Animal welfare in Catalonia: evolution of public awareness for the protection of pets

By Inmaculada Castells, responsible for the Commission for the Defense of Animal Rights of Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Tortosa. 

How many times have we experienced situations like this: a shared elevator with people and animals, the park at the end of the day, the corner where someone leaves a bottle of water "in case a dog passes by", the bench where another person changes sidewalks because they are scared of the animals... In this everyday scenario, a profound change has been taking place: companion animals are "sentient beings" not only in the domestic sphere but also in urban coexistence.

This evolution is not only emotional; it is cultural, economic, and above all, legal. In Catalonia (as in the rest of Spain), public awareness of animal welfare has shifted from compassion to demands. Previously, the demand was "that animals not be mistreated"; today, the demand is "that they be cared for," that risks be prevented, and that anyone living with an animal assume a set of responsibilities that are no longer considered optional.

Current legislation addresses these situations through two avenues: the criminal justice system, reserved for the most serious offenses defined in the Penal Code, particularly those involving animal abuse; and the administrative and municipal system, which includes ordinances, inspections, sanctions, and precautionary measures. This is where the most significant aspects of coexistence are at stake, where discussions revolve around what is seen and what is suffered.

Sometimes the conflict starts with something small: a neighbor complaining that "it always smells," another protesting because the dog barks when left alone, a community wanting to ban animals in common areas, a loose dog running up, a scuffle between animals… recurring complaints include a lack of adequate spaces, too few dog parks relative to the population density, overcrowded areas at certain times, a lack of water fountains or shade, and constant pressure to use the same patch of grass. Some owners pick up after their pets, while others consider it excessive; some see leashes as the norm, while others perceive them as optional; some use muzzles when required, while others interpret it as an offense.

And in the end, all of this leads to a debate in a clash of sides: “animal rights activists” versus “fed-up neighbors,” however, experience shows that it is almost never that, but rather what there is usually, is a lack of clear rules and habits as well as an absence of resources to make coexistence viable.

At this point, it is worth recalling the state framework that has sought to regulate part of this situation through Law 7/2023, on the protection of animal rights and welfare, establishing a central idea: responsible pet ownership is not a recommendation, it is an obligation. Its obligations (and those developed by regional and municipal regulations) focus on very clear issues: identification and control, prevention of abandonment, training, behavioral restrictions, and, in general, the diligence required of anyone living with an animal.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that from then on, the demand for preventive advice has increased, since urban conflict is not usually one big “case” but the sum of small daily decisions, some of which concentrate litigation and others social reproach:

First, the management of animals in public spaces. Not keeping a dog on a leash where appropriate, or letting it run loose because "it's so well-behaved," is perhaps one of the most frequent and dangerous behaviors. A dog that is docile for its owner can be a problem for a child, an elderly person, someone with a phobia, or another animal that is on a leash and feels threatened. Therefore, in the city, the idea of ​​subjective trust cannot be tolerated; rather, the risk must be foreseeable. When regulations require a leash or muzzle, non-compliance is no longer just considered a "minor infraction," but an act of disrespect towards others.

Second: hygiene. The city is a contract of minimum standards, and one of those minimum standards is not leaving others to bear the consequences of your daily life. Uncollected excrement and uncleaned urine are not only an aesthetic problem, but they also generate unsanitary conditions, odors, neighborhood conflicts, and, in the long run, stricter regulations that end up penalizing even those who comply.

Third: noise. Persistent barking, especially in homes with poor insulation, is one of the most frequent reasons for complaints. This problem is rarely solved with a simple fine; it's often a clear symptom of the animal's anxiety, lack of exercise, or routines incompatible with its well-being. While the city demands silence, the lack of animal welfare should lead us to understand what's going wrong, because when the case is handled properly, solutions can be found: management guidelines, training, professional support, and so on.

Fourth: pet services. Dog walkers, kennels, boarding facilities, trainers… have become essential and, in turn, have brought new responsibilities: clear and secure contracts, emergency protocols, authorization for veterinary care… so that the client no longer demands just “a service”, but legal peace of mind.

In all these scenarios, the lawyer, and also the administration, works with a logic that is not always understood from the outside: the conflict is decided with facts and evidence: photographs, minutes, witnesses, veterinary reports, …

From this perspective, citizen sensitivity in connection with legal practice has learned something: coexistence is not imposed only with fines; it is sustained with better urban design and co-responsibility.

Hence, alongside the hardening of social condemnation of certain behaviors, solutions seeking stability have also grown; some are of public policy: expanding and maintaining areas for animals, clear signage, educational campaigns, reinforcement of inspection where there is repetition… Others are of community management: agreements on farms, internal rules, neighborhood mediation… and others are purely legal: service contracts and preventive advice.

A clear example of this evolution is feral cat colonies. For years, they were a source of conflict—spontaneous feedings, complaints, and so on. However, today, many cities are moving towards a more rational model: capture-sterilization-return, health monitoring, identification of caregivers, feeding rules that minimize disturbances, and coordination with municipal services. This doesn't eliminate the conflict, but it makes it manageable.

Ultimately, the conclusion is always the same: a city that grows and accelerates, and animals that need time, space, and routine; therefore, in my opinion, the conclusion can be both simple and demanding: Protecting animal welfare in the city is not just about prosecuting abuse; it's about organizing coexistence so that non-compliance is not profitable and so that care is possible.

In practical terms, anyone living with an animal in an urban environment should ask themselves three questions, and any firm that advises on this matter should help answer them with due diligence:

• Am I fulfilling my duties of control and due diligence?
• Do I have proof if I'm reported?
• What part of the conflict can I prevent before it becomes a case file or a lawsuit?

The cultural change has already happened; what remains, the difficult part, is to convert that civic sensitivity into stable habits, clear rules, and cities capable of sharing space without turning the animal (or the neighbor) into the enemy.