Commenting on our attitudes to animals and our failure to maintain their welfare.
Author: John Brookland
John Brookland is an animal welfarist, and amateur historian. He authors two popular blogs: animalrightsandwrongs.uk and animalrightsandwrongs.com with a monthly worldwide readership of thousands. He has written seven books on his exploits helping animals, also on social history and a book on the war horses of World War One. During his long and varied career which has taken him round the world, he has unfortunately witnessed most of the horrors of animal cruelty there is to see and has gained extensive insight into most animal welfare issues which he uses to write his blogs.
He is now retired and still travelling the world with his partner to view wildlife and wild places before they and he disappear.
When, where and why did the the phrase “forever home” cross over from bricks and mortar to be used in the context of finding new homes for rescued animals? Which marketing guru conjured up this gem of an extremely successful marketing and fund-raising tool. Surely though its use has run its course and the word overkill comes to mind. To make matters worse the term has recently begun to evolve or mutate into further cringe worthy words such as “furever” and “pawever” to name just two. Not only that, but I recently noticed that Battersea Dogs Home has now transformed its use into promoting their caring scheme for cats whose owners have died – under the banner “Forever loved“.
I spent some ten years as a manager of animal rescue centres until the mid 90’s but have no memory of its usage and then suddenly it became part of our daily vocabulary and in all animal charity fund-raising literature. Now it has spread all over the world. I was recently in Australia, the USA and in Portugal and yes they use it there. Every interview with a member of staff at an animal rescue home is interspersed with it and I await with bated breath for someone to utter it.
Whenever I watch an animal rescue TV documentary and see the sight of a dog that has spent months in kennels finally walking side by side with its new owners out of the entrance to the suitable accompaniment of background music, I am moved like most other people. That is until I hear that dratted phrase again.
Disingenuous term
Realistically it is a disingenuous term as I know very well that you can never guarantee that the person taking the animal will keep it for the rest of its lifespan and staff often have their fingers crossed as the new owners disappear into their car. I know I often had my fingers crossed behind my back. Its a sad fact that too many owners are looking for the perfect match and often return them.
Too many fickle owners for homes to be forever.
There are too many fickle owners these days which is why we have so many unwanted animals languishing forlornly in rescues in the first place. I realise that “forever homes” is a wonderful fund-raising term and a very successful one but enough already. With everyone now using the term it has kind of lost its impact so is there any chance we could please move onto some other phrase or perhaps return to the good old days where we blandly referred to it as just finding new home or a suitable home, loving home or even just a nice home.
Just a case of maintaining standards or championing their rights and interests?
The Labour Party’s new animal welfare manifesto has been welcomed and praised by all according to press reports and its content makes gratifying reading, but unfortunately most of it has been visited before and has never been implemented so what chance now. One of the main proposals is to introduce an Animal Welfare Commissioner. This is not a new concept and many countries have implemented a commissioner, minister or Ombudsman for many years. We continue to lag behind as always. I have been arguing that England should have one and have written on the subject before.
There has been debate for several years on whether it is time for the UK to have some form of official legal representative or watchdog solely responsible for representing the rights and welfare interests of animals. Noel Sweeney, a Barrister and well-known advocate of animal rights has lectured and written about the need for an animals’ ombudswoman for a decade. He has suggested that such a person could represent all animals in Court and Parliament where any action affects their welfare and future and meet with the Law Commission to introduce a new Act with the paramount principle of granting animals a legal personality.
Furniture counts higher than living animals.
It is strange that we haven’t had such a person years ago particulalry as we have an ombudsman for virtually everything else including various industries and state organisations like communications, energy, finance, the motor industry, health, housing and even ones for the removal trade, estate agents and the furniture industry. Obviously bits of furniture count higher than living animals, but there is nothing for the pet trade industry which appears surprising particularly as it brings over £7 billion to the UK economy.
We can complain to our heart’s content when we feel we have been hard done by, but animals literally cannot voice their concerns and complaints and even if they could there is no ombudsman representing them. As owners or keepers of animals we cannot put their case for them either.
A case of maintaining standards or championing their rights and interests?
The role of the Animal Welfare Commissioner is to ensure:
“that animal welfare standards are always considered as legislation is introduced and as Britain takes part in international bodies, trade deals and obligations”
and also
“responsible for gathering the latest scientific evidence on animal sentience and animal welfare” and “work alongside Government to assist in the promotion of best practice in animal welfare internationally”.
Of course, maintaining “animal welfare standards” is a far cry from taking into account the rights and interests of animals which is not mentioned.
Many people feel it is a silly idea and taking things a bit far, but we have already taken a step towards this by establishing ‘independent’ Committees such as the Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) and the National Companion Animal Focus Group (NCAFG) who supposedly safeguard animals’ interests.
Impossible to be independent
The main problem is whether such a person would be allowed to remain independent on many of the issues presented to them, particularly those that effect human interest as we all know that human precedence is the creed when it comes to laws protecting animals. When any new policy, regulation, law or amendment to an existing law is considered by the Government all the vested interests that it might affect have their say in lessening the impact it might have on their livelihood or on what is called ‘legitimate human interests’. Governments consult with all these different interest groups such as agriculture, commerce, industry and science and consider their objections and suggestions.
But when the policy, law or issue affects the rights and well-being of animals, such as in the case of culling protected badgers, there is no one to speak up for them. Animal charities and campaigners can put their points forward, but there is never a truly impartial person to speak up for them with the power to investigate and research all the evidence and decide on the validity of any proposed actions. An animal’s commissioner or ombudsman or woman could do this.
What about a actual Minister for animal welfare?
Although the UK has a Minister for almost every area of commerce and industry including a Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which covers mainly livestock issues, there is no specific Government office whose sole purpose is to look out for the interests of animals, so it could be argued that we also need a Minister for ‘animal affairs’ who could intervene in issues that might affect large numbers of animals.
Can any Government official ever be truly independent and stand up for their welfare and rights.
Many countries, cities and industries already have them.
Australia has shown some interest
in the concept and there was a petition at one stage and Austria is one of
the few countries which actually has an Animal Welfare Spokesman and an animals ombudsman
service following a referendum there. Each State elects an independent,
non-governmental representative and although not a perfect system it is pioneering in its
intentions and beyond anything most counties have.
TheCity of Lisbon in Portugal appointed a ombudswoman for animal welfare in January 2018 who was reported to have “made fast work of getting stuck into her job” by immediately announcing a plan to solve the overcrowding in the city’s dog pounds and making an appeal in Parliament for the country’s policymakers to create laws that “better meet the needs of animals”. At her swearing in ceremony she stated, “I want to seize this opportunity to reach out to the population and raise awareness of the issue of animal welfare.”
Back in 2014 the DPZ German Primate Centre in Göttingen, which houses 1300 research primates, appointed an “outsider” ombudswoman which the 43 animal keepers can go to with any welfare concerns instead of the in-house animal welfare officer and welfare committee. The fact that she is a scientist makes it debatable how impartial she is, but it shows that industry, science and governments are not averse to the idea of ombudsman or women.
Who could fulfil such a role and be truly independent?
It is definitely time for this nation of animal lovers to have an ombudsman or woman or commissioner, whichever you want to call the role, but we want a person with the power to consider and argue the rights and interests of the animals on their behalf and the legal power to defend this right in court or parliament if necessary otherwise the role has little meaning. Animals need an independent legal representative and a spokesperson with the ear of the Government to investigate suspect decisions, conflicts of interest and policies on the well-being of animals and if necessary instigate prosecutions of any institution that by its actions cause unnecessary suffering.
But any person who takes on the role must have the interests and rights of the animals as their first priority and will need to be able to withstand all the lobbying and economic considerations which presently impeded animals getting a fair deal. It is doubtful such a person would be considered as it is odds on we would end up with a scientist, a barrister, a politician, a businessman or an academic who will toe the line. Lets hope not.
