Sessions

In the framework of my Students’ Scientific Association thesis, as a law graduate and a fifth-year veterinary medicine student, I examined the relationship between the currently applicable legislation on companion animals, real-life practice, and customary law, through three rounds of research conducted by means of online, anonymous questionnaires. The questionnaires, which included both qualitative and quantitative questions, were available on social media platforms for two months. My first questionnaire was completed by 475 respondents, the second by 485, and the third, which was specifically targeted at veterinarians, by 113 respondents. In the first research topic of my thesis, I examine “disturbance” as a legally defined but subjectively perceived concept in order to clarify which factors actually disturb people in their immediate living environment in the context of Section 14 (2) of Government Decree 41/2010 (II.26.). According to my results, the respondents considered littering and illegal waste dumping to be by far the most disturbing factors. 61.5% of respondents indicated that they found these very disturbing or intolerably disturbing. By comparison, only 4.2% considered dog barking to be very disturbing or intolerably disturbing. In my second questionnaire, I examine the provision in Section 9 (1) of Act XXVIII of 1998 on the Protection and Humane Treatment of Animals, which stipulates that interventions customary among animal keepers may only be carried out by persons with practical experience. According to my results, the most frequently performed intervention by companion animal keepers on their own was oral administration of medication, reported by 90.9% of respondents. From an animal welfare perspective, it is concerning that 27.6% of respondents stated that they sometimes administer medicinal treatment to their animals based on their own judgment. Of these respondents, 78.4% were laypersons. This highlights a significant risk to companion animals, given that laypersons independently determining and administering medicinal therapies can have unforeseeable consequences for their pets, and it also constitutes unlawful conduct. My third questionnaire targeted veterinarians. Based on the responses, only 47.8% of veterinarians knew that in the event of becoming aware of a dog not vaccinated against rabies they are under an obligation to report it, and only 45.1% knew of their reporting obligation regarding a dog older than four months without a microchip. I find it worrying that, according to the results, 82.3% of veterinarians either did not know or had incorrect knowledge of which authority is competent to initiate proceedings against an owner in cases of detected animal abuse, that is, where to report such cases.