This law was expected and high hopes were pinned on it. In fact, the Law on the Protection of Animals from Cruelty was passed in 2006. But it is so ineffective that one could say that it does not exist at all.
The law "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning the Implementation of the Provisions of Certain International Agreements and Directives of the European Union in the Field of the Protection of Fauna and Flora" toughens the punishment for cruelty to animals and introduces a number of prohibitions.
The law prohibits:
- to keep animals by persons who were imposed an administrative penalty or applied measures of influence for cruel treatment of animals, - within a year from the date of entry into force of the decision on its recovery;
- to keep animals by persons who were prosecuted for cruelty to animals or were exempted from criminal liability and if the proceedings were closed due to non-rehabilitating circumstances;
- begging with animals;
- to leave the animal in a closed passenger compartment in the absence of a person in it at an air temperature of more than + 20 ° C and less than + 5 ° C;
- killing animals to regulate the number of stray animals;
- to use animals as targets in shooting training or shooting competitions;
- to use sick, wounded, pregnant in the last third of pregnancy or undernourished animals for work;
- use equipment and other means when working with animals that can lead to injury or death of animals;
- to keep animals in premises where animals are slaughtered or where carcasses of slaughtered animals are located;
- forcibly feeding of animals, in addition to feeding for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes, in particular, it is prohibited to carry out activities for breeding and raising geese and ducks to obtain foie gras (fatty liver);
- gut, remove the skin, smoke, separate parts, etc. until the heartbeat of the animals stops;
- donating pets as gifts, awards or prizes;
- to inflict pain, suffering or oppression on pets;
- to train animals in a way that is harmful to the health of the animal and its general condition;
- to kill animals by drowning, strangulation, using electric current and substances that lead to poisoning;
- to wall up animals in basements (this is barbaric, but our utilities sometimes do it, especially with cats);
- to leave the pet tied up if the leash is less than 20 meters, except for dogs performing guard functions, for which this length must be at least 10 meters;
- regardless of the length of the leash, it is prohibited to leave the animal without the possibility of shelter in a room, building, etc., tied under the influence of direct sunlight at an air temperature of more than + 20 ° C or less than 0 ° C;
- to leave a pet tied up unattended in public places or crowded places (near stops, shops, etc.), as well as tie animals to vehicles and force them to run after motor vehicles;
- to contain bears, lions, tigers, wild boars, crocodiles, wolves, large and poisonous snakes, birds of prey, other animals that pose a threat to humans, or animal species listed in the Red Book, as well as in Schedule II of the Berne Convention;
- to use animals for advertising in entertainment and catering establishments;
- to provide photography services with wild animals, except for zoos, circuses and dolphinariums;
- to promote cruelty to animals.
The law introduces:
- administrative liability for cruel or irresponsible treatment of animals from the age of 14;
- criminal liability for cruel or irresponsible treatment of animals from the age of 16;
- the possibility of temporary seizure of animals (in case of cruel treatment) by the police before the case in court;
- confiscation of the animal in case of cruel treatment;
- deprivation of a person who has committed cruelty to an animal of the right to keep animals for ten years;
- mandatory examination to determine the cause of death of the animal.
Yesterday, animal rights activists congratulated each other on their victory. It must be admitted that the attitude towards animals in our country for a long time remained terrible and irresponsible. The number of discarded animals is terrifying. The flayers went unpunished, even when it was not difficult to prove their guilt. The judiciary and police did not work due to corruption and the lack of an adequate law.
So, yesterday we were all happy. But today, when I woke up, I saw on the pages of private bird shelters mass announcements of the following content: "Law 2351. According to it, it is forbidden to keep wild birds of prey in private territory and to provide them with any assistance. In this regard, I stop taking birds of prey and do not consult on them! For all such questions, please contact UAnimals, their leader and those involved in the creation of this law".
There is now such an announcement on the page of my shelter ...
Indeed, the law states:
"It is prohibited to keep large predatory animals, venomous snakes, birds of prey, other animals that pose a threat to humans, species listed in the Red Book of Ukraine and Annex II to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats in institutions catering, nightclubs, hotels, recreation centers, health facilities.
It is prohibited to keep animals defined in part ten of this article in apartments, private houses, homesteads, country houses or gardens. or garden plots. "
Initially, the goal was good: to protect the birds of prey. But as they say in my country, the baby was poured with slops. This one provision made it impossible for private shelters to provide assistance to birds of prey. But the main problem is that almost all of such shelters are private ... Even if they take birds of prey from all of us, there is nowhere to put them ... Nobody needs them, because they are disabled ... They cannot be returned to nature.
The positive thing is that the law has not yet been signed by the president and has not come into force. There is still time to fix everything.
This was a quick overview. Next week I'm going to do a detailed analysis of this law and write an article for a law journal. I really hope that I do not find many controversial provisions ...
