(English below)

Dragi prijatelji životinja i planete Zemlje,

Potrebna nam je Vaša pomoć!

Obraćamo Vam se radi odbrane Zakona o dobrobiti životinja, konkretno Člana 7., Stava 1., tačke 37 koja zabranjuje držanje, reprodukciju, uvoz, izvoz i lišavanje života životinje isključivo radi proizvodnje krzna i kože i Člana 89. koji kaže da će se ova zabrana primenjivati od 1. januara 2019. godine.

Krznari u saradnji sa pojedinim političarima pretenduju da se Zakon izmeni time što će ovu zabranu dodatno prolongirati ili je potpuno ukinuti, radi sopstvenog interesa i profita, odbijajući da sagledaju naučne činjenice i apele Evropskih institucija. Proizvođači su imali devet godina da se, uz pomoć države, preusmere na druge grane privrede, čemu je ovaj tranzicioni period i služio. Važno je napomenuti da su mnoge zemlje imale kraći prelazni period, što ih nije sprečilo da svoje zakone primene bez dodatnog odlaganja. Nema jakih argumenata koji bi bili povod za prolongiranje ili brisanje spornog člana ovog Zakona. Sa druge strane, razlozi zabrane uzgoja životinja za proizvodnju krzna su mnogobrojni sa svih aspekata.

Sa ekološkog aspekta uzgoj krznašica koji prati proizvodnja krzna ostvaruje poguban efekat po životnu sredinu. Svetska banka smatra obradu krzna jednom od pet najgorih industrija u svetu zbog zagađenja toksičnim metalima. Pre svega, biološki otpad životinja sadrži visoku koncentraciju nitrogena i fosfora. Gasovi u životinjskom otpadu, kao i spaljivanje tela životinja, utiču na stepen zagađenosti vazduha. Evropska komisija je utvrdila da je zagađenje vazduha vodeća ekološka briga u procesu prerade krzna. U proceduri prerade koristi se i do 300 različitih hemikalija. Otpadne materije zagađuju zemljiše i vodu, a neke od njih imaju izuzetno loš uticaj na zdravlje ljudi te su prepoznate kao kancerogene materije i/ili jaki alergeni.

Sa etičkog aspekta uzgoj krznašica je neprihvatljiv. Za izradu samo jedne bunde ubije se između 150-200 činčila, što je potpuno neopravdano budući da postoje mnoge alternative prirodnom krznu. U uslovima zatočeništva, životinje koje se uzgajaju za krzno nemaju uslove da se ponašaju u skladu sa prirodnim nagonima i instinktima koji su svojstveni njihovoj vrsti. Život provode u tesnim kavezima u kojima nemaju mesta da se pomeraju kako ne bi oštetile krzno. Razvijaju im se fizički deformiteti u zglobovima i kostima i konstanstno su izložene ekstremnom strahu uz snažno razvijen nagon za beg koji nemaju uslova da ostvare.

Činčile su svrstane u kategoriju najugroženijih životinjskih vrsta prema Crvenoj listi ugroženih vrsta Međunarodnog saveza za zaštitu prirode (The IUCN Red List of Threatend Species), te se nalaze pod posebnim režimom zaštite, utvrđenim međunarodnim propisima, čije su odredbe obavezujuće i za RS. Obe vrste činčila (dugorepa i kratkorepa) dovedene su do granice istrebljenja u svom prirodnom staništu (Južna Amerika: uski pojas Argentine i Čilea, smatraju se izumrlom vrstom u Peruu i Boliviji). Ovo je posledica upravo ilegalnog lova radi prodaje njihovog krzna ili hvatanja radi prodaje odgajivačnicama.

Sa ekonomskog aspekta ova industrija je neisplativa, iako se gospodin Marijan Rističević u svojim obraćanjama na sednicama Odbora najčešće poziva na ekonomsku dobit kako za pojedinca tako i za državu. Zagađenje koje je posledica uzgoja krznašica i proizvodnje krzna ostvaruje efekat iscrpljivanja resursa čime su smanjene mogućnosti dalje proizvodnje. Na taj način, kroz ekološku štetu ostvaruje se indirektni ekonomski gubitak na nivou države. Takođe, želimo da napomenemo da se prema zvaničnim podacima završnih računa sa sajta Agencije za privredne registre može uočiti i do 10 puta veća dobit koja je ostvarena kod proizvođača krzna od veštačkih materijala nego kod proizvođača krzna životinja.

Pokažimo da nećemo dozvoliti da Srbija unazađuje već dostignute standarde u ovoj oblasti, a isključivo u cilju ličnog interesa i profita male grupe ljudi. Iz svega navedenog jasno je da nema jakih argumenata koji bi bili povod za prolongiranje ili brisanje spornog člana ovog Zakona .

Zakon o dobrobiti životinja nema za svrhu prilagođavanje pojedincima koji profitiraju na uzgoju i ubijanju životinja, već propisuje zaštitu životinja u skladu sa dosad postignutim propisima o zaštiti životinja u drugim državama i etičkoj osveštenosti svojih građana. Primeri drugih evropskih država pokazuju da se prelazni period poštuje kao razumno propisan rok za uzgajivače, te je u brojnim državama zabrana već stupila na snagu.

Deset godina bilo je i više nego dovoljno, a bilo kakvo ohrabrivanje onih koji su odlučili da ne poštuju Zakon poslalo bi poruku da se slobodno otvore nove mogućnosti za menjanje zakonskih odredbi u privatnu korist. Takav scenario bilo bi nedopustiv prema srpskom zakonodavstvu, građanima, kao i životinjama koje Zakon treba zaštititi.

Ignorišući sve naučne činjenice i apele, gospodin Rističević pretenduje da izmeni Zakon koji je usvojen pre nepunih 10 godina, direktno se rugajući zakonodavcima i stručnim telima koja su učestvovala u donošenju Zakona. Imajući u vidu neprihvatanje stavova stručnih organa, ne možemo da se ne zapitamo za motive koje gospodin Rističević ima u pogledu brisanja članova zakona za koje nije stručan.

___________________________________________________________________

Dear friends of animals and planet Earth,

We need your help!

We are contacting you in defense of the law on animal welfare, specifically article 7, paragraph 1, point 37, which forbids the containment, reproduction, import, export and deprivation of life specifically for the purpose of producing fur and leather and article 89, which states that this ban will be implemented as of January 1st, 2019.

Fur farmers, in cooperation with certain politicians, are trying to change the law by prolonging this ban, or by completely removing it, for selfish interests or profit, refusing to look at the scientific facts and the appeals by European institutions. Fur producers had nine years to, with the help of the government, transition to other branches of the economy, which was the purpose of this transitional period. It is important to mention that many countries had a shorter transitional period, which did not stop them from implementing their laws without additional prolongation.

The environmental aspect of fur farming that follows the production of fur creates a ruinous effect on the environment. The World Bank considers the processing of fur one of the five worst industries in the world because of toxic metal pollution. Above all, the biological waste of animals contains a high concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus. The gases in the animal waste, as well as the burning of animal bodies, affect the degree of air pollution. The European Commission established that air pollution is the leading environmental concern of fur processing. Fur processing uses up to 300 different chemicals. Waste materials pollute the land and the water and some of the materials have an exceptionally bad effect on people’s health and they are recognized as carcinogenic materials and allergens.

From an ethical aspect, fur farming is unacceptable. Making one coat kills around 150 - 200 chinchillas, which is completely unjustified given that there exist plenty of alternatives for fur. In the conditions in which the animals used for fur production are detained, they do not have the means to behave in accordance with their natural urges and instincts that are specific to their species. They spend their lives in tight cages in which they are given no space to move so that they would not damage their fur. They develop physical deformities in their joints and in their bones and they are constantly exposed to extreme fear while having a very developed urge to escape that they have no means of realizing.

Chinchillas are classed in a category of the most threatened animal species according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and they are under special protection, determined by international regulations, whose provisions the Republic of Serbia is bound by. Both species of chinchilla (the long-tailed and the short-tailed) were driven to the brink of extinction in their natural habitat (South America: the narrow belt of Argentina and Chile, they are considered extinct in Peru and Bolivia). This is a consequence of either illegal hunting for fur sales or trapping to sell to breeders.

From an economic aspect, this industry is not profitable, even though Mr. Marijan Risticevic in his appeal to the sessions of the committee often refers to the economic gain of an individual the same as that of the state. The pollution, which is a consequence of fur farming and fur production creates an effect of the depletion of resources that decreases the potential for further production. In that way, through environmental damage an indirect economic loss is created for the state. Furthermore, we wish to mention that based on the official data of the accounts on the website of the Agency of Economic Registry we can see that up to 10 times greater profit is created by fake fur producers than by real fur producers.

We should not allow Serbia to regress when it comes to defined standards in this field, only for the purpose of the interests and profit of a small group of people. From the aforementioned information we can clearly see that there are no strong arguments that would be enough of a reason to prolong or remove the controversial article of this law.

The goal of the law on animal welfare is not to adapt to individuals that profit off of breeding and killing animals, and instead it prescribes the protection of animals in accordance with the achieved regulations on animal protection in other countries and the ethical awareness of the people. Other European countries serve as examples to show that the transitional period was respected as a reasonable deadline for farmers, and in many countries the ban is now in effect.

Ten years was more than enough, and any kind of encouragement of those that chose not to respect the law would send the message that new opportunities for changing the provisions of the law are acceptable because of private interest. This scenario would be impermissible according to Serbian legislation, the citizens, as well as the animals that the law serves to protect.

Ignoring all of the scientific facts and appeals, Mr. Risticevic wants to change the law that was adopted almost 10 years ago, directly mocking the lawmakers and professional bodies that participated in bringing the law about. Keeping in mind the non-acceptance of the stances of the professional bodies, we cannot help but question the motives that Mr. Risticevic has in terms of wanting to remove the articles of the law, which he is not fit to do.