Found an error?
Report now
The farmer explained to the Dielsdorf district court that the calf had been weak from birth and had not been looking for its mother.
sda
A farmer from the Zurich Unterland region brought a runaway calf back by car without further ado. He was now on trial for violating the Animal Welfare Act.
It was late in the evening in March when the police contacted a farmer in the Zurich Unterland: one of his calves had escaped. The farmer quickly brought the three-week-old animal, which weighed around 40 kilograms, back to the farm in his van.
The spontaneous action had unexpected consequences. Charges were brought against the 50-year-old, and the local authorities issued a penalty order for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, as reported by theTages-Anzeigernewspaper.
Both the inadequate husbandry - because the animal was able to leave the farm - and the transportation in a passenger car were objected to. The result was a fine of 600 francs and procedural costs of 430 francs.
The farmer lodged an appeal. He explained to the Dielsdorf district court that the calf had been weak from birth. "It did not seek closeness to its mother, precisely because it could not drink from her," he said, according to the Tages-Anzeiger newspaper. He therefore raised it with the bottle. The animals roamed freely on his farm, only this calf kept wandering around.
He explained that the transport was an emergency situation: "The calf could barely walk, you can just pick up a dog." In addition, the police themselves said at the time that "everything was fine".
The farmer criticizes the fact that as a farmer you run the risk of being reported every time you do something: "It's a shame that as a farmer you always have to feel like you have one foot in prison."
The animal is no longer alive. In spring, there were several cases of bluetongue disease on the farm, which also killed animals. He therefore had the calf examined at the animal hospital.
The examination revealed that it was missing its cerebrum and would not have been viable. The farmer had it slaughtered in August. "Not because of me", he emphasized, but because there is no tolerance for animals that need special care.
Although the single judge found the accusations to be correct, he only handed down a guilty verdict without any actual punishment. "It's a trifle that didn't have to come to us," he said. Nevertheless, the farmer has to pay around 1,600 francs in court and procedural costs. An appeal can be lodged against the verdict.
