The increase in demand for exotic wildlife as pets is evident throughout the world and, thus, is not a uniquely South African problem. Photo: Supplied
The recent escape and destruction of a tiger near Walkerville in Gauteng has once again thrust the spotlight on private individuals keeping wild animals in captivity.
The increase in demand for exotic wildlife as pets is evident throughout the world and, thus, is not a uniquely South African problem. One need only trawl the internet for the various web pages marketing exotic wildlife to understand the extent of the legal captive wildlife trade in South Africa, let alone the increase in the illegal wildlife trade.
But, as the demand has increased locally, neither the legislation to ensure that both the animals and people are protected, nor the government’s ability to police it has improved at the same pace.
In fact, the policing of online sales is almost non-existent in many provinces. The resultant fallout is the increased threat indigenous biodiversity and to people, particularly when exotic wildlife escape from captivity, irrespective of whether these animals are considered dangerous, and the welfare of individual animals is compromised when housed in inappropriate or substandard conditions.
These issues all result in increased scrutiny of our entire wildlife sector by the international community, which further affects our ability to benefit sustainably from our rich and diverse natural heritage.
There is no legal definition of a pet in South Africa. Apart from common domesticated animals such as dogs, cats and livestock, keeping any wild animal in captivity may require authorisation from the provincial conservation authority, irrespective of the intention.
The management of wild animals is guided by various suites of legislation grounded in section 24 of the Constitution. But, because conservation is a concurrent competency, such legislation is promulgated nationally and provincially, which means differing requirements exist in each province.
This requirement not only varies between the nine provinces but also between the various taxa and whether such species are indigenous or exotic. For example, in KwaZulu-Natal, you require a permit to house an exotic or indigenous mammal in captivity, whereas a permit is only necessary for indigenous avian species.
Keeping wild animals, whether indigenous or exotic, in captivity elicits a range of emotions and often polarised opinions. Many people are under the impression that housing wild animals in captivity is purely a welfare issue, because they provide no value to conservation and thus should fall under the ambit of the department of agriculture.
In contrast, others believe that any wild animal falls within the purview of conservation and is, therefore, subject to the applicable conservation legislation.
The value assigned to exotic wildlife outside their natural distribution range relates more often than not to its contribution to the wildlife trade than to the conservation of the species, especially when no permits are required and private individuals retain rights of ownership.
The fact that certain provinces require permits for keeping exotic animals in captivity, whereas others do not, creates further confusion.
These varying requirements often lead to inappropriate decision-making or result in people being blissfully unaware that they are contravening the law, a situation not unique to the housing of animals in captivity but affecting all spheres of the wildlife industry.
In KwaZulu-Natal, a province in which a permit is required for keeping exotic mammals (among other taxa) in captivity, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife adopted the Standard Terms and Conditions for the Keeping of Wild Animals in Captivity in KwaZulu-Natal in 2013.
Adopting the standard terms and conditions followed an extensive public participation process. It aims to ensure that the welfare of animals in captivity improves, in line with the contemporary understanding of the requirements of animals in captivity and, to some extent, ensure that the housing of animals in captivity contributes to the conservation of the species.
Any person wanting to keep an animal in captivity in KwaZulu-Natal must demonstrate the ability to comply with the requirements laid out in the terms and conditions. Such requirements relate to enclosure design, size, security, environmental enrichment and whether the animal contributes to the conservation of the species. Failure to demonstrate this will result in an application being declined.
Certain other provinces also require applicants to demonstrate proficiency and need when applying for permits.
To ensure consistency among the various provinces, the department of forestry, fisheries and the environment coordinate a provincial enforcement and permitting committee at which common permit issues are discussed and clarified.
These discussions, however, only relate to legislative requirements. In the absence thereof, the threats of keeping wild animals in captivity will continue to affect South Africa’s biodiversity and international reputation.
But keeping wildlife in captivity is not all negative and has a role in conservation. Numerous success stories exist as a result of captive breeding operations. One need only think of the whooping crane in the United States and the bearded vulture in Europe. Thus one must be careful not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water when dealing with issues related to keeping animals in captivity when seeking to phase out animals in captivity.
What is needed is for the “me, myself and I” mantra — in which personal desires and satisfaction are not placed before the well-being of either animals or people — must end.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Mail & Guardian.
[/membership]