Fachbereich Veterinärmedizin



    Die Analyse der Fortnahmen von Heimtieren im Amtsbereich einer Berliner Veterinärbehörde auf der Grundlage des § 16a des Tierschutzgesetzes im Zeitraum von 1990 - 1998 (2001)

    Basikow, Hans-Georg
    Berlin, 2001 — 155 Seiten
    Institut für Tierschutz und Tierverhalten

    Königsweg 67
    Gebäude 21, 1. OG
    14163 Berlin
    +49 30 838 62901

    Abstract / Zusammenfassung

    Evaluation of different literature-based views regarding interpretation ofapplic
    ability and validity of § 16a TierSchG [German Animal Protection Act] andits rel
    evance to animal protection authorities together with presentation of thelegal p
    osition by the example of a veterinary authority in Berlin has been thepurpose o
    f this paper.Reference was made to animal protection files kept by this Berlin-b
    asedveterinary authority and covering the period from 1990 through 1998, with an
    analysis made of 64 acts of retrieval of pets from 60 persons. Each of theseproc
    edures was recorded and analysed by defined criteria, using evaluationform sheet
    s specifically developed for this purpose. The entire administrativeprocess is d
    escribed, from initial report to concluding note, with referencebeing made to th
    e most important legal provisions. The animal protectionauthority"s right of int
    rusion into premises protected under Article 13,National Constitution [Basic Law
    ] is discussed in some detail.The following results were obtained:Position of in
    formants versus individuals reported as presumedoffenders:· 78,1% of all informa
    nts were not affiliated to any public authority.· 51,6% of all informants were l
    ocated in the direct environment of reportedindividuals.Data relating to individ
    uals reported as presumed offenders:· Gender distribution was equivalent to the
    average of the general public inthe period under review, with 48,3% females and
    51,7% males.· Most of the presumed offenders, 56,7% were aged between 20 and und
    er45 years.· Information provided by presumed offenders in form sheets on theirl
    ivelihood was not verifiable and, consequently, was of limited informativevalue,
    35,0% were recipients of social welfare (public charge), while 15%were retired
    senior citizens and eight percent unemployed, 18,3% ofpresumed offenders failed
    to provide any livelihood data, whereas anoccupation was reported by 23,3%.· For
    eign citizens accounted for 6,7% of all reported presumed offenders.Animals retr
    ieved:· 404 animals, representing 14 species, were retrieved in the periodunderr
    eview, Included were 108 dogs (26,7%), 100 fish (24,8%), 82 rabbits(20,3%), 58 c
    ats (14,4%), 26 pigeons (6,4%), nine mice (2,2%), five finches(1,2%), four geese
    and four parakeets (1,0% each), two heads of fowl, twochinchillas and two guine
    a-pigs (0,5% each), one tortoise and one boa(0,3% each).· Dogs were involved in
    46 retrieval acts and thus were on top of the list. Theywere followed by cats in
    volved in 19 acts (second on the list), rabbits andparakeets in three acts each
    (third place) and pigeons in two acts (fourth),All the other species were retrie
    ved only once.· Mongrels were predominant in the dog category, accounting for 58
    ,3%.Reasons for retrieval:· Inadequate keeping, 40,6%,· Animals left alone in ap
    partments and motor-cars, 34,4%,· Physical violence, 14,1%,· Enforcement of bans
    on keeping, 6,3% and· Abandonment, 4,7%.Locations of retrieval:· Private homes,
    75,0%.· Public areas, 25,0%, including 10,9% from motor-cars.Destinations of re
    trieved animals:· 336 animals (83,2%) from 78,1% of all retrieval acts were not
    returned toowners and were handled through animal asylums.· 34 animals (8,4%) fr
    om 15,6% of all retrieval acts were returned to owners.· 34 animals (8,4%) from
    6,3% of all retrieval acts had to be euthanised.Public spending:· The average co
    st of one retrieval amounted to 1,133,25 DM, Actualexpenditures were not unambig
    uously quantifiable. Time consumption ofofficials amounted to 8,4 hours accordin
    g to available files but may havebeen much higher.Administrative and court-relat
    ed data:· Animal keeping bans had to be imposed on 38,3% of all offenders inresp
    onse to severity of offence.· 63,3% of all offenders were fined between 100 and
    5,000 DM, Fineswereabove 1,000 DM in 73,7% of these cases.· Ban on keeping toget
    her with fine was imposed on 20 offenders.· Files, on average, were kept open fo
    r 368 days, following conclusion ofproceedings.The legal obligation of the anima
    l protection authority:· Under § 16a, TierSchG (Animal Protection Act), the appl
    icable animalprotection authority is held to take appropriate measures to cope w
    ithreported violations. Yet, it is indispensable that the offence notified beche
    cked and verified by a public veterinary officer.· An official of the above auth
    ority who fails to act in response to a report maybe prosecuted according to §§
    13 and 323, StGB (German Criminal Code).