The Dutch Hobby and Pet List (positive list) was presented by the government as a scientifically substantiated tool to determine which animals are suitable to be privately owned. However, internal correspondence from 2020, recently obtained by Stichting Animalia, reveals how officials selectively and even manipulatively handle scientific insights.
When experts provided feedback that didn’t align with the political and ideological agenda, it was dismissed as irrelevant. This again proves that the positive list has nothing to do with objective science and is largely driven by political interests.
Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg of a significant amount of information obtained by Stichting Animalia. This information illustrates the bias in drafting this policy, such as excluding inconvenient scientific studies. We will publish more on this subject in the near future.
Science ignored when inconvenient
In 2020, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality requested a domestication expert from the University of Utrecht Netherlands to provide scientific backing for the internally adopted assumption that domesticated animals are less dangerous than non-domesticated animals.
Civil servant:
“The committee distinguishes between domesticated and wild animals in its assessment… Now the committee is looking for scientific support for this distinction, as they are used to humans and are less likely to flee or attack.”
The ministry hoped to use this feedback to legitimize their framework for the positive list. However, the expert’s response was not what they wanted to hear:
Domestication expert:
“Unfortunately, I cannot endorse or substantiate the argument that… domesticated animals pose a significantly lower risk of injury because they are used to humans and less likely to flee or attack… On the contrary, I would almost argue, based on our annual experiences regarding life-threatening injuries caused by domesticated pets to humans.”
The expert explicitly referred to “our well-known domesticated pets” as an example of aggressive behavior toward humans when the socialization phase was poorly or insufficiently followed through. She emphasized that insufficient socialization in early life can lead to fearful and even aggressive behavior, regardless of the degree of domestication. For example, despite thousands of years of domestication, dogs are responsible for tens of thousands of bite incidents annually, sometimes with severe or even fatal consequences.
In other words, the facts did not support the assumption. The argument that domestication automatically makes animals less risky was not only refuted by the expert but contradicted with practical examples. However, this insight, which should have prompted reconsideration, was dismissed by the officials.
A façade of expertise, not science
Scientific evidence-based policy should ideally be derived from extensive and objective scientific research. Instead, the positive list appears to have been pre-drafted based on political and policy preferences, after which officials diligently sought “scientific evidence” to justify these choices retroactively.
When the simplistic assumption that domesticated animals are less dangerous than non-domesticated animals could not be substantiated, the officials immediately sought alternative arguments that would fit the desired policy framework. To support this, they even referenced an article about behavioral changes in chickens, as if this had any relevance to the risk assessment of mammals.
This desperate attempt to salvage biased positions demonstrates not only the political steering of the process, but also a serious lack of respect for a solid scientific foundation.
The government continues to claim that the positive list was developed based on scientific evidence in collaboration with a team of “experts.” However, the correspondence shows that real scientific insights were only deemed acceptable if they supported the government preconceived theories. Science was not applied to develop fair policy but selectively used to justify decisions retrospectively. This makes the positive list nothing more than a political tool masquerading as science.
Conclusion
The government continues to cling to its narrative, despite repeated court rulings that previous positive lists were not scientifically substantiated and that the decision-making process lacked transparency. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, the highest administrative court in economic administrative law, stated:
“The manner in which the aforementioned positive list was established does not meet the European legal requirement of scientific objectivity. The principles of expertise, independence, and transparency have not been met.”
Nevertheless, the government stubbornly continues with the same strategy in the same manner, making it likely that this list will also fail to meet the requirements. In fact, the process surrounding the positive list increasingly appears to be marked by distortions of the truth, ignoring facts, and clinging to completely unfounded arguments. Instead of genuinely contributing to animal welfare, the government wastes valuable time and resources on symbolic policy, while responsible animal ownership and the real causes of animal suffering remain overlooked. The positive list is not a tool for progress but a political means to push a predetermined agenda.
If it is the genuine intention to promote animal welfare, the government must stop the manipulation and choose a transparent, objective, and fair process. Scientific insights, no matter how inconvenient, must always take precedence. Only by restoring this foundation can the government achieve a fair and effective policy that benefits both animal welfare and the rights of responsible animal owners.
This blatant misuse strengthens our conviction that our fight against the positive list is necessary, and we will continue to oppose this unjust and unscientific policy.
The full mail conversation this article is about is available on our website.