Real issues. Reliable information. An avicultural perspective.

Ridiculous or Making Sense? When Animal-Keeping Rules Affect Us All

At first glance, a new animal-keeping by-law may sound like something that only concerns people with too many dogs, noisy animals or neglected pets.

But once you start reading the proposed rules carefully, you realise that the impact could reach much further.

It could affect ordinary pet owners, bird keepers, breeders, rescue organisations, animal-related businesses and people who earn an income from working with animals. It could also affect existing aviaries, animal enclosures and home-based activities that have operated responsibly for many years.

So, does the Draft Animal Keeping By-law 2026 make sense—or are some of its proposals going too far?

Regulation is necessary

Let us be clear: animals must be protected.

Nobody should be allowed to keep animals in cruel, unsafe or unhygienic conditions. Neighbours should not have to live with constant noise, unpleasant smells, dangerous animals or a genuine health risk.

The City has both the right and the responsibility to act where animal keeping causes real harm.

The concern is therefore not whether animal keeping should be regulated. The real question is whether every proposed rule is necessary, properly explained, practical and fair.

One number cannot tell the whole story

A simple numerical limit may be easy to write into a by-law, but does it make sense in practice?

Five budgerigars are not the same as five macaws. Five pigeons are not the same as five dogs. A carefully managed aviary cannot automatically be compared with animals kept in overcrowded or neglected conditions.

The number of animals may be relevant, but it should not be the only consideration.

The species, available space, cleanliness, noise, welfare, security and actual effect on neighbours all matter. A responsible keeper should not be treated as a problem simply because a fixed number has been exceeded.

Rules should target actual harm—not assume that every person keeping more than a certain number of animals is irresponsible.

What will compliance cost?

Permits, building plans, structural changes, veterinary requirements and additional record-keeping may sound reasonable when considered individually.

Together, however, they could become expensive and difficult to manage.

What happens to a pensioner who has kept birds responsibly for many years but cannot afford to rebuild an existing aviary? What happens to a small home-based business if a permit takes months to process? What happens to employees if a breeding or animal-related business can no longer afford to comply?

These are not imaginary concerns. They are the types of practical consequences that should be properly assessed before new rules are adopted.

The public should be shown what the proposed system is expected to cost, how many people and businesses could be affected and whether the City has the capacity to process all the applications.

Can the City manage the system?

A by-law may look good on paper but still fail in practice.

Does the City have enough trained officials to process permits, inspect different facilities and make informed decisions about many different species?

Will applications be handled within reasonable timeframes? Will the same standards be applied across different areas? Will officials have access to suitable veterinary and species knowledge?

If thousands of responsible, low-risk households are brought into a complicated permit system, municipal resources could be drawn away from serious cases involving cruelty, dangerous animals, abandonment, illegal trade and genuine nuisance.

A system that cannot be administered consistently risks becoming slow, unfair and driven mainly by complaints.

What about our rights?

Animal welfare is important, but the rights of people also matter.

Rules involving entry into private homes, inspections, permits, compulsory alterations, the removal of animals or the closure of businesses may affect privacy, property, livelihoods and the right to fair administrative treatment.

That does not automatically make every proposed rule unconstitutional.

It does mean that the City should be able to explain why a restriction is needed, what evidence supports it and why a less restrictive solution would not achieve the same purpose.

People should know what is expected of them. They should receive proper notice when a problem is identified, be given a fair opportunity to respond or correct it, receive written reasons for important decisions and have access to a meaningful appeal process.

These protections are not loopholes for irresponsible animal keepers. They are part of fair government.

Were the wider consequences properly considered?

Before rules with such a wide reach are adopted, the public should be able to see the work behind them.

What complaint information was considered? Which animal-keeping sectors were consulted? What research supports the proposed numbers and structural requirements? Were the financial and employment consequences assessed? Were constitutional concerns examined? Was the City’s ability to implement the system tested?

It is not enough merely to say that a rule promotes welfare or prevents nuisance. The City should show how the rule will achieve that purpose and why the burden it creates is reasonable.

Existing keepers cannot be forgotten

Many people have invested years of work and considerable amounts of money in responsible facilities.

They may already hold permits, comply with conservation legislation, maintain breeding records and follow veterinary or industry guidance.

If new standards are introduced, these people should not become non-compliant overnight. Existing lawful facilities and activities need clear protection, sensible transitional arrangements and enough time to make any reasonably necessary changes.

Without this, responsible keepers could be punished alongside those who have caused the problems the City is trying to address.

So, ridiculous or making sense?

Some parts of the Draft may address real and serious concerns. Other parts may have unintended consequences that have not yet been properly explained.

That is why the discussion should not become a choice between “no regulation” and “accept every proposed rule”.

There is a sensible middle ground: firm action against cruelty, neglect, danger and genuine nuisance, combined with fair and workable rules for responsible animal keepers.

In my opinion, the Draft is not ready to be adopted in its present form. The wider constitutional, financial, social and practical effects need further consideration. The City should consult meaningfully with affected communities, veterinarians, welfare organisations, conservation authorities and species specialists.

A materially revised Draft should then be made available for another proper public-comment process.

Animal keepers should not ignore this because they think it will only affect somebody else. Once a broad rule becomes law, it may be very difficult to change.

The question is not simply whether we support animal welfare. Of course we do.

Read the Draft. Consider how it could work in real life. Ask questions and submit an informed comment.

The question is whether the proposed rules will genuinely protect animals and communities—or create new problems for responsible people without addressing the real ones.

Our final request:

Industries should be consulted as role players, experts and leaders in their fields. No one can be experts in all fields!!

By Geraldene du Plessis
South African aviculture community representative