Category: Animal Cruelty

Animal Welfare Commissioner, Labour’s not so new idea.

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.

Dog in kennel, sad dog
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.

The City 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.

The global war on feral cats.

Although domestic cats are one of our most popular companion pets, we have for centuries, been bad keepers of them and allowed them to breed indiscriminately, introduced them to countries around the world where they didn’t naturally exist and where they have upset the balance of nature, abandoned them in large numbers and generally failed to act responsibly with them. They are now paying the price of our reckless behaviour.

What is a feral cat?

Over generations domesticated cats, for various reasons, have been left to their own devices without human interference and they have reverted to their wild instincts. We call them feral rather than wild and they tend to remain disassociated from us, preferring to scavenge and hunt in order to survive. Because they have been born ‘wild’ it can be difficult to fully adapt them back to domesticity.

Ferals differ to what we refer to as strays because stray cats were generally once ‘owned’ but for one reason or another have lost their homes and are not as adept at surviving without some human contact. Given time though they can also revert to be totally feral.

Being ‘animal lovers’ we cannot resist interfering in the lives of both feral and strays and insist on trying to help them, by feeding, catching and neutering them and encouraging them to live in closer proximity to us which results in them becoming more dependent on us. This can lead to conflict with local residents and even governments who view them as a nuisance or even vermin.

Feral cat colony, cruelty to cats, TNR
Many people view neutered cat colonies a nuisance.

Feral cats face unpleasant and agonising deaths through poisoning and trapping.

Governments and conservationists in Australia and New Zealand and many island nations are paranoid about their feral cats because of their impact on small native species of birds, reptiles and small mammals particularly marsupials. These countries go to extreme and costly lengths to eradicate them going to such lengths as using aircraft and helicopters to drop poisoned bait and shooting and trapping them.

Australia has a five year plan ending in 2020 to kill 2 million of them by various methods including dropping 50 poisoned ‘sausages’ per square kilometre from aircraft at a rate of 500,000 baits a month. An estimated 211,560 cats were killed in the first year. They are blamed for killing 75 million native animals and have allegedly driven at least 27 mammal species to extinction.

cat with bird in mouth
Feral cats are villified for being predators.

Gregory Andrews, the threatened species commissioner for the Department of the Environment stated: “We don’t hate cats. We just can’t tolerate the damage that they’re doing to our wildlife”. All kinds of methods are used to exterminate them and they have been eradicated from over 50 islands and large areas of the Australian and New Zealand mainland.

They may not be able to breed but they can still eat

Cat loving advocates prefer to trap, neuter and return them back to fend for themselves, something now referred to as ‘TNR’. The jury is out as to whether this has much impact on numbers, but releasing them again doesn’t appease those that do not like them eating wildlife.

Conservationists, individuals and local and state governments find extermination to be the answer and decry any other initiative such as TNR as it is not viewed as cost-effective and doesn’t decrease numbers because you need to neuter all of them and not allow any to be abandoned. And it just maintains large cat colonies which in some circumstances can cause havoc in nearby sensitive wildlife areas. They may not be able to breed, but they can still eat is the stance that the exterminator lobby take.

Cat trapping, feral cats, feral cat colonies
Trap, Neuter & release (TNR). Many observers say they may not be able to breed but they can still kill.

New Zealand like Australia wants to rid the country of 2.5 million feral cats by 2025 and Gareth Morgan, a businessman and philanthropist, began a “Cats to Go” campaign aimed at eradicating all cats from the country as they were destroying native animals. The campaign accused the local NZSPCA of not getting real and he stated that the country should “stop pussyfooting around and fry the ferals”.

The Australian branch of the Cats to Go campaign reckon they are far ahead of their New Zealand counterparts, “who lack spine in dealing with wandering cats, by compulsory microchipping, fines and legislated areas which prohibit cats being outdoors,” instead of killing them.

The town of Omaui in New Zealand has plans to be the first authority to ban cats by stopping owners from replacing their pet after it dies to gradually phase them out. Some countries want to ban them going outside at all, others have curfews and bans on letting cats out if they live near vulnerable wildlife. There is a worldwide movement to basically curtail cat owning and stop cats from enjoying a natural life.

Their crime is pursuing their natural instincts and behaviours as predators. 

In the USA, where it is believed there are 70 million feral cats roaming the country, the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the Fish & Wildlife Service combined their research  and accused cats of killing 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds and 6.9 to 22.3 billion mammals each year. They reckoned two thirds of the deaths were caused by feral cats. Research in Canada where they have fewer feral cats appears to back up these incredible statistics. The authorities wage a similar war on them as in Australasia.

The UK Mammal Society believe 275 million animals are killed by cats, including 55 million birds and 80 million mice. They have even been implicated in the death of 230,000 bats. Bizarrely the top three birds allegedly killed by cats are house sparrows, blackbirds and starlings which we look upon as pest species anyway in the UK and slaughter in their millions. The whole debate then becomes rather meaningless.

But strangely there are no studies or evidence that cats are the only or main cause of any bird depopulation, except in the cases of small islands. Agriculture, logging, climate change and human interference are probably more to blame. Surprisingly, the RSPB, the UK’s leading bird conservation organisation, have supported the cat in the past pointing out that:

“there is no clear scientific evidence that such mortality is causing bird populations to decline. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds”. RSPB

The lines are drawn between those who want to kill all the ‘nuisance’ feral and stray cats and those who wish to neuter and release them and it is pretty obvious which side will prevail. This is particularly so in countries like Australia, New Zealand and islands who have vulnerable rare native species of birds, mammals and reptiles. The shame of it is that none of this was their fault and their only crime is in trying to survive by pursuing their natural instincts and behaviours as predators. The blame, as always, lies with all the generations of irresponsible human owners who have created the problems and the lack laws to control ownership.

Poisoned cats in Australia, the result of the Governments campaign to kill 2 million cats.

Blog updated 09/01/2020