Comparison of Police Data on Animal Cruelty and the Perception of Animal Welfare NGOs in Hungary
Author:
Lorászkó Gábor1, Vetter Szilvia2, Rácz Bence1ORCID, Sótonyi Péter1, Ózsvári László3ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Department of Anatomy and Histology, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary 2. Center for Animal Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary 3. Department of Veterinary Forensics and Economics, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, H-1078 Budapest, Hungary
Abstract
Animal cruelty has been a criminal offence in Hungary since 2004 and the legislator has tightened and differentiated the regulations in several waves since then. However, it is not an exaggeration to say that the public is often impatient and dissatisfied with the actions of the authorities in relation to animal cruelty. In our research, based on the data of the Criminal Investigation Department of the National Police Headquarters, we examined the opinions of 99 out of a total of 155 police stations in Hungary whose staff currently working there had experience in dealing with animal cruelty. The investigators gave their opinion on a total of 1169 cases in which some kind of police action was taken, either following a report to the police or as a result of their own investigative actions. In another survey, we questioned those members of society who are most committed to animal protection using a self-completion questionnaire. The questionnaire sent to the 116 Hungarian animal welfare non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on the publicly available lists was also posted for a short period on the social networking site of NGO activists. Among those who responded, a total of 150 identified as active participants in the animal protection work of these NGOs. The picture of the police treatment of animal cruelty, as perceived by NGOs working in the field of animal protection, is significantly less favourable than suggested by the police data. According to the official data, 77.7% of reports initiated an investigation, while the vast majority of animal welfare activists (81.3%) suspects that only 25% of the reports result in action by the prosecuting authority.
Subject
General Veterinary,Animal Science and Zoology
Reference80 articles.
1. Glanville, C., Ford, J., and Coleman, G. (2019). Animal Cruelty and Neglect: Prevalence and Community Actions in Victoria, Australia. Animals, 9. 2. Reese, L.A., Vertalka, J.J., and Richard, C. (2020). Animal cruelty and neighborhood conditions. Animals, 10. 3. Electronically available surveys of attitudes toward animals;Herzog;Soc. Anim.,2000 4. Shih, H.Y., Paterson, M.B., and Phillips, C.J. (2016). A retrospective analysis of complaints to RSPCA Queensland, Australia, about dog welfare. Animals, 9. 5. Michel, M., Kühne, D., and Hänni, J. (2022, May 10). Animal Law—Tier und Recht, Developments and Perspectives in the 21st Century, DIKE, Zurich. Available online: https://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/CMK.Animal.Rights.pdf.
|
|