Will changing the classification and raising endangered animals on farms to hunt them later help wildlife conservation?
Some time ago the government of Zimbabwe announced the sale of 35 young elephants to zoos in China, when conservationists and environmentalists all over the world protested, the government spokesmen justified the sale with the need to thin out the elephant population that had grown beyond the carrying capacity of the area.
Even if there is some justification for the need to dilute it is clear that the main reason is financial and wrong. Since the announcement of the sale was public, the opponents were given the opportunity to try to prevent the execution, even if the chance of success for the opponents is small, then following the publication at least they were given the opportunity to respond and oppose and to this day, a year after the announcement, the elephants have still not been flown to China. It turns out that with the southern neighbor South Africa the situation is different and worse...
In South Africa, a huge and interesting variety of nature, animals and wild plants have made the region a source of attraction for nature-loving tourists but also for legal and illegal hunters. The natural diversity and the understanding of its importance also as an economic factor caused the DRAP authorities to take care to preserve nature and set an example of how to preserve and protect wild animals and plants, as well as opening one of the first departments for ecology studies at the University of Pretoria. (I had the honor and pleasure of participating in courses in ecology in which ways of preserving and protecting nature were also taught as well as dedicated training for inspectors = Ranger's). However, along with considerable representation in the conservation system, there are also deviations that in most cases stem from financial considerations that are against conservation - permits to hunt wild animals and breeding wild animals intended for hunting on farms are the well-known examples. It turns out that there is a trend to give wildlife breeding ventures additional backing and legal reinforcement.
Recently ass The amendment to the "Animal Improvement" law enacted in 1998 The Animal Improvement Act (AIA) was formulated in the South African Parliament, a resolution that designates 33 species of animals as "farm animals", which means that entrepreneurs and breeders will be given the permission to raise, breed and "tame" wild animal species that until now were considered protected species, some of them species in danger of extinction.
Among the "happy" species are a number of rare cattle breeds and dog breeds, but what deserves the attention of anyone who values nature are mammal species such as lions, cheetahs, rhinoceroses, zebras, giraffe species, African buffalo and a large number more of planarian herbivores. Wild animal species that, by virtue of the new regulation, farmers will be allowed to breed to "improve the breed" or to domesticate them.
The only amendment of its kind that is not accepted and known in the world, was accepted hastily, quietly and secretly without publication in the media and without giving opponents and the public a chance to express a position,
Repair Permits and allows animal breeders to carry out genetic improvement of animals that will allow increased birth and reproduction. As an example, the initiative and attempt to domesticate the aurochs cattle (aurochs - Bos primigenius) an ancient wild species that is considered the father of the domesticated cattle, or the domestication of the gray wolf to the dog, and other species of animals and birds that today would not be able to live independently in the wild, or differentiate the domestication of pigs And the goats that cause considerable damage when they reach areas that were "clean" of invaders. The amendment to the law allows for artificial insemination, collection of sperm and embryos for the purpose of a "genetic material bank" as well as for the purpose of sale on the free market, a situation that has long existed in farm animals, but for wild animals may pose an existential threat to various species.
According to the Department of Environment Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF), the amendment was made "due to changes in farms in South Africa. "Wild animals are included in the amendment since they are already part of the means of production of farms in Israel." It turns out that the amendment was amended Under the pressure of the hunting industry and breeding of wild animals and was accepted as: "a means to ensure genetic purity and sustainable use through studies on feeding that will be defined through economic viability.
The opponents of the move claim that because of the new regulation The protection will be removed from those animals defined in the list and in the statement of the Ministry for the Environment, Fishing and Forestry,
It is argued that there is a need for the participation of the environmental ministries in the decision, since the regulation for the management of biological diversity (NEMBA) offers little protection against the exploitation of wild animals and deals mainly with licensing the use of species that are "listed" as endangered species.
in regulation It was said, among other things, that the minister has the option to prohibit an activity that harms the well-being of biological species without a clear definition of what their well-being is. There are those who will conclude from this that wild animals will be protected according to their value to humans and not due to their existence as animals. From here the questions are asked, is the new regulation intended to protect the 33 listed species? What is behind the "industry" request that led to the amendment?
In the regulation for the management of biological diversity there are a series of restrictions and prohibitions on: hunting, trading, transferring, and harming protected animals. In the new regulation, the restrictions and prohibitions have disappeared, which leaves a gray situation in which the welfare of the animals may be harmed. Those who celebrated the new regulation were the industrialists who own farms that raise and breed lions and rhinoceros and attract a lot of criticism, for the hunter's activity and the sale of animal parts. The new regulation will give legal backing to questionable ventures. In contrast, among the other opponents was the hunters' association that published
her "deep concern" From the regulation that endangers a series of herbivores such as: wildebeest, devikar, rams, impala, roan and sable, sables and more, all of them are candidates for manipulation and genetic contamination. The spokeswoman of the association asks how is it possible that the government allows the registration of wild animals, including those that are endangered, in the same line as farm animals?
Clearly, a statement of intent to improve animal species to help produce food is not accepted as a claim to improve the welfare of endangered species. Until the new amendment, the only animal registered under the regulation was the ostrich, this was to allow farmers to raise flocks of ostriches, but according to research it became clear that mating between subspecies in an attempt to improve the reproduction and quality of the feathers failed and the farmers have problems with the reproduction of the ostrich.
Again and again the sad situation in which lions are kept in breeding farms comes to the headlines, which raises the doubt in the authorities' ability to prevent harm to animals that are raised in farms, breeding wild animals in farms is not preserving nature. Breeding farms are not the right and natural habitat for wild animals, the best method for conserving wild animals is in their natural habitat, a conservation that also contributes to a variety of many other species and the entire environment is protected.
The body with the authority to protect animal welfare in South Africa is the National Council for the Prevention of Harm to Animals (NSPCA), but it turns out that this important body is removed and excluded from processes and decisions regarding the use of wild animals and their welfare. The spokesmen of the body demand to be present in the decisions since wild animals have their place in the wild. The use of natural resources by man has been widespread since time immemorial, when in the new era there is an awareness of the need for sustainable use, which will not harm the availability of resources for future generations and will not harm the ability of the natural environment to fill the gaps.
The question arises, is it right and appropriate to treat wildlife as a resource? When the economic needs are taken into account, but also the moral side, some will say that just like the captivity of dogs, horses, chickens, pigs and more and more farm animals that are of wild origin, it is permissible and proper to "domesticate" and use wild animals, the opponents will argue the lack of moral justice and the harm that is not acceptable- Sustainable, an injury whose damage to nature will not be able to be repaired.
It is appropriate that even those who support "You have chosen us and entrusted us with the world and everything in it" should remember that the meaning of the deposit is moral use and not exploitation. Sustainable use that will not harm the depositors.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
One response
How they criticize us for our behavior towards people - sometimes inappropriate behavior,
And their moral behavior is absolutely not.