Djurförbud
en analys av domar enligt 29 § Djurskyddslagen samt definition av resurs- och funktionskrav
The aim of this study is to with the help of my data, conduct statistic analyses about animal welfare mistakes and scarities, as a preventive measure for the public sector point of view and how farmers handle their animals in these cases, when and how these mistakes and scarities are likely to appear and in this way perhaps manage the existing problems. The aim of using judicial decisions of banning ownership and caretaking of animals according to the 29 § is that this judicial decision is the outermost fortification of animal welfare.
In November 1938 the pro tempore investigator handed over a report with a proposition according the animal welfare legislation. Pro tempore proposed that the court should in some cases, be able to order a person guilty of cruelty against animals to a ban of owning or taking care of animals. This proposal unfortunately was turned down. The question about introduce a ban against owning or taking care of animals into the Swedish animal welfare legislation was again discussed in April 1967 at an interpellation debate in the parliaments second chamber. A memorandum was established in March 1968 which developed into a proposal to introduce a ban against owning or taking care of animals to the Swedish animal welfare legislation. The direction took effect 1969 and was introduced in the animal welfare legislation in the present animal welfare legislation was established in 1988, this resolution remained almost unchanged.
Decisions based on functioning based demands are more common than decisions based on resource based demands. But it is clear that the majority of those judicial decisions are based on a combination of these two. Today there are no definitions of these two conceptions neither on the Swedish board of agriculture nor in the industry. For that reason I had to create one. The industries have difficulties to define these two conceptions, and mean that function based demands is the opposite of detailed based demands. It is more correct to manifest that function- respectively resource based demands can be more or less detailed.
Only 7 of the 105 judicial decisions I have read have been appealed in the Swedish administrative court of appeal where every one of the 7 judicial decisions have been turned down. Maybe we can discern a trend that it is in the county administrative court the animal welfare judicial decisions concerning a ban against owning or taking care of animals is concluded. Of a total of 105 judicial decisions only 7 of them were approved which means approx. 6 % of the judicial decisions.
The results of this study also establishes that the agriculture animals together with cats and dogs are the most common animals where the judicial decisions concerning ban to own or take care of animals are implemented. Only a few judicial decisions concern other pets.