The Animal Welfare Act 2006 - Case Study Example

A Discussion Regarding Animal Law Given situation: Robbie is a children's entertainer and attends children's parties doing magic tricks. He has a pet chinchilla, Zak, which he uses in his show. When Robbie is working, Zak will accompany him and stay in a small traveling box. The children's parties are very noisy and there is a usually a loud cheer when Zak 'miraculously' appears in the empty magic box. Zak shows signs of stress during the parties. When at home, Robbie has a cage for Zak in his spare room and Zak is given daily food and water but little attention or stimulation. Zak has had a bad eye infection for three weeks. His eyes are red and watery and his eyelids are inflamed. The skin around his eyes has become sore through constant scratching. Robbie rubbed some antiseptic cream around Zak's eyes when he noticed the infection 14 days ago but has taken no further action since.  Robbie owns a pig which he is planning to kill for food. He keeps the pig in a wooden hut which has a concrete floor, wooden walls and one small window which Robbie keeps covered up. The hut is empty except for the trough for food and drink. There is a thin layer of old hay on the floor. When Robbie is away from the house he secures the pig to a rope tether inside the hut for extra security. The pig is given fresh food and water each day. Once it reaches its optimum slaughter weight, Robbie will arrange for it to go to the local abattoir.  QUESTION 1 (Explain whether Robbie has committed any offences in his treatment of the chinchilla and the pig.) The above situation shows us a typical example of animal cruelty. Some may comment that this is not so because both the chinchilla and the pig are given food, water and shelter. But even with such provisions there were some factors that this guy, Robbie, took for granted in taking care of these animals. Whether the animal is kept as a pet or for future food, it does not mean that proper care should be taken lightly. One needs to research or even seek professional help (i.e. Veterinarians) to find out how to take proper care of animals. Regarding Robbie’s situation and how he took care of his chinchilla and his pig, he committed a number of offenses according to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 under the section regarding Unnecessary Suffering. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is stated that a person commits an offense if an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer. It is also stated in this act that an animal’s needs shall be taken into consideration such as the following: the need for a suitable environment, the need for a suitable diet, the need to be able to exhibit normal behavioral patterns, the need for proper housing conditions, and the need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease1. Robbie committed such offenses in one way or another even though he made sure that some of the basic need for his chinchilla and pig were provided. Some may ask why this is so which leads us to study this particular situation. Let us first consider Robbie’s chinchilla. Robbie uses Zac in his shows as part of an entertainment or better yet, an entertainer. Robbie’s shows usually occur during the day since his audience consists of children. Although chinchillas are active and playful, they are nocturnal creatures and are most active during the night2. Robbie’s use of Zac during his shows disrupts this poor creature’s natural behavior. And not only that, the noise in these children’s parties is a major cause for stress to the poor creature. In fact, one should know that chinchillas should be placed in a quiet place. As a pet owner, you need to know which things causes stress to your pet so that you can avoid these things. The offense he committed here is that he did not provide a suitable environment for his pet and the normal behavioral patterns of his chinchilla was greatly disrupted. There is also the fact regarding the cage for his chinchilla. Proper housing conditions were not followed which is another offense for Robbie. Chinchillas are said to be active little things. With this, they need a cage large and roomy enough to contain the energy they have for exercise and play. A minimum space requirement of 2 feet by 3 feet by 2 feet is needed for a cage provided for a chinchilla3. Robbie puts Zac in a small cage which limits his space probably just enough for him to rest and eat. In doing this, Robbie is depriving his pet of a proper shelter that Zac needs which is an area large enough for Zac to have play and exercise and avoid boredom or the chinchilla’s part. Also, with such a small area for a cage, he is not providing his pet a housing/shelter with proper ventilation since it is just a small and cramped area. Then, we come to the fact regarding Zac’s health. We all know that in caring for a pet or any animal for that matter, we should take into consideration that proper health care is also given. With the above situation, although Robbie showed a bit of concern regarding his pet’s eye problem, he did not follow through into making sure that his pet got well. He did not even seek veterinary attention. This is negligence on his part as an owner. Robbie’s negligence caused his pet unnecessary suffering. Zac’s health conditions could have been properly cared for if only Robbie took the liberty to give his pet proper veterinary attention. The act of depriving an animal of proper veterinary care is also a form of animal cruelty. On the first onset of the infection, Robbie should have sought veterinary help. The reddening of his pet’s eyes should have alarmed him that something was wrong and that his pet needed to be checked. It is not enough that he applied some kind of antiseptic cream once. If Robbie was a good pet owner, he should have took care of Zac’s problem right away, and nursed him back to health and not just neglect him after applying antiseptic cream once. Even then, he should have brought his pet to a veterinarian for proper care and treatment. It is always better to seek professional help than just rely on what we know as pet owners. That is what veterinarians are there for in the first place. Aside from the above-mentioned, Robbie did not even make time or effort in his pet’s grooming. He may have thought that providing food, water and a place to rest would do it for a pet. But this is not what pet ownership is all about. This is another offense under the Animal Welfare Act which since he failed to provide the necessary needs for his pet. What he needed to know as a pet owner is that there are specific needs for different pets. Just like cats needs scratch posts and scratch pads to file their nails, chinchillas also need chew toys to keep them entertained and keep their teeth short and healthy. And not just that, a chinchilla owner also needs to provide a container for a chinchilla’s dust bath wherein they clean themselves by rolling in the dust to get rid of excess oil and dirt from their fur4. These are just some of the considerations in keeping a chinchilla that Robbie neglected. When caring for a pet, one should consider giving a home with conditions, almost, if not similar to the animal’s natural habitat. One should also make an effort in finding out or researching on the kind of pet they want to take care of. Most of the time, providing food, water and shelter are not enough. There is what you call as proper living conditions for specific animals, provision for exercise and a lot more of things to consider depending on what kind of pet you have. One should make an effort with regard to being a pet owner because pet ownership is a tasking thing. Then we come to Robbie’s pig. Studying the situation at hand, Robbie did well in providing fresh food and water daily for his pig. But he somehow failed to pass the right provisions for the pen or shelter for the pig. Yes, he provided a place for the pig to stay with concrete floors and a thin layer of hay for the pig to sleep in, probably. Yet, a thin layer of hay would not be enough to provide warmth to the animal. Also, the hut where he placed the pig does not have proper ventilation which is much needed because the hut only had one small window. One small window would not be enough to provide proper ventilation. Proper ventilation promotes comfort, productivity and good respiratory health for an animal. Also, proper ventilation promotes optimum air circulation so that diseases will be prevented5. Again, as was the case with his chinchilla, provision of proper living conditions was not given for the animal. Also, the there is the manner of how he secures the pig when he leaves the house. He would still secure the pig in a rope tether when he is out. He does not need to tether the pig to a rope inside the hut for extra security. Yes, his purpose in doing this is understandable. He just wants to be assured that the pig would not get away. Yet this is another example of unnecessary suffering for the animal. Unnecessary because it can be done that he can leave his house and he need not place a tether on the pig since it is already inside the hut. He just needs to secure the doors so as to prevent the pig’s probable escape and in return save the animal from the discomfort of being tethered to a rope. The above statements would clearly explain what kind of offenses Robbie has committed. QUESTION 2 (By reference to at least two authors critically analyse the ethical theories relating to Robbie's use of the pig as food.) Now we come to the issue revolving around the idea of Robbie’s raising his pig for future consumption. The idea of raising and then killing pigs for human consumption attracts a lot of debate. In fact there are theorists and ethicists debating on the use of animals for food. Some are extremely against the idea of raising animals for human consumption which gave birth to animal rights activists who promote the idea of being vegetarians such as the organization called PETA for example. What is ethics by the way? Ethics is a way or philosophy in which how to live by. It is a philosophy that asks us how we should live our lives and how we should do good and right to each other6. In other words, it can be described as our way of living morally. According to the theorist/ethicist, Tom Regan, just treatment for animals is a requirement. Animals should be treated in a way that is the same as humans are treated. He believes in the intrinsic worth of animals. He believes in the fact that animals, just the same as human beings, have feelings, desires, expectations and memory. He believes that because animals have life just as we do, they also deserve the same rights as we, humans, do. It is Regan’s belief that if we are to act morally, then animals are not at our disposal to use as we choose7. He believes that an animal’s worth as a living creature should be the same as humans. Regan supports Animal Rights and he is considered as one of the most influential in the Animal Rights Movement. Aside from the above overview on the concept of animal rights in Regan’s point of view, it can not be avoided that truth is animal and human interests are not always the same. Thus, a number of animal rights have been made. Such rights are the following: The right to live free in the natural state of their choosing. The right to express normal behavior (food searching, grooming, nest building). The right to life (not be killed for human food or other human use). The right to reproduce (pass on their genes to the next generation). The right to choose their own lifestyle (not be coerced into experiments or used as entertainment). The right to live free from human induced harm (hunger, thirst, molestation, fear, distress, pain, injury or disease)8. Then there is also the theorist Peter Singer. He does not really consider that animals have inherent rights like Tom Regan. Yet, both their theories have similar ideas. He sees human and animals in different perspective but believes that animals should be treated humanely. Unlike Regan, he does not impose that treatment of animals and humans should be the same. We just have to take into consideration their nature of being9. But then, he is against animal exploitation and killing animals for human benefit, like food with regard to Robbie’s pig. Singer’s theories on animals are one with the Utilitarian Theory. There are a number of theories revolving on the issue of animal welfare. Such theories can be divided into three different categories such as the following: a.) Indirect Theories which include Religious theories, Kantian theories and Cartesian theories, b.)Direct but Unequal Theories which is the people’s account on the moral status of animals and c.)Direct and Equal theories which include Utilitarian and Animal Rights10 The above mentioned theorists belong to the third group, the Direct and Equal theories. Tom Regan, as we said earlier, is a very influential man in the Animal Rights movement. On the other hand, Peter Singer’s theory is a bit similar with Reagan’s except that he does not support Reagan’s equal right with animals and humans. For him, there is still distinction between man and animals. Let us now elaborate a bit on Animal Rights and Utilitarianism. Regarding Animal Rights Theory, this is a theory that points out animals being sentient creatures. The argument within this theory is that if humans deserve right rights because we experience emotions, we can feel pleasure and pain, and that we have memory and are able to learn, then so does animals. This is so because animals are also capable of the things that were pointed out11. It I just like saying that every living thing have equal rights and we should keep in mind to respect the rights of such beings as we should give respect to our fellow men. The concept revolving Animal Rights also have three different levels of division. These levels can be distinguished by these basic views: Absolute, Equal and Relative. Absolute animal rights states that you should always protect animals' rights, even when doing so is troublesome. This first concept explains how animals have intrinsic values that should not be taken for granted. Consideration of equal animal rights would then mean that equal treatment and importance should be given between animals and humans. Animals should be treated well and humanely. One should consider the idea that if you do not want pain to be inflicted on you, then you would not do the same to an animal. Lastly, there is what you call relative animal rights which explain the concept that you should overrule the interests of animals if you have good reason. This means that if an action is justifiable, then the interest of humans will come first over the interest of the animal. Such would be the case if you kill an animal for food in order to survive, if survival is the case at hand. This goes to show that the welfare of humans is more important. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is somewhat similar to the Animal Rights Theory but still different. Utilitarianism still gives importance to the rights of animals yet it favors what we call as the morally good situation. This theory is concerned on choosing the action with which the outcome that would be for the greater good of the majority12. But how do we differentiate animal ethics from animal rights? Both ideals are the same in a way yet still different. When we talk about animal ethics, it somehow incorporates animal rights yet it has a broader scope such that it has a number of categories and a number of theories under it. Also, animal ethics is somehow a philosophy on the proper way of treating animals and still resolving moral human-animal issues. As for animal rights, it centers on sentient animals and giving these animals rights and respecting such rights. It is more on being a branch of animal ethics which asserts the use of animals for human gain to be morally wrong. Even the use of animals for food or human consumption is not accepted. Then there is still animal welfare which is another thing. If animal rights considers inflicting pain to animals is morally wrong, with animal welfare it is stated that we should not cause animals unnecessary pain. Animal welfare sort of supports the idea that an animal can be used for human gain as long as it is done in a humane way and that it did not cause an animal unnecessary suffering. It supports the usage of animals for he benefits of humans as long as it is for a justifiable cause. As with the case of Robbie’s pig, if we base it from the animal rights theory, using the pig for human consumption is morally wrong. It does not matter that Robbie is giving the pig the necessary provision for it to live if in the end he would still kill it for food. Raising the pig for food is not respecting the pig’s rights and is therefore a violation to animal rights. No matter how humanely the killing will be done, in the animal rights point of view, it still violates an animal’s basic interest which is to live. For those supporting the animal rights theory, their idea is that if an individual believes that an animal has rights and he respects these rights, he would not eat animals and would therefore become a vegetarian. Animal rights teaches us that there are certain things that are wrong as a matter of principle. It teaches us that there are some things that are morally wrong to do to animals. Yet, if we see the situation given in the animal welfare point of view, his raising the pig for food is not wrong as long as it is done in a humane way. What his violation with regard with animal welfare would be that he failed to comply with the necessary provisions that the pig needed and that he caused the animal unnecessary suffering with the way he keeps it locked up in the hut. Conclusion: A lot of issues have revolved regarding animal welfare and animal rights. It has been years that different laws have been made and different issues of concern have been brought up all revolving around the issue on animal welfare, animal rights and animal ethics. Laws have been made and changed. A lot of people have been involved in either studying and making such laws or trying to fight for the rights of animals both pets and livestock. But even with all these issues and laws, what really is important is how we treat the animals around us. We should keep in mind that animals also have rights whether they are pets or not. And these rights should be respected. It does not mean that just because an animal is to be used for food then we can neglect its basic needs such as comfortable living conditions. Animals should not be neglected and abused by using them as a means to entertain people. Animals, although not comparable to humans with regard to intelligence and values, are also living beings which have feelings. They, too, can feel pain and fear just as we do that is why we need to treat them well. Then, there is also the part regarding pet ownership. Yes, a lot of people have pets at home. But everyone should consider that being a pet owner is not as easy as it seems. Good pet ownership is not simply having a pet, feeding it and providing it with a place to stay. One should consider that have a pet comes with great responsibility, almost the same as having a baby. This statement might shock some of you, but yes, this is true. Pet ownership does come with great responsibility. Why? Well, there are a lot of things to consider. Before obtaining a pet, one should consider what kind of pet he/she wants to acquire. Then one must consider the place that he lives in if it is convenient for having pets around and if it has room enough for a pet. Of course, provision for food and water is a must. Then, one should also consider the time that he can spend with his pet. Yes, you will need to have time to play with your pet, have it groomed and cleaned, and, of course, take it to a veterinarian for proper medical and health care. One should keep in mind that having a pet requires not just time but money and effort as well. So, if you are not keen on any of the above considerations, then being a pet owner is not for you. It will only lead to you have violated a number of animal rights and ending up doing different animal cruelty acts and committing a number of offenses. You may commit such offenses unconsciously especially if you did not ask and research first on what the right things to be done are when having a pet. It may be the same case as with Robbie. He thought that providing food, water and shelter was enough for the animals that he was taking care of. He did not take into consideration the other specifics in taking care of his chinchilla and pig. Bibliography: Anastasi, D., 2008. Chinchillas: A Guide to Caring For Your Chinchilla. California: Bow Tie Press. Animal Welfare Act 2006. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ Kirkiewicz and Broomhead, 1998. CHINCHILLA (Pet Owner’s Guide). England: Ringpress Books. Klober, K., 1997. Storey’s Guide to Raising Pigs: Care/Facilities/Management/Breed Selection. Massachusetts: Storey Publishing. Pohl, A.D. 2005. Ethics of Animal Use: Current Theories. http://clacc.uchc.edu/ACC/Ethics/EthicsCurrentTheories.htm Regan, T., 1985. The Case for Animal Rights. California: University of California Press. Regan, T. and Singer, P. 1989.  Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice Hall. Roder-Thiede, M., 1999. Chinchillas (Complete Pet Owner's Manuals).Baron’s Educational Series. Salt, H. 1894. Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. London: G Bell & Sons. Singer, P., 1975. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. New York: New York Review/Random House. Singer, P. 1986, Applied Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . Read More