[Animals] Animal rights and biodiversity conservation

[MussicOnPro!]

Like us, many animals experience feelings and emotions that we can easily recognize in species with which we share millions of years of evolution (like many primates) or thousands of years of living together (like cats and dogs). Such recognition generates empathy, hence many people seek the best luck of the animals in which they recognize themselves. In society, this claim must be given the form of regulations. In this sense, it is to be applauded that the Government of Spain works to promote animal welfare. However, the Draft Law on the Protection and Rights of Animals, recently released by the General Directorate of Animal Rights of the Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030, seems to us, despite its intention, deeply misguided and erroneous .

The presented text attempts to regulate a complex and diverse range of situations based on the welfare objectives of a few species, mainly cats, dogs and horses. This, and the confusing and careless use it makes of the terms "animal" (which it does not define), "companion animal" and "domestic animal", leads to numerous absurdities and contradictions. For example, in its current wording, Article 70 would prohibit filming nature documentaries that show the suffering of any of the main animals (something common in practically all documentaries); Or, what is more striking, 83 would impose fines of between 100,000 and 600,000 euros for intentionally killing "an animal", ignoring that many animals, such as rats, mosquitoes or intestinal parasites, without going any further, are usually lethally controlled.

In its eagerness to cover, the draft conflicts with Spanish and European regulations and strategies for the conservation of biodiversity. For example, it is expected to generate a list of species that may be companion animals (positive list), informed by a Scientific and Technical Committee for Animal Protection. This invades the scope of Royal Decree 630/2013 that regulates the Spanish Catalog of Invasive Exotic Species, in turn informed by a Scientific Committee that advises the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. On the other hand, the text of the preliminary draft prohibits on several occasions the activities of control and eradication of invasive species that imply the death of animals, which collides with various programs protected by the aforementioned Royal Decree, and directly violates Union directives European that are mandatory

The draft also regulates the possession and reproduction of exotic species in captivity, which would undoubtedly pose a serious risk to many wild po[CENSORED]tions. To take a close example, no one is hidden from the deep-rooted custom of keeping ornamental and exotic birds in cage. In 2017, some 49 million of these birds were estimated in captivity in the EU and recently about seven million, belonging to a thousand different species, in Spain. What perhaps very few readers know, and of course the drafters of the draft seem to ignore, is that while caging a bird captured in the wild is suffering, this is not the case for a specimen born in captivity. The “natural” habitat for canaries or parrots that we see today is the cage where they were born. In fact, if they escape or are released, their destiny is almost always death, because they do not know how to adapt to the state of freedom. Fortunately, the EU prohibited in 2005 (EC Regulation No. 318/2007) the importation of wild birds for health reasons, a prohibition that was later reinforced by Spain to prevent biological invasions (RD 1628/2011). The society responded positively by reproducing exotic birds in captivity and creating, in a collateral way, an effective conservation tool that goes beyond our borders. In Spain, and the EU as a whole, we have not only avoided the importation of millions of wild-caught birds by supplying ourselves with specimens born in captivity, but we have also become the main exporters to other countries, thus reducing the danger. extinction of many species due to the global trade in wild individuals. Limiting captive breeding of these species, practiced by more than a million Spaniards, to the point of impossible, would not only have a strong economic and social impact in our country, but would also represent a serious step backwards for the global conservation of birds. .

In the drafting of the preliminary draft, numerous other scientific studies that indicate harmful social effects and on the conservation of wild fauna have not been taken into account in the event that their proposals were carried out. This is the case with the special attention (an exclusive chapter and numerous articles) that the text pays for what it calls feline colonies. These groups of domestic cats occur in places with an abundance of food, generally provided by people considered in the text as "caretakers" of the colonies. The availability of food does not make those colonial cats in good condition. In fact, they are in worse physical shape and live on average less than solitary stray cats (and of course, much less and much worse than house cats). But whatever their condition and way of life, cats do not stop hunting. Cats kill huge numbers of animals. In 2013 it was estimated that each year, in the United States alone, about 2.5 billion birds and more than 12 billion mammals die in the jaws of cats. These figures exceed those of animals hunted by humans and those estimated to be run over by road traffic. The impact of cats is also very important on reptile po[CENSORED]tions, being one of the main threats to endangered species, such as giant lizards and other canarian reptiles.

Cats are also potential vectors of diseases that can pass to people (toxoplasmosis and other parasites) and to wildlife, as demonstrated by the feline leukemia outbreak that almost wiped out the Doñana Iberian lynx po[CENSORED]tion in 2007. The feline colonies, where cats do not live following the social organization of these felines, since they are found in abnormally high densities and interact intensely, they function as centers of contagion and spread of these diseases. We believe that the intention of the bill to inventory and maintain the cat colonies and the number of individuals that occupy them (at the expense of municipal budgets) in the long term is meaningless. We understand and share the sensitivity that these animals generate and the desire that management actions consider the well-being of each individual. But the objective must be to reduce to the minimum possible and in the short term the number of domestic cats that live in freedom in our cities and fields (and that of dogs, by the way).

The draft also clashes with biodiversity conservation strategies when it is limited to the area that should be its competence, such as domestic animals owned by a person. This is the case with working dogs and the coexistence between wolf and cattle, for example. Mastiffs have historically been a fundamental tool for the protection of extensive livestock against large predators. For the mastiffs to have the impulse to protect the cattle, they must be raised with it, from puppies, and for the protection to be effective they must always remain with the cattle. Current regulations do not assign a special category to these working dogs, which is already causing problems for breeders who use mastiffs. But the situation will become untenable if the bill, which imposes a minimum age for canine work (18 months) and a maximum time of solitude (without a human) of the dog of 24 hours, is successful. Prohibiting farmers from accessing one of the best protection tools against predation can lead to increased rejection of the wolf.

Halting the loss of biodiversity is a relevant objective of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. No matter how noble the purpose, ensuring the well-being of a few nearby animals cannot be done at the cost of the suffering of a multitude of animals that we do not see or with whom we do not empathize, much less the deterioration of the biodiversity necessary for the survival of all. What is exposed here are just a few examples. We believe that the draft law made public by the Ministry of Social Rights and Agenda 2030 should be withdrawn, as it collides with numerous regulations in force and prevents harmonizing the welfare of domestic animals with the conservation of biodiversity. It is necessary to work on a new proposal clearly focused on domestic pets, and to do so with the critical support of experts in wildlife conservation.

LINK: https://elpais.com/clima-y-medio-ambiente/2021-10-16/derechos-de-los-animales-y-conservacion-de-la-biodiversidad.html