Wayne, take note this os not my ipinion. I repeated the train of thought from some of the findings of the presiding judges.
It goes to the fact that cattle farmes aproach the court with the main reasoning of the fact that the cattle were there first, the judges feel that they should remind the cattle farmers that bwb were actualy first. Long before the cattle farmer and the game farmer were even born. Now I believe this wont count much in places such as the eastern cape where bwb are not endemic.
Ek sal glo dat dit juis hier is waar n regter dan moet die beslisssing maak. Want as n boer op n plaas beeste het en en dan jare later begin n wildsboer met bwb boer daar teenaan, dan verstaan ek hoekom die beesboer voel sy bestaande boerdery was eerste. Die regter se opinie is dat beesboere met beeste boer in Afrika waarvan die beesboer weet vatbaar is vir afrika siektes.
Onthou maar net ek gee maar net weer wat ek in die hofuitprake raaklees. Die een regter het gese as bwb nie mag loop waar hulle altyd was nie, waar mag hulle dan wees? Want die hele rsa het beesgrond aangrensend aan wildsparke of plase.
Ek glo die oplossing is n ombudsman en daar bestaan so n afdeling.
