Kommunikation mellan djurskyddsinspektörer och djurägare
This paper discusses animal welfare, and Sweden, as an EU member state, has a responsibility to ensure that official animal welfare inspections are carried out in accordance with community regulations. The first of January 2009, the welfare moved from the municipalities in to the 21 county administr...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | M2 |
| Lenguaje: | sueco Inglés |
| Publicado: |
SLU/Dept. of Animal Environment and Health (until 231231)
2009
|
| Materias: |
| Sumario: | This paper discusses animal welfare, and Sweden, as an EU member state, has a responsibility to
ensure that official animal welfare inspections are carried out in accordance with community
regulations. The first of January 2009, the welfare moved from the municipalities in to the 21
county administrative boards. This restructuring was made due to the deficiencies that the audit
conducted by the EU of the FVO (Food and Veterinary Office) 2003 found in the Swedish
system. Sweden failed in coordination and inspection to ensure animal welfare.
The aim of this examination paper is to shed light on animal welfare work operated in the county
of Halland and in Sweden in general. The paper focuses on a few questions. What is animal
welfare inspectors’ opinion about the reconstruction and their work at the county administrative
board, and what are the inspectors’ views on animal control inspections and legislation?
Animal welfare inspectors who work in Halland think that it is good that the animal welfare
control has been moved to the county administrative board because this will hopefully provide a
better and more balanced overview of animal welfare in the entire country. Before, the amount of
supervision that was actually implemented differed very much from one municipality to another.
Of the animal owners who responded to the survey, it was less than half who had been in contact
with the animal welfare legislation before they were visited by the animal welfare inspector. Half
of all animal owners thought that the legislation is not sufficiently specific, and that it is difficult
to understand. Moreover, animal owners thought that the legislation gave much space to the
inspectors themselves to decide the outcome.
The investigation shows that animal owners that have had an inspection on their animals’
condition and welfare, because of a complaint against them, are a little bit more dissatisfied with
the animal welfare inspectors. It is the same if non-compliance / violation of the legislation has
been demonstrated in their animal husbandry. However, generally the inspectors have done a
good job according to the responses to the survey. |
|---|