Three Things to Know
Comparing dog welfare legislations across countries is challenging due to varying legislative structures (e.g., federal vs. state) and tools (e.g., laws vs. guidelines). This study analyzed dog welfare legislation in eleven Western countries.
European nations, excluding Denmark and Norway, exhibit the most restrictive pet ownership regulations. These encompass not only breeding, sales, and surgical interventions, but also, in cases like Sweden and Germany, owner responsibilities for daily care.
Conversely, countries like New Zealand rely heavily on soft law and self-regulation. The United States demonstrates the least regulatory oversight, with significant variations across states. This disparity may reflect a cultural preference for limited government intervention.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners:
This study effectively compares dog welfare legislations across countries, offering valuable insights into the diverse range of regulatory tools employed. This research provides a crucial resource for animal welfare advocates. It not only serves as a reference for identifying successful legislative models in other jurisdictions but also highlights the potential for utilizing various regulatory approaches, such as hard law (legislation) alongside softer instruments like guidelines, codes of conduct, and recommendations.
The Full Picture
Compared to production and laboratory animals, the welfare of companion dogs, particularly in Western countries, has historically received less legislative and regulatory attention, often relying solely on general anti-cruelty statutes. However, recent years have witnessed a surge in interest in companion dog welfare among policymakers, legislators, and academics. This study, titled “Regulating Companion Dog Welfare: A Comparative Study of Legal Frameworks in Western Countries,” examines the legislative frameworks governing privately owned dogs in eight European jurisdictions and three Western, non-European countries (New South Wales in Australia, New Zealand, and the USA).
The research delves into key welfare areas, including breeding practices, reproductive limitations, sales regulations, surgical interventions, daily care requirements, and humane euthanasia methods. By comparing legislative approaches across these jurisdictions, this study aims to:
- Highlight variations in scope and specificity of dog welfare legislations across countries.
- Uncover the underlying conceptual and ideological frameworks that influence these variations.
- Investigate whether these differences arise from distinct legal traditions or varying cultural attitudes towards animals.
- Explore the utilization of diverse legislative mechanisms, such as parliamentary laws, binding regulations, and non-binding codes of conduct.
This comparative analysis will provide valuable insights into the evolving legal landscape of companion dog welfare in Western societies.
Study Methods
Analytical Focus
The study focuses on privately owned companion dogs, excluding working dogs and dogs bred exclusively for commercial purposes. Welfare issues analyzed include breeding practices, reproductive limits, sales regulations, surgical interventions, daily handling, and euthanasia. The study prioritizes welfare issues directly regulated in the selected jurisdictions, excluding topics like muzzling, leash use, and vaccination due to their indirect or ambiguous connection to welfare.
Geographic Focus
This study examines dog welfare legislations across countries: eight in Europe (Austria, Denmark, England, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden), two in Oceania (New South Wales in Australia, New Zealand) and the United States of America). In federal systems like Germany, Austria, the USA, and Australia, state-level laws were also analyzed due to significant regional variations in animal welfare regulations.
In particular, researchers drew a key distinction between binding norms, such as laws and administrative regulations, which have direct legal force and are enforceable, and non-binding norms, including guidelines and codes of conduct, which offer recommendations but lack direct legal enforceability. While considered “soft law”, these non-binding norms can significantly influence administrative and judicial decisions regarding animal welfare.
Study Results
While researchers found that all jurisdictions prohibit animal ill-treatment, specific welfare-related regulations differed significantly.
Breeding Practices
Regulations targeting the breeding of dogs with welfare-threatening characteristics are common in most European jurisdictions (excluding Denmark), New South Wales, and New Zealand. These rules aim to prevent breeding that could result in suffering due to extreme physical traits or hereditary diseases. In New South Wales and New Zealand, guidelines prioritize the physical and mental health of breeding animals. Notably, the USA lacks national regulations specifically addressing the unethical breeding of dogs with welfare-threatening characteristics.
Reproductive Limitations
Legislation on minimum age for mating and restrictions on litter frequency varies. In some countries like England, Italy, the Netherlands, New South Wales (Australia), and Sweden, specific laws mandate minimum ages for breeding, typically ranging from 12 to 18 months. These regulations often include additional restrictions such as prohibiting breeding during the first estrus cycle. New Zealand, while lacking specific legislation, provides guidelines that recommend similar practices.
Frequency limits commonly allow for one litter per year or two over two years, with exceptions permitted under veterinary authorization in some jurisdictions. England and Italy also cap the total number of litters per bitch at six or seven, respectively.
Sales Regulations
Dog sales are primarily regulated within Europe, with most countries, excluding Germany and Italy, prohibiting sales in public markets, shops, and similar venues. England mandates a unique approach, requiring sales to occur directly at the breeder’s location with the buyer present. Austria stands out by specifically regulating online sales, requiring a permit for commercial transactions.
Minimum age restrictions for selling puppies are common, typically set at eight weeks, with some exceptions like the Netherlands (seven weeks) and Norway (recommended). New Zealand emphasizes broader welfare considerations, focusing on the puppy’s health, independence, and social readiness before sale.
Most jurisdictions, particularly for commercial sales, require sellers to provide care instructions to buyers. While not legally binding, New Zealand offers comprehensive care guidance as recommendations.
Surgical Interventions
Surgical interventions, such as neutering, tail docking, ear cropping, and debarking, are regulated extensively in European jurisdictions. Their legislations prohibit surgical procedures for altering a pet’s appearance or for other irreversible purposes, except for veterinary or legitimate reasons. In contrast, New South Wales, New Zealand, and the USA lack similar overarching prohibitions.
Neutering is permitted in all jurisdictions (except Norway) without veterinary justification to prevent reproduction. However, specific rules for other interventions vary:
- Tail Docking: Generally prohibited unless justified by veterinary needs, though exemptions exist in some European countries. For example, Denmark allows tail docking for specific hunting breeds within four days of birth, while Germany and England permit it for working or hunting dogs. In New South Wales and New Zealand, tail docking is only allowed for treating disease or injury, while it remains unrestricted in the USA.
- Ear Cropping: Prohibited in all European countries studied, as well as in New South Wales and New Zealand. The USA lacks nationwide restrictions.
- Debarking: Prohibited in Europe without veterinary justification. In the USA, debarking is allowed in some states. New South Wales and New Zealand permit it only as a last resort after other measures, like training, fail.
Day-to-Day Handling by Owner
Regulation varies widely among jurisdictions.
- Housing and Exercise: Austria, Germany, and Sweden have detailed regulations for indoor and outdoor environments. Sweden sets rules on the maximum time dogs can be left alone and minimum requirements for walks. Germany mandates sufficient exercise, including at least two daily outings totaling one hour, as announced by the German Ministry for Food and Agriculture. Italy, the Netherlands, and New Zealand offer general welfare provisions, while Denmark, New South Wales, and the USA have no specific housing or exercise requirements.
- Restraint and Collars: Most jurisdictions, except England, Italy, and the USA, restrict prolonged restraint of dogs. Inhumane training tools, such as electric collars, are banned or being phased out in all European countries and New South Wales but remain allowed in New Zealand and the USA.
The absence of regulations on routine care — such as requirements for indoor/outdoor environments, dog walking, or time spent alone — may reflect authorities’ desire to prioritize providing obligatory care information to dog owners, rather than imposing enforceable legal requirements.
Killing (Including Euthanasia)
Austria, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands restrict killing to cases of incurable disease or serious, untreatable behavioral problems. The Netherlands further requires that all behavioral intervention options be exhausted before euthanasia is considered.
Notably, Scandinavian and Anglosphere countries do not have such bans. This absence does not necessarily imply neglect of welfare considerations, as these jurisdictions often regulate how and by whom the killing is conducted, reflecting deliberation on the implications for dog welfare.
Regulations on who can perform the killing vary. In some jurisdictions like Denmark, Germany, and many U.S. states, veterinarians or individuals with specific licenses (like hunting licenses) are authorized. However, exceptions may exist, such as for very young puppies in Denmark.
Austria, Italy, and the Netherlands mandate that only veterinarians can perform euthanasia. England and New South Wales limit this requirement to dogs kept for breeding or sale.
Overall Comparison
To compare the level of welfare regulation across jurisdictions, researchers employed a comparative scale ranging from 0 (no regulation) to 6 (high regulation). They also accounted for non-binding guidelines, such as New Zealand’s recommendations on breeding and Norway’s advice on puppy sales, as well as state-specific regulations in the USA, by assigning lower indicative scores.
| Country | Breeding (Health of Offspring) | Reproductive Limitations | Sales | Surgical Interventions | Day-to-Day Handling | Killing | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | 4 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 26 |
| Denmark | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
| England | 4 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 22 |
| Germany | 6 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 26 |
| Italy | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 30 |
| Netherlands | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 34 |
| Norway | 4 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 15 |
| New South Wales (Australia) | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 24 |
| New Zealand | 4 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 21 |
| Sweden | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 26 |
| USA | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Average | 3.6 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 21.6 |
The table above laid clear the significant differences between jurisdictions. Non-European countries and England generally exhibit low levels of regulation, as do Denmark, Italy, and Norway. In contrast, central European nations like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden have higher levels of regulation, partly driven by an increasing recognition of dogs’ elevated status as companion animals. This variation might also reflect differing cultural attitudes, such as the strong liberal traditions in the USA, Australia, and New Zealand, which emphasize minimal state interference.
Countries like Germany and Sweden scored highly in areas such as day-to-day handling due to extensive rules on exercise, housing, and restraint. Denmark’s particularly low regulation level relative to neighboring countries raises questions. While its policies require dog buyers to receive written care instructions, this approach suggests that legislators may believe that education is more effective than enforceable rules.
Soft-law and self-regulation dominate when addressing private practices, as seen in New Zealand, where reproductive norms are treated as recommendations, and most jurisdictions mandate written care instructions for dog buyers. suggesting differing approaches to achieving welfare goals. This reliance on soft-law tools may reflect the inherent challenges of enforcing private care routines, such as exercise and time spent alone, and aligns with traditions of non-binding regulation in these contexts.
Conclusion
The study reveals significant variation in dog welfare regulations across eleven Western countries, highlighting the need for mutual learning and collaborative approaches.
While general anti-cruelty laws exist, many jurisdictions provide minimal specific regulation for companion dog welfare. This contrasts with the more detailed regulations for farm and laboratory animals, likely due to the reduced commercial cost-cutting pressures in pet ownership. However, the growing recognition of commercial breeding and sales has led to more specific regulations in these areas. This disparity underscores the interplay of societal priorities and economic factors in shaping dog welfare legislations across countries.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
–
Year of Publication:
2021
External Link:
Andersen SS, Meyer I, Forkman B, Nielsen SS, Sandøe P. Regulating Companion Dog Welfare: A Comparative Study of Legal Frameworks in Western Countries. Animals (Basel). 2021;11(6):1660. Published 2021 Jun 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061660