“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”, wrote George Orwell in “Animal Farm”. That is precisely what the next round in the mousetrap case may be about. Linda Strand from Surnadal in Nordmøre was sentenced to a fine of NOK 6,000, after she had made a trap that did not kill the mice according to current animal welfare regulations. Strand appealed the sentence, but the Frostating Court of Appeal did not want to hear it. Yesterday, the Supreme Court annulled this decision, which probably means that the appeal will still come up in the Court of Appeal. “Justifiable killing” Strand was understandably happy with the decision. – Around Norway, there are probably thousands of people who have tried to get rid of pests using a bucket trap in the same way, says her lawyer Thor Kleppen Sættem to news. Linda Strand and the lawyer Thor Kleppen Sættem during the trial. Photo: Solveig Nyhus Aksnes / news – I am particularly happy that the Supreme Court points out that the Animal Welfare Act cannot be blind to what kind of animal it is, and this can be an exciting discussion when the case is heard in the Court of Appeal, the lawyer believes. The Supreme Court points out that there is no case law on whether pest control must be carried out in an “animal welfare-wise manner”. The court also writes that the killing of animals “is relative based on how much care humans have for the animal in question”. – Clearly breaking the law Strand was reported by the animal welfare organization NOAH after he posted a picture of a bucket trap on Facebook. Siri Martinsen in NOAH believes that the case should not have ended up in court. Photo: Bente Isefjær / NOAH NOAH has so far not responded to news’s questions about the reversal in the case, but spokesperson Siri Martinsen said the following after the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. – I think it is right and good that the Court of Appeal has rejected the case. The case should not have been taken to court at all. This is a clear violation of the law and the person concerned should have accepted the fine. Drowning animals is illegal, at least since the Animal Welfare Act came into force. There is no doubt in the professional aspect here, so it is good that the court has seen the end of the case. Could set the mice free After the judgment of the district court in July, the condemned Linda Strand was clear about one thing: – I don’t want to wear it that I am an animal abuser, she said then, and repeated. – She thinks it is completely wrong to be sentenced for protecting her own house against pests that have invaded her home, added defender Thor Kleppen Sættem. The verdict pointed out that there were alternative methods to get rid of the mice. – As the court sees it, she could have used a bucket without water/coolant. As soon as the mice were captured, she could have transported them to a place with a sufficient distance to the residence and released the mice there, the judgment said. – By drowning, significant suffering is caused to mice before death occurs, even though the liquid mixture means that the mice are unable to sew. Anyone who is going to euthanize an animal must always check whether the euthanasia method chosen is sound, it added.
ttn-69
The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeal’s appeal in the mousetrap case with Linda Strand – news Møre og Romsdal – Local news, TV and radio
