INCONGRUCIDS IN ANIMALIST LAWS AND SPEECHES

INCONGRUCIDS IN ANIMALIST LAWS AND SPEECHES

It has been carried out by the Government of the Canary Islands, on November 13, 2017, a PROPOSED DRAFT OF AN ACT OF PROTECTION AND TENURE OF PETS, which is a good example of what is legista in this sense in our country in regarding the issue of animal welfare and equality and where future guidelines may go.

This preliminary draft shows contradictions, if not hypocrisy, that are extended to the animalist movement, "mascotism" current.
It has a first great initial incongruity since in its article 3 it includes almost all the animals as companion animals and then except a large number of them and activities (livestock, hunting).

- Approve the activities of experimentation, teaching and scientific.
 Should not be allowed this type of activities, being contrary to animal welfare.

- The regulation of exotic and potentially dangerous animals ... unless they are treated as pets.
What is the regulation scale? We already know about the problems of raising these types of animals, which appear in the water channels of the city or in the most unsuspected places, outside of their natural habitat.

- The existence of zoos and aquariums.
Should not these places exist because they threaten the freedom of the animal?

- Mutilation that alters the natural characteristics according to their race or species.
Is not sterilization enough mutilation?

- The sale of animal skins, except those that are authorized.
What is the scale to measure the authorization?

- The inappropriate use of means of restraint that inflicts pain or injury not constituting abuse.
Are the belts not producing injury, is not considered mistreatment ?. When they are pulled, pain occurs and the honor of the freedom of the animal in question diminishes.
  
- Exceptionally, animals may be euthanized in avoidance of suffering for the animal or damage to third parties or the general interest or, if necessary, to avoid excess accumulation with respect to the quota that may be established if its transfer to another center is not possible. not clogged, always by veterinary medical prescription and in specialized centers authorized for it.

Would not it be better than euthanasia, the reeducation of the animal for its inclusion back into society? There should be no euthanasia or sacrifice until there is, say, a plague, which could have endangered other beings, the human, among them. This is happening now with plagues of wild boars, pigeons and other birds.

- The use of animals of any species for itinerant use, such as tourist, photographic, begging or mere exhibition in public places is prohibited.
Are we going that even the poor can not have their pet? . Or when it can be considered that an animal is poor and used for begging ?. If you do not have the man / woman to wash or take care of yourself, you will have it for the dog or pet. Up to here comes the animalistic fallacy.

- In no case, will animals be used in concentrations under the pretext of tourist attraction.
Like the zoo, right? Will the next step, as with circuses, be to ban zoos or aquariums?

- The presence of pets in areas of children's recreation, duly signed
Why? if they live with the children in their house. This is not clear.

- The person driving in the street or public place a pet, will prevent as far as possible to make their droppings in it, remaining, otherwise, forced to remove them, depositing the excreta in garbage containers in a closed bag and proceeding to the cleaning and disinfection of urine.
Who meets the defecation ?. We do not talk about urine. Without counting on the large amount of plastics that are created and produced and the ecological contamination they pose.

- Sterilization 1. Any pet that is in a legal situation of abandonment and that is temporarily received in a private home or anyone who is admitted to any establishment or reception center should be sterilized prior to its adoption or after admission , either at the expense of whoever adopts it, or at the corresponding center, if applicable.
Why should an animal be sterilized under any circumstances? It is a degradation to the well-being and the animal dignity, that so much care in these laws. It is a great contradiction. In addition everyone is aware that sterilizations are done so that the animal does not have children, without malformations or reproductive problems. Total hypocrisy.

- In any case, dogs and cats; hunting dogs; solipeds of bovine, caprine, porcine and equine species; poultry and birds and, in general, mammals, vertebrates and cold-blooded animals should be moved in rooms of sufficient amplitude that they can move without difficulty and with sufficient ventilation and adequate temperature, attending, where appropriate. , to the specific regulations that result from application
It is well known that these rooms are not made to a large extent. The animals can not move without difficulty, because they would hinder their safe transportation. Another fallacy more.
 
- The driving of potentially dangerous animals or whose temperament demands it without muzzle
When is it considered to be potentially dangerous? It is notorious the existence of attacks at times that can be unsuspected and by animals that do not usually do so.

In conclusion, even being a draft, in our opinion, it is clear that animal welfare and equality have great inconsistencies. It is clear that we all want the animal to be treated in a respectful way, but is it not less true that denaturing it and taming it to certain limits is also mistreating it? If you want to be a living being with the same rights as a human being, should not you have duties? It is something to reflect on, something that nine animal laws do not do, and those that defend them in a dictatorial and sectarian way.