Skip to main content

Comment on the Draft Animal Keeping By-Law

The City of Cape Town is in the process of promulgating the Animal Keeping By-law.

The By-law relates to, inter alia, the management of all animal related matters, permitting of animals, responsibilities of pet owners, provisions supporting the essential processes in dealing with vicious attacks by dogs on persons and other animals, stray animals on roads and in public open spaces, responsibilities of owners related to the keeping of animals and bees, deals with nuisances and complaints that involves animals, impounding of animals and ancillary Pound matters within the City of Cape Town.

In terms of section 17 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, Act 32 of 2000, the public and interested parties or groups are given the opportunity to submit comments, recommendations or input of the draft by-law update to the municipality from 28 August 2026 – 29 September 2026.

Comments, input or recommendations may be submitted by:

Email: Animal.bylaw@capetown.gov.za ·
Online: Via the Add a comment Button
Written submission: Llewellyn Grove, Law Enforcement Department, City of Cape Town, 1st Floor, Omniforum Building, 94 Van Riebeek Street, Kuilsriver, 7590

The City’s Public Participation Unit will assist people who cannot read or write, people living with disabilities and people from disadvantaged groups who are unable to submit written comments, to have their comments or input recorded and submitted to the City. Contact the following persons: Anathi Dywili on 021 400 9825 or anathi.dywili@capetown.gov.za

The draft Animal keeping bylaw is available for viewing Subcouncil offices and City libraries.

Contact Llewellyn Grove on 021 444 8116 or Animal.bylaw@capetown.gov.za for further information.

Animal Keeping By-Law.pdf

(462.4 KB)

English Summary.docx

(20.7 KB)

Afrikaans summary.docx

(16.2 KB)

Phases

Phases overview

Phase 1: Have Your Say

Have Your Say

Have Your Say

28 August 2026 22:00 - 29 September 2026 21:59

25 comments

Jocelyn Marais6 hours ago The regulation and oversight of exotic animals should remain subject to clear, independent and accountable administrative processes. An entity contracted by the City should not be placed in a position where it effectively assumes or expands regulatory powers on behalf of the City without a clearly defined mandate, lawful delegation and appropriate oversight.The By-law defines a “contracted entity” as an animal welfare organisation contracted by the City to perform inspection, permitting and administrative functions. However, this should not be interpreted as giving such an entity unrestricted authority to create, impose or enforce requirements beyond those expressly authorised by the By-law or properly delegated by the City.In particular, where exotic animals are concerned, decisions affecting permits, ownership, keeping, movement or compliance should be based on the applicable legislation, objective scientific and welfare considerations, and transparent administrative processes. The contracted entity should not effectively determine policy or impose additional requirements on behalf of the City where those requirements have not been established through the appropriate legal and administrative process.It is therefore recommended that the By-law clearly distinguish between the City's regulatory authority and the functions that may be performed by a contracted entity, including the limits of any delegation, the accountability of the contracted entity to the City, and the rights of affected applicants and permit holders to receive reasons for decisions and to challenge or appeal decisions.This is particularly important for exotic animal keepers, where the regulatory framework may involve multiple competent authorities and existing permits or authorisations. The system should ensure that one contracted entity cannot effectively assume a regulatory role that belongs to the competent authority or impose requirements independently of the legal framework.

Hazel Beswick7 hours ago I applaud efforts to curb harm to animals, but this stinks of yet another tax control imposed on residents and I see no way that this will help animals or allow lower income/retired households the ability to afford pets. More likely there will be more abandoned animals and mistreatment to hide them. Why does the municipality think they have the right to tax every little aspect of our lives. I thoroughly disagree with this bylaw and see no benefit to it being imposed on us. You are supposed to be working for the welfare of the community, not putting a price on our beloved pets. Everyone should have the right to have a pet companion. Shame of you!

Maritza le Roux19 hours ago

Talitha Finkay3 days ago While By laws introduced for the well being of all, are appreciated, one wonders who creates these! As opposed to regulating law abiding citizens it would be appreciated if the city focused on the enormous cases of dog, cat and farm animal abuse and neglect seen throughout the Western Cape! Farm animals seen all over the freeway with little or no access to water. Starving dogs seen all over the informal settlements and Cape Flats. A handful of us feeding and rescuing the mass of tragic cases (I personally feed 52 dogs a day) While the City Ward councillors ignore our plees but want to regulate well behaved dogs in apartments and happy dogs running in parks to be on leads. Seems the focus is on the easy targets and not the real problems! Control is good, but get the enormous problem under control, just this week we had ten abused and abandoned dogs came in that I have to manage, while my neighbour and ward councillor wants to control how many well behaved dogs I have!

Coreen Morrow 22 hours ago

Ilze De kock3 days ago Please engage with sabio & wcba (western cape bee association) for input. Bees are not like other animals that can be locked up. And are in nature everywhere. It's part of our everyday surroundings. You cannot pass laws without knowledge & experience of wild swarms and urban beekeeping. Please work with the stakeholders that have thousands of members registered already. Members are invited to attend workshops & department of agriculture seminars. They pay membership fees & have active social media channels to communicate. https://wcba.co.za/

Michael Pieterse5 days ago I object to the blanket limit of four cats imposed by section 3(1)(a) of the Draft Animal Keeping By-law. Section 3(1)(a) provides that no person may keep, or allow to be kept, more than four cats over the age of six months on any residential premises. I believe this is unnecessarily restrictive and does not appear to distinguish between responsible animal ownership and circumstances in which animals are actually causing a nuisance, welfare concern or public-health problem. Section 23(1), for example, states that no person may keep an animal that creates a nuisance or health nuisance. The Draft By-law also defines a "nuisance" broadly as conduct that is offensive, injurious or dangerous to health, materially interferes with the ordinary comfort, convenience, peace or quiet of the public, or adversely affects the public at large. Given those existing powers, I do not believe that an arbitrary numerical limit of four cats is necessary. For example, consider a household with six cats where: all six cats are sterilised; all six cats are vaccinated and microchipped; the property is clean and hygienic; there is sufficient space for the animals; there is no smell or health nuisance; there is no noise nuisance; the animals do not roam onto neighbouring properties; there have been no complaints from neighbours; and all of the animals are healthy and properly cared for. What public-health, animal-welfare or nuisance problem suddenly arises when that household moves from four cats to five? Conversely, a person could keep only four cats and keep those animals in overcrowded, unhygienic or otherwise unsuitable conditions. Such a person would fall within the numerical limit in section 3(1)(a), despite potentially creating precisely the animal-welfare and nuisance concerns that the By-law is intended to address. The number of animals alone is therefore a poor measure of whether animals are being responsibly kept. A more proportionate approach would therefore be to regulate the actual conditions in which cats are kept, rather than imposing an arbitrary blanket limit. I would suggest that section 3(1)(a) be removed or amended along the following lines: "No person may keep cats in such numbers or under such conditions that their keeping results in overcrowding, compromises animal welfare, creates a health nuisance or nuisance, or unreasonably interferes with neighbouring properties." I am also concerned that these provisions create what appears to be an unnecessarily fee-driven permitting regime around ordinary pet ownership. Under section 3(5), a person keeping a cat older than six months must apply to the City for a permit in respect of every cat, with each application accompanied by a prescribed permit fee and proof of rabies vaccination. In addition, if a responsible household wishes to keep more than four cats, section 4 requires a further permit application to keep the additional animals, again accompanied by a prescribed fee. This raises a legitimate concern that responsible residents are being required to pay the City simply for permission to keep companion animals on residential property that they lawfully own or occupy, even where those animals create no nuisance, no public-health concern and no animal-welfare problem. This creates the appearance that the permitting system is as much a revenue-generating mechanism as it is an animal-control measure. If that is not the intention, the City should clearly explain the necessity of these fees, how they will be calculated, what administrative costs they are intended to recover, and why ordinary responsible ownership requires a paid permit at all. A regulatory system should be directed at preventing harm, nuisance and neglect. It should not create an unnecessary financial burden on responsible residents merely for keeping well-cared-for companion animals on their own property.

Amelia Mulder1 day ago I strongly object to needing permission or having to obtain a license and pay a fee to keep a pet. The City can set its limits and welfare rules, but that's as far as your jurisdiction goes with regards to my own property (property being both the erf which I live on and the animal which I own). There are already laws concerning the welfare of animals - and even those are not being enforced properly, so what reason do we have to believe that these new bylaws will be enforced equally for all and not become another two tier rule meant only for people who already abide by the laws and pay their rates and taxes? This is complete nonsense and I object in the strongest possible terms to this attempt to impinge even further on the freedom of citizens.

Laurelle Steynor1 day ago Early sterilisation of animals as a blanket 6 months is not in line with the long term health of all animals when they are older. Proper research has not been done. Some animals such as large breed dogs need their natural sex hormones to signal when long bones should stop growing. Removing hormones too early can delay growth plate closure and increase the risk of joint disorders like hip dysplasia or ligament tears. This clearly is an awful bylaw as it will affect the health of these animals. Secondly one can see this is just aver reach and not actually for the benefit of animal well fair by the city to have to pay to keep animals. Seriously!

Natalie-Jane Van Dieman3 days ago FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED CITY OF CAPE TOWN BY-LAWCHAPTER 3: BEEKEEPING — CLAUSE 38: KEEPING OF BEESSubmitted from the perspective of a backyard farmer, beekeeper and community volunteerSubject: Comment, objection and recommendations regarding Clause 38 — Keeping of BeesI submit this comment as a backyard farmer, beekeepHER and community volunteer who works at grassroots level with food growing, environmental education, community development and bees.I support responsible beekeeping, appropriate training and sensible measures to protect residents, animals and public safety. However, I have serious concerns that Clause 38, in its current form, does not adequately recognise the realities of urban and township communities, backyard food production, the loss of natural bee habitat, or the ecological importance of our indigenous Cape honeybee, Apis mellifera capensis.The proposed provisions appear to regulate bees primarily through permits, exclusion zones and restrictive distances. This approach risks making responsible small-scale beekeeping inaccessible or impossible in densely populated communities.The City should regulate risk and irresponsible practices, rather than effectively excluding responsible community beekeeping from urban spaces.COMMENTS ON CLAUSE 38(1)–(17)Clause 38(1): Permit requirementI am concerned that requiring a permit for all beekeeping on land not zoned for agricultural purposes could disproportionately affect backyard farmers and small-scale community beekeepers.Urban and township residents often do not have access to agricultural land. Yet backyard farming and beekeeping can contribute directly to household food security, pollination and emerging livelihoods.Recommendation: Create a simplified, affordable category for small-scale residential and community beekeeping, with requirements proportionate to the number of hives and the actual level of risk.Clause 38(2): Use of beekeepersThis requirement could create barriers to accessing skilled local beekeepers for bee rescue and relocation.Recommendation: The City should recognise trained community-based beekeepers and bee-rescue practitioners through an accessible registration or accreditation system.Clause 38(3): Registration, association membership and trainingI support appropriate training and competency requirements. However, compulsory membership of a formal beekeepers' association may create an unnecessary barrier for grassroots residents.Recommendation: Recognise practical, community-based and accredited training as evidence of competency. Training should be encouraged as a tool for improving safety, reducing fear and preventing unnecessary destruction of colonies.Clause 38(4): Hive constructionI support appropriate standards for hive construction.However, requirements should allow affordable hive options suitable for small-scale community beekeeping while maintaining appropriate standards of safety, durability and responsible management.Clause 38(5): Five-metre and fifty-metre distancesI strongly object to these blanket distance requirements.These requirements are likely to be impractical or impossible to meet in densely populated urban and township areas.Many backyard farmers have limited land. Such restrictions could effectively prohibit responsible beekeeping in communities where bees already exist and where their pollination services are important for food gardens.Recommendation: Replace blanket distances with a risk-based assessment considering factors such as: hive placement; barriers and walls; hive orientation; bee flight paths; number of colonies; colony behaviour; water availability; hive management; and actual proximity to people. Clause 38(6): 1.5-metre barrierI support the principle of using barriers to direct bee flight upwards and away from people.However, the City should recognise existing walls, hedges and other structures where they provide equivalent protection.Clear, practical guidance should also be provided so that residents understand what constitutes an acceptable barrier.Clause 38(7): Warning signsI support this requirement.Clear warning signage is a reasonable and inexpensive public-safety measure.The City could provide standard signage templates to make compliance accessible to residents.Clause 38(8): Five-metre separation between hivesA rigid five-metre separation may not always be necessary where hives are properly arranged and managed.Recommendation: Allow alternative hive arrangements where the beekeeper can demonstrate safe access, appropriate hive orientation and responsible management.Clause 38(9): Permanent water sourceI support the principle of providing water.Responsible water provision can reduce bees seeking water from neighbours' swimming pools, taps and other sources.However, the requirement should recognise practical alternatives, including properly maintained shared or community water sources.Clause 38(10): Council determining the number of hives and beekeeper knowledgeI am concerned about the broad discretion given to Council to determine the number of hives and whether an applicant has sufficient knowledge.Recommendation: Establish clear and transparent criteria based on measurable factors such as: property size; number of hives; management practices; training or competency; and demonstrated risk-mitigation measures. Residents should be able to clearly understand what is required to comply.Clause 38(11): Limits by geographic area or suburbI strongly object to blanket geographic restrictions.Such restrictions could disproportionately disadvantage township and lower-income communities and prevent residents from participating in food-security initiatives and green enterprise.Recommendation: Geographic restrictions should only be imposed where supported by clear, evidence-based public-safety or environmental considerations and should not automatically exclude an entire suburb or community.Clause 38(12): Informing neighboursI support neighbour communication.Keeping neighbours informed when working with bees is responsible practice.However, this should not become a mechanism whereby an individual neighbour can effectively veto responsible beekeeping.Education and communication should be prioritised.Clause 38(13): Compost, garbage and manureI am concerned that this requirement could unintentionally conflict with backyard farming and food-growing practices.Compost and manure are important resources for small-scale food production.Recommendation: Properly managed compost and manure should not automatically be prohibited. The focus should be on actual nuisance, contamination or attraction of pests rather than the mere presence of compost or manure.Clause 38(14): Health or nuisanceI support the principle that beekeeping must not create an unreasonable health or safety nuisance.However, the definition and assessment of nuisance should be objective and evidence-based.Normal bee activity should not automatically be classified as a nuisance simply because someone is afraid of bees.Fear can and should be addressed through education, awareness and safe management.Clause 38(15): Removal of bees and hivesI have serious concerns about this provision.Cape Town already has wild and semi-wild bee colonies living in tree cavities, walls, roofs, drains, schools, houses, tyre stacks and other structures.As natural habitat continues to disappear through development, bees are increasingly forced to establish colonies wherever suitable shelter can be found.Before a colony is removed or destroyed, the City should prioritise safe rescue and relocation by trained beekeepers wherever reasonably possible. Not using Pest Control cowboys in beesuites.A clear bee-rescue protocol should be established.The cost of removal should also not automatically be placed on residents, particularly where the resident is unable to afford professional services or where the colony established itself naturally.Clause 38(16): Database, inspections and Standard Operating ProceduresI support the principle of a City beekeeping database and appropriate inspections.However, the purpose of such a system should not simply be to police residents.It could also help the City understand where colonies are located, where bee habitat is being lost, and where intervention or relocation is required.The City's Standard Operating Procedures should be developed with meaningful participation from: backyard farmers; grassroots beekeepers; bee-rescue practitioners; community gardens; environmental organisations; agricultural specialists; youth programmes; and township communities. Clause 38(17)(a): 400-metre restrictionI strongly object to a blanket 400-metre restriction around schools, hospitals, churches, cinemas and other gathering places.Such a restriction could make beekeeping impossible across large portions of densely populated communities.Bees already exist around schools, churches, homes, parks and other public spaces.The practical question should be how they are safely managed, not whether responsible beekeeping can exist within an arbitrary radius.Recommendation: Replace the blanket 400-metre restriction with a site-specific risk assessment.Clause 38(17)(b): Nuisance to neighbours or the publicI am concerned that this provision gives Council significant discretion.Recommendation: Establish objective criteria for determining nuisance, including actual incidents, hive management, colony behaviour and reasonable mitigation measures.A person's fear of bees should be acknowledged and addressed through education and appropriate safety measures, but fear alone should not automatically determine whether responsible beekeeping is permitted.Clause 38(17)(c): Swarm-management practicesI support responsible swarm management.However, the City should ensure that accessible training is available so that grassroots beekeepers can meet this requirement.The objective should be to build local capacity rather than exclude people who cannot afford expensive professional training.ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION: DESIGNATED TOWNSHIP BEE LAND AND COMMUNITY BEE RESCUEI further recommend that the City of Cape Town designate suitable municipal land within townships and other densely populated communities as protected community bee habitat and bee-relocation sites. Grassroots dont know what space is belonging to which department or provincial or government. Help us your departs that work in silos should get together like an interdisciplinary team for our BEE care.This would provide a practical solution when bees need to be removed from homes, schools, public buildings or other unsuitable locations.The City already has processes for dealing with bee removals when colonies are found on City property. However, the situation is very different for an unemployed or low-income household when a colony establishes itself inside a wall, roof, ceiling or other part of a home.A safe bee removal from a wall may require the wall to be opened, honeycomb and honey to be removed, the area cleaned and sealed, and building work undertaken afterwards.This can become a complicated and expensive process that many township households simply cannot afford.When residents cannot afford professional services, the alternatives may be to leave the colony untreated, attempt unsafe removal themselves, use harmful chemicals or destroy the colony.None of these outcomes serves public safety or bee conservation.Township Bee Rescue and Relocation ProgrammeI recommend that the City consider establishing a Township Bee Rescue and Relocation Programme, including: designated municipal land for safe relocation of rescued colonies; a register of trained local beekeepers and bee-rescue practitioners; subsidised or City-supported bee removals for qualifying low-income households; partnerships with local builders to assist with opening and restoring walls and structures; training opportunities for unemployed residents in bee rescue and beekeeping; community and school education programmes; monitoring of relocated colonies; and planting and protection of indigenous flowering plants and pollinator habitat. This could create a practical pathway:Bee colony in an unsuitable location → Safe rescue → Relocation to designated community bee habitat → Managed colony → Pollination, education, biodiversity and enterpriseDesignated bee land as a community assetAppropriate parcels of municipal land within townships could potentially be developed as community pollinator reserves, bee sanctuaries or managed apiary sites, subject to appropriate environmental, land-use and safety assessments.These spaces could combine: rescued Cape honeybee colonies; community food gardens; indigenous flowering plants; environmental education; youth skills development; beekeeping apprenticeships; honey and beeswax enterprises; and biodiversity restoration. This would be particularly valuable in communities where natural habitat has already been heavily reduced through development.It would also give residents somewhere safe to relocate colonies that might otherwise be destroyed.THE INDIGENOUS CAPE HONEYBEE MUST BE RECOGNISEDThe proposed by-law should specifically recognise the ecological importance of the indigenous Cape honeybee, Apis mellifera capensis.These bees are not simply a nuisance to be controlled.They are important pollinators and part of the ecological heritage of the Western Cape. What does our department of Heritage and Culture got to add value in the care of our Indigenous Bee...As urban development removes natural habitat, colonies increasingly establish themselves in houses, walls, drains, schools, tree cavities and other structures.We cannot simply regulate urban bees out of existence.Where natural habitat is removed, alternative habitat and relocation options must form part of the City's response.FOOD SECURITY, LIVELIHOODS AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCEThis issue must also be considered within the broader reality of township communities.Many households face unemployment, rising food costs and limited economic opportunities.Backyard farming can provide food.Bees provide essential pollination (pollination is still not understood here...an apple tree with bees produces 100apples, with no bees maybe 2 apples just making a simple example)Beekeeping can provide skills and they certainly have the best governance with discipline, our human race could also learn more from observing the hive.Honey, propolis, pollen, beeswax and other bee-related products can provide opportunities for small green enterprises.Youth can be trained in environmental stewardship, agriculture and beekeeping.At a time when communities are looking for ways to become more self-reliant, municipal policy should support these opportunities rather than unintentionally remove them.We should be teaching the next generation how to work safely with bees, not simply teaching them to fear them.There are irresponsible people in every sector. Where individuals fail to manage bees safely, those practices should be dealt with appropriately.Deal with the irresponsible beekeeper — do not penalise every responsible beekeeper.CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGEBees also connect communities to knowledge passed down through generations about honey, beeswax, plants, wellness and our relationship with nature.There is an opportunity for the City to support the transfer of this knowledge while ensuring that modern safety and environmental standards are followed.Community knowledge and formal regulation do not have to compete with one another.They can work together.OVERALL POSITIONI respectfully request that the City reconsider Clause 38 in its current form and undertake meaningful consultation with grassroots beekeepers, backyard farmers, community gardens, environmental organisations and residents of densely populated communities before the by-law is finalised.I am not advocating for unlimited or irresponsible urban beekeeping.I am advocating for safe, practical and equitable coexistence.The City should: Recognise small-scale residential and community beekeeping; Introduce proportionate and affordable permit requirements; Replace blanket distance restrictions with risk-based assessments; Recognise and protect Apis mellifera capensis; Establish a City-supported bee rescue and relocation programme; Prioritise relocation over destruction of viable colonies; Establish designated bee habitat and relocation sites within appropriate township areas; Provide accessible training for grassroots beekeepers; Support unemployed residents to develop bee-related skills and green enterprises; Ensure nuisance provisions are objective and evidence-based; Provide assistance to qualifying low-income households facing bee removals; Involve local beekeepers and backyard farmers in developing the City's Standard Operating Procedures; and Ensure that the by-law does not unintentionally undermine household food security, pollination, youth development, biodiversity or community enterprise. CONCLUSIONOur communities already live with bees. Wolgat Nature Reserve impacts the Tafelsig and Rocklands communities during swarming. Allow us to put in beehives like Boulders allows for Penguin domes. Our backyard farmers already depend on them.Our natural habitat is disappearing, and the bees are adapting to the spaces that remain.We cannot simply tell the bees that they are no longer welcome in our communities.The question should not only be:“Where are bees allowed to be kept?”It should also be:“Where are we going to put the bees when development removes their natural homes?”If the City wants responsible bee management, then responsible bee management must be made accessible to the communities being regulated.Let us create a system that protects people and protects bees.Let us turn bee conflict into an opportunity for food security, biodiversity, skills development, youth education and green enterprise.Our bee is not the enemy. Our indigenous Cape honeybee is part of the solution.And in communities facing unemployment, food insecurity and violence, we should be creating more opportunities for life, not unintentionally removing them.Let us choose our indigenous bees over the bullets killing our people every day.Submitted by: Natalie-JaneBackyard Farmer | Community Volunteer| Local Aunty from the Block | Chairwoman of Mitchell's Plain AgrihubFounder of Brother Nathan Foundation | Member of Western Cape Bee Industry AssociationIm a BeekeepHER officially Trained by BeeGoodAfrica Cohort 1 facilitated by Dawn Noemdoe "Honey@Dawn". Descendant of the First Nations Peoples honouring my heritage by protecting our Indigenous Bee

Maggie Nel1 day ago Firstly, I notice that your bylaw will give officials the right to enter private property without a warrant to seize animals.You realize that this is once again DA stomping all over Section 14 of the Constitution which guarantees every citizen of South Africa the right to privacy and protection from warrantless access and searches.This makes me think back to the tragedy of Peanut the Squirrel and the Stazi squad who broke into his rescuers apartment, hunted him down and killed him, leaving his owner - and the thousands of Instagram followers traumatized.Without the courts approval, who will be the ones determining what is lawful and unlawful? Who is going to be there to protect the owners and their pets when one of your officials decide to take the law into their own hands at the detriment of animal and owner? Who is going to be the one to determine whether the report from the neighbour is not just a rant from an angry Karen or a jealous ex?Your Draconian laws will also deter those of us who want to open our homes to foster and adopt shelter animals - of whom there are hundreds of thousands roaming the streets in the townships.DA, think very carefully about this one, because now you are targetting members of our family.

Rodney ⁹ Davids 3 days ago

Themba Nicollus George3 days ago

Hylton Conacher3 days ago The animal keeping bylaw is overall a good one but like so many of the city by-laws the problem of enforcement will be the problem. Dog fights, equine mis-use and others happen in tightly knit communities where everyone knows what everyone does or could be in a position to do.There is no financial gain to the whistleblower asides from anonomity by only naming each case with an increasing numerical notation and keeping no record of the whistleblower's identity/contact details will help the caring people in the community look after those animals they think are being mistreated. Provision of a website to engage with those who want to report a case should hopefully result in the relevant enforcement party with enough info to continue investigating the claim. Where there is Smoke, there is Fire.Is it worth the trouble to setup and also complain about a neighbour when enforcement of the by-law is key to this working.

Marius Coetser5 days ago PROPOSED CITY OF CAPE TOWN ANIMAL KEEPING BY-LAWI support the objectives of responsible animal ownership, animal welfare and public safety. However, I have serious concerns regarding the proposed Animal Keeping By-law, particularly the proposed registration, permitting, inspection, enforcement and penalty framework.The current public summary is too broad and does not provide residents with sufficient information to properly assess the financial, administrative and legal implications of the proposed by-law.Primary concerns: Potential financial burden on residents The proposed registration, permitting and enforcement system could create additional fees, charges and penalties. The City should disclose the full fee structure and projected annual revenue before the by-law is considered for adoption. Equal application of the law There is a significant concern that enforcement could disproportionately affect residents in formal residential areas who have identifiable properties, municipal accounts and fixed addresses, while animals roaming in informal settlements and other areas may be considerably more difficult to attribute to an identifiable owner. Establishing ownership The by-law must clearly state what evidence is required before an individual can be held responsible for an animal. A person should not automatically be presumed to be the owner merely because an animal is found on or near their property. Powers of authorised officers The City must clearly define inspectors' powers regarding property access, inspections, notices, seizure and impoundment of animals. Appropriate safeguards, accountability and appeal mechanisms must be established. Welfare must take precedence over revenue The primary purpose of the by-law should be animal welfare and public safety. Administrative infringements should not unnecessarily result in punitive action where there is no cruelty, immediate danger or material risk to the community. QUESTIONS REQUIRING A CITY RESPONSE (I truly hope they will be answered)In the spirit of "The DA works for all", the City must provide the following: A complete copy of the proposed by-law, including all schedules and regulations. A full schedule of proposed registration and permit fees. The projected annual revenue from permits, registrations, fines and penalties. The estimated cost of administering and enforcing the by-law. The number of additional inspectors and resources required. Clear criteria for determining animal ownership. Clear limits on the powers of authorised officers. The procedures for seizure, impoundment and return of animals. A formal appeals and dispute-resolution process for residents. A clear enforcement strategy demonstrating how the by-law will be applied - Equally across formal suburbs, informal settlements and other communities !!!!!! RECOMMENDATIONI recommend that the proposed by-law not proceed to final adoption until the above information has been made available and residents have been given a meaningful opportunity to comment on the complete regulatory framework.The City has a legitimate responsibility to protect animals and communities. However, regulation must be fair, proportionate, transparent, affordable and equally enforceable.Animal welfare must remain the primary objective !!!!! The by-law must not unintentionally create a system where compliant, identifiable and rate-paying residents carry a disproportionate regulatory and financial burden while the underlying animal-control problems remain unresolved elsewhere in the City.The right way to do it is:That the relevant City department provide a detailed written response to the above concerns and that the matter be subjected to further public and councillor scrutiny before final adoption.

Barry Tranter1 week ago

Abdul Kareem Kareem3 days ago The current by-law is far too restrictive regarding beekeeping. It should allow responsible beekeeping on suitable urban residential properties, not only agricultural land. The Cape honey bee (Apis mellifera capensis) is indigenous to the Fynbos region and an important pollinator supporting local biodiversity. Beekeeping also offers a valuable source of supplementary income for low-income households and small entrepreneurs.Policy recommendation: Permit urban residential beekeeping under simple, risk-based requirements for hive placement, colony management and swarm control. No neighbour consent should be required where the beekeeper complies with the prescribed requirements. This would provide an inclusive opportunity for residents across income groups while supporting biodiversity, food security and local livelihoods.

Marianna Nysschen6 days ago The by-law should consider introducing administrative penalties for substantiated and repeat animal-related offences, such as ongoing nuisance barking, roaming animals, unlicensed breeding, failure to sterilise animals where required, or repeated non-compliance with compliance notices.Where legally permissible, these penalties could be linked to the property owner's municipal account to improve enforcement and collection. Similar to other municipal charges and fines, this may encourage greater accountability and responsible pet ownership while reducing the burden on law enforcement and animal welfare organisations.A progressive penalty system could be implemented, with written warnings for first-time offences, escalating fines for repeat offences, and higher penalties where an owner's actions result in harm to animals, neighbours, or the wider community.Revenue generated from such fines could be ring-fenced, where legally possible, to support municipal animal welfare programmes, sterilisation initiatives, animal control services, public education campaigns, and partnerships with animal welfare organisations that care for abandoned and surrendered animals.

Marianna Nysschen6 days ago While the by-law includes provisions relating to sterilisation and permits for keeping unsterilised animals, it does not adequately address the growing problem of dog overpopulation. Animal welfare organisations and shelters are already under significant pressure due to the large number of unwanted, abandoned, and surrendered dogs. Many healthy animals ultimately face euthanasia because suitable homes cannot be found.Consideration should be given to implementing stricter controls on breeding, including the possibility of a temporary suspension or limitation on commercial and private dog breeding, until shelter populations are reduced to sustainable levels. Such a measure could help reduce the number of unwanted animals, alleviate pressure on welfare organisations, promote responsible pet ownership, and improve animal welfare outcomes.At a minimum, breeding permits should only be issued under exceptional circumstances and subject to strict requirements demonstrating a legitimate need for breeding and responsible placement of offspring.Recommendations: Mandatory sterilisation of all adopted shelter animals before release. Higher permit fees for breeders, with revenue earmarked for animal welfare organisations. Annual reporting by registered breeders on the number of litters bred and puppies sold. Stricter enforcement against unlicensed breeding. Public awareness campaigns promoting adoption before purchasing animals from breeders.

Ilias Demerlis4 days ago As a responsible dog parent I believe stronger measures are needed to protect both animals and the public:1. Dogs off-leashDogs should be kept on a leash in public areas unless they are in a designated off-leash area. Owners who ignore this requirement should be fined, with higher penalties for repeat offences. Even in off-leash areas, dogs should remain under effective control.2. Dog attacks and uncontrolled dogsStronger action should be taken when a dog attacks another animal or person, particularly when the dog was roaming freely or had escaped from an inadequately secured property. Serious incidents and repeat offenders should be formally recorded, with appropriate measures such as mandatory leashing, muzzling or secure confinement.I have personally experienced the consequences of an uncontrolled dog attacking my own dog, so I believe stronger prevention and enforcement could avoid considerable suffering for animals and distress for their owners.3. Secure properties and vehiclesOwners should be responsible for ensuring that their dogs cannot escape through gates or inadequate fencing, or jump from vehicles and endanger other animals or people.4. Dogs left alone while owners are awayI am also concerned about dogs being left alone for entire weekends or longer, with someone visiting only once or twice a day to provide food and water. Food and water alone should not constitute adequate care over several days. Owners should arrange appropriate supervision, whether through a responsible person staying with the animal, a pet sitter, suitable caregiver or boarding facility.5. Effective enforcementThere should be a simple reporting process for roaming dogs, attacks and welfare concerns, with proper follow-up and stronger consequences for repeated violations.6. Excessive barking, particularly at night Owners should be responsible for preventing persistent or excessive barking, especially during nighttime hours. Dogs should not be left outside barking for prolonged periods while owners ignore the disturbance. There should be a clear complaint and enforcement process for repeated incidents, while recognising that occasional or reasonable barking is normal dog behaviour.Thank you for considering my comments.

Themba Nicollus George1 week ago

Danie van der Merwe1 week ago I get the limited number of animals per home, but would a permit be granted where someone has rescued cats for example, and there are 7 of them in a cat-proofed garden? These cats would all have been strays running around causing a nuisance. Very happy about 11(2) where a person must show they have litter bags for picking up dog excrement. Really welcome as a proper preventative measure now. Good to see stricter requirements on working equines. I would much prefer horse-drawn vehicles to be banned from all busy roads as it is a danger. But such vehicles must carry a proper numberplate registration. The hand drawn card with the horse's name is not sufficient. Drivers and officials need to clearly see if it is a registered vehicle. In fact, they should even have a hand operated brake for steeper ascents or descents as well as horses cannot "brake" on tar roads. For section 19 where exactly does this get reported? Needs an e-mail address or is it via e-Services app? Otherwise, an e-mail to the city would be deemed "reported". Section 26 - we have to register every single dog and cat across the entire city? Where and how is this going to happen, and what sort of costs? I do wish we had similar regulations for the keeping of children...

Deon Oosthuizen5 days ago Public Comment SubmissionTo: The City of Cape TownSubject: Public Comment on the Draft Animal Keeping By-law (Support for stricter containment and regulation of free-roaming cats)Dear City of Cape Town Officials,I am writing to express my strong support for provisions within the municipal framework that address and restrict the free-roaming of domestic cats (Felis catus). As a resident of Cape Town, I urge the City to strengthen enforcement and introduce clear mandates requiring pet owners to securely contain their cats to their own properties.Free-roaming domestic cats are a recognized ecological threat, particularly within a globally significant biodiversity hotspot like the Cape Floristic Kingdom. While domestic cats are beloved companions, allowing them to roam unsupervised outside private property boundaries leads to the severe depletion of indigenous wildlife, including small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and localized bird populations.Extensive scientific research underscores the magnitude of this problem: Comprehensive reviews and meta-analyses consistently demonstrate that free-roaming domestic cats are prolific predators. For instance, Loss et al. (2013) estimated that unmanaged and free-roaming cats kill billions of birds and mammals annually, making them a leading source of anthropogenic mortality for native wildlife populations. In urban and peri-urban conservation zones adjacent to residential areas—such as Cape Town's unique mountain chains and nature reserves—predation by domestic pets places unsustainable pressure on already vulnerable endemic species (Baker et al., 2008). Beyond direct predation, free-roaming cats pose significant public health and biosecurity risks through disease transmission (such as Toxoplasma gondii) to local wildlife and farm animals (Gerhold & Jessup, 2013). To protect Cape Town’s fragile biodiversity, safeguard indigenous fauna from mass extermination, and simultaneously protect cats from vehicular traffic, disease, and injury, the Animal Keeping By-law must explicitly mandate that cat owners prevent their pets from wandering off their premises. Responsible pet ownership must include indoor housing or secure, enclosed catteries (catio spaces).Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this vital legislation and for your commitment to balancing community interests with environmental protection.

RAUL Marques5 days ago

Filters

Total posts: 25

There are 25 projects available.

No values available.

Selected zero tag filters.