Memorandum submitted by the Kennel Club
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(i) The Kennel Club welcomes the publication
of the draft Bill but seeks changes to further strengthen the
protection of animals whilst not interfering with established
practices which are not harmful to animals.
(ii) Tail docking is not cruel and should
not be banned which would be the effect of Sub Section 1 (4).
Breeders should be able to exercise choice over whether to dock
their dogs' tails.
(iii) The possession of anything that
has been used in connection with an animal fight should also be
an offence as well as anything that is capable of being used.
(iv) There should be a definition of
abandonment in Section 3 (3).
(v) The Bill should stipulate that only
an authorised person is allowed to humanely destroy an animal.
(vi) There should be regulations for
notices outlining the age restriction for buying animals to be
displayed in shops along with provision for retailers to require
proof of age.
(vii) There should be only one body
to provide advice about the welfare of companion animals and this
could be one of the existing organisations.
(viii) Ear tagging is not suitable for
domestic animals, and orders for an animal to be marked for identification
purposes should provide for this to include a microchip.
(ix) There should be a national, minimum
qualification which all animal welfare inspectors have to hold
to be authorised.
(x) To ensure consistency, there should
be a national set of standard forms for animal inspections.
(xi) Clarification in the proposed regulations
is needed to ensure that non-commercial, dog competition events
such as obedience tests do not require licences.
(xii) The licensing or registering of
kennels at dog race tracks should be introduced much sooner than
the proposed date of 2010.
(xiii) Measures should be included in
the Bill to amend dangerous dogs legislation.
(xiv) The Bill should include a ban
on the sale and use of electronic shock collars on dogs.
1. The Kennel Club
The Kennel Club is the recognised national authority
on ownership and welfare of dogs. Since its foundation in 1873,
it has promoted the welfare of dogs and responsible dog ownership,
and represents the interests of responsible owners. Its rules
and regulations are the authority on dog breeds and breeding standards.
2. Overall Position
The Kennel Club welcomes the publication of
the draft Bill and the opportunity to provide greater protection
for the welfare of dogs. It does seek changes to the draft which
it feels would provide clarification, remove unnecessarily restrictive
measures and introduce additional clauses to stamp out cruel practices
not currently addressed by the Bill.
Much of the Kennel Club's concerns relate to
the raft of secondary legislation that will be forthcoming once
the Bill has been passed.
3. Section 1: Cruelty
3.1 The only part of this section that the
Kennel Club would wish to see changed is subsection 4, which deals
with mutilations.
3.2 The Kennel Club is concerned that according
to annex G the docking of dogs' tails will be considered a "mutilation"
in accordance with section 1 (4). The Kennel Club does not support
a ban on docking and we believe that breeders of traditionally
docked breeds should be able to exercise choice over whether to
dock their dogs' tails.
3.3 As far as the Kennel Club is aware,
there is no conclusive scientific evidence that proves that the
docking of dogs tails is cruel. Farm livestock such as pigs and
lambs are docked as a matter of course with no detrimental effects
to the animal whatsoever and the same can be said with regard
to dogs.
3.4 Standards laid down by the Kennel Club
for breeds have been amended to reflect our belief that docking
is a matter of choice. All standards of traditionally docked breeds
now include clauses that provide a description of the tail for
undocked dogs.
4. Section 2: Fighting
4.1 We would like clarification that subsection
(1) (i) which currently classes as an offence the possession of
"anything capable of being used in connection with an animal
fight with a view to its being so used". also covers anything
that has been used in connection with an animal fight and not
just anything capable of being used.
5. Section 3: Welfare
5.1 Section 3(3) states that, in cases of
abandonment, the responsibilities of keeper should fall to the
person who fulfilled the role of keeper immediately prior to abandonment,
until a replacement keeper is found.
5.2 We believe that there should be a definition
of abandonment to prevent misinterpretation of this matter and
attempt to ensure the best welfare procedures for the animal in
question.
5.3 We are concerned that subsection (6),
which refers to "killing of an animal in an appropriate and
humane manner", does not make it clear that only an authorised
person is allowed to humanely destroy an animal. It is our contention
that without specific mention of this, the subsection could be
interpreted in a way that may see owners or keepers of animals
performing such actions.
6. Section 4: Sale to Persons Under 16
6.1 Provision should be made to make it
obligatory for notices outlining the age restriction to be displayed
in shops along with provision for retailers to require proof of
age. This would be in line with other regulations banning the
sales of goods to persons below a minimum age, such as the new
fireworks legislation. Such measures would make it easier and
more effective for shop keepers to implement the legislation.
7. Section 6: Regulations to Promote Welfare
7.1 The Kennel Club is unclear as to what
subsection 2(q) refers. This subsection states that the appropriate
national authority may "make provision for the establishment
of one or more bodies with functions relating to advice about
the welfare of animals." There are already two bodies in
existence, the Pet Advisory Committee and the Companion Animal
Welfare Council, that have a remit to advise Government on companion
animal welfare issues. Clarification is needed on whether it is
the intention to grant one, or both, statutory status, or will
a new body be created?
7.2 We would recommend that one of the existing
bodies is granted statutory status as there already exists a sound
infrastructure and knowledge base.
8. Section 19: Powers in Connection with
Orders under Section 16(1) and 17(1)
8.1 Subsection (1) refers to orders, or
proposed orders, under section 16(1) or 17(1), in which a prosecutor
is of the view that the relevant animal "needs to be marked
for identification purposes". Although the suggestion made
here is to mark the animal by an "ear tag or by any other
means", we believe that specific reference should be added
to include permanent identification in the form of a microchip.
Ear tagging may well be suitable for agricultural animals but
it certainly is not for dogs and other companion animals and we
regard microchipping as the preferred method of permanent identification.
9. Section 44: Appointment of Inspectors
by Local Authorities
9.1 The Kennel Club would like assurances
that any "person" or "body" chosen as an authorised
inspector will be competent and be trained to a set of common
standards that ensures that the provisions contained in the Bill
will be upheld and carried out to the highest possible standard.
9.2 To ensure that this is the case, we
recommend that a national qualification for animal welfare inspectors
be put in place as soon as is practicably possible and that all
persons appointed to these positions be required to complete this
course before being allowed to carry out their duties under the
Bill.
9.3 We also recommend that a set of standard
inspection forms be produced by Defra, which each animal welfare
inspector from all local authorities use to record each inspection.
This would ensure uniformity, consistency and clarity of standards
throughout.
9.4 Having inexperienced or unqualified
inspectors would undermine the effectiveness of the Bill and destroy
trust in the inspection regime.
10. Secondary Legislation
Annex A—Proposal to License Circuses with
Performing Animals and Other Animal Related Entertainment:
10.1 The Kennel Club is concerned that if
the definition of "other animal related entertainment"
is too wide it may encapsulate activities such as heelwork to
music—where dogs and owners perform a routine in time to
music, agility—where dogs and owners run around an obstacle
course against the clock, flyball—where dogs run against
each other and the clock in relay and obedience—where the
dog and owner are assessed how well they work together as a team,
by being put through various set exercises. These are core areas
of Kennel Club activity and we would not wish to see owners of
dogs that participate in these sports being caught by legislation
that was meant for circuses or other commercial purposes.
10.2 These type of canine disciplines are
obviously non-commercial and "not for profit" and the
Kennel Club believes that this type of competition should be exempted
from performing animal regulation.
11. Annex C: Proposal that Vendors of All
Pet Animals Provide Written Details to Prospective Buyers
11.1 The Kennel Club does not support the
selling of dogs in pet shops. Commonly, these dogs are removed
as puppies from their mothers at a very early age—and in
some instances—before being fully weaned and transported
to pet shops. The journey is very stressful for the puppies as
is the alien environment that they arrive at. Puppies reared,
transported and housed in this way can certainly develop physical
and psychological problems and from a welfare aspect, the Kennel
Club would like to see a clause in the Bill to abolish this practice.
11.2 If the practice is set to remain, there
should be an emphasis on educating potential purchasers in the
husbandry and care of the animals they are considering buying.
11.3 The Kennel Club's recently introduced
Accredited Breeder scheme requires members to provide written
information to new owners on the care of puppies. We would hope
that Government would consult with ourselves if it decides to
introduce either individual codes of practice for different species
or information leaflets to be distributed at point of sale.
12. Annex G: Proposal to Breed Out Characteristics
that Make a Dog or Cat More Prone to Suffering
12.1 We welcome the Government's assertion
that there is no urgency to ratify the European Convention for
the Protection of Pet Animals and that the breeding out of characteristics
can only be achieved with the co-operation of breed societies.
The Kennel Club continues to work closely with societies to eradicate
any problems that may exist and we agree with the summation that
this is an area for voluntary schemes rather than regulation.
13. Annex H: Proposal to License/Register
Kennels at Dog Race Tracks
13.1 The Kennel Club is disappointed that
there are no plans to introduce the regulations relating to racing
greyhounds before 2010. The welfare organisations have done much
to improve the welfare standards of greyhounds both during and
after their careers, and the racing industry has become more proactive
on the issue recently so we see the Bill as an ideal platform
to accelerate the process. Therefore we urge the Government to
reconsider the regulatory timetable in relation to this issue.
14. Dangerous Dogs Act
14.1 Although Defra had indicated, prior
to beginning the consultation on the proposed Bill, that it would
not contain measures to reform the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA), we
would urge the Committee to consider amending the Bill to include
provisions relating to this largely discredited Act.
14.2 The Kennel Club and other welfare organisations,
through the Dog Legislation Advisory Group, have produced a large
amount of work on the deficiencies of the DDA and recommendations
on how it could be improved.
14.3 Deal with the Deed Not the Breed—The
Group's position is to "Deal with The Deed, Not The Breed",
as it is grossly unfair to proscribe against an entire breed for
the actions of an individual animal. At the very least, the Group
would like to see Section One of the DDA repealed, especially
as the Animal Welfare Bill makes provision to tighten up the regulations
relating to dog fighting and may also cover the advertising and
selling aspects of Section One. Repealing Section One will also
remove the contentious issue of identification.
14.4 It is generally accepted that genetics
(that is breed) play only a part in the temperament of an individual
dog and scientific studies from around the world show that the
environment probably has a greater effect. Consequently any legislation
based on genetics which ignores the influence of the dog's keeper
on its behaviour is likely to be flawed.
14.5 The implementation of the Act has had
a significant detrimental effect on the welfare of some dogs which
have been incarcerated for many years and others which have been
euthanased simply because of their breed. There clearly need to
be procedures and legislation which protects the public but this
should be balanced against the potential adverse effects on an
individual dog's welfare.
14.6 Adverse Impact of the DDA—Significant
public funds have been expended on dealing with dogs under the
Act. The Metropolitan Police alone have spent several million
pounds since the inception of the Act and those involved do not
perceive this to be effective use of resources.
14.7 Equally the Act and its predecessors
(primarily the Dogs Act 1871) have failed to prevent a number
of attacks by dogs. Statistics from this country and overseas
indicate that the majority of dog bite incidents involved a dog
known to the person bitten.
14.8 While the courts may be appropriate
for dealing with the most severe incidents, both prevention and
minor incidents can be dealt with outside the courts both more
effectively and more economically.
14.9 Other drawbacks of the legislation
include:
— It only applies after an incident
has taken place, rather than operates on a preventative basis.
— It only applies when the dog is in
a public place, or a private place where it is not permitted to
be (so that persons entering a private place where the dog is
permitted to be have no protection).
— It only applies to dogs that have
acted dangerously towards people.
— The only alternative to destruction
is a Contingent Destruction Order. Breach of such an order mandatorily
leads to the dog's destruction, with no additional penalty to
the offender.
— There is no provision for a seized
dog to be returned to its owner pending a full hearing.
— Despite numerous Home Office circulars
reminding prosecuting authorities that the Dogs Act 1871 is still
in force, the DDA is still widely used for less serious incidents.
14.10 Proposal for amendment—The Dog
Legislation Advisory Group calls for dangerous dogs legislation
to be amended to place a legal duty of care of the person in whose
keeping the dog is at that moment. Control is a welfare issue
for the dog as an uncontrolled dog may be caused injury by, for
example, involvement in a road traffic accident or fighting with
another dog. The proper control should also act as a measure of
protection for the general public and the responsibility should
be laid on the person in whose control the dog is and it is then
that person who is to blame for the dog's actions, not the dog.
14.11 This proposal allows preventative
action to be taken against a dog which is displaying aggressive
behaviour before it injures someone. The proposal assumes that
both the 1871 and the 1991 Acts are repealed, thus removing any
breed specific offences. It is suggested that new legislation
should not just apply to dogs in a public place as many incidents
of aggression occur on private property and in particular involve
injuries to juveniles. We therefore propose that the new legislation
shall apply whenever a member of the public is legally present
on private property.
14.12 Current legislation has been shown
not to be effective and yet no alternative proposal has ever been
made. This proposal forms the basis for a way forward and we would
be pleased to give evidence to the Committee on this important
welfare issue.
15. Electronic Shock Collars
15.1 The Kennel Club would like to see a
clause in the Bill to ban the sale and use of electronic shock
collars. For some time the Kennel Club has been involved in campaigning
for this including through involvement with the Alliance Against
Electric Shock Collars.
15.2 The collar trains the dog to respond
out of fear of further punishment—having received a "static
shock" when it does not perform what is asked of it—rather
than from a natural willingness to obey. This is not the type
of training method that the Kennel Club would endorse. Unwanted
behaviour in dogs is best discouraged by positive training methods.
15.3 An angry or inferior trainer or even
novice owner could misuse a collar to abuse and punish. It is
unacceptable that these products are readily available by mail
order, via retail outlets and on the internet, and therefore available
to anyone who, with no training or supervision whatsoever, can
place them on a dog and administer "correctional" treatment.
15.4 The Kennel Club has submitted independent,
scientific evidence to Defra that proves the cruelty involved
with the use of shock collars. This demonstrates that the use
of these products is "not only unpleasant but also painful
and frightening" and "may influence the dog's well being
in the long term in a negative way." (Applied Animal Behaviour
Science Journal). We are only concerned with the remotely
controlled shock training collars and not the "freedom fence"
devices.
24 August 2004
| 
