National animal advocates will not be unleashed on offenders any time soon in Switzerland.
Instead of having Antoine Goetschel, the lone animal lawyer paid by Canton Zurich to represent animals in abuse cases, animal acivists thought all 26 Cantons should offer this public service. Theoretically more lawyers would help get more abuse cases prosecuted. But the voters, knowing they lead the pack on animal rights, had heard an earful on a recent abuse case brought to the bench regarding a fish.
It seems a fisherman took too long to reel in the 22lb Pike in question. Ten minutes of struggling on the other end of a fishhook was thought to be case-worthy and was prosecuted. The angler didn’t know he would have to answer to the court for his fishing skills, and ate the evidence with friends. Probably with wine. Turned out to be a laughing stock throughout the country, and some think we can blame the case of the battered fish for the outcome at the polls.
If you’d care to take a look, the Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance of 1981 (translated) is quite a document, covering animal husbandry, transport and slaughter, companion animals, breeding, research with a focus on avoiding pain and injury as an overarching principle.
In that principle’s spirit, the transfer of ownership can be made only to people who provide proof they have gone through four hours of class before being granted special authorization to keep animals, according to the law. Another fours hours of training is required after ownership is transferred.
Like a license to drive, you get permission to keep an animal(s) when you prove you understand what is required to do so humanely and legally. The Animal Protection Ordinance was updated two years ago and is even more stringent now, with very specific size cage requirements for animals deemed appropriate to keep caged, as just one example.
Leo Hickman of the UK’s Guardian provides a quote from Attorney Goetschel that wraps things up nicely:
“”The 2008 law was good for animal protection,” says Goetschel, who can even represent the best interests of a pet in any custody battles resulting from a (human) divorce. “I think the fight about the level of protection is now probably over in Switzerland. We have the ‘dignity of the animal’ recognised in Swiss law. But there is a struggle between the idealism of the ethics and the realism of the application of the law. Ethics should be there like a lighthouse to show where to go.”
What do you think, does this sound like the difference between theory and practice to you? The fish story may be amusing on one level, but the ethics can’t be ridiculed. As Goetschel himself said, how would we react if it were a puppy on the other end of the fishing rod? Do we only save what’s cute? Do we stick with what might be the outdated idea that only vertebrates can feel pain? Which way are you leaning?
Related article: Christian Science Monitor
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5842e702-33ca-4477-986f-b527c3eb30ce)
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
12 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Until the end of this post, where I saw the question posed as one of invertebrates feeling pain, I had no doubt that this was an example of animal rights overkill, the type of tactics PETA uses that make it easy for people to dismiss important animal issues. I still think that the humane killing of food animals is a separate issue than that of the way we treat domestic pets and needs to be kept separate lest you lose too many supporters of such important laws as those Switzerland enacted (wow, I'm impressed). Of course I think food animals should be treated humanely too; I just don't think the fish question needed to be addressed in this context.
The comment about the puppy at the end of the fishing rod brings me back to a discussion I had with an animal representative at American Humane. They work on movie sets, and they coined the phrase "No animal was harmed in the making of this picture…" They even protect roaches. Yes, I'm not making this up. They believe that all life is of value, and that if you discriminate against one, then you can discriminate against others.
The comment about the puppy at the end of the fishing rod brings me back to a discussion I had with an animal representative at American Humane. They work on movie sets, and they coined the phrase "No animal was harmed in the making of this picture…" They even protect roaches. Yes, I'm not making this up. They believe that all life is of value, and that if you discriminate against one, then you can discriminate against others.
Hi, Edie, thanks for your considered response. You know, back in August 1 wrote about canine disarming, a practice shunned in most cases, with the implied "where do we draw the line" question. And here, in changes in Swiss law, is a living example of how the "line" is not static, but moves, often imperceptably, according to public sentiment. The Swiss story captured my attention, and perhaps that has something to do with distance…seeing things more clearly when they are outside ourselves. Reminds me of the argument about fur many years ago and how people's thinking changed over time on that topic.
And I agree that AR folks shoot themselves in the foot, often, and the fish story is a prime example. PeTA, the most well known group, well…without ranting I see them as the people who rescue cats and dogs so they can kill them. Pretty much everything else they do goes out the window for me on that one point. But back to the fish story: Many reports filed did not get as far down the road on the Attorney's line of thinking or they edited it out because it does not appeal to the masses, making the valuable point of the article subject to dismissal. Then there's that thought you mentioned–wouldn't we all would prefer that feed animals not suffer? Temple Grandin moved the ball forward. Reaching back into history, Native Americans honored what they ate. Best practices redefined.
So we can wind up going deeper into ethics and philosophy on this than might be comfortable for some, but in the end it's good to question and good to notice what's uncomfortable and why. Okay, don't everyone run away screaming now…;-D
I knew that about American Humane, but now that you mention it in the context of this post, I better understand their position. Beyond it being a mission premise for AH, it is a legal response they are giving, isn't it. Equal protection under the law. The law often will not judge in favor of separate treatment. Goetschel argued for the client, the fish, so his argument follows the legal path set forth by Swiss law on no pain or suffering, the case turning on that point where science has to offer it's findings to conclude the case. Huh, doesn't seem so out in left field when you look at it from that narrow perspective. Often, however, the quest for congruency or trying to make all things equal in the search for simplicity doesn't pan out in real time and can lead down some pretty dark alleys. But that's beyond the scope of this blog:)
I think the thing with the fish is over the top. Just the way I feel. The journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. To me that first step is pets. Then animals raised for food (I'm about 90% vegetarian). Then fish. It's not that I don't think all life is precious – I'm just all for protecting the most endangered first (pets) with the limited resources we have.
BTW – does the license apply to pets? Do you need a license to obtain a pet in Switzerland? I think I like that idea!
Okay, my response. It's a FISH!
I must say that the Swiss Ordinance is very impressive. Kudos to them!! I must say that article 18 regarding stanchion systems is interesting. They actually demand that their dairy cows are able to roam freely for 90 days out of the year. (that's a little tongue in cheek ya'll) Betcha' didn't know that dairy cattle spend most of their lives in a standing stall. Since the Swiss make most of their living with dairy products I suppose that giving the cattle a little roaming time is okay. And I'm not anti-dairy products, just wanted to let everyone know how it goes. I know people in the dairy industry here in Canada & as long as the heifer is producing milk, she's in the stall.
Hey, Karen, thanks for stopping in! Yes, I agree with you and Edie…but academically I also see what they are trying to do by applying law equally across all events. Talk about setting yourself up to fail, though!
Glad you read the ordinance–I was happy to have it to offer up. Yeah, thinking about why milk is actually produced…from pregnancy…so they get to be in a constant state of pregnancy in order to produce, with the calves as a by-product? That's what they do to mares or maybe that practice is ending now, but to make a medication(premerin), they had to take stuff from the placenta to make it, if I'm remembering correctly..and the foals were "tossed" eeeuuuuu
We do a lot of crazy stuff to animals that science may soon be able to redress.
Premarin is a BIG business in Alberta. It's not made from the placenta of the mare, but from the collection from the mare's urine. Hence (Pre)gnant (mar)e Ur(in)e. The mares are kept in standing stalls and have a rubber collection harness strapped to their backsides. Once the foals are born, they are sent to auction where most of them go to the meat man. My girlfriend bought 4 PMU babies for riding horses and they are doing great. Premarin benefits a lot of postmenopausal women, so it really is a catch 22.
I really do like the Swiss ordinance, but Switzerland has a population of 7 million people. To enforce and supervise the Swiss laws in a place like Canada (30 million) or the US (300+ million) would be nearly impossible with out the addition of hundreds, if not thousands of animal welfare agents. Since North American welfare agencies have problems monitoring the family lives of children at risk, this just isn't going to happen. It's nice to think about, though.
Oh yes, now I remember…I gotta get more sleep!! As to the trouble of enforcement of Swiss like ordinances here with the vast population differences, enforcement of any law is tough with 300M. But there are interesting programs like the cross-reporting law in Chicago: When the police are called out on abuse cases they report to animal care and control to take the animals out of harm's way, and the reverse occurs where there is animal abuse in a home and animal care and control report it to the police. These types of devices can be put to work with good results. I think rather than give up thinking it can't happen here, and, yes, it is a complicated and daunting task, we could take a piece at a time and see where there are areas of opportunity to begin:)
Continuing the Discussion