Among other points, the Estonian Animal Protection Association (ELL) claims in its petition that the new draft law would put animal rescuers who operate through foster home networks at a disadvantage. Unlike animal shelters, these organizations do not have their own facilities — instead, they place rescued animals, mostly cats, in volunteer foster homes.

ELL interprets the draft law to mean that once enacted, all organizations involved in rescuing stray animals — including those using foster home networks — would be required to obtain a shelter license that comes with strict operational requirements.

"All organizations dealing with stray animals would be forced into the 'shelter' framework and required to meet facility-based conditions — such as having physical premises, an on-site veterinarian and biosecurity measures. These requirements do not fit the foster home network model, are unreasonable for such organizations and could force many animal rescue NGOs to shut down. Today, dozens of organizations rely on foster networks to save stray animals, but they lack the resources to meet the shelter-level requirements," the petition states.

Merle Aruoja, head of the NGO Tartu Kassikaitse, which operates a foster home network, is among those who signed the petition initiated by the Estonian Animal Protection Association.

"As far as I can tell from the draft, most foster homes simply couldn't meet the spatial requirements or the demand to have a veterinarian available," Aruoja said.

"We live entirely off donations and have no paid staff. The donations barely cover medical expenses, maintenance and care costs for the animals. There's no way we could afford anything beyond that," Aruoja said.

She added that some foster homes and networks are in an even worse situation than theirs. "In some counties, it's just a couple of private individuals running things and they're definitely smaller than we are. We've been operating for 17 years and since we're in Tartu — a city — we have volunteers and donors, but in rural areas it's much harder," Aruoja said.

Aruoja also noted that getting cats into clinics is extremely difficult. "Clinics are very busy — there are so many patients. Some days we have nowhere to take an injured cat; no clinic will accept it and the university's veterinary hospital is far too expensive for us to go there regularly," she said.

Aruoja does not have high hopes for the petition. "It'll probably end up in the trash. But I hope common sense and compassion prevail," she said.

Meanwhile, a coalition of animal welfare organizations — including the Estonian Society for the Protection of Animals (ELS), Loomus, Rõõmsad Hüpped and Varjupaikade MTÜ — says there has been more unnecessary fear and misunderstanding around the Animal Protection Act draft than constructive, animal-focused discussion.

According to Varjupaikade MTÜ communications manager Anni Anete Mõisamaa, they are not in conflict with ELL, but acknowledge differing interpretations of the draft. "We see many positive changes for animals in this proposal — changes that have been awaited for ten years. We do not support halting the draft," Mõisamaa said.

She suggested that ELL should address lawmakers directly rather than rely on petitions. ELS has already consulted with the ministry and did not get the impression that foster-based networks would have to shut down once the law takes effect.

"We also did not read anything in the draft requiring an employed veterinarian. The ministry informed us that it would be sufficient for a network to have a partner clinic in the area where it operates," Mõisamaa said.

Another point of disagreement between ELL and ELS concerns animal euthanasia.

ELL criticizes the proposed shift of euthanasia decision-making power from owners to veterinarians, arguing it could allow animals in shelters to be euthanized immediately — even when their condition does not warrant it.

"The draft allows a veterinarian to authorize euthanasia against the owner's wishes and, in the case of stray animals, immediately, without the current two-week protection period," the petition states.

ELS, however, views the change as positive, saying it could prevent unnecessary suffering.

"We often hear of situations where an animal should be let go, but the veterinarian hesitates to say so and the emotionally overwhelmed owner cannot make a rational decision, so the animal continues to suffer. A veterinarian's professional and clear assessment would be a valuable support for owners facing a difficult choice," Mõisamaa said.

She added that a veterinarian cannot euthanize an animal without a health-related reason. "Documentation is crucial and if a vet were to euthanize animals without justification, there would be consequences," she said.

ELL, however, maintains that its legal experts have thoroughly analyzed the draft and cannot understand why ELS supports it.

"Maybe there are more theorists than practitioners among them. It's also important to note that the explanatory memorandum and the draft itself differ — and the law will ultimately be based on the draft," said Kristi Metsa of ELL.

The ELL petition, titled "Stop the Animal-Hostile Bill and Demand Animal Welfare-Based Legislative Changes," has gathered 14,141 signatures and will now move on to the Riigikogu.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!