Aspirations for Animal Welfare Reform a Summary

In this article, I want to touch on what elements of Animal Welfare reform that we should be advocating for, covering farm, and companion animals.

So when we look at Welfare Reform we need to recognise a suitable comparison between our laws and other countries which arguably have a better welfare standard then we do. Looking at the Swiss and Austrian systems. In the UK with our five animal welfare needs are the standards that we must hold people to account for the abuse of animals.

So what are these needs: Need for a suitable environment, Need for a suitable diet, Need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. Need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals and the Need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. These needs allow us to recognise the basic rights of the animal and what they require to be able to exist. This is furthered by are they able to meet the basic requirement of life as well as limiting suffering on the animal to ensure that they can behave in a normal way preventing abnormal behaviours which cause acute and prolonged suffering.

Now in terms of points where we can go further with Swiss and Austrian law provisions about freedom of an animals movement which could be arguably a move to prevent intensive farming in particular pigs who are kept in farrowing crates. This freedom of movement would protect them from a number of points that cause behaviour concerns and problems due to confinement. Now in intensive farming, it is arguable that whilst some farmers would argue confinement is necessary for the production of the animal associated products. Yet whilst Austria does still have clauses for this to allow farmers to use a form of confinement for safety reasons such as farrowing (when the sow has piglets) but generally speaking these limitations are vastly limited. Now carrying on with the farming point poultry are still getting the beaks trimmed which is a known area of suffering. The same arguably in areas that look at keeping calves with the heifer this is still recognisable as a form of suffering for the calf but it is something that can still be practiced. Both the Swiss and Austrian laws also mandate that they must see and be exposed to human interaction if it is deemed necessary. The three countries also recognise the need for animals to have suitable light exposure now all three make particular points for livestock with regards to light and this is something which is rightly protected. The other contentious issue is the exemption around religious slaughter many argue that any form of unnecessary suffering is overtly wrong. However, they specify that stunning is then done immediately following the ceremonious slaughter. This is something that is not required in other laws but does offer a way to protect the animal from prolonged suffering and although limiting the suffering further should be a goal this is a step in the right direction and easier to achieve than an outright ban. Laws around suffering looking particularly at pain and pain-causing circumstances as well as offering protection to selective invertebrates such as crustaceans and squid species. Now one area which certainly ranks lower across the board is animals used for draught and recreation which I will revisit in a later article.

In terms of the companion animal point, all three countries roughly meet the same standard of companion animal welfare. The main criticisms of all the items of legislation are as follows; Austria requires breeders to have a license to breed animals this would be something that if regulated correctly would reduce the advertising, of mass-produced litters and regulate the sale of young animals and banning on sales of animals. All of these limit the distribution of animals and would make criminal exploitation of these animals more difficult. This is something the Swiss and UK laws do not yet facilitate. UK provisions against mutilations for animals used in breeding is far more safeguarded in the UK which is a benefit to the animals as a whole. All countries arguably need to review how we control stray animal populations whether that be in the UK looking at how we rehouse animals that have been abandoned or in mitigating cat populations impact on wildlife. In the UK we arguably need to address the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which is disputed globally as a poor method for protecting public safety and not euthanising animals unnecessary. All countries were also suggested to encourage a more sustainable pet ownership mechanism.

Now, this is only an introduction which is something which I aim to look at each point more specifically to revise a more apt system to protect our animals. We certainly should do more and elements of these laws can protect are animals from abuse which should then coincide with animal welfare legislation. Now this works is likely to make a series rather than a sole article which I will look at over the latter weeks. Please do look at https://api.worldanimalprotection.org to investigate which countries have stronger laws.

https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/en/home/tiere/tierschutz.html

https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/changingthelaw/whatwechanged/animalwelfareact

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/animal-welfare_how-well-are-swiss-animals-protected-/45489148

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/europe.php#switzerland

https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/article/why-welfare

https://www.alaw.org.uk/the-law-as-a-driving-force-for-animal-welfare-reform/

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228468611.pdf

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/animal-welfare/issues-paper

Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill

This week the latest incarnation of the Animal Welfare Sentencing bill is entering the house again for a further reading prior to entering the Lords. Now I want to highlight this because this particular bill could give us at the very least a potential avenue to attach Pet Theft Reform sentencing guidelines too. Now to begin with Animal Welfare sentencing in the UK needs to align with other western countries.

Now the guidance within this new bill would also make a particular focus on the changing digital world, paying a focus to where the offender films themselves committing the offence. This is both critical to allow social media platform and users to report and identify abusers which the police can then used as further evidence as an “aggravating factor”. Now for offenders who are caught on camera, this would not be the case but the differentiation of the attitudes of those knowingly committing the offence needs to be recognised and actioned accordingly. It was cited that the RSPCA identified that the filming of animal abuse had risen from 2019 and this needs to be apart of any reforms as it offers a way we can stop the open sharing of these acts of abuse on social media channels. It would also be worth addressing here that whilst points were made in the regard to recording the bill a potential area that needs further refining is the circulation and sharing of this content. Those found to be knowingly sharing this type of media need some form of penalty to act as a deterrent otherwise the work taken to seek justice against the abuser will be lessened by the circulation of the content. My hope is this will be addressed by the Government White Papers at online harms more broadly and that animal abuse is featured specifically.

Now whilst I would add here that when this issue was debated cross-party MPs both advocated for the bill to have amendments which at the very least would use the same sentencing guidelines as seen with robbery. However, it was pointed out by Tom Hunt the MP for Ipswich that at times these guidelines do not echo the sentiments of the public. He particularly cites Pet Theft here and the reason the call for reform is still needed in this case is because of the view that these sentencing guidelines give to the courts they treat the animal as an object and not in a specific way under the law. If the animal was treated specifically under the law it would provide us the general public and animal owners with the knowledge that those who commit these offences and also knowingly abuse someones beloved pet when they are stolen but that justice will be enacted. A further amendment to this bill would also make acts that are often associated with other crimes or forms of abuse against animals such as mutilation which are associated with dogfighting or baiting. These harsher sentences would enable our justice system to empower the police to protect our animals and tackle the criminal gangs perpetuating revenue from animal abuse.

A proposal presented to increase the effectiveness of the bill as well as making sure that animals are treated fairly and evenly not establishing systems where cruelty to domestic animals is targeted under this bill but not wild animals. The RSPCA and various other charities can report how acts of cruelty against wildlife can arguably be as severe as what we see in companion animals and no less worth safeguarding. Points which were raised that in particular areas that then targeted wildlife, in particular, were even less adequate than that which the bill seeks to rectify. The MPs however, do rightly point out to protect pets a subsequent amendment for wild animals may need to be included at a later point. It is therefore positive to see support for further animal rights reform in national politics.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2622/publications

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0014/200014.pdf

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4