Suspicion of animals being kept in breach of animal welfare regulations led to 6508 reported inspection visits last year, which is 60 visits more than the previous year. 25 % of these visits were rechecks of previously inspected cases, and the intention was to ensure that the orders had been adhered to.
Every tenth inspection visit led to urgent action
Due to the increase in the number of animal welfare inspection visits, more actions were taken by the authorities than in previous years. In 30 % of the inspection visits (1944 instances), deficiencies were observed which led to the animal owner or holder being issued with either an order to correct the deficiencies within a set timeframe or prohibiting them from continuing the practices that are in breach of the animal welfare regulations. The purpose of these measures is to raise the quality of animal care to the minimum level required by law. Over 600 of these prohibitions or orders were issued in conjunction with a recheck, which means that the prohibitions or orders issued based on a previous inspection had not been adhered to, or that new deficiencies had come to light during the recheck.
Serious violations which led to the authorities taking urgent action to secure the welfare of the animals were detected in 9.5 % of the inspections (621 visits). Such urgent action usually involves taking smaller animals elsewhere for care, whereas in the case of larger animals or large numbers of animals they are in the first instance given food and water and are provided with somebody to look after them. If it is not possible or suitable to arrange care for the animals, they can also be sold or euthanized. In 150 cases urgent action had to be taken in conjunction with the recheck, which means that the animal welfare situation had worsened despite the prohibitions and orders issued after the last inspection visit.
The increase in actions taken by the authorities was mainly due to the increase in the total number of inspection visits, but also by percentage actions by the authorities had to be resorted to somewhat more often than a year earlier. However, seen over a longer time period, it is noticeable that the share of inspections leading to actions by the authorities has decreased. At the turn of the decade, nearly every second inspection visit still led to actions by the authorities but currently the share of inspection visits leading to such action of all inspections carried out is below 40 %. But it has to be noted that at the same time the share of urgent action out of all measures taken by the authorities has increased. In 2010, 14 per cent of all action was urgent, whereas the percentage in 2018 was 24 per cent. During the same time period, the share of prohibitions and orders has decreased from 86 per cent to 76 per cent. The figures appear to be mirroring the increase in the number of inspections of companion animals.
The number of inspections of companion animals and action being taken is still increasing
Slightly more than 3100 inspections of production animals were reported, which is about 500 inspections less than the three previous years. The number of inspections of companion animals increased further and was now 5380. As to the results reported per species it has to be noted that the number of actual inspection visits is not as high. If there are several species at the site inspected, it is reported as several inspections according to the number of species.
Reported per species, clearly the largest share of inspected species was dogs, which were inspected in more than 3200 cases. The next most inspected animals were cats, 1550 times, and cattle, about 1100 times. Horses are counted as production animals in the reporting, and their care was inspected over 700 times during the year. The rearing conditions of poultry were inspected during nearly 600 visits and those of sheep during 400 visits. These species are also classified as production animals in the reporting, regardless of whether they were kept for production purposes or as companion animals. In addition to the animals mentioned above, the animal species on the location was not reported in about 200 cases. Most of these are individual companion animals, but this group also includes the more unusual targets for inspection, such as circuses and zoos.
Similarly to previous years, clearly the largest share (more than 80 % in 2018) of the total number of cases where urgent action was taken was aimed at companion animals. Urgent action was needed in four per cent of the inspections of production animals, whereas urgent action had to be taken in 12 % of the inspections of companion animals. With the exception of professional operations, regular controls are not carried out of companion animals, and the situation can become serious before the authorities become aware of it.
Prohibitions or orders in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act were issued somewhat more often on farms with production animals than to keepers of companion animals in proportion to the number of inspections. About 42 % of the inspections targeted on production animals led to a prohibition or order being given to the person responsible for the care of the animal in order to improve the rearing conditions of the animals, whereas prohibitions or orders were given in 28 % of the inspections of companion animals. Numerically, more prohibitions and orders were given holders of companion animals than of production animals due to the larger number of properties with companion animals being inspected.