Inaccurate and misleading language is being used to justify the commercial exploitation of wildlife and discredit those who advocate for animal welfare and wellbeing.

It's time to set the record straight.

Antagonistic narratives surrounding the commercial use of wildlife have seen a significant upswing in recent months with renewed vigour given to the dated notion of "if it pays, it stays". But there's a major omission: any vestige of a solid, evidence-based supporting argument rooted in rigorous scientific processes.

Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines

Language and misrepresentation

There's a second striking concern in these arguments that centre on the rise of inaccurate and misleading language when talking about those who advocate for animal welfare and wellbeing. Pro-commercial use language now disingenuously attempts to position wellbeing-oriented conservationists and welfare advocates, including the NSPCA, as "animal rightists" in an effort to paint these professionals as inexpert and radical extremists.

The NSPCA itself highlighted that media articles portraying the organisation as an animal rightist group are inaccurate and set the record straight that it is an animal welfare organisation and a statutory body mandated to enforce the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 throughout South Africa.

Such blatant misrepresentation serves only to discredit and minimise the validity of the work undertaken by conservation and animal welfare professionals. One such example was the High Level Panel's 2021 recommendation that wellbeing and welfare...