Spenden
- Activities
- About NetAP
- Your help
- Education
- Media
NetAP successfully litigates for ‘Jack’ all the way to the Federal Supreme Court: the story of a long-running legal battle over four instances against the Thurgau Veterinary Office with the result that the cantonal authorities wanted to kill Jack without any legal basis and impose conditions on the pig farmer simply because Jack had a disability.
The value of a pig’s life in Switzerland is demonstrated by the regular scandals on fattening farms, which, although serious shortcomings are uncovered, hardly ever lead to an improvement in animal welfare. Extremely rare, and even then mostly announced, inspections (today only 10% are unannounced) prevent cases of animal cruelty from coming to light. If abuses are nevertheless discovered, they are not seriously pursued. The authorities responsible for inspections cite a lack of resources as the main reason for their own failure. However, the case of “Jack” clearly shows that the available resources are also deliberately misused. In the case of Jack, for example, unannounced inspections were carried out several times in one year – in a case in which violations of the Animal Welfare Act were never detected!
Jack was bought free from the butcher as a piglet and was to be kept as a pet in future. But the Thurgau Veterinary Office had other plans for the friendly and cheerful pig. As Jack had a disability, the office was of the opinion that he should be euthanized immediately. Although there was no legal basis for this, the Thurgau Veterinary Office literally dug its teeth into the case and did everything in its power to get its way. A David versus Goliath battle began, which the animal owner could not possibly fight alone. In order to clarify the important legal issues for the animals, NetAP took over the case and successfully litigated for “Jack” all the way to the Federal Supreme Court.
In addition to animal welfare efforts aimed at improving the situation of many animals, NetAP is also committed to helping individual animals in need. Although from the point of view of the overall situation, the commitment and the associated effort for a single animal or a group of animals may seem less efficient, for the individual it means 100%, i.e. a decision about life or death. In addition, the animals rescued by NetAP are ambassadors for their species and tell their individual story on behalf of the many other animals that cannot be rescued. And the case of Jack in particular shows how much the much-cited dignity of animals is trampled underfoot in our country when mere prognoses are enough to demand the “preventive” killing of a life. If the authorities do not use their obviously limited time resources to carry out more unannounced inspections and for cases where animal welfare violations have actually occurred and take decisive action against these abuses (see the Hefenhofen and Müllheim cases), not much will change for the animals. Instead, the Thurgau Veterinary Office focused with all its might on a caring animal owner who only wanted to protect the life of her pet pig, intimidating her for years, threatening to kill her animal and forcing her into lengthy legal proceedings – even though it can be proven that no violation of the Animal Welfare Act has taken place.
With the help of its Vice President and lawyer, Bruno Mascello, NetAP has fought for an important decision over two years and across various cantonal instances up to the Federal Supreme Court on the question of whether a disabled pig has the right to life. After all, this is what ultimately constitutes the core content of any concept of dignity, and this must never be forgotten when dealing with animals.
The Thurgau Veterinary Office and the Thurgau Department of Home Affairs and National Economy did not want to grant Jack the right to live. Because he couldn’t walk and, above all, because he might suffer at some point in the future. This was regardless of the fact that Jack was not in any pain, was happy, playful and life-affirming and was loved by his owner above all else and was cared for in the best possible way and according to his individual needs, taking his physical limitations into account.
The cantonal authorities did not understand this love of animals or simply did not want to accept it. Perhaps because anything else would greatly change the traditional understanding of farm animals as “mere” food suppliers and thus also call into question the factory farming associated with this point.
In summer 2017, a pet owner decided to save four piglets from a fattening farm from the butcher and keep them as pets in future. These would otherwise have been destined for slaughter and meat production after six months of fattening – nota bene with a life expectancy for pigs of 20 years! – would have been destined for slaughter and meat production. As it turned out, Jack – unlike his three sisters – was born with a physical limitation: due to a narrowing of the spinal column, Jack was limited in the functionality and motor skills of his hind limbs, i.e. he had partial paralysis (paraparesis), not complete paralysis (paraplegia).
After learning about Jack, the Thurgau Veterinary Office ordered the animal owner to have the boar euthanized (put down) by a veterinarian within 30 days due to an alleged violation of the Animal Protection Act. Bruno Mascello appealed against this decision on behalf of the animal owner to the Department of Home Affairs and Economy of the Canton of Thurgau, lodged an appeal with the Thurgau Administrative Court and, after the owner was given further conditions, finally lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Just because you don’t function perfectly physically, it doesn’t have to be associated with pain and suffering. This proof must first be provided; assumptions alone are not enough.
The veterinary office should bear these points in mind when it inspects conventional pig farms in future – hopefully more frequently!
These are all points that the DIV should be reminded of in future when it comes to assessing conventional pig farms!
It would be simple and, in view of the many abuses, appropriate to impose the same requirements on operators of conventional livestock farms!
An alleged causal link between disability and violation of dignity is hastily constructed. Moreover, the fact that the Animal Welfare Act is only viewed from the perspective of the animal keepers, without taking into account the interests of the animals, for whom the Animal Welfare Act was introduced to protect them from the humans who exploit them, is once again shocking.
No pain, suffering, damage, illness or injuries were found in Jack during the entire time! The pet owner was also not accused of poor or inadequate animal care. She could not be accused of disregarding her duty of care or neglecting Jack. The FSVO attested that she conscientiously fulfilled her duties as an animal keeper. She had visited Jack 2-3 times a day, constantly activating and exercising him, which is why he never developed the predicted skin problems – thus proving the prognosticators wrong every day.
The application of the same animal welfare law is therefore deliberately measured with two different yardsticks.
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the periodic reporting ordered by the lower cantonal authority – as well as the euthanization of Jack – constituted a state measure that required a legal basis, which was lacking in the specific case. It held that Jack was kept in compliance with animal welfare regulations, that no animal welfare violations could be established and that the animal owner had neither disregarded her duty of care nor neglected Jack.
Sadly, Jack passed away unexpectedly at the age of three on 28 February 2020.
Jack is probably the first pig to boast that a court has confirmed that a physical disability does not automatically justify euthanasia. This also applies in particular to so-called fattening pigs, i.e. they are not simply to be regarded as “meat suppliers”. Every animal has the same rights as an individual, in particular the right to a life free of suffering. And all authorities must respect this. After all, the Swiss Animal Welfare Act serves to protect the weak and must be enforced consistently.
One would hope that the veterinary offices would put their resources into real cases, some of which have already been proven several times, and show the same commitment to the lawful and correct enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. Then there would be no more tragic cases like Hefenhofen (TG) and Oftringen (AG) or those in all the slaughterhouses. But as long as a caring animal owner is accused of having an “idealistic (unprofessional) personal understanding of animal welfare” that has “nothing to do with the realities of actual animal welfare enforcement anchored in the real world”, this will probably take some time.
To all those who may now object that it is disproportionate to go to so much trouble and generate so many costs for a single pig, as well as having to resort to the administration and the courts, it should be pointed out that precisely this one case is an example of how the concept of animal dignity is unfortunately still misunderstood and practised in Switzerland – to the detriment of the animals, who cannot even count on the Animal Welfare Act, which protects them (!), being correctly and consistently enforced.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in this case who helped to show the authorities their limits in dealing with animals. In particular, we would like to mention the animal owner who wanted Jack to live and took exemplary care of him, the understanding vet who always stood up for Jack, the animal welfare organization that gave Jack the chance of an operation and therapy, and of course our Vice President, Bruno Mascello, who, unperturbed by the pressure exerted by the cantonal authorities, ultimately successfully conducted all the complex legal proceedings and obtained this important decision for all the animals concerned. No donations were used for this.
Der «Beobachter» hat über diesen Fall berichtet – vgl. Ausgabe vom 5. Juni 2020