If animals have rights?

Back in 1987, 21 members of the European Community signed Strasbourg "European Convention for the Protection of Pets". Our country is still only considering the possibility of accession to this Convention. European Convention for the protection of the rights of pets Preamble Member States of the European Council signed the following: - consider that the aim of the European Council is to achieve full consent among its members; - to recognize that a person has a moral obligation to all living beings, and take into account that pets have a special connection with a person; - consider important the contribution of pets to improving the quality human life and their significant value to society; - reckon with the difficulties that arise in connection with the large the variety of animals that live with man; - take into account the risk arising from crowding of indoor animals, for human hygiene, health and safety and other animals; - to consider that the maintenance of representatives of the wild fauna as pets should not be encouraged; - recognize the various conditions that govern acquisition, commercial and non-commercial breeding, placement and trade in pets; - recognize that pets are not always kept in conditions conducive to their health and well-being; - note that the attitude towards pets is very varied, sometimes due to lack of knowledge; - consider that the development of common standards in relation to room animals that increase the responsibility of owners is not not only desirable, but also a real chain. Chapter 1. General Provisions Article 1. Definitions 1. A pet is any animal that which is or will be contained by a person, in particular in your home, for your personal convenience and enjoyment. 2. Trade in pets means regular business transactions in reasonable amounts, in which pet owner changes. 3. Commercial breeding means breeding animals within reasonable limits mainly for profit. 4. Animal shelter means non-profit an establishment where pets are kept, in particular homeless. 5. A homeless animal means a pet, who does not have a home or is outside the boundaries of the property its owner and is not under the control or direct supervision of the owner or person responsible for the animal. 6. Competent authority means the authority designated country of the European Community to comply with this Convention. Article 2. Scope and conditions of performance 1. Each party shall take the necessary steps to fulfillment of the terms of this Convention in relation to; a) pets kept by a private person, or kept for sale, breeding, or kept in shelters; b) homeless animals in countries where this is possible. 2. The signing of this Convention will not affect the implementation of other treaties for the protection or conservation of animals under threat. 3. Nothing in this Convention shall affect the freedom of the Parties to take stricter measures to protect pets or apply the provisions contained in this Convention to categories of animals that were not specifically mentioned in this document. Chapter II. Principles of keeping pets Article 3. Basic principles for ensuring well-being animals 1. No one should hurt a pet, suffering or anxiety. 2. No one should give up their pet. Article 4 Content 1. Any person who keeps pets or looking after them is responsible for their health and well-being. 2. Any person who maintains or looks after animals, provides them with a comfortable room (place) and takes care of them, considering depending on the species and breed animal their environmental needs in particular; a) provides sufficient quality feed and water; b) provides an opportunity for walking; c) take all measures to prevent the animal from escaping. 3. An animal cannot be kept as a pet if: a) the conditions of paragraph 2 above are not met; b) if, despite the observance of these conditions, the animal does not can adapt to adversity. Article 5 Breeding Any person who selects pets for breeding, should be responsible for the anatomical, physiological and behavioral characteristics that can threaten the health and well-being of the offspring and the mother. Article 6. Age restrictions on the acquisition of animals A person under the age of 16 may not purchase any room animal without the consent of parents and persons having parental rights. Article 7. Training No animal should be trained in such a way that it harmed his health and well-being. Especially it is unacceptable to force an animal to exceed its natural abilities or strength, as well as the use of auxiliary agents that may cause injury, pain, suffering, or animal anxiety. Article 8. Trade, commercial breeding and overexposure animals, animal shelters 1. Any person engaged in commercial breeding or trade in pets, also containing a shelter for animals at the time of the entry into force of this Convention in within a period of time determined by each party, should notify the competent authorities. Any person who wishes to engage in one of the above activities, must also declare their intention competent authorities. 2. The application to the competent authority must indicate: a) the type of pets that are handled or planned to do; b) responsible person and his special training; c) a description of the premises and equipment used or will be used. 3. The above activities can only be carried out: a) if the responsible person has special knowledge and abilities required for this job, or as a result professional training or sufficient work experience with pets will acquire the necessary knowledge and preparation; b) if the premises and the equipment used correspond to the requirements of Article 4. 4. The competent authority determines, on the basis of the application, made under the terms of paragraph 1, compliance with its terms, set out in paragraph 3. If the conditions are not adequate, special events are recommended, and if necessary for animal welfare, start and continue such activities are prohibited. Article 9. Advertising, entertainment, competitions and similar Events 1. Pets should not be used as advertising, to participate in entertainment, exhibitions and similar events if: a) the organizers did not create appropriate conditions for pets in accordance with the requirements of article 4, paragraph 2; b) there is a threat to the health and welfare of pets. 2. It is forbidden to give any substances, carry out treatments or use devices that increase or increase decrease in the natural characteristics of the animal: a) during the competition; b) at any other time when it may endanger health and welfare of the animal. Article 10 Surgical operations 1. Surgery to change appearance pet or other non-medical purposes must be prohibited, including: a) cutting tails; b) circumcision of the ears; c) voice change; d) removal of fangs and claws. 2. An exception to this prohibition (paragraph 1) may be done only: a) if the veterinarian considers non-curative interventions necessary for the animal according to veterinary medical indications or for the benefit of the animal itself; b) to prevent reproduction. 3. Carrying out the operation: a) operations in which the animal experiences or may experience severe pain, should be carried out only under anesthesia by a veterinarian or under his supervision; b) operations in which anesthesia is not required, can carried out by competent under national law face. Article 1.1 Killing 1. Only a veterinarian or other competent person may kill a pet, except emergency circumstances, when it is necessary to stop suffering of an animal, and a veterinarian or other competent the person cannot be invited quickly or in other emergencies circumstances provided by the national legislation. Every killing must be done with minimal physical or mental suffering according to the circumstances. Chosen method killing, except in exceptional cases, must: a) cause immediate loss of consciousness and death, or b) begin with deep full anesthesia, accompanied by a shock that will eventually cause death. The person responsible for the killing must ensure that that the animal has died. 2. The following methods of killing must be prohibited: a) drowning and other methods of strangulation, if they do not cause the effect required in paragraph 16; b) the use of any toxic substances or preparations, the dose and route of administration of which cannot be controlled, to give the effect referred to in paragraph 1; c) cutaneous application of electricity, if this is not preceded by loss of consciousness. Chapter III. Special measures for stray animals Article 12. Downsizing If a Party considers that the number of stray animals poses a problem, it must take appropriate legal and/or administrative measures necessary to reduction in numbers in a way that does not cause animals of inevitable pain, suffering or fear. a) such measures should include the following requirements: - capture of animals must be carried out with causing them minimal physical or mental suffering; - the keeping or killing of captured animals must conducted in accordance with the principles set out in this conventions; b) The parties must consider: - cats and dogs must be identified by appropriate ways, with the subsequent registration of their numbers, as well as names and addresses of owners; - reduction of unplanned breeding of dogs and cats by carrying out castration of these animals; - stimulation of the search for stray dogs and cats and information about it to the competent authorities. Article 13. Exceptions for catching, keeping and killing An exception to the principles proposed in this Convention on trapping, keeping and killing stray and homeless animals, can only be done within the national disease control programs. Chapter IV. Information and education Article 14 Information and educational programs Parties should encourage the development of information and educational programs to promote awareness organizations and individuals involved in the content, breeding, training, trade and overexposure of indoor animals, on the terms and principles of this Convention. In these programs, particular attention should be paid to the following moments: a) the need to prepare animals for commercial chains or competitions by persons having the relevant knowledge and capabilities; b) the need to dissuade: - give pets to persons under 16 years of age without the consent of their parents or persons having parental rights; - give pets as a reward, prize or premiums; - unscheduled breeding of pets; c) the possibility of negative consequences for health and welfare of wild animals if they are purchased as pets; d) the risk of irresponsible acquisition of pets, as this leads to an increase in the number of animals from which refuse. Chapter V Article 21 Reservations 1. Any State may at the time of signature or deposit instruments of ratification, approval or agreement of the Convention declare that it reserves the right to one or more reservations to Article 6 and Article 10 paragraph 1 c. None no other reservations can be made. In chapters V, VI, VII, articles 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 The Convention stipulates the conditions for signing, ratifying, denunciation and notification of this document. The convention was signed by: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Northern Ireland, Germany. Material provided Olga MIRONOVA

(C) Magazine "Friend" 1996 - 6

What is the level of animal rights in Russia? Are our smaller brothers really protected from violence and cruelty? We will talk about this, as well as how this area of ​​law developed in Russia, below. We will learn about animal rights and what happens when they are violated.

Idea

Animal rights in Russia is an idea of ​​the equivalence of the needs of animals and people, which exists all over the world. This idea arose a long time ago, but it received official status and support at the legal level relatively recently. Animal rights activists have different philosophical points of view on this issue, but they all agree that our smaller brothers cannot be considered private property and simply used for human needs. This refers to the use in the entertainment industry and in scientific experiments. Thanks to the efforts of human rights activists, many animal rights in Russia have been legally enshrined.

History of formation

In the 19th century, new directions of entertainment, taken from the life of Western Europe, developed in the Menagerie in Tsarskoye Selo. From an early age, they tried to instill in kids from aristocratic families a love for animals. In the Menagerie one could see llamas, elephants, swans, ducks, roe deer, hares, etc. The animals lived in spacious and comfortable conditions. Children visited the Menagerie, but they could not take the animals in their arms, interfere with their existence. Gradually this practice became more and more popular. An active construction of parks began, in which rich residents could keep their animals. It should be understood that this was not entertainment, but rather care. The animals were provided with all the necessary conditions. The features of their natural environment were studied to create the most comfortable conditions. Even Emperor Alexander I himself kept his 8 old horses in St. Petersburg. By the way, they were participants in the Napoleonic campaigns. Two royal horses were involved in the funeral procession of the emperor - the mare Atalanta and the gelding Tolstoy Orlovsky. After some time, Nicholas I continued the custom of caring for elderly horses.

In 1829, an architect named Adam Menelas created the Retirement Stables. It was here that the old royal horses lived out their lives. It is known that for a horse named Beauty, an inscription was carved on a stone, which said that the animal served the Sovereign for 24 years. This marked the beginning of the horse cemetery. However, it is not known what happened to all this after the revolution.

Rollback

In the 1930s, society again took a step back on the issue of animal rights. Horses and greyhounds were deliberately destroyed, as they reminded of the hated nobility. The doctrine of materialism spoke only about the fact that animals can be considered as resources and goods.

Current position

The protection of animal rights in Russia is still an open question. This is evidenced by numerous surveys of the population. Approximately 40% of citizens sincerely believe that animals should not have any rights. About 10% of the population is not interested in this problem, while the rest believe that there should be animal rights. According to the laws of the Russian Federation, animals fall under the general property rules, since nothing else is provided. At the same time, cruelty to animals, which is contrary to the principles of humanity, is completely unacceptable.

In the winter of 2016, a proposal appeared on the international website to introduce the position of Commissioner for the Protection of Animal Rights under the President. A little later, the author of the petition, Kristina Akchurina, posted a translated version of the appeal on a Russian website. In the spring of the same year, this issue became the most discussed on the website of the program of direct communication with the President. The spokesman also confirmed that the Kremlin is aware of the idea. In May 2016, more than 140,000 Russian citizens voted in support of Akchurina's petition.

opinions of famous people

There are animal rights organizations in Russia, but their activities are very limited. Regional organizations help those animals that they can help. All-Russian and international organizations are doing much more, but as long as there is no separate article about animals, all this activity is not enough.

It is impossible to disregard the opinions of many famous people. Here, too, points of view differ. A well-known hunter and member of the Moscow State University Commission on Bioethics, A. Weissman, believes that there are no grounds for enshrining animal rights in Russia at the legislative level. He actively opposes this, considering animal rights activists to be people who are illiterate in biological and environmental matters. The well-known animal advocate and singer E. Kamburova, with the help of her friends and all those who are not indifferent, in 2007 was able to fulfill her dream: the Sympathy monument, which is located at the Mendeleevskaya station of the Moscow metro. It is dedicated to the murder of a stray dog ​​named Boy in the subway. He was killed by a 21-year-old girl, the owner of another dog. She was declared insane and sent for treatment.

In the winter of 2010, well-known cultural figures (S. Yursky, E. Kamburova, I. Churikova, A. Makarevich and V. Gaft) suggested that the authorities introduce the post of Commissioner for Animal Rights in Russia. This action, unfortunately, was not carried out just like that. The reason was the mass shooting of dogs in the capital, which caused a vivid and varied reaction from the public. Some figures, for example, the writer and publicist D. Sokolov-Mitrich, believe that there can be rights where there are duties and responsibility for one's actions. Animals cannot be held responsible for their actions. One of the RIA Novosti observers, Nikolai Troitsky, believes that this action is groundless and stupid, since stray dogs pose a real threat to people.

Law on the Protection of Animal Rights in Russia

In various articles you can find references to animals. There is protection of animal rights in Russia if they are treated inappropriately or cruelly. It is also forbidden to mutilate or kill animals. Animal rights law in Russia punishes those who abuse them. Yes, while there is no law that would separately fix the rights of animals, but at least the offender can always be punished legally.

Protecting animal rights is the cause of people all over the world. You can treat our smaller brothers differently, you can not love, not start at home, but at least we are obliged not to interfere with their existence and not cause harm.

“The greatness of a nation and the degree of its spiritual development is determined by how this nation treats animals” Mahatma Gandhi.

In all EU countries The rights of cats and dogs are protected by the 1987 Convention for the Protection of Animals from Cruelty. In Europe, there is a complete ban on testing cosmetics on animals, and it is also prohibited: docking of the tail, ears, removal of claws. In some countries, you cannot leave a dog locked in a car on a sunny day - the interior heats up quickly and the dog may suffer from heat stroke. The policeman who sees this must break the glass and may fine the owner of the dog. There are no homeless dogs in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. In these countries, there is a traditionally high level of control (registration, licensing), extensive legislation, as well as social responsibility of the population. The neutering program in these countries is applied to street cat populations.

NETHERLANDS: There is animal rights law. Ban on the use of wild animals in the circus (since 2015). The first country in the world where there are absolutely no homeless animals anymore! To achieve this, they did not destroy them. This was facilitated by 4 major changes:

• Introduction to animal rights;
• High taxes on pets and, as a result, a balanced approach to getting them;
• Strict and harsh punishments for mistreatment of animals (for mistreatment of animals, a prison for 3 years and a fine of 17,000 euros);
• Mass sterilization of animals is mandatory.

NEW ZEALAND: officially recognized in April 2016 that all animals are sentient beings. Those people who cruelly treated animals are being persecuted. Research and experiments on animals are prohibited. Any hunting and trapping of wild animals is illegal.
GREAT BRITAIN: The first law to protect animals from cruelty was passed in 1822. Shortly after Great Britain, animal protection laws were adopted in most European countries.
The British Parliament has granted rights and freedoms to 7 million dogs, 8 million cats and cats, 650,000 horses, 2 million rabbits and non-countable poultry that inhabit the British Isles. The law provides for tougher liability for animal owners for violating the law: from heavy fines to imprisonment.

GERMANY: became the first state in the world where the rights of animals have been protected by the Constitution since 2002. In Germany, the profession "Animal Defender" is recognized. Some points:

• • Animals are kept under the condition of their obligatory licensing;

• • There is a pet tax. The tax amount is usually 100-150 euros per year. The tax for the second and subsequent dogs will be 200 -300 euros, regardless of the size of the animal. Taxes on cats are substantially less;

• • There is a system of state shelters (financed from the state budget), which are supervised by local branches of animal protection societies. All of them work on the principle of "unlimited reception";

• • Animal rights activists attach great importance to the education of the population in the correct and humane treatment of animals. Animal protection school lessons, conducted under the auspices of animal protection organizations, have been part of the compulsory school curriculum for about 20 years;

• • The state, together with animal protection associations, is trying to convince people who want to buy a dog or cat, so that they opt not for a thoroughbred animal, but for a mestizo;

• The landlord cannot require the tenant to immediately get rid of the pet, if at the time of signing the lease there was no prohibition on keeping cats and dogs in the house. And even in houses where keeping animals is prohibited, residents have the right to bring and keep cats and dogs "as guests" for three months.

ITALY: For an abandoned cat or dog - criminal liability: a year in prison and a fine of 10 thousand euros. Euthanasia of healthy animals is completely prohibited.

In Turin, dog owners who take their pets for walks less than three times a day face a fine of up to 500 euros.
It is forbidden to dye the fur of pets in different colors and apply “different injuries” to them solely for aesthetic reasons, such as tail docking. Regulations concerning the protection of animal rights in Turin take up a whole brochure of 20 pages, in particular, in the city it is forbidden to sell goldfish in plastic bags.
The authorities of the Italian town of Reggio Emilia have issued a law that obliges you to pamper, groom and cherish your cats, dogs and birds in every possible way. For insufficient display of mercy, a fine of up to 500 euros.

AUSTRIA: it is considered a crime:

• • keeping chickens in cramped cages;

• • tying livestock with tight ropes.

• • It is strictly forbidden to use wild animals in circuses;

• • you can not keep the dog on a chain, collar-stranglehold or use the so-called "invisible fence" in the yard, which shocks the animal if it crosses a certain line.

• • It is forbidden to keep puppies and kittens in stuffy shop windows. Violators of the law face fines ranging from $2,000 to $15,000;

• The authorities also reserve the right to take the animal from its owner.

SPAIN: for the first time in the world equalized the rights of man and animals.
In 2008, recognized the right of every great ape to life, freedom and protection from cruelty. Now in Spain, monkeys cannot be considered as objects of private property, experiments on monkeys, keeping them for circus and television programs are prohibited, and living conditions in zoos have been seriously improved. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this decision for the development of environmental ethics and the worldwide struggle for animal rights against hunting, circuses, fur farms, vivisection, sport fishing and other shameful medieval barbarism. Now a similar bill is being lobbied in a number of other countries, and in addition to monkeys, it already talks about dolphins and a number of other highly organized animals.
INDIA: became the first country in the world to recognize the rights of dolphins. Dolphins should be considered as "persons of non-human nature" with the right to be considered individuals. Ban on dolphinariums and keeping dolphins in captivity. In addition, India became the first country in South Asia to ban animal testing of cosmetics and ingredients.

SWITZERLAND: Europe's leading state in the field of animal rights. In 2008, the Animal Rights Act was approved. The law regulates in detail the treatment of wild and domestic animals. From now on, they are no longer equated with things. It means that:

• during court proceedings, the interests of the “smaller brothers” will be taken into account, for example, when dividing property in court in a divorce of animal owners.
• if until now a dog or cat was simply valued at their market value, now the judge has the right to give them to the former spouse with whom, in his opinion, the animal will be better off.
• if a four-legged friend was injured due to someone else's fault, then the judge may oblige the culprit to pay for treatment at the veterinarian, even if these costs exceed the value of the animal.
• in the event that a claim for the recovery of debts is filed, it is prohibited to confiscate pets in payment of the debt.
• if someone finds a lost animal, he is obliged to inform the owner of the animal or the competent authorities. But if after two months the owner does not show up, then the animal becomes the legal property of the one who found it and gave it shelter.

BOLIVIA: in 2009, it became the first Latin American country to pass a law banning circuses with domestic and wild animals, as such a practice is cruel to representatives of the fauna. It is forbidden to use even pigeons, dogs and horses in circuses. Violators will have to pay a fine, and the animals will be confiscated. The trainers were given time to move them to their natural habitat.
Negotiations are underway with Peru and Colombia to introduce a similar rule in these countries as well.

CZECH: if the townspeople call the “hot” line and report that they see a lonely dog, then the service for catching homeless animals is called and the dog is sent to a shelter. There it is checked whether the animal has a chip or a tattoo, where its number is indicated. If yes, then the search for the owner begins, if not, then the dog remains in the shelter, and its photos are posted on the Internet pages of the city police. So the dog is looking for a new owner or finds an old one.

USA: The situation with homeless animals is still difficult. But the "Sterilization of Animals Law" has been passed, according to which all animals that have owners must undergo surgical sterilization. An exception is made only for dogs-champions and winners of exhibitions, police and guide dogs, as well as animals used by breeders. Failure to comply with the law was punishable by a fine of up to $ 500, a negligent owner can be sent to forced labor for up to 40 hours. Also, you cannot have more than 9 animals.

GREECE: The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 2012. Some points:

• • Euthanasia of healthy animals is completely prohibited;

• • The exploitation of animals for recreational purposes is prohibited;

• • Chipping of all animals. Microchip database administered by the Ministry of Agriculture;

• • Registration with the municipality of a pet costs 3 euros, this money goes to the fund for programs for homeless animals;

• • Advertisements for the sale (or gift) of a pet without a microchip are prohibited;

• • In case of loss of a pet (with a microchip), the owner must report it within 5 days;

• • In accordance with EU legislation, free sterilization of stray animals is allowed;

• • A person can give away a pet that no longer wants or is unable to keep to the municipality (the municipality has shelters and funds for the maintenance of animals);

• • The prosecutor has the right to seize pets and prohibit the purchase of animals in the future by people who are convicted of cruelty to animals. The prosecutor also has the right to control nurseries and animal shelters in the presence of complaints from citizens;

• • Cruelty to animals is punishable by imprisonment for up to 1 year and a fine of up to 15,000 euros;

• Theft of animals is punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a fine of 3,000 euros.

Animals take care of each other without having anything in common
with rights. The concept of "right" was invented by people and does not apply to any other creatures. Why are we talking about animal rights then? The answer is simple: animal rights are human rights needed to set boundaries for people. If we do not set a limit to human boundaries in the treatment of animals, in a legal form, then we cannot also hold legal liability for violation of these boundaries by other people.
Animals are more vulnerable creatures than people with more power. People who violate the interests of animals should be brought to justice in order to answer for what they have done.

Aspects of.

• Various ways to express love for animals.
• On what basis should animal rights be recognized?
• Some points fall outside the legal framework of animal rights.
• Is there a starting point that fits?
• Animal rights are something other than animal welfare
• Does the right to freedom, as a fundamental law, work if some violate it?

See also:

• Isn't the possession of animals, in fact, contrary to the right to freedom?
• Animal rights protection must be financially attractive.
• All animals have the same right to quality.
• Should all forms of unfair treatment of animals be banned?
• 5 types of freedom that cattle are entitled to

Various ways to express love for animals.

People treat animals very differently:

• Most people who love animals keep them as pets.
• Many who love animals consider them delicious food and eat them.
• Some people who love animals become sexually aroused from animals.
• How many people out there love animals, leave them alone, or let them go?

How we should treat animals and what rights we recognize for them belongs to the field of ethics. Albert Schweitzer has already said that the foundations of ethics should be based on compassion. No rational starting point can convince enough people that animals have rights, even if they agree that an animal has inherent dignity. Without compassion, law will not turn into legal action.

The concept of animal rights can be interpreted in quite different ways. Some would like to retain the right to kill animals for consumption or sport. Others deny themselves the right to accidentally kill even the smallest animal. How this is related to each other will be discussed in this article.
Fundamental rights are unconditional, so it is important to articulate them carefully. It does not matter whether the wording is positive or negative.

On what basis should animal rights be recognized?

It would be desirable to hear the answer to this question from the animals themselves, but, unfortunately, you will not get an intelligible answer from their side. They can only, indirectly, express their protest against mistreatment. And so the answer to this question must be given by the people themselves and for the people.
The points taken as the basis of animal rights are:
inner dignity, well-being, respect, freedom, (self) interest, natural behavior, equality, compassion, etc. Many of these points seem quite acceptable, but on further consideration, especially in relation to specific, practical situations, less real. Below we will consider the acceptability of each individual item.
For clarity in application, we must clearly articulate the starting points that form the basis of animal rights.

Applied starting points:

1. Animal rights must be formulated in such a way that they can be used both practically and legally.
2. Animal rights apply to each individual animal: wild animals, livestock, domestic animals, mammals, and also insects.
3. Animals are so different from each other that one must reckon with their specific nature.
4. Animal rights apply to people and should be able to be called upon by people to help. Animals cannot keep obligations.
5. Death occupies a special position among animal rights: slaughter, legal hunting by specialists and professional anglers. They should be organized in such a way that the death of the animal is quick and painless, not useless (such as unwanted additional catches or mass liquidations). This also applies to harmful invertebrates, with which it is possible to fight only, only by destroying them.
6. The right of the species exceeds the right of the individual (if an animal or plant is threatened with extinction, then people are forbidden to disturb the life of this species). Also, the type of animal (for example, pigs or salmon) has the right not to be bred or to be caught in an immoderate amount for the needs of export, in which production or catch occurs in fact, due to mass character, by far not the most acceptable methods in relation to animals and not aimed at meeting the basic needs of life.

The current Animal Welfare and Health Act (1992) includes moral vacillation limits when evaluating farm production goals. This is based on the recognition of the intrinsic dignity of the animal and the so-called "no, unless" principle. In this case, the following questions should then be asked when using animals: 1) how important is the goal pursued; 2) is there any other alternative; 3) how seriously the health of animals is undermined.
The first paragraph of section 36 of the Animal Welfare and Health Act 1992 states:
“It is prohibited, without a reasonable purpose, or in violation of what is permitted, to achieve that purpose, to cause pain or injury to an animal, or to impair the health or welfare of an animal.”

In theory, animal rights seem well defined, but in practice "reasonable purpose for humans" is (too) broad. Is the basis for animal law well enough then laid down?

Some of the points fall outside the legal framework for animal welfare.

If we start from the starting point, then several concepts will already disappear: first of all, respect. This is a widely used concept. In this case, it is impossible to give an unambiguous formulation in animal rights. There is no harm in using this concept in this connection, but on the other hand, such a concept cannot be used in the legal assessment of human behavior towards animals: "Madam, we are subpoenaing you about your disrespectful attitude towards your lapdog." Or: "Farmer, you must treat your chickens with dignity."
To respect someone means to keep a certain distance (space or freedom), for example, not allowing the other or the group to condemn anyone (“hang labels”).
In principle, through social control, it is quite possible to point out to people the lack of respect in the treatment of animals (for example, cruel games with live animals or excesses in entertainment shows (stunts with circus animals).

For similar reasons, the concept of "intrinsic dignity" is not acceptable as a legal basis for animal rights. At best, this concept can be applied in the case of rare species of animals, in the sense: "This part of nature must be protected, since there is an animal species that is found nowhere else." In all other cases, this concept means nothing. No farmer can be made to take better care of his pigs on the basis that the animal is spiritually deserving of good care. The farmer takes care of his pigs only as much as he is economically interested in it.

The indirectness and vagueness of these concepts - a tactic in referring people to each other in order to accurately point out to others their mistakes in connection with animal rights, these concepts are not suitable and are not legally acceptable.
You cannot, either, oblige a person to have taste or ennoble him. Though you may call upon them
The second entry point (all animals) is worded in such a way as to prevent separate creation of rules for each animal species. Animals include both earthworms and elephants; fish, but also insects. The formulation of animal rights should contain a certain degree of generality, in which different boundaries of requirements can be formulated for the main animal species. The boundaries of the requirements relate mainly to the welfare of animals.

An example of various developments of such requirements boundaries are:

• Availability of suitable food for the animal: meat (prey) or plant food
• Solitary existence or in a group.
• Threat to human health or public safety
• The size and nature of the natural habitat.

Animal rights should include that an animal, depending on its species, should be able to maintain and express species-specific behaviors. And, also in the case when, due to “harmfulness”, their freedom is limited.
There are 5 criteria (5 freedoms defined by the Farm Animal Welfare Council*) in developing requirements for naturalness or natural behavior:

1. freedom of movement;
2. freedom of obtaining food;
3. freedom of reproduction and population formation;
4. the possibility that every animal and every species of animal may live according to its own character and may take part in the natural cycle in which man does not interfere with (natural) sickness and death;
5. lack of consumption, destruction and violation by man.

* Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC is an independent advisory body that oversees the use, sale, transportation and slaughter of livestock and informs the government of animal cruelty.)

Note: This does not apply to animals that are "fauna" (such as feral domestic cats).

Animals that never enter the water do not need developments in which they are guaranteed enough space to swim. Whale habitat cannot be limited to the size of the pool. Wolves are not allowed to places where the risk of contact with people and livestock is too great.
Livestock requires care, while wild animals, on the contrary, cannot be fed.
As well as environmental pollution and neglect, "fake fauna" and "protection" by exterminating predators or the invention of special diseases must be prevented.

Animal rights is somewhat different (broader) than animal welfare.

If we look at the state of affairs such as (self) interest, the welfare of animals, their intellect, feelings and instincts, etc., then we must come to the conclusion that it is practically impossible to rely on these points. Well-being is a goal, not a starting point, and is located for each kind of animal, both literally and figuratively, in different spaces. Then you will need to answer questions such as: “Do fish have feelings?” or “Are pigs or other domestic animals bored?” “Will the rancher harm the welfare of the cows if he does not let them out on pasture this summer?” These kinds of issues cannot be 100% controlled and therefore cannot form the basis on which animal rights can be based. Conversely, these points apply if we have to put animal rights into practice (based on claim boundaries) or else when we think in terms of precautionary principles, i.e. if we try to avoid violations of this kind as much as possible.

The application of developments in practice will be discussed later, after we determine the best starting point for animal rights, or read the WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals) universal animal welfare statement.
Punishment for torturing animals by causing them pain is provided for by the welfare law, but not passive infliction of suffering by, for example, extreme restriction of freedom of movement. This part of animal welfare violations is not yet regulated by law. Harm to animal welfare is associated with the violation of animal rights, but animals also have fundamental rights when human actions in relation to animal welfare are uncertain. On this point we deviate from the philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), who said that the main question is "can an animal suffer?" The ability to suffer gives the animal, in terms of welfare, the right to equal indulgence with humans, as a basis for compassion, but does not yet lead to animal rights.

Summarizing, we will compile the considered concepts into a diagram. The cells in the diagram will indicate how the various concepts are to be considered in relation to each other. The starting point of the scheme is that animals have rights and that the purpose of recognizing these rights is to guarantee sufficient conditions for their welfare.

An example of how this diagram should be understood is that “emotions” has to do with welfare, but not with animal rights.

It is astonishing to state that the points which have nothing to do with welfare are exactly the points in which animals differ greatly from humans and the points which are related to welfare are practically the same for both humans and animals. Among the main aspects of well-being, there are no fundamental differences between man and animal, and this should be reflected in the recognition of animal rights by man.

Is such a legal starting point possible that would justify itself in practice?

Perhaps the same notion as in human rights, namely the right to freedom, can be taken as a starting point.
Freedom is a paradoxical concept. This means that it is necessary to formulate the boundaries from the beginning to the end of freedom, otherwise, this concept is impractical. To apply the concept of freedom in practice, we must describe everything that is not it: everything that makes the freedom of an animal (to exhibit natural behavior) impossible is contrary to their rights.
Setting boundaries that are valid for both humans and animals, and this is precisely the whole strength of this concept. We can think about the moral limits of animal freedom, but we can also think about the physical limits (like bars).
How the “no, unless” principle will be implemented is easy to imagine: all restrictions on the freedom of animals are prohibited, if, only, a person can prove that, with a certain measure, the freedom to exercise natural behavior remains possible.

The main advantage of freedom is that it is the highest limit of human duty to take care of the rights of animals. When this right to freedom is guaranteed, then the responsibility of a person for further filling disappears.
The right to freedom for animals includes, in general, the ability to exhibit natural behavior. What and how, this animal, subsequently, at its own discretion and "freely" realizes or not, does not matter for the starting points of its rights.

For wild animals, it is sufficient that the natural balance is guaranteed without human intervention in nature (for exceptions, click here). For pets or livestock, it is important to take care that these animals have the opportunity to maintain their natural behavior as much as possible.
What even more includes the right to freedom is also the right to bodily integrity: no unnatural interventions such as beak clipping, castration of piglets, genetic manipulation (breeding is allowed) or extreme breeding (for example, beef cattle, calves can only be born by caesarean section).

The limits which may be established, without violating the right to liberty in general, are as follows:

• sterilization and castration of pets; separate keeping of male and female animals (cattle), in order to limit the birth rate.
• pasture fencing and road barriers.
• euthanasia and abortions in situations similar to people with whom contact is not (more) possible or there is talk of unbearable suffering.

The setting of boundaries for each individual animal species should be the subject of scientific research about animals. The main thing is that we consider freedom as the starting point when looking at animals, which gives us the opportunity to treat animals with respect.

Possible compromises

An important advantage of the concept of freedom is also its applicability to people who disagree with most extreme consequences. Take, for example, someone who thinks that keeping animals at home is wrong because it violates the right to freedom. It is possible to have a conversation with a person who has pets, because we are talking about formulating the conditions that the owner of the animal should and wants to follow. The conclusion of a compromise does not make the concept of freedom unusable, but rather strengthens it.

Another important advantage of this concept is fast controllability. When it is established what exactly the circumstances limit the freedom of the animal, then in a split second this violation can be established, while, in the case of other points (for example, welfare), the violation can be established only by long observation.

Can then freedom still be considered a basic law if some break the basic animal law?

There are two possible interpretations.

• a legal violation that is allowed under strict conditions.
• illegal violation.

Animals slaughtered or fish caught for consumption are also entitled to a quick and painless death. Also, it can be demanded that if someone restricts the freedom of an animal, he must not deprive him of the opportunity to display natural behavior.

Such an explanation increases the chance for wide public recognition and is an understandable appeal to people.

Carrying out the right to freedom as a starting point and to its extreme consequences, putting it into practice, is a matter for the future.

What do you understand by the term "animal rights"?

Animal rights implies that the interests of animals deserve some attention, whether they are beautiful, useful to humans, or have any meaning for people (just like a mentally ill person has certain rights, despite the fact that it often does not bring any benefit, sometimes it is burdensome for others). Based on the foregoing, it should be recognized that animals are not our property, their life itself has value, so we do not have the right to use them to meet our needs. That is, a person should not eat the meat of animals, wear their fur and skin, experiment on them, use them in entertainment.

What is the difference between the concepts<права животных>and<благополучие животных>?

The concept of animal welfare recognizes that they have certain interests and needs, but puts human needs ahead. That is, according to this theory, animals can<приносить в жертву>to a person. Meanwhile, the concept of animal rights implies that the interests of animals should not be neglected or sacrificed just so that a person receives some benefit from it. As noted above, animal rights organizations are trying to lead the public to the idea that a person should not eat.<братьев наших меньших>, dress in their skins, use them for experimentation and entertainment. However, the concept of animal welfare allows all this, provided that it is well kept and slaughtered without pain.

What rights should animals have?

The needs of humans and animals must be treated equally. For example, a dog is certainly in pain, so we should pay attention to this and not hurt the dog. However, animals do not always have the same rights as humans, because some human needs simply do not apply to animal life. For example, a dog is not interested in participating in elections, so there is no need to give it the right to vote. It is as absurd for a dog as it is for a small child.

Where do you draw the line?

The great humanist Albert Schweitzer, who did so much in his life for both people and animals, stooped down every time he saw a worm on a hot road: he picked it up and let it into the moist soil. This man believed that we should solve as wisely and mercifully as possible any moral problem that arises before us in everyday life.

What about killing plants?

Currently, there is no reason to believe that plants feel pain: they do not have a central nervous system, nerve endings and brain. There is a theory that animals are endowed with the ability to feel pain in order to protect themselves. If a person or other living being touches something that causes pain, then he will no longer touch this object. In plants, the feeling of pain would be redundant, since they cannot move and escape from aggressors. The physiology of plants is very different from the physiology of mammals. If a piece of the animal's body is cut off, it will never recover again. However, in plants, most of the lost parts are able to grow back, for example, when picking fruits, a person does absolutely no harm to the plant body. In addition, farm animals eat significantly more plants than humans. It takes 16 pounds of grass, grains and legumes to produce 1 pound of beef, so vegetarians save far more plants than meat eaters.

Of course, you can believe in animal rights, but why tell others what to do?! Now you are talking about it to me!

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion, but this does not always mean the right to freedom of action. You can think what you want, but you have no right to harm others. You have the right to believe that animals can be killed, blacks can be enslaved, etc., but this does not mean that you have the right to implement your beliefs. There are always some laws that govern the behavior and lifestyle of people. There is always a category of people who make adjustments to the social way of life. Largely due to their efforts, people are no longer used as slaves, women and men have the same rights. But, as world experience shows, any progressive reform movement meets with the resistance of people who do not want to give up their habits, etc.

Animals do not understand their rights, why should they be fought for?

A child or a mentally ill person also does not understand their rights, but this does not mean that they should be deprived of their rights. Animals are not able to choose for themselves one or another variant of behavior, but a person always has the opportunity to go in such a way that one can do without harming our smaller brothers.

What is the position of the animal rights movement on abortion?

Members of our movement have different attitudes towards this issue. And the members of the movement<За жизнь>different attitudes towards the protection of animal rights. Motion<За жизнь>takes no official position on animal rights, and the animal rights movement on abortion.

Your organization is a movement<за жизнь>?

No. We are an organization for animal rights, and our main motto is that animals have intrinsic value, so we have no right to eat them, make clothes out of them, experiment on them, use them for entertainment. Of course, we would very much like people who oppose the killing of an unborn child to take care of the lives of other creatures.

After all, it is almost impossible to refuse any use, killing or harming animals: If you are still causing animals suffering, even without realizing it, then what is the point of trying?

Indeed, it is almost impossible to go through life without ever harming anyone. We've all accidentally stepped on ants, but that doesn't mean you have to inflict suffering on animals ON PURPOSE. A person can drive a car and accidentally knock down a pedestrian, but he will not deliberately crush people.

Many of our habits, customs, etc. etc. are associated with the use of animals, moreover, if the exploitation of animals is abandoned, many people will be left without work.

The invention of the automobile, the end of the Second World War, the abolition of slavery - because of all these events, many professions also became unnecessary.<Упразднение>a number of professions is an indispensable component of any social progress.

This should not be a reason to slow down progress. Don't animal rights activists commit terrorist attacks?

Nonviolence is one of the key principles in the animal rights movement. Animal rights people will not accept any harm done to people or animals. However, like any other major movement, there are factions in the animal rights movement that advocate the use of force.

How can you justify the organization<Фронт освобождения животных? Они уничтожили имущество, стоящее миллионы долларов!

There have been cases in world history when, in order to achieve justice, it was necessary to break the law.<Фронт освобождения животных>is the name of a group of people who do illegal things to help fight for animal rights. In order to save lives, they break stereotasis and decapitation devices. They also set fire to empty rooms where, at other times, animals are tortured and killed.<Рейды>This organization opened the eyes of the public to incredible cruelty to animals, it would be impossible to do this legally. As a result of such underground activities, criminal cases were opened against some, and the Animal Welfare Act blacklisted experimenters notorious for their cruelty to animals. And some labs have closed forever. Very often, this organization's raids on the laboratory have led to widespread condemnation of cruelty to laboratory animals, even in scientific circles.

You are wasting your time with animals and there are so many people in the world who need help!

There are many very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention. Animal cruelty is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever possible. Helping animals is just as important as helping people. Human and animal suffering are interconnected.

Most of the animals that are used for food, furs, and most of the experimental animals are specially bred for this.

Any animals, regardless of whether they are raised for some purpose or not, feel pain and fear.

God created animals for man to use them, the Bible gives us power over animals.

Power and tyranny are two different things. The Queen of Great Britain has power over her subjects, but this does not give her the right to eat them, dress in them, or experiment on them. If God has given us power over animals, it is so that we protect them, and not use them to satisfy our own needs. You will find no excuse in the Bible for the brutal slaughter of billions of animals. The Bible emphasizes the value of life.

Hitler was a supporter of animal rights.

Although the Nazis were going to pass a law against vivisection, they did not. Moreover, the law ordered them to conduct experiments first on animals, and then on people. Human experiments did not become an alternative to animal experiments; on the contrary, the existence of the former made it possible for the latter to exist. John Vivien in the book<Темное лицо науки>notes:<Эксперименты на заключенных при всем своем разнообразии имели одну общую черту - все они были продолжениями опытов над животными. В лагерях Бухенвальд и Аушвиц эксперименты на животных и на людях были составляющими одной и той же программы и проводились одновременно. Кроме того, об идее нельзя судить по ее сторонникам и противникам. Почему мы не должны верить в эволюцию только от того, что в нее верил Гитлер? А что бы мы делали, если бы Ганди тоже верил в эволюцию? Об идее надо судить по ее содержанию.

Animals in industrial breeding and in laboratories do not suffer so much, because they do not know anything else.

Such animals cannot realize the most basic instincts, and this causes them great suffering. Even those animals that are caged from birth experience the need to straighten their limbs, move, etc. Herd and pack animals experience depression due to the fact that either they live alone, in isolation, or if there are too many people around their relatives, from the inability to recognize others<членов стаи>. In addition, all animals in captivity suffer from boredom - to the point where they develop stereotypical behavior.

If exploitation of animals was evil, it would be banned.

Legality does not guarantee the morality of the phenomenon. Currently, the question of what is legal and what is illegal is decided by our legislators. Laws change as public opinion changes, as well as the political environment, the generally accepted view of various ethical issues changes rather slowly. Let's see what was completely legal until recently - child labor, slavery, discrimination against women.

Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse or an experimental laboratory?

No, but there were many other people who described and filmed all the nightmares that take place there. You don't have to see it directly to speak out against sexual abuse or child abuse, just as you don't have to look directly at animal cruelty to condemn it wholeheartedly.

Animals are not as smart and developed as people.

A more intelligent person, as you know, has no right to mistreat a less intelligent person, so why do we allow ourselves to do this to animals? Sometimes animals are undoubtedly smarter, more resourceful than people (for example, a chimpanzee compared to a baby or a mentally ill person). But it does not follow from this that chimpanzees should have rights, but babies and mentally ill people should not!

According to PETA