To be shocked that Tories have voted animals can't feel pain?

[brasty]

The Tory Government has outdone itself when it comes to neglecting animal rights this week – by voting that all animals (apart from humans, of course) have no emotions or feelings, including the ability to feel pain.

"Remember all that campaigning against the badger cull and May’s attempt to bring back fox-hunting? It was probably all a waste. As the Government begins to shape the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, it has taken a vote to scrap EU legislation that sees non-human animals as sentient beings. Once we leave the EU in 2019, it’s not only badgers and foxes that will be threatened by this change in law, but all animals that aren’t pets. So basically all animals that it will be profitable to exploit.

This vote comes in contrast to extensive scientific evidence that shows that other animals do have feelings and emotions, some even stronger than ours."

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-government-vote-animal-sentience-cant-feel-pain-eu-withdrawal-bill-anti-science-tory-mps-a8065161.html

Grouchy -Freedom from hunger or thirst by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour
Freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area
Freedom from pain, injury or disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
Freedom to express (most) normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind
Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.

I agree that the opinion piece was overwrought, and so very easy to pick holes in. Personally, I think the decision to remove sentience is deeply troubling, and I would feel that way no matter which MP's voted against it. I was quite surprised when I looked up the voting record a couple of days ago that every Tory and DUP member voted against.

Those are all covered by the 2006 Act. And sentience is also covered in the 2006 Act.

So why are the British Veterinary Association concerned?

Without seeing their full statement it's hard to say.

Maybe their legal counsel is sitting head in hands because they've only read the 2006 Act without the explanatory notes.

Maybe because they're worried the government will, in future, amend the Act to remove the protections that are already there.

Maybe there's something else that I can't see because I don't have the expertise to tease apart every possible reading of the Act in conjunction with the EU directive.

You're right Grouchy, but the 2006 legislation refers only to domestic animals.

No it does change the law. British Veterinary Association -

"Responding to the decision, British Veterinary Association Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said:
“It is extremely concerning that a marginal majority of MPs have voted-down this seminal clause. Enshrining animal sentience in UK law would have acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment and, so, deserving of consideration and respect. It is a founding principle of animal welfare science, and for the way that we should treat all animals.
“As an animal welfare-led profession, BVA has been calling on government to at least maintain current standards of animal health and welfare and public health. Yet actions speak louder than words, and this action undermines the Government’s previous promises that the UK will continue to be known for our high standards of animal health and welfare post-Brexit.
“There is now an urgent need for clarity from Government on how the provisions in Article 13 will be enshrined in UK law to ensure we do not fall short of the high standards we expect as a nation of animal lovers.”"

www.bva.co.uk/news-campaigns-and-policy/newsroom/news-releases/bva---rejection-of-animal-sentience-from-brexit-bill-risks-uk-shortfall-on-high-animal-welfare-standards/

I don't see how the EU wording changes that, though, mardy. I could be missing something, but what charges can be brought against someone for killing wildlife? (Outside of endangered species that have separate legislation anyway.)

The 5 Freedoms you've listed above only relate to animals that people care for, and that's all covered in the Act, so I genuinely don't see where the difference is.

brasty How does that change what is already in the 2006 Act, the bit from the explanatory notes above? Sentience is already there. They aren't amending the 2006 Act (at this point). What has changed?

The 2006 Act does not apply to all animals

The Act itself explicitly states that "animals" refers to vertebrates, with scope to add invertebrates as science changes.

There are specific rules relating to duty of care for domesticated animals, animals in labs, and animals in zoos.

Yes but invertebrates are not included. Presumably this proposal would have included them.

That's possible. I'd like to know whether any EU countries have laws protecting invertebrates (excluding those for endangered species). Does the UK currently have any? If not, what difference does this vote make? If the EU Article does protect invertebrates too then there must be UK laws covering this now or we'd be in contravention of that, surely?

Does anyone know whether a person who has a pet tarantula be taken to court for animal cruelty if they neglect the spider?

So it was a political party vote. Who is trying to mislead who in this thread?

Of course it was in fact you name the political party in your title and the paper has covered it with political bias which is what papers do!!

I'm not sure what you mean by who's trying to mislead who who on this thread I'm not misleading anyone I'm trying to explain that the story was written in a certain way to make a certain party look bad! You are at very least very naive about how the media works

I don't care about other countries. Why do you keep saying that?

Yes but invertebrates are not included. Presumably this proposal would have included them.*

Brasty have you ever used slug pellets? Fly spray? Killed a wasp or even a humble bee? Were you worried if they could feel pain or had independent thought when you did?

These are invertebrates

I haven't mentioned other countries before, brasty. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Yes they are. An amendment for pest control would be easy.

I'm not being patronising your saying that the media can be trusted nope never it doesn't matter wether it ta "mainstream"
You seem to think it's something to sue over no everyone has a political bias

That's exactly what's been voted in

The animal welfare act 2006 ONLY applies to animals under human care - removal of the clause has removed any recognition that wild animals are sentient.

The clause that was voted against said: "In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage."

This means that any FUTURE policies (around trade deals for example) do not have to recognise Animal sentience and expose even domestic animals to suffering the instant they are traded (to the USA, China, Middle East etc.) It’s this recognition of sentience that has stopped the UK from the live export debacle that Australia is often involved in.

It is a massive step backwards

Grouchy It was a x post reply to comment above yours.

Thank you Veterinari