I've read the EU statutes, and frankly, I can't find much to complain about.
Is this your concern?
Quote:
Article 7 - Training
No pet animal shall be trained in a way that is detrimental to its health and welfare, especially by forcing it to exceed its natural capacities or strength or by employing artificial aids which cause injury or unnecessary pain, suffering or distress
Emphasis mine.
http://www.animallaw.info/treaties/itceceets125.htm
Really? Do we really want to justify injury or unnecessary pain? If so, by whom? Under what conditions? Why? I can't imagine any conditions under which domestic pet animals need to be treated this way.
Newer developments have diluted the overall quality of the anti cruelty law somewhat:
Quote:
Millions of laboratory animals will suffer because of a new EU-driven law for the testing of chemicals, the RSPCA has claimed.
REACH, which stands for 'Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation of Chemicals will require up to 30,000 chemicals manufactured or imported into the EU to be tested for safety.
Before 1981 chemicals did not have to be tested before being put on the market.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3295934/EU-law-could-mean-30000-animal-tests.html
In fact, the Brits are up in arms about how much latitude is allowed:
Quote:
From The Sunday Times October 4, 2009
Cruelty row over EU animal test rules
BRITISH civil servants have been shocked by the degree of suffering permitted by proposed European Union rules on animal experiments.
The draft EU directive “on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes” would allow monkeys, dogs, cats and foals to be used for experiments leading to severe and lasting pain.
Animals’ bones could be broken, they could undergo paralysing electric shocks, they could suffer trauma leading to multiple organ failure, they could be confined to restrict movement and they could be kept in isolation for prolonged periods.
The standards would also allow organs to be transplanted between species even if this led to “severe distress”.
The rules make clear that experiments would not be confined to small breeds such as beagles but include large dogs such as St Bernards. Horses and ponies bred in family stables could be used by laboratories in Europe.
The directive would permit practices banned in Britain, which can continue to impose its own rules. The Home Office said it did not want to see British standards weakened.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6860177.ece
How different European municipalities implement laws is up to them, of course. But to blame EU laws for any changes over here is absurd.
Americans have been moving progressively toward animal welfare and then toward animal rights for decades. Generally, the USA does not look toward international sources when writing up legislation nor when interpreting it. (Occassionally, members of the Supreme Court may use international precedent if there is little of our own, but it's quite rare)
Whatever is done here will be done because it is the will of the American people and their representatives. The American people love their pets. For example, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006’ (the post Hurricane Katrina act that was dubbed "Leave No Pet Behind) passed the House with 349 Ayes, 24 Nays, 60 Present/Not Voting and passed the Senate unanimously.
We don't need to worry that Europe will dictate to us what to do. Europe doesn't really seem inclined to do so, and we will do what we feel is appropriate to take care of our animals.
