Download Annexure 3: Landmark Foundation: Objections to the

Objecting to the agreement between
Cape Nature, Western Cape
Government and the agricultural lobby
group (the “Predator Management
Forum”), aimed at destroying our
biodiversity.
1 June 2012
The DA and Premier Helen Zille promote the use of gin traps such as these above, now renamed
as“soft traps”.
Purpose: Formal objection to the “cooperative agreement between the Predator Management
Forum and the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board: guidelines for the management of
bushpig, black-backed jackal and caracal that are responsible for agricultural losses within the
boundaries of the Western Cape Province”.
This “agreement” will further be calledWestern Cape Biodiversity Massacre 2012The Landmark
Foundationformally objects to the content of the agreement, its proposed modus operandi and
manner in which it was arrived at, and we call on all stakeholders in this matter to start the process
from the start. In the interim we call on a moratorium on the issuing of any further permits or permit
exemptions for hunting damage-causing animals.
Context: In 2011 the Democratic Alliance administration of the Western Cape and CapeNature
implemented the largest state sanctioned and permitted cull of indigenous wildlife in the history of
Africa by permitting for destruction 894 250 caracal and jackal. It became known as the Bredell Cull.
This occurred after political coercion from DA ministers (MEC Anton Bredell and MEC Gerrit van
Rensberg, and supported by Premier Helen Zille) and subsequent capitulation of CapeNature officials
and Board to abide by their political masters. This remains a disgrace of unparalleled proportions.
On 12 January 2011 Dr Kas Hamman, now acting CEO of CapeNature, confessed in writing: “Yes,
political pressure has certainly been brought to bear on us and in no uncertain way. Let's talk about
how LF (sic, Landmark Foundation) could possibly assist us in the most effective way.” This was
followed by a year of cloak and dagger “engagements” and behind the scenes political deals that
have resulted in the agreement now out for public comment in the form of this “agreement”.
CapeNaturestaff have been forced to toe the line and even the Board of CapeNature has approved
the tools put forward in the agreement in October 2011 in a CapeNature Board resolution. This
occurred while all stakeholders that may object to this agreement have been shunned and any
engagement with them has been rejected, despite requests for such. Even as late as April 2012 only
sweetheart organisations have been included in any discussions with DA run institutions. The
Premier even appointed a sweetheart forum to advise her on welfare issues, actively excluding
critical stakeholders.
This agreement is thus a “blank cheque” to the agricultural lobby groups to assault indigenous
occurring species and to self-regulate themselves to do so. It is a replica of the disastrous bounty
fundedOranje Jag in the Orange Free State Province of the Apartheid regime of South Africa of the
1950s – 1990s that saw hundreds of thousands of animals exterminated over the agricultural
landscapes, together with even greater numbers of by-catch kills of innocent animals.
We believe the consultation whereby CapeNature and the DA administration of the Western Cape
have handed over the management of our biodiversity to an industry lobby group with a
demonstrable atrocious record in biodiversity management, especially top trophic level species,
amounts to biological asset striping of our natural heritage. We strongly object to the “public
participation” process by which this agreement has been struck, and the political coercion used to
come to this agreement and the exclusion of interested and affected parties in this process. We
believe this to amount to gross maladministration.
(CapeNature have refused to release a report and literature review of Prof J du P Bothma that was to
scientifically inform management and the way forward. This report was paid for by public funds but
for some reason it is not being released.)
Objection: The overall issues that we object to in the proposedWestern Cape Biodiversity Massacre
2012 are:
1. Outsourcing of biodiversity management and oversight
CapeNature’s actions have effectively absolved themselves of their responsibility to managing
biodiversity on farms, despite their better judgement and knowledge is objected to and alleged to be
contrary to their legislative mandate.
By CapeNature’s own version their mandate with regards to the management of DCAs includes the
following:
•
The formulation, administration and application of legislation;
•
The prevention of unacceptable or unselective management methods; and
•
The promotion and support of research into DCA’s.
This agreement sees the outsourcing of that responsibility and the selective engagement of one
grouping in the manner in which these functions are to be implemented. Only parties that have
promoted large-scale indiscriminate lethal controls of predators were consulted, and the
mechanisms of implementation agreed to runs contrary to targeting only individual damage causing
animals, related to specific events that have had mitigation measures fail. It is inappropriate to hand
over the management of DCA to agricultural unions and even farming groups that have stated
objectives to exterminate top trophic level species.
In the 1950s – 1990s a province-wide cull of predators was managed across the Orange Free State
Province through a bounty incentivised cull with organised hunt clubs called the ‘Oranje Jag’. This
Oranje Jag saw the decimation of faunal diversity in that part of the country. This agreement is a fall
back to and emulation of such draconian times and will see the same results in the decimation of
biodiversity across the province. This political coerced action and outcome is objected to and the
Western Cape Biodiversity Massacre must be stopped.
The parties have disregarded the general public interest, and specific stakeholders in having a
healthy environment and ecosystems conserved, which is the very reason for spending taxpayers
money on the legislative mandate of CapeNature.
2. Blanket approval for species assault
While the agreement document starts with appropriate principles, everything that follows in the
mechanisms of execution of the agreement flies in the face of these principles. The principles that at
promoted are that actions must be:





Humane;
Selective (target the individual responsible for the losses);
Ecologically acceptable;
Within the legal framework; and
Efficient and cost-effective.
The use of gin traps (now euphemised to “soft traps”), hunting dogs, 1080 poison collars, helicopter
hunting, uncontrolled cage traps, daytime hunting (inclusive we assume of denning, conibear traps
and other barbaric means) and call and shoot hunting are contrary to these principles. Further too,
this document goes into extensive detail of how the killing must only target damage causing
individual animals, but extensive latitude is given to approval of killings in advance of any damage
actually having taken place, and large-scale hunting permissions being given in advance of damage
having taken place. It is clear that the agreement is rather a smokescreen for entire species
extermination efforts.
For example, the “agreement” stipulates that the parties are:




“To apply management methods in such a manner that the balance between commercial
agriculture (food security) and biodiversity is enhanced.
To ensure that landowners act in such a manner that:
o non-target species are not negatively affected in the process; and
o the natural environment (soil, water, vegetation and naturally occurring wildlife) are not
prejudiced in the process.
To promote the sustainable and economic utilisation of all resources.
To take decisions jointly in order to determine which management methods achieve the best
results.”
While the above principles and stated objectives seem sensible, the modus operandi flies in the face
of these: Firstly the oft quotes issue of food security is a rather desperate attempt for the parties to
extract some political relevance. Animal fibres and wildlife production methods of the producers
involved play NO part in food security, and what relevance lamb and mutton has in the food security
debate when these products retail at upto R150/kg in stores is highly questionable. The notion of
sustainability is void for vagueness, and is used by all when they want to defend any indefensible
position.
The methods approved will for certain, by virtue of their non-selective, indiscriminate, inhumane
(=barbaric) and ecologically damaging nature kill off non-target species, kill off non-culprit
individuals, target entire species for decimation and thus ruin the ecology of the entire province.
The joint decision making of this political expedient and coerced partnership of this agreement
excludes an entire constituency that have an interest and right in healthy ecosystem management.
This agreement is nothing less than a global indigenous species extermination effort. It’s clear that
the modus operandi of the permitting system approved is not targeted at individual animal removals
that may cause damage, but a prospective, species wide (and anything that gets in the crossfire or
caught as by-catch) extermination cull cloaked in nice principle statements.
3. Open season hunts
The permitting system promoted is nothing less than a province wide extermination cull of several
species. It mimics the “Oranje Jag”, encourages hunt clubs through the agricultural unions and
clearly aims to promote the hot-pursuit tactics of the pre-1994 hunts that left biodiversity over much
of South Africa decimated. The one year prospective permit, together with renewal options,is thus
aimed at a sustained assault on the biodiversity of the province.
The platitudes of reporting outcomes of hunts has been demonstrated over and over again to yield
scant, if not negligible, reports of the actual decimation that takes place on a daily basis. The
example of only some 200 – 300 kills reported in the almost 900 000 CapeNature’sBredell Cull
approved kills in 2011 just proves the disregard this industry and lobby group has for the
accountable governance associated with permitting.
The allowed hunting of jackal and caracal during the day without permits demonstrates that the
agreement has no intention of placing any controls whatsoever on landowners as it is nigh
impossible for the institutional governance organisations to know what time of day animals are
killed. It proves that the entire agreement is a sham.
4. Self-regulation
The handing over of the management and governance of biodiversity management to farmers is an
absolution of responsibility and clear neglect of statutory duties that the Western Cape Government
and CapeNature have to all the citizens, not just the political connected elite of the DA
administration. This will fail and will misrepresent the actual decimation of wildlife in the province.
We call of the provincial authorities to exercise their control over the devastation of biodiversity
taking place on farmlands that is done in the name of the management of damage causing animals.
To simply hand over the management of this fraught problem to farmers through this atrocious
agreement is shameful and clearly demonstrates that the Western Cape’s DA administration only
panders to the agricultural lobby groups that make up their power base, and has scant respect for
biodiversity conservation.
5. Approval of methods of mass species destruction
The approval of gin traps, hunting dogs, helicopter hunting, 1080 poison use, and prospective
hunting (uncontrolled in daytime) and night time call and shoot hunting is indiscriminate, unethical,
ecologically damaging and flies in the face of the principles the agreement ambiguously espouses.
It is clear that this agreement hands the right to the agricultural lobby groups to prospectively and
systematically exterminate naturally occurring species across the Western Cape with methods
known to damage biodiversity, that are unethical and demonstratively unselective.
It is all together cynical to rebrand conventional gin traps as “soft traps” and killing dog packs as
“sniffer” dogs. This is a deliberate deceit of the public and dishonest.
6. Hunt Clubs&Hot-pursuit actions
It is patently clear that the Western Cape Government and CapeNature aims to re-establish hunt
clubs and hot pursuit actions of old, through group issued permits “managed and controlled” by the
agricultural unions/farmers associations. (Hot pursuit was practiced in the draconian Apartheid years
whereby predators could be pursued on anyone’s land).The de facto coercion of neighbours to sign
consents will be immense and thus will become the norm.
7. The draft NationalDamage Causing Animal management regulations
being used as the basis of action
The agreement is said to be based on thepublished draft Norms and Standards for the Management
of Damage-Causing Animals (Government Gazette Vol545, Pretoria, 26 November 2010, No 33806) General Notice (1084 of 2010), herein after referred to as the Norms & Standards. It fails to note
that this draft national regulation has not been finalised by the national department, as on
publication is was subject to the largest objection ever in the environmental legislative process.
These regulations inexplicably had massive alteration after drafting by specialist teams after intense
lobbying by the same groups in the so-called “Predator Management Forum”, now subject to this
agreement. The full objections of the Landmark Foundation to these regulations are contained here
below – see annexure 3.
The gin traps that this agreement now rebrands as soft traps are the conventional traps used in
South Africa and made by Peter Schneekluth of Prince Albert.
To claim that hunting dogs are only sniffer dogs is frankly deluded and a dishonest representation of
the realities on farms, never mind contrary to the Animal Protection Act, as are the use of baited
traps.
8. Bizarre consultative process that precededunprecedented coercion
of conservation staff and stakeholders to allow this “Bredell’sOranje
Jag”
The long history of political coercion in the development of this agreement to artificially and
wrongfully promote the interest of a certain lobby group in cahoots with political power brokers is
wrong. It has actively excluded other stakeholders, and even at the conclusion of the agreement a
shammed process of co-opting sweetheart organisations to give legitimacy to this agreement is an
abuse of power and unconstitutional. Stakeholders in the field were even excluded through abuse of
police officials on 4 April 2012 after a publicly announced meeting on the topic by the DA
administration and hosted by Premier Zille refused them access to discussions.
The calling on public comment on this agreement is a bizarre manner to try to give legitimacy to
outsourcing of state functions.
Annexure 1: Background information
Three important articles from the US need to be interrogated speaking against the approach taken
by this agreement that is being railroaded through by the DA administration in the Western Cape –
there are parallels to what is happening in in the Western Cape
Part 1: http://tinyurl.com/8625p3l
Part 2: http://tinyurl.com/6unjlx3
Part 3: http://tinyurl.com/6vsd7hw
Also please watch the following documentary as these methods are currently being promoted in the
agreement between CapeNature, the DA administration of the Western Cape and the various
farming and hunting lobbies to “control” so-called damage causing animals. The methods being
promoted have indiscriminate impact across many species as by-catch!
http://www.21paradigm.com/cullsynopsis.php
Annexure 2: Some specific points
1. That a concerted effort should be made to focus the legislative and implementation control of
activities and methods that may impact on the patterns and processes of biodiversity. (It is the
humans that need control, not the species.) It is proposed that CapeNature control the methods
used and not outsource their responsibility.
2. CapeNature should exercise direct control over all species that are exploited ordinarily and not
allow methods, whether directed or potentially as by-catch, that can affect any commonly
persecuted species. They should retain control over these methods of impact and not outsource
it to ill-disciplined hunt clubs or operators. Thus a species listing should be developed and should
involve all species experiencing human exploitation to the extent that populations are disrupted
in their natural states. All mammal species that are exposed to human exploitation (either
through direct action or inadvertent collateral damage in the exploitation of other species or
processes) should be afforded protection under this legislation and any operational activities. As
such we propose that at least the following mammal species be listed for such oversight control
(other experts may have meaningful input to this list, especially other faunal and floral species),
namely – this covers South Africa in general:
Aardvark
Orycteropusafer
Aardwolf
Protelescristatus*
Baboon, ChacmaPapioursinus
Badger, Honey
Mellivoracapensis*
BlesbuckDamaliscuspygargusphillipsi
BontebokDamaliscuspygarguspygargus*
Buffalo
Syncerus spp.
Buffalo, Cape
Synceruscaffer
BushbabyOtolemur spp.
Bushbaby, Thick-tailed Otolemurcrassicaudatus
Bushbuck
Tragelaphusscriptus
BushpigPotamochoerusporcus
Caracal
Caracalcaracal
Cat, African Wild
Felissilvestris
Cheetah
Acinonyxjubatus*
Civet, African
Civettictiscivetta
Duiker, Blue
Philantombamonticola*
Duiker, Common
Silvicapragrimmia
Duiker, Red
Cephalophusnatalensis
Eland
Taurotragusoryx
Elephant, African
Loxodontaafricana*
Fox, Bat-eared
Otocyonmegalotis
Fox, Cape
Vulpeschama*
Gemsbok
Oryx gazella
Genet, Large-spotted
Genettatigrina
Genet, Small-spotted
Genettagenetta
Giraffe
Giraffacamelopardalis*
Grysbok, Cape
Raphicerusmelanotis
Grysbok, Sharpe’s
Raphicerus sharpie*
Hare, Scrub
Lepussaxatilis
Hartebeest, Red
Alcelaphusbuselaphus
Hippopotamus
Hippopotamusamphibius
Hyena, Brown
Hyaenabrunnea*
Hyena, Spotted
Crocutacrocuta*
Hyrax, Rock
Procavia spp. and/or Heterohyrax spp.
Impala
Aepycerosmelampus
Jackal, Black-backed
Canismesomelas
Jackal, Side-stripped
Canisadustus
Klipspringer
Oreotragusoreotragus
Kudu
Tragelaphusstrepsicerous
Lechwe, Red
Kobus leche
Leopard
Pantherapardus*
Lion
Panther leo*
Mongoose
Mongoose, White-tailed
Ichneumiaalbicauda
Mongoose, Yellow
Cynictispenicillata
Monkey, Blue
Cercopithecusmitis
NyalaTragelaphusangasii
OribiOurebiaourebi*
Polecat, Stripped
Ictonyxstriatus
Porcupine
Hystrixafricaeaustralis
Reedbuck
Redunca spp.*
Reedbuck, Common
Reduncaarundinum
Reedbuck, Mountain
Reduncafulvorufula
Rhebuck, Grey
Peleacapreolus
Rhinoceros, Black
Dicerosbicornis*
Rhinoceros, White
Ceratotheriumsimum*
Roan
Hippotragus equines*
Sable
Hippotragusnigerniger
ServalLeptailurusserval*
Springbuck
Antidorcasmarsupialis
Springhare
Pedetescapensis
Squirrel, Ground
Xerus spp.
SteenbuckRaphiceruscampestris
SuniNeotragusmoschatuszuluensis
SuricatSuricatasuricatta
TsessebeDamaliscuslunatuslunatus*
Warthog
Phacochoerusafricanus
Waterbuck
Kobus ellipsiprymnusellipsiprymnus
Wild Dog, African
Lycaonpictus*
Wildebeest, Black
Connochaetesgnou*
Wildebeest, Blue
Connochaetestaurinus
Wildebeest, Red
Connochaetesgnou x taurinus*
Zebra, Burchell’sEquusburchellii
Zebra, Cape Mountain
Equus zebra zebra*
Zebra, Hartmann
Equus zebra hartmannnae
The definitions used in any agreement need some special attention – here
are some important ones for consideration:
1. Activity – actions taken to impact on wild species or processes, such as hunting, darting,
harvesting, trapping etc.
2. Body gripping/Instant Kill/Walk-through killer traps/Conibear/Killer traps - The animal
touches the wire triggering mechanism which springs the trap. The trap is designed to close
on the neck or torso of the animal which closes the trachea, and may fracture the spinal
column. The trap is made from round bar steel which is spring loaded and comes in several
sizes.
3. Cage Traps - Cage traps are designed to catch live animals in a cage. They may be baited,
sometimes with food bait and sometimes with a live "lure" animal. Cage traps usually have a
trigger located in the back of the cage that causes a door to shut; some traps with two doors
have a trigger in the middle of the cage that causes both doors to shut. In either type of
cage, the closure of the doors and the falling of a lock mechanism prevents the animal from
escaping by locking the door(s) shut.
4. DCA - “damage-causing animal” means a wild vertebrate animal that, when interacting with
humans or interfering with human activities, there is substantiated proof that it —
In livestock farming:
(a) causes repeated and regular and excessive losses to livestock; despite the land user having
applied and exhausted all reasonable methods and systems of exclusion and damage
prevention.
In game Farming:
(a) causes repeated and regular and excessive losses to other wild specimens, which is
inconsistent with the animal’s natural behaviour and ecologically damaging to the specific
enterprise; despite the existence of a certification of adequate enclosure to exclude predators
from a game farming area, as approved and verified by the relevant environmental management
agency.
(b) causes repeated and regular and excessive damage to cultivated trees, crops, natural flora
or other property; despite the land user having applied and exhausted all reasonable methods
and systems of exclusion and damage prevention.
(c) presents an imminent and realistic threat to human life;
(d) is present in such numbers that agricultural grazing is materially depleted to a significant
detrimental extent with respect to biodiversity and farming enterprises, despite the land user
having applied and exhausted all reasonable methods and systems of exclusion and damage
prevention.
5. Gin Traps (variably referred to as “gin traps”, “soft traps”, “soft catch traps”, “slaughter
irons”, “steel jawed leg or foot hold traps”) - the gin trap/foothold trap is made up of two
metal jaws, one or two springs that slam the jaws closed, and a trigger plate in the middle
which is usually a round/square pan that trigger the trap. When the animal steps on the
trigger the trap jaws closes around the foot, preventing the animal from escaping. Modified
traps are also available with offset jaws, or lamination, or both. Traps are also available with
a padded jaw, which has rubber inserts inside the jaws.
6. Hunting - in relation to any wild animal means by any means whatsoever to hunt or search
for, to kill, capture or attempt to kill or capture, or to pursue, follow or drive with intent to
kill or capture, or to shoot at, poison, be in wait for or wilfully disturb.
7. Hunting client means a person who pays or rewards a professional hunter for, or in
connection with, the hunting of wildlife species.
8. Method – series of steps taken, with tool(s) used or otherwise to effect an outcome on a
wild animal or species. The tools used could be a rifle, gin trap, cage trap etc.
9. Permitting process – is the process to be undertaken to get authority from the permitting
authority to carry out a restricted activity or use a restricted method.
10. Prohibited – activity or method is not permitted to be carried out under any circumstances.
11. Restricted – any method or activity that is regulated by legislative processes. Restricted
activity or method can only be undertaken through a permitted process that stipulates the
terms and conditions of the activity being executed, and the methods permitted to do so.
12. Snares (wire/cable noose – neck, trunk or limb) – Snares are anchored cable or wire nooses
used to catch and restrain animals. A snare traps an animal around the neck, limb or the
body and tightens around the animal, restraining it. Several modifications may be made such
as stops, ID tags, swivels and dragging (non-fixed) anchors.
Further Notes:
1.
The Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage Causing Animals was issued in
terms of section 9 of NEMBA (act 10 of 2004) and covers both listed and non-listed TOPS species.
2.
TOPS regulations refer to section 97 of NEBMA and is independent of N&S developed in
terms of section 9 of this same act.
3.
As such # 1 and # 2 above are independent legislative documents, hopefully acting in
concert, but clearly in reality these statutes are not.
4.
In the DCA definition it is absolutely essential that “excessive damage” clause be retained.
Failing this, even just the act of eating a blade of grass by a wild animal would consign it to the fate
of DCA extermination as it would then be argued that it has caused damage. The responsibility thus
rest with the issuing authority to motivate that damage is excessive, which is reasonable considering
their accountable adjudication role in this matter.
5.
Hunting definition – see above. The intention to kill is not the only requirement to make it a
hunt. Hunting could also include search for, to kill, capture or attempt to kill or capture, or to pursue,
follow or drive with intent to kill or capture, or to shoot at, poison, be in wait for or wilfully disturb.
(THIS IS IMPORTANT in the function of the restricted activities and methods, and its regulation.) It
remains almost impossible in a court of law to prove “intension” .
6.
Hunting client – it is immaterial whether a hunter is South African or not as the outcome for
biodiversity is the same. Thus delete (a) in present definition.
7.
Hunting clients are to be prohibited from hunting DCAs. This is to avoid the scenario where
incentives created for the hunting of DCAs – thus creating a precedent to classify wild animals as
DCA through this profit motive.
8.
The following methods are to be prohibited in the hunting (as defined here) of all TOPS and
DCA vertebrate animals, namely
a.
Snaring
b.
Gin traps (and all other similar devices as defined here)
c.
“Killer” walk-through snap traps (or other similar devices)
d.
Poison baits
e.
“Coyote” getters
f.
Hunting dogs
g.
Denning
h.
Helicopter hunting
i.
Holding captive of captured DCAs, especially to capture urine or excrement scent lures
This prohibition is motivated on the basis that these methods are indiscriminate and have wideranging and damaging impact on biodiversity patterns and processes, and varying degrees of
inhumanity attached to it. Furthermore these methods have been demonstrated not to resolve DCA
problems.
9.
Other methods of hunting should be restricted activities and its methods should be subject
to the activity and methods being compliant to permitted conditions through the permitting
authorities.
10.
Permits must be issued within a limited time period.
11.
Farmers, Game Owners, Agricultural Lobby Groupings, Traditional Healers or Cultural
Traders should NOT be granted any special rights or privileges in these regulations as they are
citizens like us all and should comply with the regulations as we all have to. This also goes for
livestock farmers and game farmers – all citizens are equal before the law and should comply
equally. Further too, DAFF, lobby groups such as the PMF should have no veto rights on legislation
and species lists – again, all citizens are equal before the law.
12.
There should be no distinction in these regulations between individual animals in game
farms, outside game farms, or on reserves. The regulations should focus on biodiversity patterns and
process conservation and legislative protection, and it applies to all citizens. Certificates of adequate
enclosure merely provide access to ownership of wild animals and no special permission to dispose
or trade in them without compliance with restricted activities.
13.
It must be stressed that the exclusion of merely one commonly persecuted species from a
species listing, and the concurrent allowance of indiscriminate persecuting methods and activities
would effectively render any conservation action on any species un-implementable as these
indiscriminate controls/hunting methods can effectively impact all species, even critically
endangered species through by-catch or even undeclared agendas. The legislative control thus has
to be concurrently from two perspectives:
a.
Comprehensive listing of all and every persecuted species, AND
b.
Prohibitions and restriction of both activities and methods that may be indiscriminate across
species.
Annexure 3: Landmark Foundation: Objections to the Published Draft
National Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage Causing
Animals
The Director General: Environmental Affairs
Attention: Mr Thomas Mbedzi
Private Bag X447
Pretoria
0001
OR
The Director General: Environmental Affairs
Attention: Mr Thomas Mbedzi
North Tower (Room 1320)
315 Pretorius Street
Pretoria
OR
Tel: +27 (0)12 320 3225
Fax: +27 (0)12 320 7026
Email: [email protected]
Dear MrMbedzi (for the Director General, Department of Environmental Affairs)
Re: Objections and Comments on the Published Norms and Standards for the Management of
Damage-Causing Animals (Government Gazette Vol 545, Pretoria, 26 November 2010, No 33806) General Notice (1084 of 2010), herein after referred to as the Norms & Standards
In terms of the General Notice published in the above listed Government Gazette I wish to make the
following representations and objections. I will make them in three categories, one general, another
on key omissions, and another specific to points in the published document.
General Comments and Objections
1. The specialist task team put together by the officials of the Department of Environmental
Affairs to help draft these Norms & Standards, after several meetings and detailed
discussions, had made certain recommendations that have been disregarded in the final
document. Most importantly the definition of damage causing animals (dealt with here
below), the restriction of the use of gin traps (and now called “soft” traps) for 3 years (after
which they would be prohibited under all conditions), and the prohibition of methods like
dog hunting, denning, helicopter hunting, poison baits, and snares, have not been dealt with
or retained in this version of the Norms & Standards.
2. Chapter 2 section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa deals with the Bill of
Rights, and the provisions of this Norms & Standards undermine those rights. I refer you to
section 24 in the Bill of Rights in this chapter of the constitution that deals with the
environment. I quote specifically:
24. Environment
Everyone has the right
a.
b.
to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future
generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that
i.
prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
ii.
promote conservation; and
iii.
secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources
while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
3. The published Norms & Standards specifically enable the use of methods that have been
scientifically proven to cause ecological degradation, to undermine conservation and ecologically
sustainable development. This specifically involves the issue of gin traps (renamed as “soft”
traps in the Norms & Standards) and the use of hunting dogs. This will open this piece of statute
to a constitutional challenge as currently published. The scientific data to support this is
contained in the reference list attached as an annexure. Furthermore section 7 (2) of the
constitution places an obligation on all, but specifically the “state must respect, protect,
promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights”. As such I would expect the published Norms
& Standards document to do so. The supremacy of the Constitution must be respected. The
constitutional rights to dignity, psychological integrity, freedom from violence and the
environmental rights guaranteed in the constitution are placed in jeopardy by some provisions in
the Norms & Standards.
4. Furthermore, although animals are not accorded legal rights in our constitution, in a civilized
and humane society of which I hope we are a part, we have a duty of care to treat our
environment respectfully and humanely, neither of which are promoted by the contents of
this Norms & Standards.
5. The principles promoted in the Norms & Standards document are accurate and appropriate,
yet the conditions promoted in chapter 2 part 3 are contrary to the very principles laid down
by this document, making its provisions fatally flawed.
6. Certain provisions in the Norms & Standards run contrary to other acts and legislation, for
example the allowed method of dog hunting is prohibited in terms of the Animal Protection
Act 71 of 1962 and thus may be unlawful, as are the use of traps. Other provisions are
unlawful in terms of certain species such as listed Threatened Or Protected Species (TOPS)
being hunted through luring in methods like call and shoot hunting, dog hunting and gin
traps. Furthermore it is unclear how the provisions in TOPS relating to Damage Causing
Animals and these Norms & Standards relate to one another, as the provisions relating to
TOPS listed species are contradictory in terms of these Norms and Standards, e.g. the use of
gin traps on TOPS listed species are prohibited.
7. The definition of a damage causing animal is so broad as to effectively make ALL wildlife by
definition damage-causing animals, and with the subsequent vagueness of the control of
restricted activities, and the absence of listing of prohibited activities, this will lead to
ongoing and wide-scale abuse against the faunal diversity of South Africa.
8. There are several issues in the Norms & Standards that are unclear and makes this guideline
document open to abuse and likely to be ineffectual, namely:
a. The meaning and implication to management of restricted activities are void due to
vagueness and thus opens the system to abuse. Specifically the document is unclear
and vague on the implications of an activity being restricted, and leaves it open to
abuse. We strongly recommend that all restricted activities be subject to a permit
being issued each time such an activity is being applied for. The Norms & Standards
are ambiguous on this matter.
9.
10.
11.
12.
b. The Norms & Standards are silent of those activities that are to be prohibited. We
strongly recommend that all prohibited activities be prohibited under all conditions
and that those activities be defined and listed as being such. We also recommend
that the Norms and Standards make a defined distinction between prohibited and
restricted activities.
c. The prohibited activities are to include: gin traps, walk through snap (“Killer”) traps
and all forms of leg held devices, poison baits, denning, dog hunting and helicopter
hunting. Additionally we recommend that all forms of holding captive of individuals
of damage causing animals, such as to capture urine or excrement scent lures, be
prohibited.
d. The document is silent in terms of how permits for restricted activities are to be
issued. We strongly recommend that permits are to only be issued after the
relevant issuing authority or such registered professional known to and acceptable
to the relevant issuing authority, has conducted a site inspection and reviewed the
relevant information prior to issuing any permits for restrictive activities.
This Norms & Standards compounds the existing confusion between the provisions of the
TOPS regulations, NEMBA and the various provincial ordinances and hunting notices/permit
/bag limit provisions pertaining to damage causing animals. The terms and definitions vary,
and the net result will be that the confusion legalizes the continued indiscriminate
extermination of many animals and indeed species. For example, certain activities against
TOPS listed species are prohibited, yet if they are classified as a DCA they would be
permitted in these standards, besides, if, as per definition of these Norms & Standards, all
wildlife would be classified as DCA’s it would make the TOPS regulations obsolete.
There can be no place for the continued use of gin traps (cynically called “soft” traps – they
are the same thing). There is no scientific or any ethical justification for their use. They
remain indiscriminate, lethal controls of little efficacy in targeting even culprit individual
damage causing animals. Their continued use even as a restricted method, in the
management of damage causing animals flies in the face of the very principles supported by
these Norms and Standards. Furthermore it is in contravention to the Animal Protection Act
71 of 1962, and the TOPS regulations.
It is not possible to define gin traps and soft traps to exclude gin traps from the ambit of soft
traps, or visa versa. As such, the attempt to do so in this document is nonsensical, illogical
and perhaps even cynical.
There can be no place for the continued use of hunting dogs. There is no scientific or any
ethical justification for this. They remain indiscriminate, lethal controls of little efficacy in
targeting even culprit individual damage causing animals. Their continued use, even as
restricted method, in the management of damage causing animals flies in the face of the
very principles supported by these norms and standards. Furthermore it is in contravention
to the Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962, and the TOPS regulations.
Omissions from the Norms & Standards
13. A very important omission from the Norms and Standards is that under no circumstances
should a DCA be hunted for any profiteering venture or be “sold” to a hunting client. This is
a VERY important provision as certain key and high hunting value species will be
indiscriminately motivated as being DCAs and will be selectively persecuted.
14. No restricted activity permits should be issued post the execution of an activity.
15. The absence of the definitions of prohibited and restricted activities is an omission that will
lead to general abuse of damage causing animals. Prohibited activities should be defined as
those activities that are prohibited under all and every circumstances. Restricted activities
should be defined as activities that are restricted through the use of permit conditions laid
down by the relevant issuing authority, and guided by the minimum requirements listed in
the Norms and Standards.
16. It has been omitted to detail on how restricted activities can be permitted. The Norms and
Standards should set such norms and standards which should entail:
a. An application to conduct a restricted activity detailing the history of the loss,
b. An inspection by the relevant issuing authority, or a registered environmental
assessment professional with the authority, should be done and reported on,
c. Proof of preventative measures or mitigation measures that have been
implemented to prevent the loss should be detailed,
d. Permit should be issued for the conduct of a restricted activity, which should detail
the conditions, the time limits, and the location of such activities, and the
subsequent report back provisions.
17. The absence of a detailed list of prohibited activities is a glaring omission, these should
include:
a. Snaring
b. Gin traps and “soft traps”
c. “Killer” walk-through snap traps
d. Poison baits
e. “Coyote” getters
f. Hunting dogs
g. Denning
h. Helicopter hunting
i. Holding captive of captured DCAs
18.
Section 2 (6) is missing in the document as this must be a typographic error.
Specific Objections and Comments
19. Refer 1 (1) b – it is noted that in terms of the Animal Protection Act 17 of 1962 it is an
offence to:
a. Ill-treat or maim any animal
b. Cause unnecessary suffering
c. Lays any trap or other device for the purpose of capturing or destroying any animal,
wild animal or wild bird the destruction of which is not proved to be necessary for
the protection of property or for the prevention of the spread of disease
d. Use unregistered dog clubs
e. 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
The use of gin traps (“soft” traps) or hunting dogs are not permitted in terms of this legislation
and its inclusion on these Norms & Standards makes it inconsistent with the law.
20. Definition of damage causing animals as it stands is a MAJOR problem in these Norms &
Standards as they effectively make all wildlife damage-causing animals per se. This creates
the avenue for the persecution of wildlife on the whim of any applicant to conduct restricted
activities. It is imperative that wildlife only be classified as damage causing animals with
good reason and after repeated, regular and excessive damage been proven and verified,
with all reasonable preventative measures having been tried. As such we recommend the
following definition to be included, and please note that livestock farming and game farming
requires different definitions:
“damage-causing animal”means a wild vertebrate animal that, when interacting with
humans or interfering with human activities, there is substantial proof that it—
In livestock farming:
(a) causes repeated and regular and excessive losses to livestock; despite the land user
having applied and exhausted all reasonable methods and systems of exclusion and
damage prevention.
In game Farming:
(a) causes “repeated and regular and excessive” losses to other wild specimens, which
is inconsistent with the animal’s natural behavior and ecologically damaging to the
specific enterprise; despite the existence of a certification of adequate enclosure to
exclude predators from a game farming area, as approved and verified by the relevant
environmental management agency.
(b) causes “repeated and regular and excessive” damage to cultivated trees, crops,
natural flora orother property; despite the land user having applied and exhausted all
reasonable methods and systems of exclusion and damage prevention.
(c) presents an imminent and realistic threat to human life;
(d) is present in such numbers that agricultural grazing is materially depleted to a
significant detrimental extent with respect to biodiversity and farming enterprises,
despite the land user having applied and exhausted all reasonable methods and systems
of exclusion and damage prevention.
21. Definition of “soft traps” and paragraph 14 is problematic to the extreme. These Norms and
Standards are creating a new and false differentiation between gin traps and soft traps.
There is no such differentiation in reality and making such a distinction has no merit in
law. There is no way in law that a distinction between gin trap and soft traps exist in reality.
This creates confusion and a sinister loophole in the statutes to prevent effective control of
these devices. It also renders other legislation, like NEMBA and TOPS, impossible to
implement in terms of gin trap prohibitions. These Norms & Standards thus effectively
creates a mechanism to continue and entrench to use of gin traps, albeit under a new name,
but within the same reality of its damage to biodiversity and with its continued ethical
problems.
22. The continued use of gin traps (and here rebranded as soft traps) is contrary to the very
principles of these Norms & Standards, contrary to the Animal Protection act 71 of 1962, the
TOPS regulations of the NEMBA, and the consequences of its continued use is at variance to
the constitutional rights provided in our constitution.
23. The specific minimum requirements of the so-called “soft traps” have many problems;
mostly that it is a rebranding of currently used gin traps. The Norms & Standards is thus
illogical in respect that it seemingly creates a nomenclature distinction between gin traps
and soft traps which in law and practice is not possible, but in defining the minimum
standards they are the same things. We believe this is intended to mislead and creates
ongoing ineffectual and non- implementable legislation. It is notable that there is an absence
of the definition of a gin trap in the document. The problems with the minimum
requirements are:
a. The name soft trap is an oxymoron as has nothing soft in its structure, mechanism of
action, impact on faunal species or biodiversity in general. We are of the opinion
that this distinction included in the Norms & Standards are sinister and intended to
render the implementation of controls against gin traps ineffectual. SOFT TRAPS as
defined in this document are GIN TRAPS.
b. The definition suggested that these traps must be target specific and selective. This
is not practically possible. These traps are by their nature non specific and
indiscriminate and almost invariable lethal. In no way is it thus possible to assert
they can have specificity or selectiveness. There is no research to support the stance
that gin traps are target specific, effective or selective in trapping damage causing
animals. There are however numerous scientific papers as well as comments by top
academics and researchers to illustrate the lack of target specificity and poor
efficacy of the use of gin traps to trap DCA in farming areas.
c. The selection of a minimum weight of 1.75kg is utterly arbitrary and entirely
irrelevant, as almost all traditional by-catch of gin traps of these species are above
this weight category and thus susceptible to their impact. There has only been
research by one researcher in South Africa in an area of questionable mammalian
biodiversity to lend any support to this weight category. Although the trapping of
certain species such as the Cape fox Vulpescharma and the Bat eared fox
Otocyonmegalotis may be slightly reduced by setting the tread plate to release at
pressures in excess off 1.75kg. This mechanism has been in operation in South Africa
for over 10 years as seen in the “Terminator” gin trap tread plate mechanism.
However in practice, this has not alleviated the by-catch of thousands of non target
innocent species. Skinner &Chimimba (2005) indicate that the following species (for
example) would fall prey to these devices as they fall above this weight category:
Cape fox, African wild cat, bat eared fox, civets, genets, black footed cats, primates,
antelope, dassies, rock rabbits, spring hare, scrub hares, cane rats, leopard cheetah,
lion, hyena, caracal, jackal, domestic dogs, humans, etc (to arbitrarily select a few
species). Haw (in prep, 2010) demonstrated that “terminator” traps (which are
described in the Norms & Standards as soft traps) had a 8% specificity in capturing
predators demonstrated to have sheep remains in their stomachs, demonstrating
either scavenging or predation events.
d. The actual description of soft traps is the actual parameters of the most commonly
used gin traps in South Africa, namely those manufactured by Mr Peter Schneekluth
of Prince Albert, being sold under the name of “terminator” traps and “leopard”
traps. These traps fall exactly into the Norms & Standards definitions and description
of minimum standards as it stands in the current document.
e. In addition the power of the spring mechanism has not been coherently addressed.
This is perhaps the most important aspect of the gin trap mechanism with respect to
causing injury to trapped wildlife. A trap such as the “Terminator” is way too
powerful even for an animal the size of a leopard. This has been vividly illustrated on
numerous occasions where numerous species of wild animals trapped with the
Terminator gin trap have had to be euthanized as a result of their limb injuries
associated with this trapping specific mechanism.
This trap is compliant with the minimum standards of soft traps in the Norms & Standards.
This is a Terminator Trap. This leopard died.
24. Chapter 2, Part 1, 6(2) refers to “where an inspection is required”. This reference is void due
to its vagueness and should read that all applications for a permit to execute a restricted
activityshould be legally required to undergo an inspection by a member of the relevant
issuing authority or alternately a registered environmental assessment professional.
25. The attempt to require the response of the authorities to complaints about Damage Causing
Animals to be "proportionate to the damage caused" is problematic when para 6(1) is read
with para 6(4). This seems to imply, although it is not clear, that the most severe harm (loss
of human life) requires the most severe response – i.e. killing the animal? Rather the issuing
authority should be required to respond reasonably or to use reasonable measures. It may
not be reasonable to kill an animal even if it has killed a human.
In deciding what are reasonable measures, the issuing authority should rather have regard to
the principle that an animal has a basic intrinsic right to exist as a part of its particular habitat
and ecosystem and that the legal right of humans to life and security of property should be
carefully weighed against this.
26. Part 2 (7) (3) (a) (iii) makes all and any translocation doomed for failure. Firstly it is not
practical to get written prior consents as many of these events unfold as desperate
emergencies. Secondly this specific provision is impracticable as these animals may traverse
the properties of many farm owners (hundreds in some instances). Thus the Norms and
Standards are not practically and realistically implementable. We recommend that this
provision should read that “the issuing authority may decide to release a translocated
animal in an area it deems appropriate, or the receiving landowner or entity that seeks to
received such an animal must sign a written undertaking accepting all legal responsibility
and liabilities for the animal being received, and must abide by the provisions laid down by
the relevant issuing authority.”
27. Part 2 (8) (1) (b) (i& ii) (Dead Stop Collars and King Collars) are brand names and should fall
away as they are dealt with under (vi)
28. Part 2 (9) (1) is dealt with under points 12 & 13 above here. Specifically it is recommended
that all restricted methods ONLY be permitted under permits issued by the relevant issuing
authority.
29. Part 2 (9) (1): the use of (b, e & f) (poison collars, soft traps and dogs) are contrary to the
very principles of these Norms and Standards, never mind to other legislation (APA 71 of
1962, TOPS, NEMBA) and in variance to the constitution. These should be termed prohibited
methods.
30. Clause 13 should have three additional aspects added as separate clauses within the
minimum standards for call and shoot hunting, namely:
a. Only target specific individual known culprit damage-causing animals.
b. Not be remunerated per number of animals shot , but per problem resolved, to prevent the
current practice of large number of animals being shot on a single hunt
c. Be issued with a joint TOPS and DCA permit should a TOPS listed species be involved in the
damage a destruction permit be requested.
31. Clause 15 is in contravention of the Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962 and dogs may not be
used to hunt other animals, especially in terms of the definition in this Norms and Standards
of hunting.
32. It is also incongruous in terms of 9 (1) (f) and 15 (2) that different numbers of dogs may be
used in these hunts (that are in any event unlawful).
33. Chapter 3 (18) states that it is lawful to use gin traps (here referred to as soft traps), which is
factually incorrect in law (refer to TOPS and the APA 71 of 1962, and the Constitution). This
is furthermore in variance to the recommendation made by the specialist task team that
helped to draft these norms and standards who recommended that:
Gin traps (with minimum standards) will be allowed for use as a restricted method in the
management of damage-causing animals under individual permitted conditions issued by the
relevant issuing authority , and in the use of trained and registered service providers. This
provision would be in place for three years; thereafter the method would become a prohibited
method.
We formally object that this recommendation has been disregarded and altered, that gin traps
have been illogically rebranded by an oxymoron to soft traps, and their continued use be
entrenched in these Norms & Standards. This is contrary to the constitution, NEMBA, TOPS and
the Animal Protection Act 71 of 1962.
I trust that these detailed submissions will be considered and that the department will apply its mind
to the illustrated flaws, omissions and recommendations made herein.
Yours truly,
Dr Bool Smuts
Director
Landmark Foundation
Annexure 4: The following scientific papers and notes thereof in support of
the notion that there is no data to support the inclusion of gin traps, coyote
getters as a management tools of jackal, in particularly, as a damage
causing animal. (Drafted by R Harrison White)
Parks and Un-persecuted jackal populations
1. Rowe – Rowe & Green – “Steel jaw traps for live capture of black-backed jackals Afr.J.Wildl. Res
1981 : Aug – Sept (70%) 17 trap nights per jackal (11 adult and 4 immature <1yr but papers
differ - other paper 1yr (1): 1-2yr(3): 3-4yr (4):4-5(2): >7(1 )(15 in 256 trap nights) - with
decreasing success in 4 nights of rapping: 5 on the first night, 7 on second night, 1 on the third,
and 2, on fourth nothing after that.
2. Rowe-Rowe & Green 1981 no success in 206 nights when no fresh signs of jackal
3. Mckenzie 1990: ”Cooperative hunting in the black-backed jackal”: 7 jackals in Moshatu Game
reserve – total 20 jackals caught between methods – traps most successful – 7 trapped within
10min to 2yrs of setting trap – one jackal killed by lion in trap – no non targets – 6 of the
trapped jackals showed lameness for 2-17 days after capture – as no visible injuries – lameness
probably due to ligament, tendon and muscle injury including in the free lag from straining to
get out of trap.
4. Kamler :June – August 333 nights 15 jackals: all territorial – no age analysis = 22 trap nights per
jackal – classified 1-2 or adult perscomm
5. A.J.Loveridge and D.W.Madonald “Seasonality in spatial organization and dispersal of sypmpatric
jackals”J.Zool.Lond.2001 = 6 trap nights per jackal 22 jackals caught (11 mesomelas) – ages not
given – no weights etc– ear tags - 2785ha next to Hwange National park – trapping done in dry
season (June to August– mating estimated from pups to be mid July) - to avoid capturing
juveniles? Pups dependant on den site to December (would agree) - 6 jackal groups (2 mated
pairs and others mated pairs with 1-4 extra individuals)– June 1995-April 1997 – dusk to
midnight or midnight to dawn every 10mins – fixes for rapidly moving jackals not taken- animals
not fitted with tags were identified by their age and markings – “no estimation on population
size …because of the difficulty of recapturing individuals” Territories probably about same size
as in KGP Ferguson +- 400Ha but no info given here
Persecuted populations
1. Kaunda: “Black backed jackal predation at Mokolodi Nature Reserve” 1998
2. 3 captures in 204 trap nights = 68 trap nights per jackal - going on neck size two were pups(210
& 225) caught Nov 95, June 96 ,Oct 96
3. “Adult jackal consistently avoided being trapped” Kaunda - adjacent farms have PA control –
makes it harder & reserve is only 3000ha. No non target info
4. A. Haw September 2009 – January 2010 unpublished - 25 gin-traps permanently – has caught 5
jackals in +- 120days =3000 trap nights although some animals sat in traps for over one week so
one could probably take say 10% off this figure make it say +_ 2700 trap night for 5 jackals =.540
traps night per jackal
5. Bothma 1971 Control and ecology of the black- backed jackal in Transvaal. Zool. Afr.6:187-193
6. Bothma perscomms to Rowe –Rowe “steel jaw traps proved least successful and capture effort
was enormous (methods used greyhounds, gin-traps, Getters and digging)
7. Ferguson J.W.F: The Ecology of the black backed jackal 1981 using Lensing, J.E. & Le Roux, T.F.
1975: “A capture snare for the small mammal predators and scavengers” method of snaring
with a fishing rod apparatus. “Between 5 -25 snares were set each night (fishing rods) in each of
the two study areas in the Transvaal. The capture success with snares was 550 snare nights per
jackal in the Western Transvaal and 104 snare nights per jackals and in the Suikerbosrand
Nature Reserve. This difference in capture rates is largely due to the fact that jackals are
intensively hunted by land-owners and this makes the jackals more frightened of human smells
and human apparatus”.
 Ferguson 1980 Jackal probably don’t bred before 3rd year Group sizes were smallest during July to October following he peak in pupping (July) and
before pups leave the den and greatest from November to February when pups forage with
the adults” – Black-backed jackal population structures in the natal Drakensberg Rowe –
Rowe The Lammergeyer 32 January 1984
 Kaunda catch rate was extremely poor but this was probably because of intense jackal
persecution on farms bordering the 3000ha reserve. The effect of this is aptly described by
Kaunda “ jackals encountered outside the reserve bolted for cover …. Jackals inside the
reserve could be approached to within 50m”. This is the point – trapping in persecuted areas
is not so easy and not effective.
8. Haw, A (2010, In prep) 5 months of intensive gin trapping on productive sheep farm monitored
gin trap efficacy and specificity. 20 gin traps used, 36 animal captured, all died, 3 (8%) had
sheep contents in stomach = predator or scavenger (not necessarily culprit damage causing
animal), 70% were non target species.
Avoidance and “learnt “ behaviours
A characteristic of the black backed jackal is this animal’s remarkable ability to learn and avoid
mechanisms which are seen as “new” (neophobia) or dangerous. Much research has been
completed on this aspect of the black- backed jackal behavior represented by research such as:
1. Brand & Nel 1997.: “Avoidance of cyanide guns by black backed jackal
2. R. Harrison – White June 2001: (in press) “Black backed jackal resistance to CD calling
techniques”
3. P.J.J. Van Rensburg&M.J.De Wet 1995 : Final Report “The Effectivity and Selectivity of poison
baits in the control of black back jackals” “ the avoidance by black backed jackal to poison baits
makes this method an ineffective population control method”. This statement can without
doubt be extrapolated to other control techniques.
4. R. Harrison – White July 2002 (in press): “Black-backed jackal avoidance of “Dropper Baits””
5. R. Harrison – White July 2002 (in press): “Black backed jackal learned resistance to cage trapping
in captivity”
6. Brand et al :”Progressive Resistance to Coyote Getters”
Specific gin-trap mechanism avoidance:
Parks and Un-persecuted jackal populations
Author & Publication
Rowe – Rowe & Green – “Steel jaw
traps for live capture of blackbacked jackals Afr.J.Wildl. Res
1981 :
Rowe – Rowe & Green – “Steel jaw
traps for live capture of blackbacked jackals Afr.J.Wildl. Res
1981 :
Mckenzie
1990 ”Cooperative
hunting in the black-backed
jackal” :
Kamler 2008:
“Efficiency and safety of Soft Catch
traps for capturing blackbacked jackals and excluding
non target species”
Place
No Jackals
time year
Drakensberg NP
Aug – Sept
(15 in 256 trap
nights)
Drakensberg NP Aug
– Sept
Trap success
Moshatu
Game
Reserve
7 jackals trapped
BenfonteinFreestate
June – August
333 nights in 2 years
=15 jackals
7 trapped within 10min to 2rs of setting trap– traps most successful
method
17 trap nights per jackal
- with decreasing success in 4 nights of trapping :5 on the first night , 7 on
second night ,1 on the third ,and 2, on fourth nothing after that
no success in 206 nights when no fresh signs of jackal
22 trap nights per jackal
A.J.Loveridge
and
D.W.Madonald2001
“Seasonality
in
spatial
organization and dispersal of
sypmpatric
jackals”
J.Zool.Lond.2001
Ferguson J.W.F1981: “Ecology of the
black-backed jackal”
Farm 2785ha next to
Hwange NP
dry season (June to
August)
11 jackals
6 trap nights per jackal
ages not given – no weights etc– ear tags
“no estimation on population size …because of the difficulty of
recapturing individuals
Suikerbosrand
Nature Reserve
104 snare nights per jackal
Persecuted jackal populations:
Author & Publication
Kaunda: 1998
“Black backed jackal predation at
Mokolodi Nature Reserve”
Haw perscomms.
Ferguson J.W.F1981: “Ecology of the
black-backed jackal”
Bothma 1971
“Control and ecology of the black
backed jackal in Transvaal”.
Zool. Afr.6:187-193
Place No Jackals
time year
Mokolodi
Nature
Reserve
3000ha
3 jackals
Taaiboshfontein
Victoria west
September 2009 –
January 2010
Western Transvaal
Transvaal
Trap success
68 trap nights per jackal
(3 captures in 204 trap nights)
“Adult jackal consistently avoided being trapped” - adjacent farms have
PA control – makes it harder”.
450 traps night per jackal - 5 jackals
550 snare nights per jackal “This difference in capture rates is largely due
to the fact that jackals are intensively hunted by land-owners and
this makes the jackals more frightened of human smells and human
apparatus”.
Bothma perscomms to Rowe –Rowe
“steel jaw traps proved least successful and capture effort was enormous
(methods used greyhounds, gin-traps, Getters and digging)
This type of reaction summed up by P.J.JVanRensburg&M.J.De Wet 1995 in poison baits tests “ the
avoidance by black backed jackal to poison baits makes this method an ineffective population control
method”
This statement can without doubt be extrapolated to other control / capture techniques.
The failure of the gin-trap as a control option for jackals and jackal predations is evidently linked
to this animals’ ability to learn and avoid control strategies, a point aptly supported by the above
research.