Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

The purpose of this candidate thesis is to obtain an overall picture of how many prohibitions against owning or taking care of animals that were announced in Sweden in the years 2006-2008 and on what basis these judicial decisions were taken. What is the situation for the person behind the judicial decisions? Is there a so-called risk category where preventive actions to solve the problem can be taken at an earlier stage?
The first Swedish animal welfare legislation came into force in 1944. Previously there was a law of 1857 that only prohibited the maltreatment of farm animals. In 1988 the existing animal welfare law was revised into an in principle new law (1988:534).
As early as in the Royal Majesty’s government bill (1944:43) to the 1944 animal welfare legislation, there was a proposal that issued prohibition for those having been convicted of aggravated cruelty to animals. This proposal, however, was excluded from the final legislation because the industry associations strongly opposed it.
In the years that followed it became apparent that it was difficult to handle and manage repeated, serious animal welfare issues that arose, and a government bill with a proposal of a prohibition against owning animals was presented. This led to the concept ‘prohibition of owning and taking care of animals’ being introduced into the animal welfare law in 1969. The provision was then moved over to the new animal welfare law (1988:534), in principle without changes.
In my work I have reviewed 524 pieces of decisions taken by the Swedish county administrative boards in the years 2006-2008 and of these I have used 494 pieces in the following analyses.
The number of decisions differed considerably between the county administrative boards, to some extent depending on county size and number of existing keepers. At the top is Västra Götaland with 74 prohibitions, which the majority (33 pieces) taken in 2008.
In my work, I have only found 14 prohibitions where the individual has stated abuse problems (drugs), 11 pieces with an alcohol problem and 7 with mental illness. These relatively low figures suggest that it is difficult to identify a so-called risk group, where special efforts are needed.
The decisions vary greatly in layout and information between the various county administrative boards. This can be a contributing factor to the low number of abuse or other social or medical problems found in the picture. To get an overall insight and be able to form an opinion about the possible underlying problems of each individual animal owner, one must have access to extensive background information in each file, which is not the case in the majority of these decisions.
The most common animal that the decision of prohibition of owning or taking care of animals is attended for is the category "animals". This means that the individual is forbidden to keep any kind of animals regardless of species. This is applicable at 268 pieces of the decisions.  
The most common animal in terms of possession is beef cattle, which account for about 80 pieces of the decisions. Dairy cows account for only 12 pieces of the decisions in terms of possession and are not specified on the prohibitions.