Gebäude 21, 1. OG
+49 30 838 62901
The submitted thesis has as its subjekt the investigation to which extend the execution of the legal provisions of the Animal Welfare Act - as amended in 1986 - has already been accomplished with respect to the ombudmen for animal protection and the commissions instituted according to section 15 of thissaid act.It turned out, that the activities of the ombudmen for animal protection require a substantial investment of time and labour and that the endowment with respect to personell, equipment and financiall means is not sufficient. It also turned out, that the determination of the internal competences and the status of the ombudmen for animal protection within the internal hirarchy by the researching facilities, for which they has to be appointed, very often has been not yet regulated sufficiently. It futher turned out, that the performance of all functions as a part - time activity is only feasible at small to middle sized facilities; but in large facilities some areas of the scope of functions prescribed by law often cannot be covered sufficiently for lack of the necessary manpower. Inorder to really accomplish the intention pursued by this lawit is recommended amongst others, to provide a greater numberof permanent postes for ombudmen for animal protection. Moreattention should also be paid to the selection, education andfuther training of specially qualified persons.In the supplement of this paper is to be found a survey on the functions of the ombudmen for animal protection and a draft proposal for a directive as prescribed by section 8b subparagraph 6 of the Animal Welfare act.Regrettebly a corresponding thorough investigation with regard to the commissions organized according to section 15 of the Animal Welfare Act could not be accomplished due to strict applications of confidentially regulations. The avaible informations showed, that the internal regulations concerning the working procedure within the individual commissions are very different. The regulations are e. g. different with respect to the procedures of voting on animal experiments, for which approval has been applied for by the members of the commissions or which have been commented by an ombudman for animal protection, who is a commission member, and also with respect to the informations given to the deputies of commission members. Diverging opinions exsist on the question, whether in case of equal votes the motion is deemed to be rejected or accepted, or whether the vote stalemate has to be handed over.In 460 cases (= 95,4 %) of the total 482 investigated and in the year 1987 finally discussed applications the authorities decided agreeing to the vote of the commissions. Although different voices have pointed to the significance informing also the delegate members of the commission about all proposals and decisions, in fact only 2 of the 8 investigated commissionsadapted such a practice.An investigation of the work of the commissions by the DEUTSCHER TIERSCHUTZBUND (1989) published after the conclusion of this paper reached similar results with respect to the questions dealt with in both papers, thereby confirming the results of this paper. Besides the paper of the DEUTSCHER TIERSCHUTZBUND showed, that contrary to the opinion of the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR ERNÄHRUNG, LANDWIRTSCHAFT UND FORSTEN, 1988) the time for an investigation of the work of the commissions has not been choosen toearly.The query - sheet (published in the supplement) elaborated for this paper - adapted to futher experiences - can be used in future analyses for questioning the ombudmen for animal protection and members of the commissions.