Proposal
Once the existing local laws that can involve animal issues have been analyzed (from the point of view of public morality and protection against animals), the laws should be brought to life. If animal workers and the public are upset by animal mistreatment in public, get the authorities involved – after having contacted the animal’s owner to change the situation. If the existing legal basis for intervention is too weak and too unclear, work with specialists to draft clearer ones and get it passed by the political institutions. The issue of animal welfare is often regulated at national or district level. This means that at local level there is no or not much room for more detailed limitations on an animal welfare basis. On the other hand, the issue of public morality is often related to the local community. With this reasoning, bans and restrictions can be proposed and expected at local level.
More information
Idea behind this:
The conception of public morality is about to change. What was no issue several years ago is now common sense and not tolerated in public any longer (like smoking in public places – also with a health background, and wearing fur in a zoo). The killing of seals for fur is also a public morality issue. Therefore, there is a potential for animal-friendly rules at local level and these are easier and cheaper to achieve than on a higher district or national level.
Side effects:
The animal-friendly rules regarding public morality can be exchanged globally and used for evolution worldwide. The focus is on animal cases in the public eye – like circuses, zoos, animal races and pet shops. Where animal legislation may, for the moment, fail to be enforced, the public morality route can be the way forward.
