In 2025, the “price of a life” in an animal cruelty death case came out to about ¥694 per animal—approximately $4.39 USD (as of January 21, 2026). You can’t even buy a plush toy for that.

This is not an attempt to put a price on life. It is a simple calculation used to make visible a serious failure of deterrence and accountability relative to the gravity of harm. We cannot accept a reality in which living beings can end up treated as “less than property.”

In Japan, many people live with animals as beloved family members. Yet within the broader legal framework, there remains room for animals to be treated in practice as “things” or property. When severe harm occurs—cruelty, killing, or major incidents—the harm can be pulled toward a property-based lens, akin to how society evaluates loss or damage to objects. This weakens deterrence, remedies, transparency, verification, and meaningful prevention of recurrence.

Japan’s Civil Code was enacted in 1896 (in force since 1898) and defines “things” as tangible objects (Civil Code Article 85). Within such a framework, animals can be placed inside the concept of “property,” making it easier for harms to be assessed primarily in economic terms. This is why legal amendments are essential: animals must be clearly recognized in law as living, sentient beings capable of suffering, not merely “things.”

For example, in December 2025, a widely reported case in Kumamoto resulted in a ¥100,000 summary order following allegations of severe mistreatment of a large number of cats. Reports stated 144 cats were involved and at least 13 died. If one simply divides the ¥100,000 fine by 144, it comes out to about ¥694 per animal—approximately $4.39 USD (as of January 21, 2026). This cannot be considered adequate deterrence. It demonstrates how accountability can fail to match the scale and severity of harm.

This issue is not confined to household pets. It extends across domains where animals are used, managed, or handled under systems that can still prioritize property concepts over welfare and accountability, including the Taiji dolphin hunt, dolphin shows nationwide, circuses and animal entertainment, animal testing, and serious incidents and alleged veterinary malpractice. Across these areas, the common problem is structural: when animals are treated within a “property” framework, suffering can be minimized, transparency and verification are delayed or avoided, and prevention of recurrence becomes difficult.

What We Demand: Legal Amendments and Enforcement Measures

Legally recognize animals as sentient beings—not mere property—within the foundations of Japan’s laws and legal interpretation.
Treat cruelty, abandonment, killing, and major incidents as serious harm to living beings, regardless of ownership status or market value, and ensure real deterrence and accountability.
For animal entertainment and display (dolphin shows, circuses, etc.), strengthen welfare standards, transparency regarding sourcing (capture/breeding), training, transport, breeding practices, and require independent verification.
For animal testing, strengthen oversight and disclosure, and ensure practical prioritization of alternatives where available.
For veterinary care, require robust informed consent, complete preservation and disclosure of records, accessible independent review and complaint-resolution mechanisms, and institutionalized recurrence prevention for serious cases.
Reduce regional and discretionary disparities and ensure consistent protection and enforcement nationwide.

Animals are family. They are not property.

Please sign and  protebt