The Majilis has accepted for consideration a draft bill "On Amendments and Additions to the Law 'On Responsible Treatment of Animals'". The proposed amendments have not only sparked public outcry but also dissent within the parliament itself. The editorial board of FBRK has compiled a full picture of the events.
In December 2021, the law "On Responsible Treatment of Animals" was first adopted. This new, progressive draft law promised, among other things, to solve the pressing problem of stray dogs and cats.
The decision to round up homeless animals and sterilise them has a sensible basis. This practice, known as TNR (Trap-Neuter-Return), was already in place in the early 90s on the initiative of animal rights activists.
However, the initiative itself means little without the tools to implement it. Here, it seems, this was forgotten.
The law came into force on 2 March 2023. Since then, no large-scale sterilisation of stray dogs and cats has been carried out, and it seems that the unified state system for animal registration has been completely abandoned.
Furthermore, the round-up itself often constitutes an inhumane act of culling and euthanising animals without any medical justification, while free sterilisation more closely resembles a punitive procedure.
All of the aforementioned "shortcomings" caused outrage among animal rights activists. In May 2023, rallies in defence of animals were held in 9 cities of Kazakhstan due to the non-implementation of the law. Even such a harmless civil demonstration encountered opposition from local authorities.
Today, two versions of the draft law are being considered in parliament. The Majilis has proposed a temptingly easy route: culling and allowing owners to send unwanted animals for euthanasia "after 15 days have elapsed from the date of handing the animal over to a temporary holding facility".
Even if we turn a blind eye to the fact that the Majilis proposes to implement "responsible treatment of animals" through questionable culling and euthanasia, a host of unresolved issues remain. Will this work? Will temporary holding facilities finally be built? Will the round-up be carried out according to all the rules? After all, that was precisely the problem, and the proposed amendments do not solve it.
Moreover, the experience of developed countries shows that permanent removal, even if carried out according to all the rules, is insufficient.
It is necessary to introduce taxes on the breeding of animals, the revenue from which would, among other things, fund shelters. It is necessary to define breeder at the legislative level, so that breeding can only be carried out by people who have obtained permission from the authorised bodies.
Animals that are not of breeding value must be neutered, and specialists must ensure the proper execution of procedures. The state must carefully monitor the animal trade and suppress irresponsible and cruel treatment.
It is precisely on such amendments that the "Institute of Parliamentarism" insists, in co-authorship with lawyers, respected academics, and animal welfare practitioners.
Ultimately, it is necessary to understand that the Law "On Responsible Treatment of Animals" is, first and foremost, intended for people. After all, cruelty is not divided into categories. In a society where cruelty to animals becomes normalised, there will never be responsible treatment of people from vulnerable segments of the population.