The number of animal welfare inspections based on suspicion of violation exceeded 6000 visits for the sixth consecutive year. When measures are needed to safeguard animal welfare they are increasingly needed urgently.
One in ten visits resulted in urgent measures being taken
A total of 6046 animal welfare inspection visits based on suspicion of violation were reported, which is 312 less than in the previous year. Fewer than a quarter of the visits were re-inspections of a previously inspected site to ensure compliance with the orders made.
1725 inspections (29% of all visits) revealed shortcomings that led to an order to either the owner or the person looking after the animals to remedy the shortcomings within a time limit, or a ban on continuing practises that are contrary to the animal welfare regulations. The purpose of these measures is to ensure the keeping of animals meets the minimum standards required by law. Almost 500 of these measures were carried out as a result of re-inspections. In these cases, the prohibitions or orders made under a previous inspection had not been complied with or new deficiencies had been revealed on the site during the re-inspection.
During 628 visits (10% of visits), serious violations were identified, and the authorities took urgent measures to safeguard animal welfare. In such immediate cases, small animals are mostly delivered for treatment elsewhere, while larger animals or large numbers of animals are provided with food and water as first aid and a carer on site. Where it is not possible or appropriate to organise animal care, they may also be sold or destroyed. In 158 cases, emergency measures were decided on at the time of the re-inspection, i.e. the animal welfare situation on the site had worsened despite orders or prohibitions issued after the previous inspection visit.
Since 2010, the number of animal welfare inspections for suspected violations has risen from over three thousand to more than six thousand. At the same time, the number of visits relating to measures taken by the authorities has risen from 1500 to almost 2500. Due to the increase in the total number of visits, the proportion of measures resulting from visits has decreased slightly. However, when official measures are needed, they are increasingly needed urgently. In 2010, 14% of the measures taken were urgent, whereas in 2020 the proportion was 27 %. Similarly, the proportion of prohibitions and orders in all the measures taken has decreased from 86% to 73 % during the same period. The increase in the number of inspections on pets possibly explains the increase in the number of urgent cases .
More than 60% of inspections and 80% of urgent measures targeted the keeping of pet animals
The number of inspections relating to pet animals was now over 4600. Fewer than 2500 inspections on production animals were reported. For results reported by animal species, it should be noted that the number of individual visits is not as high. If the inspection visit concerns more than one animal species, it is reported as several inspections. ; one per animal species. It should also be noted that in 2020, the results of some 550 inspections were not saved in the information system and thus could not be analyzed in this way.
As in previous years, the largest proportion of inspections focused on dogs (2700 inspections) and cats (1440). The majority of production animals inspected were on cattle farms; there were just under 850 of them. In the reporting, horses were included as production animals and there were about 500 inspections into their care during the year. About 500 visits were carried out to check the conditions poultry or other birds were being kept in; half of these visits targeted chickens. There were a little over 300 visits inspecting sheep and around 110 inspecting goats and 80 inspecting pigs. These species are also classified in the reporting as production animals, regardless of whether they are kept for production purposes or as a pet animal. Rabbits were found at some 230 inspected sites. The number of pet inspections was also increased by rodents (approx. 120 inspections) and reptiles (about 50). In addition to the above, in 150 cases, the animal species at the site had not been reported. The majority of these were individual pet animals, but this group also includes sites that are inspected less frequently, such as circuses, zoos and permanent or travelling animal exhibitions.
As in previous years, the vast majority of the total number of emergency measures were focussed on pets. Urgent measures were needed in about five per cent of production animal inspections, while emergency measures were required in 12 per cent of inspections of sites keeping pet species. With the exception of professional activities, the keeping of pet animals is not subject to regular surveillance, which may lead to situations becoming serious before they are drawn to the authorities’ attention.
In proportion to the number of inspections, non-emergency measures were taken in cases of farms with production animals slightly more often than in sites with pets. Approximately 40% of inspections carried out on production animals sites led to the person responsible for the care of the animals being subject to a ban or order to improve the conditions under which animals are kept, whereas bans or orders regarding pet animals were issued in 28 % of inspections. However, in terms of numbers, the number of bans and orders was higher for pet animals than for production animals, due to the increased number of inspections of pet animals.