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