With ever more natural disasters occurring thought ought to be given to other Animals, and how to protect and rescue them – when often, sadly, only Human lives seem to matter. This is, in our view, an impossible situation, and all of us are tasked to change it, with our own behaviour, going forward towards a world where equal consideration is given to all.
When disasters strike, people are not the only victims. Hurricane Katrina raised public attention about how disasters affect dogs, cats, and other animals considered members of the human family. In this short but powerful book, now available in paperback, noted sociologist Leslie Irvine goes beyond Katrina to examine how oil spills, fires, and other calamities affect various animal populations―on factory farms, in research facilities, and in the wild.
In a new preface, Irvine surveys the state of animal welfare in disasters since the first edition. Filling the Ark argues that humans cause most of the risks faced by animals and urges for better decisions about the treatment of animals in disasters. Furthermore, it makes a broad appeal for the ethical necessity of better planning to keep animals out of jeopardy. Irvine not only offers policy recommendations and practical advice for evacuating animals, she also makes a strong case for rethinking our use of animals, suggesting ways to create more secure conditions.
They don’t yell or protest. They don’t hold signs or march. But in Singapore, a chorus of concern is rising on their behalf. From living rooms to parliament, the country is facing hard questions about the way animals are seen, protected and valued.
In February, a 32-year-old Singaporean man was sentenced to 14 months in jail for abusing five community cats – a spree of violence that culminated in the horrific act of throwing two of them from high-rise public housing blocks in Ang Mo Kio.
Just three months later, in May, a 20-year-old man pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a neighbour’s cat in Bukit Panjang, an act captured on surveillance cameras.
These disturbing events, along with other recent high-profile cases, have triggered widespread public outrage and prompted a national reckoning over animal welfare. Campaigners warn that not only are abuse cases becoming more extreme, but they are also exposing gaps in Singapore’s animal protection laws – and underlining the need for a cultural shift in how animals are treated.
Animal cruelty reports reached a 12-year high last year, according to figures released in January by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). The surge has galvanised Singaporeans, with some signing petitions and others submitting proposals to parliamentary representatives, demanding reforms and tougher enforcement.
Authorities have acknowledged the public concern. A legislative review is under way, examining the penalties for animal cruelty and the extent of current animal welfare laws.
Under current legislation, those convicted of animal cruelty in Singapore can face up to 18 months in jail, a fine of up to S$15,000 (US$11,700), or both. Repeat offenders risk three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to S$30,000.
The Animals and Birds Act – the main legal framework governing animal protection – has been under review since at least 2022, according to a statement from the Animal and Veterinary Service on Friday. The act was last amended in 2014, and authorities say future revisions will incorporate feedback from stakeholder consultations held this year.
From 2017 to 2020, around 1,200 cases of alleged animal cruelty were investigated annually, according to Singapore broadcaster CNA. Between 2017 and 2021, 40 people were fined and 23 jailed for related offences.
In Jalan Besar, newly elected Member of Parliament Shawn Loh said many constituents had approached him with suggestions to strengthen animal protections in the wake of recent incidents.
Suggestions included stricter penalties for abusers, a registry barring convicted lawbreakers from pet ownership and improved community vigilance, Loh told This Week in Asia.
Shawn Loh, the newly elected member of parliament for Jalan Besar multi-seat constituency. Photo: Shawn Loh
“We therefore decided to hold an engagement session to hear all these views, so that I may appropriately engage the relevant agencies and effectively advocate for change,” he said, adding that the coming session had already reached full registration.
“Following our own discussions [with residents] at Jalan Besar GRC, I hope to put together a balanced list of practical recommendations for the government’s consideration and effectively advocate for change on behalf of our residents,” Loh added.
Fellow MP Lee Hui Ying, representing the Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency, made a similar call for stronger laws and enforcement – and better protection for animals – following a visit to the Springleaf Gardens estate on Tuesday following the death of a disembowelled cat.
Momentum is growing elsewhere as well. On May 31, Young PAP, the youth wing of the ruling People’s Action Party, hosted a focus group to discuss stronger animal cruelty laws.
“Cruelty is rising. Protection must keep pace,” the group wrote in a social media post about the event. “We must act now – let’s make animal cruelty a serious crime.”
Several online petitions have echoed that call. One petition, seeking harsher penalties, has garnered more than 12,000 signatures.
“Convicted animal abusers often receive punishment which can only be described as no more than a slap on the wrist,” said Dr Ryan Leong, co-founder of Pets Avenue Veterinary Clinic and Referrals.
“Such punishment will never deter the next person who is about to commit a similar crime.”
Shelby Doshi, 40, a former cat rescuer, said Singapore’s sophisticated surveillance infrastructure should make it easy to identify perpetrators – but that same urgency is lacking when the victims are animals.
Stray cats that were rounded up amid a government-run euthanasia programme in Singapore in 2003. Photo: AP
A person abusing someone in public in Singapore would likely be identified within a day with the help of video surveillance, she said. “Yet, when a similar or more drastic act happens to a community cat, the effort to apprehend [someone] is sorely lacking, simply because they are not viewed as important.”
“As a first-world country, we certainly can and should do better.”
Shef*, an adoption counsellor at Action for Singapore Dogs – a non-profit organisation focused on stray and abandoned dogs – said law enforcement agencies needed to be given “more teeth” to intervene when animals were in danger.
“Even if we see something, all we can do is tell the family we really need the dog back. But if the family says no, there’s only so much we can do as a non-profit,” said the 38-year-old, referring to cases of neglect involving adopted pets.
Public outrage tends to spike whenever a high-profile case of animal cruelty emerges, said Aarthi Sankar, executive director of the SPCA.
“They may urge the SPCA to intensify pressure on the authorities to implement stricter penalties and tighter enforcement of animal welfare laws, both of which the SPCA has been actively lobbying the government on,” she told This Week in Asia.
Sankar added that any legal reform must acknowledge not only the financial burden of animal abuse, but also the lasting trauma inflicted on sentient beings.
“They [animals] may physically recover from the abuse, but any traumatic experience will likely shape how they go on to perceive the world and their interactions with humans,” she said.
Kalai Vanan Balakrishnan, chief executive of Singapore’s Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres), cautioned that legislative change alone would not be enough to stop abuse.
“I’ve been working here 15 years and I’ve seen multiple incidents where there is a high-profile case and uproar on social media. Then that dies down. Then it happens again,” Balakrishnan told This Week in Asia.
“There needs to be a push to get to the root of the problem. And it should involve a multi-agency effort.”
Such collaboration would allow organisations like Acres to share legal expertise and advocate for tougher penalties, he said.
Two feral cats sit in front of a house in Singapore. Experts say cultivating compassion about animals’ pain can help reduce animal cruelty cases. Photo: Shutterstock
He also pointed to deeply ingrained misconceptions about animal sentience – some still believe that certain species, like snakes, do not feel pain. A 2023 case in which men were filmed killing a python with a cleaver highlighted this ignorance.
“If from a young age, we cultivate compassion in children so that they know animals do feel pain and they’re sentient beings, as they grow up, I think we will see less of such cases,” he said.
That view is shared by Dr Genevieve Zhang, a veterinarian at Pets Avenue Veterinary Clinic, who said long-term change would require a cultural shift rooted in empathy.
When more people openly share stories about the emotional bonds they form with pets, non-owners may better understand animals’ capacity to feel and connect, she said.
“They need to understand animals have feelings as well and are lives we need to protect, given that humans can easily overpower them,” Zhang said.
Yvonne Packer and her husband Chris are overwhelmed with rescues at their animal charity in South Auckland. LAWRENCE SMITH / Sunday Star-Times
nday Star-Times
The pair behind a small South Auckland animal charity are frustrated with abuse from the public, and say the SPCA needs to be doing more to help with a surge in roaming animals. Stewart Sowman-Lund reports.
unday Star-Times
The pair behind a small South Auckland animal charity are frustrated with abuse from the public, and say the SPCA needs to be doing more to help with a surge in roaming animals. Stewart Sowman-Lund reports.
The calls can come at any time of the day or night.
Whether it be a dog on the loose, a litter of unhoused kittens, or (on one occasion) some goats – Yvonne Packer will answer the phone.
But after two decades running the South Auckland Animal Rescue, at least half of that time as a registered charity, Yvonne and her husband Chris are growing increasingly frustrated by the level of abuse directed at them by disgruntled members of the public, and want the SPCA to start “doing their job”.
“It’s shocking,” says Yvonne of Auckland’s problem with roaming dogs.
“The amount of phone calls we get daily, and messages daily, asking us to take dogs because people can’t take them to their rentals, or they’re moving, or they’re going overseas, or somebody’s died, or it’s had puppies because they haven’t de-sexed.”
Yvonne Packer says Auckland’s roaming dog problem is out of control. LAWRENCE SMITH / Sunday Star-Times
South Auckland Animal Rescue is just one of a number of smaller outfits dealing with a growing problem. As Yvonne explains, anyone can start a rescue centre and you don’t have to be a registered charity.
The Sunday Star-Times has previously looked at Auckland’s out-of-control problem with roaming dogs and spent time with the team dealing with it on the frontline, the council’s animal management squad. They described how things got worse during Covid-19, as people stuck indoors decided they wanted a pet only to realise after lockdown lifted it was too much.
Yvonne agrees, and says there has been a boom in roaming animals, welfare issues and attacks since the pandemic. This week, a pair of dogs were seized in Glen Innes after eight cats were killed. Roaming dogs killed two of Yvonne’s cats during a spate of attacks last year.
As The Post reported, there were close to 600 dog attacks on people and animals in Auckland in 2024. A clampdown on unregistered dogs saw 5500 infringement notices issued earlier this year.
The surge in welfare issues and roaming animals has also resulted in more abuse directed at Yvonne and her small team of volunteers. People have dumped animals on her doorstep, or yelled at her down the phone. On another occasion, a dog was left tied up to her front gate. The police have even delivered animals to her house.
People think that since Yvonne and Chris run an animal rescue service, they can take in an unlimited number. What they might not realise is that their charity is run from a South Auckland home and relies on fosters willing to take in animals and get them ready for a new life.
“We can only do what we can do, and each rescue is doing their best,” says Yvonne.
Last month, a post was made on South Auckland Animal Rescue’s Facebook page that put it bluntly.
“The abuse being thrown at us is unbelievable,” the post read. “We are not the SPCA and receive no government funding like they do.”
It continued: “To get abuse hurled … threats made because people can’t or won’t take accountability for their own pets is getting beyond a joke.”
Yvonne says it was a volunteer that made the post, but with her consent. It was a bad day, she confesses, but the message needed to be heard.
While some rescues “take and take and take”, adds Chris, that’s not always possible for them – or the right thing to do for the animals.
Yvonne and Chris Packer want the SPCA to step up and help. LAWRENCE SMITH / Sunday Star-Times
“They’re just too full that they end up being an animal hoarder rather than a rescue. And the animals aren’t being helped,” he says.
“And we get abused because we don’t take animals – because if we can’t look after them, the dogs are no better off.”
Yvonne says she’s “disgruntled” with the SPCA and that the charity – which she describes as “the big name” in animal rescue – needs to “up their game”.
“You know, the amount of calls we get, ‘Oh, we rung the SPCA, they won’t help us.’ [Or] ‘We’ve rung the SPCA, they’re closed’,” says Yvonne.
“They’re just a corporate business now, gaining the revenue. But what are they doing with it? Because we’re doing their job.”
An impounded puppy rescued from a property in Wiri during a Sunday Star-Times outing in March. Stewart Sowman-Lund / Sunday Star-Times
In a statement, the SPCA’s general manager of animal services, Dr Corey Regnerus-Kell, rejects that criticism, telling the Star-Times that SPCA centres around the country are “fully funded” by donations, including through adoption fees, pet insurance and the network of op-shops.
An additional funding agreement covers approximately 80% of the operational costs for the SPCA Inspectorate Service.
Yvonne says if it’s a matter of resources, then the SPCA needs to get more staff on the ground and in the community.
“They have to pick up … they need to go back to the way they used to be, and actually do their job.”
But Regnerus-Kell says the SPCA does not have any powers under the Dog Control Act.
“As such, while roaming and stray dogs in communities are overtly managed by councils, SPCA support the proactive measures of providing community desexing opportunities as a reduced or free service for dogs to address the population issues,” he says.
Yvonne would like to see the SPCA share funding with smaller players. Providers like her charity are desperate for extra help.
At the moment, she has between 40 and 60 animals fostered out, and she’s always on the lookout for more people willing to take on an animal, short-term, so it can be rehomed.
“They might do a few [ads] on the TV with that grey kitten,” says Yvonne of the SPCA. “That cat must be just about dead by now. I mean, seriously, it’s been on there for years. ‘Sylvie, the cat. We feed it on Purina’ – yeah, have they not had any more cats since?”
Yvonne Packer says people need to take responsibility for their pets, and can’t rely on rescue centres for help. LAWRENCE SMITH / Sunday Star-Times
Regnerus-Kell says the SPCA does not provide any financial support to other animal welfare groups for operational needs, but offers access to funding to support desexing initiatives.
“We have now pulled this process back in-house, and charitable status will no longer be a requirement. We will restart the SPCA Desexing Grant process later this year.”
A new partnership with Auckland Council will help provide free desexing services in communities across the supercity. “We hope to develop more relationships like this with councils going forward,” says Regnerus-Kell.
Yvonne’s charity entirely relies on public donations, but even that’s not enough. She admits she regularly has to dip into her own pockets to keep the service afloat.
day Star-Times
Regnerus-Kell says the SPCA does not provide any financial support to other animal welfare groups for operational needs, but offers access to funding to support desexing initiatives.
“We have now pulled this process back in-house, and charitable status will no longer be a requirement. We will restart the SPCA Desexing Grant process later this year.”
A new partnership with Auckland Council will help provide free desexing services in communities across the supercity. “We hope to develop more relationships like this with councils going forward,” says Regnerus-Kell.
Yvonne’s charity entirely relies on public donations, but even that’s not enough. She admits she regularly has to dip into her own pockets to keep the service afloat.
“Our average vet bill a month is between $9,000 and 12,000,” she says.
No dog will leave the South Auckland Animal Rescue without being desexed, registered, microchipped and vaccinated – something she believes not all rescues are consistent with. It all adds up.
“We cover all their costs, vet bills, worming, flea treatment, anything they need,” she says.
“We’ve just had 11 pups desexed on Sunday, we had one go in yesterday. Last week, there were four that went in. So we’ve done a heap in this last sort of week. And that’s not cheap.”
And they go the extra mile. At the moment, she’s spending most nights on the North Shore helping to track down a dog that’s been on the run for six weeks.
Her message is simple, and it’s not just a call for more money. It’s to pet owners.
“Take responsibility for the animals that you have in your care,” she says.
“If you cannot afford to feed them, give them medical care, get them desexed: don’t get them. Get a stuffed toy.”
Inaugural State of the World’s Animal Health report finds several animal diseases reaching new areas, with half of those reported able to jump to people.
Key findings:
Animal diseases are migrating into previously unaffected areas, half (47%) of which have zoonotic – or animal-to-human – potential.
Outbreaks of bird flu in mammals more than doubled last year compared to 2023, increasing the risk of further spread and human transmission.
Access to livestock vaccines remains uneven around the world, with disease eradication efforts facing funding and political challenges.
Antibiotic use in animals fell by 5% between 2020 and 2022 and expanding livestock vaccination globally would reduce the risk of antibiotic resistance.
23 May, PARIS – Infectious animal diseases are affecting new areas and species, undermining global food security, human health and biodiversity, according to the first State of the World’s Animal Health report.
The new annual assessment, published by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), provides the first comprehensive review of animal disease trends, risks and challenges, from the uptake and availability of vaccines to the use of antibiotics in animals. Released ahead of WOAH’s 92nd General Session and its Animal Health Forum – where leading experts will gather to discuss vaccination and innovation in disease prevention – the report sets the stage for high-level discussions on how science-based vaccination strategies and emerging technologies can help address current and future animal health threats through a One Health approach.
Among its findings, the report revealed the reported number of avian influenza outbreaks in mammals more than doubled last year compared to 2023 with 1,022 outbreaks across 55 countries compared to 459 outbreaks in 2023.
The authors highlighted that, while the risk of human infection remains low, the more mammalian species such as cattle, cats or dogs infected, the greater the possibility of the virus adapting to mammal-to-mammal, and potentially human, transmission.
“The spread, prevalence and impact of infectious animal diseases is changing, bringing new challenges for agriculture and food security, human health and development, and natural ecosystems,” said Dr.Emmanuelle Soubeyran, Director General of WOAH.
Bird flu, or high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI), which has caused the culling or loss of more than 630 million birds in the last two decades was one of several animal diseases to affect new areas last year.
Peste des petits ruminants (PPR), which has traditionally affected sheep and goats in developing countries, has re-emerged in Europe while Africa swine fever (ASF) reached Sri Lanka, travelling more than 1,800 km from the nearest outbreaks, the report found.
Almost half of the WOAH-listed diseases notified to WOAH between 2005 and 2023 were considered a threat to human health with zoonotic, or animal-to-human infection, potential.
The report cited climate change and increased trade among the factors influencing the spread and prevalence of animal diseases. Many are preventable through a combination of vaccination, improved hygiene and biosecurity measures, but the report noted that access to animal vaccines remains uneven around the world.
“Alongside other measures, vaccination remains one of the most powerful disease prevention tools available, saving countless lives, preventing economic losses and reducing the need for antimicrobial treatments,” Dr.Soubeyran added.
“To limit the spread of highly damaging diseases like avian influenza, foot and mouth disease and PPR, the global community must strengthen international cooperation and ensure equitable access to safe, effective vaccines, alongside other control measures.”
Since 2006, WOAH has supported access to animal vaccines through its vaccine banks and currently operates two, one for rabies and one for PPR. As of May 2025, the WOAH Rabies Vaccine Bank has delivered almost 30 million dog vaccines to countries in Africa and Asia. However, progress towards ending rabies has stalled in recent years, with the percentage of countries reporting implementing control measures falling from 85 per cent to 62 per cent.
The report also emphasised the importance of disease prevention for reducing the need for antibiotic treatment and limiting the development of drug-resistant diseases.
By 2050, antimicrobial resistance is projected to cause livestock losses that jeopardise the food security of two billion people and result in a US$ 100 trillion economic loss if urgent action is not taken.
The latest figures indicate that antimicrobial use, including antibiotics, in animals fell five per cent between 2020 and 2022, with use in Europe seeing the biggest decline of 23 per cent, followed by Africa at 20 per cent. However, one in five countries continue to use antimicrobials as growth promoters, which is discouraged by WOAH.
“The indiscriminate use of antimicrobials contributes to antimicrobial resistance, which is a major threat to both animal and human health,” said Dr.Javier Yugueros-Marcos, Head of the Antimicrobial Resistance and Veterinary Products Department at WOAH. “The declining use of antibiotics in almost all regions is encouraging but further reductions can be achieved by prioritising preventative measures against animal diseases, with vaccination as an essential component of these.”
WOAH calls for investments to strengthen national Veterinary Services, greater global and regional coordination and improved disease surveillance systems to scale up effective disease control. This includes developing and implementing advanced diagnostic tools to differentiate between vaccinated and infected animals, enabling accurate disease tracking and trade transparency.
Read the report – For interviews, please contact media@woah.org
Key success stories on vaccination presented in the report
In October 2023, France became the first EU country to implement a nationwide vaccination campaign against bird flu in ducks, which play a key role in the spread of the disease. The campaign helped reduce the number of outbreaks from a forecasted 700 to just 10, according to the report.
Türkiye developed a new vaccine for an outbreak of FMD within just 37 days, vaccinating 14.2 million cattle – 90% of the national herd – and 2.5 million sheep within six months.
The Philippines has now vaccinated millions of dogs against rabies with help of WOAH vaccine bank. In the past, the country received 500,000 doses of rabies vaccine through EU funding, leading to a noticeable decline in rabies cases.
When we worry about cruelty to animals, we’re often thinking not only of their suffering but also of the potential dangers to human society posed by animal abusers. As A. W. H. Bates, a coroner’s pathologist and scholar of animal ethics, writes, this was particularly true in nineteenth-century England, when some people were horrified at the notion that the doctors who cared for their families might also torture dogs.
Bates writes that efforts to address animal cruelty in British Parliament began in the first years of the nineteenth century. The growing London elite found the treatment of livestock disturbing. They also viewed the poor condition of these animals as signs of unfeelingness or active cruelty among the working class. Lawmakers debated whether viciousness toward animals led to violence against humans. But, at first, these concerns were directed only against the poor.
In 1824, scientific vivisection became the subject of similar scrutiny. That year, French physiologist François Magendie gave a public demonstration of cutting apart a live greyhound, which he allegedly nailed to a table, at an anatomy school in London. While British doctors also performed vivisections at that time, they were more popular among continental Europeans. Magendie’s actions stirred up an outcry based partly on anti-French sentiments.
British doctors generally decried Magendie’s demonstration as unnecessary and therefore cruel—and also as a damaging stain on their profession. But they still defended vivisection as acceptable if the experiments yielded valuable results.
Bates writes that concerns about vivisection grew over the decades. Opponents warned that the practice could make researchers and physicians callous toward all living creatures. In 1844, the Protestant Magazine printed a “caution to parents” to avoid any doctor who practiced it. And Queen Victoria herself privately referred to vivisection as “one of the worst signs of wickedness in human nature.”
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS), formed in 1875, blamed vivisection for an apparently increasing interest among scientists in experimenting on human beings, including condemned criminals and paupers.
Bates argues that the debate over vivisection reflected a continuing interest within the world of medicine in Aristotelian virtue ethics. While British society at this time was generally more attuned to utilitarian or deontological ethics, which focus on whether an action is right or wrong, the medical field concerned itself with the moral character of individual practitioners. This meant balancing qualities such as tenderness and resolution, for the purpose of carrying out difficult but necessary procedures without becoming inured to suffering.
Following this logic, some physiologists presented their work as an act of sacrifice, in one case writing that the process sometimes “so shatters them, that it requires all their power of will to carry the process through to the accomplishment of the aim.”
Ultimately, the battle over vivisection faded from public awareness largely because of shifting professional norms. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, animal experimentation increasingly became a specialization of dedicated physiologists rather than practicing doctors, freeing patients and parents from worries about their own physicians’ moral bearings.
“Thugs do not suffer any sanctions, even when a report is filed, there is no reaction from the authorities and that is the problem.”
Photo: Reuters
((Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.))
28.09.2024
The text contains disturbing details
A man from East Sarajevo shot a dog, then dragged it wounded along the street with a tractor, a pensioner from the village of Stajkovce, in the south of Serbia, beat a mare with a hammer and a pole, a six-year-old boy from Niš threw a kitten and ran over it with a scooter, a man from Leskov tortured a poisonous snake – these are just some of the creepy headlines lately that disturb people in the Balkans.
Some of the adult perpetrators are prosecuted or convicted, but as a rule, the punishments are mild or none, and that is why there are more and more cases like this, says Milica Ranković from the Feniks Animal Protection Association.
“People who have these kinds of mental problems are increasingly relaxed, because they see that there is no adequate punishment.
“Thugs don’t suffer any sanctions, even when a report is filed, there is no reaction from the authorities and that’s where the problem lies,” Ranković told the BBC.
And when there is a reaction, it is slow, and punishments are often conditional or just a warning, he adds.
The situation is similar in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where because of the case from East Sarajevo, although the suspect was detained, protests were organized in Sarajevo and Banja Luka, demanding tougher sentences.
“There is enough violence against the weak, against women, children, animals… Enough!
“Monsters move freely among us, today it was a dog, and tomorrow it will be someone’s child,” said Mila Šarić, employed at the Veterinary Institute of the Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. transmissions H1.
What motivates people to be violent towards animals?
–Analysis by Marija Branković, professor at the Faculty of Media and Communications, Singidunum University*
Science today understands animals as sentient beings, which absolutely have the capacity to experience pain, fear and many other emotions.
Because of all this, violence against animals should alarm us as much as violence against people.
Based on psychological research, we know that there are complex explanations for violent behavior, it is impossible to attribute it to just one cause.
At the basic level, there are differences in people’s capacities for empathy, so we are talking about the expression of certain personality traits, which we call “dark traits” – psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism and sadism – which are associated with a tendency to aggressive and antisocial forms of behavior.
Research conducted in Serbia shows that these four personality traits are clearly related to a negative attitude towards animals.
However, this should not be understood as something that will necessarily manifest itself, because it always depends on whether this behavior is encouraged or punished in the environment.
Furthermore, we know for sure that aggressive and violent behavior is learned by model and not only in the family, but social beliefs and norms are also very important, therefore, the general climate in society.
And we live in a so-called post-conflict society.
These are societies of fear, in which people live with a sense of threat, insecurity, and mistrust, which all make fertile ground for violence.
Moreover, violence is justified and applied in the public and political sphere, especially towards dissenters, which means that at the highest and most visible level of society you have clear models of violent behavior.
It is not an exaggeration to say that violence is promoted and even rewarded, and it is certainly punished insufficiently and unsystematically.
* Marija Branković is Frpsychologist and research associate at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory and author of the book Psychology of humans and (other) animals
What penalties are threatened?
Bosnia and Herzegovina: The laws in the two entities differ – Republika Srpska (RS) i Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Anyone who severely abuses an animal or destroys animal habitats in a wider area will be fined or imprisoned for up to six months in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and up to two years in the RS. For more serious forms, when a material benefit has been obtained or a protected species has suffered, the prison sentence can be up to one year in the Federation, and up to five years in the RS.
Montenegro: Anyone who kills, injures or tortures an animal in violation of the regulations will be fined or imprisoned up to one year, and in the case of protected species, imprisonment from six months to five years.
Croatia: Whoever kills an animal without a justified reason or abuses it more severely, causes it unnecessary pain or exposes it to unnecessary suffering, will be punished with a fine imprisonment for up to two years or in more severe cases up to three years. In Croatia, the criminal offense of abandoning animals was recently introduced, which carries a penalty of up to one year.
North Macedonia: Torturing and killing animals is punishable by a fine and a sentence of up to six months in prison, and carelessness is also punished – if the animal is left without food and water, it can be obtained three months in prison.
Serbia: Abuse and torture of animals is punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of up to two years, writes in Criminal law, and for more severe forms up to three years and a higher fine. It is a criminal offense to organize animal fights and bet on them out of self-interest, for which the prison sentence is from six months to three years. Rulebook exact punishments for abuse of animals are also prescribed, for example, for a brown bear it is one million dinars, for a griffon vulture or a black eagle 500.000, for a wolf or lynx 300.000, for an otter 250.000, up to certain types of snails or frogs where the penalty is 1.200 dinars.
Associations are looking for a register of abusers
Legislation is completely fine in Serbia, but the problem is that it is not enforced, Milica Ranković points out.
“The same problem is in the entire Balkans,” she adds.
At the beginning of September, for the second time, the Feniks Association, together with ten other animal protection organizations from all over Serbia, sent an official letter to the competent ministries with a proposal to create a database on abusers and killers of animals.
They also request that systematic work be done on education and prevention of such cases from the earliest age – through creating empathy, but also to encourage reporting.
The state representatives were approached for the first time last year after the May tragedies, when the neighbors of Uroš Blažić, accused of mass murder in the villages of Dubona and Malo Orašje, claimed that mistreated animals.
However, the authorities never responded.
“It is devastating for our society, because it shows that it is not interested in dealing with violence.
“All associations from all over Serbia have the same experiences, we are all aware that such a database is necessary, the problems are the same and nothing has changed,” says Ranković.
Whether the introduction of such a register is being considered at all and what it would look like, the BBC did not receive an answer from either the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of the Interior.
TOMS KALNINS/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock
A worldwide problem
In the past decades, there were many monstrous cases that filled the columns of the domestic black chronicle.
From Kerusha Mila, whose paws were cut off, to a video of a cat being doused with gasoline and burned alive, to individuals who kill dogs with a knife, sometimes petting them beforehand, and that’s how it is in the world.
The shocking number of cruelty to animals, which are found daily in the media or on social networks, are only the tip of the iceberg, because most are never reported, according to the website of the American association. Humane society.
Puppies, cats, horses and domestic animals are the most common targets.
According to their data, animal abusers are more often men under the age of 30, and sick collecting of animals, which is more often done by women over 60, is also considered abuse.
Cruelty to animals is strongly related to other crimes.
People who mistreat animals are five times more likely to be violent towards people, according to an American study by Northwestern University in Massachusetts.
Behavioral profiles of criminals by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regularly show that many serial killers and rapists tortured animals as children, writes the British association Peta.
We live in a world where we share our homes with some species, eat others, and exploit still more in myriad ways, depending on what we’ve been taught about how we should see and treat different species, and whether we should consider ourselves superior to them. Unfortunately, the misguided belief that some species are worth our moral consideration and protection and others aren’t is known as speciesism, and it’s causing immeasurable harm.
What is Speciesism?
Speciesism is a form of discrimination that considers one species superior to others. This mindset is based on the belief that humans have the right to dominate, use, and kill non-human animals for their own benefit.
The term “speciesism” was coined in the 1970s by British psychologist and animal rights activist Richard Ryder, who introduced it in a pamphlet distributed as part of a campaign against animal experimentation in Oxford, England.
Why Is Speciesism a Form of Discrimination?
Like racism, sexism, homophobia, and all forms of discrimination against certain groups, speciesism devalues individuals based on arbitrary characteristics — and in the case of animals, their level of intelligence, their appearance, and if they have fur, feathers, and fins, or whether they walk on four legs instead of two.
This perspective perpetuates the idea that we have the right to use, exploit, and kill other animals simply because they’re different from us.
What Does Speciesism Look Like?
Speciesism is often the first form of discrimination we’re taught, and it manifests in two ways. The first is the belief in the supremacy of the human species over all other species. The second is viewing only certain species — such as animal companions and some wild animals — as worthy of care and protection, with some even considered part of our families. In contrast, most other animals are disregarded, and many are enslaved, tortured, and treated as commodities for food, entertainment, fashion, research, transportation, and much more.
Farmed animals are often depicted in marketing for food products as trivial, cartoonish characters, which strips them of their dignity and status as feeling individuals with their own personalities and preferences. Small family farms tend to be romanticized as wholesome places where animals live happy lives and are cared for by farmers. In reality, the basis of all animal farming is the exploitation and killing of sentient beings. Still, humans have compartmentalized their ethical views, allowing us to rationalize the cruelty and violence inflicted on animals we might otherwise be fascinated by and care about, all for our pleasure, convenience, advancement, habits, traditions, and tastes. Although it has been scientifically proven that humans can survive and thrive on a plant-based diet, most continue to consume the flesh, milk, and eggs of animals because we’ve been conditioned to believe that it’s “normal, natural, and necessary.”
Animal companions and certain wild species are granted some legal protections, while all other animals are not. Cruel practices and mutilations without anesthesia, such as castration, tail docking, burning off horns, and extreme confinement, are inflicted on farmed animals like pigs, cows, chickens, goats, sheep, and turkeys, yet would be considered horrific abuse by most in Western culture if done to dogs or cats.
If we would never subject a dog or cat to these practices, nor send them to a slaughterhouse to end their life, we must recognize that no animal deserves to be used or enslaved by us, nor to have such pain and terror inflicted upon them. Even the desire to keep some animals as companions has led to their exploitation through breeding and selling, prioritizing profit over their well-being, which inevitably results in neglect, abuse, and often death. Beagle dogs and rabbits, usually seen as ‘pets,’ are also tormented and killed in research labs.
How is Speciesism Justified?
Humans often try to justify their oppression of animals by saying that humans are the most intelligent species. Yet many animal species possess sensory and physical abilities that humans do not have.
For example, bats use echolocation — the ability to use sound waves to navigate and find objects — to navigate in complete darkness. Tiny wrasse fish can recognize themselves and others in a mirror, joining chimpanzees and dolphins in this rare skill. Octopuses excel at problem-solving and camouflage, altering the texture and color of their skin to blend into their surroundings. Birds like the Arctic tern navigate thousands of miles using environmental cues, including the stars and the Earth’s magnetic field.
Chickens can recognize faces, form social bonds, and have memory and problem-solving skills on par with many other birds and mammals. Cows demonstrate empathy and many other complex emotions and can also solve puzzles. Pigs can navigate mazes and exhibit emotions and intelligence equivalent to a 3-year-old child.
Regardless, is intelligence truly the measure of whether someone deserves to be protected from harm by others? Some cognitively impaired humans are less intelligent than many animals. Does that mean we can also use and kill them? Of course not. No individual should be required to justify their right to safety and protection from human harm based on their cognitive or physical abilities.
How Can You Be Anti-Speciesist?
Whether human or non-human, each individual thinks and feels and has their own subjective experience of life, deserving the right to share this planet with us without being dominated by us. Unlike all forms of discrimination that focus on our differences, we must focus on what all species have in common — our will and desire to live and be free, and our capacity for pain, suffering, and joy.
If we would not tolerate discrimination and harm based on race, gender, or other differences, we must apply the same reasoning to speciesism and view it as equally unjust.
To embrace liberation, justice, and compassion for all Earthlings, live vegan—the principle that calls on humans to live without exploiting any other animals.
***********
Excellent book on the subject, for more in-depth study:
Defining speciesism as “a failure, in attitude or practice, to accord any nonhuman being equal consideration and respect,” this brilliant work critiques speciesism both outside and within the animal rights movement. The author demonstrates that much of the moral philosophy, legal theory, and animal advocacy aimed at advancing nonhuman emancipation actually perpetuate speciesism. Speciesism examines philosophy, law, and activism in terms of three categories: “old speciesism,” “new speciesism,” and species equality.Old-speciesists limit rights to humans. Speciesism refutes their standard arguments against nonhuman rights. Current law is old-speciesist — legally, nonhumans have no rights. Dunayer shows that “animal laws” such as the Humane Slaughter Act afford nonhumans no meaningful protection. She also explains why welfarist campaigns are old-speciesist.
Instead of opposing the abuse or killing of nonhuman beings, such campaigns seek only to make abuse or killing less cruel; they propose alternative ways of violating nonhumans’ moral rights. Many organizations that consider themselves animal rights advocates engage in old-speciesist campaigns, which reinforce the property status of nonhumans rather than promoting their emancipation.New-speciesists espouse rights for only some nonhumans, those whose minds seem most like those of humans. In addition to devaluing most animals, new-speciesists give greater moral consideration and stronger basic rights to humans than they do to any nonhumans. They see animalkind as a hierarchy, with humans at the top.
Dunayer explains why she categorizes such theorists as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Steven Wise as new-speciesists.Nonspeciesists advocaterights for every sentient being. Speciesism makes the case that every creature with a nervous system should be regarded as sentient. The book provides compelling evidence of consciousness in animals often dismissed as insentient — such as fishes, insects, spiders, and snails. Dunayer argues that every sentient being should possess basic legal rights, including rights to life and liberty. Radically egalitarian, Speciesism envisions nonspeciesist thought, law, and action.
The Italian Senate has officially passed Bill AS 1308, a significant legislative advancement aimed at reinforcing animal protection across the country. The bill, previously approved by the Chamber under the name AC 30, introduces comprehensive amendments to the criminal code, criminal procedure code, and related provisions to address and deter crimes against animals, including the brutal practice of dogfighting.
One of the key aspects of the new law is the redefinition of the criminal code’s Title IX bis, replacing the outdated concept of “Crimes against the human sentiment toward animals” with the clearer and more progressive “Crimes against animals.” This change reinforces the idea that animals are deserving of legal protection in their own right, as sentient beings, not merely as subjects whose suffering might offend human sensitivity.
The bill also significantly increases penalties for acts of cruelty, including the killing of animals without necessity, mistreatment, and violations of the ban on unauthorized animal fighting or competitions. In particular, sentences for organizing or participating in animal fights have been increased, aiming to better deter those involved in these violent and illegal activities.
Additionally, the law introduces harsher penalties for crimes committed in aggravating circumstances, such as in the presence of minors or against multiple animals, as well as for the dissemination of videos or images of such acts via digital platforms. This is a critical step in tackling the spread of animal cruelty content online.
“The final approval of AS 1308 represents another important step in the protection of animals in Italy. We’ve made further progress towards the full recognition of non-human animals as sentient beings and victims of crimes, finally overcoming the outdated concept of exclusively protecting the ‘human sentiment’ towards them. We are pleased with the increase in penalties for dogfighting, a criminal activity that we have been combating for years through the ‘Io non combatto project,’ and the expansion of penalties to anyone participating in dogfighting in any capacity,” said Alessandro Fazzi, institutional relations consultant for Humane World for Animals Italy.
“We hope that it will soon be possible to intervene to offer even greater protection for minors, and also to introduce specific social rehabilitation programs for all those who commit crimes against animals, starting with those who participate in dog fights,” continued Fazzi. “By combining these requests with what has been approved today, our country will be able to take truly significant steps toward a more advanced legal civilization.”
A notable provision also addresses the management and recovery of animals seized in criminal proceedings. Under the new legislation, these animals can now be permanently assigned to certified organizations that can provide care and rehabilitation, helping to ensure they are not left in limbo during often-lengthy legal processes. The bill further includes a nationwide ban on keeping dogs chained, a practice often linked to dogfighting, except in strictly defined health or safety circumstances.
“The recently approved bill marks a significant step forward for all those who dedicate themselves every day to the protection of animals. It is a strong signal that strengthens the recognition of animals as sentient beings, deserving of direct protection. It also represents a concrete evolution on an operational level, particularly for the management of animals who are victims of crimes, taken from criminal circuits, and placed under judicial seizure,” said Federica Faiella, president of Fondazione Cave Canem, “I’m especially thinking of the dogs involved in fighting: this law finally recognizes their right to be immediately placed on a path of psychological and physical recovery and, where possible, welcomed into a family setting. This avoids the paradox of animals saved from abuse who remain trapped in the judicial system for years, confined to detention facilities.”
Although some proposed amendments, such as dedicated funding for law enforcement training or the ban on the import and export of hunting trophies from endangered species, were not included in the final version, the bill nonetheless marks a decisive move forward. It modernizes Italy’s approach to animal welfare by aligning legal language and enforcement practices with contemporary views on animal rights and ethical treatment.
By recognizing animals as victims of crime and ensuring stronger legal and institutional tools to protect them, this bill lays the groundwork for more robust animal welfare policies in the future. It sends a clear message that cruelty against animals will be met with serious consequences and that animal protection is a core part of a civilized, humane society.
World Animals Voice 