Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uwlp20

Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uwlp20

Could Culling of Elephants Be ConsideredInhumane and Illegal in South African Law?

Rob Slotow, Andrew Blackmore, Michelle Henley, Karen Trendler & MarionGaraï

To cite this article: Rob Slotow, Andrew Blackmore, Michelle Henley, Karen Trendler & MarionGaraï (2021): Could Culling of Elephants Be Considered Inhumane and Illegal in South AfricanLaw?, Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, DOI: 10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529

Published online: 29 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Journal of InternatIonal WIldlIfe laW & PolIcy

Could Culling of Elephants Be Considered Inhumane and Illegal in South African Law?

Rob Slotow* , Andrew Blackmore* , Michelle Henley , Karen Trendler and Marion Garaï

ABSTRACTElephant culling is included in National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in the Republic of South Africa, as a last-resort option to reduce elephant population size when required to meet reserve objectives. Recent judg-ments in South African courts have emphasised the importance of considering animal welfare in conservation. We assess the approved method of culling elephant family units, in terms of the legal and policy framework in South Africa, as well as considering elephant welfare and wellbeing. We find that the current culling method is likely to be inhumane, and potentially inconsistent with the Constitution, as interpreted by the judi-ciary. In addition, in certain circumstances, culling is illegal in terms of the Animals Protection and Meat Safety Acts, and contravenes World Organisation for Animal Health and global standards for the slaughter of animals. We recommend con-sidering a moratorium on culling of elephant family units, as well as of lone bulls, until humane slaughter methods, and standard operation procedures that ensure an extremely high probability of instantaneous (“clean”) kill, are developed and approved. We recommend an ethics review process for con-servation management interventions involving wellbeing risks to animals, such as is required for animal research. Notwithstanding other imperatives that need consideration, conservation practice should better balance welfare, to align with both South African legislation and global norms.

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. —attributed to Mahatma Gandhi

1.  Introduction

With rapidly expanding human pressure and global change, there is increas-ing pressure on wildlife populations across Africa, as well as increasing

https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.1972529

© 2021 taylor & francis Group, llc

CONTACT rob Slotow slotow@ukzn.ac.za School of life Sciences, university of KwaZulu-natal, P Bag X01 Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South africa; andrew Blackmore School of law, university of KwaZulu-natal, P Bag X01 Scottsville 3209, Pietermaritzburg, South africa; Michelle Henley applied Behavioural ecology and ecosystem research unit, School of environmental Sciences, university of South africa, Private Bag X5, florida 1710, South africa; Karen trendler elephants alive, Po Box 960, Hoedspruit, 1380, South africa; Mariaon Garaï elephant Specialist advisory Group, Vaalwater, limpopo, South africa.*these authors share joint first authorship of this article.

2 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

human–wildlife interaction and conflict.1 This may necessitate more man-agement interventions to mitigate anthropogenic effects, as well as ensuring the sustainability of populations and ecosystems in areas that are increas-ingly constrained by development.2 African savanna elephants (Loxodonta africana) are globally endangered,3 with declining populations across much of Africa, but increasing populations in southern Africa.4 Within South Africa, elephants are not classified as threatened, increasing by more than 40% since 2006, and occurring in 80 reserves or extensive wildlife areas, including small fenced areas with increasing populations.5 South African National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephant (N&S)6 require an elephant management plan for areas with elephants, which needs to consider the purpose of the reserve and the long-term survival of the species and ecosystem, and indicate any planned management interventions.7 As such, conservation managers will need to balance many different imperatives that come to bear on decisions, as elaborated in the Assessment of South African Elephant Management.8

Elephant management is contentious, and both the N&S and the man-agement assessment emerged from a Ministerial Scientific Round Table of experts that concluded that “there is no compelling evidence for immediate, large-scale reduction of elephant numbers in the Kruger National Park (KNP),” but that “in some protected areas including the KNP, elephant density, distribution and population structure may need to be managed locally.” 9

1See generally Richard Hoare, Lessons From 20 Years of Human Elephant Conflict Mitigation in Africa, 20 Human Dimensions of Wildlife 289-295 (2015); Enrico Di Minin et  al., A Pan-African Spatial Assessment of Human Conflicts With Lions and Elephants, 12 Nature Communications 2978 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23283-w.2See generally Peter A. Lindsey et  al., More Than $1 billion Needed Annually to Secure Africa’s Protected Areas With Lions, 115 Proceedings of the Nat’l Academy of Sciences E10788-E10796 (2018); Hoare, supra note 1; Di Minin et  al., supra note 1.3See generally K. S. Gobush et  al., Loxodonta africana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T181008073A181022663 (2021),https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-1.RLTS.T181008073A181022663.en (last visited 2 July 2021).4C. R. Thouless et  al., African Elephant Status Report 2016: An Update from the African Elephant Database (2016), https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SSC-OP-060_A.pdf.5See generally SA Jeanetta Selier et  al., The Legal Challenges of Transboundary Wildlife Management at the Population Level: The Case of a Trilateral Elephant Population in Southern Africa, 19 J. of Int’l Wildlife Law & Pol’y 101-135 (2016), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13880292.2016.1167460; Andy Blackmore, Climate Change and the Ownership of Game: A Concern for Fenced Wildlife Areas, 62 KOEDOE—African Protected Area Conservation and Science (2020), http://www.koedoe.co.za/index.php/KOEDOE/art./view/1594.6National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, (10/2004) (S.Afr.): National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in South Africa, GN 251 in GG 30833 of 29 February 2008 (2008), § 6.7Within the context of the RSA, National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004; National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (S. Afr.).8Assessment of South African Elephant Management (R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell eds., 2008).9Norman Owen-Smith et  al., A Scientific Perspective on the Management of Elephants in the Kruger National Park and Elsewhere: Elephant Conservation, 102 S. African j. of science 389-394, 389 (2006).

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 3

Culling is the last resort option in elephant population management, and all other interventions need to have been seriously considered prior to consideration of culling.10 The history of elephant culling, methods, economics, management context, approaches, demographic effects, distur-bance culling, short- and long-term consequences of culling in terms of stress, behaviour, demography, and gaps in our knowledge, have been reviewed by Slotow et  al.11 An assessment, by Lötter et  al. of the ethical considerations for elephant management by culling included significant ethical issues, analogous to justifying killing fellow humans in a war, and “can be justifiable only as an ethically flawed procedure to be employed under strict conditions.”12 Lötter et  al. further emphasised the weightiest moral considerations of making a decision to cull elephants, and that one should “avoid prolonging any suffering by killing them as humanely as possible, in as short a time as possible, and with the least possible dis-turbance.”13 Hopkinson et  al. undertook an assessment of the legal context for the management of elephants in South Africa, and most of the legis-lative framing they provided is still relevant.14 However, there have been important developments since their assessments, mainly in the subsequent proclamation of the N&S, and court judgements that highlight the impor-tance of considering animal welfare and wellbeing in conservation, which are reviewed in the following in Section 3 and Table 1.

In addition, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act of 2004 (NEMBA)15 is currently under revision,16 and will require animal

10Biodiversity Act, supra note 6 at §§ 3(i), 15 (3) & § 19(b)(ii).11See generally Rob Slotow et  al., Lethal Management of Elephants, in Assessment of South African Elephant Management 370-405 (R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell eds., 2008).12Hennie P. Lötter et  al., Ethical Considerations in Elephant Management, in Assessment of South African Elephant Management 307–338 (R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell eds., 2008).13Id. at 328.14See generally Lisa Hopkinson, Marius van Staden, and Jeremy Ridl, National and International Law, in Assessment of South African Elephant Management 363-409 (R. J. Scholes and K. G. Mennell eds., 2008).15National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (S. Afr.), https://www.gov.za/docu-ments/national-environmental-management-biodiversity-act-0.16Draft National Environmental Laws Amendment Bill, B 14—2017 (2017) (S. Afr.), https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201902/b14d2017a.pdf (last visited 27 Sep. 2020). At the time of drafting this article, this draft bill had been provisionally endorsed by the National Government’s Portfolio Committee on the Environment for public consultation. In this bill, “wellbeing” is currently defined as a “state where the living conditions of a faunal biological resource are conducive to its health.’’ This definition has subsequently been amended in the Draft Policy Position on the Conservation and Ecologically Sustainable Use of Elephant, Lion, Leopard and Rhinoceros (Government Notice No. 566 in Government Gazette 44776 of 24 June 2021 section 2 (2021)) as the “holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, and its ability to cope with its environment.” This policy has also defined “welfare” as an animal that “is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence), it is healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress.” Furthermore, section 2 of this policy indicates that both these defini-tions are due to be incorporated into the bill in the forthcoming round of its revision.

4 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

wellbeing to be taken into account in biodiversity management, as dis-cussed in Section 3.

In this article, we review the legal and policy context for elephant culling in South Africa, considering animal welfare and legal requirements for humane killing of animals, including within the context of consumptive use of products. We recommend policies regarding the future of elephant culling in South Africa. Importantly, we do not address the question as to whether a reduction in elephant population size by culling may or may not be necessary, but rather, whether the current method of culling, as provided for in the N&S, is justifiable and appropriate. As such, this article takes a narrow perspective addressing welfare concerns of the method, and does not undertake a balancing of other conservation imperatives that would be brought to bear on any specific decision to cull, which we will address elsewhere.

2.  Culling Methods

We consider culling in terms of the two different contexts in which ele-phants are killed to reduce population size: (1) the killing of male elephants (“bulls”) that are separate from the females, and (2) the killing of family units of elephants, comprising related adult females, their various aged offspring, and associated adult males present at the time of the cull. Minimum standards for culling have been set in the N&S, requiring that culling must be done with quick and humane methods, with a rifle of minimum specified calibre.17 The killing of male elephants is through shooting with the appropriate calibre weapon, which can ensure a quick, clean, and humane kill. If the animal is killed quickly, while alone, there may be little medium- or long-term effect on the remaining elephants.18 The “clean kill” spots for elephants are brain shots (frontal or temporal).19 Given the size and thickness of the skull, and the circumstances of the cull, however, achieving “clean/outright” kills is difficult, even with con-trolled hunting situations.20 This is especially challenging when attempting a high kill rate when culling family units. An additional consideration is when groups of bulls are culled, in which case the first bull is killed, and

17National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10/2004): Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, Government Notice No.R.152 in Gazette 29657 of 23 Feb. 2007 (2007) § 26(1)(vii).18See generally Tarryne Burke et  al., Risk and Ethical Concerns of Hunting Male Elephant: Behavioural and Physiological Assays of the Remaining Elephants, 3 PLoS ONE e2417 (2008).19Review of Options for Managing the Impacts of Locally Overabundant African Elephants, 62 (D. Balfour et  al. eds., 2007); Slotow et  al., supra note 11, at 379.20For examples of elephant shots, see the following videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puy-rAgAMvPk; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgInE3VJoTw; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxcRt-c7Z6R8; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erLeqZd_XmE; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5vXHV3k54; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v7KShq0yMw.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 5

the others are herded to the proximity of the carcass, and then shot21; this results in a delay in killing subsequent bulls.

The killing of family units is more complicated, and the N&S require the entire family unit and associated juvenile bulls to be killed. The acceptable practice for culling family units is by shooting from a helicop-ter.22 A group is herded by the helicopter to a place where ground teams can access the carcasses, and animals are killed by shooting from the helicopter while they are being herded, with the matriarch shot first.23 This causes confusion as the others mill around the matriarch.24 Then, the next oldest elephants are systematically killed, with the youngest calves last, until the whole group is down.25 Thereafter, the ground teams move in and prepare the carcasses for processing 26 in line with the N&S, one purpose of which is to ensure that elephants are managed in a way that ensures the sustainable use of hair, skin, meat, and ivory products.27

Although the intention is to kill the elephants as cleanly and quickly as possible with a brain shot, in practice this is difficult to achieve, and it is inevitable that the process takes several minutes to complete: up to 19 minutes for a group of seven from initial herding to last shot,28 and about 10 minutes average for more than 10 culls in KNP conducted when the highly trained team was still in place in 1994.29 Once the shots start, the elephants mill about distressed, vocalising loudly with young elephants bellowing, until the process is completed, making it increasingly difficult to get “good” shots. Some individuals are wounded, or trapped under others, rather than instantaneously dispatched.30 The required checking of carcasses to ensure death is not as thoroughly done as would be consid-ered acceptable from a good slaughter practice, and cull officials often do not look for the five signs used to confirm death.31 Even when using drugs for culling, such as Scoline in KNP, the process takes up to 20 min-utes to complete, with similar behaviours by the matriarch and other herd

21Slotow et  al., supra note 11, at 379.22Id. at 379; Balfour et  al., supra note 19, at 62.23Roy G. Bengis, Elephant Population Control in African National Parks, 22 Pachyderm 83-86, 86 (1996).24Id. at 85.25Slotow et  al., supra note 11, at 380.26Bengis, supra note 23, at 85.27National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004: Norms and Standards for the management of damage-causing animals in South Africa, GN 512 in GG 40236 of 30 Aug. 2016 (2004) § n 2 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( v ) , h t t p : / / w w w. s h a n g o n i . c o . z a / n o r m s - s t a n d a r d s - m a n a g e m e n t - d a m a g e - causing-animals-south-africa/.28J. Hattingh et  al., Blood Composition in Culled Elephants and Buffaloes, 55 J. of the S. African Veterinary Ass’n 157-164, 158 (1984).29The third author’s personal observation of a number of culling exercises that took place in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, during May 1994.30Fourth author’s personal observation of one culling exercise that took place within Kruger National Park, South Africa, during 1994.31Fourth author’s personal observation one of the final culls taking place in the Kruger National Park, South Africa, in 1994.

6 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

members as just outlined.32 Noting that use of Scoline is now prohibited in the N&S as the elephants remain fully conscious until subsequently shot,33 these observations are still relevant for any alternative method that may be considered that involves tranquillisation.

Non-fatal wounding of animals does occur. For example, Hattingh et  al.34 note that most animals die instantaneously, implying that some do not, and Whyte35 indicates that Scoline had the advantage of obviating wound-ing and providing a far greater safety margin for staff and scientists attending such culls. Balfour et  al.36 indicate that “any of the culled animals still showing signs of life when the ground crew moved in were imme-diately brain shot by a marksman on the ground,”37 and “in the unfortunate event that elephants are wounded, or managed to escape from a group identified for elimination, the operators must act to ensure that such situations are dealt with as quickly as possible to minimise emotional or physical suffering,”38 implying that such events do occur. It should also be noted that, as the last large-scale culls took place in the mid 1990s, there is a now general lack of expertise, requiring training,39 posing a risk to effective slaughter.

It should be noted that additional culling methods not currently allowed by the N&S have been proposed in the KNP Elephant Management Plan (EMP).40 The proposed interventions include the creation of a landscape of fear for elephants by disturbance culling and elephant pitfalls with stakes, with the aim of provoking distress calls to scare other elephants.41

3.  Legal and Policy Context

3.1.  The Constitution

Notwithstanding that prima facie reading of the South African Constitution42 is anthropocentric in its foundation, it has been argued that the “Environmental Right” of section 24 in the Bill of Rights is the primary

32Hattingh et  al., supra note 28, at 158. Fifth author’s personal observation in in 1993.33National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in South Africa, supra note 6, § 19(e).34Hattingh et  al., supra note 28, at 157.35Ian J. Whyte, Headaches and Heartaches—The Elephant Management Dilemma, in Environmental Ethics: Introductory readings 293-305, 14 (D. Schmidtz & E. Willot eds., 2001).36Balfour et  al., supra note 19.37Id. at 62.38Id. at 63.39Id. at 61.40Ferreira et  al., Elephant Management Plan: Kruger National Park, 2011-2020 (2011). The same applies to the 2013-2022 version, which was published during November 2012. See https://www.sanparks.org/assets/docs/parks_kruger/elephants/knp-elephant-management-plan.pdf.41Id. Map 8 at 58, Table 4 at 56, and Box 15 at 57, in the 2013 version.42S. Afr. Const. 1996.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 7

right conferring protection to the natural environment. The Right (the “Environmental Right”) reads as follows:

Everyone has the right—

to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing; and

to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that—

prevent pollution and ecological degradation;

promote conservation; and

secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.43

The “environment” is defined in section 1 of NEMA, and encompasses “animal life”; hence, it is common cause that the Environmental Right applies, in some manner, to animals. Three arguments tie the Environmental Right to the welfare of animals. First is anthropogenic interpretation, in which animal welfare is given effect solely through the benevolence of humans.44 The repugnance, compassion, and empathy that people experience when an animal is treated in an inhumane manner are seated, as a minimum, in people’s wellbeing and, in its extreme, their health.45 Furthermore, some might argue that the repugnance and aver-sion to animal cruelty also degrade or harm a person’s right to dignity46 of the Constitution47 when this occurs. People’s right to have the envi-ronment protected48 is given effect through people being custodians of the environment, and, hence, animal welfare. Thus, it is common cause that people may exercise their right to have animals protected against cruel and inhumane treatment.49

Second, the ecocentric interpretation considers humans as part of the animal kingdom and an integral component of the environment; thus, the term “everyone has the right” should not be restricted to humans alone,

43Id. § 24.44David Bilchitz, Does Transformative Constitutionalism Require the Recognition of Animal Rights?, 25 S. African Public Law 267-300, 268 (2010), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1872936; Amy P. Wilson, (Non) Human(imal) Rights: Dismantling the Separateness in Law and Policy, 3 Society Reg. 39-65, 39 (2019), https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/sr/art./view/20641.45Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals in South Africa,, supra note 27, § 24(a).46S. Afr. Const. § 10 1996.47David Bilchitz, Exploring the Relationship Between the Environmental Right in the South African Constitution and Protection for the Interests of Animals, 134(4) S. African Law J. 740-777, 5 (2017); Wilson, supra note 44, at 40.48S. Afr. Const. 1996. § 24(b).49Bilchitz, supra note 47, at 16; Wilson, supra note 44, at n. 13 & n.15.

8 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

but includes, at least, non-human animals.50 Thereby, the Environmental Right would confer rights to the environment and components thereof. The conferring of constitutional-based rights to the environment is not novel or speculative; the National Water Act (NWA)51 underpins the bimodal nature of the Environmental Right by granting a water right to both people in terms of a “human needs reserve,” and to the environment—the “envi-ronmental reserve,” which is to protect aquatic ecosystems.52 The act places equal weight on these two reserves,53 and, in so doing, embraces the notion that non-human animals enjoy environmental rights similar to those their human counterparts. The corollary to this interpretation of the Constitution is that environmental decision makers, both private and public, have a non-discriminatory fiducial duty to give due consideration to these rights in a manner equivalent to what they do for people.54

Third, the Environmental Right is viewed as bimodal, being both anthro-pocentric and ecocentric.55 Irrespective of whether the interpretation is anthropocentric, ecocentric, or a combination, it is evident that the well-being of animals is entrenched within the Bill of Rights. This conclusion is echoed in the progressive and evolving recognition of animal rights in South African courts, as explained in Section 3.56 The generality and the transformative nature of the Constitution disavow parochial, narrow char-acterisation of what may be considered inhumane, and morally and eth-ically acceptable to society.57

The fiduciary need to reduce elephant numbers to prevent unsustainable impacts to their habitat is derived from the Environmental Right in that environmental degradation is to be prevented58 and the environment con-served59 for the benefit of present and future generations. Furthermore, consumptive use of elephant products is encapsulated within this right by the way the “use of natural resources” must be “ecologically sustainable.”60

50See generally Bilchitz, supra note 47; see generally Andrew Muir, Offences, Game and Property—Some Unresolved Issues Surrounding Ownership of Wild Animals in South Africa, 27 Stellenbosch Law Review 136-160 (2016).51National Water Act 36 of 1998 (S. Afr.)..52Id. § 24(b).53Andrew Craig Blackmore, Rediscovering the Origins and Inclusion of the Public Trust Doctrine in South African Environmental Law: A Speculative Analysis, 27 RECIEL 187-198, 12 (2018).54Bilchitz, supra note 42, at 268; Blackmore, supra note 53 at 9.55Bilchitz, supra note 45, at n. 42; Blackmore, supra note 53, at 12; Andrew Robert Muir, An Interpretation of the South African Constitutional “Environmental Right” (Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996) and an Assessment of Its Relationship to Sustainable Development (2014), https://ukzn-dspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/12290.56National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2016 (CCT1/16) ZACC, at para. 55 (S. Afr.)57See generally Bilchitz, supra note 42.58S. Afr. Const. § 24(b)(i).59Id. § 24 (b)(ii).60Id. § 24(b)(iii).

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 9

Tabl

e 1.

ass

essm

ent

of l

egis

latio

n an

d Gu

idin

g d

ocum

ents

rel

evan

t to

ele

phan

t cu

lling

in S

outh

afri

ca, i

n ad

ditio

n to

the

tex

t d

iscu

ssio

n

legi

slat

ion/

judg

emen

t/po

licy

rele

vant

sec

tion/

aspe

ctre

leva

nce

to t

he c

ullin

g m

etho

d

Supr

eme

cour

t of

app

eal

Nat

iona

l Cou

ncil

of

Soci

etie

s fo

r th

e Pr

even

tion

of C

ruel

ty t

o An

imal

s v.

Ope

nsha

w61

15

Whi

le t

his

case

was

cen

tred

on

the

feed

ing

of a

ble

sbok

(D

amal

iscu

s py

garg

us p

hilli

ps)

to a

tig

er (

Pant

hera

tig

ris)

in s

mal

l enc

losu

re, a

nd s

uch

cons

titut

es c

ruel

mal

trea

tmen

t of

the

ant

elop

e, c

amer

on J

a in

his

diss

entin

g op

inio

n br

ough

t in

to c

ase

law

the

nee

d to

rec

ogni

se a

nd t

reat

ani

mal

s as

sen

tient

bei

ngs.

alth

ough

ca

mer

on f

ocus

ed o

n th

e pa

in f

elt

and

suffe

ring

endu

red

by c

ruel

ly t

reat

ed a

nim

als,

the

purp

osef

ul u

se o

f th

e te

rm “

sent

ient

” in

fers

an

appr

ecia

tion

for

the

abili

ty o

f no

n-hu

man

ani

mal

s to

ant

icip

ate,

lear

n, r

easo

n, a

nd

rem

embe

r ev

ents

in a

man

ner

not

diss

imila

r to

the

ir hu

man

-ani

mal

cou

nter

part

s.

the

rele

vanc

e of

cam

eron

’s di

ssen

ting

judg

emen

t is

tw

ofol

d. t

he fi

rst

cons

ider

atio

n is

tha

t in

divi

dual

ele

phan

ts, a

s hi

ghlig

hted

in t

his

artic

le, t

hat

are

not

inst

antly

kill

ed, o

r tr

appe

d un

der

an in

divi

dual

tha

t ha

s be

en s

hot,

are

likel

y to

be

seen

by

the

cour

ts a

s an

imal

s ex

perie

ncin

g bo

th s

igni

fican

t pa

in a

nd s

uffer

ing

until

suc

h tim

e as

the

y ar

e ki

lled

or d

ies.

the

seco

nd c

onsi

dera

tion

is t

hat

an e

leph

ant,

give

n th

is h

ighe

r or

der

of

sent

ienc

e, c

ompa

red,

for

inst

ance

, to

a bl

esbo

k , i

s lik

ely

to b

e tr

aum

atis

ed b

y th

e no

ise

of t

he c

ullin

g op

erat

ion,

and

by

both

the

dea

th a

nd s

uffer

ing

of w

ound

ed in

divi

dual

s, pa

rtic

ular

ly w

hen

thes

e an

imal

s ar

e th

e m

othe

r, si

blin

gs, o

r co

mpa

nion

.co

nstit

utio

nal c

ourt

N

atio

nal S

ocie

ty f

or t

he

Prev

entio

n of

Cru

elty

to

Anim

als

v. M

inis

ter

of

Just

ice

and

Cons

titut

iona

l D

evel

opm

ent62

16

the

swee

ping

fun

ctio

ns o

f th

is d

ecis

ion

are

in “

prev

ent[

ing]

the

ill-t

reat

men

t of

ani

mal

s”63

17 and

the

sta

tute

s “s

et t

he

stan

dard

for

how

ani

mal

s ar

e to

be

care

d fo

r, tr

eate

d an

d us

ed. u

nder

scor

ing

thes

e is

the

not

ion

that

the

pr

even

tion

of u

nnec

essa

ry c

ruel

ty t

o an

imal

s—in

clud

ing

thos

e w

hich

we

may

use

for

ser

vice

or

food

—is

a

goal

of

our

soci

ety.”

6418

emph

asis

ed s

ever

al a

dditi

onal

poi

nts

from

oth

er r

elev

ant

judg

emen

ts: (

1) “

the

2014

Sup

rem

e co

urt

of a

ppea

l de

cisi

on in

the

S v

lem

thon

gtha

i6519 s

ituat

ed t

he c

are

and

prot

ectio

n of

ani

mal

s w

ithin

the

am

bit

of t

he

cons

titut

ion”

as

wel

l as

the

stat

emen

t in

lem

thon

gtha

i tha

t “c

onst

itutio

nal v

alue

s di

ctat

e a

mor

e ca

ring

attit

ude

tow

ards

fel

low

hum

ans,

anim

als

and

the

envi

ronm

ent

in g

ener

al,”

and

that

the

Sup

rem

e co

urt

“con

clud

ed f

urth

er t

hat

this

obl

igat

ion

was

esp

ecia

lly p

ertin

ent

beca

use

of o

ur h

isto

ry,”66

20 and

lem

thon

gtha

i is

also

not

able

bec

ause

it r

elat

es a

nim

al w

elfa

re t

o qu

estio

ns o

f bi

odiv

ersi

ty. a

nim

al w

elfa

re is

con

nect

ed w

ith

the

cons

titut

iona

l rig

ht t

o ha

ve t

he “e

nviro

nmen

t pr

otec

ted

… t

hrou

gh le

gisl

ativ

e an

d ot

her

mea

ns”

[ref

sect

ion

24(b

) of

the

con

stitu

tion]

.6721 (2

) “ca

mer

on J

a’s

min

ority

jud

gmen

t in

ope

nsha

w68

22 rec

ogni

sed

that

ani

mal

s ar

e w

orth

y of

pro

tect

ion

not

only

bec

ause

of

the

refle

ctio

n th

at t

his

has

on h

uman

val

ues,

but

beca

use

anim

als

“are

sen

tient

bei

ngs

that

are

cap

able

of

suffe

ring

and

of e

xper

ienc

ing

pain

” an

d al

so t

he n

eed

for

“pre

vent

ing

ill-t

reat

men

t of

voi

cele

ss b

eing

s.”69

23 (3) “

the

Hig

h co

urt

in S

outh

afri

can

Pred

ator

Bre

eder

s as

soci

atio

n,70

24 a u

nani

mou

s fu

ll Be

nch

foun

d th

at c

anne

d-hu

ntin

g of

lion

s is

“ab

horr

ent

and

repu

lsiv

e” d

ue t

o th

e an

imal

s’ su

fferin

g. 71

25 on

appe

al, t

he S

upre

me

cour

t of

app

eal d

id n

ot d

ispu

te t

his

findi

ng.72

26 th

e co

nstit

utio

nal c

ourt

con

clud

ed: “

ther

efor

e, t

he r

atio

nale

beh

ind

prot

ectin

g an

imal

wel

fare

has

shi

fted

fro

m

mer

ely

safe

guar

ding

the

mor

al s

tatu

s of

hum

ans

to p

laci

ng in

trin

sic

valu

e on

ani

mal

s as

indi

vidu

als,”

and

“g

uard

ing

the

inte

rest

s of

ani

mal

s re

flect

s co

nstit

utio

nal v

alue

s.” f

urth

erm

ore,

“th

is in

tegr

ativ

e ap

proa

ch

corr

ectly

link

s th

e su

fferin

g of

indi

vidu

al a

nim

als

to c

onse

rvat

ion,

and

illu

stra

tes

the

exte

nt t

o w

hich

sho

win

g re

spec

t an

d co

ncer

n fo

r in

divi

dual

ani

mal

s re

info

rces

bro

ader

env

ironm

enta

l pro

tect

ion

effor

ts. a

nim

al w

elfa

re

and

anim

al c

onse

rvat

ion

toge

ther

refl

ect

two

inte

rtw

ined

val

ues.”

7327

thes

e st

atem

ents

fro

m t

he c

onst

itutio

nal c

ourt

em

phas

ise

that

it is

a g

oal o

f so

ciet

y th

at

anim

als

are

wid

ely

prot

ecte

d fro

m il

l-tre

atm

ent,

incl

udin

g in

the

ir us

e.

alth

ough

not

exp

licitl

y st

ated

in t

he c

onst

itutio

n, a

nim

al w

elfa

re is

a c

onst

itutio

nal

valu

e, li

nked

bot

h to

Sec

tion

24 (

a) in

saf

egua

rdin

g th

e m

oral

sta

tus

of h

uman

s, i.e

., hu

man

wel

lbei

ng, a

nd t

o Se

ctio

n 24

(b)

gua

rdin

g th

e in

tere

st o

f an

imal

s—pr

otec

ting

the

envi

ronm

ent.

an

imal

wel

fare

is n

ot s

econ

dary

or

subs

idia

ry t

o co

nser

vatio

n, in

tha

t “a

nim

al w

elfa

re

and

anim

al c

onse

rvat

ion

toge

ther

refl

ect

two

inte

rtw

ined

val

ues.”

a c

onse

rvat

ion

obje

ctiv

e to

be

achi

eved

by

culli

ng c

anno

t be

giv

en m

ore

wei

ght

than

con

cern

s ov

er

the

impa

ct o

n th

e w

elfa

re o

f el

epha

nts,

whe

n ju

stify

ing

a de

cisi

on, u

nles

s th

ere

is s

ome

imm

edia

te a

nd p

rese

nt d

ange

r to

hum

an li

fe o

r w

ellb

eing

.

61 2

008,

462

/07

ZASC

A,

78 (

S. A

fr.).

62(C

CT1

/16)

[20

16]

ZACC

46

(S.A

fr.).

63Id

. at

par

a. 4

0.64

Id.

at p

ara.

58.

65Le

mth

ongt

hai

v. S

201

3, Z

ASC

A 1

31 (

S. A

fr.).

66Id

. at

par

a. 5

7.67

Id.

at p

ara.

58.

68O

pens

haw

, su

pra

note

61.

69Id

. at

par

a. 6

0.70

Sout

h Af

rican

Pre

dato

r Br

eede

rs A

ssoc

iatio

n an

d O

ther

s v.

Min

iste

r of

Env

ironm

enta

l Affa

irs a

nd T

ouris

m 2

009

(190

0/20

07)

ZAFS

HC

68,

2009

) (S

. A

fr.).

71Id

. at

par

a. 7

2.72

See

SA P

reda

tor

Bree

ders

Ass

ocia

tion

and

Oth

ers

v. M

inis

ter

of E

nviro

nmen

tal A

ffairs

and

Tou

rism

(72

/10)

[20

10]

ZASC

A 1

51.

73N

atio

nal S

ocie

ty f

or t

he P

reve

ntio

n of

Cru

elty

to

Anim

als

v. M

inis

ter

of J

ustic

e an

d Co

nstit

utio

nal D

evel

opm

ent

and

Anot

her

(CC

T1/1

6) [

2016

] ZA

CC 4

6 at

57

and

58.

(Con

tinue

d)

10 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

Gau

teng

Hig

h co

urt

nat

iona

l Soc

iety

for

the

Pr

even

tion

of c

ruel

ty t

o an

imal

s v.

Min

iste

r of

en

viro

nmen

tal a

ffairs

an

d ot

hers

7428

In t

his

nSP

ca c

onst

itutio

nal c

ourt

cas

e, J

ustic

e Ko

llape

n co

nclu

ded

that

“Its

vie

ws

are

loca

ted

in t

he r

ecog

nitio

n th

at a

nim

al c

ruel

ty w

as p

rohi

bite

d bo

th b

ecau

se o

f th

e in

trin

sic

valu

es w

e pl

ace

on a

nim

als

as in

divi

dual

s bu

t al

so t

o sa

fegu

ard

and

prev

ent

the

dege

nera

tion

of t

he m

oral

sta

tus

of h

uman

s.”75

29 “t

hese

una

mbi

guou

s an

d co

mpe

lling

sen

timen

ts r

equi

re c

aref

ul c

onsi

dera

tion

in t

hat

not

only

do

they

pro

vide

gu

idan

ce in

ter

ms

of t

he le

gal c

ondu

ct t

hat

is e

xpec

ted

of u

s bu

t ra

ther

tha

t it

also

spe

aks

to t

he k

ind

of

cust

odia

l car

e w

e ar

e en

join

ed t

o sh

ow t

o th

e en

viro

nmen

t fo

r th

e be

nefit

of

this

and

fut

ure

gene

ratio

ns.”76

30 “t

here

is a

diff

eren

ce in

law

in h

avin

g re

spon

sibi

lity

for

the

wel

fare

man

date

and

tak

ing

wel

fare

con

side

ratio

ns

into

acc

ount

. the

latt

er d

oes

not

depe

nd o

n th

e le

gal r

espo

nsib

ility

to

set

and

enfo

rce

stan

dard

s bu

t ra

ther

on

an u

nder

stan

ding

tha

t ev

en if

the

man

date

doe

s no

t re

side

with

the

dec

isio

n m

aker

, thi

s do

es n

ot p

recl

ude

the

deci

sion

mak

er f

rom

con

side

ring

them

if in

deed

the

y ar

e re

leva

nt.”77

31

In in

terp

retin

g th

e co

nstit

utio

nal j

udge

men

t, an

imal

cru

elty

is p

rohi

bite

d; w

e ha

ve t

o va

lue

anim

als

as in

divi

dual

s; it

is a

mor

al o

blig

atio

n; a

nd d

egen

erat

ion

or e

rosi

on o

f hi

gh

mor

al s

tatu

s m

ust

be p

reve

nted

. th

is de

cisio

n em

phas

ised

the

high

sta

ndar

d of

cus

todi

al r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s th

at p

erso

ns a

nd

agen

cies

hav

e to

sho

w, i

nclu

ding

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f ca

re f

or t

he e

nviro

nmen

t, an

d th

at

such

car

e is

seen

as

bene

ficia

l to

peop

le m

ost

broa

dly.

a de

cisio

n to

cul

l sho

uld

not

be

base

d on

per

sona

l vie

ws

or o

pini

ons,

or r

eal o

r pe

rcei

ved

loca

l or

shor

t-te

rm n

eed

alon

e.

this

hig

hlig

hted

the

fac

t th

at t

he M

inis

ter

of e

nviro

nmen

tal a

ffairs

was

req

uire

d to

co

nsid

er w

elfa

re is

sues

, eve

n if

the

man

date

for

ani

mal

wel

fare

fel

l und

er t

he a

nim

als

Prot

ectio

n ac

t ad

min

iste

red

by t

he M

inis

ter

of a

gric

ultu

re, f

ishe

ries,

and

fore

stry

. thi

s ju

dgem

ent

is im

port

ant,

beca

use,

pre

viou

sly,

the

dep

artm

ent

of e

nviro

nmen

tal a

ffairs

ha

d ab

roga

ted

wel

fare

con

cern

s fo

r el

epha

nts

on t

his

basi

s (s

ee b

elow

).Su

prem

e co

urt

of a

ppea

l Le

mth

ongt

hai v

. Sta

te78

32

“the

dut

y re

stin

g on

us

to p

rote

ct a

nd c

onse

rve

our

biod

iver

sity

is o

wed

to

pres

ent

and

futu

re g

ener

atio

ns. I

n so

do

ing,

we

will

als

o be

red

ress

ing

past

neg

lect

. con

stitu

tiona

l val

ues

dict

ate

a m

ore

carin

g at

titud

e to

war

ds

fello

w h

uman

s, an

imal

s an

d th

e en

viro

nmen

t in

gen

eral

. allo

win

g th

e ki

nd o

f be

havi

our

that

res

ulte

d in

the

co

nvic

tions

in t

he p

rese

nt c

ase

to b

e de

alt

with

too

leni

ently

will

hav

e th

e op

posi

te e

ffect

to

wha

t w

as

inte

nded

by

the

neM

Ba. a

non

-cus

todi

al s

ente

nce

will

sen

d ou

t th

e w

rong

mes

sage

.”

the

judg

emen

t lin

ks c

arin

g fo

r an

imal

s to

red

ress

of

past

neg

lect

. It

also

em

phas

ises

tha

t th

e ki

nd o

f be

havi

our

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

sev

ere,

and

req

uirin

g a

cust

odia

l sen

tenc

e.

alth

ough

thi

s is

link

ed t

o th

e w

hole

cas

e, a

nd n

ot j

ust

anim

al w

elfa

re, t

his

still

has

re

fere

nce.

und

erst

andi

ng t

hat

thou

sand

s of

ele

phan

ts w

ere

culle

d w

ithou

t re

ason

able

co

nsid

erat

ion

for

thei

r w

elfa

re, w

e ne

ed t

o be

mor

e ca

ring

now

.Go

vern

men

t fa

ct S

heet

fa

ct s

heet

for

the

la

unch

of

the

2008

n

orm

s an

d St

anda

rds

for

the

Man

agem

ent

of

elep

hant

s in

Sou

th

afric

a 79

33

”not

with

stan

ding

the

dep

artm

ent’s

will

ingn

ess

to t

ackl

e th

e is

sue

of e

leph

ant

wel

fare

in c

aptiv

ity, l

egal

adv

isor

s ar

gued

tha

t re

spon

sibi

lity

for

anim

al w

elfa

re r

esid

ed w

ith t

he d

epar

tmen

t of

agr

icul

ture

and

lan

d aff

airs

.”8034

“It w

as e

vent

ually

dec

ided

tha

t is

sues

rel

atin

g to

the

man

agem

ent

of e

leph

ants

in c

aptiv

ity w

ould

be

deal

t w

ith a

s M

inim

um S

tand

ards

in t

he e

nS,

whi

le t

he d

epar

tmen

t of

agr

icul

ture

and

lan

d aff

airs

wou

ld b

e in

vite

d to

dev

elop

nor

ms

(or

a co

de o

f co

nduc

t) d

ealin

g w

ith t

he t

rain

ing

and

ethi

cal t

reat

men

t of

ele

phan

ts. t

he

enS

ther

efor

e pr

ovid

es f

or t

he M

inst

er t

o de

velo

p M

inim

um S

tand

ards

with

in 1

2 m

onth

s.”81

35

ther

efor

e, in

the

n&S

, ani

mal

wel

fare

was

not

con

side

red

expl

icitl

y, b

ut r

athe

r th

e fo

cus

was

on

the

man

agem

ent

of e

leph

ants

, im

plyi

ng w

elfa

re w

as s

econ

dary

to

man

agem

ent

of

elep

hant

s, an

d th

at t

he d

epar

tmen

t of

env

ironm

enta

l affa

irs a

nd t

ouris

m a

brog

ated

w

elfa

re c

once

rns

for

elep

hant

s at

the

dra

ftin

g of

the

n&S

.

nat

iona

l act

n

atio

nal e

nviro

nmen

tal

Man

agem

ent

act82

36

this

is t

he p

rimar

y le

gisl

atio

n gi

ving

effe

ct t

o Se

ctio

n 24

of

the

Sa c

onst

itutio

n, a

nd c

onta

ins

a nu

mbe

r of

key

pr

inci

ples

, inc

ludi

ng:

“en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t m

ust

plac

e pe

ople

and

the

ir ne

eds

at t

he f

oref

ront

of

its c

once

rn, a

nd s

erve

th

eir

phys

ical

, psy

chol

ogic

al, d

evel

opm

enta

l, cu

ltura

l and

soc

ial i

nter

ests

equ

itabl

y.”83

37 “S

usta

inab

le d

evel

opm

ent

requ

ires

the

cons

ider

atio

n of

all

rele

vant

fac

tors

incl

udin

g th

e fo

llow

ing:

(i)

that

the

di

stur

banc

e of

eco

syst

ems

and

loss

of

biol

ogic

al d

iver

sity

are

avo

ided

, or,

whe

re t

hey

cann

ot b

e al

toge

ther

av

oide

d, a

re m

inim

ised

and

rem

edie

d.”84

38 “t

hat

a ris

k-av

erse

and

cau

tious

app

roac

h is

app

lied,

whi

ch t

akes

into

acc

ount

the

lim

its o

f cu

rren

t kn

owle

dge

abou

t th

e co

nseq

uenc

es o

f de

cisi

ons

and

actio

ns.”85

39 “t

hat

nega

tive

impa

cts

on t

he e

nviro

nmen

t an

d on

peo

ple’s

env

ironm

enta

l rig

hts

be a

ntic

ipat

ed a

nd

prev

ente

d, a

nd w

here

the

y ca

nnot

be

alto

geth

er p

reve

nted

, are

min

imis

ed a

nd r

emed

ied.

” 86

40 “(

4)(o

) th

e en

viro

nmen

t is

hel

d in

pub

lic t

rust

for

the

peo

ple,

the

ben

efici

al u

se o

f en

viro

nmen

tal r

esou

rces

m

ust

serv

e th

e pu

blic

inte

rest

and

the

env

ironm

ent

mus

t be

pro

tect

ed a

s th

e pe

ople

’s co

mm

on h

erita

ge.”87

41

neM

a pu

ts t

he n

eeds

of

peop

le a

t th

e fo

refro

nt o

f its

con

cern

, and

doe

s no

t ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt

anim

al w

elfa

re a

s a

bala

ncin

g re

quire

men

t as

inhe

rent

in S

ectio

n 24

(se

e ca

se la

w).

dis

turb

ance

, whi

ch w

ould

incl

ude

dist

urba

nce

to a

nim

als,

is a

void

ed a

s th

e fir

st p

riorit

y,

and

seco

nd t

o th

at, i

f it

cann

ot b

e av

oide

d it

mus

t be

min

imis

ed.

If w

e ar

e un

cert

ain

as t

o pa

rtic

ular

ris

ks o

r co

nseq

uenc

es, w

e m

ust

err

on t

he s

ide

of

caut

ion,

and

if w

e ar

e un

cert

ain

as t

o th

e de

gree

of

suffe

ring

caus

ed, a

ssum

e it

is h

igh,

be

cau

tious

to

avoi

d ca

usin

g un

know

n su

fferin

g.

cont

rave

ning

ani

mal

wel

fare

pro

visi

ons

has

nega

tive

impa

cts

on e

nviro

nmen

tal r

ight

, w

hich

mus

t be

ant

icip

ated

and

pre

vent

ed, i

.e.,

is r

equi

red

to b

e ta

ken

into

prim

ary

cons

ider

atio

n.

Man

ager

s of

ele

phan

ts a

re r

equi

red

to a

ct in

the

pub

lic t

rust

, ser

ve t

he p

ublic

inte

rest

, an

d pr

otec

t th

e en

viro

nmen

t as

a c

omm

on h

erita

ge f

or a

ll pe

ople

. dec

isio

ns o

r ac

tions

re

gard

ing

elep

hant

man

agem

ent

cann

ot b

e ta

ken

or a

cted

on

in is

olat

ion,

and

onl

y on

co

nsid

erin

g lo

cal a

nd im

med

iate

circ

umst

ance

s.

74 2

019

(865

15/2

017)

ZA

GPP

HC

367

(S.

Afr.

).75

Id.

§ at

par

a. 6

4.76

Id.

77Id

. §

at p

ara.

67.

78Le

mth

ongt

hai

v. S

201

4 (8

49/2

013)

ZA

SCA

131

(S.

Afr.

).79

Issu

ed b

y th

e D

epar

tmen

t of

Env

ironm

ent

and

Tour

ism

on

25 F

ebru

ary

2008

for

the

med

ia l

aunc

h of

the

N&

S. S

loto

w,

pers

onal

cop

y.80

Id.

pt 7

.81

Id.

pt 8

.82

Nat

iona

l En

viro

nmen

tal

Man

agem

ent

Act

107

of

1998

(S.

Afr.

), ht

tps:

//w

ww

.gov

.za/

docu

men

ts/n

atio

nal-e

nviro

nmen

tal-m

anag

emen

t-ac

t.83

Id.

§ 2(

2).

84Id

. §

2(4)

(a).

85Id

. §

2(4)

(vii)

.86

Id.

§ 2(

4)(v

iii).

87Id

. §

2.

Tabl

e 1.

con

tinue

d

legi

slat

ion/

judg

emen

t/po

licy

rele

vant

sec

tion/

aspe

ctre

leva

nce

to t

he c

ullin

g m

etho

d

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 11

nat

iona

l env

ironm

enta

l M

anag

emen

t: Bi

odiv

ersi

ty a

ct88

42

“a p

erso

n m

ay n

ot c

arry

out

a r

estr

icte

d ac

tivity

invo

lvin

g a

spec

imen

of

a lis

ted

thre

aten

ed o

r pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

with

out

a pe

rmit

issu

ed in

ter

ms

of [

this

act

].”89

43 th

e Sc

ient

ific

auth

ority

mus

t m

ake

reco

mm

enda

tions

9044 t

o an

issu

ing

auth

ority

on

appl

icat

ions

rec

eive

d fo

r pe

rmits

.9145

“In p

erfo

rmin

g its

dut

ies,

the

scie

ntifi

c au

thor

ity m

ust—

(a)

base

its

findi

ngs,

reco

mm

enda

tions

and

adv

ice

on a

sc

ient

ific

and

prof

essi

onal

rev

iew

of

avai

labl

e in

form

atio

n; a

nd (

b) c

onsu

lt, w

hen

nece

ssar

y, o

rgan

s of

sta

te, t

he

priv

ate

sect

or, n

on-g

over

nmen

tal o

rgan

isat

ions

, loc

al c

omm

uniti

es a

nd o

ther

sta

keho

lder

s be

fore

mak

ing

any

findi

ngs

or r

ecom

men

datio

ns o

r gi

ving

any

adv

ice.”

9246

“a d

ecis

ion

of t

he is

suin

g au

thor

ity t

o is

sue

or r

efus

e a

perm

it or

to

issu

e it

subj

ect

to c

ondi

tions

, mus

t be

co

nsis

tent

with

—(a

) th

e ap

plic

able

pro

visi

ons

of t

his

act;

(b)

the

natio

nal e

nviro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t pr

inci

ples

; (c)

the

nat

iona

l bio

dive

rsity

fra

mew

ork;

(d)

any

oth

er r

elev

ant

plan

s ad

opte

d or

app

rove

d in

ter

ms

of [

of t

his

act]

; (e)

any

app

licab

le in

tern

atio

nal a

gree

men

ts b

indi

ng o

n th

e re

publ

ic.”93

47

any

culli

ng o

f el

epha

nts

is a

res

tric

ted

activ

ity, a

nd w

ould

req

uire

a p

erm

it to

be

issu

ed b

y th

e is

suin

g au

thor

ity. H

owev

er, i

n te

rms

of t

he c

urre

nt n

eMBa

, the

re is

no

requ

irem

ent

for

the

issu

ing

auth

ority

to

cons

ider

asp

ects

of

anim

al w

elfa

re, a

s th

e el

emen

ts u

nder

cl

ause

88

do n

ot m

ake

refe

renc

e to

tha

t. H

owev

er, t

his

will

cha

nge

once

the

dra

ft

neM

Ba c

hang

es h

ave

been

pro

mul

gate

d (s

ee b

elow

). th

e on

e el

emen

t th

at m

ay b

e pr

escr

iptiv

e is

with

ref

eren

ce t

o in

tern

atio

nal a

gree

men

ts, i

nclu

ding

the

Wor

ld

org

anis

atio

n fo

r an

imal

Hea

lth p

olic

ies

(see

bel

ow).

W

hile

it m

ay n

ot h

ave

been

the

inte

nt o

f th

e ac

t, a

pote

ntia

l ele

men

t fo

r a

chec

k an

d ba

lanc

e is

in t

erm

s of

the

req

uire

men

t fo

r th

e Sc

ient

ific

auth

ority

to

mak

e re

com

men

datio

ns t

o th

e is

suin

g au

thor

ity o

n pe

rmit

appl

icat

ions

. the

lack

of

accr

edite

d an

imal

wel

fare

exp

ertis

e w

ithin

the

issu

ing

auth

oriti

es o

r Sc

ient

ific

auth

ority

wou

ld

indi

cate

the

nee

d to

con

sult

expe

rtis

e pr

ior

to r

ecom

men

ding

or

appr

ovin

g a

culli

ng

plan

, or

culli

ng p

erm

it ap

plic

atio

n.

alth

ough

the

re is

not

a r

equi

rem

ent

for

the

issu

ing

auth

ority

to

cons

ult

the

scie

ntifi

c au

thor

ity, t

he in

clus

ion

of “

mus

t,”94

48 with

the

res

t be

ing

sile

nt o

n th

e re

quire

men

t fo

r th

e is

suin

g au

thor

ity t

o co

nsul

t, im

plie

s th

at t

his

is a

req

uire

men

t in

the

per

mit

eval

uatio

n an

d ap

prov

al p

roce

ss.

dra

ft a

men

dmen

ts

dra

ft n

atio

nal

envi

ronm

enta

l law

s am

endm

ent

Bill,

9549

neM

Ba is

cur

rent

ly u

nder

rev

isio

n an

d, b

ased

on

the

lega

l jud

gem

ents

men

tione

d ab

ove,

“

wel

l-bei

ng” “

mea

ns a

sta

te w

here

the

livi

ng c

ondi

tions

of

a fa

unal

bio

logi

cal r

esou

rce

are

cond

uciv

e to

its

heal

th;”96

50 “t

o em

pow

er t

he M

inis

ter

to p

rohi

bit

cert

ain

activ

ities

tha

t m

ay n

egat

ivel

y im

pact

on

the

wel

lbei

ng o

f fa

unal

bi

olog

ical

res

ourc

es.”97

51 “

the

use

of in

dige

nous

bio

logi

cal r

esou

rces

in a

man

ner

that

is e

colo

gica

lly s

usta

inab

le, i

nclu

ding

tak

ing

into

ac

coun

t th

e w

ellb

eing

of

any

faun

al b

iolo

gica

l res

ourc

e in

volv

ed,”98

52 “t

he M

inis

ter

may

, by

notic

e in

the

Gaz

ette

and

sub

ject

to

such

con

ditio

ns a

s th

e M

inis

ter

may

spe

cify

in t

he

notic

e, p

rohi

bit

any

activ

ity t

hat

may

neg

ativ

ely

impa

ct o

n th

e w

ellb

eing

of

a fa

unal

bio

logi

cal r

esou

rce,”

9953

“the

Min

iste

r m

ay m

ake

regu

latio

ns r

elat

ing

to “

the

wel

l-bei

ng o

f a

faun

al b

iolo

gica

l res

ourc

e.”10

0 54

alth

ough

ani

mal

wel

fare

is n

ot e

xplic

itly

brou

ght

into

the

sta

tute

, it

is n

ow in

clud

ed t

hrou

gh

the

incl

usio

n of

wel

lbei

ng o

f an

imal

s. th

is is

to

ensu

re t

hat

ther

e is

no

over

lap

with

the

an

imal

s Pr

otec

tion

act10

1 55 and

ser

ves

to e

mpo

wer

the

Min

iste

r to

be

acco

unta

ble

to t

he

wel

fare

req

uire

men

ts in

here

nt in

the

con

stitu

tion

(see

abo

ve).

th

e va

rious

cla

uses

em

pow

er t

he m

inis

ter

to p

rohi

bit

activ

ities

tha

t im

pact

neg

ativ

ely

on t

he w

ellb

eing

of

anim

als,

whi

ch w

ould

incl

ude

inhu

man

e cu

lling

of

elep

hant

fam

ily

grou

ps, a

nd m

ay m

ake

regu

latio

ns e

nsur

ing

the

wel

lbei

ng o

f an

imal

s.

the

revi

sion

s al

so r

equi

re a

man

ager

impl

emen

ting

any

actio

n in

ter

ms

of u

se o

f in

dige

nous

res

ourc

es t

o ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt t

he w

ellb

eing

of

any

anim

al in

volv

ed, i

.e.,

may

no

t co

nduc

t an

act

ion

that

is u

ncon

duci

ve t

o its

hea

lth, w

hich

wou

ld in

clud

e in

hum

ane

activ

ities

suc

h as

cul

ling

elep

hant

fam

ily g

roup

s.

88N

atio

nal

Envi

ronm

enta

l M

anag

emen

t Bi

odiv

ersi

ty A

ct 1

0 of

200

4.89

Id.

§ 57

(1).

90Id

. §

61(1

)(a)(c

) .

91Id

. §

57(1

) an

d 57

(2).

92Id

. §

61(2

)(b).

93Id

. §

88(3

).94

Id.

§ 59

(b).

95Su

pra

note

16.

96Id

. at

cla

use

41(1

)(c).

In t

he D

raft

Pol

icy

posi

tion

on t

he C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Ecol

ogic

ally

Sus

tain

able

Use

of

Elep

hant

, Li

on,

Leop

ard

and

Rhin

ocer

os (

GG

Vol

. 67

2, N

o. 4

4776

, 28

Jun

e 20

21,

at 1

1),

the

defin

ition

has

bee

n up

date

d to

: Wel

lbei

ng m

eans

the

hol

istic

circ

umst

ance

s an

d co

nditi

ons

of a

n an

imal

s ar

e co

nduc

ive

to it

s ph

ysic

al, p

hysi

olog

ical

and

men

tal h

ealth

and

qua

lity

of li

fe, a

nd it

s ab

ility

to

cope

with

its

envi

ronm

ent

(NEM

LA B

ill).

97Id

. pr

eam

ble.

98Id

. at

cla

use

44.

99Id

. at

cla

use

42.

100 Id

. at

cla

use

48.

101 Th

e A

nim

als

Prot

ectio

n A

ct 7

1 of

196

2 (S

. A

fr.).

(Con

tinue

d)

12 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

nor

ms

and

Stan

dard

s n

orm

s an

d St

anda

rds

for

the

Man

agem

ent

of

elep

hant

in S

outh

af

rica10

2 56

the

purp

ose

of t

he n

&S is

to

“ens

ure

that

(a)

ele

phan

ts a

re m

anag

ed [

…]

in a

way

tha

t (v

i) is

eth

ical

and

hum

ane

and

(vii)

rec

ogni

ses

thei

r se

ntie

nt n

atur

e, h

ighl

y or

gani

sed

soci

al s

truc

ture

and

abi

lity

to c

omm

unic

ate.”

103 57

“the

se n

orm

s an

d st

anda

rds

are

info

rmed

by

the

prin

cipl

es [

cont

aine

d in

the

sub

sequ

ent

para

grap

h].”

104 58

In t

erm

s of

Gui

ding

Prin

cipl

es, “

[a]n

y pe

rson

exe

cutin

g a

func

tion

or e

xerc

isin

g a

pow

er o

r ca

rryi

ng o

ut a

n ac

tivity

tha

t re

late

s, di

rect

ly o

r in

dire

ctly

, to

an e

leph

ant

mus

t do

so

with

reg

ard

to t

he f

ollo

win

g fu

rthe

r pr

inci

ples

: (a)

ele

phan

ts a

re in

telli

gent

, hav

e st

rong

fam

ily b

onds

and

ope

rate

with

in h

ighl

y so

cial

ised

gro

ups

and

unne

cess

ary

disr

uptio

n of

the

se g

roup

s by

hum

an in

terv

entio

n sh

ould

be

min

imis

ed; [

…]

(h)

man

agem

ent

inte

rven

tions

mus

t, […

] (i)

tak

e in

to a

ccou

nt t

he s

ocia

l str

uctu

re o

f el

epha

nts;

(ii)

be b

ased

on

mea

sure

s to

av

oid

stre

ss a

nd d

istu

rban

ce t

o el

epha

nts;

[…]

and

(l) e

very

effo

rt m

ust

be m

ade

to s

afeg

uard

ele

phan

ts f

rom

ab

use

and

negl

ect.”

105 59

“[…

] m

anag

e th

e si

ze, o

r co

mpo

sitio

n or

rat

e of

gro

wth

of

a w

ild e

leph

ant

popu

latio

n it

mus

t—(b

) us

e on

e or

a

com

bina

tion

of t

he f

ollo

win

g m

anag

emen

t op

tions

(vi

) cu

lling

in t

erm

s of

the

se n

orm

s an

d St

anda

rds

as

wel

l as

the

thre

aten

ed o

r Pr

otec

ted

Spec

ies

regu

latio

ns.”10

6 60 cu

lling

may

be

used

to

redu

ce t

he s

ize

of a

n el

epha

nt p

opul

atio

n su

bjec

t to

the

fol

low

ing

cond

ition

s: cu

lling

may

be

unde

rtak

en o

nly

in t

erm

s of

a c

ullin

g pl

an p

repa

red

by t

he r

espo

nsib

le p

erso

n w

ith t

he

assi

stan

ce o

f an

eco

logi

st w

ho is

a r

ecog

nise

d el

epha

nt m

anag

emen

t sp

ecia

list

and

appr

oved

by

the

rele

vant

is

suin

g au

thor

ity t

hat

sets

out

the

con

ditio

ns u

nder

whi

ch c

ullin

g w

ould

tak

e pl

ace

and

the

man

ner

in w

hich

th

e cu

ll w

ould

be

impl

emen

ted.

107 61

“[…

] ev

iden

ce t

hat

all o

ther

pop

ulat

ion

man

agem

ent

optio

ns [

…]

have

bee

n re

ject

ed.”10

8 62 “p

ropo

sed

culli

ng m

etho

ds”

and

“inte

nded

use

of

prod

ucts

.” 10

9 63 “a

n el

epha

nt m

ay n

ot b

e cu

lled

if it

is—

(i) p

art

of a

cow

-cal

f gr

oup

unle

ss t

he e

ntire

cow

-cal

f gr

oup,

incl

udin

g th

e m

atria

rch

and

juve

nile

bul

ls, is

cul

led.

”110 64 t

he n

&S r

equi

re c

ullin

g to

be

done

with

“qui

ck a

nd h

uman

e m

etho

ds”

thro

ugh

shoo

ting.

111 65 I

t sh

ould

be

note

d th

at t

he n

&S p

rohi

bit

hunt

ing

by “d

rivin

g an

ele

phan

t by

an

y m

eans

,” or

“us

ing

a pi

tfal

l.”11

2 66 n

ote

that

the

n&S

mak

e re

fere

nce

to b

oth

the

aPa

and

the

MSa

und

er d

efine

d ap

plic

able

legi

slat

ion.

113 67

at a

hig

her

leve

l, th

e n

&S g

ive

stro

ng r

ecog

nitio

n to

ani

mal

wel

fare

as

thei

r pu

rpos

e is

to

ensu

re e

leph

ants

are

man

aged

in a

way

tha

t is

eth

ical

and

hum

ane,

and

rec

ogni

se t

he

sent

ient

nat

ure

of e

leph

ants

, and

the

ir so

cial

sys

tem

as

fund

amen

tal,

and

seve

ral

prin

cipl

es s

peak

to

this.

How

ever

, oth

er p

urpo

ses

are

prom

otin

g br

oade

r bi

odiv

ersi

ty a

nd

soci

o-ec

onom

ic g

oals,

not

dis

rupt

ing

the

ecol

ogic

al in

tegr

ity o

f ec

osys

tem

s, an

d en

ablin

g th

e ac

hiev

emen

t of

spe

cific

man

agem

ent

obje

ctiv

es. t

hese

thr

ee a

spec

ts a

re p

art

of

argu

men

ts p

ut f

orw

ard

to u

nder

take

cul

ling,

and

it is

not

cle

ar h

ow t

hese

pot

entia

lly

cont

radi

ctor

y pu

rpos

es o

f th

e n

&S a

re t

o be

bal

ance

d in

pra

ctic

e, a

lthou

gh t

he n

&S d

o in

dica

te t

hat

culli

ng is

a la

st r

esor

t to

man

age

popu

latio

n si

ze, a

nd t

hat

the

met

hod

mus

t be

qui

ck a

nd h

uman

e.

How

ever

, alth

ough

the

n&S

req

uire

tha

t cu

lling

mus

t be

qui

ck a

nd h

uman

e, t

he c

ullin

g pl

an is

pre

pare

d by

the

res

pons

ible

per

son

(the

man

ager

of

the

rese

rve)

with

the

as

sist

ance

of

an e

colo

gist

. fur

ther

mor

e, t

he p

lan

is a

ppro

ved

by t

he r

elev

ant

issu

ing

auth

ority

. non

e of

the

peo

ple

invo

lved

in t

he p

roce

ss o

f pl

anni

ng o

r ap

prov

al a

re

qual

ified

to

asse

ss w

heth

er t

he m

etho

d sp

ecifi

ed11

4 68 is q

uick

and

hum

ane

in t

erm

s of

ac

cept

ed a

nim

al w

elfa

re a

ppro

val p

roce

sses

. ac

cord

ing

to t

he n

&S, c

ullin

g is

not

per

mitt

ed t

o m

anag

e th

e sp

atia

l dis

trib

utio

n of

a

wild

ele

phan

t po

pula

tion

with

in t

he b

ound

arie

s, as

it is

not

incl

uded

und

er t

he

perm

itted

man

agem

ent

optio

ns.11

5 69 dis

turb

ance

cul

ling

is, t

here

fore

, not

per

mitt

ed a

s a

man

agem

ent

actio

n un

der

the

n&S

. Im

port

antly

, for

her

ds, t

he n

&S r

equi

re t

hat

the

who

le h

erd

and

asso

ciat

ed m

ales

be

culle

d, a

nd d

oes

not

perm

it fo

r in

divi

dual

s to

be

culle

d fro

m w

ithin

her

ds.

ther

e is

som

e co

ntra

dict

ion

betw

een

the

n&S

and

the

to

PS r

egul

atio

ns, i

n th

at in

the

n

&S H

untin

g is

pro

vide

d as

a m

etho

d to

man

age

elep

hant

pop

ulat

ion

size

, com

posi

tion

or r

ate

of g

row

th in

add

ition

to

culli

ng, a

nd in

to

PS t

hat

wou

ld b

e in

clud

ed u

nder

the

de

finiti

on o

f cu

lling

(se

e be

low

).116 70 t

he n

&S p

rovi

de f

or c

ullin

g in

ter

ms

of t

he t

oPS

de

finiti

on.

Impo

rtan

tly, u

nder

the

n&S

, hun

ting

does

not

req

uire

“qui

ck a

nd h

uman

e m

etho

ds,”

as

that

is n

ot in

clud

ed u

nder

the

pre

scrip

tions

, but

it d

oes

prec

lude

som

e sp

ecifi

c m

etho

ds

not

incl

uded

as

pres

crip

tions

und

er c

ullin

g, s

uch

as d

rivin

g or

usi

ng p

itfal

ls. H

untin

g al

so

does

not

req

uire

a s

peci

fic p

lan

as p

er t

he c

ullin

g pl

an, o

r ap

prov

al in

depe

nden

t of

the

m

anag

emen

t pl

an.

for

esca

ped

or r

oam

ing

elep

hant

s, w

hich

wou

ld in

clud

e da

mag

e-ca

usin

g an

imal

s as

per

th

e to

PS (

belo

w),

the

n&S

pro

vide

s fo

r th

e an

imal

to

be h

unte

d or

des

troy

ed, b

ut d

oes

not

requ

ire t

he m

etho

d to

be

quic

k or

hum

ane.

102 Su

pra

note

6.

103 Id

. at

par

a. 2

.10

4 Id.

at p

ara.

2(3

).10

5 Id.

at p

ara.

3.

106 Id

. at

par

a. 1

5(1)

.10

7 Id.

at p

ara.

19(

a).

108 Id

. at

par

a. 1

9(b)

(ii).

Man

agem

ent

optio

ns a

re l

iste

d in

par

a. 1

5.10

9 Id.

at p

ara.

19(

b)(v

i). M

anag

emen

t op

tions

are

lis

ted

in p

ara.

15.

110 Id

. at

par

a. 1

9(c)

.11

1 Id.

at p

ara.

19(

d).

112 Id

. at

par

a. 2

1(a)

and

21(

c).

113 Id

. at

par

a. 1

(1).

114 Id

. pa

ra.

19(b

)(vi).

115 Id

. pa

ra.

15 (

2).

116 Su

pra

note

17,

at

Regu

latio

n 15

(1)(b

)(v).

Tabl

e 1.

con

tinue

d

legi

slat

ion/

judg

emen

t/po

licy

rele

vant

sec

tion/

aspe

ctre

leva

nce

to t

he c

ullin

g m

etho

d

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 13

(Con

tinue

d)

regu

latio

ns

the

thre

aten

ed a

nd

Prot

ecte

d Sp

ecie

s re

gula

tions

117 71 (

toPS

)

und

er d

efini

tions

: “cu

lling

” as

“in

rel

atio

n to

a s

peci

men

of

a lis

ted

thre

aten

ed o

r pr

otec

ted

spec

ies

in a

pro

tect

ed

area

, mea

ns a

n op

erat

ion

exec

uted

by

an o

ffici

al o

f, or

oth

er p

erso

n de

sign

ated

by,

the

man

agem

ent

auth

ority

of

the

are

a to

kill

a s

peci

fic n

umbe

r of

spe

cim

ens

of a

list

ed t

hrea

tene

d or

pro

tect

ed s

peci

es w

ithin

the

are

a in

ord

er t

o m

anag

e th

at s

peci

es in

the

are

a in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

man

agem

ent

plan

of

the

area

; or

in

rela

tion

to a

spe

cim

en o

f a

liste

d th

reat

ened

or

prot

ecte

d sp

ecie

s w

hich

has

esc

aped

fro

m a

pro

tect

ed a

rea

and

has

beco

me

a da

mag

e ca

usin

g an

imal

, mea

ns a

n op

erat

ion

exec

uted

by

an o

ffici

al o

f, or

a p

erso

n de

sign

ated

by,

the

pro

vinc

ial d

epar

tmen

t or

the

man

agem

ent

auth

ority

of

the

prot

ecte

d ar

ea t

o ki

ll th

e an

imal

as

a m

atte

r of

last

res

ort;

in r

elat

ion

to a

spe

cim

en o

f a

liste

d th

reat

ened

or

prot

ecte

d sp

ecie

s on

a r

egis

tere

d ga

me

farm

, mea

ns a

n op

erat

ion

exec

uted

by

the

land

ow

ner

or o

ther

per

son

desi

gnat

ed b

y th

e la

nd o

wne

r, to

ki

ll a

spec

ific

num

ber

of s

peci

men

s of

a li

sted

thr

eate

ned

or p

rote

cted

spe

cies

with

in t

he r

egis

tere

d ga

me

farm

in o

rder

to

man

age

that

spe

cies

on

the

farm

;” an

d “t

rade

” as

“th

e im

port

into

the

rep

ublic

, exp

ort

from

th

e re

publ

ic, s

ellin

g or

oth

erw

ise

trad

ing

in, b

uyin

g, r

ecei

ving

, giv

ing,

don

atin

g, o

r ac

cept

ing

as a

gift

, or

in

any

way

acq

uirin

g or

dis

posi

ng o

f an

y sp

ecim

en.”11

8 72

the

toPS

defi

nitio

n of

cul

ling

wou

ld in

clud

e hu

ntin

g to

man

age

the

size

, com

posi

tion,

or

rate

of

grow

th o

f an

ele

phan

t po

pula

tion,

whe

reas

n&S

pro

vide

for

hun

ting

as a

se

para

te o

ptio

n.11

9 73 In

add

ition

, to

PS in

clud

es k

illin

g of

dam

age-

caus

ing

anim

als

unde

r cu

lling

, whe

reas

the

y ar

e de

alt

with

sep

arat

ely

in n

&S, u

nder

esc

aped

and

roa

min

g an

imal

s.120 74

the

defin

ition

of

trad

e is

impo

rtan

t in

tha

t th

is d

oes

not

appe

ar in

oth

er b

iodi

vers

ity

legi

slat

ion,

and

wou

ld b

e ap

plic

able

to

the

disp

osal

of

any

elep

hant

par

ts o

r de

rivat

ives

ar

isin

g fro

m a

cul

l.

anim

als

Prot

ectio

n ac

t121 75

(aPa

)ai

ms

to c

onso

lidat

e an

d am

end

the

law

s re

latin

g to

the

pre

vent

ion

of c

ruel

ty t

o an

imal

s. th

e ac

t ap

plie

s to

“an

y pe

rson

who

[…

] w

anto

nly

or u

nrea

sona

bly

or n

eglig

ently

doi

ng o

r om

ittin

g to

do

any

act

or c

ausi

ng o

r pr

ocur

ing

the

com

mis

sion

or

omis

sion

of

any

act,

caus

es a

ny u

n-ne

cess

ary

suffe

ring

to a

ny a

nim

al [

…].”

122 76

Her

e “a

nim

al”

mea

ns “

[…]

any

wild

ani

mal

[…

] w

hich

is in

cap

tivity

or

unde

r th

e co

ntro

l of

any

pers

on.”12

3 77

the

anim

als

Prot

ectio

n ac

t w

ould

app

ly t

o an

y pe

rson

who

cau

ses

suffe

ring

to a

mem

ber

of

an e

leph

ant

fam

ily g

roup

dur

ing

the

culli

ng p

roce

ss, i

nclu

ding

bot

h th

e m

embe

rs o

f th

e te

am c

ondu

ctin

g th

e w

ork,

but

als

o th

ose

plan

ning

and

aut

horis

ing

the

act

to t

ake

plac

e. K

now

ing

that

the

pro

cess

can

not

be c

ompl

eted

qui

ckly

for

all

indi

vidu

als,

and

that

inju

ry is

pos

sibl

e to

hap

pen,

rat

her

than

imm

edia

te d

eath

, the

cul

ling

act

coul

d be

co

nsid

ered

bot

h w

anto

n an

d un

reas

onab

le. I

t is

diffi

cult

to im

agin

e th

at t

he s

uffer

ing

caus

ed d

urin

g cu

lling

fam

ily g

roup

s us

ing

the

curr

ent

met

hod

coul

d be

con

side

red

nece

ssar

y, u

nles

s th

ere

is d

irect

and

imm

edia

te t

hrea

t to

hum

an li

fe o

r w

ellb

eing

, whi

ch

ther

e w

ould

not

be.

Inde

pend

ent

asse

ssm

ent

chap

ter

from

the

M

inis

ter

com

mis

sion

ed

asse

ssm

ent

of e

leph

ant

Man

agem

ent

in S

outh

af

rica12

4 78

In it

s re

view

of

the

law

as

appl

ying

to

elep

hant

s, th

is a

sses

smen

t in

dica

ted

that

“[a

]n a

ct o

f cr

uelty

per

form

ed o

n an

ele

phan

t w

hich

is in

a f

ree

roam

ing

stat

e w

ould

not

how

ever

fal

l with

in t

he a

mbi

t of

the

act

,”125 79 b

ut t

hat

“[c]

ontr

ol f

or t

his

purp

ose

wou

ld m

ean

de f

acto

con

trol

or

deem

ed c

ontr

ol u

nder

any

law

.” W

hen

cons

ider

ing

owne

rshi

p of

ele

phan

ts, i

t in

dica

tes

that

“in

the

ligh

t of

the

ext

ensi

ve m

anag

emen

t pr

actic

es a

dopt

ed f

or

elep

hant

s in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

and

priv

ate

land

, the

use

of

a w

ide

rang

e of

art

ifici

al m

echa

nism

s to

con

trol

m

ovem

ent,

popu

latio

n an

d di

seas

e, t

he m

anag

emen

t of

hab

itats

and

the

pro

visi

on o

f su

pple

men

tary

foo

d, it

is

diffi

cult

to c

once

ive

of c

ircum

stan

ces

in w

hich

ele

phan

t m

anag

emen

t w

ould

am

ount

to

no m

ore

than

‘nat

ure

taki

ng it

s co

urse

.’”12

6 80 Whe

n in

terp

retin

g th

e im

plic

atio

ns o

f th

e co

nstit

utio

n fo

r el

epha

nt m

anag

emen

t, H

opki

nson

et

al. i

ndic

ate

that

“[a

]s s

uch,

ele

phan

ts f

orm

par

t of

and

mus

t be

pro

tect

ed a

s th

e pe

ople

’s co

mm

on h

erita

ge, m

ust

be h

eld

in p

ublic

tru

st f

or t

he p

eopl

e, a

nd t

heir

bene

ficia

l use

mus

t se

rve

the

publ

ic

inte

rest

. any

cla

ssifi

catio

n of

ele

phan

ts in

pro

tect

ed a

reas

und

er s

tate

con

trol

as

res

nulli

us is

cle

arly

in

cons

iste

nt w

ith t

his

as w

ell a

s w

ith [

the

envi

ronm

enta

l rig

ht]12

7 81 of

the

cons

titut

ion

and

does

not

pro

mot

e co

nser

vatio

n or

the

pro

tect

ion

of o

ur e

nviro

nmen

t fo

r th

e be

nefit

of

pres

ent

and

futu

re g

ener

atio

ns.”12

8 82

Whe

n co

nsid

erin

g ow

ners

hip

of e

leph

ants

, it

indi

cate

s th

at e

leph

ants

are

und

er c

ontr

ol o

f m

anag

emen

t, i.e

., no

t re

s nu

llius

. thi

s is

fur

ther

em

phas

ised

by

the

requ

irem

ent

in t

he

n&S

for

an

elep

hant

man

agem

ent

plan

, inc

ludi

ng f

or t

hose

res

erve

s w

here

ele

phan

ts

may

be

cons

ider

ed r

es n

ulliu

s. In

oth

er w

ords

, ele

phan

ts w

ithin

pro

tect

ed a

reas

and

pr

ivat

e la

nd s

houl

d be

con

side

red

unde

r th

e co

ntro

l of

the

man

ager

of

that

land

, and

, th

eref

ore,

eve

n if

that

ele

phan

t is

con

side

red

res

nulli

us, t

he a

Pa w

ill a

pply

to

the

man

agem

ent

of a

ll el

epha

nts

with

in S

outh

afri

ca (

see

abov

e).

117 Id

.11

8 Id.

at R

egul

atio

n 1.

119 Id

. at

Reg

ulat

ion

15(b

)(v).

120 Id

. at

Reg

ulat

ion

25(3

)(b)(i

).12

1 Supr

a no

te 8

1.12

2 Id.

§ 2(

r).

123 Id

. §

1(i).

124 H

opki

nson

, va

n St

aden

, an

d Ri

dl,

supr

a no

te 1

4.12

5 Id a

t 39

0.12

6 Id a

t 37

3.12

7 S. A

fr.

Con

st.

§ 24

.12

8 Hop

kins

on,

van

Stad

en,

and

Ridl

, su

pra

note

14.

14 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

Mea

t Sa

fety

act

129 83 (

MSa

)th

e Pu

rpos

e of

the

MSa

is “

to p

rovi

de f

or m

easu

res

to p

rom

ote

mea

t sa

fety

and

the

saf

ety

of a

nim

al p

rodu

cts,

to

esta

blis

h an

d m

aint

ain

esse

ntia

l nat

iona

l sta

ndar

ds in

res

pect

for

aba

ttoi

rs [

…]

and

to p

rovi

de f

or m

atte

rs

conn

ecte

d th

erew

ith.”13

0 84 th

e M

Sa d

efine

s an

ani

mal

pro

duct

as

“any

by-

prod

uct

obta

ined

fro

m t

he c

arca

ss o

f an

ani

mal

oth

er t

han

the

mea

t th

ereo

f.”13

1 85 fur

ther

mor

e, n

o pe

rson

may

—“(

a) s

laug

hter

any

ani

mal

at

any

plac

e ot

her

than

an

abat

toir;

(b

) pe

rmit

the

slau

ghte

r of

any

ani

mal

at

any

plac

e un

der

his

or h

er c

ontr

ol u

nles

s th

e pl

ace

is a

n ab

atto

ir; o

r (c

) se

ll—or

pro

vide

mea

t fo

r hu

man

and

ani

mal

con

sum

ptio

n un

less

is h

as b

een

slau

ghte

red

in a

n ab

atto

ir.”13

2 86 th

e M

Sa a

lso

prov

ides

for

ess

entia

l nat

iona

l sta

ndar

ds, i

nclu

ding

“[t

]he

follo

win

g es

sent

ial n

atio

nal s

tand

ards

ap

ply

to a

ll ab

atto

irs: [

…]

an a

nim

al p

rese

nted

for

sla

ught

er a

t an

aba

ttoi

r m

ust

be h

andl

ed h

uman

ely

durin

g lo

adin

g, t

rans

port

atio

n, o

ff-lo

adin

g, h

ousi

ng, i

mm

obili

sing

and

kill

ing

as p

resc

ribed

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith t

he

requ

irem

ents

of

the

anim

als

Prot

ectio

n ac

t.”13

3 87 the

MSa

app

lies

to t

he a

frica

n el

epha

nt in

tha

t it

is li

sted

with

an

arr

ay o

f “W

ild G

ame.”

134 88

the

MSa

defi

nes

a “s

ale”

to

incl

ude

an “

agre

emen

t to

sel

l, an

y off

er, a

dver

tisem

ent,

expo

sure

, tra

nsfe

r of

ow

ners

hip,

con

veya

nce

or d

eliv

ery

for

sale

, exc

hang

e or

dis

posa

l in

any

man

ner,

whe

ther

for

any

con

side

ratio

n or

oth

erw

ise,

and

[to

] ‘se

ll’ ha

s a

corr

espo

ndin

g m

eani

ng.”

fu

rthe

rmor

e, “

slau

ghte

r” m

eans

“th

e ki

lling

of

an a

nim

al a

nd t

he p

erfo

rman

ce o

f th

e us

ual a

ccom

pany

ing

acts

in

con

nect

ion

ther

ewith

in o

rder

to

obta

in m

eat

and

anim

al p

rodu

cts

ther

efro

m.”13

5 89 a

“sla

ught

er f

acili

ty”

is d

efine

d as

“an

y fa

cilit

y, w

heth

er s

tatio

nary

or

mob

ile, a

t or

on

whi

ch a

nim

als

are

slau

ghte

red

or in

tend

ed t

o be

sla

ught

ered

, and

incl

udes

are

as in

or

adja

cent

to

such

fac

ilitie

s […

].” 13

6 90

ther

efor

e, in

ter

ms

of t

he M

Sa, k

illin

g an

imal

s fo

r m

eat

or o

ther

ani

mal

pro

duct

s m

ay o

nly

be u

nder

take

n at

an

abat

toir,

and

thi

s do

es n

ot m

ake

prov

isio

n fo

r ki

lling

wild

ani

mal

s in

the

vel

d (fi

eld)

. the

MSa

pro

vide

s fo

r th

e M

inis

ter

to e

stab

lish

Sche

mes

by

publ

icat

ion

in t

he n

atio

nal G

azet

te.13

7 91 tw

o dr

aft

Sche

mes

hav

e be

en p

ropo

sed,

but

not

fin

alis

ed (

see

belo

w).

as it

cur

rent

ly s

tand

s, it

is il

lega

l to

kill

elep

hant

s an

d th

en u

se

the

prod

ucts

fro

m t

he c

arca

sses

. th

e M

Sa r

equi

res

that

any

ani

mal

tha

t is

bei

ng k

illed

for

use

mus

t be

han

dled

hu

man

ely

prio

r to

kill

ing,

and

in t

he k

illin

g pr

oces

s. d

rivin

g of

ele

phan

ts u

sing

a

helic

opte

r pr

ior

to t

he k

illin

g at

the

sel

ecte

d lo

catio

n ca

uses

dis

tres

s, as

doe

s th

e se

quen

tial k

illin

g of

indi

vidu

als

over

a p

erio

d, a

s w

ell a

s th

e ris

k of

wou

ndin

g ra

ther

th

an im

med

iate

dea

th.

Mea

t sa

fety

sch

emes

th

e d

raft

Gam

e Sc

hem

e138 92

a M

eat

Safe

ty S

chem

e (S

chem

e) w

as p

rovi

ded

for

publ

ic c

omm

ent,

but

was

nev

er fi

nalis

ed. t

he in

tent

ion

of t

he

Sche

me

was

“to

est

ablis

h a

soun

d in

frast

ruct

ure

for

prod

ucin

g sa

fe g

ame

mea

t fo

r th

e co

untr

y by

ena

blin

g [h

untin

g or

gani

satio

ns]

to c

ondu

ct li

mite

d ha

rves

ting

utili

sing

sla

ught

er f

acili

ties

on g

ame

farm

s, re

gist

ered

un

der

the

Sche

me

[…].”

139 93 t

he d

raft

Gam

e Sc

hem

e sp

ecifi

es t

hat

elep

hant

mus

t be

sho

t as

a r

elia

ble

mea

ns

to c

ause

imm

edia

te d

eath

.140 94

this

wou

ld h

ave

prov

ided

for

the

opp

ortu

nity

for

kill

ing

in e

xten

sive

nat

ural

are

as, b

ut n

ote

that

it d

oes

requ

ire s

hoot

ing

to b

e do

ne s

o th

at it

is r

elia

bly

expe

cted

to

caus

e im

med

iate

dea

th. t

his

wou

ld n

ot b

e th

e ca

se in

situ

atio

ns w

here

the

re is

a c

hanc

e of

w

ound

ing

anim

als,

besi

des

the

dela

y in

com

plet

ing

the

proc

ess.

129 M

eat

Safe

ty A

ct 4

0 of

200

0 D

raft

Gam

e M

eat

Sche

me,

Dep

art

men

t o

f A

gri

cult

ure

, Fo

rest

ry a

nd

Fis

her

ies

(201

2) (

S. A

fr.),

http

s://

ww

w.n

da.a

gric

.za/

vetw

eb/L

egis

latio

n/M

eat%

20sa

fety

/R_M

eat_

Safe

ty_A

ct_4

0.ht

m (

last

vis

ited

20

Sep.

202

0).

130 Id

. Pr

eam

ble.

131 Id

. §

§ 1(

1)(ii

i).13

2 Id.

§ 7(

1).

133 Id

. §

11(1

)(h).

134 Id

. Sc

hedu

le 1

to

§ 1(

2).

135 Id

. §

1(1)

(xx

ii).

136 Id

. §

1(1)

(xxi

ii)].

137 Id

. §

12.

138 D

raft

Gam

e M

eat

Sche

dule

to

the

Mea

t Sa

fety

Act

40

of 2

000

(201

2) (

S. A

fr.).

139 Id

. §

4(1)

.14

0 Id.

§ 8(

1).

Tabl

e 1.

con

tinue

d

legi

slat

ion/

judg

emen

t/po

licy

rele

vant

sec

tion/

aspe

ctre

leva

nce

to t

he c

ullin

g m

etho

d

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 15

(Con

tinue

d)

regu

latio

ns

the

dra

ft G

ame

Mea

t re

gula

tions

(d

GMr

)141 95

thes

e re

gula

tions

wer

e pr

ovid

ed f

or p

ublic

com

men

t, bu

t ha

ve n

ot b

een

gaze

tted

for

impl

emen

tatio

n. t

he

inte

ntio

ns o

f th

e re

gula

tions

wer

e to

pro

vide

an

exem

ptio

n fro

m o

f th

e M

Sa f

or t

he s

laug

hter

of

gam

e an

imal

s, to

allo

w g

ame

anim

als

that

hav

e be

en s

hot

outs

ide

an a

batt

oir

to b

e pr

esen

ted

at a

n ab

atto

ir fo

r dr

essi

ng. t

he d

GMr

defin

e “h

arve

stin

g or

har

vest

” as

all

the

“act

iviti

es in

volv

ed in

the

sho

otin

g, k

illin

g,

blee

ding

and

har

vest

ing

insp

ectio

n of

gam

e an

imal

s to

obt

ain

part

ially

dre

ssed

gam

e ca

rcas

ses,”

whi

le

harv

este

d ga

me

is d

efine

d as

a “g

ame

anim

al im

med

iate

ly a

fter

bei

ng s

hot

until

it b

ecom

es p

artia

lly d

ress

ed

gam

e ca

rcas

s as

defi

ned.

”142 96 t

he d

raft

reg

ulat

ions

spe

cifie

s th

e st

anda

rds

for

“veh

icle

s”14

3 97 tha

t ar

e us

ed f

or

harv

estin

g an

imal

s lis

ted

in c

ateg

ory

a, w

hich

incl

udes

ele

phan

t an

d la

rge

gam

e.14

4 98 In

addi

tion,

the

veh

icle

s us

ed f

or “

harv

estin

g ca

tego

ry a

or

larg

e ga

me

will

be

dete

rmin

ed b

y th

e sp

ecie

s ha

rves

ted

and

a pr

otoc

ol

appr

oved

by

the

Peo

145 99 w

ill b

e re

quire

d to

ens

ure

an a

ppro

ved

met

hod

of k

illin

g an

d ha

ndlin

g pr

oced

ures

for

ea

ch s

peci

e.”14

6 100 the

dGM

r re

quire

s th

at “

[s]h

ootin

g m

ust

be d

one

hum

anel

y so

tha

t it

is r

elia

bly

expe

cted

to

caus

e im

med

iate

dea

th.”14

7 101 In

addi

tion,

the

dGM

r re

quire

s th

at “c

are

mus

t be

tak

en t

o av

oid

the

shoo

ting

of

heav

ily p

regn

ant

gam

e an

imal

s.”14

8 102 It

is n

otab

le t

hat

dGM

r do

es n

ot in

clud

e pr

ovis

ion

for

cate

gory

a a

nim

als

for

slau

ghte

r [n

ot in

an

abat

toir]

for

ow

n co

nsum

ptio

n.14

9 103

If th

is is

pro

mul

gate

d, t

he m

etho

d w

ould

hav

e to

be

appr

oved

by

the

Prov

inci

al e

xecu

tive

offi

cer,

whi

ch h

as n

ot y

et b

een

done

. thi

s w

ould

hav

e to

be

done

for

any

pro

vinc

e w

here

thi

s w

ere

to o

ccur

, not

ing

that

som

e re

serv

es w

ith e

leph

ants

, inc

ludi

ng K

ruge

r n

atio

nal P

ark,

spa

n ac

ross

tw

o pr

ovin

ces.

th

e re

gula

tions

stil

l req

uire

sho

otin

g to

be

hum

anel

y an

d re

liabl

y be

exp

ecte

d to

cau

se

imm

edia

te d

eath

. the

pro

babi

lity

of w

ound

ing

usin

g th

e cu

rren

t m

etho

d pr

eclu

des

the

met

hod

bein

g co

nsid

ered

rel

iabl

e in

thi

s co

ntex

t.

By d

efini

tion,

som

e m

embe

rs o

f a

fam

ily u

nit

of e

leph

ants

, unl

ess

they

hav

e al

l bee

n co

ntra

cept

ed (

as m

ay b

e th

e ca

se in

a f

ew s

mal

l res

erve

s), w

ill b

e pr

egna

nt. I

t is

thu

s im

poss

ible

to

avoi

d sh

ootin

g of

a h

eavi

ly p

regn

ant

elep

hant

, as

this

wou

ld p

recl

ude

shoo

ting

of t

he w

hole

gro

up (

as t

he w

hole

gro

up is

req

uire

d to

be

culle

d as

per

the

n

&S a

bove

).

Inte

rnat

iona

l Glo

bal P

olic

y Gu

idel

ine

foa

Guid

elin

es f

or

Hum

ane

Han

dlin

g,

tran

spor

t an

d Sl

augh

ter

of l

ives

tock

150 104

thes

e gu

idel

ines

hig

hlig

ht t

he n

eed

to im

prov

e an

imal

wel

fare

“to

red

uce

suffe

ring,

in li

ne w

ith r

equi

rem

ents

of

Gove

rnm

ents

, nGo

s, an

d co

nsum

ers,

who

are

bec

omin

g m

ore

conc

erne

d w

ith w

elfa

re o

f fo

od a

nim

als.”

151 105

(1) “

Whe

n an

imal

s ar

e su

bjec

ted

to u

nusu

al c

ondi

tions

or

circ

umst

ance

s du

e to

the

wilf

ul a

ctio

ns o

f pe

ople

, it

is p

eopl

e’s m

oral

res

pons

ibili

ty t

o en

sure

tha

t th

e w

elfa

re o

f th

ese

anim

als

is c

ared

for

and

tha

t th

ey d

o no

t su

ffer

unne

cess

ary

disc

omfo

rt, s

tres

s or

inju

ry.”15

2 106 (2)

“th

e ob

ligat

ion

in t

he c

onve

rsio

n of

foo

d an

imal

s in

to

edib

le p

rodu

cts

and

usef

ul b

y-pr

oduc

ts is

to

slau

ghte

r th

e an

imal

in a

hum

ane

man

ner.”

153 107 (

3) “a

t th

e tim

e of

sl

augh

ter,

anim

als

shou

ld b

e he

alth

y an

d ph

ysio

logi

cally

nor

mal

. Sla

ught

er a

nim

als

shou

ld b

e ad

equa

tely

re

sted

.”154 108 (

4) “

Whe

n re

ady

for

slau

ghte

r, an

imal

s sh

ould

be

driv

en t

o th

e st

unni

ng a

rea

in a

qui

et a

nd o

rder

ly

man

ner

with

out

undu

e fu

ss a

nd n

oise

.”155 109

the

curr

ent

met

hod

of c

ullin

g fa

mily

uni

ts w

ould

be

coun

ter

to a

ll of

the

se e

lem

ents

of

acce

pted

glo

bal p

ract

ice,

to

whi

ch S

outh

afri

ca is

a s

igna

tory

.

141 D

raft

Gam

e M

eat

Regu

latio

ns t

o th

e M

eat

Safe

ty A

ct 4

0 of

200

0, N

otic

e 13

71 i

n G

over

nmen

t G

azet

te 4

0402

of

4 N

ovem

ber

2016

277

1 (2

016)

, D

epar

tmen

t of

Agr

icul

ture

and

Fis

herie

s (S

. A

fr.).

142 Id

. pt

. 1.

143 Fo

r in

stan

ce,

a de

dica

ted

trai

ler

for

the

field

dre

ssin

g (o

r gr

allo

chin

g),

i.e.,

the

proc

ess

of d

isem

bow

elin

g ha

rves

ted

gam

e, w

hich

may

als

o in

clud

e re

mov

ing

the

skin

hea

d an

d ho

oves

.14

4 Supr

a no

te 1

20,

pt.

23(1

).14

5 Prov

inci

al E

xecu

tive

Off

icer

.14

6 Supr

a no

te 1

20,

pt.

23(3

).14

7 Id.

Pt.

63(4

).14

8 Id.

Pt.

63(8

).14

9 Id.

see

Pt.

116.

150 Ph

ilip

G.

Cham

bers

and

Tem

ple

Gra

ndin

, G

uide

lines

for

Hum

ane

Han

dlin

g, T

rans

port

and

Sla

ught

er o

f Li

vest

ock,

FA

O 9

1 (2

001)

, ht

tp://

ww

w.fa

o.or

g/su

stai

nabl

e-fo

od-v

alue

-cha

ins/

libra

ry/d

etai

ls/e

n/c/

2660

14/.

151 Id

. at

5.

152 Id

. at

1.

153 Id

. at

1.

154 Id

. at

49.

155 Id

. at

49.

16 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

Inte

rnat

iona

l Glo

bal P

olic

y Gu

idel

ine

Wor

ld o

rgan

isat

ion

for

anim

al H

ealth

oIe

Gl

obal

ani

mal

Wel

fare

156 110

the

visi

on o

f th

e o

Ie, a

s pe

r th

e ad

opte

d o

Ie G

loba

l ani

mal

Wel

fare

Str

ateg

y,15

7 111 is

“a w

orld

whe

re t

he w

elfa

re o

f an

imal

s is

res

pect

ed, p

rom

oted

and

adv

ance

d, in

way

s th

at c

ompl

emen

t th

e pu

rsui

t of

ani

mal

hea

lth, h

uman

w

ellb

eing

, soc

ioec

onom

ic d

evel

opm

ent

and

envi

ronm

enta

l sus

tain

abili

ty.”15

8 112 “ani

mal

wel

fare

is c

lose

ly li

nked

to

anim

al h

ealth

, the

hea

lth a

nd w

ell-b

eing

of

peop

le, a

nd t

he s

usta

inab

ility

of

soci

o-ec

onom

ic a

nd e

colo

gica

l sy

stem

s.”15

9 113 “[…

] as

soci

ated

eth

ical

res

pons

ibili

ty t

o en

sure

any

suc

h us

e is

hum

ane,

as

defin

ed t

hrou

gh t

he

oIe

’s in

tern

atio

nal s

tand

ards

for

ani

mal

wel

fare

, in

reco

gniti

on o

f th

e se

ntie

nce

of a

nim

als.”

160 114

the

oIe

has

dev

elop

ed t

he t

erre

stria

l ani

mal

Hea

lth c

ode

whi

ch h

as b

een

adop

ted

by t

he W

orld

ass

embl

y of

th

e d

eleg

ates

, with

the

late

st a

men

dmen

ts t

o th

e 28

th e

ditio

n at

the

87t

h Ge

nera

l Ses

sion

in M

ay 2

019.

161 115

the

guid

ing

prin

cipl

es f

or a

nim

al w

elfa

re s

peci

fy t

hat

the

“use

of

anim

als

carr

ies

with

it a

n et

hica

l re

spon

sibi

lity

to e

nsur

e th

e w

elfa

re o

f su

ch a

nim

als

to t

he g

reat

est

exte

nt p

ract

icab

le.”16

2 116 In

addi

tion,

alth

ough

ap

plyi

ng t

o th

e w

elfa

re o

f an

imal

s in

live

stoc

k pr

oduc

tion

syst

ems,

thes

e in

dica

ted

that

“[s

]oci

al g

roup

ing

of

anim

als

shou

ld b

e m

anag

ed t

o al

low

pos

itive

soc

ial b

ehav

iour

and

min

imis

e in

jury

, dis

tres

s an

d ch

roni

c fe

ar.”16

3 117 und

er t

he c

hapt

er o

n Sl

augh

ter,

the

Gene

ral P

rinci

ples

app

ly t

o th

e m

anag

emen

t of

foo

d an

imal

s th

at

will

be

slau

ghte

red,

and

par

ticul

arly

the

rec

omm

enda

tion

that

“th

e w

elfa

re o

f fo

od a

nim

als

durin

g pr

e-sl

augh

ter

and

slau

ghte

r pr

oces

s, un

til t

hey

are

dead

.”164 118 f

urth

erm

ore,

thi

s pr

inci

ple,

as

for

the

all t

he

Gene

ral P

rinci

ples

, is

to b

e ap

plie

d to

“al

l ani

mal

s sl

augh

tere

d ou

tsid

e sl

augh

terh

ouse

s [o

r] ab

atto

irs,”

and

the

food

ani

mal

s sh

ould

be

man

aged

in a

man

ner

“to

ensu

re t

hat

thei

r tr

ansp

ort,

laira

ge, r

estr

ain

and

slau

ghte

r is

carr

ied

out

with

out

caus

ing

undu

e st

ress

to

the

anim

als.”

165 119 t

he c

hapt

er o

n sl

augh

ter

stat

es t

hat

for

slau

ghte

r w

ith n

o re

stra

int

in t

he fi

eld,

whe

n an

imal

s ar

e gr

oupe

d, a

nd a

fre

e bu

llet

is u

sed,

tha

t th

e w

elfa

re c

once

rn o

r im

plic

atio

n is

“in

accu

rate

tar

getin

g an

d in

appr

opria

te b

allis

tics

not

achi

evin

g ou

trig

ht k

ill w

ith fi

rst

shot

,” an

d ke

y to

thi

s is

“ope

rato

r co

mpe

tenc

e.”16

6 120

the

oIe

spe

cific

ally

rec

ogni

ses

the

sent

ienc

e of

ani

mal

s as

bei

ng a

n im

port

ant

elem

ent

of

conc

ern

whe

n co

nsid

erin

g st

anda

rds

of h

uman

e pr

actic

e in

ter

ms

of a

nim

al w

elfa

re.

ther

e is

ref

eren

ce t

o re

duct

ion

of c

hron

ic f

ear,

whi

ch is

inhe

rent

in t

he c

urre

nt p

roce

ss,

mos

t es

peci

ally

for

the

cal

ves,

whi

ch a

re k

illed

last

. th

e cu

rren

t m

etho

d of

cul

ling

fam

ily u

nits

wou

ld b

e co

unte

r to

all

of t

he e

lem

ents

of

acce

pted

glo

bal p

ract

ice

as c

aptu

red

in t

hese

doc

umen

ts, t

o w

hich

Sou

th a

frica

is a

si

gnat

ory.

euro

pean

uni

on S

tand

ards

th

e Pr

otec

tion

of

anim

als

at t

he t

ime

of

Killi

ng16

7 121

Prov

ides

rul

es f

or “

the

killi

ng o

f an

imal

s fo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

dep

opul

atio

n an

d fo

r re

late

d op

erat

ions

,” w

here

“d

epop

ulat

ion”

mea

ns “

the

proc

ess

of k

illin

g an

imal

s fo

r pu

blic

hea

lth, a

nim

al h

ealth

, ani

mal

wel

fare

or

envi

ronm

enta

l rea

sons

und

er t

he s

uper

visi

on o

f th

e co

mpe

tent

aut

horit

y.”16

8 122 th

ese

stan

dard

s pr

ovid

e “g

ener

al r

equi

rem

ents

” fo

r ki

lling

and

rel

ated

ope

ratio

ns.16

9 123 the

se in

clud

e: “a

nim

als

shal

l be

spar

ed a

ny a

void

able

pai

n, d

istr

ess

or s

uffer

ing

durin

g th

eir

killi

ng a

nd r

elat

ed o

pera

tions

,”170 124 a

nd “d

o no

t sh

ow s

igns

of

avoi

dabl

e pa

in o

r fe

ar o

r ex

hibi

t ab

norm

al b

ehav

iour

.”171 125

“any

suc

h am

endm

ents

sha

ll en

sure

a le

vel o

f an

imal

wel

fare

at

leas

t eq

uiva

lent

to

that

ens

ured

by

the

exis

ting

met

hods

.” 17

2 126 “K

illin

g an

d re

late

d op

erat

ions

sha

ll on

ly b

e ca

rrie

d ou

t by

per

sons

with

the

app

ropr

iate

leve

l of

com

pete

nce

to d

o so

with

out

caus

ing

the

anim

als

any

avoi

dabl

e pa

in, d

istr

ess

or s

uffer

ing.

”173 127

alth

ough

the

se a

re n

ot b

indi

ng o

n So

uth

afric

a, t

hey

do in

dica

te g

loba

l sta

ndar

ds, a

nd

mak

e re

fere

nce

to k

illin

g of

ani

mal

s no

t on

ly f

or u

se o

f m

eat

or p

rodu

cts,

whi

ch w

ould

be

dire

ctly

app

licab

le t

o cu

lling

ele

phan

ts t

o re

duce

pop

ulat

ion

size

, com

posi

tion,

or

grow

th.

thes

e re

quire

men

ts s

houl

d be

app

lied

to a

sses

s th

e ac

t of

cul

ling,

and

the

cur

rent

m

etho

d vi

olat

es b

oth

of t

hese

req

uire

men

ts.

156 So

uth

Afr

ica

is a

Mem

ber

Coun

try.

157 O

IE G

loba

l A

nim

al

Wel

fare

, (2

017)

, ht

tp://

ww

w.o

ie.in

t/fil

eadm

in/H

ome/

eng/

Ani

mal

_Wel

fare

/doc

s/pd

f/O

ther

s/EN

_OIE

_AW

_Str

ateg

y.pd

f (la

st v

isite

d 19

Sep

. 20

20).

158 Id

. at

Vis

ion.

159 Id

. at

Con

text

.16

0 Id.

at C

onte

xt.

161 O

IE, T

erre

stri

al

An

ima

l H

ealt

h C

od

e, (2

019)

, ht

tps:

//w

ww

.oie

.int/

en/w

hat-

we-

do/s

tand

ards

/cod

es-a

nd-m

anua

ls/t

erre

stria

l-cod

e-on

line-

acce

ss/.

162 Id

. A

rt.

7.1.

2.16

3 Id.

Art

. 7.

1.5.

164 Id

. A

rt.

7.5.

1.16

5 Id.

Art

. 7.

1.5.

166 Id

. A

rt.

7.5.

6.16

7 Coun

cil

Regu

latio

n, N

o 10

99/2

009

of 2

4 Se

ptem

ber

2009

on

the

prot

ectio

n of

ani

mal

s at

the

tim

e of

kill

ing,

303

Off

icia

l J.

of

the

Euro

pea

n U

nio

n L

30

(200

9).

168 Id

. A

rt.

2(n)

.16

9 Id.

Art

. 3.

170 Id

. A

rt.

3.1.

171 Id

. A

rt.

3.2(

d).

172 Id

. A

rt.

4.2.

173 Id

. A

rt.

7.1.

Tabl

e 1.

con

tinue

d

legi

slat

ion/

judg

emen

t/po

licy

rele

vant

sec

tion/

aspe

ctre

leva

nce

to t

he c

ullin

g m

etho

d

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 17

(Con

tinue

d)

Publ

ishe

d n

atio

nal S

tand

ard

amer

ican

Vet

erin

ary

Med

ical

ass

ocia

tion

(aVM

a) h

as g

uide

lines

fo

r th

e sl

augh

ter

of

anim

als

(aVM

a 20

16).

this

pro

vide

s gu

idel

ines

for

hum

ane

slau

ghte

r of

ani

mal

s in

tend

ed f

or u

se a

s fo

od. “

Whe

n an

imal

s ar

e de

sign

ated

fo

r sl

augh

ter,

they

sho

uld

be t

reat

ed w

ith r

espe

ct a

nd h

andl

ed a

ppro

pria

tely

, and

the

sla

ught

er p

roce

ss s

houl

d lim

it th

e ha

rms

expe

rienc

ed b

y th

ese

anim

als.

Hum

ane

slau

ghte

r m

etho

ds a

nd a

gent

s ar

e de

sign

ed t

o br

ing

abou

t ra

pid

loss

of

cons

ciou

snes

s an

d, u

ltim

atel

y, a

com

plet

e lo

ss o

f br

ain

func

tion

in a

nim

als

dest

ined

for

use

as

foo

d. t

his

mea

ns m

inim

isin

g (a

nd, w

here

pos

sibl

e, e

limin

atin

g) a

nxie

ty, p

ain,

and

dis

tres

s as

soci

ated

with

te

rmin

atin

g th

e liv

es.”

th

ey in

dica

te t

hat

the

aVM

a Gu

idel

ines

for

the

eut

hana

sia

of a

nim

als

editi

on17

4 128 sho

uld

be c

onsu

lted

if in

divi

dual

ani

mal

s ar

e de

emed

inap

prop

riate

for

the

foo

d ch

ain.

Whi

ch o

ne is

use

d w

ould

, the

refo

re, d

epen

d on

whe

ther

the

cul

led

anim

als

wer

e in

tend

ed f

or h

uman

use

or

not.

alth

ough

the

se a

re n

ot b

indi

ng o

n So

uth

afric

a, t

hey

do in

dica

te g

loba

l sta

ndar

ds. t

hese

are

ap

plic

able

for

ani

mal

s ki

lled

whe

re t

here

is a

n in

tent

ion

of u

se o

f th

e m

eat

or p

rodu

cts.

the

curr

ent

met

hod

of c

ullin

g do

es n

ot m

eet

the

requ

irem

ents

.

Guid

elin

es

aVM

a Gu

idel

ines

for

the

eu

than

asia

of

anim

als17

5 129

thes

e gu

idel

ines

pro

vide

crit

eria

and

met

hods

for

eut

hana

sia

of a

nim

als.

“[t]

he v

eter

inar

ian’

s pr

ima

faci

e du

ty in

car

ryin

g ou

t eu

than

asia

incl

udes

, but

is n

ot li

mite

d to

, (1)

the

ir hu

man

e di

spos

ition

to

indu

ce d

eath

in a

man

ner

that

is in

acc

ord

with

an

anim

al’s

inte

rest

and

/or

beca

use

it is

a m

atte

r of

wel

fare

, and

(2)

the

use

of

hum

ane

tech

niqu

es t

o in

duce

the

mos

t ra

pid

and

pain

less

and

di

stre

ss-fr

ee d

eath

pos

sibl

e. t

hese

con

ditio

ns, w

hile

sep

arat

e, a

re n

ot m

utua

lly e

xclu

sive

and

are

co

-dep

ende

nt.”17

6 130 “th

e ne

ed t

o m

inim

ise

anim

al d

istr

ess,

incl

udin

g ne

gativ

e aff

ectiv

e or

exp

erie

ntia

lly b

ased

st

ates

like

fea

r, av

ersi

on, a

nxie

ty, a

nd a

ppre

hens

ion,

mus

t be

con

side

red

in d

eter

min

ing

the

met

hod

of

euth

anas

ia.”17

7 131

alth

ough

the

se a

re n

ot b

indi

ng o

n So

uth

afric

a, t

hey

do in

dica

te g

loba

l sta

ndar

ds. t

hese

are

ap

plic

able

for

ani

mal

s ki

lled

whe

re t

here

is n

ot a

n in

tent

ion

of u

se o

f th

e m

eat

or

prod

ucts

, and

wou

ld in

clud

e cu

lling

whe

re t

here

was

no

use

of m

eat

or o

ther

pro

duct

s, w

hich

may

be

the

case

in s

ome

inst

ance

s of

cul

ling.

the

cur

rent

met

hod

of c

ullin

g do

es

not

mee

t th

e re

quire

men

ts.

Guid

elin

es

aVM

a Gu

idel

ines

for

the

d

epop

ulat

ion

of

anim

als

178 132

thes

e gu

idel

ines

rec

ogni

se t

he d

ifficu

lty o

f gu

aran

teei

ng p

ainl

ess

and

dist

ress

-free

dea

th in

an

emer

genc

y si

tuat

ion.

How

ever

, the

y em

phas

ise

that

thi

s ap

plie

s on

ly in

em

erge

ncy

situ

atio

ns r

equi

ring

imm

edia

te

depo

pula

tion,

and

doe

s no

t ap

ply

to p

roph

ylac

tic c

ullin

g or

pre

caut

iona

ry k

illin

g of

ani

mal

s, in

whi

ch c

ase

the

guid

elin

es f

or s

laug

hter

179 133 o

r eu

than

asia

180 134 a

pply

.181 135

alth

ough

the

se a

re n

ot b

indi

ng o

n So

uth

afric

a, t

hey

do in

dica

te g

loba

l sta

ndar

ds. t

hese

in

dica

te t

hat

in a

n em

erge

ncy

situ

atio

n on

e ca

nnot

gua

rant

ee p

ainl

ess

and

dist

ress

fre

e de

ath.

How

ever

, the

se a

re li

nked

to

emer

genc

y di

spat

ch o

f po

pula

tions

bec

ause

of

cata

stro

phic

eve

nts,

and

do n

ot a

pply

to

prop

hyla

ctic

cul

ling

or p

reca

utio

nary

kill

ing

of

anim

als,

whi

ch w

ould

be

the

situ

atio

n fo

r el

epha

nt c

ullin

g. t

he im

plic

atio

n of

app

lyin

g th

ese

stan

dard

s, th

eref

ore,

is t

hat

one

cann

ot j

ustif

y us

ing

met

hods

tha

t do

n”t

guar

ante

e pa

inle

ss a

nd d

istr

ess

free

deat

h in

cul

ling

of e

leph

ants

. fu

rthe

rmor

e, a

rgum

ents

tha

t sp

ecia

l dis

pens

atio

n fo

r le

ss h

uman

e ki

lling

of

elep

hant

s sh

ould

be

allo

wed

bec

ause

of

the

impo

rtan

ce t

o re

duce

pop

ulat

ions

to

mee

t re

serv

e ob

ject

ives

are

not

val

id.

174 A

mer

ica

n V

eter

ina

ry M

edic

al

Ass

oci

atio

n,

AVM

A G

uid

elin

es f

or

the

Euth

an

asi

a o

f A

nim

als

(20

20 e

d.),

http

s://

ww

w.a

vma.

org/

site

s/de

faul

t/fil

es/2

020-

01/2

020-

Euth

anas

ia-F

inal

-1-1

7-20

.pdf

.17

5 Id.

176 Id

. at

6.

177 Id

. at

13.

178 A

mer

ica

n V

eter

ina

ry M

edic

al

Ass

oci

atio

n,

AVM

A G

uid

elin

es f

or

the

Dep

opu

lati

on

of

An

ima

ls(2

019

ed.),

htt

ps://

ww

w.a

vma.

org/

site

s/de

faul

t/fil

es/r

esou

rces

/AVM

A-G

uide

lines

-for

-the

-Dep

opul

atio

n-of

-Ani

m(2

019

ed.),

htt

ps://

ww

w.

avm

a.or

g/si

tes/

defa

ult/

files

/res

ourc

es/A

VMA

-Gui

delin

es-f

or-t

he-D

epop

ulat

ion-

of-A

nim

als.

pdf.

179 A

mer

ica

n V

eter

ina

ry M

edic

al

Ass

oci

atio

n,

AVM

A G

uid

elin

es f

or

the

Hu

ma

ne

Slau

gh

ter

of

An

ima

ls,

http

s://

ww

w.a

vma.

org/

site

s/de

faul

t/fil

es/r

esou

rces

/Hum

ane-

Slau

ghte

r-G

uide

lines

.pdf

.18

0 AVM

A G

uid

elin

es f

or

the

Euth

an

asi

a o

f A

nim

als

, su

pra

note

177

.18

1 AVM

A G

uid

elin

es f

or

the

Dep

opu

lati

on

of

An

ima

ls,

supr

a no

te 1

81,

at 4

.

18 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

Guid

elin

es

Iucn

rev

iew

of

opt

ions

fo

r M

anag

ing

the

Impa

cts

of l

ocal

ly

ove

rabu

ndan

t af

rican

el

epha

nts18

2 136

Prov

ides

tec

hnic

al c

onsi

dera

tions

and

wei

ghin

g of

opt

ions

to

man

age

nega

tive

effec

ts o

f el

epha

nts

from

ov

erpo

pula

tion.

“th

e gr

oup

sele

cted

for

cul

ling

shou

ld t

hus

usua

lly c

ompr

ise

one

or m

ore

fam

ily g

roup

s. ex

perie

nce

has

show

n th

at e

ntire

fam

ily g

roup

s co

mpr

isin

g m

ainl

y ad

ult

fem

ales

and

imm

atur

e an

imal

s of

bo

th s

exes

sho

uld

be k

illed

in a

cul

ling

sess

ion.

”183 137

“cul

ling

(or

crop

ping

) sh

ould

onl

y be

car

ried

out

by a

pro

fess

iona

l tea

m w

ith p

rove

n ex

perie

nce.

Bec

ause

the

re

have

bee

n fe

w if

any

cul

ls d

urin

g th

e re

cent

pas

t, th

ere

is a

gen

eral

lack

of

expe

rtis

e, w

hich

wou

ld n

eed

to b

e ad

dres

sed

thro

ugh

trai

ning

by

the

few

peo

ple

who

hav

e be

en in

volv

ed in

cul

ls in

the

pas

t.”18

4 138 “a

fter

sel

ectin

g a

suita

ble

herd

, all

anim

als

in t

he h

erd

mus

t be

sho

t. th

e m

atria

rch

is u

sual

ly t

arge

ted

first

as

once

she

has

fal

len

this

“an

chor

s” t

he h

erd

and

prev

ents

the

res

t fro

m d

ispe

rsin

g.”18

5 139 “K

illin

g sh

ould

be

done

by

a br

ain

shot

usi

ng h

eavy

cal

ibre

rifl

es. t

he c

orre

ct c

hoic

e of

wea

pon

is im

port

ant.

Both

.458

and

.375

cal

ibre

s ar

e us

eful

for

bul

ls, a

nd t

he .7

62 is

ade

quat

e fo

r sm

alle

r an

imal

s in

the

fam

ily

herd

, but

a h

eavi

er c

alib

re r

ifle

shou

ld b

e on

han

d as

bac

k-up

, to

be u

sed

if ne

cess

ary.”

186 140

“for

rea

sons

of

the

safe

ty o

f pe

rson

nel c

ondu

ctin

g th

e op

erat

ion,

cul

ling

elep

hant

s in

Kru

ger

has

alw

ays

been

co

nduc

ted

from

a h

elic

opte

r. th

e he

licop

ter

was

use

d to

sea

rch

for

a su

itabl

e gr

oup

to c

ull a

nd w

as a

pla

tform

fro

m w

hich

to

shoo

t th

e an

imal

s at

clo

se r

ange

at

the

sele

cted

cul

ling

site

—us

ually

an

open

are

a fre

e of

tal

l tr

ees.

all m

embe

rs o

f th

e se

lect

ed h

erd

wer

e br

ain

shot

by

a m

arks

man

in t

he h

elic

opte

r.”18

7 141 “a

ny o

f th

e cu

lled

anim

als

still

sho

win

g si

gns

of li

fe w

hen

the

grou

nd c

rew

mov

ed in

wer

e im

med

iate

ly b

rain

sh

ot b

y a

mar

ksm

an o

n th

e gr

ound

. the

thr

oat

of e

ach

dead

ani

mal

was

cut

to

ensu

re p

rope

r bl

eedi

ng a

s m

any

of t

he p

rodu

cts

of t

he c

arca

sses

wer

e us

ed f

or h

uman

con

sum

ptio

n. c

arca

sses

wer

e th

en lo

aded

ont

o la

rge

truc

ks a

nd t

rans

port

ed t

o an

aba

ttoi

r.”18

8 142 “t

he u

se o

f hi

gh-p

ower

ed r

ifles

to

kill

elep

hant

fro

m t

he g

roun

d w

as t

he p

refe

rred

met

hod

in a

num

ber

of

coun

trie

s. a

smal

l spo

tter

airc

raft

was

use

d to

loca

te a

sui

tabl

e gr

oup

for

the

cull,

and

to

guid

e th

e sh

arps

hoot

ers

to t

he g

roup

via

rad

io. a

tea

m o

f th

ree

high

ly e

xper

ienc

ed s

harp

shoo

ters

, eac

h ba

cked

by

an

arm

ed r

ange

r, ap

proa

ched

the

gro

up f

rom

dow

nwin

d. t

he le

ad h

unte

r oc

cupi

ed t

he c

entr

al p

ositi

on a

nd t

he

two

subo

rdin

ate

hunt

ers

posi

tione

d th

emse

lves

on

his

left

and

rig

ht, a

nd t

hey

appr

oach

ed t

he h

erd

as c

lose

as

the

y co

uld

get.

adul

ts w

ere

shot

firs

t, pa

rtic

ular

ly t

he m

atria

rch

to r

educ

e th

e lik

elih

ood

of t

he r

est

disp

ersi

ng. a

ny b

ulls

wer

e sh

ot q

uick

ly a

s th

ey w

ould

bre

ak a

way

and

run

, tak

ing

the

herd

with

the

m. o

nce

all t

he a

dults

wer

e do

wn,

the

res

t w

ere

quic

kly

disp

atch

ed. a

n effi

cien

t te

am c

ould

cul

l up

to 4

0 el

epha

nts

in

less

tha

n tw

o m

inut

es.”18

9 143 “H

uman

e co

nsid

erat

ions

are

of

para

mou

nt im

port

ance

whe

n co

nsid

erin

g th

e op

tion

of c

ullin

g el

epha

nts.”

190 144

“It is

of

cruc

ial i

mpo

rtan

ce t

hat

the

oper

ator

s ar

e ex

perie

nced

to

ensu

re t

hat

ther

e is

min

imal

pos

sibi

lity

of

wou

ndin

g an

imal

s or

spl

ittin

g fa

mili

es. I

n th

e un

fort

unat

e ev

ent

that

ele

phan

ts a

re w

ound

ed, o

r m

anag

e es

cape

fro

m a

gro

up id

entifi

ed f

or e

limin

atio

n, t

he o

pera

tors

mus

t ac

t to

ens

ure

that

suc

h si

tuat

ions

are

dea

lt w

ith a

s hu

man

ely

as p

ossi

ble

to m

inim

ise

emot

iona

l or

phys

ical

suff

erin

g.”19

1 145

Sout

h af

rica

is a

mem

ber

of t

he I

ucn

, and

alth

ough

Iu

cn d

ocum

ents

are

not

bin

ding

, the

y ar

e in

tern

atio

nal d

ocum

ents

tha

t pr

ovid

e gu

idan

ce t

o pr

actic

e in

Sou

th a

frica

. th

is d

ocum

ent

prov

ides

des

crip

tion

of t

he t

wo

alte

rnat

ive

met

hods

for

cul

ling

herd

s, fro

m h

elic

opte

r (a

s is

cur

rent

ly t

he a

ccep

ted

prac

tice

in S

outh

afri

ca),

and

from

the

gr

ound

. Bo

th m

etho

ds t

ake

at le

ast

seve

ral m

inut

es t

o co

mpl

ete,

and

the

re a

re in

jure

d an

imal

s to

con

tend

with

(se

e te

xt).

182 Re

view

of

Opt

ion

s fo

r M

an

ag

ing

th

e Im

pac

ts o

f Lo

call

y O

vera

bun

da

nt

Afr

ica

n E

leph

an

ts,

supr

a no

te 1

9.18

3 Id.

at 6

0.18

4 Id.

at 6

1.18

5 Id.

at 6

1.18

6 Id.

at 6

1.18

7 Id.

at 6

2.18

8 Id.

at 6

2.18

9 Id.

at 6

2.19

0 Id.

at 6

3.19

1 Id.

at 6

3.

Tabl

e 1.

con

tinue

d

legi

slat

ion/

judg

emen

t/po

licy

rele

vant

sec

tion/

aspe

ctre

leva

nce

to t

he c

ullin

g m

etho

d

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 19

3.2.  South African Case Law

Animal welfare and prevention of cruelty to animals have a deep legislative history, dating to the establishment of the South African Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (SPCA Act) in the 1870s, and later in the 1914 SPCA Act.192 The duty of the Legislature to entrench the need to protect animals from cruel treatment was originally founded in Rex v. Masow.193 In R v. Smit,194 the court found that the action of destroying an animal must be done “humanely” and with “as little suffering as pos-sible” and established the principle that animals are no longer considered to be and treated as “things,” and overrode this provision in South Africa’s Roman-Dutch-derived Common Law.195

Recognition that animal welfare is intertwined with people’s dignity was grounded in R v. Moato,196 which found “cruelty to animals […] offends the finer feelings and sensibilities of his fellow humans,” and affirmed in S v. Edmunds,197 that cruelty to animals was prohibited to “prevent degen-eration of the finer human values in the sphere of treatment of animals.” S v. Edmunds, however, confirmed the purpose of the SPCA could not be extended beyond safeguarding animals from cruel treatment to con-ferring them with “human status,”198 effectively contextualising the inter-pretation of this act within an anthropogenic construct of the Constitution.

The requirement of South African courts to take into consideration the sentience of animals appeared in Justice Cameron’s minority opinion in NCSPCA v Openshaw.199 By emphasising that animals are “sentient beings,” Justice Cameron recognised that animals are able to perceive and reason, and experience feelings that includes a capacity to “suffer and experience immense pain.”200 Justice Cameron further observed that, despite being sentient, animals “have no voice of their own,” and, in so doing, high-lighted the important of the role the courts in this regard.201 This under-standing was subsequently advocated by the courts in South African Predator Breeders Association v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and

192National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another, para. 54.193Ex Parte: The Minister of Justice: In re Rex v. Masow 1940 AD 75 at para. 81 (S. Afr.).194R v. Smit 1929 TPD 397 (S. Afr.).195Id. at para. 401.196R v. Moato 1947 (1) SA 490 (O) (S. Afr.).197S v. Edmunds 1968 (2) PH H398 (N) (S. Afr.), quoted in National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another, at para. 55.198S v. Edmunds, supra note 200, at para. 55.199National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Openshaw, supra note 61.200Id. at para. 38.201Id. at para. 39.

20 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

Tourism,202 and, thereafter, in South African Predator Breeders Association v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.203

Animal welfare is not secondary or subsidiary to conservation, as Justice Khampepe stated, “Animal welfare and animal conservation together reflect two intertwined values,” coupling animal welfare with the constitutional right to have the environment protected in accordance with part (b) of the Environmental Right.204

Irrespective of the various forgoing interpretations of the Environmental Right, the South African Courts have become progressively more willing to embrace the notion of animal welfare being a fundamental component of what is considered to be the “environment.” Furthermore, there appears to be a clear evolution of thought in South Africa’s courts from animals being mere objects of possession without protection against inhumane treatment and cruelty, to a realisation of the sentience of non-human animals being a key consideration in their treatment by human counter-parts. As stated in one court judgment, “Therefore, the rationale behind protecting animal welfare has shifted from merely safeguarding the moral status of humans to placing intrinsic value on animals as individuals” and “guarding the interests of animals reflects constitutional values.”205 Our actions must not be inhumane or cause suffering; must prevent “ill-treat-ment of voiceless beings”206; human-induced “suffering is abhorrent and repulsive”;207 should be placing intrinsic value on animals as individuals and dictating a more caring attitude to animals as a being capable of suffering and experiencing pain208; all of which speak to part (a) of the Environmental Right. Taken together with part (a) of the Environmental Right, positions taken by the courts “speak to the kind of custodial care we are enjoined to show to the environment for the benefit of this and future generations,” “including the prevention of unnecessary cruelty to animals—including those which we may use for service or food is a goal

202South African Predator Breeders Association and Others v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, supra note 70.203South African Predator Breeders Association v. Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2010, (72/10) ZASCA 151 (S. Afr.).204National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development ZACC 46 (S.Afr.), supra note 60, at para. 58.205National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another, supra note 60, at para. 61.206Openshaw, supra note 59 at paras. 40 and 47.207South African Predator Breeders Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, supra note 63, at para. 72.208National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Openshaw, supra note 59, at para. 38.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 21

of our society.”209 In terms of the act of culling, if it is inhumane, or adversely affects the welfare of animals, then it can be argued that this contravenes the Environmental Right within the Constitution.

3.3.  Other South African Legislation

In terms of the biodiversity legislation (see Table 1), culling of elephants requires an approved elephant management plan and culling plan. Culling has to take into account the sentient nature and highly organised society of elephants, be in line with the principles outlined in the N&S, and in a quick and humane manner, through shooting, and, from the hunting clause, without driving an elephant by any means, or using a pitfall.210 As culling is a restricted activity, a permit is required to be issued, and must comply with the N&S.211

Culling has to comply with the Animals Protection Act,212 which states that “any person who—by wantonly or unreasonably or negligently doing or omitting to do any act or causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, causes any unnecessary suffering to any animal” is criminally liable.213 This will become more explicit with the revision of NEMBA to include the wellbeing of fauna at a high level (Table 1), which will require all permitting, management plans, culling plans, and so on to consider animal wellbeing explicitly.

The Meat Safety Act (MSA)214 currently precludes the culling of any elephant in the field if any parts are used for consumption, as this act requires the slaughter of these animals to be undertaken in a registered abattoir.215 Once regulations are promulgated to provide for the killing of game animals on the hoof (see Table 1), which are long overdue, this restriction may no longer apply. The MSA also requires humane killing, and immediate death, and restricts shooting of heavily pregnant game animals.216 The Animal Protection Act (APA)217 prohibits wantonly, unrea-sonably, or negligently causing any unnecessary suffering to any animal.218

209National Council of The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others, at para. 65.210National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, supra note 6, § 21(a) and § 21(c).211Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, supra note 17, § 83(1).212The Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 (1962) (S. Afr.).213Id. at § 2(r).214Meat Safety Act No 40 of 2000 (S, Afr.)215Id. § 11(1)(a).216Meat Safety Act 40 of 2000 Draft Game Meat Scheme, supra note 109 §§ 63(4) and 63(8).217The Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962, supra note 81.218Id. § 2(r).

22 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

Such prohibition is in accord with international agreements on animal slaughter to which South Africa is a party (e.g., OIE),219 as well as being in accord with global standards for slaughter or euthanasia of animals (e.g., EU 2009, AVMA220) (see Table 1).

3.4.  Assessment of Culling

Any or all of the following actions likely make culling of elephant family units illegal in terms of the current legislation, and inhumane by South African and global standards, and by the arguments presented in the preceding, in contravention of the Bill of Rights within the Constitution:

1. Driving animals using a helicopter to an appropriate location for culling, that can be accessed for processing the carcasses by a ground team, causes distress to the elephants, and constitutes causing unnec-essary distress in transporting animals to slaughter.

2. The current procedure for culling of groups is inhumane in that, even if all individuals could be accurately shot to ensure an instant kill, the method of first killing the matriarch, and then subsequently killing the other animals in the group, causes the animals that are being slaughtered to suffer distress of the highest level, including by calves who suffer the longest, for a substantially longer period than would be acceptable by any standards of slaughter or euthanasia.

3. There is a demonstrated probability of wounding in the process, rather than a clean kill.

4. The process of verification of death by the ground team takes too long from the time of shooting to be considered acceptable by the standards.

5. It is unavoidable that pregnant females are shot.

The method for culling of individual bull elephants may provide for humane slaughter if it is conducted in such a manner as to ensure an extremely high probability of instant death with no prior distress. This is possible if the elephant is alone, is approached on the ground, and the marksman is proficient enough to ensure a clean shot. Killing of game in

219Terrestrial Animal Health Code, supra note 141, Art. 7.1.2.6, Art. 7.1.5.5, Art. 7.51, and Art. 7.5.6.220American Veterinary Medical Association, AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals, in American Veterinary Medical Association, 5 (2016); American Veterinary Medical Association, AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals 6, 13 (2020 ed. 2013); Council Regulation, No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing, 303 Official J. of the European Union L 30 (2009), Art. 3.1, Art. 3.2 (d), Art. 4.2, and Art. 7.1.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 23

the field through a head shot is acceptable, under the global standards.221 However, the global standards do raise the concern of welfare risk from “[i]naccurate targeting and inappropriate ballistics not achieving outright kill with first shot.”222 It is also critical, from a welfare perspective, that bulls are alone, as there is a reaction from other animals if not bulls are alone when killed.223 Culling individuals from a helicopter will result in distress in the animal prior to shooting, which would contravene the APA and MSA, as well as global agreements.

The proposal in the SANParks KNP Elephant Management Plan to intentionally create landscapes of fear in elephants through methods such as disturbance culling is of major concern.224 To plan to or intentionally distress animals through culling or initially wounding an individual within a group to create landscapes of fear for animals constitutes wantonly and unreasonably causing unnecessary suffering to any animal, thereby con-travening the APA, as well the constitutional Bill of Rights (argued in the preceding), and is counter to the principle and purpose of a protected area.

The consumptive use of elephant products from culled animals to benefit the local community, or to be reinvested in conservation, should be a requirement in terms of ethics.225 Because this constitutes trade,226 however, and the sale or provision of meat for consumption,227 a burden of proof of compliance with humane slaughter is required for each instance. This cannot be met by current practice in terms of culling of either individual males or family units.

4.  Discussion

Lötter et  al. indicated that culling raises serious concerns,228 justifiable only as an ethically flawed procedure to be employed under the strictest conditions.229 They furthermore explored the interplay between ethics and practice of professionals in the context of elephant management, empha-sising that human power, as encompassed within the scientific and tech-nological expertise of professions, must be moderated in the best interests of humanity.230 “Elephants thus need protection from us, something that

221Terrestrial Animal Health Code, supra note 141, Art. 7.5.6; RSA, supra note 193, Regulation 63; American Veterinary Medical Association, supra note 154, M3.5 GUNSHOT at 42.222Terrestrial Animal Health Code, supra note 141, Art. 7.5.6.223Burke et  al., supra note 18, at 1.224Ferreira et  al., supra note 38. Map 8, Table 4 and Box 15.225Lötter et  al., supra note 12, at 330.226Threatened or Protected Species Regulations, supra note 17, Regulation 1(1).227Meat Safety Act No 40 of 2000, supra note 193, Regulation 1(1)(xx).228Lötter et  al., supra note 12, at 331.229Hennie Lötter, The Ethics of Managing Elephants, 38 Acta Academica 55, 71 (2006).230See generally H. P. P. Lötter, Humans as Professional Interactants With Elephants in a Global Commons, 12 Journal of Global Ethics 87-105 (2016).

24 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

we must give them by means of ethical values strong enough to restrain our activities,”231 they wrote, adding, “We have a prima facie case not to kill elephants, as all humans have both a moral reason not to kill, as well as an absence of economic or survival reasons to kill” such that the premise of ethics based on hunter-gatherer relations with elephants no longer applies.232 The Environmental Right would apply to other species besides elephants, and to ecosystems. If these are threatened, for example, with extinction by elephants, any rights enjoyed by elephants would have to be balanced against rights of other components of the environment, in compliance with limitation of rights in section 36 of the Constitution. Such balancing would need to be part of the decision to cull as an inter-vention to protect the broader environment, but, in addition to factoring in any rights that elephants may have as a component of the environment, the decision must also balance whether a humane method is available or not, as this impinges more strongly on s10 and s24(a) of the Constitution.

Managers of elephants act as moral agents on behalf of humanity, and as professionals who need to abide by generic professional and ethical values of justice, non-maleficence, beneficence, and autonomy.233 Furthermore, as stated by a veterinary association, “changing societal attitudes toward animal care and use have inspired scrutiny of some tra-ditional and contemporary practices applied in the management of … animals encountered in the wild.”234 Academic conservation thinking has evolved, from notions of protecting the environment or approaches in which conservation has to pay for itself, to recent formulations such as compassionate conservation and convivial conservation,235 with an increas-ing emphasis on the need to consider animal welfare in conservation.236

5.  Recommendations

While it may be with the best intentions that conservation managers propose to cull elephants and attempt to complete the task as well as possible, we have identified the current method as likely to be inhumane and illegal. Notwithstanding the need for balancing different imperatives in the decision to cull, our assessment of the welfare concerns of the current methods leads us recommend:

231Lötter et  al., supra note 12, at 91.232Lötter, supra note 209, at 95.233See generally Lötter, supra note, 209.234American Veterinary Medical Association, supra note 154, at 4.235See generally Bram Büscher and Robert Fletcher, Towards Convivial Conservation, 17 Conservation and Society 283 (2019).236See generally Nitin Sekar and Derek Shiller, Engage With Animal Welfare in Conservation, 369 Science 629-630 (2020).

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW & POLICy 25

1. Consider a moratorium on culling of elephants in family units until a humane slaughter method that causes the least, and acceptable, distress to all target animals has been developed and approved.

2. Consider a moratorium on culling of individual male elephants until development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that ensure an extremely high probability of instantaneous clean kill, with clear indications of the circumstances that ensure this, and of the risks that have to be mitigated. These might include a prohibition of driving males to a killing area or culling of male elephants from a helicopter, to reduce distress prior to slaughter, or of male elephants who are part of a group.

3. Align conservation planning and management interventions with legal provision, including reasonable balancing of animal welfare and wellbeing implications into plans and actions. More discussion and understanding is required as to the Environmental Right as it applies to animals and ecosystems, and how these can be reasonably balanced when anthropogenic disturbance creates direct threats to intergenerational sustainability from one component of the environ-ment to others.

4. Require of an ethics review process for all conservation management implementations and interventions involving wellbeing risk to ani-mals, such as is required for animal research.237 This is especially true for the culling plan as envisaged by the N&S.

5. Require accreditation with stringent training (excluding on-the-job practices) in terms of technical competency (previously specialised and trained people may no longer be available), and assessment in terms of psychological ability, for those tasked with culling.

6.  Conclusion

We have demonstrated the misalignment of policy when it is sector based, that is, biodiversity policy developed by an environmental department that does not consider legislation that mandates a different department: in this case, Agriculture has the mandate for both animal welfare and slaughter. Policies were not necessarily developed in ignorance of welfare, but this was excused away as being out of mandate. The South African Constitution and legal judgements have emphasised the constitutional basis of animal welfare in section 24, and the revised NEMBA considers animal wellbe-ing.238 We believe that culling of elephants provides an extreme example

237Id.238National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act, supra note 16, Definitions, clauses 41, 42, 44, 48.

26 R. SLOTOW ET AL.

of historical practice entrenched as a norm, where technicist/militarist approaches239 tend to shield social reflection, and there is a cultural back-lash to hold on to conservative tradition.240 We highlight the urgent need to prioritise a shift in conservation practice to align with both South African legislation and global norms, and prevent the inhumane culling of elephants using the current approaches. Alternative methods and solu-tions are required for reduction of elephant numbers, if this is indeed required—methods and solutions that are less biophysical, technical, or exploitative in terms of commodification, and that reflect a more “convivial conservation.”241

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the discussions with many colleagues about the issues of concern around elephant culling, which have assisted in our formulation of this article. We thank Lucy Bates for her inputs during a review of an earlier version of the article. The enabling environment of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the University of KwaZulu-Natal is acknowledged.

Disclaimer

The ideas, arguments and opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily represent those of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife or other institutions of affiliation of the authors.

ORCID

Rob Slotow http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9469-1508Andrew Blackmore http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3271-9645Michelle Henley http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1675-7388Karen Trendler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8633-8410Marion Garaï http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3884-624X

239See generally Elizabeth Lunstrum, Conservation Meets Militarisation in Kruger National Park: Historical Encounters and Complex Legacies, 13 Conservation and Society 356 (2015); Rosaleen Duffy et  al., Why We Must Question the Militarisation of Conservation, 232 Biological Conservation 66-73 (2019).240Michael J. Manfredo et  al., Values, Trust, and Cultural Backlash in Conservation Governance: The Case of Wildlife Management in the United States, 214 Biological Conservation 303-311 (2017).241Büscher and Fletcher, supra note 214.