A bitter row is brewing over a ConCourt ruling stripping magistrates of their power to issue permits to animal handlers.
|||Durban - A bitter row is brewing over a Constitutional Court ruling that will strip magistrates of their power to issue permits to animal handlers, giving it instead to animal interest groups.
The decision last week is expected to make it harder for businesses that use animals, such as for entertainment or guarding purposes, to apply for or retain the relevant permits.
On Thursday, the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) and the South African Veterinary Council.
It scrutinised sections of the Performing Animals Protection Act of 1935 that gave magistrates the power to decide if companies had permission to exhibit animals and use them for guarding purposes.
However, magistrates will retain their power for at least the next 18 months until the amendment to the act takes effect.
When it does, the power to issue permits will fall to a committee comprising two officials from the department, two from the NSPCA and one official from the veterinary council.
NSPCA chief executive, Marcelle Meredith, said it was of “grave concern” that the power to issue them had been granted to those who knew little about animals and animal care.
She said in some cases the conditions animals were being kept in were unacceptable, citing an example of a circus that kept nine elephants.
The SAPS, zoos and agricultural displays were exempt from the amended act. Domestic animal owners would also not be affected.
Under the new amendment, officials would inspect the premises and the conditions in which animals were kept before a permit was issued.
However, the affected industries have reacted angrily and have accused the NSPCA of power mongering in the name of animal rights.
They feared that their requests for permits would be rejected, which would mean job losses.
Said Bobby Amm, the chief executive of the Commercial Producers Association of SA, a professional trade association of film companies specialising in the production of television commercials: “It was clear from the very start that this case was not about rectifying a legal defect in the act, it was about the NSPCA finding a way to take control of the licensing process thereby preventing animal handlers from obtaining permits and making it impossible for them to operate their businesses.”
A spokesman for the Licensed Animal Trainers Association, Jim Stockley, said the government needed to find solutions so that the 70 animal trainers and 30 companies they represented could have security of employment.
John Hauser, of Marshall Security based in Durban North, said his operation had 10 trained patrol dogs, some of them Rottweilers and others boerboels.
“Any amendment to the licensing requirements will not affect Marshall security but will certainly affect those that do not meet the required standards.”
Hauser said the company welcomed any changes to the licensing requirements as it felt the use of animals in its industry needed to be closely monitored “to protect animals against any security providers out there that have no knowledge or compassion for their dogs and only see them as a tool of the trade and a way of bringing in extra money”.
sihle.mlambo@inl.co.za
Daily News