A judge has ruled in favour
of a livestock exporter over
claims of cruelty in the
movement of animals from
East London to Mauritius.
Animal rights activists
brought a charge against the
exporter who was moving
3 500 head of cattle, goats
and sheep for export from
East London to Mauritius.
They were protesting against
“inhumane” livestock
exports.
“The animals become ill
and lethargic, seasick and
some often end up with
broken legs,” said Marcelle
Meredith of the National
Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals
(NSPCA). This as she quoted
from a petition against the
trade to the department of
agriculture, fisheries and
forestry, according to BDLive.
Nobody, including the
exporters, could disagree
that any of these things could
happen. But, as exporters
point out, they comply with
welfare standards that are
laid down, and having a low
injury/death count is good
for business. SA law allows
transport of live animals
by sea, but exporters must
obtain a health certificate
from the government.
There is also the alternative
of transporting meat rather
than live animals. But, in
the Mauritius case, the
Muslim customers wanted
live animals to slaughter for
halaal meat. As do a lot of
other not-necessarily-Muslim
customers who want live
animals to slaughter locally
so they can supply fresh meat
rather than frozen.
CAPTION
Inhumane? Exporters claim they comply with welfare standards.
