Geoff Müller, KZN Wildlife, Honorary Officer Chairman Newcastle Group
The shocking mauling to death by hunting dogs of 120 sheep on a De Jagersdrift farm has put into focus the perils farmers face from these dogs and their owners.
Unsatisfied landowners continually raise a number of questions that have never been correctly answered with regard to illegal hunting with dogs.
The illegal hunters trespass, cut fences and their dogs attack livestock as well as game. Landowners struggle to secure successful prosecution of offenders caught on their properties.
The reasons behind this are a lack of knowledge of rights and the law among landowners, and a lack of knowledge of the law among the hunters and also especially among SAPS members, prosecutors and magistrates. Thus the first step is education.
Secondly, let’s look at your rights and the laws regarding illegal hunting with dogs:
What is important is the landowners must secure the area and obtain as much evidence as possible, such as photos and witness statements, in order to justify the arrests and to ensure a strong prosecution.
Gathering of information is to be done as soon as possible after the killing/damage occurred.
Remember – illegal hunting is well-defined by the following:
* Trespassing (hunting on any property without permission); and
* Hunting without and not in the possession of a valid hunting license or permit.
When encountering unlawful hunting on your land, or if you catch hunters in the act, it is important to determine the following (not always possible because one has to make rapid decisions):
* Are they trespassing, do they have permission to be on the land and do they have permission to hunt? If not it is an offence in terms of Trespass Act 6 of 1959.
* Are they in possession of valid hunting licenses? If not it is an offence in terms of Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance No. 15 of 1974, sections 33 and 35.
* Are they in possession of valid hunting permits? For example, TOPS: Reedbuck, Oribi, etc. If not it is an offence in terms of Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance No .15 of 1974, sections 33 and 35, and TOPS Regulations.
Act promptly, notify the SAPS and place charges as soon as possible.
The following sections of the Ordinance Act will support you as the landowner if evidence is found to be present. This can also prevent anyone laying charges against the landowner with regards to malicious damage to property:
Section 43 of Natal Nature Conservation Ordinance No 15 of 1974 provides that any dog not under the immediate control of its owner or other person having lawful custody thereof, which is found destroying or in pursuit of game, or any dog under the control of any person who is found hunting unlawfully on any land, may be destroyed forthwith by the owner or occupier of such land, or the holder of the shooting rights over the same, or by or upon the order of any officer.
Section 10 of the KZN Act on the Licensing and Control of Dogs, No. 19 of 1988, provides that any dog found trespassing on any land or attacking or worrying sheep, cattle, horses, goats, pigs or poultry or hunting for or pursuing game at any place, whether on a farm or elsewhere, where such dog is trespassing, may be destroyed forthwith by any authorised officer or by the owner or occupier of such farm.
Remember – it is all about the illegal hunter, and the emphasis must be placed on the issue of the ‘hunting unlawfully’. The term ‘immediate control’ does not mean the dogs have to be right next to the owner or be on a leash for him to have control. The ordinary meaning of ‘control’ is that the person who has the control of a thing, has possession or custody of it, and has the management of it. This ‘management’ may be to a limited extent, but provided that he is able to direct and regulate then a person will be said to be in control. The Ordinance refers to immediate control, which means that the power to direct and regulate must be relatively strictly controlled.
The Ordinance also provides that any dog which is under control of any person who is found hunting unlawfully on any land may also be destroyed. In these circumstances it is not necessarily that the dog was involved in the hunting, but as long as the accused is alleged to be hunting, then the dog may also be destroyed.
Unlawful hunters
The unlawful hunters actually place their own dogs (in some cases innocent dogs) in jeopardy. They should put the blame on themselves and nobody else.
Traditional hunting is possible but cannot take place without permission from the landowner, and without the necessary hunting licenses and permits in their possession.
So the excuse used that it is traditional hunting is not valid. Hunting on any property without the above is illegal and an offence, and that includes public roads.
It has got nothing to do with whom the animals belong to. It is also illegal to remove any game carcass (roadkill) which may be found on a public road, unless it is a hazard to traffic, and then it should only be removed out of the way.
The Criminal Procedure Act provides for various types of exhibits or articles to be collected or seized and retained in police custody, and dogs can be part thereof.
There are therefore two options:
* The dogs maybe destroyed as mentioned in the Ordinance.
* The dogs may be seized as an exhibit in terms of Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Remember, as with any exhibit, the costs of retention of any article or exhibit in police custody is for the account of the SAPS.