Laws on domestic cat breeds wild cat species and animal rights law enforcement

New Zealand

As expected New Zealand has very comprehensive animal welfare legislation. There is a long history of good animal welfare legislation in New Zealand. As at 1999, the Animals Protection Act 1960 had been in force for some 40 years. As times had changed and in order to make amendments to include better legislation governing the export of animals from New Zealand (a major part to the economy) the government introduced the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Act) which also updated the animal welfare law generally to reflect “.. changing practice, advances in scientific knowledge and shifts in societal values”³.

The purpose of Part 1 of the Act is to ensure that people who own animals “take all reasonable steps…to ensure that [they] attend properly to the welfare of those animals.” A person who has charge of an animal is obliged to “to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animals are met” (section 10). The terms are wide and they need guidance. Section 4 defines how to interpret, “Physical, health and behavioural needs” in Part 1. This is one of the core elements of the legislation. In short New Zealand has animal welfare legislation that is the equal of any other of the top nations on animal welfare. The next question is, “how well is it enforced?”.

There is no information on that as far as I can tell, but I would expect the same standards as found in countries such as the USA and the UK. The Act covers all aspects of animal welfare, is wide ranging and the penalties for breach of section 10 (referred to above) are a maximum of 12 months imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $50,000. This is inline with the UK. Update 14th August 2011: They declaw cats in New Zealand when they think they have to.

Turkey

At 2010: The story here is one of decent animal welfare legislation but a lack of will to enforce it underpinned by a culture that seems not to be ready to treat animals in a way that is civilized. The Turkish government has a history of being influenced by the military. This is not conducive to good animal welfare. There would also seem to be a culture that does not respect animals. That is not to say that there are not many individuals in Turkey who respect animals and who fight for their welfare and protection. It is the authorities who lack will, direction and the proper moral code. See the verbatim legislation. See a page on Animal Welfare Law in Turkey – this expands on the above overview.

Notes – to be expanded

It worth making the point that a lot of law is common law. Common law is law that has evolved over time through the decisions of judges on a case by case basis in creating precedent. Case law refines Statutes. And some common law is the originator of the law. A classic example is the law of negligence in the UK. Of course contract law is very much based on common law. When a contract is drawn up on the sale of a cat for example any dispute will be resolved by reference to the express terms as clarified by common law and the terms implied by statute. This is only one example. There is a basic tenet that underpins a lot of the law in relation to domestic cats. This is that they are in the eyes of the law no different to an inanimate object that one might buy in a shop. In old fashioned language domestic cats are regarded as “chattels”.

This dictates the level of damages in a breach of contract claim. If one buys a cat from a cat breeder and subsequently a right to claim compensation for breach of contract arises, the connection that has been built up between human and cat is not in the equation when damages are calculated. It is a cold calculation of financial loss flowing from the breach of contract. This concept of a cat being an object is carried forward to areas such as criminal damage.

If someone in an act of criminality kills our cat it is considered “criminal damage” and the person could (but rarely if ever is) be prosecuted in the UK under the Animals Act 1971. The criminal concerned would be prosecuted in the same way if he had deliberately damaged our car, for example. Conversely, in the UK, if a person acts irresponsibly and allows his cat to cause damage to property or injury to persons they could be held responsible under the Animals Act 1971. In the UK responsibility of “ownership” of cats is also governed by Planning and Environmental law. Cats occupy houses as being incidental to the occupation of the house by humans.

If the number of cats in a household is too high this may signal the need to apply for a change of use of the house under planning legislation. The is also the thorny issue of nuisance. An action for nuisance can be brought under the common law tort of nuisance or under local authority law in the UK. A large number of cats poorly cared for could constitute a legal nuisance to neighbors (see cat hoarding) This rather outdated approach that cats are objects is reflected in the recent large and nationwide pet food recall in America. Compensation for the deaths of the many thousands of cats and dogs was calculated on economic loss only, namely for such items as veterinarian’s bills and loss of work time (see cat poison updates). From a legislator’s standpoint, in the USA cats have no value beyond their replacement value. From the standpoint of millions of people who keep cats this is patently wrong.

The true value is often immeasurable and far more than the financial value (price if bought). I believe that a fixed level of compensation needs to be formulated to pay respect to the pain and suffering caused by the loss of relationship between domestic cat and human. The intention, over time, is to find live examples of criminal law, the tort of negligence, the tort of trespass, contract and more; to see how these overlap and to clarify if needed. There is a lot of international law in respect of wild species and their protection. The big issues here are not whether there is law but how to enforce it and get commitment to complying with it. There is also a Universal Declaration of Animal Rights but is it worth more than a hill of beans? Are there valid arguments against animal rights?