http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/07/wlob07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/07/ixworld.html
3/7/04 - Residents in the prosperous Italian town of
Reggio Emilia were outraged yesterday after its council adopted an animal
rights bylaw that bans boiling live lobster as "useless torture."
Supporters of the move said that it gave animals - both
pets and those in the wild - equal rights to man, but local pet-owners
criticised it as terrifying political correctness.
Under the bylaw, "sociable" birds such as budgerigars and
parrots must be kept in pairs. Birdcages must be at least five times the
bird's wingspan in width, and three times in height. It also makes it
illegal to keep a goldfish in a round glass bowl. Anyone who breaks the
law faces a fine of up to $495 (£325).
Davide Nitrosi, a resident, said: "I'd like someone on the
council to explain how people are supposed to determine that a bird is
'sociable'. Also, how am I supposed to kill a lobster before cooking it?
Hit it on the head?"
Hunting with dogs will be effectively prohibited because
of a ban on the animals entering areas where meatballs laced with poison
have been found. Another clause requires owners to ensure that each pet
sharing a meal gets an equal portion.
A new council office devoted to the protection of "urban
fauna" is to be established, with a full-time employee to look after stray
cats.
The bylaw is thought to be the first of its kind in Italy,
a country not renowned for its humane treatment of animals - but Reggio
Emilia, a town of 120,000 people near Bolgna, has one of the highest
standards of living in the country, and its administrators say that it can
afford to take better care of its pets.
Olga Patacini, a veterinary surgeon, advised councillors
to revise the law. "The last law concerning the matter in the city was
passed in 1913 when the whole idea of keeping pets was very different,"
she said.
The law was passed on Friday night after a heated
discussion in the town hall, with 22 councillors voting in favour, and
only one against. The dissenter Marco Marziani, a councillor with Silvio
Berlusconi's Forza Italia Party, said: "The idea of comparing the rights
of an animal to that of human beings completely casts into the shadows the
sacred role of human life."
Critics say that the law has only been adopted as a sop to
the powerful Green Party faction on the local council, and say that it
will harm the local economy. They say that it will prevent amusement park
owners from giving away goldfish, chicks and rabbits as prizes. Pet shops
will be compelled to ensure that cages, coops and hutches have non-slip
surfaces that are sheltered from the sun and wind, and that the animals
are displayed in their windows for limited periods.
The law will have particular impact on Reggio Emilia
because of its position as Italy's unofficial amateur bird-breeding
capital and host of an international bird-breeding festival.
Ivan Gualerzi, a board member of the local chapter of the
Italian Ornithologists Federation, complained yesterday that the council
had not consulted breeders. He said that the standard size of birdcage
used by breeders during the festival, when 12,000 birds were on show in
the town, would be outlawed.
"This law is trying to impose standards for animals which
fail to take into account their individuality," he said. "They're trying
to impose a standard that won't work. The size of a cage depends on the
type of bird, and on the individual bird itself. If some birds, such as
parrots, are put in too large a space they get depressed."
He said the requirement to have rough floors in birdcages
was absurd. "Birds don't slip," he said. Even residents sympathetic to the
legislation are dismissive.
"The spirit of the law is good, but in practical terms
it's exaggerated and a bit of a mess," said Tiziano Bassoli, a retired
butcher and songbird breeder. "It looks like it's been cobbled together in
an evening."
Go on to Nation's Most
Notorious Class B Dealer Charged
Return to 4 April 2004 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
