Manipulation of statistics on dog abandonment: Is the hunting sector being criminalised?

In recent days, the hunting industry has expressed concern about the possible manipulation of official statistics on dog abandonment, a situation that many hunters see as an attempt to criminalize their community. According to the Artemisan Foundation , the questions included in a survey launched by the General Directorate of Animal Rights , part of the Ministry of Social Rights, reflect a clear anti-hunting bias.

A biased survey

The Artemisan Foundation has criticized the lack of rigor in the official statistics the government intends to compile through this questionnaire, as it only allows participation from animal protection organizations and city councils. Furthermore, the process for local councils is more complicated, which could further skew the results.

One of the most concerning aspects of the hunting industry is that animal shelters are being asked to indicate how many of the rescued dogs are "hunting dogs or hunting dog crosses," based solely on the animals' breed, without having to verify whether they actually belonged to hunters or were used for hunting. According to hunters, this approach seeks to inflate the number of abandoned hunting dogs, which will serve to fuel the anti-hunting narrative promoted by some groups.

Official data contradicts animal rights figures

Hunters also recall that the latest official figures available, published in 2019 by the Nature Protection Service (Seprona) of the Civil Guard, recorded 163 abandoned hunting dogs that year. This figure contrasts markedly with the 50,000 abandoned hunting dogs reported by some animal rights and anti-hunting groups. The discrepancy between the two statistics is causing concern in the hunting sector, which fears that the new official statistics are being manipulated to damage its image.

They demand transparency and rigor

Given this situation, both the Artemisan Foundation and other organizations related to the hunting world have demanded that the Government and the General Directorate of Animal Rights act with transparency and rigor in the compilation of these statistics. In particular, they request that official, verified, and cross-checked data , such as those provided by the Civil Guard, be used, and that oversight mechanisms be established to verify the veracity of the data provided by animal protection organizations.

The hunting sector considers it unacceptable that official statistics lack guarantees and transparency, especially when they are likely to be used to justify political decisions affecting the hunting world. "Any process that lacks rigor and seeks to criminalize a group, without evidence or verified data, must be denounced," states the Artemisan Foundation.

Author: María Balletbó