Flopsy and Fido know their rights
Jonathan Leake and Jane Mulkerrins
KEEPING a rabbit is a cherished rite of childhood, but the lovable bundles of fur are developing rights of their own. In future, their owners could face a daunting list of obligations.
Whereas once a rabbit’s owners could have shut it in a hutch with a bit of straw, in future they could find themselves with a legal duty to provide the creature with good food,
veterinary care and the companionship of other rabbits. Failure to comply could, in theory, result in a court appearance.
Such prosecutions could result from new animal welfare laws that would effectively create a “bill of rights” governing the treatment of pets, including Britain’s 7m dogs, 8m cats and 650,000 horses.
The country’s 2m rabbits are often kept alone in small hutches although they are sociable and prefer large homes and regular exercise.
Anne Mitchell, who runs a national helpline for the Rabbit Welfare Association, said the animals had to be kept busy. “It’s a hutch-bound **** to sit in a box at the bottom of the garden with nothing to do all day,” she said.
Similarly, dogs are often confined to small spaces, stifling their natural instinct to run about and socialise. Thousands of urban cat-owners seldom, if ever, let their pets out. If owners fail to walk their dogs or give their cats adequate space to roam, they could be in trouble.
At the heart of the proposed legislation is the desire to allow police and the RSPCA to prevent cruelty rather than just dealing with its aftermath. Elliot Morley, an environment minister, said: “The proposals on unnecessary suffering are quite important. For example, the police and RSPCA get a lot of calls about horses tethered on slopes where they risk choking if they slip down, but there is nothing they can do until the animal is actually suffering. Similarly, dogs and cats are often kept in very confined spaces. We want that to end.”
The concerns that the proposed law seeks to address will be highlighted this week by figures from the RSPCA showing a rise in the number of
animal cruelty cases.
Ann Grain of the RSPCA said: “We believe people who own animals have a duty to care for them properly. We are, however, proposing that people could be prosecuted under this duty of care only if they have previously been advised on the steps needed to meet it — and have failed.”
Critics argue that the government risks taking the agenda of animal rights lobbyists too far. Some fear the measure could even be extended to goldfish — traditionally plonked into a glass bowl. The mandatory requirements of a contented goldfish could include a stone to shelter under — as it might in the wild — the company of its own kind, filtered water and shade.
The family budgie may no longer have to tolerate a small cage. RSPCA guidelines specify a large aviary where the pet can enjoy the company of other budgerigars in a “stimulating environment” that includes toys and branches.
The treadmill existence of gerbils may have to be transformed with an RSPCA “gerbilarium”, complete with a softwood gnawing block to wear down long teeth.
The notion that animals can have “rights” is, however, questioned by many philosophers. Professor Michael Reiss, a bioethicist at the Institute of Education at London University, said: “This is a very contentious issue. For example, animals naturally hunt and treat each other badly in all sorts of ways and saying that is wrong is ridiculous.”
Sceptics wonder if Britain is about to emulate America, where a chimpanzee has won the right to a lawyer. Simba, a retired funfair chimp, was given an attorney by an animal rights group fighting to stop him being sold for experimentation. However, animal lovers this weekend said they welcomed the proposals despite the potential extra burdens.
Others believe legislating to protect pets while not enforcing similar standards for farm animals is hypocritical. Carla Lane, the television playwright who founded Protesters’ Animal Information Network, recently wrote to Tony Blair warning of an increase in attacks by animal rights activists because they were becoming so disillusioned with trying to achieve change democratically.
Reiss said he believed humans had a moral obligation to animals in their care but warned such legislation could raise far more questions than it solved.
“If pet rats and mice have rights then it raises the question of the way we treat farm animals, vermin and fish,” he said. “There are also millions of broiler chickens living in constant pain and misery. Once you start down this path it is hard to know where to stop.”
London Sunday Times
