear notching is also not a legally recognised method of marking in terms of the Animal Identification Act No. 6 of 2002.
The SPCA recognises the requirements of the Animal Identification Act No. 6 of 2002 but believes that more humane methods of permanent identification exist, but until such time as the legislation changes, advocates for the most humane methods of branding, tattooing, tagging, or attachment of other monitoring devices as far as possible.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available. POSITION STATEMENT 5.1
RESPONSIBLE GUARDIANSHIP OF COMPANION ANIMALS The SPCA is opposed to the keeping of domestic animals by those who do not have the facilities, time, financial means or level of interest to ensure optimal standards of care and husbandry for their companion animals. The SPCA is opposed to the keeping of indigenous wild or exotic species as companion animals.
IMPORTANT ASPECTS FOR RESPONSIBLE GUARDIANSHIP OF COMPANION ANIMALS
The SPCA recognises that many people seek the company and emotional attachment with animals, particularly domestic animals, and encourage a bond between them. However, after adopting an animal, the guardian must act responsibly. The SPCA is opposed to the keeping of any domestic animal by persons who cannot look after them properly. Animals have little choice as to where they find themselves, and it is the owner’s responsibility and duty to ensure that they do not take on any animals that they cannot effectively and responsibly care for.
To be a responsible pet owner it is vital that:
The decision to acquire a pet is properly considered, which includes what type of animal; the level of care; what would be suitable for the individual or family; etc.; The owner can comfortably afford to own a particular animal/s. This should include not only being able to feed the animal adequately, but also be able to afford annual vaccinations; and deworming, including any extra veterinary costs that may unexpectedly occur; The owner must have sufficient space for the animal to live a life where it is able to express normal behaviour – no chaining, caging or confining to small, unsuitable areas is acceptable; The owner understands and meets the behavioural and social needs of the chosen animal; Ensuring appropriate and reliable identification of the animal; Training and socialisation of the animal to ensure the development of appropriate behaviour; The responsible pet owner also ensures that his property has fencing or walling high enough to make certain the animal is unable to roam and ensures that any holes either in the fencing/walling (or under the fencing/walling) are effectively closed off to ensure that the animal remains on the property; The owner must ensure that daily access to fresh, clean water and a correct diet is available for the type, size and age of animal in his care; The animal must have suitable weatherproof shelter with a comfortable resting place (blanket/carpeting, etc.) that allows it to get out of reach of unsuitable weather conditions such as heat, cold, wind, dust or rain; The animal must be sterilised at an appropriate age. Kittens and puppies can safely have the sterilisation procedure carried out between the ages of 8-12 weeks. It is not necessary for a female to have a litter before she is sterilised. This is a misleading notion that simply results in many unwanted animals being born; and A responsible owner will also ensure that they can afford to spend quality and adequate time with the companion animal, which may include grooming, training and exercise.
Where a guardian is not in a position to fulfil these needs, the SPCA encourages him/her to surrender the animal to the local SPCA or another bona fide animal welfare organisation before the well-being of the animal is compromised. The SPCA is opposed to the keeping of indigenous and exotic wild animals as companion animals. It is important that wild animals should remain and roam freely in their natural habitat. The SPCAs opposition to the keeping of wild animals is based on the fact that it is inappropriate and inhumane to force a wild animal to live a captive life where their species-specific needs cannot be addressed. Wild animals are not domesticated and are often denied their 5 Freedoms, and are forced to endure a life in captivity.
The SPCA is opposed to the sale/hawking of any indigenous and exotic wild animal. It is inherent that some people, seeing these animals on sale, feel sorry for them and spontaneously purchase them, regardless of whether they actually want them. These animals, to their detriment, can then be passed on to other people. Operators regard it as an easy way to make money and will continue to obtain animals (both legally and illegally). Buying these animals fuels the trade and creates a demand. The public is advised to, therefore alert, the local SPCA.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
POSITION STATEMENT 5.2
POPULATION CONTROL The SPCA advocates the permanent sterilisation of all companion animals where surgically possible. The SPCA promotes the early sterilisation of dogs and cats at eight weeks, and other companion animals as soon as possible unless there are overriding medical justifications to the contrary.
WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR POPULATION CONTROL
While domestic animals continue to be euthanased due to the shortage of suitable, responsible and caring owners, deliberate breeding of domestic companion animals must be dramatically reduced to contribute to population control. Until such time that stricter control measures are put in place to prevent indiscriminate breeding, overpopulation will continue to result in animal cruelty and euthanasia.
Overpopulation of domestic pets and uncontrolled breeding results in an influx of animals that end up in animal shelters, resulting in a large number of animals to be unfairly euthanased on a weekly basis. There is a lesser interest from society to adopt from animal shelters compared to purchasing a companion animal from a breeder. Especially when it comes down to adopting an adult dog compared to a puppy. Some animals end up in no-kill shelters, which exposes these animals to a life in captivity and in many instances, also to cruelty for the sake of avoiding euthanasia.
VALID REASONS FOR STERILISATION
Early sterilisation is a safe and effective way to prevent unwanted litters. For both dogs and cats, the operation should be performed before the animal has reached sexual maturity. Animals should be sterilised between eight to twelve weeks of age, unless there is a valid veterinary reason to sterilise at a later stage.
There is no benefit for a bitch having a litter before being spayed. This fact is substantiated by the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC). This is a fallacy that has sadly resulted in many unwanted animals being born. An unsterilised male can fertilise more females in a year than a female can have litters in her lifetime, so it is equally important that male dogs and tomcats be sterilised to prevent this mass overpopulation.
Sterilising male dogs can reduce or eliminate unwanted behaviours and prevent straying. It does not affect the dog’s alertness or natural protective instincts. Sterilised male cats minimises or reduces the likelihood of straying, scent marking and territorial aggression. The sterilising of a bitch or queen also eliminates all of these problems. In addition, sterilising pets eliminates the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
Veterinary surgeons deny any automatic increase in weight following sterilisation, as this is purely a result of overeating, or feeding an incorrect diet, or neglecting to give adequate exercise. Exercising dogs has a markedly positive benefit for both pet and owner.
The excessive breeding that results in puppies and kittens is a main reason for unwanted, stray and feral animals. It is also the leading factor in the transferrals of contagious diseases causing outbreaks, including zoonotic diseases such as Rabies.
The SPCA encourages cooperation between welfare organisations, veterinarians and pet owners, whereby sterilisation is promoted and becomes a cost-effective solution to the overpopulation of domestic pets.
Although contraceptive drugs are available, none are 100% effective and may over longer periods, cause medical complications. Sterilisation is the only 100% effective method of preventing unwanted litters.
Currently, the only breeding legislation applies to dogs and this entails permitting requirements in terms of by-laws. This is only enforceable by municipalities that have such requirements. Only a handful of municipalities have by-laws which pertain to the sterilisation of domestic animals and most do not enforce these by-laws.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
ASPCA (n.d.). Policy and Position statements. https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and- position-statements (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
RSPCA (n.d.). How we work/policies.https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/howwework/policies (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
South African Veterinary Council (1997). Early age neutering. http://www.savc.org.za/registration- with-the-south-african-veterinary-council/13-savc/policies/208-policies-early-age-neutering (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
SAVC (2015). Early sterilisation dogs-cats. http://vet360.vetlink.co.za/savc-policy-early-sterilisation- dogs-cats/ (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
POSITION STATEMENT 5.3
BREEDING The SPCA is opposed to private and commercial breeding of all animals for the pet trade, including indigenous wild and exotic species. The SPCA is opposed to the breeding of all animals that causes or may cause detrimental changes to an animal’s physical, physiological and psychological well-being.
CONCERNS RELATING TO THE BREEDING OF COMPANION ANIMALS
The SPCA condemns the practice of selective breeding of companion animals for cosmetic purposes, genetic dispositions or to enhance specific characteristics. These practices pay little to no regard for the well-being, health or longevity of the animals, and in many cases result in health and behavioural issues. The health problems which have emerged as a result of such breeding include brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, hip dysplasia, blindness, deafness, heart defects, skin problems, epilepsy, spina bifida and spinal issues, feline hyperesthesia syndrome, kidney stones in the urinary tract, and other more general respiratory and digestive problems.
Excessive breeding also causes suffering to both mother and offspring. Excessive breeding may also harm the bitch or queen through mineral or other imbalances, including risking abnormal pregnancies of puppies or kittens as the breeding bitch or queen gets older. The owners of bitches and queens must be aware of the problems of their animals coming onto heat (twice a year for dogs and more frequently for cats). For a period of at least three weeks, their pets will be subject to unwelcome attentions of male dogs or tomcats during this period of oestrus; and while various drugs are available to minimise this, none is as effective as sterilisation. Although contraceptive drugs are available, none are 100% effective and may, over longer periods, cause medical complications. Sterilisation is the only 100% effective method of preventing unwanted litters.
The SPCA acknowledges that there are responsible breeders, but due to the sheer influx of animals ending up in animal shelters to be euthanased on a weekly basis, public members should rather try to adopt than purchase from breeders. (Please refer to Statement of Policy 5.2 – Population Control). The private and commercial breeding of companion animals reduces the chances of adoption of shelter animals. Sterilisation is the only guaranteed method of preventing uncontrolled breeding.
The SPCA does recognise that there are breeders that consist of individuals who focus their attention on one or two selected breeds. They know their breed(s) and do not place unnecessary pressure on their breeding animals. The offspring are raised in a homely environment where they are properly care for, socialised and trained. New homes are selected very carefully, homes checked, microchipped and all offspring sterilised. Any health, temperament or genetic defects are not bred into the offspring and any breeding animal is sterilised immediately if found to be unsuitable. They do not sell their animals online or through pet shops, but rather to people who know the breed(s) and can properly care for the animal(s). They also only keep a manageable number of animals.
The SPCA is opposed to the breeding of indigenous and exotic wild animals as companion animals. It is important that wild animals should remain and roam freely in their natural habitat. The SPCAs opposition to the breeding of wild animals as companion animals is based on the fact that it is inappropriate and inhumane to force a wild animal to live a captive life where their species-specific needs cannot be addressed. Wild animals are not domesticated and are often denied their 5 Freedoms, and are forced to endure a life in captivity.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
ASPCA (n.d) Animals used for breeding. https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position- statements (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
RSPCA (n.d) Companion animals and breeding. https://www.rspca.org.au/facts/policies (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
RSPCA (2014) https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/howwework/policies (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
POSITION STATEMENT 5.4
EUTHANASIA The SPCA is opposed to the euthanasia of fit and healthy animals but accepts the reality that euthanasia is necessary. Euthanasia must be carried out by qualified personnel using approved and humane methods and with great compassion.
VALIDITY OF EUTHANASIA
The SPCA lives for the day when healthy animals are no longer euthanased owing to the lack of suitable homes. However, as a result of the current overpopulation of domestic animals caused by indiscriminate breeding, the dumping of unwanted animals, irresponsible guardianship of companion animals, lack of sterilisation and inadequate enforcement of legislation, the SPCA accepts with great reluctance that euthanasia is necessary.
The SPCA believes that unwanted companion animals deserve a dignified, painless death rather than risk suffering resulting from animal cruelty such as malnutrition, disease, trauma, and physical abuse – all commonly associated with unwanted or neglected animals.
Euthanasia is a humane release for many suffering, injured, traumatised, sick or homeless animals. However, healthy animals may also require euthanasia due to behavioural reasons, such as where they are very aggressive, and where the animal would have to endure long-term suffering through the deprivation of basic needs in incarceration. The long-term housing of individual animals that does not cater to their physical, physiological and psychological needs is not an acceptable alternative.
PRINCIPLES OF EUTHANASIA
The SPCA is opposed to the use of inhumane methods to kill any animal (Please see Statement of Policy 3.11 – End of Life). The SPCA recommends the injection of sodium pentobarbitone as a preferred method for euthanasia to certain animal groups. Euthanasia should be performed only by skilled personnel who have been trained and certified in administering injectable euthanasia solution. Euthanasia should not be performed in the presence of other live animals and it is essential that the proper procedures are followed, including verifying that death has occurred. Performed properly, euthanasia by injection is the most humane, safest, fastest and least stressful to the animal and is safe for personnel. In emergency situations, when no other options are available, trained personnel may carry out other suitable euthanasia methods which include but are not limited to firearms, captive bolt pistols or electric stunners, followed by exsanguination, or any other approved humane method dependent on the species. Exsanguination may be performed on an unconscious animal only after blunt force trauma or stunning is applied to render the animal instantaneously unconscious. Only approved methods of euthanasia may be used dependent on the species and/or circumstances and verification of suitable humane methods of euthanasia should be verified with a veterinarian or professional.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
ASPCA (n.d) Policy and Position statements. https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and- position-statements. (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
RSPCA (2014) https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/howwework/policies. (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
SAVC (1998) Policy on euthanasia. https://www.savc.org.za/component/content/article/13- savc/policies/209-policies-euthanasia-in-horses . (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
SAVC (1998) Policy on euthanasia. https://www.savc.org.za/component/content/article/10- savc/about-the-council/44-awas. (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
SAVC (1998) Policy on euthanasia. https://www.savc.org.za/component/content/article/15- savc/guidelines/223-guidelines-euthanasia-in-adult-non-feral-cats-and-dogs. (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
SAVC (1998) Policy on euthanasia. https://www.savc.org.za/component/content/article/15- savc/guidelines/237-guidelines-the-chemical-restraint-of-vicious-dogs. (Accessed: 3 December 2018).
POSITION STATEMENT 5.5
FERAL CATS The SPCA advocates the humane and responsible management of feral cat colonies.
WHAT ARE FERAL CATS AND FERAL CAT COLONIES?
A feral cat is a domestic cat that lives outdoors and has had little or no human contact. Feral cats do not allow themselves to be handled or touched by humans, will run away if they are able, typically remain hidden from humans and may show fearful or defensive behaviour when exposed to human contact. Feral cats may be solitary or live in a colony and are capable of surviving with or without direct human intervention. Once mature, feral cats regard humans as a possible threat, although rarely, may come to trust food providing individuals, but even then are unlikely to establish any closer social acceptance of people.
A feral kitten may be developed into a pet if it is handled in its sensitive period of development, between two to eight weeks, though it is best brought into a human home and handled before five weeks, before the onset of its fear responses and individual hazard avoidance capabilities start to become learned. A feral kitten becomes ever more difficult to tame after weaning and virtually impossible after the onset of sexual maturation.
Groups of feral cats may be found living in and around human habitation such as on factory sites, at dockyards, on hospital grounds, public parks and gardens of private houses. Some feral cats were previously owned but due to circumstances such as lost, abandoned or straying individuals, these cats become shy of people and difficult to handle.
Food sources, such as waste bins, are often supplemented by kind-hearted people who put out extra food. This will attract more wandering cats. Any fertile females in the group will produce kittens on a regular basis in litters of up to eight and so the colony will soon begin to grow. Feral cats may be tolerated or even welcomed as rodent catchers or for the interest and companionship they provide, but as numbers increase, they may become a public nuisance or health risk.
MANAGEMENT OF FERAL CATS
Although some see feral cats as problematic and want them removed, the removal of an entire colony is difficult from a practical perspective and some cats will inevitably evade capture. Unless food sources are controlled, other strays may move in and the survivors will recreate the colony.
Research has proven that Trap-Neuter-Release Programmes (TNR programmes) are far more successful than removal and euthanasia programmes. Neuter refers to sterilisation. Care should be taken to ensure that methods of trapping are humane and do not cause unnecessary pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to any animal. Trapping should only be conducted by trained individuals. Relevant national and provincial legislation, including municipal by-laws and any relevant regulations, are applicable.
The SPCA believes that one of the most effective and humane methods for managing feral cats is by population control which minimises breeding opportunities through sterilisation. The SPCA, therefore, supports TNR programmes where the cats are protected on sites and their well-being is safeguarded.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
RSPCA (n.d) https://www.rspca.org.au/facts/policies (Accessed: 5 December 2018).
RSPCA (2014) https://www.rspca.org.ukhttps://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/howwework/policies (Accessed: 5 December 2018).
POSITION STATEMENT 5.6
COMPANION ANIMAL TRADERS The SPCA is opposed to the trade in companion animals.
ANIMALS TRADED AS COMPANION ANIMALS
A wide variety of animals are sold as companion animals, including domestic, farm, equine, indigenous and exotic wild species. The pet trade industry is extensive with roots in both the legal and illegal trade market. Various animals are either bred in captivity, sourced from the wild, sold at pet shops or even sold online, as online trading has become extremely popular with current social trends and technological changes.
ANIMAL WELL-BEING CONCERNS RELATING TO COMPANION ANIMAL TRADERS
Pet shops often house both domestic animals, and exotic and indigenous wild animals in unsuitable, unhygienic and inhumane conditions. These facilities seldom provide for species-specific needs. Compromised animal well-being concerns include but are not limited to insufficient diets, isolation of social animals, lack of enrichment, overcrowding, spread of zoonotic diseases, feeding of live prey, lack in expressing natural behaviour, and lack of veterinary treatment and care.
Both exotic and indigenous wild animals are sold to members of the public who lack the necessary knowledge to properly care for these animals. Members of the public are encouraged to buy these animals without any consideration for the animal’s physical, physiological and/or physiological well-being. It is common for people to purchase wild animals as pets without having a good understanding of the species-specific needs of the animal. For example, parrots are social animals and develop behavioural problems such as feather plucking or self-mutilation due to inadequate attention or a lack of social behaviour with members of their own kind.
Animals may be confined to unsuitable enclosures for unknown periods of time before they are sold to a new owner.
The breeding of animals often involves the removal of young from mothers. This can be stressful and traumatic for both the mother and her young. Public have the option to purchase animals in an unweaned state to be raised by the owner and often result in inadequate knowledge to properly care for that animal.
The risk of introducing diseases, such as herpes B virus, monkeypox virus, hantavirus and salmonella, which are dangerous to both humans and other animals, is increased considerably by importation.
Supply and demand for the pet trade directly and indirectly, contribute to the legal and illegal trade and continues to threaten the survival of many wild populations on a national and international scale. Poaching and smuggling of these animals hold their own animal well-being concerns in terms of how it is carried out. Many wild animals, whether exotic or indigenous, are forcibly removed from their natural environments and social dynamics. Large numbers of animals die during the transport or export process. Once traded these wild animals are kept in confinement for the remainder of their lives. Where exotic animals may escape these confines or are released, they may become compromised in their new environment, resulting in suffering from predation, injury or disease. Exotic species can disrupt local ecosystems. This occurs when an exotic pet escapes or is deliberately released into an area where they do not naturally occur. They may carry and transfer diseases and parasites that threaten indigenous wild populations, including creating a health risk for humans.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
ASPCA (n.d) Pet traders and animals as companions. Available at: https://www.aspca.org/about- us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements (Accessed: 5 December 2018).
RSPCA (n.d) Pet traders and animals as companions. Available at https://www.rspca.org.au/facts/policies (Accessed: 5 December 2018).
RSPCA (n.d) Pet traders and animals as companions. Available at https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/howwework/policies (Accessed: 5 December 2018).
POSITION STATEMENT 6.1
PAIN AND SUFFERING The SPCA is opposed to all animals used for scientific purposes or in procedures which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
ANIMALS USED FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT
Animals are used for various scientific purposes in South Africa ranging from research, education, teaching, product testing, diagnosis, validation, to conservation and observation. In addition, existing legislation and regulations such as the Medicines and Related Substances Act No. 101 of 1965 and the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act No. 36 of 1947 require testing of products to be conducted on animals before the product can be shelved.
Animals are used for scientific purposes at universities and in certain private industries such as vaccine producing companies. Whenever new research needs to be validated, certain species of animals are used to benefit the target species. One example is the validation of stress hormones in animals so that less invasive methods can be used in future e.g. making use of faecal samples instead of taking blood which is an invasive procedure. Sometimes animals are used in their natural environment to observe their behaviour. These types of studies are not invasive and are done to learn more about the species e.g. observing a troop of baboons to learn more about their behavioural patterns. Due to the evolving nature of disease-causing pathogens such as viruses and bacteria, new developments in drugs for both humans and animals are conducted using animals. To teach new surgical techniques for surgeons, animals will often be used instead of human cadavers.
CONCERNS RELATING TO ANIMALS THAT ARE USED FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES
There are specific concerns relating to animals used for scientific purposes and include the following:
Poorly designed research protocols; The lack in use of anaesthesia, analgesia and sedatives in procedures that cause or are likely to cause pain; Careless consideration to very specific husbandry and housing practices; The lack of proper use of humane endpoints; Lack in monitoring of research projects; Lack of/or inappropriate environmental enrichment plans; Facilities, where animals are housed, are not up to standard and/or maintained; and Shortfalls in humane euthanasia methods.
The SPCA believes that all measures should be put in place to ensure that the most appropriate, current and humane practices are followed to alleviate any pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm when animals are used for scientific purposes. The SPCA further believes that animals have the capacity to experience pain, suffering and distress, even though they may perceive and respond to circumstances differently from humans. Certain procedures and research methodologies can be harmful to animals and they should be protected from research designs that involve pain, illness, isolation, mutilation and/or premature death and should involve alternative designs using non-sentient systems.
Anaesthesia and analgesia must be used for procedures that cause or are likely to cause pain. The use of local and general anaesthetics, analgesics and sedatives must be considered as part of the plan to manage pain, suffering and distress. Researchers should ensure that animals are exposed to the minimum pain necessary at all times and should provide treatment for the relief of pain, allow self-administration of analgesics, or escape from repetitive, painful stimuli. Prompt action must be taken to alleviate pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm that was not anticipated in an approved project or activity, or occur as the result of an emergency.
All persons involved in animals used for scientific purposes shall anticipate and take all possible steps to avoid or minimise distress, including but not limited to:
Following the guidelines of the South African National Standards for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes (SANS 10386:2008) as close as possible; Choosing the most appropriate and humane method to conduct the scientific study or teaching activity; Ensuring that the technical skills, experience and competence of all persons involved in animal care and use are adequate for the tasks performed; Ensuring that animals are adequately monitored for evidence of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm; this must be done by trained and experienced individuals; Acting promptly to alleviate pain or distress by making use of humane endpoints; Conducting studies over the shortest time practicable; and Using humane and current best practices of euthanasia.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Carbone, L. and Austin, J. (2016) ‘Pain and Laboratory Animals: Publication Practices for Better Data Reproducibility and Better Animal Welfare’, PLoS ONE, 11(5). Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155001&type=printable.
South African Bureau of Standards. 2008. SANS 10386: The care and use of animals for scientific purposes. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division
POSITION STATEMENT 6.2 (a)
UNNECESSARY USE OF ANIMALS FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES The SPCA is opposed to the use of animals for scientific purposes which are repetitions, scientifically trivial or which involve techniques for which satisfactory humane alternatives have already been developed.
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF ANIMAL USE
Research on animals dates back to at least the 17th Century. Animal ethics is such a complicated and controversial subject, and thus various ethical views and standpoints exist. The SPCA believes that any use of animals for scientific purposes requires justification and that using animals for research is a privilege and not a right. Weighing up the harm done to animals versus the benefit for the species involved and/or scientific objective should be the focus when determining whether or not animals should be used. The SPCA believes that animals used for scientific purposes should only be used when it is absolutely necessary.
UNNECESSARY USE OF ANIMALS IS UNETHICAL
The 4 Rs Guiding Principles, i.e. replacement, reduction, refinement and responsibility (as described under Statement of Policy 6.4 – The 4 Rs Guiding Principles) should be implemented to avoid the unnecessary use of animals.
The SPCA is concerned that laboratory animals are often bred in excess of experimental requirements leading to unnecessary wastage of animal lives. Overbreeding may occur due to demands for a specific sex or age of animal to be available immediately. The justification for such demands must be critically reviewed by an Animal Ethics Committee and researchers should aim to substantially reduce overbreeding, in particular by improving their forward planning and communication with breeders.
The SPCA is opposed to animals that are used repeatedly. Repeated use of the same animals might bring about serious animal well-being concerns if not carefully considered. Repeating studies as a result of bad design or inappropriate forward planning is unethical and does not contribute to the reduction of animal use. Research involving animals must have a sound experimental design, data should be analysed using appropriate statistics and there should be validation by evidence provided by investigators to ensure that animals are not repeatedly used within projects or across projects. Collaboration between institutions is encouraged to avoid the repetition of research.
If there are no specific justifications for using animals and the end result is scientifically trivial and of no benefit to humans or animals, it is seen as unnecessary and unethical. Only essential research that has been properly scrutinized during a process of scientific review should be considered.
REFERENCES
Prescott, M. (2010) ‘Ethics of primate use’, Advances in Science & Research, 5, pp. 11–22. Available at: file:///C:/Users/admin2/Downloads/Ethics_of_primate_use.pdf.
South African Bureau of Standards. 2008. SANS 10386: The care and use of animals for scientific purposes. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division
The Animal Procedures Committee (2003) Review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research, Animal Procedures Committee. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1 19027/cost-benefit-assessment.pdf.
POSITION STATEMENT 6.2 (b)
UNNECESSARY USE OF ANIMALS FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES The SPCA is opposed to the use of animals in the testing of non-essential substances.
WHAT ARE NON-ESSENTIAL SUBSTANCES?
Some substances are tested on animals even though they have little to no value to society. Substances such as cosmetics (hair products, make-up, nail products, skin products, etc.), non-medical products (garden chemicals, pesticides, household products, etc.) and food additives are seen as substances for which testing on animals is non-essential.
Currently, there is no legal requirement that cosmetics be tested on animals in South Africa, and cosmetic companies may rely on scientific literature, non-animal testing, raw material safety testing, or controlled human-use testing to substantiate their product safety. Although the SPCA is not aware of any companies in South Africa that test cosmetic products on animals, some companies and/or franchises are selling products tested on animals in other countries. The SPCA is committed to promoting legislation which bans the use of animals for cosmetic testing.
CONCERNS RELATING TO TESTING OF NON-ESSENTIAL SUBSTANCES ON ANIMALS
Animal testing of non-essential substances involves assessing the safety, efficacy and toxicity of products. Tests that are commonly performed that expose mice, rats, rabbits and guinea pigs to cosmetic ingredients include skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of restrained rabbits without any pain relief, including lethal dose tests, in which animals are forced to swallow large amounts of a test chemical to determine the dose that causes death. Tests also include repeated force-feeding studies lasting weeks or months to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards such as cancer or birth defects. This is not confirmed to be the case in South Africa although the SPCA does monitor this continuously.
There is also the argument that animal testing does come with limitations such as different species respond differently when exposed to the same chemical, resulting in overall irrelevance to humans, thus posing as a possible health hazard to people. Unreliable animal tests mean consumer safety cannot be guaranteed.
Many companies started using non-animal alternatives such as combining human cell-based tests and sophisticated computer models to deliver human-relevant results. Such tests are typically also less expensive compared to the use of animals and proof that animals are not needed for the testing of non-essential substances and why it is seen as an unnecessary practice.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
The Humane Society of the United States (no date) Cosmetics testing FAQ. Available at: https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/cosmetics-testing-faq#performed (Accessed: 16 April 2020).
POSITION STATEMENT 6.2 (c)
UNNECESSARY USE OF ANIMALS FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES The SPCA is opposed to the use of wild-caught animals of any species regardless of their conservation status.
USE OF WILD-CAUGHT ANIMALS FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES
A wide variety of wildlife is used in research including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates in studies aimed at understanding species behaviour and ecology; species conservation; population management; understanding the role of wildlife in disease transmission; and human-animal conflict studies and methods of control. Wildlife research is usually conducted with free-living animals in their natural habitat, however, wild-caught animals are also used in various captive settings such as laboratories, zoos, aquariums, sanctuaries and other captive wildlife facilities. Examples of wildlife species used in laboratories include but are not limited to wild rodents (large and small species), fish, birds or lizards. They might be used for behavioural studies, nutritional studies or similar studies that can assist with the conservation of the species. This type of research is minimal in South Africa. The SPCA believes that wild animals belong in the wild and should not to be taken out of the wild into captivity to be used for scientific purposes. Ideally, all research on wild animals should occur in their natural environment, provided such research protocols have been reviewed by a properly constituted animal ethics committee. However, the SPCA recognises that research conducted on wild-caught animals either aimed at improving animal well-being or the conservation status of a specific species does occur, but states that it should be well motivated and to the benefit of the animals. Clear scientific accredited criteria should be used to justify and demonstrate the use of wild-caught animals in such instances. The same ethical principles that apply to laboratory animals must also apply to wildlife.
Concerns regarding the use of wild-caught animals for scientific purposes include but are not limited to:
There is specific public sensitivity and controversy in the use of wild-caught non-human primates such as baboons, vervet monkeys and macaque monkeys for biomedical research (research that benefits humans), because of their rich emotional and social status, including their high level of sentience. Aspects such as ideal housing requirements (e.g. social housing), the provision of adequate environmental enrichment and the interventions done on the animals are matters of concern. The SPCA encourages research animal facilities to frequently revise and update policies on the use of non-human primates in research;
South Africa is known for its biodiversity richness for both flora and fauna, consequently, many international researchers conduct research here. Of concern is that some researchers do not obtain the necessary ethical approval for their research and often disappear with the information, resulting in limited to no benefit to the animals;
The use of wild-caught animals involves trapping methods with associated risks including placements of traps not providing adequate shelter and protection against the elements; prolonged capture periods; injuries; death; and disregard of social groups or if young are dependent on the captured animal.
The SPCA’s opposition to keeping wild-caught animals in captivity for scientific purposes is based on the fact that a wild animal’s well-being is automatically compromised while in a captive state. Wildlife should remain and roam freely in their natural habitat. It is inhumane to force a wild animal to a life in captivity, where their species-specific needs cannot cannot be catered for in captive environments.
The health status of wild-caught animals is not always considered, as the health status can only be confirmed once the animal has been captured and relocated. This can be problematic if the wild-caught animal has underlying health conditions possibly influencing research objectives. Scientific research should only be conducted on healthy animals. In addition, an unknown health status can also have serious implications for other animals and animal care staff in terms of disease transmission, including that high levels of biosecurity are not always guaranteed.
In many instances the only remaining fate for wildlife used for scientific purposes is euthanasia. Most species that are used cannot return to the wild because of biohazardous reasons or because they will not adapt to the wild again after prolonged captivity amongst other reasons.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (no date) Wildlife research. Available at: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/wildlife-research (Accessed: 30 March 2020).
Prescott, M. (2010) ‘Ethics of primate use’, Advances in Science & Research, 5, pp. 11–22. Available at: file:///C:/Users/admin2/Downloads/Ethics_of_primate_use.pdf.
South African Bureau of Standards. 2008. SANS 10386: The care and use of animals for scientific purposes. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division
The Animal Procedures Committee (2003) Review of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research, Animal Procedures Committee. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1 19027/cost-benefit-assessment.pdf.
POSITION STATEMENT 6.3
ANIMAL ETHICS COMMITTEES The SPCA is opposed to the use of animals for scientific purposes without ethical approval by a properly constituted animal ethics committee.
PURPOSE OF ANIMAL ETHICS COMMITTEES
An animal ethics committee is mandated with the ethical review, monitoring and approval of animal care and use within its institutions. The SPCA advocates that all institutions using animals for scientific purposes (including training and teaching) should have an effective and functional animal ethics committee to scrutinise all project applications and ensure that there is sufficient justification for the use of animals.
Some of the most important factors that should be considered by animal ethics committees include but are not limited to:
Full justification for the research including references in the form of a fully comprehensive ethics application proposal; Legal obligations e.g. permits and authorisations by relevant governmental bodies; Harm vs benefit assessments; The implementation of the 4 Rs Guiding Principles (replacement, reduction, refinement and responsibility); Humane endpoints including humane current best practices of euthanasia methods; Monitoring animal well-being; and All housing and husbandry practices should meet the minimum welfare standards as stipulated in the South African National Standards for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes (SANS 10386:2008).
COMPOSITION OF ANIMAL ETHICS COMMITTEES
The SPCA advises the establishment of properly constituted committees. The committee should consist of at least four categories of membership namely:
Category A - A veterinarian with experience relevant to the research that is being conducted, including a good sense of animal welfare;
Category B - A person with a higher degree that has experience in the use of animals for scientific purposes (scientist);
Category C - A person with experience in animal well-being who is not involved with the care and use of animals for scientific purposes. This person should have relevant experience in the welfare of research animals. The Animal Ethics Unit of the National Council of SPCAs fulfils this role on animal ethics committees; and
Category D - An independent person who is not employed by the institution and who has no experience or involvement in the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.
Independent persons should represent two-thirds of the committee to ensure a balanced view and fair representation of animal well-being. The members of this committee must include representatives without vested interest. It is important for animal ethics committees to deliberate on all ethical and welfare aspects with regards to research protocols.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Hawkins, P. and Hobson-West, P. (2017) Delivering Effective Ethical Review: The AWERB as a ‘Forum for Discussion’. Available at: https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/reportsandresources/details/- /articleName/ethical-revi-1.
Jennings, M. et al. (2015) ‘Guiding principles on good practice for Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies’, AWERB Guiding Principles, 3(September). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4028.2326.
Smith, A. et al. (2018) ‘PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing’, Laboratory Animals, 52(2), pp. 135–141. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0023677217724823.
South African Bureau of Standards. 2008. SANS 10386: The care and use of animals for scientific purposes. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division
POSITION STATEMENT 6.4
THE 4 Rs GUIDING PRINCIPLES The SPCA supports the development of the 4 Rs guiding principles, namely replacement, reduction, refinement and responsibility when using animals for scientific purposes.
BACKGROUND
In an ideal world, the use of animals for scientific purposes should be replaced with non-animal alternative methods that would still achieve set out scientific objectives. However, animals used for scientific purposes are still considered unavoidable in many areas, especially when the target species of the research is the animal itself. Conservation studies serve as one example where research is conducted on the specific species aimed at the survival or improvement of the conservation status of the species in question.
Existing legislation and regulations such as the Medicines and Related Substances Act No. 101 of 1965 and the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act No. 36 of 1947 (Act 36 of 1947) require testing of products to be conducted on animals before the product can be shelved.
The five requirements of Act 36 of 1947 for product registration include:
Proof of efficacy of the product relative to the claims; Safety of the product to the animal and human handler; The impact of the product on the environment; Stability and pharmaceutical quality for the duration of the product’s shelf-life; and Whether the product is in the interest of the public.
Applying the 4 Rs, namely replacement, reduction, refinement and responsibility in a manner that is considered consistent and thoroughly planned out, is not only an ethical imperative to reduce or avoid animal suffering, but is also vital in ensuring the quality of science. As Russell and Burch (1959) points out, treating animals in the most humane way possible "is actually a prerequisite for successful animal experiments". The fourth “R” is a new concept in South Africa and was included to address the importance of taking responsibility in all aspects of animal use.
REPLACEMENT
Replacement involves methods or strategies that replace or avoid the use of animals used for scientific purposes. The SPCA advocates the use of alternatives and replacing the use of animals with methods that do not involve animals at all. Using animals is costly, time consuming and there are certain scientific limitations, such as having poor relevance to human biology. Where full replacement of animals is not possible, partial replacement should be considered. Partial replacement includes the use of primary cells and tissues taken from a biobank or tissue bank (tissues and other samples that are stored in a bank). There can be scientific advantages, including a reduction in costs and time in developing and using alternatives. For example, some studies involving the use of human cells and tissues enable more precise, detailed and direct insight into the mechanisms underlying human diseases and other disorders; it can generate data more quickly and are usually cheaper than animal studies when the costs of housing and care and other related factors are taken into account.
Examples of complete replacement methods include but are not limited to the following:
Computer modelling (in silico) and mathematical simulations that use existing biological information in 'virtual' models to predict effects in humans and other animals. This is all computerised with no animal involvement. Virtual reality is becoming a very popular educational tool for both human and animal medical courses; Mechanical and chemical devices, such as artificial heart valves made from synthetic material; Human cells and tissues, such as making use of 3D printed human cells to test for product effectivity and sensitivity; and Human volunteers.
REDUCTION
Reduction includes methods that minimise the number of animals used for scientific purposes, either by enabling researchers to obtain similar quantities of information from fewer animals and/or to obtain more information from the same number of animals, thereby avoiding repetition. Reduction should, however, not be implemented if this results in the greater suffering of individual animals. Although reduction might seem like a straightforward task, it can be difficult to predict how many animals a study requires, and a variety of factors relating to experimental design and statistical analysis need to be taken into account. Researchers must seek advice from statisticians as part of the study design in order to ensure that the correct number of animals are used.
One example of reduction is the consideration of a pilot study using a small number of animals to resolve any technical or animal well-being issues prior to any larger definitive study.
Minimising the number of animals by avoiding overbreeding of certain strains of animals will lead to a reduction in animal numbers that will not otherwise be used.
REFINEMENT
Refinement has proven to be the biggest R of the four Rs. Refinement aims to reduce animal suffering to the absolute minimum and still remain consistent with the scientific objectives, avoiding suffering altogether; and to improve animal well-being.
The following are some examples of how refinement can be implemented:
Identify all potential sources of suffering and the impact of each on the animals throughout their lives (lasting harm); Provide animal housing, husbandry and care that minimises stress and promotes animal well-being. This can be achieved by appropriate and well thought through environmental enrichment programmes; Design experiments and procedures so that harm is avoided or minimised as far as possible, making use of current best practices for specialised procedures; and Ensure that any pain, suffering or distress is recognised, assessed, and alleviated. It is important that anyone working with the animals is appropriately trained to recognise the symptoms in different species of animals.
The SPCA supports the implementation of optimum housing standards that allow experimental animals overall psychological, physiological and physical well-being and which reasonably allow the performance of most normal behaviours. Environmental enrichment is a particularly effective way of ensuring refinement in captive animals. RESPONSIBILITY
Numerous people are involved throughout the lifetime of animals used for scientific purposes. The supervision, care, health and monitoring of experimental animals should be functions of appropriately trained and experienced veterinarians and laboratory animal specialists. Veterinarians, laboratory animal specialists, researchers and other personnel involved in the design and performance of animal-based experiments should be adequately educated and trained in laboratory animal science care and management, incorporating aspects of ethics, animal well-being and animal alternatives. Animal research facilities must identify those persons and ensure that all people involved in the care of animals understand and accept their role and responsibilities. They also need to ensure that procedures and resources are in place so that all people involved in the care and use of animals can meet their responsibilities. Responsibility extends throughout the period of use approved by the animal ethics committee until provisions are made for the animal at the end of the study.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Jennings, M. and Smith, J. A. (2015) A resource book for lay members of ethical review and similar bodies worldwide, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals UK. Available at: https://science.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494935/9042554/A+resource+book+for+lay+members+of +ethical+review+and+similar+bodies+worldwide+- +third+edition+%282015%29+%28PDF+6.58MB%29.pdf/2007deb5-5095-13fe-add2- 87dd4eba0fd2?t=1552913461515.
National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (no date) The 3Rs. Available at: https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/the-3rs (Accessed: 20 March 2020).
NORECOPA (2020) The Three R’s. Available at: https://norecopa.no/alternatives/the-three-rs (Accessed: 20 March 2020).
South African Bureau of Standards. 2008. SANS 10386: The care and use of animals for scientific purposes. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division
The University of Adelaide (no date) Australian & New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART). Available at: https://anzccart.adelaide.edu.au/ (Accessed: 20 March 2020).
POSITION STATEMENT 7.1
HUNTING AND FISHING The SPCA is opposed to the hunting and fishing of any animal for exhibition, entertainment or sport.
BACKGROUND TO HUNTING WITHIN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT
South Africa is a popular and sought after hunting destination with a variety of species available from plain game species to trophy animals, including diverse habitats and landscapes with a highly developed professional hunting and game ranching industry as service providers. Hunting opportunities in South Africa also include wildlife purposefully bred for captive hunts such as lion and tiger. The latter form of hunting has gained negative publicity in recent years, with domestic and international pressures to end this form of unethical hunting.
The SPCA recognises that certain hunting practices in South Africa can serve as a bona fide conservation tool, provided it meets certain conditions and can be based on accredited scientific and professional proven fact; ranging from having a clear and measurable positive benefit for biodiversity conservation; make meaningful contributions to society, in particular in local communities within hunting areas such as food security, job creation and community development projects; expand, increase and rehabilitate land use suitable for wildlife; recovery and increase protection for threatened species; to overall good management practices of wildlife and the prevention of ecological degradation of habitats and ecosystems.
Even though the SPCA recognises that hunting is entrenched in South Africa as part of sustainable wildlife utilisation, a principle often abused within the wildlife industry or interpreted to suit anthropogenic interests only, the SPCA is also aware of the shortcomings regarding ethical and humane practices within the industry. The hunting industry lacks sufficient regulations, including that the regulation and management of wild animals, in general, follows the traditional and outdated distinction made between animal well-being and biodiversity conservation, instead of incorporating it as intertwined concepts within the bounds of modern societal values and science as stated by the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The reality of the hunting industry does involve the risk of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm caused to animals in the name of sport or human entertainment. The SPCA believes that sport or human entertainment does not justify the causing of suffering to animals and therefore is opposed to hunting for sport, recreation or entertainment purposes.
HUNTING FOR SPORT, RECREATION OR ENTERTAINMENT
Animal well-being concerns relating to hunting for sport, recreation or entertainment purposes include but are not limited to:
Certain captive hunting operations, more specifically illegal canned lion hunting operations confine hand-reared captive bred animals to small camps to be “hunted” with no means of escaping the hunter. Prohibited hunting practices ranging from the use of traps, snaring, poison, luring with the use of sound, drugging to shooting an animal whilst in a capture cage are some of the methods used and holds various animal well-being concerns. Certain traits such as colour variations and hybrids are in high demand and selectively bred for the collector or novelty value, holding possible risks of gene contamination to populations of the same species, including serving no conservation value. With limited resources available, there is a lack of regulation and enforcement efforts to police the industry more efficiently, leading to opportunities of abuse within the system; There is a lack of regulation in terms of who is permitted to hunt. The skill level of hunters is highly variable with amateur hunters being allowed to hunt, including that some hunting operations are not conducted on best practice principles. The SPCA accepts that a “clean kill” may be the intention of hunters shooting for sport, but believes that this does not often happen. Dependant young are left to die or left to fend for themselves due to the risk of parents and/or lactating females hunted without caution or any regard. No guarantees can be given with regards to using the correct firearm, ammunition and shot placement suitable for the target species. Pain, suffering, distress, injuries or lasting harm are highly likely, if not inevitable during some hunting operations, as animals can be chased to the point of exhaustion; killed with methods that do not cause a quick and painless death, including injured and left to die a slow painful death, as animals are wounded during hunting trips, often leading to a lack or eventual halt to pursue the animal further in order to effectively and humanely kill the animal. Animals under distress release adrenaline as a flight or fight response, resulting in a wounded animal trying to escape, only to suffer excruciating pain at a later stage. Green hunting is the practice of tranquilising game with dart guns. The possibility of the animal injuring or killing itself during the period in which the drugs are taking effect is of concern, as the animal cannot effectively be moved away from danger. The position in which the animal goes down can also cause injury, damage to the internal organs and even death. The threat of injury or death is therefore significant and deemed an unethical practice by the South African Veterinary Council (SAVC) since 2010. The SAVC is of the opinion that scheduled medicines may not be used for recreational purposes or to create potential commercial activities whereby animals are unnecessarily stressed. Concerns relating to the illegal hunting with dogs include but are not limited to the injuries inflicted upon target animals that escape; the spread of diseases; how the target animals are killed; and stress myopathy. Dogs are also at risk to sustain injuries and often not provided with the necessary medical treatment. As a motivator, dogs are often starved for days before the hunting event. It is a direct contravention of the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962 to hunt with dogs unless permitted by provincial nature conservation authorities under certain permit conditions such as to track or flush out a wounded animal.
BACKGROUND TO FISHING
Various fishing methods exist to catch fish species which includes hand gathering, spearfishing, netting, angling and trapping. In addition, recreational, commercial and artisanal fishing operations also use different techniques. The difference between these three groups stems from the use of the fish species caught. The recreational fisherman would fish for pleasure or sport; commercial fisheries as the name suggest is aimed at profit; whereas artisanal fisherman would fish for subsistence purposes. Recreational fishing includes any fishing that is not done for the production of food and purely for the enjoyment of the sport of catching fish.
It has been proven that fish can experience pain, which is based on scientific experiments measuring the behaviour and reaction of fish when exposed to pain and analgesics. Fish are therefore considered as sentient beings. The fact that fish species can experience pain remains an unfamiliar reality to industry and public members, resulting in the continuous use of inhumane fishing tackle equipment to inhumane capture, handling and slaughter methods with limited consideration to the well-being of these animals. The SPCA is opposed to any degree of pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm caused to any animal in the name of sport or for human entertainment. The SPCA believes that sport or human entertainment does not justify the causing of suffering to animals and therefore is opposed to fishing for sport, recreation or entertainment purposes.
FISHING FOR SPORT, RECREATION OR ENTERTAINMENT
Animal well-being concerns relating to fishing for sport, recreation or entertainment purposes include but are not limited to:
Stressors for fish can be influenced by several factors such as the duration of the angling event, the temperature of the water at the time of the angling event, length of air exposure and handling. When a fish is exposed to the actions and impacts brought on from a fishing event, a fish may experience a suite of physiological alterations that require an extended period for recovery. The use of tackle and the fishing event itself exerts a lot of physical strain on fish, including causing sub-lethal physiological, behavioural and fitness impairments which can affect their survival when released. The effects and impacts of the actual fishing event may include but are not limited to stress; impaired respiration; impaired vision; impaired reproduction ability; impaired ability to acquire and consume food; impaired ability to socially interact with species of the same kind; infection; oesophagitis; gastritis; hepatitis; vulnerability to predation; forced displacement from territory; damaged cardiorespiratory systems; suppressed immune systems; impaired growth; reduced fitness and survival rates. Fish may experience barotrauma when brought to the surface too quickly. Barotrauma refers to injuries caused by increased air or water pressure and can be a very painful experience for fish. Certain tag and release methods have shown to be a proven conservation tool but can affect the behaviour of tagged fish by compromising bodily functions and the ability to carry out normal behaviours due to tag interference. Use of certain fishing gear or tackle may cause physical and sub-lethal injuries, such as hooks which depending on anatomical location can cause tissue damage. Scale loss, mucous loss and fin fraying are caused by the abrasions of netting in landing nets, which can lead to opportunistic infections and mortality. Gaffs of various sizes are used for offshore rocky areas and boat fishing to land fish. Fishermen make use of live bait which is illegal and a direct contravention of the Animals Protection Act No.71 of 1962. Inhumane slaughtering methods used to kill fish is a common practice, such as asphyxiation by leaving fish out of the water or by beating the animal repeatedly against the ground or rocks. Humane killing of fish requires that the fish should be stunned, i.e. rendered instantaneously insensible before being bled out. Fish should remain in the water prior to stunning of which two methods can be used to stun fish by hand which includes percussive stunning and spiking (pithing). Percussive stunning involves a forceful and accurate blow to the head with an appropriate instrument just above the eyes to impact the brain. Spiking involves drilling a sharp spike into the brain of the fish and moving it side to side to destroy the brain. Both methods should be followed with a bleed out by cutting the gill rakes or the main artery in larger fish.
It is clear that the majority of the injuries and stressors caused to fish through the action of recreational angling are predominantly attributed to the gear, angling practices and techniques used. The SPCA encourages more ethical research into the impacts of recreational fishing to contribute towards identifying strategies that anglers may adopt to minimise these effects such as the type of hook, bait or nets used, including angling practices such as the duration of the fight; air exposure; fishing during extreme environmental conditions, to fishing during reproductive periods; etc.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Bothma, J. du. P. (2002) ‘Game Ranch Management – 4th ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers’, reference work on wildlife management in South Africa, pp.480-511. (Accessed: September 2018)
Endangered Wildlife Trust (2015) Endangered Wildlife Trust Perspective on Trophy Hunting. Available at: https://www.ewt.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EWT-Perspective-on-Trophy-Hunting-May- 2015.pdf.
RSPCA Australia (2019) Is recreational hunting humane? Available at: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/is-recreational-hunting-humane/ (Accessed: 18 July 2019).
Stiglingh, P. (2017) ‘Welfare evaluation of freshwater-and-marine fish species with regards to tag- and-release fishing methods’, Discussion of welfare of fish in tag-and-release as well as recreational fishing as a requirement of the NSPCA, pp.24-37. (Accessed: September 2018).
Cooke, S., Sneddon, L. (2007) ‘Animal Welfare Perspectives on Recreational Angling’, Liverpool: The Humane Institute for Science and Policy Animal Studies Repository, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 104(3), 176-198. pp.24-37. (Accessed: 19 September 2018)
Dafny, N. (n.d.) ‘Chapter 6: Pain Principles’, Neuroscience Online, Electronic textbook for the neurosciences, https://nba.uth.tmc.edu/neuroscience/s2/chapter06.html [Accessed 20 Sep. 2018].
Sneddon, L.U. (2003) ‘The Evidence for Pain in Fish: The Use of Morphine as an Analgesic’, Liverpool: The Humane Institute for Science and Policy Animal Studies Repository, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 83(2), 153-162. pp 1-10 (Accessed September 2018)
POSITION STATEMENT 7.2
SPORTING DISCIPLINES The SPCA is opposed to the use of any animal in a sport which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, whether during training, the performance or otherwise.
ANIMAL WELL-BEING CONCERNS RELATING TO SPORTING DISCIPLINES
The use of animals in sporting events is generally for the benefit of people with little or no benefit to the animals involved. Various sectors with associated events exist such as horse racing, pigeon racing, show jumping, dog breed shows, dressage, polo, etc. Various animal well-being concerns are associated not only with the actual event but also with pre-training and post-treatments including but are not limited to:
CONCERNS RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF ANIMALS
The use of unacceptable methods of transporting animals such as not providing non-slip flooring, not providing protection against all weather conditions to vehicles not being roadworthy; Travelling long distances without rest; Not feeding and watering animals during trips; Overheating of transportation vehicles; and Long periods of confinement.
CONCERNS RELATING TO THE TRAINING OF ANIMALS
Training animals in extreme weather conditions; Excessive training of young animals that are prone to injuries when forced to do activities for which their normal physiological development has not been reached; Exposing animals to immediate attack or inciting animals to attack such as pigeons attacked by predators; rabbits used as lures; etc.; Depriving animals of food and water; and The use of inhumane tack and equipment such as pinch collars; weight on collars; weights on hooves of horses; cruel bits; beating animals to teasing animals to attack.
HEALTH CONCERNS OR INJURIES
Injuries are sustained either prior to or during the event; Animals are then forced to compete with these pre-existing injures or injuries that occur during the event; Animals are forced to compete with existing health issues such as metabolic disorders, lameness to old injuries;
Competitors not adhering to professional veterinary instructions for post-treatments, compromising the well-being of the animal used; and Competitors failing to indicate old injuries or health concerns of animals to organisers in order for the animal to compete.
HOUSING OF ANIMALS BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER EVENTS
Unsuitable living conditions that do not provide for the physical and behavioural needs of the animals concerned; Highly social animals kept isolated during events which may compromise their well-being; and Inadequate housing of animals during events such as leaving animals in trailers or transportation crates for long periods of time, whilst exposed to heat and insufficient ventilation.
MEDICAL PROCEDURES AND INAPPROPRIATE USE OF DRUGS
In order to enhance an animals’ performance, competitors may use performance- enhancing substances such as steroids, caffeine and pain blockers; Drugs are used to mask pain and to hide any underlying ailments or injuries; and Subjecting animals to unnecessary medical procedures to enhance the performance such as tail myopathies in horses. (Please refer to Statement of Policy 3.10 – Physical Alterations).
COMPETITION EVENTS
Animals are forced to jump over inappropriately large and dangerous obstacles which may cause injuries; Reckless tactics and techniques which places the animals at risk; Animals must compete in harsh terrains which lead to injuries; Inexperienced riders competing with animals; Inexperienced handlers handling animals; Inadequacy or lack of rules to protect the animals; and Lack of monitoring during the event.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
America Veterinary Medical Association. Soring in horses. Available at: https://www.avma.org/.../Documents/soring_in_horses_factsheet.pdf (Accessed: 19 June 2018)
People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals. Horse racing Industry Cruelty. Available at: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/horse-racing-2/ (Accessed: 19 June 2018)
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2014) RSPCA Policies on Animal Welfare. Available at: file:///C:/Users/admin2/Downloads/SP03 RSPCA POLICIES WEB (2014) (2).pdf (Accessed: 19 June 2018).
University of Guelph. Racing can be fatal to horses. Science Daily. Available at: Http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180504103745.htm (Accessed 19 June, 2018). POSITION STATEMENT 7.3
ANIMAL RACING The SPCA is opposed to animal racing in any form.
THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN RACING
Animal racing as a sport is a multi-million rand industry. The competitive nature of the sport and the mass turnover of animals is extremely detrimental to the well-being of the animals. The greatest concerns are usually evident before or after a race and occur away from the public view.
Although dog racing is illegal, horse racing and pigeon racing are currently legal in South Africa. Large numbers of animals are purpose-bred, kept and trained for this industry, but only a very small percentage of animals are successful, and racing careers are short. This results in the often unacceptable disposal of large numbers of unsuited, non-competitive, injured or aged animals.
Typical animal well-being concerns include the excessive breeding of animals, inhumane training methods, inhumane handling, excessive use of the animals, doping and other forms of cheating which impact negatively on the well-being of the animals, housing and management practices that do not meet the physical and behavioural needs of the animals, unsuitable transportation and inhumane and/or unethical disposal methods.
HORSE RACING
Horses are used in many types of racing over a variety of tracks, distances and obstacles. The three main types of races are flat racing, harness racing, and steeplechase. Horses are bred specifically for this sport and are highly valuable animals. A common misconception is that because the horses are expensive animals and may look magnificent on the day of the race that they are well cared for.
WHY IS IT CONSIDERED INHUMANE AND A CRUEL PRACTICE
Breeding and Disposal – horses are bred specifically to fuel this gambling industry. Competition is intense and only a small percentage of animals are successful. Non-viable or injured animals may occasionally be used for breeding if they have proved their worth on the track. Horses that are no longer viable to compete may be disposed of inhumanely or sold/given to unsuitable facilities and may end their days pulling a cart or being used for an equally unsuitable purpose; Housing Methods – the horses spend the majority of their racing lives in stables where they cannot express natural behaviour. Management and Training - using horses when too young, including inhumane methods of training such as the use of a whip and other severe equipment and tack causes compromised animal well-being. Bush Racing – horses who are not successful for mainstream racing may be sold off to be used for bush racing. The level of care, skills of riders and trainers; and track conditions are highly questionable and likely to cause harm to the horses. Injuries and Drugs – The most common injuries sustained by racehorses are bone fractures, with other catastrophic injuries not being uncommon. The use of performance-enhancing drugs, despite legislative controls, still exists and contributes to compromised animal well-being. DOG RACING
Dog racing, regardless if there is betting involved or not, is illegal in South Africa in terms of various Ordinances, i.e. Ordinance 4 of 1949: Abolition of Dog Race Meetings and the Prohibition of Betting on Dog Races (Transvaal); Ordinance 11 of 1986: Prohibition of Dog Races (Cape Province); Ordinance 23 of 1985: Prohibition of Dog Race Meetings Ordinance (Natal); and Ordinance 11 of 1976: Dog Race Meetings (Orange Free State)] which are enforced by the South African Police Services. Greyhounds and other sighthounds are the most commonly used dogs for racing. Greyhounds love to run, but those who are kept for the illegal racing industry spend most of their lives in cages, only allowed to run when training or racing.
WHY IS IT CONSIDERED INHUMANE AND A CRUEL PRACTICE
Breeding and Disposal – the collective small percentage of winners and the high percentage of dogs not making the grade or becoming injured, results in ongoing breeding of animals to fuel the industries. A greyhound bitch can have two litters per year with as many as 12 puppies per litter. But it is estimated that over 50% of greyhounds are disposed of before they reach the tracks. Non-viable or injured animals may occasionally be used for breeding if they have proved their worth or others may be killed using inhumane methods (clubbing, drowning, etc.). Others, even those with serious injuries may be sold for bush racing or poaching purposes. The average lifespan of a pet dog is between 10 to 15 years. The retirement age of racing greyhounds is typically between three to five years for those dogs who are successful and remain uninjured. Housing Methods – these athletes do not get luxury time off. When not training, they are confined, often alone and they are not able to undertake the behaviours and social structures normal to their species. Housing facilities and management are often substandard. Training Methods – are undertaken out of the public eye and are cause for grave concern. The use of cruel training methods is widely documented, including the use of drugs and live bait such as kittens, rabbits and hares which are ripped apart to encourage the dogs to be keen to race. The use of live animals in training is denied, but undercover investigations reveal damning footage and evidence. Hunting and Poaching - Greyhounds are commonly used for racing, hunting and coursing. Coursing is legal in some countries. It is a sport that involves releasing a live hare into an enclosure, followed by releasing two greyhounds into the same area. Whichever dog puts up the best chase and/or kills the hare, is the winner. The hare is terrorised and often tortured by mauling before being killed. Greyhounds feature predominantly in the local documented cases of poaching and hunting in South Africa. Bush Racing – when not competing, dogs may be used for bush racing, hunting or poaching of farm animals and wildlife. Injuries – racing greyhounds are also prone to injuries. GREY2K USA, a greyhound welfare organisation, undertook a study from just two USA tracks and reported that the most common injuries were broken back legs, fractures and dislocation. Greyhounds are also subject to many other injuries. Doping – the use of performance-enhancing drugs and doping scandals are a commonplace in the world of dog racing and cause enormous harm to the dogs. Due to the physiology of greyhounds, they can be hypersensitive to chemicals and these can cause lasting harm to the greyhound even including side effects such as seizures, strokes and death. Doping can also mask the pain from injuries, meaning unsound or unfit dogs may be raced.
PIGEON RACING
South Africa is the home to the richest one-loft race in the world, namely the Million Dollar Pigeon Race. The Million Dollar Pigeon Race pits birds from various countries against each other for a share of US$1.8million in prize money. The runner-up’s win cars and smaller monetary prizes, while the overall winner can expect to pocket US$200,000. Birds from across the world are air-freighted to South Africa as squabs, months before the race, and trained to orient themselves to a single loft. On the final day of the race, thousands of pigeons are released and have to fly back to the homing loft at the same destination. Only the first 300 birds that arrive within a given time, as decided by the event organisers, receive prizes. Pigeons that competed in the Million Dollar Pigeon Race are auctioned off after the race and only the first 50 birds that performed are presented to bidders.
WHY IS IT CONSIDERED INHUMANE AND A CRUEL PRACTICE
Racing pigeons are born, raised and maintained in a loft environment, whereas the racing element of the sport involves the liberation of these animals in unfamiliar territories, often facing various challenges to survive a race and to return to their loft. It is known that some pigeon fanciers will race nesting pigeons (using one parent), used as a motivational technique for the pigeon to return back to the nest. Racing competitions place high physical demands on pigeons as certain races are held over excessive distances, in adverse weather conditions or over unsuitable terrain. In order to be able to cope with races, pigeons need to receive adequate physical training, proper nutrition and be in excellent body condition prior to the race commencing. The use of physically unfit or unhealthy pigeons for racing is not uncommon. It is well known that not all of the pigeons that are liberated during a race return to their loft. It is believed that non-returning racing pigeons are affected by factors such as either going off course, being affected by inclement weather conditions, falling prey to predators, dying of thirst or hunger, or are killed by farmers. No official studies have been done to account for the high number of birds that do not return, but it is believed to be a contributing factor to the invasive feral pigeon flocks in cities across the country. There is a biosecurity risk associated with racing pigeons in relation to the spread of infectious bird diseases. Racing pigeons travel large distances and may contract and/or carry diseases from one geographical region to another. Issues of overcrowding and housing management practises are of concern. Codes of practice for the keeping and racing of pigeons do not currently exist, however, the well-being of pigeons are monitored by the NSPCA in terms of the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962. The South African National Pigeon Organisation (SANPO) regulates many of the pigeon fanciers but there are just as many who do not associate with SANPO. These lofts are scattered all over the country. Top racing pigeons are valuable for breeding purposes in terms of performance and speed. This results in the animal used solely for breeding and disregard for the animals’ other behavioural needs.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Four Corners (2015) Greyhound racing: Piglets, possums and rabbits used as live bait in secret training sessions, Four Corners reveals. Available at: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/live- baiting-expose-to-rock-greyhound-industry/6109878 (Accessed: 1 April 2020).
The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (2007) The welfare of greyhounds Report of the APGAW inquiry into the welfare issues surrounding racing greyhounds in England. Available at: http://www.apgaw.org/Data/Sites/1/pdfs/Report-of-APGAW-Inquiry-into-the-Welfare-of- Greyhounds.pdf.
Estberg L, Gardner IA, Stover SM, Johnson BJ.(1998) A case-crossover study of intensive racing and training schedules and risk of catastrophic musculoskeletal injury and lay-up in California thoroughbred racehorses. Prev Vet Med. 1998 Jan; 33(1-4):159-70.
GREY2K USA (2005) INJURIES IN RACING GREYHOUNDS A Report to the Massachusetts General Court. Available at: https://www.grey2kusa.org/pdf/injuryreport.pdf
Hood J, McDonald C, Wilson B, McGreevy P (2017) Whip Rule Breaches in a Major Australian Racing Jurisdiction: Welfare and Regulatory Implications. Animals 2017, 7(1), 4; doi: 10.3390/ani7010004
Heleski C R, Anthony R (2012) Science alone is not always enough: The importance of ethical assessment for a more comprehensive view of equine welfare. Journal. Volume 7, Issue 3, May–June 2012, Pages 169-178
Lisandro Muñoz A, M.Sc., Felipe Ainardi C, MV, Christian Rehhof V, MV, Jaime Cruces L, MV, Reinaldo Ortiz R, MV, Mario Briones L (2014). Prevalence of stereotypies in thoroughbred race horses at Club Hípico Concepción, Chile Print version ISSN 0122-0268 Rev.MVZCordoba vol.19 no.3 Córdoba Sept. /Dec. 2014
McHugh M, AC QC (2016) © State of NSW through the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Greyhound Racing Industry in New South Wales. Volume 3 ISBN 978-1-922257-39-0
Toshiyuki TAKAHASHI T (2015) The effect of age on the racing speed of Thoroughbred racehorses. Journal of Equine Science. 2015; 26(2): 43–48.Published online 2015 Jul 2. doi: 10.1294/jes.26.43 PMCID: PMC4496421.PMID: 26170760
POSITION STATEMENT 7.4
ANIMAL FIGHTING The SPCA is opposed to the use of animals in any form of fighting, whether against man or animal.
THE PRACTICE OF ANIMAL FIGHTING
Animal fighting in all its forms is against the law in South Africa and can result in severe penalties and imprisonment. Animal fighting incorporates many blood sports which include animal on animal contests as well as animal on human contests. Animal fighting is conducted for human entertainment and gambling purposes.
Examples of animal fights include:
Dogfighting in South Africa is an organised crime where a dog, typically an American Pit Bull Terrier, is made to fight another similar dog. These fights are premeditated and can continue for hours at a time. The fights follow strict rules and traditions and are usually conducted for entertainment and gambling purposes. The dogs are severely injured in the fights and many bouts continue until one of the dogs is so severely injured that it cannot continue or dies.
Rooster fighting also known as cockfighting is an organised crime where male chickens are made to fight for entertainment and gambling purposes. Knives or spikes known as gaffs are often tied to the chicken’s legs in place of their spurs to increase the injury and bloodshed during the fight. Similar to dogfighting there are rules and traditions that are followed and the chickens commonly die during the fight.
Wild fights involve organised fights between a dog and a wild animal. Where a dog or multiple dogs are set on an aggressive wild animal such as a leopard, baboon or a wild boar in a contest of strength. Bets are often placed on the outcome of these fights.
Horse fighting is a traditional activity mostly practised in Asia where two stallions are placed in a ring with an in-season mare and made to fight. The horses are often badly injured or killed.
Bullfighting is a traditional entertainment which has many forms but is most commonly known for the Spanish form where a man known as a matador/Torero baits and infuriates a large bull whilst his assistants injure the animal with lances and barbed sticks. The contest is highly ritualised and has three parts ultimately ending in the death of the bull by a sword stroke.
WHY IS IT CONSIDERED INHUMANE AND A CRUEL PRACTICE
All forms of animal fighting are illegal in South Africa and carry severe penalties including imprisonment.
In all forms of animal fighting the animals are severely injured and often die during the contest or shortly afterwards. Death is not instantaneous as the entertainment involves watching the animal’s suffering.
Animals which do survive the fight often receive very little or unprofessional treatment for their wounds, as the illegal nature of the fights prevents participants from using registered veterinarians. As a result poorly healed injuries cause long term suffering and chronic pain.
The cruelty is not limited to the fight itself. Animals are often purpose-bred for fighting purposes and live out their lives in substandard conditions with minimal care. Dogs and fighting chickens are usually highly aggressive animals and are therefore kept chained or caged for their entire lives.
Animal fighting not only affects the animals themselves but has a devastating effect on communities and particularly the youth as it encourages and desensitises the participants to violence. Numerous studies have shown the link between premeditated animal cruelty and future or concurrent violence towards people.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Ascione, F. (2001, September). Animal Abuse and Youth Violence. OJJDP: Juvenile Justice Bulletin, pp. 1-15.
Brantley, A. C. (1996). An FBI Perspective on Animal Cruelty. (R. Lockwood, & A. W. Church, Interviewers)
Christiansen, S., Dantzler, F., Goodwin, J., Johnson, K., Paulhus, M., & Sakach, E. (2008). THE FINAL ROUND A Law Enforcement Primer For the INVESTIGATION of COCKFIGHTING and DOGFIGHTING. The Humane Society of the United States.
Donald E. Worcester; Encyclopedia of Bullfighting, Wine, Women & Toros. The Fiesta de Toros in the Culture of Spain. Hispanic American Historical Review 1 November 1962; 42 (4): 612–613. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182168-42.4.612a
Hodges, C. (2008). The Link: Cruelty to Animals and Violence Towards People. Animal Legal & Historical Center, pp. 1-13.
Smith, E. K. (2014, March 11). Stallions fight to the death in illegal horse-fighting bout as Philippine villagers refuse to abandon tradition that was banned in 1998 . Retrieved from dailymail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578460/Stallions-fight-death-illegal-horse-fighting- bout-Philippine-villagers-refuse-abandon-tradition-banned-1998.html
Willson, W. (2017). Animal Cruelty and Law Enforcement Challenges in Southern Africa. In R. Ebert, Africa and Her Animals. UNISA.
POSITION STATEMENT 7.5
ANIMALS USED IN MEDIA The SPCA opposes the portrayal of any action depicting or suggesting irresponsible or harmful behaviour towards animals in any form of media.
CONCERNS RELATING TO THE USE OF ANIMALS IN PERFORMANCE AND MEDIA
Media is a communication outlet or tool used to reach a large audience base and includes print media, photography, cinema, broadcasting by radio and television, social media platforms and any form of advertising. Such media tools may not only include animals but may involve the portrayal of situations involving or affecting animals.
The primary concern is whether an animal was harmed or not. The SPCA believes that any portrayal or any action depicting or suggesting irresponsible or harmful behaviour towards animals has significant consequences even if no live animal is involved. The language used when referring to animals informs our thoughts and perceptions, which in turn influence our actions. Since society is increasingly recognising the moral and ethical responsibility humans have towards animals, including their humane treatment, media that portrays, depicts or suggests irresponsible or harmful behaviour towards animals not only threatens the values and morals of society but has with far wider and deeper consequences. It may manifest in low empathy, callous disregard and disrespect towards animals by members of the public, and result in social acceptability for certain acts which negatively impacts upon animal well- being. When an animal is depicted as unworthy of compassion or respect, it sends a message to the viewer that an animal’s sentience is irrelevant and begins to desensitise the viewer to acts of cruelty which then impacts the way that society treats animals and in turn people too. It promotes and exploits animal cruelty, whilst decreasing the humane treatment, respect and compassion for all animals.
Examples include but are not limited to:
The unnecessary consumption of live animals by humans depicted on television programmes such as stunt/dare game shows that includes mental challenges for contestants to eat various types of animals whilst still alive. Some reality competition television programmes themed towards surviving various challenges, usually in remote locations, also feature unnecessary consumption of live animals and portray these acts as an acceptable form of human entertainment. Social media plays a dominant role in people’s everyday lives and has become one of the primary sources for news and entertainment. This results in exposure to inappropriate material that can lead to people mimicking illegal or cruel actions. For instance, some users will post videos of them inflicting harm on animals in various ways, such as wrestling cattle or torturing a rat for eating groceries in seek of attention. Television programming, movies and internet platforms such as YouTube depicting acts of wild animals kept as pets are one of the contributing factors fuelling the legal and illegal trade chains, thus minimising conservation efforts and threatens biodiversity by creating a fad to own a wild animal or justifying it as acceptable. As a result, wild animals kept as pets often become a nuisance or a problem for owners, resulting in the unfair abandonment of the animal.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals UK (no date) Social media and animal welfare. Available at: education.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494931/0/SOCIAL+MEDIA+AND+ANIMAL+WELFARE+%28Engla nd+GD+2020+Subject+Briefing%29.pdf/1dbdc4ee-c829-fb76-fbe9-49c0eb4f677e?t=1575036217184 (Accessed: 31 March 2020).
POSITION STATEMENT 8.1
WILDLIFE FARMING PRACTICES / SYSTEMS The SPCA is opposed to all forms of wildlife farming, farming systems and animal husbandry practices which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
BACKGROUND TO FARMING PRACTICES OF WILDLIFE
Wildlife farming, game farming and wildlife ranching refer to the management of wildlife on private land for commercial purposes. These terms are used interchangeably within the industry, though the industry actually consists of various wildlife enterprises with properties actively involved in either one operation or made up of mix operations. Activities may include farming with wildlife alongside livestock and crop farming; trophy hunting; biltong hunting; intensive breeding of high-value species and colour morphs; breeding for live sales and auctions; and farming for parts and products for commercial and trade purposes such as hides, skins, bones, horns, curios and meat. The industry also includes non-consumptive activities such as ecotourism which involves the responsible travel to natural areas that conserves, ideally develops awareness and results in minimal impact on the environment.
There are conflicting views between the wildlife ranching and conservation industry regarding the impact on biodiversity conservation in South Africa. On the one hand it is generally argued that wildlife ranching does not conserve biodiversity to the same extent as national parks and formally protected areas, but does provide habitats and ecosystems to a range of species that is closer to what is considered natural compared to standard agricultural practices, even for the contradictory extra-limital species, thus contributing to biodiversity overall. On the other hand some wildlife ranching activities are highly intensified due to the breeding of high-value species and colour morphs, including the farming for parts, products and meat for commercial and trade purposes which are regarded to be of no conservation value.
Due to the complexities and various enterprises found within the South African wildlife ranching sector, this position statement is predominantly geared towards the breeding and farming of wildlife in intensive systems and not privately owned land categorised as extensive systems that contribute towards conservation targets, ecosystem services and socio-economic growth. Wildlife kept in intensive systems generally involves the confinement of wild species in small to medium-sized camps or enclosures, protected from predators and provided with most of or all of their food, water and veterinary requirements. Most behavioural and ecological characteristics are unnatural and controlled by the owner. Populations are not self-sustaining in the short term, meaning mortality rates would be high without human intervention and may have a relatively low chance of survival if released back into the wild. The purpose of these systems is to produce superior animals for live game sales and auctions or for the direct private sale of colour morphs and trophy hunting animals where breeding may be manipulated to select animals for desirable traits such as horn length and large body size. It also includes farms and captive wildlife facilities for the production of parts, products and meat for commercial and trade purposes. Sable, Roan, and nyala antelope species; colour morphs such as the golden wildebeest, black and white impala, black and white springbok, white blesbok and golden oryx; and other wildlife species such as crocodiles, emu, ostriches, rhinoceroses and large carnivores such as lions are some of the wild animals that are currently being bred and produced in intensive farming systems.
The SPCA is of the opinion that the latter form of wildlife ranching and farming holds no true conservation value. Farming of wildlife without accredited scientific proof in contributing towards protecting wild populations and habitats, including not contributing towards biodiversity conservation is not regarded as conservation. Even under claims where farming of wildlife, primary for commercial gain, has a secondary purpose such as to release wildlife back into the wild as a conservation tool or
to minimise demand pressures on wild populations from complex trade markets is highly questionable from an animal well-being and conservation perspective. The SPCA believes that the farming of wildlife has serious animal well-being and ethical implications and requires those who farm wild animals to consider and foster the animals’ well-being, and to incorporate ethical measures into their farming methods and procedures.
CONCERNS RELATING TO FARMING PRACTICES OF WILDLIFE
Wild animals are not domesticated, but currently being farmed under a similar concept compared to domesticated livestock, an industry of which the use and abuse of animals raised for food and products far exceed, in sheer numbers of animals affected, any other kind of mistreatment. Depending on the species and circumstances, stress, nervous tension and stereotypical behavioural related problems from unnatural wildlife farming practices is known. The physical, physiological and psychological needs of wild animals cannot be catered for in captive environments.
Intensive farming of wildlife involves requiring higher levels of a specific product or live animal in relation to the space used. Intensive breeding and farming results in the keeping of wild animals in inadequate and unsuitable holding facilities or camps. Confined conditions lead to numerous animal well-being concerns which include but are not limited to injury; underweight body conditions while the more dominant animals are overweight; increased disease risks; exposure to unhygienic conditions; lack of veterinary care; lack of enrichment; insufficient shelter from the elements; and overcrowding.
Intensive selective breeding and genetic manipulations are based on human preferences for traits rather than natural selection and therefore distorts the natural processes of evolution. Animals kept in fenced breeding camps are isolated and protected from predators and over multiple generations may lose their ability to react appropriately to predators. These animals are also under high veterinary care against diseases and may lose their natural immunity, including being provided with adequate food and water thus surviving drought periods as opposed to natural pressures. Collectively, these factors increase the chances of inherently weaker individuals reproducing and passing on genes that ultimately undermines the survival of the fittest paradigm.
Colour morphs and other high-value species are afforded protection from predators. This further places pressure on free-roaming predators within the vicinity of breeding and holding camps due to the risks associated with predation. Not only is the persecution of predators often targeted towards the wrongful culprits, the methods employed to control predators are often based on cruel and inhumane measures such as the use of gin traps or poisons which affects both target and non-target species. This form of private property protection remains a highly questionable form of wildlife exploitation from a conservation, animal well-being and ethical perspective as it undermines the conservation efforts of threatened and protected species such as cheetah, African wild dogs and leopards in order to protect private property that is regarded to hold no conservation value.
Selective breeding and genetic manipulations may hold a direct threat to biodiversity by risking the survival of indigenous species via genetic pollution and reduced genetic diversity that negatively affects individual fitness, health, survival and future adaptability due to the risks of weakened resilience or reduced adaptive capacity to environmental changes, health hazards, ecosystem transformations, or the effects of climate change. Relatively small receiving populations or threatened species could be more vulnerable compared to larger or genetically more diverse populations. The biggest problem is inbreeding to obtain the required traits which results in the outcome of deleterious genes such as skew horns, immune problems, smaller body sizes and other physical defects. Thermoregulatory stressors, deformed and under-developed horns, cancers, melanomas and cataracts especially in white varieties are other known health issues for colour morphs.
The intensive breeding and farming of wildlife which involves a high density of small camps and electric fences is regarded as an irresponsible form of land use, especially when one of the biggest threats species face today involves habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. Instead of increasing suitable habitat for wildlife, intensive breeding leads to a loss in landscape connectivity, habitat deterioration and a decrease in biodiversity conservation. The management of various habitats and its associated inhabitants are crucial to maintaining balanced ecological processes. Mismanagement and lack thereof, including negligence in the management of natural areas can lead to negative impacts both from a conservation and animal well-being perspective. Nature conservation entails the preservation of the natural environment and sustainable use of South Africa’s natural resources, whereas animal well-being in general is not only just about whether or not an animal can experience pain or not, but involves the state and attempts of an animal to cope with its environment under captive or wild conditions. Animal well-being and conservation are thus regarded as intertwined concepts as recognised by the Constitutional Court of South Africa since 2017.
Certain wildlife farming enterprises involve cruel practices such as inhumane slaughter methods. Lion bone was initially exported as a secondary or by-product of the captive lion hunting industry, but in recent years it is being traded as a primary product involving the use of inhumane slaughtering methods of captive lions due to a lack of regulations. For captive lion hunting, the lion has to at least be in an acceptable condition, but for bone production this is not required and results in compromised animal well-being. Certain methods used to slaughter captive lions for bone export purposes are unacceptable such as shooting the animal through the ear or eye with .22 soft nose bullet to prevent damage to the skull.
Other forms of wildlife farming may result in lasting harm caused to an animal such as rhino dehorning which involves the cutting or removal of the horn above the active growth point. If done incorrectly, i.e. cutting into the sinus cavity, consequently leaves the rhino prone to constant infection and causes an immense amount of pain. Even though this is not a regular practice it has been known to occur. There is also the risk of repeated exposure to chemical immobilization during rhino dehorning, as chemical immobilization involves a range of risks such as disrupting normal breathing, thermoregulation and the possible risk of injury before the drugs take effect.
Wildlife farming also involves the abuse and manipulation of the reproductive strategies of certain species such as with captive lions. Cubs are removed from their mothers to increase oestrus cycles and birth rates of cubs used for commercial wildlife interaction purposes, but once these animals become too big or dangerous, they end up as part of other commercial activities within the captive lion industry such as for breeding purposes, exhibition, captive hunting or form part of the lion bone trade.
Various species are purposefully bred and farmed for hunting practices. Leading hunting organisations both domestically and internationally are opposed to the intentional genetic manipulation and intensive breeding of colour morphs and enlarge horns for the hunting industry, including for captive hunts such as lion.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Endangered Wildlife Trust (2016) Endangered Wildlife Trust Perspective on the intensive breeding of wildlife species with particular reference to selective breeding for colour variance. Available at: https://www.ewt.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EWT-Perspective-on-Wildlife-Intensive- Breeding-and-Colour-Variation-March-2016.pdf.
SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association (2019) 2nd National stakeholder engagement workshop on the intensive and selective breeding. Available at: http://www.sahunters.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=313:hunting-body- calls-for-regulation-of-intensive-commercial-game-breeding-practices-&catid=87:press- release&Itemid=288 (Accessed: 13 September 2019).
Taylor, A. et al. (2016) An assessment of the economic, social and conservation value of the wildlife ranching industry and its potential to support the green economy in South Africa. POSITION STATEMENT 8.2
HYBRIDS AND COLOUR MORPHS The SPCA is opposed to the hybridisation, propagation of colour morphs and crossing of wild with domesticated animals.
BACKGROUND TO HYBRIDS AND COLOUR MORPHS
Both hybridisation and the existence of colour morphs or variants do occur naturally within wild populations. The difference being that hybrids are formed when different species interbreed, resulting in the combination of genetic material from previously isolated gene pools, i.e. the mating between different species or subspecies of genetically distinct populations. Whereas, genes responsible for rare colour morphs in various wildlife species are generally recessive in nature but is expressed infrequently in naturally occurring populations. Colour morphs occur at low frequencies in nature and are not classified as separate species.
Unnatural, human-induced forms of hybridisation and colour morphs are done for commercial profit only. Hybridisation is conducted as a marketing tool to lure in more tourists to captive wildlife facilities and zoos; whilst colour morphs, which involves the selective breeding of individuals with unique pelage colours or patterns to ensure that the rare coat colour is expressed in the offspring, is based on a wildlife ranching system of intentional genetic manipulation to supply private collectors; hunting enterprises; and for purposes of trade such as live and online game auctions. The breeding of wild with domesticated animals, which results in a wild-domestic hybrid, has also become a commercial activity in order to create companion animals sold for their unique specific physical features and value as a status symbol.
Examples of hybrids and/or wild-domestic hybrids include but are not limited to tigons (female lion bred with male tiger); liger (male lion bred with female tiger); zonkey (male zebra crossed with female donkey); zorse (mix between a horse and a zebra); cama (mix between a camel and a llama); savannah cat (mix between a domestic cat and a serval); and a wolfdog (mix between a wolf and a domestic dog). Animals selectively bred as colour morphs include but are not limited to the golden wildebeest; black and white impala; black and white springbok; white blesbok; golden oryx; white lion; and the king cheetah.
CONCERNS AND RISKS RELATING TO HYBRIDS AND COLOUR MORPHS
Wild-domestic hybrids bred as companion animals are at risk of ending up in sanctuaries or shelters as the behaviour, ease of care and the suitability as a companion animal is hardly taken into account once the animal is purchased, which further contributes to the unwanted companion animal problem. Wild-domestic hybrids are unpredictable in terms of behaviour and temperament, resulting in behavioural problems such as aggression. The diet of commercial pet food might not adequately meet the needs of wild-domestic hybrids. Seeing as the physical appearance of wild-domestic hybrids is the focus point, selective breeding does result in genetic problems such as deformities.
The selective breeding of colour morphs is generally conducted in intensive systems of smaller carefully controlled fenced camps and under controlled conditions compared to more natural areas of free-roaming wildlife. These camps are often too small to sustain the animals naturally and human intervention such as the provision of food, water and nutritional supplements, including predator and parasite control is required in order for the animals to survive. This form of intensive farming of wildlife is completely unnatural. It is also an irresponsible form of land use, especially when the biggest threat species face today involves habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. Instead of increasing suitable habitat for wildlife, intensive breeding of colour morphs within camps leads to habitat deterioration and a decrease in biodiversity conservation.
Intensive farming of wildlife comes with conditions associated with distress and chronic stress which may lead to decreased production or illness. Wild, free-ranging animals have natural immunities that make them able to cope with parasites and some diseases, but once in captivity or under intensively farmed systems, these animals are prone to disease, illness and parasite burdens. To counteract this, animals are heavily managed with the treatment of nutritional supplements and veterinary medications such as parasiticides. Ongoing and increased use of external and internal parasiticides may lead to resistant parasites and the loss of disease resistance in farmed species.
Intensive selective breeding of colour morphs and its associated links to inbreeding can have various health impacts. It may hold a direct threat to biodiversity by risking the survival of indigenous species via genetic pollution and reduced genetic diversity that negatively affects individual fitness; health; survival and future adaptability due to the risks of weakened resilience or reduced adaptive capacity to environmental changes; health hazards; ecosystem transformations; or the effects of climate change. Relatively small receiving populations or threatened species could be more vulnerable compared to larger or genetically more diverse populations. Thermoregulatory stressors; deformed and under-developed horn; cancers; melanomas; and cataracts, especially in white varieties are known health issues.
Hybridisation and breeding for colour morphs are not undertaken in the best interest of the animal’s well-being. Selective breeding for colour morphs and continued inbreeding includes various animal well-being concerns that cause lasting harm to the animals at predator farms such as blunted and shortened faces; corkscrew tails; leg deformities; eye and heart defects; neurological problems; cleft palates; and mental impairments. Ligers, for example, frequently have to be delivered via caesarean section due to the size of the cubs. Big cat hybrids are known to suffer from neurological defects, cancer, arthritis, organ failure and diminished life expectancy.
The breeding of hybrids and colour morphs does in no regard further the conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity; and holds no benefit to the conservation and protection of wild populations. This practice should be discouraged and disincentivised as an undesirable and unethical practice, especially as it is not based on legitimate conservation and ecological sound principles. This type of irresponsible breeding has absolutely no benefit to the individual animal, the species, biodiversity or conservation as a whole and based solely on commercial exploitation of wildlife. Public members are often fooled into funding illegitimate conservation programmes such as campaigns to save the white lion or king cheetah from extinction as if they are separate species.
Colour morphs are of high commercial value due to their labelled novelty value. This further places pressure on free-roaming predators within the vicinity of their camps due to the risks associated with predation. Not only is the persecution of predators often targeted towards the wrongful culprits, the methods employed to control predators are often based on cruel and inhumane measures such as the use of gin traps or poisons. This form of private property protection remains a highly questionable form of wildlife exploitation from a conservation, animal well-being and ethical perspective as it undermines the conservation efforts of threatened and protected species such as cheetah, African wild dogs and leopards in order to protect private property of no conservation value. Hybridisation and the intensive breeding of colour morphs do not fall within the legitimate conservation and ecological principles of biodiversity conservation of South Africa. It is an unethical and a pointless form of wildlife exploitation with no true honourable benefit, but poses reputational harm to South Africa’s wildlife industry and shadows the conservation success stories of the past.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Africa Geographic (2015) NSPCA’s formal stance on the selective breeding of wild animals for colour mutations. Available at: https://africageographic.com/blog/nspcas-formal-stance-on-the-selective- breeding-of-wild-animals-for-colour-mutations/ (Accessed: 24 July 2019).
Bezuidenhout, R. (2012) Colour under investigation. Available at: https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/animals/game-and-wildlife/colour-under-investigation/ (Accessed: 26 July 2019).
Cape Nature (no date) Game translocation and utilisation policy for the Western Cape Province. Available at: https://www.capenature.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Game-Translocation- Policy.pdf.
Endangered Wildlife Trust (2016) Endangered Wildlife Trust Perspective on the intensive breeding of wildlife species with particular reference to selective breeding for colour variance. Available at: https://www.ewt.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/EWT-Perspective-on-Wildlife-Intensive- Breeding-and-Colour-Variation-March-2016.pdf.
IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group (2015) IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group Position Statement on the Intentional Genetic Manipulation of Antelopes. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/asg_igm_posnsment_2015_final_19may_2015 .pdf.
Kretzer, M. (2017) This Is Why Ligers, Tigons, and Other ‘Frankencats’ Shouldn’t Be Bred. Available at: https://www.peta.org/blog/ligers-tigons-frankencats-shouldnt-bred/ (Accessed: 24 July 2019).
RSPCA Australia (2019) Can wild-domestic cat or dog hybrids be kept as pets in Australia? Available at: https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/can-wild-domestic-cat-or-dog-hybrids-be-kept-as-pets-in- australia/ (Accessed: 24 July 2019).
Schwenk, K., Brede, N. and Streit, B. (2008) ‘Introduction. Extent, processes and evolutionary impact of interspecific hybridization in animals’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363(1505), pp. 2805–2811. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0055.
POSITION STATEMENT 8.3
KEEPING AND/OR BREEDING OF WILD ANIMALS The SPCA is opposed to the keeping and/or breeding of indigenous and exotic wild species in captivity for reasons other than for bona fide conservation purposes, or for rehabilitation and/or sanctuary purposes in facilities approved by the National Council of SPCAs.
BACKGROUND TO THE KEEPING AND BREEDING OF WILDLIFE IN CAPTIVITY
The South African captive wildlife industry is a massive and well-established industry ranging from captive breeding centres, sanctuaries, educational centres, research centres, rehabilitation facilities, orphanages, zoos, aquariums, wildlife interaction and exhibition facilities to circuses, including the keeping and/or breeding of wild animals as pets. All captive wildlife facilities involve the keeping and/or breeding of wildlife in a captive state within a controlled environment of which the survival of these animals are dependent on human care and management.
The overly-used pro-captivity argument made by stakeholders and industry players to justify or support the captivity of wild animals include the conservation and educational role that they play. Yet, the ease of making such a statement often comes with a lack of proof and that these claims are often based on empty, fraudulent and false statements, including creating the perception that all facilities of the same type all serve the same objective, but merely steals shared recognition from the limited facilities that actually do serve a bona fide conservation role, making it difficult to discern between a genuine conservation operation to one that simply exploits wildlife for profit. The keeping of wildlife in captivity for its conservation role remains a contentious issue with arguments on both sides. On the one hand, it is argued that wildlife in captivity contributes towards conservation through captive breeding programmes; for educational purposes; scientific research; rehabilitation of wildlife; providing funding for in situ and ex situ conservation programmes; and that the genetic diversity of captive populations can assist wild populations. On the other hand, captive wildlife can have a negative impact on conservation such as illegal trade and capture of individuals from wild populations that threaten various species globally, including that animals bred in captivity are often not released back into the wild, whilst surplus animals end up in the trade chain. The SPCA recognises the conservation value of some captive wildlife facilities and is of the opinion that clear scientific accredited criteria should be used to justify and demonstrate the keeping of wildlife in captivity for bona fide conservation purposes and should be subject to a case-by-case basis in terms of the action of evidencing, i.e. the legitimacy of a facility’s conservation impact should be thoroughly examined and not blindly accepted, including careful consideration should be afforded to such criteria.
There is also the reality that the captive wildlife industry of South Africa is met with varying degrees of compromised animal well-being. South Africa has one of the largest and most commercial wildlife industries in the world with a major issue being that captive wildlife facilities of exploitive practices have been allowed to flourish. One of the biggest challenges involves national and provincial legislation, including regulations not adequately incorporating wildlife kept in captivity, especially with regards to animal well-being. This is further aggravated between governmental departments and concurrent national and provincial jurisdiction because of a statutory regime unintended and unsuited in addressing the issue of wild animal welfare. However, the court ruling judgement for Case No. 86515/2017 in 2019 states that regardless if animal welfare does not form part of a governmental department’s mandate, the government is now legally obligated to consider animal welfare in all its conservation decisions, otherwise it goes against the spirit of Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. This precedent-setting judgement has broader implications and extends not just to wildlife kept in captivity, but to the management of all of South Africa’s wildlife.
The SPCA’s opposition to the keeping and/or breeding of indigenous and exotic wild species in captivity is based on the fact that a wild animal’s well-being is automatically compromised while in a captive state. Wildlife should remain and roam freely in their natural habitat. It is inhumane to force a wild animal to a life in captivity, where their species-specific needs cannot be addressed. These animals are often denied their 5 Freedoms and are forced to endure a live in captivity. Captive situations do not provide for the same physical, social or behavioural surroundings. The proper care of wildlife include but is not limited to extensive research, preparation, investment in building ideal housing, disease prevention, appropriate shelter, good nutrition, enrichment and veterinary treatments. Despite all these provisions, the SPCA believes arrangements can never adequately cater for all the needs of wildlife in captivity. The conditions are artificial and do not allow for the animals to behave in a manner that is natural to them.
Animals kept at rehabilitation centres should be released back into the wild unless an animal cannot sustain itself if released, whilst sanctuaries should not engage in trade or breeding activities, including that these animals should not be used for wildlife interaction purposes by members of the public.
CONCERNS RELATING TO THE KEEPING AND BREEDING OF WILDLIFE IN CAPTIVITY
Invasive species: Pet shops, breeders and private owners continue to keep, breed and trade in exotic wild species, offering a supply of wildlife as pets to the public. Wild animals kept as pets often become a nuisance or a problem for owners, or the animal cannot be accommodated by the owner due to various reasons. Owners may then decide to abandon the animal at a captive wildlife facility. Some owners will deliberately release an animal into an area where they do not occur naturally which can severely affect the survival rate of the animal and is subject to numerous animal well-being concerns such as starvation, dehydration, exposure to unknown surroundings, injuries and distress, whilst some animals may successfully adapt to their new environment and may become invasive as a result. A species is labelled as invasive when the establishment and subsequent spread of the species falls outside of its natural distribution range and eventually outcompetes and poses a threat to the survival of the natural biodiversity in the area.
Various cruelty issues: Certain captive wildlife facilities are guilty of abusing animals for entertainment, risking injury to visitors, eliciting fees and donations from visitors that believe they are helping animals, all whilst the animals are traded for profit. Other animal well-being concerns include training methods using punishment; the display of unnatural behaviours and tricks for entertainment purposes; the removal of offspring after birth; lack of veterinary care; lack of health checks; drugging or physical alterations to make animals safer to handle during interactions with the public; lack of control of the animal to move away from a forced interaction with humans; overcrowding; malnutrition; unhygienic conditions; and lack of shelter and protection against the elements. At some facilities, keepers and curators have limited to no animal management backgrounds and expertise, including that specialist care is limited within indigenous and exotic captive collections.
Social animals: Animals such as elephants, chimpanzees and social birds such as cockatoos and parrots are often housed in social isolation, in groups smaller than the average group size in the wild, or in unnatural groupings. Young animals are removed from their mothers to be hand-reared and displayed within animal nurseries. These conditions lead to distress, with short-term as well as chronic behavioural and physiological effects.
Stereotypical behaviour: Compromised animal well-being associated with various captive wildlife facilities is gaining more attention both on a domestic and international platform with animals living in the most appalling of conditions with no enrichment or stimulation. This may lead to psychological compromised animal well-being often leading to stereotypical behaviour such as repetitive pacing, bar-licking, rocking, self-mutilation, circling, excessive grooming and swaying. Animals are often kept in barren, cramped conditions in which they have neither the space nor the materials to carry out their natural behaviours.
Stress for the animal: Capturing, transporting and incorrect care can often lead to stress related-illnesses or death. Wildlife kept in an enclosure or in a manner that does not enable them to express innate behaviours can cause stress.
Zoonotic diseases: Wild animals can carry diseases which might be transmissible to humans, including from humans to animals and referred to as zoonotic diseases. For example, psittacosis from psittacines (parrot family), herpes from primates, TB from elephant interactions, ringworm from lion cub petting, and extremely lethal diseases such as haemorrhagic fevers (Congo Fever and Marburg Virus). Some facilities do not have adequate biosecurity measures in place to protect visitors, employees and the animals. This is very irresponsible and can be prevented.
Threatens biodiversity: An escalating trend in trade in wildlife and products is evident, especially links to the illegal trade. High numbers of species ranging from reptiles, birds, mammals and amphibians to marine species are removed from their natural habitats for the legal and illegal trade. This threatens the survival of numerous wild populations. Many captive wildlife facilities’ main reason of existence is based solely on domestic and international commercial trade, with wild animals bred repeatedly and extensively to provide a steady stream of animals to attract visitors and are exploited for profit.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (2015) Committing to Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. Switzerland. Available at: https://www.waza.org/priorities/conservation/conservation-strategies/.
Asia for Elephants Coalition (no date) Wildlife. Available at: https://www.asiaforanimals.com/our- work/wildlife (Accessed: 7 December 2018).
Endangered Wildlife Trust (2014) ‘Frequently Asked Questions - Keeping exotic wild animals as pets’, (May), pp. 1–6. Available at: https://www.ceah.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FAQ-Exotic-Wild- Animal-Pets.pdf.
The Saturday Star (2018) Law failing wildlife held in captivity. Available at: https://www.iol.co.za/saturday-star/opinion/law-failing-wildlife-held-in-captivity-15692169 (Accessed: 6 December 2018).
Wild Welfare (no date) Animal welfare practices. Available at: https://wildwelfare.org/ (Accessed: 7 December 2018). POSITION STATEMENT 8.4
WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS The SPCA is opposed to interactions between humans and wild animals, except for bona fide conservation purposes, reasons based on animal well-being, or where the interaction between animal and caregiver is necessary.
WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa’s wildlife industry includes a sector that involves captive wildlife facilities that offer public wildlife interaction opportunities. Holidaymakers and tourists are keen to visit various facilities that offer interactions with wildlife in seek of adventure. Opportunities with wildlife include but are not limited to animal-petting, selfie opportunities, elephant back safaris, walking with lions, walking with cheetah, interactions with juvenile animals, cage diving with captive crocodiles, hand-raising orphaned wildlife, photographic opportunities and interactions with animals such as snakes, elephants, lions and birds of prey, including encounters with captive marine life.
Tourism is a key contributor to South Africa’s economy both on a domestic and international platform. A positive external image is essential for attracting more tourists of which South Africa’s rich culture and biodiversity have served to be popular over the years, but in recent years South Africa has been subject to international criticism with regards to cruel, inhumane and unethical practices within the wildlife industry especially certain wildlife interaction opportunities contributing to damaging Brand South Africa. The voice against tourism experiences that include animal interactions have increased and has impacted how South Africa is being perceived as a tourism destination, including that global trends of responsible tourism are moving away from exploitative wildlife interactions.
Many captive wildlife facilities that offer wildlife interactions falsely portray themselves as models of credible conservation work in order to strengthen their marketing appeal. Yet, many facilities claim that lion or tiger cubs used for petting are orphaned, but actually have been removed from the mother shortly after birth or that the breeding of wildlife in captivity is conducted to release them back to the wild but end up in the trade chain for financial gain. Some facilities are guilty of eliciting fees and donations from visitors that believe they are helping animals, all whilst the animals are traded for profit or using a false adopt an orphan platform as a fundraising tactic, including that many rehabilitation centres and sanctuaries are not serving out their true mandate, but allowing wildlife interactions and the exploitation of wildlife for commercial gain.
Human interaction with wild animals is unnatural, even when they have been born in captivity since wild animals still retain many of their wild behaviours and instincts. Many of the facilities that permit or encourage human interaction with wild animals are financially driven with little to no regard to the well-being of the animals and expose wildlife to stress and potential abuse. The SPCA believes that such facilities should be discouraged. Whilst the SPCAs opposition to wildlife interactions is based on the fact that wildlife is exploited for human entertainment, the SPCA also recognises that certain wildlife interactions are necessary for bona fide conservation purposes and where interaction between animal and caregiver is required. Due to rhino poaching in South Africa, many rhino orphanages have been established to care for rhino calves in order to release them back into the wild. True rehabilitation centres and sanctuaries use various methods to care for animals that have been previously abused, injured or abandoned with the intention of either ensuring their successful release back into the wild or to ensure optimal care whilst kept at a sanctuary as a forever home. Interaction and interventions between caregiver and animal may include but are not limited to assisting animals affected by anthropogenic activities such as oil spills; hand-rearing of displaced wildlife or rescued wildlife kept as pets such as baboons and monkeys; veterinary care and treatment of sick or injured wildlife; use of positive reinforcement training measures to facilitate certain behaviours such as to ensure the safe movement of elephants in sanctuaries or to facilitate heath checks without the use of chemical drugs; and exercise programmes to ensure an animal is in a healthy physical state before release. The SPCA believes that strict protocols and procedures should be followed in relation to the species and only be carried out by skilled, trained and experienced staff, which collectively ensures that the well-being of each animal is not compromised.
CONCERNS RELATING TO WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS
Wildlife interactions offered to members of the public involve the keeping and/or breeding of indigenous and exotic wild species in captivity. The SPCA believes that the same ethical and animal well-being concerns relating to the keeping and/or breeding of wildlife in captivity is shared with wildlife interactions (Please refer to Statement of Policy 8.3 - Keeping and/or Breeding of Wild Animals). In addition, animal well-being concerns with regards to wildlife interactions include but are not limited to using training methods and equipment for punishment purposes; restricting natural behaviour; display of unnatural behaviours and tricks for entertainment purposes; lack of veterinary care; lack of health checks; drugging or physical alterations to make animals safer to handle during interactions with public; lack of control for the animal to move away from forced interactions with humans; overcrowding; malnutrition; unhygienic conditions; lack of shelter; lack of protection against the elements; and the promotion of keeping wild animals as pets. Many facilities do not have any biosecurity protocols in place to prevent the spread of zoonotic diseases, placing both humans and wild animals at risk.
In many instances, females are turned into breeding machines in order to have a constant supply of young animals used for interactions. Unweaned animals are removed from the mother to increase reproduction rates. Young wild animals need long periods of undisturbed sleep to grow and develop well. Continuous handling and interaction with people deprive them of natural development. This can also lead to animals becoming stressed and aggressive which again opens up the risk of injury. Once the animals become too big or dangerous to be interacted with they are unwanted. These animals will never be fully rehabilitated and releasing them back into the wild poses numerous risks, i.e. they are imprinted on humans and may actively seek out people, including inbreeding of captive animals may threaten the genetic pool of wild populations.
Harsh training techniques is a well-known concept for captive elephants used for interaction purposes, including elephant-back safaris. Elephants need to be trained and dominated in order to obey human commands out of fear using methods such as bullhooks, electric prods, sticks fitted with nails, starvation, sleep deprivation and movement restrictions with the use of ropes and chains. The captive lion industry involves a life-cycle of ongoing abuse starting with cubs removed from their mothers at birth to be used for cub-petting purposes. Once they outgrow the suitable cub-petting age, they may be used for lion walks up until the age where they become too dangerous after which they may be used for breeding, exhibition or traded as part of the lion bone trade. There is growing global consensus that keeping intelligent and social animals such as dolphins and orcas in captivity for shows is inhumane with facilities moving away from these practices.
Wildlife interactions are dangerous for both humans and animals involved. South Africa’s records indicate just how dangerous captive wild animals can be, yet it remains ineffectively regulated with inadequate safety regulations. There is no justifiable rationale for public members to be interacting with wildlife and risking people’s lives in the process. Since 2001, 17 people have been injured or killed by elephants in captivity, since 1996, 24 captive lion attacks have been recorded of which 11 resulted in deaths and 15 cheetah attacks and one fatality has been recorded since 2009.
Touching and handling wild animals is a completely unnatural practice as human contact and interaction is not tolerated or accepted by wild animals in their natural environments. It is therefore abnormal to put animals into a situation whereby they are continuously subjected to conditions that are completely unnatural to them. The SPCA encourages that wildlife should rather be appreciated in their natural environments. Society as a whole needs to recognise that habitat loss is one of the major factors threatening the survival of many species. Public members should rather seek enjoyment in visiting natural areas in as legitimate means to contribute towards protecting and restoring natural habitats, including the species that inhabit them, instead of visiting animals in captivity. More resources should be pooled to protect habitats to the benefit of all flora and fauna and phase out captive wildlife facilities that serve no bona fide conservation value or pretend to serve under the false veil of conservation.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Brand South Africa (no date) Say no to animal interaction. Available at: https://www.southafrica.net/gl/en/travel/article/say-no-to-animal-interaction (Accessed: 23 September 2019).
Campaign Against Canned Hunting (2018) ‘Captive Lion Breeding , Canned Lion Hunting & the Lion Bone Trade: Damaging Brand South Africa?’, (August), pp. 1–46. Available at: https://conservationaction.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CACH-Brand-SA-Review-August- 2018.pdf.
Conservation Action Trust (2017) Time to end animal interaction: A bloody, slow process. Available at: https://conservationaction.co.za/recent-news/time-end-animal-interaction-bloody-slow-process/ (Accessed: 23 September 2019).
Fair Trade Tourism (2018) Fair Trade Tourism Good Practice Guidelines for Captive Wildlife in South Africa.
IOL (2019) SATSA to fine tune animal interaction in the tourism industry. Available at: https://www.iol.co.za/travel/south-africa/satsa-to-fine-tune-animal-interaction-in-the-tourism- industry-21917520 (Accessed: 20 September 2019).
POSITION STATEMENT 8.5
TRADE IN WILDLIFE The SPCA is opposed to the trade in wild animals which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The SPCA is opposed to the trade in products derived from wild animals.
WHAT IS WILDLIFE TRADE?
Wildlife trade either involves taking and selling dead or living wild species and the products derived from them, removing live animals from their natural habitats or breeding and raising wildlife under captive managed conditions. Wildlife trade often involves the trade in live species as companion animals for the exotic pet trade to supply to markets such as pet shops, zoological institutions, private breeders and traders. Species include African grey parrots, squirrel monkeys, suricates, Burmese pythons, etc. Meat may be in demand as a delicacy in many countries such as pangolin meat and shark fins. Animal skins and hides are sought after for rugs or leather products for handbags and shoes. Body parts may be used in traditional medicines such as pangolin scales, sun bear bile, and tiger and lion bone or as a status symbol or decor such as elephant ivory. Wildlife trade is often linked to hunting and poaching and can be differentiated in both the legal and illegal trade.
CONSERVATION CONCERNS REGARDING WILDLIFE TRADE
Wildlife trade remains a controversial topic. Under certain circumstances it is recognised that sustainable, legal, responsible, ethical and equitable wildlife trade can serve as a bona fide conservation tool in terms of improving rural livelihoods and conserving biological diversity. This occurs against a backdrop where natural resources constitute the main wealth of community, improving basic needs such as health care and education, thus enhancing the way in which societies and communities value nature, resulting in the need and action of protecting nature and an overall stewardship of wildlife.
On the other hand, trading in wildlife and their products on an international basis can pose serious threats. The insatiable demand for wildlife products, directly and indirectly threatens various species of plants and animals, including associated natural habitats. The global demand for wildlife and wildlife products is estimated to be worth billions of US dollars each year. It is estimated that wildlife trafficking is the third-largest type of illegal trade, after drugs and weapons. Internationally, wildlife trade in endangered species is regulated through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This is only applicable to the countries that are signed members and there are currently 183 members. Trade agreement restrictions do not provide enough protection for vulnerable populations. Generally, the survival of various species are threatened by various natural and anthropogenic factors. Apart from overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, deforestation and global warming to name a few, trade in wildlife in addition, threatens the survival of various species and results in loss of biodiversity which further threatens ecosystem functioning. Not only are animals dependent on the health of ecosystems to survive, but humans are dependent on the ecosystem services that various habitats provide. Examples of species that have been decimated by wildlife trade include but are not limited to elephants, rhinoceros and pangolins.
ETHICAL CONCERNS REGARDING WILDLIFE TRADE
Wildlife trade is generally accompanied by various ethical views. Wildlife trade results in the use of animals for various reasons, which include but are not limited to the need for products and parts, for entertainment purposes, in education, research, wildlife interactions, animal exhibitions, wildlife selfies and medicinal purposes. Regardless of its use, society needs to ask important questions before contributing to the inhumane and unethical treatment of animals. One such a question can be: Is this ethical and how does it benefit the animal?
There are various ethical concerns with regards to the exploitation of wildlife for trade, often resulting in the inhumane treatment of animals to fuel a demand that is not necessarily based on the legitimate and appropriate utilisation of animals for the benefit of humans. For example, the high demand for rhino horn to Asian markets has resulted in the ongoing high number of rhino populations being poached. This results in a high number of cruel and inhumane methods used to kill rhino with a high number of orphaned rhino calves. Elephant rides and interactions remains a popular activity for tourists. However, many tourists are still unaware of the cruel training methods used to train elephants. The captive lion industry, specifically for the lion bone trade is expanding based on a supply-driven demand market. The bones are used for tiger bone wine, ornaments and jewellery. Tiger and lion bone are also used in traditional medicine even though there is no scientific proof that it holds any medicinal value. Captive breeding of lions in South Africa for the lion bone trade is fuelling demand, consequently placing other wild cat populations at risk globally. Hippopotamus, walrus, narwhal and most commonly, African and Asian elephants are killed for their ivory, often in inhumane ways in order to make jewellery, ornaments or to be used as collectors’ items.
ANIMAL WELFARE CONCERNS REGARDING WILDLIFE TRADE
Significant animal well-being concerns and cruelty exists throughout the legal and illegal trade chain. Wild animals sourced for trade are bound to suffer to some degree and mortality rates are high. Animals killed to feed the trade often suffer inhumane deaths from poison, drugs, and snares to poor shooting practices. Those who are captured alive often suffer as a result of compromised animal well-being, the intensity and duration of which depends upon whether and how the animal is restrained, transported, kept, fed, given water or used. The capture and trapping methods used may result in injuries to even death. Methods include, but are not limited to snaring, killing of the parents to obtain the young, separation from social family groups, and poorly planned captured procedures and equipment. Live animals are transported or smuggled in horrific conditions with numerous animals dying as a result of crushing, asphyxiation, starvation, dehydration, temperature shock, disease, injury or stress. With some species, parents are killed in front of their young and traumatised as a result. Examples include primates and rhino calves.
It is not only live animals but also products derived from wildlife that reach high prices on the legal and illegal associated domestic and international trade markets. This includes rhino horn, lion bone, pangolin scales and trophy animals for hunting. There are animal well-being concerns regarding how these animals are being kept prior to being slaughtered or hunted for their products. Wildlife trade also results in animals supplied to countries where no animal well-being regulations exist, severely compromising the welfare of the animals and frequently condemning them to cruel conditions.
Historically, decisions on the disposal of confiscated live animals have been influenced by the perception that returning them to the wild is viewed as a solution for species-specific conservation efforts. Apart from the fact that many confiscated animals die, returning those that do survive back into the wild must be done according to carefully planned responsible rehabilitation programmes. Poorly planned release of confiscated animals back into the wild may result in higher mortality and survival rates. The global trade in wildlife provides a gateway for disease transmission mechanisms that not only places humans at risk but also threatens livestock, international trade, rural livelihoods and native wildlife populations. Outbreaks of that were originally zoonotic diseases - or those transmitted from animals to humans - include the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) from virus SARS-CoV-2, Nipah virus, Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and Ebola, many of which can be linked back to wildlife markets. These markets, where humans come in constant contact with both domestic and wild animals, act as breeding grounds for known and unknown pathogens, some of which can mutate, become transmittable and infectious among human populations, causing widespread suffering and even death.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Baker, S. E. et al. (2013) ‘Rough Trade: Animal Welfare in the Global Wildlife Trade’, BioScience, 63(12), pp. 928–938. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.6. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (no date) What is CITES? Available at: https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.php (Accessed: 15 April 2020). D’Cruze, N. and Macdonald, D. W. (2016) ‘A review of global trends in CITES live wildlife confiscations’, Nature Conservation, 15, pp. 47–63. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.15.10005. International Union for Conservation of Nature (no date) Wildlife Trade. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-policy/our- work/specialist-group-sustainable-use-and-livelihoods-suli/wildlife-trade (Accessed: 14 April 2020). Karesh, W. B. et al. (2005) ‘Wildlife trade and global disease emergence’, Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11(7), pp. 1000–1002. doi: 10.3201/eid1107.050194. Natural Resources Defense Council (2019) Wildlife Trade 101. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/wildlife-trade-101 (Accessed: 14 April 2020). World Wildlife Fund (no date) Wild meat and public health. Available at: http://greatermekong.panda.org/challenges_in_the_greater_mekong/illegal_wildlife_trade2/wildlife_tr ade_and_public_health/ (Accessed: 15 April 2020).
POSITION STATEMENT 8.6
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES ON WILD ANIMALS The SPCA recognises that there are management procedures necessary for conservation management, research, protection and monitoring of wild animals, but is opposed to any technique which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH, PROTECTION AND MONITORING OF WILD ANIMALS
South Africa has the largest most commercialised wildlife industry and a large percentage of wild animals no longer exist in completely natural wilderness areas. These animals are fenced and managed in such a way that their ability to survive without management may be compromised and requires that wild animals be managed in ways to ensure survivability. In addition, the growth in wildlife crime including poaching exposes wildlife to risks and potential cruelty requiring that various monitoring and protective measures be put in place. These management procedures may include chemical and\or physical immobilisation; restraint, tagging, ear notching, marking, DNA sampling, attachment and\or insertion of tracking and monitoring devices, vaccination, disease monitoring or sampling, dehorning, horn cutting and horn infusions. The SPCA recognises that there may be procedures necessary for conservation management, research, protection and monitoring of wild animals, but states that it should be done in a manner that humanely balances the well-being of any animal, including the conservation of species, habitats and associated ecological processes of ecosystems.
All procedures, techniques, attachments, insertions, sampling and\or physical modifications should at all times:
Be carried out with concern for the well-being of the animal and should not cause or likely to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm; Be carried out by persons competent and experienced in the processes, procedures and equipment used; The necessary precautionary and emergency measures be taken to prevent infection, pain, injury and distress; Ensure that the long term well-being, survivability of the animal, reproductive capacity, health, mobility or natural biological functioning, survival, social behaviours or position within social groups or hierarchies not be compromised; Do not abnormally predispose the animal to predation or attack; All procedures, equipment, drugs, attachments or insertions must be adequately tested and researched with appropriate ethical approval; Short and long term monitoring of wild animals that have been exposed to any management procedures and processes is essential. Should any physical or mental adverse effects be observed, immediate action should be taken to remedy the situation; and Relevant national and provincial legislation, medicines control, Veterinary and Para-veterinary acts; municipal bylaws and any relevant regulations are applicable.
Culling and population sampling may at times be necessary for animal well-being, disease monitoring or control purposes. Culling should only be undertaken once all other options have been considered and are supported by good scientific data to support the need for culling. Culling should only be undertaken by responsible, skilled personnel, in the most humane manner possible and in accordance
to requirements for humane killing (Refer to Statement of Policy 3.11 End of Life). All research, disease control and\or monitoring for sampling should be supported by scientific data and protocols that have been approved by relevant ethics committees and consideration for the 4 Rs Guiding Principles namely replacement, reduction, refinement and responsibility (Please refer to Statement of Policy 6.3 – Animal Ethics Committees and Statement of Policy 6.4 – The 4 Rs Guiding Principles).
Animal well-being, in general, is not only about whether or not an animal can experience pain, but involves the state and attempts of an animal to cope with its environment under captive or wild conditions. Animal well-being and conservation are thus regarded as intertwined concepts as recognised by the Constitutional Court of South Africa since 2017. In addition, the 2019 court ruling judgement for Case No. 86515/2017 states that government is now legally obligated to consider animal welfare in all its conservation decisions, otherwise it goes against the spirit of Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Association of Zoos & Aquariums Animal Welfare Committee (2016) Animal Welfare Considerations for Field Conservation Projects. Available at: https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2332/animal_welfare_considerations_for_conservation_projects_ 320.pdf.
Conservation, C. (no date) Animal Welfare in Conservation Practice. Available at: http://compassionateconservation.net/ (Accessed: 30 March 2020).
Draper, C. (2015) ‘Compassionate Conservation - Animal Welfare as a Central Consideration in Conservation’, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 18, pp. S62–S72. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2015.1075836.
POSITION STATEMENT 9.1
ANIMALS IN EDUCATION, TEACHING AND TRAINING The SPCA is opposed to the use of animals for education, teaching and training which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm, unless a justifiable animal well-being rationale for keeping the animals can be demonstrated.
ANIMALS USED IN EDUCATION, TEACHING AND TRAINING
Animals are used in primary, secondary and tertiary institutions for education, teaching and training purposes. Schools will use animals for anatomy, physiology and basic biology, whilst at university level, students will use animals for comparative anatomy and learn about specific species. This is specifically true for students studying subjects such as zoology. Veterinary students will use animals to learn about specific veterinary procedures such as blood collection, correct handling of animals or veterinary techniques such as artificial insemination. Students are more likely to use animal cadavers such as pigs as opposed to human cadavers due to biosafety, accessibility and human ethical issues. Certain emergency surgical techniques can only be taught on animal cadavers and pig cadavers are used to teach surgeons how to use new medical equipment.
The SPCA states that the 4 Rs Guiding Principles, namely replacement, reduction, refinement and responsibility, should be considered before using animals for education, teaching and training. Complete replacement by using alternatives should take priority unless there is proof that there is no suitable replacement. (Please refer to Statement of Policy 6.4 – The 4 Rs Guiding Principles).
The SPCA believes that there should be a clearly defined ethics and animal well-being component in all educational courses. All activities using animals should undergo a full ethical review process by a properly constituted animal ethics committee.
Teaching activities that involve the use of animals must comply with all relevant legislation and regulations. This includes but is not limited to relevant permits, health and safety, biosecurity and disease control. The highest level of care, monitoring and husbandry practices must be followed where animals are used for education, teaching and training.
CONCERNS RELATING TO ANIMALS USED IN EDUCATION, TEACHING AND TRAINING
Concerns regarding the use of animals for education, teaching and training purposes include but are not limited to acquisition, keeping, catching, handling, care and disposal of animals. In most cases, laboratory animals are bred specifically to be killed for dissections. Various ethical, moral and animal well-being concerns are associated with school dissections in particular (please refer to Statement of Policy 9.2 on dissections in schools). An increasing number of students are uncomfortable with doing dissections and since alternatives are available, these should be implemented. School curriculums are changing toward non-animal alternatives and the necessity of using animals is decreasing. For society to create a culture of care amongst children, dissections should be discouraged. In addition, financial constraints are often cited as the main reason for not utilising alternatives, but this should never be used as an excuse if animal well-being is being compromised.
Animal well-being concerns have also been observed in the sourcing and killing of animals. Schools will occasionally send out students to catch and kill animals. Catching certain species requires specific experience, technique and equipment. Inexperienced students can cause unnecessary injury and stress to animals, and even death as a result of the catching process that could otherwise have been avoided. The ratio of students to animals, the frequency that each live animal will be used in each class, and/or handled per day and/or per week often occurs without proper protocols, adequate supervision and experienced personal to monitor animal handling. Students can be taught about animals without keeping animals in the classroom. Schools are not equipped to house specific species of animals and therefore provide inappropriate housing and care to the animals. Schools are noisy and can induce fear in animals. There is also a risk of teaching students to keep animals unnecessarily and under unsuitable housing conditions.
Certain fields of study require the use of animals for which no suitable substitute is available, however, full consideration of the well-being of any animal should take priority. For instance, university or higher education students involved in animal-based studies (e.g. zoology or conservation studies) use animals for certain subjects such as behavioural sciences, handling techniques or basic ecology. This includes the study of live endangered wildlife species under field conditions.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
South African Bureau of Standards. 2008. SANS 10386: The care and use of animals for scientific purposes. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals UK (2014) RSPCA policies on animal welfare. Available at: https://www.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494939/7712578/RspcaPolicies.pdf/abaa8964- 9d49-6d85-c4e3-4e8dccf0af08?t=1559058681637 (Accessed: 12 March 2020).
POSITION STATEMENT 9.2
DISSECTION The SPCA is opposed to the practice of dissecting vertebrate and invertebrate animals in schools.
REASONS FOR DISSECTIONS IN SCHOOLS
Animals are used for dissection purposes in South African high schools, especially for a subject called Life Sciences in Grade 11. Anatomy, physiology and basic biology are some of the subjects that result in teachers using animals for students to learn about structure, form and function. Some schools make use of organs from abattoirs to teach specific organ function, with the heart used most often, whilst insects are also used in many instances. The use of animals instead of drawings or simulators is preferred by some schools, as they are of the opinion that it provides observational skills to students, including that students learn to problem solve by seeing how organs function and that dissections provide a sensory factor that visuals cannot provide.
The Department of Basic Education’s Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) states that it is not prescribed to use animals for dissections in South African schools and the SPCA supports this view.
CONCERNS RELATING TO ANIMAL DISSECTIONS IN SCHOOLS
The SPCA believes that students can learn about animals without keeping, catching, killing or dissecting any animal. The act of taking part in or observing animal dissections can lead to desensitisation and a lessening of respect for life. There are several concerns associated with the act of dissection in schools which include but are not limited to social influencing factors, animal-focused ethical factors, including health and environmental concerns. The SPCA believes that practical alternatives to the use of animals can be used as replacements.
The use of animals for dissection purposes also leads to the unethical sourcing of animals. For instance, schools, directly and indirectly, support the pet shop industry by contributing to the overall demand. Research animal facilities breed animals specifically just to kill them and supply dead animals to schools without any ethical consideration, but merely for financial gain.
The act of catching any wild animal for dissecting purposes raises animal well-being and ethical concerns with regard to the conservation status of a species, including the method of capture, handling and killing of any animal by an inexperienced student.
The SPCA is opposed to any student being compelled either to perform or watch animal dissection. The views of students who wish to withdraw from dissection should be respected without prejudice.
Some of the alternative options available are listed below:
Computer simulation software can be used. The opportunities associated with the development of computer software in contributing to effective life science education have grown exponentially within the last few years. From virtual dissections that students can perform onscreen, to full virtual reality simulations of clinical techniques with 3-D and tactile facilities, the possibilities are limited only by technical and imaginative boundaries.
Mobile simulation software can be used. Various mobile software applications (more commonly known as apps) have been developed that serve as virtual dissection tools with three-dimensional images of a specific animal’s internal organs and their functions.
Videos on the World Wide Web such as those found on YouTube can be used. The use of videos is passive but still effective as one part of the educational process involves the use of film and video to provide good background and a quality visual alternative. Videos of professionally performed dissections can often impart much more information to students than dissections performed by the students themselves. Videos of dissections can be used to train students who require such skills in their future careers.
Artificial full body replica dissection models for various species can be used. Frog, rat and hen models are commonly used.
Sourcing and keeping of animals in captivity can be replaced by studying various species in their natural environment with minimal disturbance and with the added advantage to increase learning outcome opportunities.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Australian & New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (2020) Information for school children. Available at: https://www.adelaide.edu.au/anzccart/resources/information-for-school-children#case-studies-fact- sheets (Accessed: 12 March 2020).
Department of Basic Education (no date) Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS). Available at: https://www.education.gov.za/Curriculum/CurriculumAssessmentPolicyStatements(CAPS).aspx (Accessed: 12 March 2020).
InterNICHE (no date) Humane Education and Alternatives. Available at: http://www.interniche.org/en/humaneeducation (Accessed: 12 March 2020).
People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (no date) Alternatives to Dissection. Available at: https://www.peta.org/teachkind/ humane-classroom/dissection/dissection-alternatives/ (Accessed: 12 March 2020).
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals UK (2014) RSPCA policies on animal welfare. Available at: https://www.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494939/7712578/RspcaPolicies.pdf/abaa8964- 9d49-6d85-c4e3-4e8dccf0af08?t=1559058681637 (Accessed: 12 March 2020).
POSITION STATEMENT 10
WORKING AND SERVICE ANIMALS The SPCA is opposed to the use of domesticated working and service animals which causes or may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.
VALUE OF WORKING ANIMALS
The SPCA understands the immense value of working and service animals to humankind. From equine being used to pull carts loaded with essential supplies for people; dogs used to assist the disabled and improve the quality of their lives; animals used for protection and security purposes from the detection of explosives and narcotics to search and rescue – these animals provide humans with vital, life-improving services. Society does not only have a legal duty to ensure that working and service animals have the best possible care and treatment but the SPCA believes that humans are morally and ethically bound to ensure they have the best quality of life possible. Examples of working animals include but are not limited to equine used for carting, and dogs and horses used for security services.
CONCERNS RELATING TO WORKING AND SERVICE ANIMALS
Typical problems include the following:
Unsuitable animals that may not have the physical or mental capacity to work are utilised which results in their poor performance and subsequent mistreatment;
Non-performing animals, including retired animals, may be sold or given to unsuitable people and/or companies who will try to use these animals to the detriment of their well-being;
The long-term keeping of non-working or retired animals may hold animal well-being concerns. This holds especially for dogs in circumstances where they are not adequately managed to ensure a good quality of life and instead are left unattended in kennels;
The continued breeding of working and service animals often occurs without suitable facilities, knowledge or adequate planning to ensure that each individual animals’ well-being is provided for, including subsequent suitable career placement;
Animals may be overworked due to prolonged periods on duty;
Unsuitable facilities do not allow for the animals to rest or express normal species-specific behaviour patterns such as equine grazing or dogs exploring and exercising;
Animals may be trained by unskilled and incompetent handlers, which may result in the use of harsh and cruel training methods and working conditions;
Equipment that is either ill-fitting, incorrectly used or made from unsuitable material is used on service and working animals that result in discomfort, pain, injury or distress;
Facilities that transport and house service and working animals may not be adequately maintained or of adequate size or design to meet the physical and behavioural needs of these animals; The management of animals and/or facilities may not be undertaken by suitably trained staff who are competent in recognising and addressing animal well-being concerns;
Preventative veterinary care such as vaccinations and parasite control, and reactive veterinary care such as treating sick, injured or unsound animals, is often lacking which compromises the well-being of the animals; and
The safety and well-being of working and service animals on duty within various environments and circumstances are not always undertaken in a responsible manner by handlers thereby putting the animals in unnecessary risk.
PROPER CARE AND USE OF WORKING AND SERVICE ANIMALS
The care and use of working and service animals require the following:
Facilities – must be safe, suitable and appropriate for the species;
Rest and off duty periods – The animals should have regular and appropriate daily rest periods and not be overworked. Animals should have regular opportunities to engage in species-specific natural behaviour such as grazing, playing, or exploring;
Equipment – any equipment used on animals should be humane; designed for the intended purpose; free of any harmful features; well fitted and maintained, including allowing the animal to perform comfortably. Equipment shall only be used on animals by staff who are adequately trained and competent to use the equipment humanely;
Nutrition – should be of a suitable quantity and quality to ensure good health and performance. Frequency of feeding should be appropriate for the age, condition, work output and relevant species;
Training – should be undertaken in an acceptable humane manner without using physical violence or force to achieve results. Training must be undertaken by staff who are adequately trained, qualified and competent to perform this function correctly and humanely;
Health – animals must be provided with the best preventative health and veterinary care to maintain a good physical state. Prompt veterinary care must be provided in the event of injury or illness with suitable post-treatment care and rest;
Transport – should be appropriate for the species in acceptable and roadworthy vehicles which provide for safe and comfortable transportation;
Rehoming and retirement – when working animals reach a stage where they become too old to work or due to health-related issues, they must be rehomed or retired in a suitable humane and ethical manner. Euthanasia should be considered as a viable option when an animal cannot or should not be homed for health or behaviour reasons;
Selection – animals not suited as working or service animals should be adopted to suitable homes or alternately euthanasia should be undertaken; and
Personnel – all persons working with animals in whatever capacity must have the necessary training, compassion and/or relevant qualifications and certificates to ensure that the animals receive the best possible care.
The SPCA bases its perspectives on the best available information and data available at the time. Our positions and opinions may change as more information and data become available.
REFERENCES
Burrows K E, Adams C L, and Millman S T (2008) Factors Affecting Behaviour and Welfare of Service Dogs for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of applied animal welfare science, 11:42– 62, 2008. LLCISSN: 1088-8705 print/1532-7604 online DOI: 10.1080/10888700701555550
Glenk L M (2017).Current Perspectives on Therapy Dog Welfare in Animal-Assisted Interventions PMCID: PMC5332928. PMID: 28157145 Published online 2017 Feb 1. doi: 10.3390/ani7020007
James, M, Krecek, T 2000. Management of Working Animals—A Health and Welfare Perspective - Empowering Farmers with Animal Traction: Proceedings of the workshop of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA). ISBN 0-907146-10-4
Lloyd J, Budge C, La Grow S and Stafford K (2016) An Investigation of the Complexities of Successful and Unsuccessful Guide Dog Matching and Partnerships. Front. Vet. Sci. 3:114. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2016.00114
NSW Department of Primary Industries (1996) NSW Animal Welfare Code of Practice No 9 - Security dogs. Available at: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/animal- welfare/general/welfare-of-dogs/aw-code-9 (Accessed: 11 March 2020).
Republic of South Africa (2002) Private Security Industry Regulations Act No. 56 of 2001. South Africa. Available at: http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/psira2001451.pdf.
South African Bureau of Standards. 2014. SANS 1031: Animal harnessing and hitching. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division.
South African Bureau of Standards. 2015. SANS 1025: Animal drawn vehicles. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division.
Wenthold, Nora & Savage, Teresa. (2007). Ethical Issues with Service Animals. Topics in stroke rehabilitation. 14. 68-74. 10.1310/tsr1402-68.
World Organisation for Animal Health (2019) Welfare of working equids. Available at: https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/chapitre_aw_working_equids .pdf. (Accessed: 11 March 2020).