pet

If you want to travel through Europe with your pet, there will now be something more important than the suitcase or the tickets: your passport.

by

If you walk around a park or square in any Spanish city, you’ll probably notice a curious detail: it’s easier to come across people walking dogs than parents with children. Logical. The number of pets far exceeds to that of babies. It happens in Spain and in many other nations. Against this backdrop, Brussels has decided to reinforce the rules that pet animals that want to cross community borders must comply with. And that means something new. starting in April. What has happened? What Brussels has updated the rules that pets (dogs, cats, ferrets and pet birds) must comply with if they want to enter European territory from other countries or cross borders, going from one nation to another in the community club. The goal: harmonize EU rules. This is not a bureaucratic endeavor, but rather a matter of reinforcing laws that try to prevent the spread of diseases. It’s nothing new either. The latest changes are based on the regulations that Brussels has been approving in the last decade. Why is it news? If you have a pet, it is likely that in recent days you have come across news that talks about “rule changes” or one disturbance of the standards. The reality is more complex and less radical. To understand it, you have to go back at least to June 2013, when the Regulation (EU) 576/2013 of the European Parliament on the movement of pets. This regulation replaced a previous one from 2003 and is basically the one that has been governing the movements of pet animals in the EU in recent years. The reality is that the 2013 law was not the last law approved by Brussels on the subject. In fact, years later the regulation was repealed by a later standardmore focused on “animal health” and which (in order to facilitate its application in different countries) included a transition period. That is the key to making the topic news now. This adaptation period will end in less than a month: April 22, as the European Commission (EC) itself recalled at the beginning of this year, when it published the regulation which will govern from now on the movements of pets made for any reason other than commercial. And what does the regulation say? The document It covers 35 pages in which the Commission details the regulatory framework and legislative precedents, as well as describing the different scenarios in which a dog, cat, ferret or bird can travel through the EU. For example, the details of the ‘photo’ may vary depending on whether we are talking about pets from “third countries”, outside the Union, animals that are simply passing through the EU (on their way to their final destination) or others that move between nations of the community club. Your age also influences. From the outset, the regulation makes it clear that it does not represent a full stop, nor does it break with the previous framework. On the contrary. Its guidelines “largely reproduce the rules currently established in the EU.” The objective is not so much to completely change the framework as, the Commission legislators clarify, to “update” the regulation “taking into account the experience acquired” over the years. One of its greatest novelties in fact focuses on the ‘European pet passport’a document that is not far from new and with which the Spaniards who have dogs and cats they have been around for a while familiar. What is the most important thing? He new regulationpublished by the EC in January, above all emphasizes three requirements that pets (pet dogs, cats and ferrets) who want to travel between member states must meet. All this, let us remember, as long as the trips are made without commercial purposes. The first obligation of the EC is that the animal must be individually identifiable, something that is basically guaranteed through a chip. The second, that you have to be up to date with your vaccines, specifically with the rabies vaccine. The regulation is very clear in this regard: the animal must “have received a complete primary vaccination against rabies at least 21 days before the date of movement or have been revaccinated, in accordance with the established validity requirements.” If we also talk about a dog that will move to an EU area free of Echinococcus multilocularis (a species of tapeworm that can infest humans) must first undergo special treatment. Of course, to guarantee that it is ‘clean’ the animal must have gone through this procedure between 120 and 24 hours before arriving in its destination country. Are there more requirements? Yes. If the pet is a puppy less than 12 weeks old and does not yet have the rabies vaccine, the photo changes. Its owner will have to present a signed statement ensuring that the pet has not been in contact with other animals suspected of being infested. However, the main requirement contained in the community regulation has to do with the ‘baggage’ that the animal must carry with it. Just as we always travel with documentation, our furry companion must also go with “an identification document in the form of a passport.” What is that document like? “Such passport must meet the following conditions: be signed by the owner of the pet and have been duly completed and issued in the Member State in which the owner of the pet usually resides”, clarifies the regulations European. That is, the passport is an obligation. That is the main requirement included in the standard, along with which it clarifies that the animal must be vaccinated against rabies and have undergone, if necessary, internal deworming in the last five days. All of the above translates into something very simple: when you travel with your pet, it will no longer be enough for you to book tickets and hotels. You will also have to take care of the animal’s management. Is it that big of a change? Yes. And no. It is important to the extent that it updates community … Read more

The great pet massacre

by

“It is not well known because it is not a pretty story. It does not fit the idea we have of being a nation loving animals.” Who is speaking is Hilda Keana British historian who dedicated a few years ago A book To which, as she recognizes, perhaps it is the most truculent, sad, delirious and of course traumatic episode that Great Britain lived at the dawn of World War II, long before the Blitz. Which? “The great massacre of dogs and cats.” Thus, with capital letters, as Kean herself titled her book. What does the newspaper say? August 1939 It was not a good month to read British newspapers (neither the French, Poles, American nor in general those of the majority of the nations of the West). Not at least if what you were looking for were serene and reassuring news. There were only a few days for the outbreak of World War II and the newspapers arrived loaded with fu -managed predictions. They bought it very much to their English who looked at the newspapers last week of August, days before Nazis soldiers advanced on Poland and that precipitated the entrance of France and Great Britain in the conflict, on September 3. There, in their pages, the readers met A brochure that froze the blood to more than one reader. For its content. And its implications. “The most compassionate”. The document was simple. And above all direct. It was distributed August 28with the approval of the Ministry of Internal Security and after the National Air Raid Precats Animals Committee (Narpac) Write a notice with “advice for animal owners.” Its content It was basically the following: “If possible, send or carry their domestic animals to the field before an emergency occurs. If they cannot leave them in the care of neighbors, the most compassionate is to sacrifice them.” The message was disseminated through almost all the newspapers of Great Britain and even radiated in the BBC chain. Not just that. The brochure included the announcement of an instrument for the “humanitarian destruction” of pets, a captive bolt gun similar to those used to sacrifice cattle on farms. As Clare Campbell points outAuthor of ‘Animals Under Fire 1939-1945’, another book dedicated to that episode of World War II, the announcement fell like a jug of cold water in a society in which war drums were heard strongly. It was, in His own words“a national tragedy in certain.” A figure: 400,000. The announcement had effect. Especially if one takes into account that that same week, on September 3, Great Britain and France declared war on Germany. The day after the announcement you could see people from London leading to sacrifice their pets and Kean estimates That after the beginning of the conflict, only during the first week, the life of 400,000 animals. And so emphasize“only in London.” The calculations on the number of dogs, cats and other executed animals vary, but something have in common: they are chilling. “Basically, the people were told to kill their pets and did it. They killed 750,000 in a week. It was a true tragedy, a complete disaster,” It laments Campbell in the BBC. Other sources They point out that this data (just over 750,000 animals) was the total company animals executed. According to Narpac calculationsthroughout England there were between six and seven million dogs and cats, 56 million poultry and more than 37 million farm animals, which raised a question: in case of war on British soil, bombardment and rationing, how devils feed all animals? Several hours tails. The figures are stupid. The testimonies, too. Although Germany does not London bombarded Until a year later, at the beginning of September 1940, in many British homes a psychosis unleashed that led them to pile in front of the clinics and organisms that were dedicated to sacrificing animals. There is talk of tails of several hours and owners of dogs, cats and birds that were waiting patiently in rows that turned around to the apple and extended throughout hundreds of meters. Everything to say goodbye to ‘Toby’ or ‘Félix’. “Our technicians, called to perform that unfortunate task, will never forget the tragedy of those days,” I recognized To the BBC chain Maria Dickinfounder of the popular dispensary for sick animals, or PDSA) As the crematoriums did not work At night (not to give clues to German bombers in case Luftwaffe He decided to launch over the sky of London) the work was piled up. There is who holds that the National League of Canine Defense exhausted all its chloroform reserves and that It was chosen for burying animals on the grounds that the PDSA had in Ilford, where the popular is Pet cemetery Founded in London in the 20s. Why did they do it? The big question. British authorities They did not order expressly the sacrifice of pets and even Slide that Narpac instructed cattle, without going into details about how to act with domestic animals. Even, remember Obscure atlaswith the passing of the weeks (too late), a warning ended up clarifying that those who stayed in their homes “should not sacrifice their animals.” So … why so many people did tail so that they ended the lives of their dogs and cats? The most likely answer is: fear. Wars not only carry the risk of air attacks, but also narrows, hardships and especially food rationing. And that is something that the population that had just face the great war I was very present. Campbell remember Even how one of his relatives who lived the dawn the second conflagration made a radical decision in 1939. “Shortly after Poland’s invasion, it was announced by radio that could be a food shortage. My uncle announced that Paddy, the family’s pet, would have to be sacrificed the next day,” recalls the British historian. Pets and War, a luxury? Among those who sacrificed their furry companions who were not supporting the idea that German bombings were hungry or supported. … Read more

If you don’t want your pet anymore, eat it your lions

by

The Aalborg Zoo, in Northern Denmark, has launched an unusual and controversial call on their social networks: asks the owners of domestic animals to donate them as food for predators of the enclosure, such as European lynx, lions, tigers and African wild dogs. The proposal, Posted on your Facebook pagehas generated an intense debate in both Denmark and internationally. Is it a practice consistent with nature? Or is it an unacceptable cost of pets? What exactly ask for? The process is regulated and explained in detail in The Zoo’s own website. Anyone can donate up to four small animals – as rabbits, chickens or guinea pigs. In the case of horses, specific requirements are required: the animal must have a passport, not having received medication and going through a previous evaluation. It is also indicated that there could be waiting list, since the zoo needs vary during the year. Nowhere do they talk about dogs or cats. In fact, they have nuanced that all animals are “soft” euthanized by trained personnel, and are then used as food. As they have clarified in the Facebook post: “In this way, nothing is wasted, and we ensure the natural behavior, nutrition and well -being of our predators.” Is there no other method? As explained from the institution, the initiative seeks to recreate a food chain as close as possible to nature. The Zoo Deputy Director, Pia Nielsen, has declared The Guardian: “When raising carnivores, it is necessary to provide meat, preferably with hair, bones … to have a diet as natural as possible.” The case of the European lynx is especially illustrative: this species requires entire dams, as similar as possible to those that would hunt. Therefore, the zoo justifies that this type of food favors its well -being, stimulates natural behaviors and prevents the use of processed or frozen meats. As has detailed in Euronews The scientific head of the zoo, Anette Sofie Warncke Nutzhorn: “We have always done it, and we see it as something very natural. We prefer this to bury animals and waste the meat.” And an inevitable question. Is it legal to donate live animals to be used as food? The answer is yes, it is legal in Denmark under certain conditions. The 2013 Animal Welfare Law It requires that animals should be treated with respect, with adequate conditions of care and without suffering unnecessary pain. In this context, the sacrifice of animals donated to the zoo is allowed if it is ethically justified and carried out by professionals. In addition, Denmark counts With a B rating in the animal protection index of World Animal Protectionwhich means that it has moderately strong legislation regarding the rights and well -being of animals. In contrast, in countries such as Spain or Germany this practice would be hardly socially accepted, although not always illegal, depending on the destination of the animal and the sacrifice process. The controversy explodes. The Facebook publication caused an avalanche of reactions. Some users considered it a “sickly” proposal or a “terrible trend of indifference with animals.” However, others defended it firmly, arguing that it is better for animals to serve to feed others instead of being buried or discarded. It should be noted that a user wrote sarcastically in the comments: “What if you have tired of some of your children these holidays?” To which the zoo responded with humor: “Your children are very welcome in the zoo, but not as food … here we only accept animals with feathers or skin” On the other hand, some people shared their positive experiences. A woman, Signe Flyvholm, He has commented to New York Times who thought of donating her horse to the zoo: “She could make a difference being used as food.” However, due to its size, it ended up donating it to an organization that made it biofuel and fertilizer. It is not the first time. As Euronews has pointed outrecalls the known case occurred in 2014, when the Copenhagen Zoological Euthanasio to a healthy giraffe called Marius, whose genetics was already overrepresented. The animal was then publicly dissected and fed to the lions. Shortly after, four lions were also sacrificed to avoid territorial conflicts. Just a year ago, a zoo in Nuremberg, Germany, caused another scandal by sacrificing 12 healthy baboons for lack of space and feeding the lions, in front of the public. Activists protested even chaining the tickets. Does the end justify the media? The case of the Aalborg Zoo opens a complex and urgent issue on the limits between animal welfare, ecological ethics and human sensitivity. Is it more respectful to allow a dead animal to feed another? Or is it an unjustifiable reification of domestic animals? The practice may seem brutal in the eyes of many, but reflects a logic consistent with biology and wildlife management in captivity. Even so, it is not exempt from controversy, especially when what is put into play are pets, animals traditionally loved by people. Be that as it may, the debate is open. And the Aalborg Zoo, voluntarily or involuntarily, has revealed a moral fracture that divides not only Denmark, but the entire world. Image | Unspash and Unspash Xataka | If Spain believes that velutinas are a problem is because it does not know what the US has found: radioactive wasps

Nothing like a dog or cat behaving like a person. That is why the Pet dramas made with ia

by

Although seven years ago of “We have to invent dramas“, The phrase has not lost an apex of current affairs. In 2025, in fact, the dramas that we are inventing are the pet dramas: videos in which pets exquisitely characterized as people interact with humans or other animals, reaching millions of visualizations. Of course, All generated with artificial intelligence. What are they. The concept is so simple that it is overwhelming. Extremely short videos, no more than 90 seconds, generated by AI and with animals carrying out completely human behaviors. But not anthropomorphized animals in the Disney style: animals often dressed in person’s clothes, yes, but with absolutely faithful faces to its royal counterparts, which wraps everything in a very curious air of nightmare solemnity. The phenomenon is originally from China and some videos have already exceeded 200 million views. 11 tricks to dominate Tik tok They are like people. The indisputable hook of these videos is the ability to emotionally connect with audiences around the world, since they reflect feelings with which we can identify ourselves at a global scale (rescue stories, melodramas, romance, all with the level of “beautiful” to maximum power). The ease of videos to connect with other fashion trends in social networks, such as Chinese microdramas Or the reactions videos have made the rest. Some examples. There are multiple accounts that are developing pieces that can be attached to the PET dramas, but are complicated to locate outside China without knowing the language. Some western accounts such as Petdrama93 In Tiktok or Pet drama On YouTube they extract and adapt original Chinese videos, and are among the first to take advantage of the trend outside Asia. Something similar does bichon.chon_lifethat combines surrealism and hyperrealism with the adventures of a Maltese bichon in Korea. But the authentic enjundia is in Chinese accounts difficult to track and that others like Orangecats29 They take the opportunity to hack. Quite possibly we will soon see here series of microvidearly from the Asian country as ‘His Highness Bichon Rules The Empire’, a series of historical setting on a Maltese bichon that claims its real title after growing in an orphanage. Or ‘The Cat Daddy Chronicles’, on a feline that raises a human baby. According to media like 8days its creators are greatly profiting the phenomenon, so we will not take long to see their arrival to other countries. Pets on the Internet. These videos by AI are just one more step in the humanization of domestic animals that has been living in social networks for years. Cats like Internet stars They are an already studied phenomenon, but in recent years it has been accentuated with movements such as Pet parenting: The increasingly accused trend of treating company animals as full members of the family, and even as children. He Birth decreasehe Delay in the formation of traditional families And the increase in loneliness in large cities are some of the reasons for this change in our perception of domestic animals. More human than humans. Pets have gone from being simple pets to occupy a central place in the family structure and digital narrative, and now it is the cats and dogs who have their social accounts and They become Influencers. The step towards total humanization and put them to raise babies or save humans (or dress poles and shoes) was sung. In Xataka | In Spain there are less and fewer children, so the ice cream industry has launched for a more buoyant market: dogs

The broken bones of a dog from 16,000 years ago tell an important story: it was already our pet

by

Although sometimes we forget it when We look at certain dogsthese animals were wild one day. It is not clear to what exact time Dog domestication beganbut what is evident is that, for humans, it was A ‘technological’ revolution. There are hypotheses that point to a domestication that would have occurred 40,000 or 20,000 years ago, but the most consistent tests point to Some point 14,000 or 17,000 years ago. There are several deposits in which evidence of the existence of the dog has already been found as a domestic animal, being the specimen found in Guipúzcoa the oldest known to date. In 2021, however, we found more than archaeological remains of a domestic dog: we find the proof that, in the stone age, Humans already worried about these animals. Maybe Not as much as nowbut there are those who think it was when we started to be ‘Pet Friendly’ as a species. The Paleolithic dog and the two sides of our early coexistence with them The discovery occurred when a group of speleologists was exploring the Cave of Baume Traucade to the south of France. In a cavity about 160 meters underground, they found something unique: a practically complete skeleton of an adult bitch. And the analysis Recently published It allows us to know all the details of the copy. The researchers consider that it is the remains of a dog of about 26 kilos of weight and a height to the cross of about 62 centimeterssimilar to that of a current Husky. With about 16,000 years old, it is in the category of “Paleolithic dog.” This represents the transition stage between the Wild and domesticated specimens. Even so, as impressive as their conservation, taking into account their age, they are the brands they found. Mietje Germonpréfrom the Institute of Natural Sciences of Belgium, led the analysis and Comment That the humans of the Paleolithic began to collect wolf puppies from their burrows and to raise them at home as ‘pets’. The good condition of its bones allowed a comparative analysis with Lobosmodern dogs and other prehistoric fossils, but above all something caught attention: trauma marks. The team of researchers found evidence of several broken vertebrae that had healed, indicating that those humans of the past were already worried about caring for dogs when they were injured. However, the story of this specimen has a traumatic end. Literally. In addition to the bones that managed to heal, the researchers also found two sharp wounds in the scapulae that did not heal. This suggests that they occurred shortly before the animal’s death and, above all, that those wounds were produced by human weapons. It is impossible to know if he died at the hands of the tribe that took care of it or a rival faction, but it seems clear to infer that, in those early years of domestication, The relationship between dogs and humans was tensewith interest on the one hand, but fear and violence on the other. And, although finding that moment in which the dog ceased to be a wild animal and became our best friend is fascinating, it is also to verify how that company during millennia is causing that Dogs continue to evolve. The key? Our relationship is now not so based on work, but in closeness. Image | Paul Bill In Xataka | There is someone whose brain is synchronized when you look into his eyes. And that someone is your dog

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.