Are animals protected enough in Liechtenstein?

When a farmer abused a sick cow with an electric cattle prod and maltreated it with a pitchfork, horror spread throughout the principality. Worse still was the execution of a young cow that was made known by video. The farmer and an assistant tried unsuccessfully to kill the animal with a small caliber rifle. After it failed, they hammered a long nail into the bullet hole of the cow lying on the ground. As the investigations of the public prosecutor showed, the young mother animal had to be killed after complications during the birth process. The farmer and his helper are accused of animal cruelty and will have to answer in court in the near future.

After the cruelty to animals became known, the public questioned whether the Animal Welfare Act was sufficient to prevent such cases. Now this question has also been asked on the political stage. The “cruel execution of a cow” was the reason for the Fatherland Union (VU) to make a move in parliament. He demands a report from the government on whether there is a need for adjustments in animal welfare. Because the farmer with the pitchfork was only fined by the court, the question is raised as to whether higher penalties would not be necessary to act as a deterrent. As was shown when the initiative was referred, Parliament considers a revision of the Animal Welfare Act of 2010 to be appropriate with regard to the level of punishment.

24 establishments, 19 complaints

However, doubts were raised as to whether higher penalties were sufficient to prevent animal cruelty. Rather, the lever should be applied to increased controls. The Minister responsible for animal welfare, Manuel Frick, explained in Parliament that regular basic controls would be carried out in accordance with Swiss legislation, supplemented by follow-up controls. In the event of serious deficiencies, the competent veterinary office has the necessary immediate measures. If animal welfare is endangered, the other suspensive effect is withdrawn from complaints against the measures ordered.

The basic controls carried out at 24 cattle farms in the 2020 reporting year resulted in 19 complaints, almost half of which related to the use of veterinary medicinal products. One of the measures provided for in the applicable animal protection law is the imposition of a ban on keeping animals. The number of times this last resort has been imposed should be in the government report announced for the first half of the year.

Both in public and in parliament, the role of the animal welfare officer was questioned in addition to the sentence and control activities. According to the law, this person, who must have a degree in veterinary medicine, zoology or agricultural sciences, has the task of representing the interests of animal welfare. Originally, in 2005, consideration was given to appointing an animal advocate with considerable powers. In order for the veterinary office not to compete with a second authority, the function of the animal welfare officer was created in a weaker form.

The “toothless” animal welfare officer?

Although the animal welfare officer has the right to inspect the files in administrative proceedings, he has no executive powers. “A toothless instrument”, as Martin Hilti, veterinarian and president of the animal protection association, criticized in a recent interview and added that the animal protection officer had no function other than studying the files.

When the video of the cruel execution of the cow made the rounds, many hoped that the animal welfare officer would intervene. As it turned out, the incumbent Christoph Büchel had taken over a veterinary practice in Austria shortly after his appointment in 2019 and was thus around 500 kilometers from the crime scene. After the animal welfare officer left, the government saw no need to hire a new person for this task.

In the meantime, the animal welfare officer Büchel has made his position available, so that the government is forced to fill this post. In response to criticism in Parliament of the animal welfare officer’s failure to intervene, the responsible minister explained that this person does not have a direct, active role in the implementation of animal welfare, as is often wrongly assumed in public. After Parliament’s clear ideas that the Animal Welfare Commissioner should have more intervention options and powers, the government will hardly be able to avoid changing the competences of this “animal advocate”.