Posts

Does Lion Farming In South Africa Have A Positive Impact On The Conservation of African Wild Lion Populations?

/in , , , , , , /by

lion

Does Lion Farming In South Africa Have A Positive Impact On The Conservation of African Wild Lion Populations?

South Africa’s commercial lion breeding industry does not benefit Africa’s iconic wild lions, according to new research by Blood Lions and World Animal Protection. 

This finding may have vital implications for the future of lion farming in South Africa – an industry that has been allowed to grow over the past three decades to around 350 captive facilities holding nearly 8,000 lions and thousands of other big cats for tourist entertainment and profit.

Researchers from Blood Lions and World Animal Protection reviewed 126 peer-reviewed articles and 37 public reports published between 2008-2023. Their analysis identified several red flags suggesting that lion farming may harm wild lion populations by accelerating – and potentially facilitating – commercial demand for lions and their body parts, including bones, claws and teeth.

The review also highlights key knowledge gaps that must be addressed to better understand the wider implications of the captive lion industry. Recommended areas for future research include: consumer preferences for lion products sourced from either captive or wild populations, supply and demand interactions relating to captive lion products, economic comparisons between farmed and wild lion products, the genetics and genetic health of captive lion populations, and the extent of illegal activity taking place between Africa and destination countries in Southeast Asia.

Currently, there is no scientific evidence to substantiate industry claims that commercial captive lion breeding protects wild lion populations. On the contrary, the findings suggest it may be driving demand with potentially damaging consequences for the species in the wild.

Contributing researcher and Director of Blood Lion Dr Louise de Waal said: “We need to err on the side of caution globally, but in particular in African lion range states, to stop facilitating the further emergence of commercial captive predator breeding and trade. This is particularly relevant when considering the increased wildlife trafficking opportunities between the African continent and Southeast Asia, fuelled in part by the expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative[1] – a global infrastructure development strategy by the Chinese government.”

In May 2021, former Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Barbara Creecy, initiated a process to ultimately close South Africa’s commercial captive lion industry with all its associated activities, such as cub petting, walking with lions, and “canned” or captive trophy hunting.

This decision followed the release of the High-Level Panel report, which found that, among others, the captive lion breeding industry damages South Africa’s eco-tourism and conservation reputations, lacks the necessary transformation, and is widely accused of animal welfare neglect and abuse.

In its 2018 Non-Detriment Finding Assessment for African lions, the Scientific Authority of South Africa concluded that exporting captive-bred lion trophies, live captive-bred lions for zoological or breeding purposes, and/or trading lion skeletons from the captive population did not negatively impact South Africa’s wild lion population. While wild lion populations in South Africa are currently considered stable, this new research shows that using captive breeding as a tool to meet the demand for lion commodities  may pose potentially detrimental effects on already vulnerable lion populations and other big cat species across other range states.

Dr Angie Elwin, contributing researcher and Head of Research at World Animal Protection added: “Our review finds no clear evidence that South Africa’s captive lion breeding industry benefits wild lion populations, and growing indications it could be doing harm by fuelling demand for lion parts. Given the precarious status of lions globally, any claims of conservation value should be treated with extreme caution. Lessons from tiger farming show that legal trade from captive animals has failed to protect wild populations and may even accelerate their decline. We risk repeating the same mistake with lions.”

These new research findings are highly relevant for the current political process and should urge Minister Dr. Dion George (Department of  Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment) to take two critical next steps: first, to impose an immediate moratorium on the breeding of lions in captivity, and second, to develop a structured and timebound phase-out plan for the broader commercial predator industry.

[1] Hughes, A.C. Understanding and minimizing environmental impacts of the Belt and Road Initiative. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 883–894.

Find a PDF version of the full peer-reviewed research paper HERE.

Source: Blood Lions

Celebrating the Unbreakable Bond: Dogs as Companions and Our Responsibility

/in , , , , , /by

dogs

Celebrating the Unbreakable Bond: Dogs as Companions and Our Responsibility

FOUR PAWS South Africa marks International Dog Day with a call for compassion, commitment, and responsible pet ownership.

As the world prepares to honour our four-legged friends on International Dog Day this 26 August, FOUR PAWS South Africa is spotlighting the deep companionship dogs offer—and the importance of being responsible guardians in return.

Whether curled up at our feet or standing loyally by our side, dogs bring joy, comfort, and unconditional love into our lives. But this special relationship comes with responsibility. This International Dog Day, FOUR PAWS is urging South Africans to not only celebrate their dogs, but to reaffirm their role in providing safe, loving, and cruelty-free homes to the animals they care for.

“Dogs aren’t just animals we share our homes with—they’re family,” says Fiona Miles, Director at FOUR PAWS South Africa. “In South Africa, dogs play vital roles in communities as companions, helpers, and guardians. Responsible pet ownership means ensuring these animals are protected, healthy, and treated with the dignity they deserve.”

Through its community outreach projects, FOUR PAWS South Africa has witnessed firsthand the impact of irresponsible pet ownership—ranging from overpopulation and untreated disease, to neglect and abandonment. As part of its work, the organisation provides free sterilisation, vaccinations, and education programmes across rural and underserved communities to promote long-term change.

What Responsible Pet Ownership Means:

  • Providing clean water, proper food, shelter, and veterinary care.
  • Spaying or neutering your pets to prevent overpopulation and suffering.
  • Ensuring pets are kept safe, not left to roam or chained for extended periods.
  • Understanding the emotional needs of your dog—companionship, love, and mental stimulation.
  • Committing to your dog’s wellbeing for their entire life.

Beyond physical care, dogs need mental enrichment, companionship, and protection from harmful environments. Abandonment, abuse, and backyard breeding remain serious challenges in South Africa, but they can be prevented through education and community-led solutions. “This day is a celebration—but also a reminder,” says Miles. “A reminder that when we take a dog into our homes, we make a promise: to love, protect, and care for them responsibly. Let’s make sure we live up to that promise.”

FIVE Ways to Celebrate International Dog Day Responsibly:

  1. Adopt, don’t shop – Choose to give a rescue dog a loving home.
  2. Vaccinate and sterilise your pets to prevent unnecessary suffering.
  3. Volunteer at a local animal shelter or support a mobile outreach clinic.
  4. Speak out against animal cruelty and report neglect or abuse.
  5. Celebrate your dog’s life – share your story using #InternationalDogDay and tag @FOURPAWSSA.

For more information, visit our website www.four-paws.org.za 

Source: Four Paws

Wild animals in zoos

/in , , , , , /by

animals

Wild animals in zoos

Accommodating animals according to their needs

Wild animals have complex ecological, social, and behavioural needs, which must be considered when keeping them under human care – but not all zoos are able or willing to meet them. Many substandard zoos worldwide are at fault for major welfare shortcomings. These include deficits like insufficient space, lack of species-specific enclosures, and incorrect social management.

The limitations combined may trigger the development of health conditions and behavioural problems, like stereotypies and aberrant social behaviour. For example, if animals perform the same movements over a longer period, this indicates stereotypic behaviour. The absence of such disorders unfortunately does not necessarily mean that animals are in good mental and/or physical condition, as wild animals are generally good at hiding their suffering.

Species-appropriate accommodation

From an animal welfare point of view, species-appropriate keeping of wild animals in zoos is fundamentally difficult to ensure. They should be kept in such ways that pain, suffering and behavioural problems are avoided at any time to the maximum possible extent. At the same time, the occurrence and promotion of positive experiences, which can be expressed through playing, comfort and exploring behaviours, are essential to guarantee that the welfare of the animals is a priority.

FOUR PAWS strongly opposes encounters and interactions with wild animals, dolphinariums or the use of wild animals as any form of entertainment. Zoos should overcome the outdated approach of collections of species and end the keeping of those animals whose requirements cannot be met. This includes territory size, feeding behaviour, social structure and climatic needs. In addition, zoos must renounce the acquisition of animals from the wild or any commercial trader or breeding facility. Surplus animals, regardless of age, should not be killed nor sold for commercial purposes or to wildlife traders. By providing shelter for injured, neglected and/or orphaned wildlife, and rescuing animals from illegal trade and/or inappropriate keeping, zoos can actively contribute towards more animal welfare worldwide.

Problems in European zoos

All Member States in the European Union must implement the Zoos Directive, which aims to ensure that zoos contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and aim for public education. Requirements for zoos include meeting the biological needs of animals and contributing to conservation, education and research.

In the European Union, the Zoos Directive was adopted in 1999. Although all EU Member States have transposed the Zoos Directive, it has still not been (fully) enforced by all Member States, even years after coming into force. This is due to local authorities implementing the national zoo legislation in their countries at their own discretion. Frequently, the know-how is lacking and professional development opportunities are not offered to zoo staff. This has already led to many zoos in certain countries losing their licenses to keep wild animals such as bears, lions and tigers. Some zoos have been closed for years while the animals are still there, suffering. Other zoos remain open, operating without a license, or have even been granted a license despite not fulfilling the requirements.

An example of how a zoo should not look like

What you can do

  • Do research before you visit a zoo: Avoid zoos with poor keeping conditions, wild animal interactions or uncontrolled breeding
  • Consider how animals experience the zoo: For you it is a day visit, for them it is a lifetime
  • Inform yourself: Check the education and conservation value that the zoo provides
  • Do not support animal abuse: Never take part in wild animal photo or petting opportunities
  • Report: Complain about inadequate keeping conditions directly to the zoo management and the responsible (local) authorities
  • Continue to support the animals: Be informed about projects to protect wild animal species in their home countries and support them

Source: FOUR PAWS

Animal Welfare and Tourism

/in , , , , /by

Animal

Animal Welfare and Tourism

Selfies with bears in chains or petting lion cubs? Animal welfare should not stop on holiday!

Other countries, other customs – that’s one of the great things about being on holiday. However, bear in mind that animal welfare standards abroad can often be lower than at home. What at first glance might appear to be an appealing tourist attraction or a culinary delicacy is often connected to pain and distress for the animals involved.

FOUR PAWS has advice about how to be considerate towards animals abroad and make sure that your holiday is animal-friendly.

Animal welfare and tourism: animal suffering on holiday

Animal

Did you know that…
…many tourist destinations have very low animal welfare standards?

…in South Africa, lions kept for breeding are very likely to end up as targets for trophy hunting or killed for their bones? And that as young animals they were abused on petting farms as tourist attractions?

…most animals in the tourism industry suffer in miserable living conditions?

…there are are not only dancing bears but also ‘selfie bears’ and restaurant bears?

Source: FOUR PAWS

Used, Scarred, Exploited — 55 Beagle Survivors of Animal Testing Now Free

/in , , , , /by

Beagle

Used, Scarred, Exploited — 55 Beagle Survivors of Animal Testing Now Free

Beagle Freedom Project (BFP) is carrying out the largest international rescue in its history — saving 55 survivors from an animal testing laboratory.  

On Tuesday, May 20th, the initial group of 30 beagles will arrive, taking their first steps to freedom after lives of confinement, exploitation, and neglect. 

WHAT THE 55 SURVIVORS ENDURED 

  • Used as live “practice tools” to cut into their abdominal organs 
  • Each bears a fresh surgical incision; none were given proper post-op care 
  • Identified only by an ear tattoo, never by a name 
  • Spent their lives in tiny cages, stacked on top of one another, in a dark, cold, laboratory with no grass, no toys, no sunlight 

“They were reduced to disposable equipment,” said Shannon Keith, Esq., Beagle Freedom Project President and Founder. “Today they get names, soft beds, and the freedom every dog deserves—and we send a message to animal-testing laboratories everywhere: humane alternatives exist, and the world is watching.” 

About Beagle Freedom Project  

Beagle Freedom Project is a nonprofit organization dedicated to rescuing and rehoming animals used in laboratory testing and advocating for an end to animal experimentation. Since 2010, BFP has freed thousands of animals and continues to lead the fight for animal rights through rescue, legislation, education, and advocacy. BFP.org 

Source: Beagle Freedom Project

The NSPCA Talks Aquaculture: The Overlooked Suffering

/in , , , /by

Aquaculture

The NSPCA Talks Aquaculture: The Overlooked Suffering

Animal Welfare Concerns in South Africa’s Fish Farms

The National Council of SPCAs’ Farm Animal Protection Unit regularly conducts pro-active inspections at various fish farms across South Africa. Sadly, while the aquaculture industry proclaims itself a solution to the environmental degradation caused by over-fishing in marine environments, the truth is far more disturbing.

Inspectors from the Farm Animal Protection Unit have, over the years, uncovered severe cruelty and neglect at several aquaculture facilities. Millions of farmed fish are subjected to rampant suffering as a result of poor management and ignorance. And, because many people don’t see fish as sentient beings, their suffering is often overlooked, even by concerned and compassionate members of the public.

When people think about animal cruelty, they often picture neglected dogs, abused farm animals, or wildlife threatened by habitat destruction. Rarely do fish come to mind. However, the state of aquaculture has raised significant animal welfare concerns, particularly in South Africa, where regulations remain inadequate, and enforcement is inconsistent.

Unseen and Forgotten

According to National Inspector White, one of the main reasons fish welfare is often ignored is the common misconception that fish do not feel pain in the same way as mammals. Because they do not display emotions or distress in ways that people easily recognise, their suffering is disregarded. Furthermore, fish farms are largely hidden from public view, reducing awareness and concern.

To address this, the NSPCA is working to increase public awareness, encouraging consumers to demand higher welfare standards from the aquaculture industry.

Weak Regulations and Enforcement

The Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 is the primary legislation governing animal welfare in South Africa. However, traditionally, fish farming has not been as strictly regulated as the farming of other farm animals such as cattle, pigs, or chickens. While some welfare standards exist, they are often poorly enforced, leaving room for neglect and cruelty.

The NSPCA is advocating for stronger, more specific laws addressing fish welfare. With increasing public awareness, there is hope that policymakers will introduce stricter regulations and better enforcement mechanisms to ensure fish are treated as humanely as their terrestrial counterparts.

Investigations Reveal Disturbing Conditions

In 2024, NSPCA Inspectors uncovered severe welfare violations at a fish farm in Mpumalanga, South Africa, where thousands of Mozambican Tilapia were found dead and decomposing. Upon investigation, the NSPCA found multiple areas of concern at the government-backed facility. National Senior Inspector Appalsamy described alarming scenes of mismanagement and neglect. “Overall, the facilities were deteriorating and creating unhealthy conditions for the fish. It was obvious that the ponds and enclosures had not been cleaned for a substantial length of time, with excessive algal growth and glaringly poor water quality,” Inspector Appalsamy recalls. “With the frequent power outages we often experience in South Africa, alternative power sources on farms are critical. Unfortunately, this farm, as well as many others, lacks these alternative energy sources. Since aquaculture systems depend on continuous water circulation for oxygenation, power failures without suitable alternatives can result in mass fish deaths.” In the case of the farm in Mpumalanga, the farm manager did not notify authorities about these problems, allowing conditions to worsen, which ultimately led to the unnecessary suffering uncovered by the Inspectors.

Who Is Responsible?

According to Inspectors White and Appalsamy, accountability in the fish farming industry falls on multiple levels. Those responsible for managing these farms have a legal and ethical duty to ensure their facilities maintain humane conditions. Regulatory bodies, such as government agencies, need to effectively oversee aquaculture facilities to implement and enforce animal welfare laws and to ensure standards are maintained.

The NSPCA suggests that consumers can have a significant impact on improving standards in the aquaculture sector by demanding better welfare practices and supporting ethical fish farms.

Stronger regulations, better monitoring, and increased transparency are essential to holding these responsible groups accountable and to prevent further suffering.

Legal Consequences for Neglect

While prosecutions for fish welfare violations are rare, the NSPCA is pushing for stricter regulations. They are currently pursuing a case involving hundreds of catfish that were left in horrific conditions that led to cannibalism among the fish. If found guilty, the responsible parties face either 12 months of imprisonment or a R40,000 fine.

However, the penalties remain minimal compared to the suffering inflicted. The NSPCA believes that stronger legal consequences could serve as a deterrent and encourage compliance with welfare standards.

The Environmental Impact of Poorly Managed Fish Farms

Beyond animal welfare concerns, poorly managed fish farms can have significantly negative impacts on the environment. According to Inspector Appalsamy, waste, uneaten food, and chemicals from fish farms can contaminate surrounding water bodies if discharged untreated. In addition to this, by overstocking fish farms, oxygen is depleted faster from the water, which can kill fish and other aquatic organisms. Poor farm conditions can lead to outbreaks of disease, which may spread to wild fish populations.

To counter the potentially dangerous effects that mismanaged and neglected fish farms can have on the environment, the NSPCA collaborates with the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and Environment to push for sustainable and responsible fish farming practices.

How Can Consumers Make Ethical Choices?

Consumers can play a crucial role in improving fish welfare. The NSPCA suggests some steps that people can take to make more informed and humane choices:

  • Refer to the WWF-SASSI list: The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Southern African Sustainable Seafood Initiative (SASSI) categorises seafood into green (sustainable), orange (caution), and red (avoid) based on conservation status. Always choose fish in the “green” category.
  • Ask questions: When purchasing fish, inquire about its source and whether the farm follows humane practices.
  • Support ethical retailers: Buy from stores and restaurants that prioritise responsible sourcing.
  • Report cruelty: If you suspect animal welfare violations at a fish farm, report them to the NSPCA immediately.

A Call for Change

The NSPCA continues to advocate for better fish welfare standards, but public support is essential. Fish farming is often overlooked, yet the suffering of these animals is just as real as that of any other farmed species.

By staying informed, making ethical choices, and holding the industry accountable, South Africans can help drive meaningful change in the aquaculture sector, ensuring that fish farms operate responsibly and humanely, and that no fish has to suffer unnecessarily.

Source:  NSPCA

Betting on Blood – How the Eastern Cape Gambling Board Has Enabled Cockfighting

/in , , , /by

Betting

Betting on Blood – How the Eastern Cape Gambling Board Has Enabled Cockfighting

An NSPCA Investigation

The NSPCA has uncovered an online bookmaker actively promoting cockfighting – one of the most barbaric forms of animal cruelty – under the watch of the Eastern Cape Gambling Board (ECGB). Despite clear warnings from the NSPCA that this practice is illegal under the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962, as well as a directive from the Minister of Trade, Industry, and Competition, prompted by the NSPCA, the ECGB continues to turn a blind eye, maintaining that bets placed in South Africa on bloody animal fights streamed from abroad are perfectly legal. This investigative feature lays bare the timeline of events, the shocking responses from regulatory authorities, and why urgent action is needed.

A Betting Giant’s Dirty Secret

Due to legal considerations and the NSPCA considering pursuing prosecution, we cannot name the bookmaker in question. However, for the purposes of this report, we will refer to them as “Roosterbet,” a licensed South African bookmaker operating under the jurisdiction of the ECGB.

According to its own website, Roosterbet is based in Sandton, Gauteng.

On 4 December 2024, the NSPCA formally warned Roosterbet that the promotion of cockfighting on their platform and social media pages are illegal. The Eastern Cape Gambling Board (ECGB) and the National Gambling Board (NGB) were copied in this communication. In response, on 6 December, Roosterbet’s CEO claimed that promotional material would be removed immediately and that the live streaming of cockfighting events would cease while they sought further clarification from the ECGB.

Yet, the ECGB’s response – received on 9 December – was nothing short of an endorsement of animal cruelty. Responding on behalf of the ECGB, CEO Mabutho Zwane, dismissed the NSPCA’s concerns, arguing that because the cockfights were taking place in the Philippines, where the practice is allegedly legal, no South African laws were being broken. Zwane even went so far as to claim that accepting bets on such events was a lawful contingency under the Eastern Cape Gambling Act.

This justification is not only ethically reprehensible but factually incorrect. The Philippines banned online cockfighting (known as “e-sabong”) in 2022, citing widespread concerns over crime, illegal gambling, and animal cruelty.

The NSPCA refuted the ECGB’s position. On 11 December, we reminded the ECGB that Section 2A(1)(c) of the Animals Protection Act makes it illegal not only to participate in animal fighting but also to promote such fights for financial gain or amusement – exactly what Roosterbet was doing.

Despite this clear legal position, on 17 December, the ECGB doubled down, stating that Roosterbet’s actions did not constitute a violation of the Act and that no further comments were necessary. The NSPCA, however, refused to back down.

Escalation to National Authorities

Determined to seek accountability, the NSPCA escalated the matter to Parks Tau, Minister of Trade, Industry, and Competition, on 8 January 2025. We laid out clear arguments that Roosterbet was illegally profiting from illegal animal fights and that the ECGB’s stance was enabling this cruelty, as well as being in contravention of the National Gambling Act. The Minister’s office acknowledged receipt of the complaint and indicated it had been escalated for review under the National Gambling Act.

Following multiple follow-ups, on 11 March 2025, the Minister finally responded, confirming that the National Gambling Act prohibits not only the promotion but also the facilitation of gambling where the event itself is unlawful under any law. The Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition (DTIC) committed to escalating the issue with the ECGB.

The NSPCA subsequently wrote to Mabutho Zwane, CEO of the ECGB, on 23 March 2025, requesting confirmation that Roosterbet’s license to promote and accept bets on Philippine cockfighting had been revoked, in line with the Minister’s correspondence to the NSPCA.

Zwane responded the next day, attaching copies of the Minister’s letter to the ECGB along with the ECGB’s reply.

In its response to the NSPCA, the ECGB reaffirmed its stance, stating:

“The ECGB reiterates its position that [Roosterbet] only takes bets on the outcome of such events taking place outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa, and as such is regarded as a lawful contingency in terms of South African law as defined in the Eastern Cape Gambling Act, 1997 (as amended) read with section 8(a) of the National Gambling Act, 2004 (as amended).”

However, the most alarming revelation was the exchange of correspondence between the Minister and the ECGB, which was shared with the NSPCA.

On 6 March 2025 – before the Minister formally responded to the NSPCA – the Minister personally wrote to the ECGB, stating:

“It is clear that both legislations (i.e., the National Gambling Act and the Animals Protection Act) have been contravened, regardless of whether the activity (i.e., cockfighting) takes place outside of the country. The bets are taken from a contingency that is illegal in our country. I therefore request that the ECGB advise [Roosterbet] to cease offering the contingency and taking bets on such contingency.”

The Minister further advised the ECGB of his intention to convene a National Gambling Policy Council meeting, adding this issue to the agenda for further discussion.

On 13 March 2025, Zwane again responded on behalf of the ECGB, bluntly stating to the Minister that:

“The Animal Protection Act, 1962 (as amended), empowers the National Council of SPCAs to protect and regulate all animal welfare within the borders of the Republic of South Africa.”

Furthermore, the ECGB explicitly rejected the DTIC’s interpretation and directive, stating that it “welcomes the opportunity to debate this further at the proposed National Gambling Policy Council meeting.”

Cockfighting: A Blood Sport in the Shadows

Cockfighting, known as sabong in the Philippines, has long been a controversial practice. Although regulated in the Philippines, the government banned “e-sabong” (online betting on cockfighting) in 2022 due to widespread concerns. Despite this ban, Roosterbet continued offering bets on cockfights streamed from the Philippines – showing blatant disregard for both South African and international regulations.

The NSPCA has obtained irrefutable evidence of these activities, including screenshots of Roosterbet’s cockfighting promotions, recordings of live fights streamed through their platform, and betting odds offered on these events.

Time for Heads to Roll

The ECGB’s stance is a scandal of national proportions. South African authorities cannot allow an industry regulator to interpret the law in ways that condone animal cruelty. If a bookmaker had been accepting bets on dogfighting, would the ECGB’s response have been the same?

And more importantly – who is the ECGB to not only question but outright reject a directive from the very Minister responsible for administering the National Gambling Act? What gives this regulatory body the authority to dismiss the Minister’s interpretation of the law, particularly when it concerns an activity as abhorrent as animal fighting?

South Africans must ask: Who is the ECGB really protecting? Because it certainly isn’t animals. If you believe this cruelty must end, demand action now. Raise your voice. Share this investigative feature. Demand justice.

Editorial Statement

This investigative article is written and published by the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) in the public interest, pursuant to the objects of the NSPCA as outlined in the Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 162 of 1993. As a public body, the NSPCA is committed to addressing animal cruelty, ensuring compliance with animal protection laws, and acting in the best interests of both animals and the public.

This publication serves as a statement of fact regarding the NSPCA’s investigations into illegal activities such as the promotion of cockfighting, under the legal frameworks provided by the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 and the National Gambling Act. The NSPCA’s standing is further supported by the judgment in National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2017 (1) SACR 284 (CC) and the principles established in Botha v Smuts and Another 2025 (1) SA 581 (CC), particularly regarding the right to public disclosure of information already in the public domain and the NSPCA’s legal obligations to report unlawful practices.

As the Eastern Cape Gambling Board (ECGB) is a statutory body exercising public functions, and its CEO is a public official, the NSPCA is legally entitled to name and identify them in this report. This disclosure is made under the principles of privilege in the discharge of a duty and furtherance of an interest, as well as truth and public interest and fair comment in terms of South African law. The information contained herein is accurate to the best of the NSPCA’s knowledge and is intended to inform the public about ongoing issues of animal welfare and regulatory oversight.

The NSPCA acts in the public interest, seeking justice for animals and advocating for the enforcement of animal protection laws for the benefit of society.

Source: NSPCA

Animal Clinic Demands Justice for Abused Puppy

/in , , , , , , /by

Abused

Animal Clinic Demands Justice for Abused Puppy

Mdzananda Animal Clinic is calling for public support and justice after a young puppy, named Survivor, tragically died following severe abuse.

The puppy, just a few weeks old, was brought to Mdzananda by his owner after the man attempted a home neutering using a sharp blade. Survivor was rushed into emergency surgery and medical care by the clinic’s dedicated veterinary team. Despite their best efforts, the puppy succumbed to shock just days later.

“This is one of the most heartbreaking cases we’ve seen,” says Marcelle du Plessis, Fundraising and Communications Executive at Mdzananda. “No animal should endure such cruelty. We will be taking this case to prosecution and will not stop fighting for justice.”

Unfortunately, Survivor’s case is not isolated. Just last month, another puppy, Scooby, arrived at Mdzananda following severe abuse. In the same period, four other dogs were rescued after being found with deep wounds caused by chains embedded in their necks.

Abused

The clinic is now appealing to the public for emergency donations to support life-saving surgeries for abused animals, investigative efforts to bring abusers to justice, community education to reduce unintentional neglect and shelter, food, and care for animals as they heal and await new homes.

“Your support gives abused animals a second chance – and a voice when they have none,” says du Plessis. “We are deeply grateful for every contribution.”

Donations can be made to Mdzananda Animal Clinic’s new bank account: Nedbank, Current Account: 1314465147, Branch Code: 198765, Reference: Scooby + Your Name. For further information contact info@mdzananda.co.za.

The Mdzananda Animal Clinic and Shelter has been serving the community of Khayelitsha for 29 years being the only animal clinic and shelter in the vast township. Services include consultations, hospitilisation, surgery, mobile clinics, an animal ambulance, continuous sterilisations, homeless pet shelter and education. Around 1500 animals are seen per month.

Source: Mdzananda Animal Clinic 

Continued Failures at Government-Run Nature Reserves

/in , , , , /by

Government

Continued Failures at Government-Run Nature Reserves

The NSPCA will not give up on the fight for justice for animals who have suffered at the hands of government-run nature reserves.

The NSPCA has been at the forefront of the fight with the Nkomazi Local Municipality, pressuring it to improve the management of Marloth Park. Following a blanket interdict in 2017 by a home owner’s association against culling in the park, an increasing overpopulation of wildlife and overgrazing has resulted in illness, starvation and death amongst animals at Marloth Park. In November 2024, the NSPCA made application to the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court, which ordered the urgent implementation of humane population control strategies. Tragically, the Municipality has failed to take any action.

As a result, the NSPCA has been forced to issue a final demand to the Municipality, as they are in contempt of Court, which is in the process of being served by the Sheriff.

Government

Starvation and illness is resulting in the numerous deaths of wild animals in Marloth Park

Moving to Madikwe Game Reserve, the NSPCA is in process of serving a demand on the Premier of the North West Provincial Government, as well as the MEC for Agriculture and Rural Development, who stand at the helm of the North West Parks and Tourism Board. Despite relentless pursuits, contact information for these public officials have either been incorrect or non-existent.

The authorities will given five days to respond to the letter, failing which, action will be taken if no response or an inadequate response is received.

The management of Madikwe follows similarly alarming inefficiencies as seen at Marloth Park. Following a complaint received towards the end of 2024, NSPCA Inspectors were appalled at the condition of the environment and animals at the reserve. Multiple carcasses hinting at starvation, with emaciated elephants, wildebeest, and giraffe languishing amongst the almost barren landscape suggested a complete lack of care for the welfare of the wildlife in the reserve.

The NSPCA continues to work persistently to achieve justice for the animals left to suffer at the hands of uninterested officials. Thank you for standing with us and the animals in this fight.

Government

A dying elephant calf is the result of overgrazing and mismanagement at Madikwe Game Reserve

Source:  NSPCA

Cruelty for Clicks: Social Media Animal Cruelty in South Africa

/in /by

Cruelty

Cruelty for Clicks: Social Media Animal Cruelty in South Africa

As social media platforms continue to evolve, especially with the rapid rise in the popularity of TikTok in South Africa, the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) has become increasingly concerned with the alarming surge in content depicting animal cruelty being shared online. This disturbing trend is not only unprecedented but has led to a significant shift in the NSPCA’s priorities, prompting more resources to be directed toward investigating “social media crimes” and less time spent on traditional fieldwork, including vital on-the-ground inspections and investigations.

The nature of these videos presents significant challenges, particularly due to the scarcity of crucial information, such as the incident’s date, time, and location. Additionally, identifying those responsible for both committing these heinous acts and distributing the content remains a difficult task.

The NSPCA reported on two incidents of severe, deliberate animal cruelty captured on video and shared online in the last quarter of 2024. In January 2025 alone, five of these tragic incidents were reported. These acts include the brutal killing of a warthog;[1] the cruel stoning of a brown hyena;[2] the conviction of a man who smoked marijuana through a container containing a live snake;[3] a TikTok influencer who force-fed a fish with beer;[4] a Nile crocodile who was kicked, beaten, and had its teeth slashed out;[5] a male Chacma baboon who was chased, beaten, and set alight at a school in Delmas, Mpumalanga;[6] and most recently a Zebra, who was hacked to death with an axe while still alive.[7]

This surge in cruelty has led the NSPCA to question the motivations behind this phenomenon.  On one hand, what drives social media users to engage in or support such acts of animal cruelty, while simultaneously sharing the content online? On the other, what explains the consumers’ insatiable appetite for such material, leading it to go viral – often due to widespread outrage and dissent rather than its merit?

This article aims to explore the psychology of the consumption of animal cruelty content on social media and the psychological effects thereof.

Types of Social Media “Publishers”

In all seven incidents of deliberate animal cruelty caught on video and circulated on social media mentioned above, the publishers who caused such content to go viral can be divided into four distinct categories, namely:

  1. Influencers who commit animal cruelty for entertainment;
  2. Those who participate in groups committing animal cruelty, even without directly inflicting harm;
  3. Bystanders who film an unaffiliated party not and do not intervene; and
  4. Those who share existing footage of animal cruelty, despite not being present during the act.

Influencers Committing Cruelty for Entertainment

This category of conduct is not new and has manifested itself on YouTube at least twice in the past.  However,  platforms such as TikTok and those who have adopted short-form video content features (e.g. Instagram reels, YouTube shorts) make it easier to generate accessible content.  influencers may feel  compelled to post  sensationalist content with “shock value” to maintain popularity and influence.

Individuals in this category often engage in animal cruelty to gain attention, increase their online following, and achieve financial gain.  The desire for social recognition and monetary rewards can drive them to create  provocative content, regardless of ethical considerations.  This behaviour aligns with findings that unethical treatment of animals is sometimes employed to generate fame and profit on social media platforms.[8]

Participants to Group Animal Cruelty

An example of this category is the Zebra incident,[9] where the dialogue between the participants and their close proximity to the incident make it clear that the perpetrators know each other, are familiar, and act with a common purpose in the execution of the animal cruelty.

Those who participate in groups committing animal cruelty, even without directly inflicting harm, may be influenced by social dynamics such as peer pressure and a desire for group acceptance.  The collective environment can diminish personal accountability, leading individuals to partake in or support actions they might otherwise avoid.

Non-intervening Bystanders

As can be seen in the footage of the Chacma baboon,[10] these obscene acts of animal cruelty sometimes attract a crowd, who film the incidents and share them on social media, without intervening in the cruelty, thereby allowing it to continue.  

Bystanders who record acts of cruelty without intervening may experience a diffusion of responsibility, assuming that someone else will take action.  The presence of a camera can create a psychological distance, causing detachment from reality and a diminished sense of urgency. Additionally, the motivation to capture shocking content for potential online recognition can override the impulse to help.  This behaviour reflects a complex interplay between desensitisation to violence and the pursuit of social media validation.[11]

Third Parties Sharing Existing Footage

This may be the most common category and the reason why these videos gain immense attention and go viral within hours.

Those who share existing footage of animal cruelty, despite not being present during the act, might do so with intentions of raising awareness or expressing outrage. However, this can inadvertently contribute to the spread of harmful content, potentially normalising the behaviour and desensitizing the audience.  The act of sharing can also be driven by a psychological need to align with social groups or to participate in collective discussions, even when the content is distressing.  It is important to recognise that sharing such content can have unintended negative consequences, including fuelling further negative behaviour.[12]

Psychological Drivers Behind Sharing Animal Cruelty Content

Sanam Naran, a counselling psychologist,  was interviewed by the NSPCA and highlighted several psychological factors that contribute to the online sharing of animal cruelty videos.[13]

Individuals predisposed to certain personality disorders, childhood trauma, or mental health struggles may be more likely to engage in this behaviour.  Additionally, social validation plays a significant role, as individuals seek approval, recognition, or a sense of belonging through engagement on social media.

In some cases, sharing such content provides temporary relief from personal anxieties or serves as a maladaptive coping mechanism.  However, regardless of the intent, every share increases the visibility of the original content, inadvertently rewarding the perpetrators with increased engagement.

The Role of Desensitisation in Animal Cruelty

The prevalence of violent and disturbing content on social media has led to widespread desensitisation, where individuals become emotionally numb to cruelty.[14]  This phenomenon reduces empathy and decreases the likelihood of intervention.  As people are continually exposed to graphic images and videos, their capacity for moral outrage diminishes, making them passive observers rather than active challengers of cruelty.  This desensitisation extends beyond animal abuse to other forms of violence, including domestic violence and self-harm, further normalising the encounter of harmful acts in digital spaces.

Influence of Peer Pressure and Group Dynamics

Peer pressure does not only affect adolescents; adults, too, can succumb to social influence when engaging in or witnessing acts of cruelty.[15]  Individuals with a history of social exclusion or rejection may be more susceptible to engaging in harmful behaviours to gain acceptance within a group.  In settings where animal cruelty occurs collectively, participants – whether active perpetrators or bystanders – may be driven by a need for social validation.  The presence of an audience can reinforce harmful actions, as individuals are more likely to conform to group norms rather than challenge unethical behaviour.

Combatting Animal Cruelty on Social Media

To counteract the spread of animal cruelty content online, social media users, organisations, and platforms must adopt proactive measures.[16]  Raising awareness through educational campaigns can help shift public perception, emphasising that animal cruelty is  both unlawful and morally reprehensible and must not be shared for engagement.  Additionally, calling for  stricter content moderation protocols on social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram – such as automatically flagging or removing violent content – can  limit circulation. However, broader societal discussions about the link between mental health and animal cruelty  are essential, as addressing the root causes of these behaviours is key to long-term change.

Conclusion

The disturbing rise of animal cruelty content on social media is a complex issue that demands urgent attention.  Whether driven by the pursuit of online fame, social validation, or sheer indifference, the act of filming, sharing, or engaging with such content perpetuates further harm and normalises violence. The psychological effects of desensitisation, group dynamics, and the digital reward system further exacerbate the problem, creating an environment where cruelty can thrive unchecked.

To combat this, a multidimensional approach is needed – one that includes stricter platform regulation, public education, and a sense of ethical responsibility among social media users.  By refusing to engage with or share harmful content, reporting violations using the appropriate channels, and promoting compassion over cruelty, progress can be made dismantling this toxic trend.  Ultimately, social media should be a tool for positive change, not a stage for suffering.

[1] NSPCA. (2024, October 18). R15,000 reward for any information that leads to a successful prosecution [Video]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/NSPCA/videos/1622867721912062.

[2] NSPCA. (2024, October 24). Another stoning; more cruelty [Video]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/NSPCA/videos/517104104505987.

[3] NSPCA. (2028, January 08). Conviction for snake in a bong. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/conviction-for-snake-in-a-bong/.

[4] NSPCA. (2025, January 17). TikTok abuser to face prosecution for force-feeding fish with alcohol. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/tik-tok-abuser-to-face-prosecution-for-force-feeding-fish-with-alcohol/

[5] NSPCA. (2025, January 25). Another victim of social media entertainment. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/another-victim-of-social-media-entertainment/

[6] NSPCA South Africa. (2025, February 10). R20,000 reward for Raygun: Help us find the truth. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/r20000-reward-for-raygun-help-us-find-the-truth/

[7] NSPCA South Africa. (2024, October 18). Brutal killing of zebra highlights horrific cruelty trends. National Council of SPCAs. https://nspca.co.za/brutal-killing-of-zebra-highlights-horrific-cruelty-trends/

[8] Cumming, P. (2023, September 19). Animal cruelty and social media. LifeBonder. https://lifebonder.com/blog/2023/09/19/animal-cruelty-and-social-media/.

[9] n7 above.

[10] n6 above.

[11] Krahé, B., Möller, I., Huesmann, L. R., Kirwil, L., Felber, J., & Berger, A. (2011). Desensitization to media violence: links with habitual media violence exposure, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(4), 630–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021711.

[12] Wild Welfare. (2023, April 10). Why sharing online animal cruelty content doesn’t help. Wild Welfare. https://wildwelfare.org/sharing-isnt-caring/.

[13] Naran, S. (2025, February 27). Interview by NSPCA.

[14] As above.

[15] n13 above.

[16] n13 above.

Source: NSPCA