Environment groups, the Green and Socialist parties supported the initiative. But the government, parliament and the country’s biggest party, the far-right Swiss People’s Party, were against.
A lawyer’s presence would however not have ushered in a slew of children being prosecuted for pulling a mosquito’s leg off, said Green lawmaker Adele Thorenz Goumaz, as the rejected law only covered "vertebrates" raised or used by man.
"In reality, lawyers for animals have a limited role. They can only work when there are penal procedures stemming from a violation of the law," she told the Le Temps newspaper.
The strongest opposition was in the countryside. "It will generate too much bureaucracy," complained Urs Schneider, spokesman for the Swiss Farmers’ Union.
"Switzerland already has existing laws to protect animals," he told AFP.
Switzerland already has one of the world’s most comprehensive laws on animal rights.
Under laws revised in 2008, people wanting to get rid of a fish cannot flush it down a toilet bowl alive. It must be knocked out, killed and then its body disposed of.
Sociable household pets such as budgies and hamsters cannot be left alone. Even sheep and goats must have at least a "visual contact with their fellows".
"We have very good laws... but unfortunately they’re not applied with the severity that we’d like," said animal rights defender Samuel Debrot.
The law’s advocates say that Zurich’s experience of lawyers for animals has shown that the system can lighten the public prosecutor’s load.
The canton paid 78,000 francs (53,000 euros/72,600 dollars) last year to Goetschel, far less than a typical lawyer dealing with other cases.
Ethnologist Jacques Hainard said Sunday’s referendum could be seen as misdirected anthropomorphism and as a sign of excessive compassion that reflects "a rich country’s pathology".
Source-AFP
TRI