10 most recent changed pages in 'Animal health' section.

Legal issues

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:31:22 +0200

"Who will lead them into green pastures?

An investigation into the applicability of European legislation on the (re) introduction of large herbivores

‘Wie zal hen geleiden naar grazige weiden?' By C.W. Oudenaarden, Utrecht: Wewir 2007, ISBN: 978-90-5213-145-0

Willemijn Oudenaarden studied in Law and History at the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Majoring in State Administrative Law and she graduated cum laude in April 2007. For her masters thesis she wrote for a paper for the LHF nonprofit scientific organization - Wetenschapswinkel Rechten - on the question of which European regulations govern the reintroduction of large herbivores into conservation areas.

This report (in Dutch with English summary) has been published by Kennispunt Recht, Economie, Bestuur en Organisatie van de Universiteit Utrecht (Knowledge Point of Law, Economics and Governance of Utrecht University).

English summary.

The Large Herbivore Foundation (LHF) is a foundation that aims to introduce and reintroduce native animals species or their ecological replacements into European nature conservation areas. The LHF has experienced that there is little clarity regarding the regulations applicable to introduction en reintroduction of animals. For this reason, this research study aims to obtain clear insight into the regulations that apply and will also detect any problems. This research study focuses on European regulations and is illustrated with examples from the Netherlands where possible. It divides the process of introduction or reintroduction into three phases: the transport phase, the phase in which the animals are actually released into the wild, and the phase following the release. The various types of regulations are divided into three major legal fields: veterinary regulations, animal welfare regulations and nature conservation regulations.

Phase 1: Transport

In the transport phase, emphasis is on the veterinary regulations. The prevention and combat of animal diseases take priority. The transport of animals as part of reintroduction is not expressly regulated by law. It is therefore striking that in practice there is a difference between the regulations that are applied to the transport of dedomesticated animals fall under the same veterinary rules as the rules that are applied to the transport of production animals. The veterinary requirements set for the transport of the European Bison, however, are very unclear. Not just the LHF, but also national governments have found that there is a lack of clarity on this point.

The LHF does not aim to make a profit in its transport of large herbivore for reintroduction, which means that the European Transport Regulation does not apply. This phase therefore includes a void regarding the protection of animal welfare at a European level, meaning that the LHF has to rely on various national animal welfare provisions. This is not a desirable situation and causes a lack of clarity, since animal transport for reintroduction is most always a cross-border activity. For this reason, options should be explored to fill this void at a European level.

Phase 2: Releasing the animals

During the phase in which the large herbivores are actually released into the wild, no specific European veterinary regulations or animal welfare regulations apply. The emphasis in this phase is on nature conservation regulations. One of the principal elements of European nature policy is the Habitat Directive. The Habitat Directive provides that certain animal species, such as the European bison, should be protected. Member States are to designate all areas where the European bison lives or is properly reintroduced as Natura2000 sites. Natura2000 sites are also protected under the Habitat Directive. A requirement for large herbivores that are not protected under the Habitat Directive is that they, and therefore their reintroduction, must not harm the protected areas or the flora and fauna present there. Contrary to the first phase, this phase places much responsibility with national governments.

Phase 3: Following the release

It is rather difficult to indicate which legal field mainly apllies after the release of the animals into the wild. In this phase, the regular veterinary regulations usually also apply to large herbivores living in nature conservation areas. There are exceptions, however, for example where it concerns the combat of animal diseases and identification. Nature conservation regulations may play a role in the protection of the areas where the animals live. In addition, certain animal species, such as the European bison, are protected under nature conservation regulations. For this phase, the protection of animal welfare is not specifically provided for at a European level. Still, animal welfare is very important in this phase. The discussion on mortality rates in winter in the Dutch lake area Oostvaardersplassen, for example, mainly centred around the subject of animal welfare in this phase. All in all, in this phase the three legal fields that are part of this study each have a more or less equivalent role.

Main conclusions:

The main conclsuions are:

In each phase, the focus lies on a different legal field.
The regulations are unclear and contradictory, and the are some regulatory voids.
Terms used may have various meanings.
The regulations do not include dedomesticated animals as a separate category, whereas they do regard domesticated animals and wild animals as separate categories.
In practice, dedomesticated large herbivores are considered to be ‘animals for use' in European veterinary regulations. The reason for this is unclear.The European bison is not labelled as an ‘animal for use'. This means that it is unclear which veterinary regulations govern the reintroduction of the European bison.
When they are reintroduced, wild animals such as the European bison fall under different legal provisions than dedomesticated animals. Legally speaking, however, the distinction made here between wild and dedomesticated is not very important, because the animals serve the same ‘purpose': after their reintroduction they will live in an nature conservation area.
There is a lack of clarity regarding the extent to which the provisions protecting certain species in the Habitat Directive apply to protected anial species that are born as a domestic animal or in captivity and that were not taken from the wild.
The LHF does not aim to make a profit in its reintroduction of large herbivores, which means that the European Transport Regulation does not apply to the transport of large herbivores. As a result, there is a legal void in the protection of animal welfare during actual transport.
• The EU cannot formulate any rules that only cover the protection of animal welfare, because the protection of animal welfare is not one of the EU's objectives. The current EU Treaty does not provide the EU with any authority to draw up requirements purely for animal welfare. A solution must therefore be found to fill the void concerning animal welfare.

Options to solve

These are some options to solve part of the difficulties and lack of clarity described above:

Recognise that the regulations are sometimes contradictory, include legal voids and are insufficiently clear.
Ensure that terms are clear at a European level. This may be realized at EU level, but if there are no European regulations, the Member States could take care of this together.
Formulate guidelines for the introduction and reintroduction of large herbivores in Europe. The council of Europe could draw up these guidelines.
Find ways to fill the voids now existing at a European level with respect to the protection of animal welfare.
Create a new category in legislation, e.g. ‘nature animals', and stipulate rules for this category. The same thing was done for ‘animals for use' . This way, where possible, dedomesticated animals and wild animals will fall under the same regulations in the process of introduction or reintroduction.
Request the EU to provide clarity regarding the applicability of the Habitat Directive to protected animals that were born in captivity and were not taken from the wild.

In short, in the process of the introduction or reintroduction of large herbivores, it is currently necessary to move from one European legal field to the other. Recognising that the three different legal fields that apply to introduction en reintroduction are interdependent and mutually influential will be the first step towards solving these difficulties and simplifying the legal aspects of the LHF's activities.

Carrion and carcasses

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:30:35 +0100

Carcasses large grazers in nature is hardly a risk to public and animal health

Leaving carcasses of large grazers such as cattle and horses in nature is hardly a risk to public and animal health. In the Netherlands, carcasses of large herbivores (cattle, horses) in the wild have to be removed. Carcasses in nature are a part of the "circle of life, therefore Dutch nature conservationists want to leave carcasses of large grazers in the large nature areas Oostvaardersplassen and the Veluwezoom. This would contribute substantially to the public debate about nature values.

Confrontation with dead cattle and horses

The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA) sees little risk to public and animal health as dead cattle and horses occur in nature. Leaving carcasses contributes to biodiversity. Because more food will be available to scavenging mammals such as foxes are attracted. The risk to human health by the fox tapeworm would thus ultimately increase. In addition, stray dogs have a chance of gastroenteritis if they eat meat from an old carcass. The VWA Office of Risk Assessment indicates that visitors are not accustomed to the confrontation with dead cattle and horses in nature. Especially for small children it can be daunting.

Experience in a controlled way

The Risk Office advises the responsible ministry to allow carcasses of large herbivores in the large nature areas such as Oostvaardersplassen and Veluwezoom. The Veluwezoom freely accessible to the public is advised to leave the carcasses as yet in places where public contact is not immediately obvious. After a period of 2 to 3 years can be seen whether the policy should be adjusted.

Pathogens carefully monitor

It is necessary now to work on an integrated system of disease surveillance in wild animals. Information from such a system is essential to any changes in risk and early detection. This applies to both live for the living animals and for carcasses left in the wild.

For more information, click here.

About the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (VWA)

The task of the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority is to protect human and animal health. It monitors food and consumer products to safeguard public health and animal health and welfare. The Authority controls the whole production chain, from raw materials and processing aids to end products and consumption.
The Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority is an independent agency in the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) and a delivery agency for the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.
The three main tasks of the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority are: supervision, risk assessment and risk communication. Other important activities are incident and crisis management and policy advice for the Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. A significant part of its work involves liaising with other ministries. Maintaining international contacts is also of vital importance.

(abbreviated and translated press release, 19-01-2010))

Oostvaardersplassen: the setting for "Good times, bad times", an animal welfare balance

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:09:37 +0100

There is no such thing as a life without suffering, without pain, without decay. Not for humans, and not in nature!

Reading the reactions on news paper weblogs and in the daily newspapers about what people think of nature in the Netherlands, and in particular about the large, cuddly (or not) animals, you see a lot of love for the individual animal, but are struck by the fact that so few contributors talk about animals at population level, and about their role in the ecosystem, the landscape. This is understandable; after all, it is complicated.

Of course, one should - especially from the moral point of view - try to prevent unnecessary suffering and unacceptable pain, and ensure that an animal can lead a "happy" life. But can this be done without death, and how can you make dying a process free of suffering, pain, decay? This is not possible, not for people and not for animals.

Ethical questions, "Good times, bad times"

Several years ago, the University of Wageningen (WUR) conducted a study on the ethical question of how to deal with animals in the larger nature reserves. Areas such as the Oostvaardersplassen, the Veluwe, etc. are, fortunately, (once more) large enough to be able to speak of areas in which ecological/natural processes of some size can take place, there's no need to be modest about it. And it makes no difference whether or not humans have had a creative role in this, nature will go its own way.

WUR's ethicists compared the animals in such areas with animals in contemporary agriculture. The title of the report is "Good times, bad times" (a good description of the problem); among other things, it examines the "animal welfare balance": you should look at the entire course of the animal's life, from birth to (inevitable) death. There is a considerable difference between talking about farm animals or zoo animals, fenced or caged in a relatively tiny space of at most a few dozen hectares, and talking about real animal populations in an area thousands of hectares in size. And if that turns out to be too small, then these areas can even be increased by means of the national ecological network, as is being done in Flevoland with the robust ecological corridor Oostvaarderswold (Oostvaardersplassen - het Horsterwold): the Oostvaardersland is a project covering 15,000 ha with an option for a connection to the Veluwe and the "dream" of a connection to Germany (Dutch Spatial Planning Memorandum). Construction of this part of the national ecological network is partly due to the urgent advice of the International Committee on the Management of large herbivores in the Oostvaardersplassen (ICMO), 2006.

"Look through hunter's eyes as if you were a wolf"

Background articles in various newspapers clearly describe the effects of early intervention. It is quite difficult to "look through hunter's eyes as if you were a wolf". In the autumn WUR's ethicists tried to estimate which animals would die, and which wouldn't. It's a good thing they didn't bet money on it; the apparently weak animals managed to get through the winter quite well, and the animals that seemed to be in good condition didn't make it to spring. Indeed, animals can lose about 25% of their body weight in order to make it through the bad times. That, after all, is what their fat is for.

Is there an alternative?

Supplemental feeding leads to intense competition, with the strong beating the weak, who need the food most. It leads to more animals being born in the following year, and not only in the spring according to the natural cycle, but also later in the year. This again leads to a welfare problem in subsequent years. Shooting healthy populations in the autumn leads to stress in the herd, etc. From the point of view of animal welfare, this is not what we want.

Large grazers were (and of course potentially still are) our most important landscape creators. They provide open spaces, both in vegetation and on the ground, and so provide numerous niches for all sorts of plants and animals.

For example, in the absence of large grazers, an area like the Oostvaardersplassen would be completely overgrown with thick patches of reed. Other areas, such as the dunes or riverbanks, would become overgrown with uniform scrub, leaving no room for the species that we would like to have. The alternative is large-scale mowing using large machinery, with all the (environmental) consequences that would entail.

And then we may ask if the Serengeti and other really large reserves are actually so animal friendly. Recently beautiful, spectacular scenes were to be seen of gnus trying to cross the canyon-like Mara rivier in the Masai Mara region. It was a massacre, mainly because of the trampling and drowning, in addition to what the crocodiles do to these animals.

(Natural) bonus

While typing, you come back to the question: are we talking about unnecessary suffering and acceptable pain, or is this the bad part of the "good times, bad times" story? I agree with the conclusions of the ICMO report. With its ethical guidelines, determined in consultation with Parliament, the Dutch State Forest Service is attempting to prevent unnecessary suffering and unacceptable pain as far as possible. In town and countryside we must realize that nature is beautiful, but sometimes harsh, for both animals and humans.

And the (natural) bonus is - among numerous other examples - the Great egret in the polder and the White-tailed eagle, breeding in the Netherlands for the first time in centuries. So be it!

Hans Kampf

National Agenda for Animal Health

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:54:22 +0100

Dutch agenda 2007 - 2015: Prevention is better than cure

The Dutch National Agenda for Animal Health 2007-2015 is concerned with animal health in the Netherlands. However, this cannot be seen entirely in isolation from the international context: animal diseases are not constrained by national borders.

In principle, the strategy relates to all animals in the Netherlands, both those kept for food production and those kept as pets or as a hobby, as well as animals used for entertainment (circus, zoo) and those living in the wild.

Apart from setting out an overarching strategy for the period 2007-2015, the National Agenda for Animal Health also describes out which activities and exploratory studies will be implemented and developed in the coming years.

You can download this Agenda, please chapter 3.5 for the ministers view on animals living in the wild.

Animals in the wild and endangered kept animals Introduction

The purpose of the nature policy is to maintain stable populations and promote biodiversity. The creation of the National Ecological Network (EHS), which among other things links nature areas through the creation of ecological connections, is a key element in this policy.

As far as possible, wild animals are left to their own devices. Disease and mortality are a natural fact of life in the wild. From a nature protection perspective, therefore, allowing infectious animal diseases to spread among wild animals is logical. Frequently the disease will burn itself out and a population will recover naturally.

This chapter looks at the relationship between nature policy and animal health. It focuses on the following categories of animals: protected animals in the wild, large wild herbivores and endangered animals in captivity.

Protected wild animals

Virtually all naturally occurring mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles in the Netherlands are protected. Human intervention in the life cycles of protected species is minimised, and is permitted only where there are specific interests at stake. These aspects are regulated in the Flora and Fauna Act.

Large herbivores in the wild

In the ‘large nature units' as described in the guidelines for management of large herbivores (Leidraad Grote Grazers), large herbivores have the legal status of ‘animals in the wild'.
The currently designated units are Oostvaardersplassen, Veluwezoom and the Zuid-Kennemerland National Park. These areas afford space for natural processes and provide a habitat for large herbivores such as Heck cattle, Scottish Highlanders and Konik horses, which are regarded ecologically as wild animals. This allows a population to develop under the most natural conditions possible. In other nature areas, large farmed herbivores are used for the management of the area. From the perspective of the animal health policy, these animals all fall under the same regime, as kept farm animals.

Endangered kept animals

These are animals which have entirely or almost entirely disappeared from the wild and which have international protection status7.

Present situation and problems

Experiences with crises in recent years have largely shaped policy on animal diseases and nature. Several procedures stipulate what actions should be taken in relation to nature areas and animals in the wild during animal disease crises. The most important principles are as follows:

Creating calm

The rule of thumb during an outbreak of an animal disease is to create a calm environment for wild protected animals and herbivores living in the wild. This prevents wild animals or birds from migrating over large distances and possibly helping to spread the disease further.

With a view to maintaining this calm environment and also sustaining biodiversity, mass culling of wild animals (including wild herbivores) is not carried out when controlling an infectious disease through a ‘stamping out' regime8. Culling would cause a number of animal movements, only increasing the risk of the further spread of the disease. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to cull all wild animals in a population. 7

During outbreaks of classical swine fever it can however be necessary at a certain stage to reduce the number of susceptible animals. This can be achieved either through oral vaccination of wild boars or by reducing the population through a targeted and regulated cull. This then has to be weighed against the disruption this will cause to the rest of the population.

Other measures designed to create a calm environment may include closing nature areas to the public, compartmentalising nature areas to combat migration of wild animals, suspending activities in nature areas, banning hunting, controlling management and damage, discouraging recreational activities, etc. The various management procedures explain in more detail how these measures are to be implemented.

Exceptions to culling

When controlling an animal disease using the ‘stamping out' approach, in which all susceptible animals within a certain radius of an infection source are culled, animal species which have almost or completely disappeared from the wild9 are exempt from culling. There are conditions: they must be placed in quarantine and the necessary measures must be taken in respect of cleaning and disinfection. The species which are eligible for this exemption have special international protection status.

The ambitions for the animal health policy for animals living in the wild relate to prevention, monitoring and risk analysis and communication.

Prevention

According to current scientific knowledge, the chance of infectious animal diseases being transferred from the wild population in the Netherlands to farm animals is very remote10. That chance does however increase if it is decided when establishing ecological connections to interconnect agricultural and natural functions. As the consequences of such an outbreak can be very considerable, the government wishes to minimise the risk.

Monitoring

Although animal diseases in natural populations often die out of their own accord, this does not always happen. There is currently no clear picture of the incidence of infectious animal diseases in these populations. In order to be able to respond adequately, both in ‘times of war' and in ‘times of peace', this information gap needs to be filled.

Risk analysis and communication

Opinions are divided on the role played by wild animals in the spread of animal diseases. The commercial farming industry is extremely concerned about the potential risks of the spreading of infectious animal diseases by animals living in the wild, especially in relation to the creation of the National Ecological Network and ecological connections. The risks cited by livestock farmers include the potential risk of disease being spread by wild horses and cattle, wild boars and (migrating) (water) birds.

By contrast, nature organisations have concerns about diseases crossing over from farm animals to healthy wild populations.

This mutual distrust leads to a polarisation between civil society groups and to diminishing support for nature policy.

Objectives

Improve the monitoring of infectious diseases in natural populations.

Improve the communication on the risks of animal diseases in natural populations.
Improve the coordination of animal health policy and nature policy:
Take animal disease risks into account when establishing zones for ecological connections.
Take full account of the interests of nature when considering control measures. •
Improve the enforcement of the policy that wild boars may only occur in the Veluwe and Meinweg areas.

Envisaged results

The government would like to work together with the provincial authorities, nature organisations and the stock farming industry to achieve the following goals:

By 2015 the incidence and prevalence of animal diseases in natural populations is known.
By 2015 the risks of animal diseases being spread by wild animals are known.
By 2015 public opinion is more balanced due to the distinction between hard risks and perceived risks.
By 2015 measures have been taken to combat the risks of animal diseases being spread by wild deer when establishing ecological connections and the National Ecological Network.
By 2010 enforcement of the zero status policy for wild boars has improved.
During the plan period, full account will be taken of nature interests and biodiversity objectives in the decision-making on animal diseases and disease crises.

Actions

Joint actions by the government, nature organisations and centres of expertise

In collaboration with stakeholders, the government wishes to implement the following actions in the coming years:

2008: completion of an exploratory study on expanding monitoring and coordination. The possibility of assigning a coordinating role to the Dutch Wildlife Health Centre11, in collaboration with centres of expertise in the fields of ecology, epidemiology and veterinary medicine, will be studied.
2009-2010: formulation of a monitoring plan and a communication plan with a view to increasing the existing monitoring of the incidence of infectious animal diseases in wild populations and birds.
2010-2011: the government, together with livestock farmers and nature organisations, will draw up a communication plan which, based on risk analysis and monitoring, will generate a clearer picture of the actual risks, create a more balanced public perception of the role of wild animals in the spread of animal diseases, and consequently improve the communication between the various parties.
2007-2015: the provincial authorities will formulate a joint plan together with the livestock industry on the establishment of ecological connections in order to combat the spread of animal diseases by wild animals, based on risk analysis. Possible measures will include preventing direct contacts between wild animals and farm animals through zoning or fencing off (keeping free range pigs temporarily indoors; temporarily placing cattle indoors; fencing off farms or nature areas). These plans and the associated division of responsibilities will be established at administrative level between nature area managers, farmers, central government and provincial authorities.
2007-2015: the ability to control an outbreak of an animal disease will be taken into account in establishing the National Ecological Network.

Actions by the government

2007-2015: attention will be given to increasing the input of provincial authorities to enforce policy in the areas where wild boars may not occur. The habitats designated for wild boars, the Veluwe and Meinweg areas, will be exempted.