Swiss Reject Law On Animal Rights
Swiss voters by an overwhelming 71 percent rejected a referendum that would have compelled all cantons to hire lawyers to defend the rights of animals. This was considered to be a major set-back to animal rights organizations in a country that has some of the toughest animal welfare laws in the world. If it had passed, each of the country’s 26 cantons would have had to hire official animal lawyers—a sort of public defender—to represent pets, farm animals, and wildlife in court. The Swiss generally take civil liberties most seriously, whether animal, vegetable, or human. For instance, scientists there must consider the dignity of plants before embarking on experiments. Since the l970s, Swiss animals have enjoyed greater protection than their brethren in most countries. In 2008, a 160-page law tightened animal-welfare laws even further, requiring, for instance, that prospective dog owners take a four-hour course before buying a pet. The referendum was hotly debated with the animal-welfare groups arguing that if people accused of mistreating animals can hire lawyers, the victims of such abuse are also entitled to representation. The Swiss government urged voters to reject this idea arguing that the money this would cost should go to extra veterinary resources to uncover animal abuse. Switzerland’s powerful farming lobby also opposed it, arguing farm animals are already closely monitored by state vets. This case certainly illustrates the extreme lengths that certain animal rightists will go to gain recognition of their causes. Many of these issues are emotional in nature and appeal to the general good-natured feeling of the public at large. This particular referendum failed in Switzerland but don’t be surprised to see equally obtuse ideas being raised and fought about internationally so long as the majority of us sit back and do little or nothing in opposing the PETA’s and HSUS’s of the world.
Dog Abuse
Dogfighting and other horrific violence against animals can become an intractable practice for some abusers. Bills to establish statewide registries of people convicted of felony cruelty to animals have been proposed in California, Rhode Island, Colorado, and Tennessee. Monitoring animal abusers some argue can be vital to public safety while others argue whether it is fair to offenders who have served their sentences to wear a life-long label or will some offenders plead guilty to avoid registry inclusion? A spirit of public vigilantism is also a worry but there does seem to be a grassroots effort to get more animal-abuser-registry laws passed. The idea of protecting this vulnerable population of pets has a great emotional appeal but there are so many side arguments that the wording of each State’s bill would have to be very carefully studied. One area of abuse which can result in long-term suffering for pets is where people with little means to afford them hoard animals. This can result in long-term suffering due to little or no vet care, lack of food and water and resulting side effects. Research shows that the recidivism rate among hoarders is almost 100 percent. Recidivism rates among other categories of animal abusers is not as well documented but most experts say anecdotal experience shows a large percentage do re-offend.
The Delegates Vote
On the very first ballot Charlie Garvin, Pat Scully, and Bill Newman were swept into office as Board Directors by easy majorities. With 198 votes needed for election the three winners received 238, 218, and 217 votes respectively. Of course Dr. Garvin and Mrs. Scully are back on the board after the one year hiatus caused by the term limits proposition, which some believe will be re-voted upon in the early autumn of this year. Dr. Newman was not affected by the term limits for this election as he fell under the grandfather proviso and continues his board representation. Steve Gladstone was unable to regain his seat while Carmen Battaglia was upended in his attempt to remain on the Board. They had 172 and 178 respectively. Editorially, these pages sat on our hands insofar as actually supporting any of the five people running. Garvin we believed was always the front-runner and the most preferred of the five with, candidly, a coin toss separating the other four people. All four had positive and negative things to be said about them. What with the constitutional situation at AKC being in the antiquated and outdated mode it is in and with the great majority of the Delegate Body refusing to react proactively to meet the demands of modern society these election results are almost meaningless since no matter how progressively thinking the Board may be—giving it that attribute—the Delegate reactions basically thwart and prevent Board action.
KC’s New Database
The Kennel Club in the UK is developing a new database which it says will improve the health for future generations within a breed. The database they claim will enable breeders, vets, and others to record information about a dog’s health including any surgery it has had and the results of any health tests. From this database the KC will develop a Mate Select Program which will be accessed via the KC Web site and which will be the first of its kind to allow both the occasional and regular breeder to assess the impact a proposed mating will have on the genetic diversity within their breed. So much for keeping the kennel club out of the whelping box! This Mate Select seems to raise more questions than it does answers. The most obvious question being how will any potential stud dog be entered on the database? If the owner is to apply there will have to be a health test one would presume? But just because a dog passes a test—say for hips does that mean it is necessarily the right dog for that bitch? What about temperament, soundness matches, adherence to breed standards, use of the same dog—ad nauseam. The idea of a database may have future potential but until it is more fully explained these pages reserve judgement for sure.
Thought For The Week
Designer dogs have been around for a much longer time than most people are willing to admit. After all it was man himself who through experimentation with various breeds developed dogs for hunting, working, herding, and the like. Today’s designer dogs however are motivated by something entirely different than the perfection of a breed. It is the desire of those experimenters to make money from playing around with the matings of odd breeds. Forget that health argument we hear—the motive is simply economic—whether it be book publishers (and why not find out which is the largest book publisher of Designer Dogs) or breeders of whatever “poo” is the handiest we all know the motivation and it’s not purity, it’s money, that’s for sure. • |
