The Limitations of Finland's Current Sleddog Welfare Regulations

The Limitations of Finland's Current Sleddog Welfare Regulations

Finland has some of the toughest animal welfare legislation in the world, but it is not necessarily well suited to the realities of caring for sleddogs.

In Finland, the Agriculture and Forestry Ministry is the ultimate authority for implementing and enforcing the Animal Protection Act. The Food Safety Authority directs and supervises, and the Regional State Administrative Agency implements within its territory. Finland has, arguably, some of the toughest animal welfare legislation in the world, and each farm is supposed to be assessed annually. When it comes to what is best for the dogs on sleddog farms, however, the law may not be as applicable as it could be.

  • Finland has some of the toughest animal welfare legislation in the world; farms assessed annually
  • Sleddogs reclassified as 'small animals' for vet checks in the 2010 addendum to the animal welfare act
  • Chains must legally be over 3.6m long - not always in the best interest of small or recovering dogs
  • End-of-life decisions are entirely at the owner's discretion under current law
  • Vets cannot fine farms directly; enforcement requires going to the police

Sleddogs in the wrong category

From the law's perspective, despite thousands of dogs working in this industry, there is nothing in particular they need protecting from, as they are simply classified as general small animals. Vet checks therefore use the same criteria applied to small pets - dogs, cats, rabbits and hunting dogs. Sleddogs moved into this category, for vet checks, in the 2010 addendum to the animal welfare act; previously they were assessed against general 'farm-animal' standards.

In reality, sleddogs are kept quite differently from most pets, and from most farm animals. It is probably high time there was legislation specific to this important part of the northern economy.

Judgement calls - the challenge of the 'grey'

Some parameters are easy for visiting vets to check - the number of dogs in a given cage size, or the length of chains. In reality, though, farms can simply claim that dogs are 'temporarily' together or on travel chains at the time of a check, even if those dogs may not move off small travel chains for months.

Many farms have dogs that spend their entire winters running multiday safaris, travelling from wilderness cabin to wilderness cabin where they sleep on short travel chains and mostly without kennels. For these dogs it is largely irrelevant how well the farm kennels meet the law, since that is not where they live in the most challenging season - and it is impractical to expect vets to check conditions in wilderness cabins.

State of living vs state of dying

Whether owners treat illnesses or injuries or simply put dogs down to save expense is, in law, entirely at the owners' discretion. This is a far bigger issue for husky farms than whether dogs are kept on a chain of exactly 3.6m.

It is far from uncommon for farms with some of the best names in the industry to breed annually with the aim of keeping only the cream of the crop. While this attitude is generally accepted as OK, it will be interesting to see how long that holds as consumers become more knowledgeable about the behind-the-scenes reality.

What happens now when a farm is non-compliant?

Under the current system, vets write an 'official paper' on their findings on the day of the visit, with recommendations and a timeline. Unless the vet considers an issue very black and white or extreme, they are unlikely to recheck it within the year or take further action, so the system has so far brought little positive change.

Veterinary inspectors cannot fine farm owners directly; their only option, should they act, is to take an issue to the police and effectively make it a criminal offence. That is a hard route for any vet to choose while there are no well-agreed standards as to when 'enough is really enough'.