Definition of Animal Abuse

Animal abuse is any action or omission that is inflicted directly or indirectly on a species causing damage, the severity of which may be less or put his life at risk, eventual and episodic or systematic and chronic.

Since the beginning of time, animals and people have been linked, the most primary reason has been to use animals as a source of food, clothing, transportation, a means of work, etc. Over the decades, the relationship between the two has been mutating. Currently, domesticated animal species, such as dogs and cats, are part of family life as "companion animals" and there are even recreational activities and dog-assisted therapies for people with disabilities or in rehabilitation, for example.

The truth is that the interactions that can occur between humans and animals or, we could well say, between human and non-human animals (remembering that the human species is also an animal) can be positive -such as inter-species love, companionship, therapeutic assistance dogs, therapeutic interventions assisted with animals, etc.- but also negative, and it is in this pole of the relationship that the concept of animal abuse.

Delicate nuances of debate: production animals, pets...

If we reflect on the definition of animal abuse, contradictions inevitably appear. An example of this is the case of animals called "production animals" such as cows or sheep. Within the systems feeding traditional (extractionists) the commercialization of products derived from the breeding of these animals -such as their meat and dairy products, mainly- obtained by restricting the freedom of these animals, their artificial, forced and massive insemination for the birth of new specimens, reduce their living conditions in small spaces where they cannot display species behaviors, until they are killed to sell their meat for consumption human.

On the other hand, in our sphere of human life, species called "domestic or companion animals" appear, such as dogs and cats that, historically and for different reasons, have won the privilege of living in our homes, receiving affection, veterinary care for their health and even becoming legitimate members within families, since today there is the concept of family multi-species.

Thinking about the above, it follows that there are negative interactions between animals and people that are so naturalized that they are not considered as abuse; or rather that they constitute a legitimized and legalized practice of abuse.

What explains the reason for these differences is the context in which they appear and unfold, that is that is, the cultural and social environment that conditions approving, legalizing and encouraging or, punishing. In this sense, in recent decades, more and more people are beginning to question these ways of coexist and interact with other animals, and this is how political and social movements such as the veganism.

Difference Between Animal Abuse and Neglect

Is there always an intention to harm? And the answer is simple and direct: No. Within animal abuse, we can establish very marked differences: On the one hand, we have the so-called Abuse and, on the other, Neglect.

In animal abuse, there is a deliberate intent to harm or to coerce - to punish with violence a conduct, or limit a behavior through violence - on that animal. Abuse can be expressed in multiple ways, from subtle and progressive, such as stopping feeding the family dog ​​because he may not want to have it in his house anymore; even very serious and abrupt such as beating him to death. In addition, the abuse can be of a different nature, physical -such as beatings, violent manipulation of the animal's body, denying food or water-, psychological -systematic screams, violent gestures-, sexual -the inclination to sexually subdue animals is a perversion of human behavior called Zoophilia-, etc

Negligence, on the other hand, is a type of abuse that is generally the product of the ignorance or lack of knowledge of the person who exercises it. Not all people have the same access to education, health, healthy eating or decent living conditions; Hence, it is worth asking ourselves, what quality of care can a person who lives, for example, in a situation of poverty, provide an animal? Does a person who has been violated and mistreated in their childhood and/or adulthood know how another individual should be properly cared for and treated? Can a person who has not accessed basic education or to a veterinary service what are the needs of your dog or cat or what should you protect it from? Do the people who depend on your economic activity farmer and production animals, who must raise them from small but then kill them, what kind of interaction do they generate? Deep and difficult questions to answer in an article, but above all complex.

The certain thing is that the damages that of all these situations are derived, cannot be judged morally with the same rod.

That there is no intention to harm, does not nullify the damage

Although these differences are undeniable and cannot be ignored when analyzing a situation of abuse, it is essential to make it clear that The fact that there is no intention to cause harm to an animal does not eliminate the reality of its ill-treatment effect: that animal suffers and suffers. Therefore, any situation of animal abuse is framed within the violence, either due to abuse or of negligence, there is an offender who inflicts or causes the damage and an animal that is the victim of that abuse.

The main discussions that can take place regarding the differences between the causes of maltreatment due to negligence or abuse have to see how they will be addressed, either to prevent them or, when they are already done, to treat them in themselves and correct the consequences. It is important, in this sense, to understand that when an animal that is part of a family and that it is loved, the disastrous consequences do not only affect that animal but also the family that contains.

In this sense, it is very important to highlight that there is a lot of scientific evidence that links abuse animal with human abuse, that is, the circuit of violence is the same, only that the species. Whoever abuses and violates animals can also violate other vulnerable people with whom they relate: couples, older adults or children. There are also statistics that show that in homes where there is domestic violence, there is also mistreatment of the animals that live there, only this is always considered less relevant and/or urgent.

Animal protection laws and social condemnation

In cases of animal abuse in which there is abuse and violence, the consequences for the perpetrators are legal and criminal, but also social. There are laws that contemplate this type of crime and that establish sanctions for those who commit them, the severity of this can range from custodial sentences, to money fines and community work, and this will depend on the regulations of each country.

Regarding social condemnation, the cultural and social consideration that this community has regarding the treatment that animals deserve is what will serve as a guide and/or criterion for the reactions to these cases, some can be much more permissive than others and the truth is that this varies greatly with respect to different countries across the globe terrestrial To graph, we can think of countries like China, where until not long ago dog meat for human consumption was legal, and although some cities have prohibited them, in others it is still legal and sold on the parallel market, also.

Regarding negligence, the treatment highly prioritizes the educational perspective and public health policies. It is imperative to educate people of all ages in animal health and in information about the care and needs that animals have (since as a little sign at my trusted veterinarian: "Dogs are not small humans, nor are cats small dogs") and, fundamental, in empathy and care between species.

For its part, it is interesting to note that within this spectrum the collective situations of abandonment and overpopulation of animals of dogs and cats in the streets are contemplated. This is key to understanding that the problem of animal abuse should not and cannot depend exclusively on the people in their responsibility individual and private and from the cases in isolation, but it is necessary the accompaniment of the State through public policies and the allocation of economic resources for, for example, mass castration programs for females and males and veterinary hospitals public. All animals have the right to be cared for and treated with respect.