NSPCA REFUTES AL MAWASHI SA’S DEFENCE.

NSPCA REFUTES AL MAWASHI SA’S DEFENCE.

We categorically refute the allegations in the media release issued by Al Mawashi South Africa dated 23 December 2020.

All media releases issued by the NSPCA are published based on evidential value and facts.

The NSPCA conducted the inspection on 18 December 2020 at the Al Mawashi feedlot in Berlin under warrant as this has become standard procedure in attempting to gain access onto the Al Mawashi Feedlot due to consistent problems. We do not and never have made appointments to conduct inspections.

The NSPCA conducted an inspection on 18 December 2020 where maggot infested feed troughs, water troughs, and pens were discovered and a written warning was issued to the feedlot to rectify these and other contraventions. This is not an isolated incident at this feedlot, additional criminal charges will be laid. The inspection conducted on 22 December 2020 at the feedlot by Al Mawashi’s veterinarian and the SPCA Inspector was after the warning was issued which afforded Al Mawashi days to rectify the concerns.

We refute Al Mawashi South Africa’s claim that we are commandeered by animal rights groups and that that we are anti red meat, anti-farming, and anti-government. Our statement of policy has been in effect for decades where we expressly state that we are opposed to all forms of farming and animal husbandry practices which cause suffering or distress to animals, or which unreasonably restrict their movements or their behavioural patterns which are necessary for the well-being of the species concerned.

Opposition to live export is not an animal rights imperative. Every major animal welfare organisation in the world is opposed to it as well as major veterinary groups including the South African Veterinary Association.

Al Mawashi SA requested evidence confirming our claims in respect of our inspection conducted on 18 December 2020, this has been provided to the company.

Al Mawashi accuses the NSPCA of being “fundamentally anti-humanistic” yet further goes on to claim that “from a human development perspective, South Africa’s live exports responds to many integrated development goals and objectives of the South African government concerned with facilitating greater levels of economic inclusiveness to improve livelihoods, especially of marginalized groups and communities”.  According to the Eastern Cape Legislature, of the 72000 sheep initially mustered by Al Mawashi for the most recent export, 50310 sheep were exported and the exporter indicated that 11288 sheep were purchased from BEE and emerging farmers, equating to 15.68% of animals purchased from marginalized groups and communities. We then have to wonder, how have marginalized groups and communities benefited from these exports when 84.32% of the animals purchased by Al Mawashi favour commercial farmers?

It appears that Al Mawashi has attempted to conflate criminal proceedings for cruelty with other matters by stating that the NSPCA “failed on five occasions in South African courts (with costs) to ban live exports.” Al Mawashi failed to mention that Judge Bloem did identify cruelty in the Makhanda High Court. The NSPCA has lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Appeals.

We are not opposed to export of animals in carcass form to the Middle East, in fact we have promoted such, and however we do expect it to be done within the confines of legislation.

Every living creature has intrinsic value and is a sentient being. Our primary and motivating concern is the prevention of cruelty to all living creatures.

The NSPCA is obliged to inform the South African public of issues of national importance and we will continue reporting on such matters as is in this case with Al Mawashi.

The NSPCA is, always has, and will continue to remain opposed to the transport of live animals by sea.

We value the continued patronage of our supporters, making it possible to continue fighting to prevent cruelty to animals.