Austria enacts strict animal rights laws

Austria enacts strict animal rights laws

WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, May 27, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(05-27) 08:33 PDT VIENNA, Austria (AP) --

Austrian lawmakers on Thursday approved one of Europe's toughest animal rights laws, a measure that forces farmers to uncage chickens and bars pet owners from clipping their dogs' ears or tails.

The law, enacted by a unanimous vote in parliament, outlaws the use of lions and other wild animals in circuses and makes it illegal to restrain dogs with chains, choke collars or "invisible fence" -- devices that administer mild electric shocks.

Those found guilty of animal cruelty would be subject to fines up to $18,000 in extreme cases.

Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel hailed the law as a "pioneering example" for the world on how to respect animals, and said he would press for similar legislation across the European Union.

more... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/27/international1133EDT0557.DTL

One point for humanity.

Fantastic news. I only wish the U.S. would have even a smidgen of that kind of integrity on this issue.

But I have to wonder about this:

illegal to restrain dogs with chains, choke collars

So, if you're taking your dog for a walk/run you can't restrain him with a dog chain? I'm confused.

should only be used during training, i.e. under complete supervision, this is also stated in many training books. The choke or slip chain is very dangerous. The fierce looking German style collar, the links can be unhooked if it gets caught and starts choking the dog, the American style slip collar has to be cut with hefty cutters. I know from experience, when a dog playing with another dog that had a slip collar on got its' teeth tangle in the collar and was choking the other dog. Fortunely a big hefty worker with cable cutters was nearby and saved the dog.

I was able to teach my dog to heel so easily with it.

it works, but people have to be willing to repeat the lessons a few times a day for at least 15 mins. and then everyday after behavior is learned for about 10 minutes a day.
The slipchains used at Westminister aren't the steel thingies but I wish they would publized how dangerous the slip chains are and that the AKC ban them.
Gentling works with a very high percentage of dogs and horses and cats watching (and smelling) a dog getting a liver treat learn to sit very well by imitation (kibbles don't work for cats), more difficult than for a dog to get a cat to down.
Voice and hand work well for many dogs (not all, especially types like Terriers which are very stubborn) but takes a lot of patience and daily repetition.

gentling takes longer but is more effective in the long run when bribery isn't available.

Ummmm, many handlers at dog shows including Westminster use show chokes, which are just a finer version of a regular choke chain and they can be made out of steel, nylon, or leather. Also, what responsibility is it of the AKC's to ban choke chains? The AKC is an organization to preserve and promote the sport of purebred dogs, not an AR watchdog group. People should be allowed to use whatever collar they see fit on their animals.

to come when called, sit up and beg, give a high five, etc. He loved the process,and NO abuse of any kind was involved. Dogs can be trained to do amazing things with clicker training-even so called "untrainable" dogs. Go to www.clickertraining.com for more info.

but choke collars are VERY VERY necessary for the training for a large pup! I even believe that electric fences and collars are pretty necessary in some cases too. Some dogs need more severe discipline. A disciplined trained dog is the happiest dog you'll ever know. They need it and want it!

Now if they are talking about chaining them to a tree with a choke collar, then i agree.

Halties and gentle leaders work.

The no-pull harness, which I bought over ten years ago and can't find anywhere in stores now, was the best $30 I ever spent. Worked just like it was said to, the first time. Why humans think that the best way to discipline a dog is to put it in what it sees as a life-threatening position first-off is beyond me. My parents never choked me when I acted out.

Probably 80% or greater discipline problems are originate with the owner of the animal.

Seen WAY too much tragedy from choke collars, because most morons leave them on all the time. Most poignant example was two chow pups playing who got their teeth tangled in the other's collar and were found by the owner. One died a few others later, the other died the next day.

And there have been many, many hangings because of these collars. Heard recently of a dog that bent down and got the ring hung between two boards on the owner's deck, and was dead within minutes. Any time I see one on a dog which is not in training I tell the owner the above stories and ask the owner to remove the collar.

people think that pulling does it. It doesn't. The dog gets use to the pull and will even start coughing and ignore the pull. The technique with a so-called choke collar is to let the pull, release, command, pull, release, etc. a constant pull teaches the dog nothing.
Large breeds are usually less hyper and train easier, so no need of so-called choke-chain force (German Shepards are willing to learn for the sake of pleasing you, most Terriers don't give a shit, however if a rat almost the size of a fox terrier attacks you (another real-life experience) and bites through the rake handle) one does want a stubborn disobedient Fox Terrier by their side, but ware, terriers are prone to kill the cat, etc. if bored and and not faced with hereabove challenge ....
You have to know your breed of dog and your dog.
The so-called German choke chain where the links can be opened easily get through thick hair so the dog with thick hair feels a gentle pull-release-pull-release of training.

If only it would ! (Thanx for the animated cat graphic Kadie, it looks just like my Lucky!)

But I will fight such idiocy however I can.

Animal rights = my enemy.

or are you just joshing? (the word "joshing" always makes my friend Josh laugh)

Yikes

...George W. Bush said "Won't that make things harder for that 'Crocodile Hunter' guy?"

:-)

:crazy:

I wish our country had that much empathy and sanity.

America has so many ignorant barbarians we can't even make sure human prisoners under our care aren't choked by leashes.

I wish we'd wake up and stop torturing our brothers and sisters, we are all connected here,all the four legged ,scaly,and two legged varieties.

but with a 'leader' like chimp in office it's a ways off before this country cares about anything but money. :-(

The EU had better put invisible fences on Austrian politicians.

And what about medical research with animals?

However this goes way beyond anti-cruelty. This is AR rhetoric made into a law.

Remember? Haider? Extreme RW. :puke:


As to animal protection, Germany has even included it into the constitution recently - not that there is much effect as soon as money comes into play.

I don't think the animals care about the political leanings of who put these laws on the books. They are not going to say "I'm a liberal, so just go ahead and beat me."

I'm pretty impressed that in Germany it's illegal to euthanize healthy animals.

I don't know the makeup of the parliament, but it might give rise to more liberal ideas than the Haider/Waldheim bunch

The conservative/neo-Nazi coalition in the Austrian Parliament has an absolute majority.

So how do you keep your dog in your yard then?

Tethering dogs can make them aggressive and pretty useless.

Invisible fences don't work half the time, the dog will sometimes just take the shock, plus they don't protect the dog from other dogs that come into my yard, which a friend of mine learned the hard way when her "invisibily fenced" dog was killed by another dog. I also had the displeasure of treating a dog once (when I was a vet assistant) who had been attacked by a dog. He was tethered to his dog house and couldn't get away, although he drug his dog house 30 feet trying to. I was told to put him in the bathtub, find the wounds and clean them, and I found several on his underside big enough to put my fist in. He was dead by the morning.

This is so great it is beyond words to describe.
Animals deserve rights- if it takes extreme measures to provide them rights then let this be a major first step to allow it to happen.
The rest of the world may follow.
It ain't gonna happen with small baby steps!!
Yes YES YES !!
Go AUSTRIA !!!

Animals have no concept of rights and the rights the AR movement wants to apply are completely arbitrary anyway.

This law is ridiculous and overboard, but I suppose it means Austria will just be importing even more of their food than they do now.

Humans are animals. To deny "animal rights" is to deny "human rights."

ALL living creatures have the right to be treated with respect, and allowed access to the food, water and shelter that they need to survive. All creatures deserve to be spared needless pain and/or abuse.

We have a special obligation to domesticated animals because we have changed their genetics over the centuries, and now are incapable of living "normal" wild lives. They depend on us, as we depend on them. To treat them without consideration for their needs and comforts amounts to something like child abuse.

We are the dominate species on earth, that makes humans responsible for the well being of the others, it doesn't allow us to be selfish, cruel despots. That would be a really immature attitude.

So, does that include the animals that are displaced, maimed, and killed for your daily living?

Yes, it includes all the animals that I impact negatively by my life.

I have made efforts to live a cruelty free life as much as I can.
I donate to animal protection causes. I do all I can do on an individual level to mitigate the damage my species does. I also strongly support efforts on the collective level as well.

If you know better, please educate me.

Hmmm....what do you mean that you make efforts to lead a cruelty free lifestyle? If you mean you buy so called "cruelty free" products, I've got news for you. EVERY product approved for use on or by humans has been animal tested. Companies can legally use the "cruelty free" or "not tested on animals" labels if they: 1. Use compounds that have previously been tested. and/or 2. Contract with a different company to do the testing for them. Medications and medical equipment is continually lot tested as well to assure purity and quality.

If you are also eating a vegetarian/vegan diet in an attempt to be "cruelty free", well, ever hear of collateral deaths? http://wwwagcomm.ads.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

Shall we also discuss the home you live in, the car you drive, the clothes you wear, the energy you use, etc. etc. etc. etc.?

has nothing to do with denying human rights. The whole concept of animal rights is about limiting the actions of human beings, in the sense that all animal rights legislation consists of limits on what humans can and cannot do with animals. Any other kind of law would be pointless, because you can't very well give or take away freedom of movement (for example) from an animal since it can't understand what its being given. What you can do is remove the right to restrain animals from human beings. Now certainly, in some cases, such legislation is not only welcome but necessary. However, what concerns me is that human beings should be able to use animals for medical research and similar - i.e. I am concerned that where animals do have to be harmed in order to save human lives, that legislation is not introduced to stop this. Because if we start holding an animal life as equivalent to a human life, then we are not pro-animal, we are anti-humanist.

Best news I've heard in months.
Bravo Austria!

I've been very lucky with my invisible fence. We invisibly fenced in 7 acres of land and our dogs run free all the time. The dogs were subject to two weeks of training with professional handlers using memory imprinting. They deliberately invite the dog to cross over the fence line. When the dog feels the shock, the handlers train the dogs to automatically run back towards the house where they receive a reward. The dogs are conditioned to associate reward and safety when they cross over the line and are rewarded at the doorstep.

I can't say enough good things about the merits of installing an invisible fence. Because of the success of my experience, the invisible fence company has installed at least 15 more IFs in the neighborhood. No one, to my knowledge, has been dissatisfied with the freedom of their dogs and the reliable operation of the IF.. I'm aware that 'do it yourself' installations are available at local pet stores at a greatly reduced price. But if you expecting successful results with your dog, the professional training is worth the extra fee because it is the key element in training your dog to respect the IF and enjoy the freedom he has elsewhere on your property.

OTOH- reading the posted article..invisible fences are outlawed in Austria as well? That-- I do not understand.

not so much because of the laws currently enacted, which I don't much care about, but because it will be used as a precedent to attack medical research and experimentation on animals.

How would this affect medical research?

I don't see how a ban on vanity surgery for pets affects medical research.

And, as long as we are talking medical research, why are animals needed for testing?
Isn't it a form of cowardice to force another being to try something you aren't willing to try yourself? There are usually people more than willing to try experimental drugs. If the research behind them is valid, the risks should be minimal. Why imprison animals to do it?

as for why we need animals for medical research - because with diseases like Parkinson's and Alzhaimers, we can't exactly lobotomize 100s of people until we get things right. I have no problem with limiting animal testing where it isn't necessary, but in a lot of cases it still is. In any case, I would rather a hundred mice died than one human being.

Would you be willing to take an experimental compound without knowing the risks? Would you allow a loved one to? Would you care to be experimently infected with a disease so researchers could investigate the disease mechanisms or test a new treatment? How 'bout that loved one being infected?

Animals are needed for testing because it is the only way to advance science. Animals also provide good models for various human conditions and the reactions of a complex living system cannot be duplicated through computer simulation or cell culture (which is animal derived anyway, but I digress). Animal testing is also REQUIRED by law for any new compound approved for use on or by humans...any compound, be it drug, cosmetic, cleaner, etc.

http://www.armyths.org/
http://www.fbresearch.org/animal-research-faq.htm
http://www.ampef.org/
http://www.simr.org.uk/

schuessels conservative party (which was the "party of the farmers", but won the re-election by becoming more and more like haiders neofacist "freedom party") has announced a new animal rights law in the kronenzeitung(*) a few days before the 2002 elections.

because of conflicts with the farmer-lobbies, the discussion about a country-wide animal rights law took them many many years, and now they're trying to sell this as an success. and of course this law does not conflict with the farmers interests, it DOES NOT prohibit cageing chicken, it only says there has to be a small minimum room for every chicken, and even this only by 2007. the green party has heavily critisized the new law. don't know why this should be international news.


(*)the kronenzeitung is a very racist, sometimes even holocaust-denying daily newspaper which is read by >50% of austrians, in fact it is comparatitve the most-read newspaper worldwide (!). one of it's main focuses is love for cute little dogs and other animals and hate for immigrants and so called "wannabe-good-people" ("gutmenschen").

please excuse my english, i'm not completely awake atm

*and of course this law does not conflict with the farmers interests, it DOES NOT prohibit cageing chicken, it only says there has to be a small minimum room for every chicken, and even this only by 2007.*

I just read in a recent issue of Consumer Reports that American poultry farmers can actually call such chickens that have a minimum of space and access to fresh air (they don't actually have to be let outside) free range chickens. Bad enough they're allowed to debeak them and stuff them in a slot for their entire lives and not tell anybody about that who doesn't go digging around for the information, but even the ones they're allowed to call free range in this country are (or at least hypothetically are allowed to be) treated badly. Even when you try to do the right thing, the corporations and their lobbyists will make goddamned sure you can only do so much good. Wouldn't want to step on Tyson's profits by actually selling people organic or true free-range animals that taste like something, would we?

so Austrian animals can now expect a level of respect
that human beings in prison, in Iraq and elsewhere, can only
dream about.