SSN's Comments on South Africa's Regulations on Threatened and ...

Clause 21(1)(d)(i) does not allow an animal to be hunted if it is -- “under the influence of tranquillizing
or narcotic immobilizing or similar agent”. Animals should not be given any drug at any dose to ensure
that they would be able to evade the hunter (“fair chance”). However, the draft clause implies that some
level of drugging with some types of drugs would be acceptable. We recommend changing this clause
to read, “… hunted if it has -- received any drugs, including but not limited to tranquilizers, narcotics or
immobilizing agents.”
Clause 21(1)(e) requires the permit holder to have all relevant documentation authorizing the hunt “on
him or her” during the hunt. The term “on him or her” could be misconstrued (leaving it in a vehicle,
for example). We recommend clarifying this clause to read “…authorizing the hunt on the body of the
permit holder during the hunt”.
Clause 21(1)(f)(ii) requires the permit holder to, within 21 days of the hunt, return information to the
authorities, including the “species, gender and number of animals hunted”. We also recommend that
the information include the estimated age of the animal and any evidence that, in the case of a female,
she had young (i.e. lactating). This information is important to consider when determining the
conservation impact of the hunt.
Clause 21(2)(a) allows the use of dogs to track a wounded animal. This is subjective and
unenforceable. Further elaboration is needed regarding evidence needed to demonstrate that dogs were
used to track an animal and did not participate in the hunt.
Clause 21(2)(d)(ii) prohibits hunting of animals in a “small enclosure where the animal does not have a
fair chance of evading the hunter”. The term “small enclosure” is subjective, unenforceable, and
requires further elaboration; this term would, at any rate, need to be defined on a species-specific basis
(what is large for one species may be small for another). Even fairly large enclosures have corners
where animals can be baited and/or trapped. We recommend replacing the word “small” with “any”.
The term “fair chance” is a key phrase that is highly subjective; either an objective, enforceable
definition of “fair chance” is needed or the term should be eliminated from the draft text. We
recommend replacing it with “…animal cannot evade the hunter.”
Clause 21(4) allows the use of a motorized vehicle to track animals in areas where the hunt takes place
over “long ranges” provided that the animal is not shot from the vehicle “except in the case of a
wounded animal”. First, we do not understand how hunting with vehicles can be considered ethical
conduct or provides the animal with a “fair chance” of evading the hunter, particularly with larger
animals. Second, the term “long ranges” requires further elaboration on a species-specific basis. Third,
the fact that a wounded animal can be shot from a vehicle is an unenforceable loophole that would
allow hunting from vehicles.
Cancelled permits to be returned to issuing authority
Clause 25(1) states that cancelled permits must be returned to the issuing authority within 30 days of
the date of cancellation. Paragraph (2) states any failure by a permit holder to return a cancelled permit
in accordance with sub-regulation (1) “may be taken into account by an issuing authority when
considering any future application from that person…” We recommend, as an incentive, that if permits
are not returned, future applications by that permit holder should not be considered. At the very least,
we recommend that failure to return cancelled permits must (replace “may”) be considered by the
issuing authority when considering future applications.
9