Animal Abuse versus Child Abuse

When it comes to protection and welfare legislation it could be argued that we have a bias towards amending and introducing legislation against animal abuse over child abuse.

Are we prioritising the protection of animals over that of children?

It could be argued that our present society has a bias towards amending and introducing legislation protecting animals at the expense of children. Some might feel that we expend too much time, debate and attention on animals and their welfare at the expense of children even though child abuse is widespread.

Not a day goes by in Parliament and the House of Lords without animal welfare and protection issues being debated and new laws being discussed or implemented, particularly for our beloved dogs. It seems rare for any updating of child protection legislation or concerted efforts to protect them even though they are no more able to defend themselves or escape abuse than kept animals.

One correspondent once wrote to a U.K national newspaper about the perceived hatred of children and the insane obsession with dogs and pets thus:

As for the the much-repeated claim that the British are the most tolerant nation on earth, I find tolerance very selective. Anyone who dares to maintain that dogs are dangerous and that pet-keeping is anti-social, while children are lovely and far more important, discovers rapidly just how tolerant the British really are.

Daily Mail Letters page.

What chance the welfare of animals when we cannot adequately protect our children from abuse.

The recent shocking incident in Eastbourne where seven children aged between four and seventeen and 36 dogs were found in one house severely neglected and maltreated by a couple should be a wakeup call. The incident was a double whammy involving both types of abuse coinciding in one residence.

The offenders in the case received six-year sentences for child cruelty and eighteen weeks for animal cruelty. The mother received a five-year ban and the father an indefinite ban on keeping animals, but no ban on keeping children as this is of course unthinkable. It will take a lifetime to heal the long-term physical and mental harm inflicted on the children which will take years to rehabilitate them.

child and animal abuse poster
Do we give them equal protection?

Children and babies are no more able to defend themselves or escape abuse than kept animals.

Although we ban people from owning animals when it is considered they are incapable of looking after them or a risk to them, we remove pets from feckless owners who mistreat them and we issue warning and penalty notices we cannot contemplate giving children the same help.

There are many parallels to be made in regard to how we legislate and enforce protection of animals and children. The RSPCA takes the burden of enforcing and prosecuting animal cases even though they have no statutory powers, for which they are often maligned for being too aggressive.

Yet the NSPCC and social services who do have powers to intervene and prosecute seem unable or unwilling to take a stringent approach when death, neglect and cruelty to a child is involved. They rely on the overburdened and cash strapped Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Prosecutions are dropping and social services are inundated and unable to cope in many parts of the country. This state of affairs has continued for decades

Child abuse and murder rampant in the U.K.

On average seven children a month are murdered in the U.K. Between 2015/16 and 2019/20 there was an average 82 child homicides a year in the UK mostly by filicide – the killing of a son or daughter by the parents, with babies under one year old having the highest rate. 55,000 at risk children were on a Child Protection plan and 55,000 were being looked after by local authorities.

When it comes to neglect the figures are even more depressing. Between 2019 and 2020 there were over 23,000 recorded offences. Neglect is defined by not meeting a child’s basic physical and psychological needs which can have serious and long-lasting impacts on a child’s life causing serious harm and even death.  In 2020 The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel received notification of 482 serious incidents relating to 514 children. Of these notifications, 206 were in relation to child deaths and 56 were attributable to abuse or maltreatment.

In the year ending 31 March 2020 there were 3,347 child death reviews in England. 862 cases were identified as having modifiable factors which may have contributed to the death of the child, and which might or could have been avoided such as the family environment, parenting capacity and service provision.

It is right that we have so many animal protection laws, but we should also be spending more time, money and resources to protect our children with more extensive and harsh laws that are policed adequately, because we appear to be severely letting them down at the moment. The incident mentioned above highlights the fact that we haven’t really moved on since Victorian times. What chance the welfare of animals when we cannot adequately protect our children from abuse.

Giant Pandas for rent. No way to treat a vulnerable species.

China has been renting out Giant Pandas for decades at astronomical fees. The sorry state of Ya Ya and Le Le are the result.

In December 2022, Memphis Zoo returned two sorry looking aged Giant Pandas named Ya Ya and Le Le back to their homeland to great fanfare and publicity. According to the zoo Ya Ya and Le Le helped “pioneer research and conservation projects” and drew visitors to Memphis to “get a small taste of the exquisite culture of the People’s Republic of China.”

But according to several animal advocacy groups the zoo had not been providing them with adequate food or enough outdoor freedom and cited instances of them pacing in circles. These groups had been criticising the zoo for months and have claimed victory now that they are being returned to China. But it would appear their return may have been more to do with their contract expiring. And what are they returning to?

Giant Pandas Ya Ya and Le Le
The poor old pandas being airlifted home

What future for Ya Ya and Le Le

At 24 years old and 22 years old respectively, having already exceeded the usual life expectancy by a considerable amount, Ya Ya and Le Le may not have much of a future. Not to mention the stress of being uprooted and flown round the world.

Few people realise that Giant Pandas are “rented” out by China. After the Second World war China was in the habit of “gifting” Giant pandas to other countries as part of trade agreements and diplomacy and zoos would clamour to house them. But in 1984 China changed this policy and began leasing them for high monthly fees. This changed again in 1991 to ten year leases costing up to US$1 million dollars per year with any cubs born having to be returned to China.

Some cynics have suggested that the Giant Panda is used as a “strategic asset for geopolitical reasons” because of the many trade agreements coinciding with their arrival in a country. The Pandas at Edinburgh coincided with a £2.6 billion worth of trade contracts for Britain. Zoos in France, Canada, Australia, Malaysia and Thailand also received Pandas following trade agreements.

Giant Pandas can assure a zoo’s financial future

They always come in pairs and the zoos pray they will breed as any cubs born boost their visitors and make them tens of millions in revenue. Any cub born costs the zoos a further “baby tax” until they are returned to China for breeding at 2 to 3 years old to support a healthy gene pool. In 2012, Toronto Zoo paid the going price of $1 million per annum for a pair and they produced two cubs which resulted in visitor numbers shooting up.

Edinburgh zoo rented a pair in 2011 named Yang Guang and Tian Tian with a contract costing £600,000 a year and they must be returned at the end of  this agreement. Not that the zoo was too worried about the investment as visitor numbers shot up by 4 million in the first two years at £16 plus a head. This contract was extended by two years because of Covid and they are due to go back in 2o23.

The crowds tend to have a habit of losing interest if a cub is not born to reinvigorate the attraction, but luckily a cub was born in 2017 to much excitement and media coverage and probably to the relief of the zoo’s accountants.

Giant panda cubs lined up in China breeding centre
Bred for what?

Captive numbers have increased, but for what?

The number of wild and captive Pandas has increased to over 2,000 and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have downgraded their endangered species label to “vulnerable”, but this does not mean that they are plentiful in the wild or will ever be, as there is very little room in suitable habitats for their release.

China (and of course the zoos they have been rented to) has bred and reared over 400 giant pandas and love to show off all the cute babies to world acclaim, but allegedly only 10 have ever been released into the wild since 1983 and only two of these have survived which appears to make a total nonsense of breeding them for release.

The bottom line seems to be that Giant Pandas have been reduced to tradeable merchandise.