Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 allows for 5-year prison sentences for certain animal cruelty offences

I am republishing verbatim some of the explanatory notes of the above act which explains why it has come into existence. In summary the above act allows judges to apply much stiffer prison sentences to the crimes specified below in the bulleted table to a maximum of five years and an unlimited fine. The unlimited fine is unchanged.

 Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 allows for 5-year prison sentences for certain animal cruelty offences

The above UK act "increases the maximum penalty for specific offences related to animal welfare in England and Wales from 29 June 2021. It does so by extending the maximum penalty, specified under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, of six months and/or an unlimited fine to a penalty of five years and/or an unlimited fine. These offences therefore become triable either way, and may be heard in the Magistrates Court or the Crown Court.

And:

".....the 2006 Act set out a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine for the more serious 'prevention of harm' offences. There are five such offences under section 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006:

• causing unnecessary suffering (section 4, Animal Welfare Act 2006);
• carrying out a non-exempted mutilation (section 5, Animal Welfare Act 2006);
• docking the tail of a dog except where permitted (section 6(1) and 6(2), Animal Welfare Act 2006);
• administering a poison to an animal (section 7, Animal Welfare Act 2006); and
• involvement in an animal fight (section 8, Animal Welfare Act 2006). 

There were a number of cases related to these offences in which judges expressed a desire to impose a higher penalty than that which the 2006 Act provided for, prior to this Act passing. There was a particular desire to increase the penalties available in the case of crimes that relate to deliberate, calculating and sadistic behaviour."

The RSPCA has been lobbying for this change and they are understandable thrilled. They said:

"This is a landmark day for animals and animal welfare in England and Wales. For almost 200 years the RSPCA has been investigating animal cruelty and rescuing, rehabilitating and rehoming animals. While we’ve seen vast changes in the way we keep animals during that time, as well as huge advances in legislation to better protect animal welfare, our sentences for animal abusers have long been letting our animals down. We’re absolutely thrilled that we’ve now reached this milestone moment and that courts will now have more flexibility to hand out sentences that better reflect the severity of the crimes they are dealing with and we hope the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act will act as a greater deterrent and help us cancel out cruelty once and for all."

The UK is a world leader with other countries such as Sweden on animal welfare laws protecting animals from abuse and cruelty. At the other end of the scale is China and some other Asian countries where there is either no animal welfare laws or poor enforcement. Without enforcement even the best laws are worse than useless. 

Biden says China to face repercussions on human rights but what about animal rights?

I'm sure hundreds of millions of people are happy that Biden says China must face repercussions on human rights. Apparently he had a two hour conversation on the phone with the Chinese president Xi Jinping. On CNN he implied that President Xi knows that there will be repercussions, "Well...there will be repercussions for China and he knows that".

Biden and Xi. Let's have some hard talk about animal rights please. Pic in public domain.

He is of course referring to the abuses of human rights with respect to the Chinese Muslim community which has been well reported in the news media for a very long time. I think we can conclude that there is hard evidence of these abuses. It's been referred to as genocide because of forced sterilisation.

But this brief note is not about human rights, concerning as they are, it's about animal rights which are even more dramatically abused in China. I'm referring to the fur trade business in China which is the biggest in the world. I'm also referring to the cat and dog meat trade in the south of China.

I know people will say that eating cat and dog is no different to eating normal livestock but it is. These animals are killed brutally. They are rounded up from streets sometimes in the north of the country and ship down south. Sometimes they are people's pets and often times they are feral cats but this is a total breach of animal rights. There is no discussion about that. If you know about the Chinese cat meat and dog meat trade you will have to agree with me. 

The photos are too horrible to publish here. It is that bad believe me.

You could perhaps almost justify eating cats and dogs if they were killed as per European slaughter house standards. But even then I would question the concept of eating domestic cats and dogs. They are our pets. It is not part of the human-cat or dog 'contract' that we eat them. We are meant to support each other. That is the original concept and we need to stick to it.

But above all if the Chinese, because of their superstitions, think that eating cat is good for them then, please God, kill them humanely before you eat them. And if you don't and consistently abuse animals as you do, I would like to see President Biden bringing this into the equation.

It is no good confining our criticism of China to human rights. What is so difficult about joining human rights with animal rights? Why couldn't he say that China will face repercussions for human and animal rights abuses? 

You just have to add three words "and animal rights". Those three words may save the lives of millions upon millions of cats and dogs who die under incredibly distressing circumstances. What's so difficult about that?

And it is particularly galling to me because President Biden is an animal lover. He seems to have forgotten them in his statement. I trust that he will do the right thing and let's not forget the animals, please.

China Tests Cosmetics That Are Manufactured outside China on Animals

It may surprise people to know (or perhaps it won't) that the Chinese have a mandatory testing procedure on cosmetics manufactured outside of China on animals. There is no need for this testing because these manufacturers have found ways to test their products without testing them on animals. This is because the testing, marketing and selling of cosmetics in the European Union is banned. The European Union lead the way in this area of animal welfare. But for some peculiar and perverse reason the Chinese feel they have to test these products on animals which once again reinforces our belief, or at least my belief that the Chinese don't give a damn about animal welfare.

The question which now remains is whether these companies such as Revlon and Estee Lauder are in breach of European Union regulations despite the fact, as mentioned, that they are not testing their products on animals. It is bad enough allowing the testing of products other than cosmetics on animals such as medicines. But there is absolutely no justification whatsoever to test cosmetics which are products to enhance the appearance of humans on animals. It can only be described as immoral and unethical and actually it's quite depressing to think about it.

Clearly there needs to be representations to the Chinese on this subject. There won't be, as usual, because the West is dependent upon products manufactured in China to feed the greedy consumer in the West meaning Europe and North America. We don't want to upset them do we? We need their money don't we? We need the Chinese to invest in the West. We need their money to help build our facilities in the UK. The last thing that we want to do is to upset them on the matter of animal welfare. This is depressing.

Search results on PoC for "cosmetics".

This is a cross-post with the main website.

Goldfish Handbag

Here is a goldfish handbag photographed at the Brit Awards:

Comment from one FB visitor:

Cruel maybe next time someone could put her in a plastic bag and carry her around,see how she likes it!!!

What has this got to do with cats? It is about attitude. If celebrities do this to animals it devalues animals and encourages people who admire celebrities to treat animals as accessories and inanimate objects.

That mentality can then be carried forward to how we relate to the domestic cat, which translates to a lack of respect and lowering standards of cat caretaking.

Goldfish handbags are bad. It has been manufactured by a person who has no scruples with regard to animal welfare. The person carrying it has the same lack of scruples and concern. They are more concerned about standing out and being noticed.

As for goldfish, we are just learning that fish feel and remember more than we realised. One day fishing will be seen as cruel.

PETA list of companies that test on animals

If you click on the link below you'll be taken to a list of companies that test on animals. I would hope that animal advocates take the time to read the list. However, it is difficult, I believe, to avoid buying products on supermarket shelves that have been involved in any way with animal testing because, firstly, there is a plethora of products and secondly, you don't know which manufacturer is ultimately responsible; meaning the umbrella company.

APOLOGIES FOR THE INITIALLY WORD BLIND TITLE WHICH HAS BEEN UPDATED (TWICE)!

Photo by Understanding Animal Research - original photo.

You might read that the manufacturer is a smallish company but it may well be owned by one of the big multi-national companies such as Colgate-Palmolive who do animal testing. I believe they contract it out but ultimately they are responsible for it.

In addition, most consumers in a supermarket are in a hurry to do their shopping and get home. Well, at least the men are!  However, the only way to have our say albeit with an almost insignificant effect, is to reject products which have some connection in their manufacture to animal testing. If everyone made a minute impact it would amount to a big impact.

Please click on this link to see companies that do animal testing one way or the other.

Associated: Animal testing for cosmetics. Sales of animal tested cosmetics are banned in Europe.

Live Kittens Fed to Snakes

Yes, live kittens are fed to snakes as a regular diet. Sounds gruesome. Do we care? This has been brought to my notice by Gahame, a regular visitor of PoC. He picked it up on the internet. People advertise "kitten free to good home" and Mr Macho Man with his large snakes rings up...that is it. He convinces the irresponsible cat owner who has allowed her cat to breed that he is a suitable candidate to provide loving lifetime care for this little vulnerable kitten. As soon as he has collected the kitten and returned home, he joyously chucks it into the snake's enclose and watches. You know, kittens put up less of a struggle than puppies which makes them popular with these horrible people. But puppies are used as well.

I seems that the normal snake food is raw prey type food that has been bred, pre-killed and frozen and then sold (mice, rats, rabbits etc.). But for some people this sort of food is not good enough. It has to be live for these macho monsters and Craigslist is an excellent source as it is probably the world's largest, online, free advertising agency.

There are probably lots of ads for cats on Graigslist although I read somewhere that at one time they prohibited the advertising of cats on their website. Is this still the case or have they relaxed their rules? Graiglist is a USA based website. This problem seems to be more prevalent in the USA than elsewhere. Americans do have a penchant for keeping exotic pets. This includes tigers etc. See Joe Exotic's story.

In the UK it would have to be animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to fed live kittens to snakes as it must cause unnecessary suffering.

The whole thing disgusts me. But the snake owner will say, what is the problem? There are too many cats without homes that have to be killed at cat shelters because no one wants them. And live mice are fed to snakes and it seems few people find that objectionable. We eat rabbits, cows and sheep etc. What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Is declawing a cat cruel?

Some people think declawing is cruel and some people don't.  The thing is this: the declawing of cats only happens in one region, North America - the USA and Canada. Many countries would consider it animal cruelty under their animal cruelty laws. I am referring to European countries.

In the UK if a veterinarian declawed a cat for the convenience of the cat's owner the vet could be prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for animal cruelty (section 4 Unnecessary suffering would be applicable amongst other sections I suspect). It just does not happen in the UK. No one considers it as an option. It is not in the mind. Most people have not heard of it, probably.

On that basis alone we have to conclude that declawing cats is cruel. How do you define cruelty? The dictionary definition is: "causing pain or suffering".

On that simple definition cat declawing is cruel because it is a very painful operation despite painkillers which are given these days. In the past pain killers were not given sometimes as I recall reading somewhere. The idea was to make sure the cat did not put pressure on her paws to prevent re-opening the wound. Now that really is very cruel.

It is not just the physical pain associated with amputating the last joint of the ten toes of the forepaws (sometimes all for paws are declawed though). There is good evidence that some cats suffer psychological pain too. Unfortunately it is hard to obtain solid scientific information on this sort of subject.

Cat and Animal Rights

I am continually surprised at the strong and contrasting views of people on the matter of cat and animal rights. I include cats separately in that phrase as they are my particular area of concern. The astonishing thing is that these diverging views often come from people who love animals equally.

Take, for example, cat breeders. They are all (perhaps not all) up in arms about HSUS's 100 point agenda that has been submitted to the new US administration. HSUS see a chance for real change. They supported Obama in his campaign and want pay back. They probably know that Obama is animal friendly expressed in an almost opposite way to former president Bush whose policy seemed to go against animals and animal rights despite proclaiming his fondness for dogs. Breeders are forming up for a fight to the bitter end to prevent any change in legislation that takes away their inalienable property rights. That is their rights over their cats (and dogs). It is surprising the number of cat breeders who see an increase in animal rights as a decrease in their rights.

Why should an increase in the rights of a cat be against their rights? They should be in harmony. The false perception comes from human kinds arrogance in his/her belief that he/she is superior to other animals and can ultimately do as they please with other animals no matter how much they proclaim that they love them and would do anything for them.

I'll be discussing the HSUS 100 point plan later.

Cat and Animal Rights to Cat Intelligence

Cats Animal Testing

This is a follow up on the other 2 posts on animal testing that I have made. It is so easy to forget about the cruelty of animal testing as it is out of sight ("out of sight out of mind"). The concept of out of sight out of mind pervades all we do.

For example, we can't see pollution from second hand cigarette smoke. Sure you see it being released from the cigarette, but at low levels when it is gradually released from objects where it has been sitting for along time, it is impossible to see it. If we can't see it, it doesn't exist, almost.

Research indicates a lot of damage done to passive smokers. 30,00o people in the UK die of passive smoking every year. Think what it is like in the poorer countries being targeted by the cynical cigarette manufacturers.

So if we can't see cats being used in animal testing experiments, we forget about it. That's why I am posting some photographs with the permission of the person who has copyright. All the photos are copyright Brian Gunn IAAPEA. The objective is to put the issue in front of us to remind us.

The cat in the picture with the mask below was kept blinded by the mask (that you can see) for 6 months. I presume to see the effect that it has on the cat psychologically. Wicked cruelty.

Large companies such as the largest consumer products company Procter and Gamble conduct "product safety research". Nice one P&G. P&G are the parent company of Iams pet food.

There is hard evidence that Iams are conducting or paying others to conduct animal testing. Iams is a respected cat food manufacturer or that is the image they portray.

Note:

1. I know of no connection between Iams or P&G and the images on this page.
2. I do not condone violent protests against animal testing
3. I admire those brave souls who spend time to protest peacefully

I have to be cautious as Procter and Gamble are huge and with their muscle they could sue me off the face of the earth :). However P&G apparently admit that they do use cats (and of course other animals) in product research. A part of their website is dedicated to their arguments as to why they feel they need to use animal testing.

Humane Society of the United States® is working in partnership with P&G to I presume minimise and eliminate the need for animal testing. If you were a cynical pain in the backside such as me you might think that P&G had donated a large sum of money to the Humane Society of the United States to give credibility to their argument that they are doing their level best to find alternatives to animal testing. I am not saying that P&G did donate a large sum - this is supposition only.

The only reason why companies do animal testing is to allow them to make more profit. We the consumer don't need more products. In fact we need less products, less possessions and more thought and proper actions.

Animal testing then is carried out in the name of commerce. This is still the case if the products are ultimately beneficial to mankind. The profit element is the first objective, always.

Making profits is fine it what makes the world tick. But it can tick a little slower for me if it means no animal testing. It would take longer to introduce the products and they may be less good but so what. The trade off is enormous.

The picture of the cat with what appears to be broken legs on the right at the bottom of this posting is in fact a cat that has legs that have been deliberately deformed by humans to see the effect this has on him. Wicked.

My mind turns to Gandhi again, who was the master of effective non-violent protest.

Here are some of his sayings courtesy All Great Quotes

"Non-violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed"

"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty"

Cat Trespassing

Cat trespassing can be irritating or worse for some people. I used to live in a bungalow with a garden and my darling Missie who was killed on the road outside the bungalow used to go next door. The next door neighbours didn't like it and I can understand that as he was a keen gardener. Cats can make a bit (but only a bit) of a mess in a garden sometimes. He simply made some noise and she came back.

What if he had put in place deterrents that caused injury to my cat? In the UK there are one or two things that can be done although the law is a bit of a mess on this. It is also untested.

The Occupiers Liability Act is designed to protect anyone who is injured as a result of the negligence of the occupier of the building or land. So for example, if I visited a persons house at Christmas and his staircase collapsed and caused injury, the person who occupied the house could be liable in negligence (the tort of negligence) and be required to pay compensation.

The liability extends to trespassers. A trespasser can, it seems, include your cat. For trespassers the duty of care is a little tighter. If the occupier knows that there is a danger and that your cat may come into contact with that danger and the risk is one that you could have provided protection against then the occupier could be liable.

Obviously if the occupier takes deliberate steps to deter the cat the test above is satisfied. Clearly if the human keeper of the cat accepts the risks knowing they exist then that would be a defence for the occupier of the property.

The best course of action is to take steps to avoid the problem occurring through preventative measures and dialogue. The rights of humans (your neighbour) is as important as those of your cat.

If you were forced to litigate on this expect a bumpy ride and an expensive one if you used a lawyer. Although this might fall under the small claims process. I would doubt if anyone would sue under this act in reality. It is too problematic. In general people accept that there is little that can be done in law against "trespassing" domestic cats. The answer is in dialogue. In North America, neighbors occasionally kill trespassing cats. That is cruel and against the criminal law in the UK.

Thanks to the author of the book Veterinarian Notes for Cat Lovers (for bringing this to my attention)

Photo copyright Paul Watson reproduced under Creative Commons

Cat Fur

Allegedly cat fur is being produced in Belgium under the noses of MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) while the MEPs proudly declare that there will be a ban on the importation (mainly from China) of cat and dog fur into Europe generally starting 2009. Several countries in the EU already ban the importation. Although how effective it is, is another business.

The UK can't even control immigration so how will it control the importation of fur that is misleadingly labeled?

The alleged farming of cat and dog fur in Belgium (Brussels) is not news (it was announced over a year ago) but it needs to be pushed out over and over again if things are to change. The apathy of the European Parliament in banning cat and dog fur is highlighted by the fact that the US banned it in 2000. And to allow the fur trade to thrive on the doorstep of the European Parliament is an insult (the preparatory meetings and complementary, non-plenary sessions of the Parliament take place in Brussels) to us all.

It would seem that for some time dogs and cats have been going missing from the streets of Brussels and Ghent. People have lost their pets. Of course they aren't sure how but there is circumstantial evidence.

There is also some hard evidence in the form of a videotape of a fur traders discussing the business made by the Humane Society International (HSI).

There is a lack of will to change things. It will change slowly. Far too slowly for the 2 million cats and dogs that are brutally killed in China alone.

It is alleged that the cats are skinned alive to ensure the fur is of better quality. I'd like to do the same to the people who are doing this to see how they like it.

The photographs are to grab attention are not illustrations of the brutality carried out on cats and dogs (obviously you can't get photographs of cats being skinned alive). They are (top) copyright Urtica and (bottom) flashman reproduced under creative commons.

The fur in the top picture may come from a feral cat but probably not and the blood in the bottom picture comes from a human.

Cats and Creationism

"In my humble opinion, non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good" - Gandi

Evil means: Morally bad or wrong; wicked; Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful. Evil is normally accompanied by intention to do wrong or a disregard for doing wrong.

I think that it is inherently wrong (perhaps evil) to conduct experiments on animals and for me, most particularly on cats, although I treat all animals the same.

Cats apparently are used for neurological research. More then 25,000 were used in the USA in year 2000. More than 50% suffered pain and or distress. I refer to animal testing on Safari cats (a tamed wild cat of great distinction and presence) in my website Pictures of Cats on this page. These wonderful cats were "tested to destruction" (as are cars in their manufacture).

I believe that we should do our best to improve the amount of contentment in the world. That means for ourselves as that improves the overall level of world contentment and for others. As I have said by "others" I means all fellow animals including human animals.

A lot of people agree with animal testing. Who are these people? If we know who they are we may be able to understand why they think like that. One thing is for sure, people who condone animal testing must think that humans are "special" or different from animals. This allows them to cause pain on an animal in the interests of the "special" human. In other words if the person causing pain on an animal knows he is causing pain then he must think that it is a reasonable "trade off" in the interests of benefiting mankind.

In other words he decides to impose suffering on a fellow creature on the possibility (and it is only a possibility) of alleviating suffering in humans. In a way he is playing a being a kind of god, with the right to make such a huge decision.

This thought process is dependent somewhat on the evolution of mankind in that as we become more civilised we begin to realise and understand better. Think for example of the kind of punishment handed out to criminals. We used to do terrible things to convicted criminals. They now have rights equal to non-criminals (although some say the pendulum has swung to far).

Think also of modern research about fellow animals. We now know that monkeys have better memories than university undergraduates and can do simple maths calculations better than undergraduates. We are only beginning to understand the cognitive abilities of other animals.

One such group of people who a likely to believe that they are superior to cats and other animals are people who call themselves Creationists. They believe that the earth was created by a god as described in the Bible. In other words they disagree with Darwin's theory of evolution. Why? Because they don't like the idea of being descendants of the apes. It is just too horrible a thought to contemplate.

For me these people are too arrogant and full of themselves to be open to the prospect of being one removed from an ape. There is also a substantial degree of ignorance in many. A toxic combination of arrogance and ignorance (of the emotions and pain caused to animals through animal testing) lead people to do this.

I am not though saying that all Creationists are evil or harm animals; just that these beliefs could lead to the harm of animals if the other conditions are present (ignorance and arrogance)

There is one more driving condition: commercialism. Animal testing is conducted by large companies and it is expedient to test on animals. It would cost more and be slower to test in another way.

Expediency and short-termism is a condition of mankind. Back to the Gandi quotation. We should not buy products from companies that condone animal testing. In that way we exercise peaceful non-cooperation to effect change.

...more to come.

Photographs of pie chart and graph copyright cpurrin1 under creative commons

Cats in Animal Testing

"Latest figures show Animal Testing is up overall by 3.2% to 12.1 million in 2005. This includes 3,600 Cats. This is despite European Commission and member state's individual promises to reduce and replace the use of animals in experiments."

This comes from an email circulated amongst a Yahoo Group. I am not sure if this relates to Europe or worldwide. Either way it's a large figure. Animal testing has to be fundamentally wrong.

I know it can be argued that for certain kinds of research it could be justified. Research into life saving drugs being an example. However, even for this kind of research it presupposes that we (as human animals) are more important and more valuable than other animals, which justifies killing other animals to save the lives of human animals. That just doesn't sound correct to me.

But it does sound correct to many people. The world is still pretty basic in its thinking. In 1000 years we will look back at 2007 and think that we were barbaric just as we do now we we look back 1000 years.

All animals are equal. All have a value and all should be respected in exactly the same way.

If we as humans want to prolong our lives through drugs that need to be tested lets do the tests on ourselves or in a purely scientific way.

If there is an argument at least that testing on animals might be justifiable under certain circumstances, if it is for the improvement of cosmetics it is frankly totally immoral and it makes me sick to think about it.

"CoverGirl is one of the largest U.S. brands to conduct animal testing but Procter & Gamble contends that they have discontinued animal testing with respect to about 80% of their products worldwide." (Wikipedia - this is not copyright material).

Shame on them, I say. Those of us in Europe should write to out MEPs in http://www.europarl.europa.eu. I know this takes time and it's a pain and we think it won't do any good. (I've just done this, its easy to do).

Here are two quotes from the great man that may encourage you:

In my humble opinion, non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good.

Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.

Mahatma Gandhi

These saying inspire me to do the right thing. What about the 3,600 cats that were used for testing purposes? Apparently Iams (the pet food manufacturer) and Hills test on cats and dogs and cause suffering to these animals. Read more about this here

We just don't think about animal testing. It's hidden away. We are too busy; too self concerned. We have to be to survive. We should though give back a bit if we can. We hold the lives of cats in our hands. We have an obligation to act responsibly.

Cats domesticated themselves some 9,500 years ago. We accepted that. We have a "social contract". This means an unwritten contract implied from actions that governs how we treat each other. We are in breach of that contract and we should be ashamed.

Photograph reproduced under CC copyright Daveybot (flickr)
Figures from an email from Tony on Yahoo Group Benagal L
Ghandi quote from All Great Quotes