In the draft amendments to the Administrative Offenses Code, there is a provision that at first glance sounds good: it prohibits inciting animals to attack each other and keeping together animals that "are not compatible with each other".
But in practice it turns into something very different: if animals are "considered incompatible", or if there is aggression, an attack, or a fight between them, this can already become grounds for a fine:
for citizens - 100,000 AMD,
for officials - 200,000 AMD.
Inciting animals against each other and organizing fights should absolutely be punished strictly. And there must be a clear mechanism to identify and punish those who finance and organize fights - which is not actually being done. Moreover, alongside this appears the wording "incompatible species" and liability for conflicts between animals of the same species.
This raises a fundamental question: who, and by what criteria, will decide which species are "compatible" and which are not? Are a dog and a cat compatible or not? A cat and a parrot, a dog and a rabbit, several cats in one apartment, several dogs in one enclosure - where is that "line"?
🐕 A shelter has several dogs living together. For years everything is calm, but one day they fight - because of food or stress. For living beings, this is natural behavior. But under the letter of the law, the very fact of a single fight can already become grounds for a fine for people who keep the shelter only on donations.
🐈 Three cats live in an apartment. Sometimes they argue, compete for territory. The owner addresses this through neutering, separating space, and behavior work. However, formally it is easy to label this as "incompatible keeping with aggression", and again a risk of a fine appears.
🐾 A family has a dog and a cat at home that sometimes chase each other. For millions of families worldwide, this is a normal scene, not cruelty. But if desired, this can also be interpreted as "keeping incompatible species together, leading to aggression".
🙍♀️ Volunteers feed and sterilize a group of dogs in a yard. Sometimes conflicts happen between animals - due to dominance, food, or hormones. Instead of helping volunteers improve conditions and solve the sterilization issue, a tool is created to qualify all of this as "improper keeping" and punish those who are doing anything at all.
Responsibility for real cruelty - fights, deliberate attacks, torture - must be strengthened. But with this wording, the law creates a threat for shelters, foster care, multi-pet households, and volunteers. Any conflict between animals can turn into a reason for a fine for the people who feed them, treat them, and simply try to give them a chance at a normal life.
We are not against a law on responsible treatment of animals. Such a law is necessary. But not in this form. The current version opens a wide field for punitive measures specifically against those who rescue animals, and it almost does not change the situation for those who actually harm animals.
A different approach is needed - a law based on sterilization as the only humane method of population control, real support for shelters and veterinary clinics, clear wording, and stronger liability for real cruelty. The text must be rewritten with the participation of animal welfare advocates, veterinarians, and lawyers, so that it works in the real conditions of Armenia's cities and villages, rather than only sounding good in an explanatory note.
👉 Sign the petition - (https://forms.gle/tYkUMPzvNhTTBRV27)
✊🏻 https://www.facebook.com/share/1Jpa5i5urT/?mibextid=wwXIfr
#ԿանգնեցնենքՎտանգավորՕրենքը #StopTheDangerousLaw #ОстановимОпасныйЗакон
But in practice it turns into something very different: if animals are "considered incompatible", or if there is aggression, an attack, or a fight between them, this can already become grounds for a fine:
for citizens - 100,000 AMD,
for officials - 200,000 AMD.
Inciting animals against each other and organizing fights should absolutely be punished strictly. And there must be a clear mechanism to identify and punish those who finance and organize fights - which is not actually being done. Moreover, alongside this appears the wording "incompatible species" and liability for conflicts between animals of the same species.
This raises a fundamental question: who, and by what criteria, will decide which species are "compatible" and which are not? Are a dog and a cat compatible or not? A cat and a parrot, a dog and a rabbit, several cats in one apartment, several dogs in one enclosure - where is that "line"?
🐕 A shelter has several dogs living together. For years everything is calm, but one day they fight - because of food or stress. For living beings, this is natural behavior. But under the letter of the law, the very fact of a single fight can already become grounds for a fine for people who keep the shelter only on donations.
🐈 Three cats live in an apartment. Sometimes they argue, compete for territory. The owner addresses this through neutering, separating space, and behavior work. However, formally it is easy to label this as "incompatible keeping with aggression", and again a risk of a fine appears.
🐾 A family has a dog and a cat at home that sometimes chase each other. For millions of families worldwide, this is a normal scene, not cruelty. But if desired, this can also be interpreted as "keeping incompatible species together, leading to aggression".
🙍♀️ Volunteers feed and sterilize a group of dogs in a yard. Sometimes conflicts happen between animals - due to dominance, food, or hormones. Instead of helping volunteers improve conditions and solve the sterilization issue, a tool is created to qualify all of this as "improper keeping" and punish those who are doing anything at all.
Responsibility for real cruelty - fights, deliberate attacks, torture - must be strengthened. But with this wording, the law creates a threat for shelters, foster care, multi-pet households, and volunteers. Any conflict between animals can turn into a reason for a fine for the people who feed them, treat them, and simply try to give them a chance at a normal life.
We are not against a law on responsible treatment of animals. Such a law is necessary. But not in this form. The current version opens a wide field for punitive measures specifically against those who rescue animals, and it almost does not change the situation for those who actually harm animals.
A different approach is needed - a law based on sterilization as the only humane method of population control, real support for shelters and veterinary clinics, clear wording, and stronger liability for real cruelty. The text must be rewritten with the participation of animal welfare advocates, veterinarians, and lawyers, so that it works in the real conditions of Armenia's cities and villages, rather than only sounding good in an explanatory note.
👉 Sign the petition - (https://forms.gle/tYkUMPzvNhTTBRV27)
✊🏻 https://www.facebook.com/share/1Jpa5i5urT/?mibextid=wwXIfr
#ԿանգնեցնենքՎտանգավորՕրենքը #StopTheDangerousLaw #ОстановимОпасныйЗакон