Where can animals turn to enhance their wellbeing? There are, of course, animal welfare organisations such as the SPCA which tend to their needs when in difficulty. But such organisations are inhibited both by their finances and their limitations under the laws they are there to administer.
So we must
look at the origin of those laws to find where animals can turn. The 1999 Animal Welfare Act, which took almost 40 years to replace its predecessor, the Animals Protection Act, focused on providing greater human obligations towards animals, while at the same time establishing clear guidelines on eliminating unnecessary pain and suffering, and encouraging the promotion of normal patterns of behaviour, both physically and mentally.
The principles of the act are, indeed, sound if they are ardently pursued on behalf of all animals. But, sadly, as evidenced by events lately, it seems that in some cases the words of the act simply play lip-service to the reality experienced by some species.
The ministry responsible for the act (Agriculture and Forestry) contains the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Its task is to provide minimum standards that are breed-specific according to the perceived needs of those animals, both in their natural lives and those undertaken through farming and other practices.
The development of these standards (which can be enforced under the law) is an arduous process involving input from a variety of specialists, both technical and welfare, and concluding with wide public consultation.
Once again, it would seem that such proceedings would logically result in improved welfare standards for animals. But this is not necessarily the case.
Sitting atop this structure is the Minister of Agriculture who, although adhering to the general policies of his party, is the one person who can most effectively enhance the wellbeing of all animals. He will sign the destiny of countless animals to a life of misery or freedom, and it is to him that we, as animal welfare advocates, look to adhere to the principles of the Animal Welfare Act.
Sadly, the minister's Christmas package - three revised National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee codes - contained no joy for animals.
First came the code of practice for circuses. This, despite more than 1800 submissions calling for a ban on the use of exotic animals, contained no such action, thereby allowing continued legal animal abuse under the big top.
Such abuse includes training methods that are often cruel, transportation and continual confinement and incessant performances in which the animals are forced to do unnatural acts simply for the amusement and ridicule of the public - all of which place physical and psychological stress on them.
We live in a world in which animals are no longer acceptable in the circus (more than 15 countries ban them), epitomised by the brilliant Cirque du Soleil. The minister has chosen to ignore that to perpetuate their suffering in New Zealand.
The second welfare code to be announced was for pigs, specifically the use of sow stalls. This is a barbaric and torturous confinement that constrains pregnant females for most of their lives in conditions which completely inhibit movement, including moving around.
This abhorrent process has been banned in Britain and denounced by 71 per cent of New Zealand pig farmers. It stimulated 64,000 public responses and, according to a Colmar Brunton poll, had 87 per cent of those interviewed calling for a ban on the use of sow stalls.
But there was no such relief from the minister in charge of animal welfare except a reduced confinement period after 2015 and a promise to look into alternative methods.
Finally, battery hens were addressed in the layer hen code also announced by the minister in time for Christmas.
No other animal welfare issue has evoked a public outcry more than the fate of millions of battery hens which are confined for their lifetime in cages no bigger than a telephone book with no room to move, stretch, forage or display their natural tendencies.
Their beaks are trimmed to avoid self-mutilation and injury to other birds and their bodies become so wretched with controlled feeding and moulting practices that they cannot even walk if released from this wretched captivity.
The international community is well advanced in banning the use of battery cages for hens, and here more than 120,000 submissions calling for similar action have been sent. As well, a further Colmar Brunton poll revealed that 79 per cent of those interviewed would gladly pay higher prices for free-range eggs if it meant hens no longer had to suffer battery conditions.
In response, the minister in charge of their welfare has increased their prison by 100sq cm (new cages only, with all existing cages increased to that size by 2014), with a promise to review the situation when there has been further "research" into alternative systems.
Their confinement could continue for another 25 years, causing continued misery to many millions of unfortunate of hens.
The principles extrapolated in the Animal Welfare Act - eliminating unnecessary pain and suffering, and encouraging normal patterns of animal behaviour - appear to have been abandoned by both the law's structure and the minister assigned the duty of its administration.
With the release of these latest codes of welfare, it is blatantly obvious that some species of animals are destined to continue to suffer, and that there is, indeed, nowhere that they can confidently turn to enhance their wellbeing. And that's a crime.
* Bob Kerridge is the chief executive of the Auckland SPCA.
Bob Kerridge
Opinion
Where can animals turn to enhance their wellbeing? There are, of course, animal welfare organisations such as the SPCA which tend to their needs when in difficulty. But such organisations are inhibited both by their finances and their limitations under the laws they are there to administer.
So we must
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.