City councils and animal protection

By Covadonga Díaz, Lawyer, member of the Animal Law Commission of the Oviedo Bar Association.

In modern society, the protection and welfare of animals have become issues of increasing concern and debate. Spanish legislation, through the Law for the Protection of Animal Rights and Welfare, seeks to establish a legal framework that guarantees the adequate protection of animals against abuse and neglect. However, despite the good intentions of this law and the growing social awareness, the reality in many municipalities in Spain is far from complying with its fundamental principles. The lack of economic resources and, in many cases, insufficient interest on the part of local authorities, has led to a systematic failure to comply with legal imperatives, calling into question not only the effective protection of animals, but also undermining the trust of citizenship in institutions.

Evasion of compliance with the law by city councils manifests itself in various ways, but one of the most problematic aspects is the improper delegation of responsibilities to citizens. In the presence of abandoned animals or animals at risk, it is natural that the neighbors themselves are the ones who assume the burden of collecting and caring for them, without showing an iota of responsibility or help on the part of the authorities when the Law leaves no room for doubt: It is the consistories that must take charge and provide the necessary means. This situation is not only unfair but also reveals an unquestionable and conscious non-compliance with the legal provisions and the obligations that apply to them.

The effective implementation of the Law on the Protection of Animal Rights and Welfare, according to the local administration, faces significant obstacles, primarily in the form of financial limitations. Many municipalities in Spain claim to face budget restrictions that make it difficult, or even prevent, to implement adequate animal protection programs. This scarcity of resources translates into a lack of capacity to deal with cases of animals at risk, abandoned or lost; or to maintain adequate facilities that ensure their care and well-being.

And this question is not trivial. How should we, the administered, interpret this lack of legal compliance by those who manage public assets, supposedly in accordance with established standards, based on the lack of economic means? ¿AcaDoes anyone imagine that the day will come when in our town we will be left without a garbage collection service, without public lighting, without a drinking water supply or without a municipal cemetery “because there is no money”? No, right? Why when we talk about animal protection is the lack of a budget item a valid justification? Or are there laws that we can fail to comply with just because, without consequences?

Another element of the equation to take into account is the lack of political interest, which only aggravates this situation. In some cases, animal protection and welfare measures are not perceived as a priority on the local political agenda, relegating them to the background. This inattention not only reflects a poor assessment of the needs of the most vulnerable beings, but also underlines a lack of will to comply with established legal obligations.

The combination of these factors creates a scenario where city councils often seek the route of least resistance, transferring the responsibility of animal care to citizens, taking advantage of their ignorance and good faith. This transfer of responsibilities is not only contrary to the law, but also reveals unfair exploitation of the weakest parts of society. Because it turns out that a citizen finds a dog that is lost, calls the local police of the municipality in question and they ask him if he can keep it at home, because they have nowhere to take it, because they are expressly prohibited from bringing it up. animals in the patrol car, because despite having located the owner at that moment it is not possible for him to go to get the animal, so if that good Samaritan doesn't mind making an effort and helping them...

Because all of this, let's remember, is being told to you by the local police themselves, the authority in the municipality, who are you, neighbor, to question it? ¿AcaAre you going to think that they are deceiving you? On the contrary, the average citizen takes it for granted. And, if he questions it, who is he going to turn to to ensure the rights that he considers may be being violated? To the local police...? Our wise Spanish proverb already says it: no one can be both judge and party.

This undue transfer of responsibilities to citizens in situations of abandoned or at-risk animals, without adequate support or intervention by the city council, is unfair and exceeds the limits of civil liability, often placing citizens in situations of stress and moral dilemma that they are not obliged to endure. Spanish legislation leaves no room for doubt: municipalities have the obligation to collect and care for abandoned animals, ensuring their well-being until they can be relocated or returned to a safe environment. And this is established in article 22 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Welfare of Animals:

Compactioníass 22. Collection and caren of animals.

1. MatchIt is up to the town councils to collect stray and abandoned animals and house them in an animal protection centre. To do this, they must have an emergency service for the collection and veterinary care of these animals, available twenty-four hours a day.to. This managementThis may be carried out directly by the competent municipal services or by private entities, without prejudice to the fact that, whenever possible, it is carried out in collaboration with animal protection entities. In the téterms established by the legislationn caromics, this responsibility may be transferred to the groups of municipalities, or, where appropriate, to the provincial and foral councils, town councils and island councils or to the autonomous communities and cities of Ceuta and Melilla.

2. To carry out this management and care, municipalities must have their own, joint or concerted service, in the téterms established in the articleass 23.

3. Populations that do not have their own means to exercise their competence for the collection and maintenance of animals may sign collaboration agreements with joint centers, belonging to other administrations or contracted, which will comply with the minimum conditions regulated in this law. In this case, a temporary municipal facility will be available to house the animals until they are collected by the corresponding service, which meets the requirements of space, safety and conditions for the well-being of the temporarily housed animals.

4. In the absence of other provision in the legislationn caromics, corresponds to the local Administration and, subsidiarily, to the autonomousMica managed iton and care of homeless animals or whose owners cannot care for them due to situations of vulnerability, without prejudice to the fact that they can count on the collaboration of duly registered animal protection entities.

5. Local entities will prioritize non-lethal population control of urban fauna in their action plans regarding animal protection, guaranteeing the rights of animals.

However, we have already seen that reality shows a significant disconnect between what the law dictates and the practice of some municipalities. This diversion of responsibilities not only puts the well-being of the animals at risk, but also infringes the rights of citizens to have municipal services that comply with their legal obligations. The law establishes specific obligations for administrations precisely to guarantee the protection and care of animals, basing these duties on the recognition of their intrinsic well-being and the need for a more just and compassionate society.

As a society, we must educate and collaborate with administrations to find sustainable solutions that respect both the law and the rights of animals and citizens. Because there will be those who have a limited vision of the problem and think that we are making a mountain out of a molehill, that what does it matter if the lost dog spends the night at a neighbor's house or in the municipal shelter, that there will be more important things ahead? the ones to spend the time and money.

But this is not just about the stray dog ​​not picked up by the municipal authority. This is the tip of the iceberg that shows a bigger problem. We are talking about regulatory and arbitrary compliance - or rather, non-compliance - on the part of institutions. From the deception of the authority to the citizen. Of the use of the strongest over the weakest or uninformed. Of the abuse of power. Of the loss of confidence in institutions. And yes, of course, it is also about animals and their necessary protection. And from us. And our necessary protection. Because Gandhi already said it: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Because it is our moral duty to protect the weakest, even if only out of pure and strategic selfishness, because tomorrow we may be that weak part of society, that old man, that helpless person, that person without resources. Let us remember here John Rawls' theory of the veil of ignorance, let us keep it in mind and enforce the law, whatever it may be. Because perhaps tomorrow we will be the ones who need this direct legal protection and we will depend on social solidarity to achieve its effective compliance.

Unfortunately, this article is based on a recent personal experience in which, when an animal in the area went missing, the local police ended their intervention by stating that “sometimes, doing things well has its negative consequences”. ¿AcaAre we asking so much when we demand compliance with current legislation? Because it seems that, in addition, we also have to apologize for it, as if we forget at times that we live in a social and democratic State of Law whose national sovereignty resides in the people. I am pleased to think that the day will come when those of us who want to do things well will be the majority, starting with the institutions, and that the prevailing reflection will be: doing things well is what we must do, and it is everyone's responsibility.