Memorandum submitted by the International
Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)
IFAW works to improve the welfare of wild and
domestic animals throughout the world by reducing commercial exploitation
of animals, protecting wildlife habitats, and assisting animals
in distress. IFAW seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty
to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation policies
that advance the well being of both animals and people.
Due to the nature of this consultation process,
we are aware that you will receive evidence from many organisations
and individuals on a variety of different aspects of the draft
Bill. Therefore, IFAW have chosen to concentrate on three main
issues, relative to our concerns, knowledge and expertise: the
ownership of exotic pets; pet fairs; and enforcement and regulatory
bodies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On review of the IFAW response to the Defra
consultation letter regarding an Animal Welfare Bill, dated 30
April 2002; it is apparent that many areas of concern have been
adequately addressed in the Government's Draft Animal Welfare
Bill, as published on 14 July 2004. In particular IFAW is pleased
to support the general structure of the Bill, as a primary piece
of legislation with secondary Regulations to promote welfare and
codes of practice. Such structure will allow a flexible and dynamic
approach to animal welfare, in keeping with advances in our understanding
of captive animal welfare and with changing community expectations.
We are also pleased to note the inclusion of a "duty of care"
for animal keepers; thereby ensuring that appropriate authorities
can proactively prevent or mitigate acts of cruelty.
However, IFAW fears that the draft AWB does
not sufficiently address the issues of exotic pet ownership; pet
fairs, and enforcement and regulatory bodies, and so calls for
the Government to consider the following six recommendations:
1. Ownership of Exotic Pets
Recommendation: IFAW urges the Government
to prioritise the welfare of exotic pets within the realm of secondary
legislation.
Recommendation: IFAW urges the Government
to instate a system of licensing for "keepers[3]"
of exotic pets.
Recommendation: IFAW urges the Government
to commit to the introduction and enforcement of codes of practice
for the keeping of exotic pets within the next five years.
(Note: Recommendations made above are based
on the absence of a prohibition on the keeping of exotic pets,
which IFAW believes to be the best outcome.)
2. Pet Fairs
Recommendation: IFAW remains opposed
to pet fairs, and urges the Government to strengthen existing
legislation (Pet Animals Act 1951 amended 1983) to ensure that
such fairs remain prohibited.
3. Enforcement and Regulatory Bodies
Recommendation: IFAW advocates the development
of a specifically trained, and appropriately qualified animal
welfare regulatory body, which would be responsible for all the
regulatory requirements of new and existing animal welfare legislation.
Recommendation: IFAW advocates development
of an animal welfare ombudsman to oversee regulation and enforcement.
OWNERSHIP OF
EXOTIC PETS
1. We would generally regard "exotic
animals" as follows (all other captive animals may be listed
as per paragraph 4 item (e)):
(a) Not domesticated over many generations;
or
(b) Rare or endangered (species listed on
the CITES Appendices); or
(c) With special dietary, social, behavioural
or environmental needs that require the provision of special facilities
and expert knowledge on the part of a keeper to properly meet
those needs; or
(d) Any animal that is the consequence of
recent hybridisation with a wild species (eg dog-wolf hybrids).
2. Making reference to recent Belgian animal
welfare legislation, a list should be compiled of all those animals
that may be kept without a licence, as opposed to creating an
exhaustive list of species requiring a licence.
3. IFAW continues to campaign to reduce
the impact of the exotic pet industry on wildlife conservation
and to reduce the levels of unnecessary suffering seen within
this industry. We maintain that preventing private ownership may
be the most effective means of addressing this situation (as supported
by Clause 6(1)). In the absence of such prohibition, we would
recommend immediately implementing strict regulatory controls
on the keeping of exotic pets.
4. IFAW supports the inclusion of those
species kept as exotic pets within the animals protected by the
Draft Animal Welfare Bill. We would however strongly urge the
Government and members of the Sub-Committee to prioritise the
development of Regulations and "codes of practice" to
promote the specific welfare needs of those species involved.
5. The exotic pet trade poses a number of
grave concerns from both welfare and conservation perspectives.
(a) The number of "exotic" animal
species kept as pets in the United Kingdom has dramatically increased
in recent years, so much so it is now perhaps the fastest growing
sector in the UK pet market.
Example: The Animal Reception Centre at
Heathrow reported a 49% increase in the trade of reptiles in recent
years, with 67,000 imported in 2001 compared with 100,000 in 2002[4].
(b) There is a persistent illegal trade,
posing an obvious threat to the survival of species in the wild[5].
(c) Wildlife trade (legal or otherwise) can
have a deleterious effect on species, habitats and ecosystems
and is often seen as unsustainable in yield[6].
(d) The exotic pet trade is embroiled in
considerable animal cruelty with regards to the methods of capture[7],
transportation and the conditions in which they may be kept at
holding centres or on arrival at their final destination[8].
Example: In 1991 nearly 400,000 wild caught
birds destined for the pet trade died before reaching the UK.
Another study of the export of birds and reptiles from Tanzania
indicated that 31% of birds captured die before export[9].
(e) The importation of exotic pet species
can constitute a disease risk to native species[10]
as well as to humans. Many potentially serious zoonotic diseases
are carried by[11]
or can infect species commonly traded and kept as pets.
Example: In 2000, Professor Liam Donaldson,
Chief Medical Officer for England, warned about the risk of contracting
salmonella from pet snakes, lizards, terrapins and other reptiles.
The warning was issued after laboratory figures showed an increase
in the number of cases of salmonellosis in children and infants
who had an association with exotic pets. "It is estimated
that nine out of 10 reptiles carry salmonella and people must
take precautions if they own these exotic pets. There have been
a number of recent cases of people contracting salmonella from
their pet reptiles, one of which resulted in the tragic death
of a three-week-old baby." [12]
(f) The potential for animal escape or abandonment
can have a potentially disastrous effect on native wildlife[13]
and ecosystems.
(g) The pet trade industry cannot always
be relied upon to have the knowledge to lead by example and work
to "best practice".
Example: The July 2000 issue of the magazine
Tropical Fish Hobbyist recommended several species of the genus
Salvinia as aquarium plants, even though they are considered noxious
weeds in the United States and prohibited by Australian quarantine
laws." [14]
(h) The Dangerous Wild Animals Act (DWAA)
1976 is not appropriate legislation to address the welfare of
"exotic" pets, as the main focus of this Act is human
safety as opposed to animal welfare; many of the "exotic
pet" species are not deemed "dangerous" and are
therefore not covered by the DWAA. IFAW is pleased to note that
under Schedule 2 (minor and consequential amendments) of the AWB,
Article 11, the DWAA will now refer to the AWB in matters of animal
welfare with regard to penalties.
6. In order to provide the necessary controls
and address concerns such as standards of captive care and animal
welfare, pet suitability, species conservation and human health
(through zoonotic disease risks), IFAW considers it important
that:
(a) All "keepers" of exotic pets
are licensed in order to maintain the welfare of the animals during
breeding, sale (to include internet trade[15]),
transfer and ownership.
(b) Licence applicants should provide evidence
that adequate facilities, resources, husbandry standards and experience
are available, as detailed in "codes of practice" developed
for this purpose.
(c) Minimum standards for the housing and
husbandry of exotic pet species should be introduced as a "code
of practice". This should include:
— Adequate keeper training and
support.
— The minimum accommodation requirements
for each species of animal in respect of construction, dimensions,
social groupings, maximum number of occupants, exercise facilities,
temperature, ventilation, lighting and cleanliness. Facilities
provided must allow the animal(s) to perform all major aspects
of their natural behaviour.
— Feeding, watering and general
husbandry (including the provision of shelter and bedding).
— Hygiene, cleansing and disinfection.
— Protocols for the prevention
and control of infectious or contagious (including zoonotic disease).
— Adequate veterinary support.
— Protocols for dealing with an
outbreak of fire, or other emergency.
— The maintenance of records.
— The provision and storage of
equipment.
(d) A requirement should be introduced calling
for all premises housing a specific number of individuals or species
of particular concern to be inspected regularly, for example,
a minimum of every three years.
(e) A mandatory identification scheme by
a specified method should be imposed for individual exotic animals.
This should act to reduce the risks of animal abandonment; whilst
persons responsible for the introduction of non-native species
would be subject to prosecution under the Wildlife and Countryside
Act (WCA). All animal escapes must be recorded. Mandatory animal
identification schemes already exist in the UK for livestock,
horses, as well as cats, dogs and ferrets with the PETS passport.
Such schemes can be used as models for developing id programmes
for exotics. Permanent identification is feasible using methods
recommended for each species. We would suggest the use of ISO
standard microchips whenever possible together with an "exotic
pet passport". Identification will not only reduce the risks
of animal abandonment but will also facilitate the control of
breeding, sale and transfer, import, export and illegal trade.
7. All keepers' facilities should be regularly
inspected by experienced and trained personnel (equivalent to
the zoo veterinary inspectors created under the zoo licensing
scheme), and guidance should be given to the appropriate regulatory
body; these points have been identified as current limitations
of the DWAA. The inspectors must have `teeth' whenever possible
working to the principles of first educate, but prosecute when
necessary.
8. Licences must not be given retrospectively.
They must be obtained, and inspections carried out, prior to animal
acquisition.
9. A central database should be created
of current licences in force, and notification should be given
to the regulatory body in the event of escape, sale, disposal
or breeding.
10. All regulations concerning the private
ownership of exotic pets should be self-financing. This could
be a significant cost for many owners of exotic animals. We would
argue, however, that in many cases if they cannot afford the costs
of licensing and implementation of "codes of practice",
they are almost certainly not able to afford to provide adequate
care and management of the animals they wish to keep.
There would appear to us to be two approaches
to this dilemma:
(a) Demand mandatory licensing regardless.
(b) Legislate that from a certain date all
"exotic" animals kept in the United Kingdom will require
a license. All households may apply for a license and will be
given one prior to that date. Any case brought against that household
subsequently may result in the withdrawal of their licence. The
costs of obtaining a new licence with associated inspections,
etc will fall upon the householder.
11. IFAW does not believe that a registration
scheme (as opposed to licensing) of exotic pets will provide sufficient
control with regards to their welfare.
PET FAIRS
12. IFAW maintains that pet fairs should
be discontinued. Existing legislation in the form of the Pet Animals
Act 1951 (amended 1983), has already taken measures to prohibit
pet fairs. Yet due to the somewhat ambiguous nature of this legislation
there has been considerable variation in the way local authorities
interpret the detail, subsequently leading to vast variations
in the licensing of pet fairs across England and Wales. For example,
some try to get around this legislation by asking for a "one
day Pet Shop Licence", though in many cases they open repeatedly
or for two or more days. However, rather than revoking such measures
by incorporating fairs under pet shop regulations, we would urge
the Government to comprehensively ban all public, private and
hobbyist fairs, such that no further ambiguities exist, by strengthening
the current legislation.
13. It is our opinion that private and public
pet fairs should be clearly prohibited for a number of reasons,
which may include:
— the acknowledged high risk of disease
transmission;
— inevitable compromises of animal
welfare as a result of travelling (often long distances);
— inappropriate housing whilst at the
Fair;
— generally inadequate and inappropriate
care; and
— inevitable stress (often severe)
to the animals as a result of change in environment, extra handling,
noise and proximity to people.
14. In general there is inadequate supervision
provided at such fairs for both animal and visitor, and this can
be particularly obvious if animals are left unattended overnight.
15. Lack of control over, or knowledge of,
the abilities of the purchaser to maintain the animals in adequate
conditions. Many new keepers acquiring animals at such fairs remain
oblivious as to their requirements.
ENFORCEMENT AND
REGULATORY BODIES
16. IFAW is concerned by the high degree
of non-compliance with existing legislation, in the form of the
Dangerous Wild Animals Act (DWAA) 1976.
Example: According to the recent Effectiveness
Study of the DWAA 1976 there is an estimated 85-95% non-compliance
with this legislation. [16]
IFAW is therefore concerned by the potential
for non-compliance with these proposed regulations, regarding
the private ownership of exotic pets, due to the enforcement problems
already shown in the policing of the DWAA.
17. IFAW continues to support the development
of a specifically trained, and appropriately qualified animal
welfare regulatory body, which would be responsible for all regulatory
requirements of new and existing animal welfare legislation. This
will significantly reduce the pressure currently placed upon local
authorities, many of which lack appropriate training, experience
and resources to effectively regulate existing legislation. Furthermore
we support the development of an animal welfare ombudsman to oversee
regulation and enforcement. We recommended that the zoo-licensing
inspectorate be consulted for advice on this issue.
25 August 2004
3 Under Clause (10), section (a) of the UK Government's
draft Animal Welfare Bill: "a person is a keeper of an animal
if- (i) he owns the animals, (ii) he is responsible for, or in
charge of, the animal, or (iii) he has actual care and control
of a person under the age of 16 years to whom sub-paragraph (i)
or (ii) applies, and (b) a keeper of an animal shall be treated
as permitting something to happen to the animal if he fails to
exercise reasonable care and supervision in relation to protecting
the animal from it. Throughout this document we shall use the
term "keepers" and "keeping" to refer to owners,
breeders, traders and transporters of exotic pets. Back
4
Handle with Care report, RSPCA. Back
5
A recent study of nest poaching of South American parrots supported
the hypothesis that the legal and illegal trades in parrots are
positively correlated, rather than inversely correlated as has
been suggested by the pet bird industry. (Net Poaching in Neotropical
Parrots, Wright et al, Conservation Biology Vol 15,
2001). Back
6
Because prices in the pet trade are directly related to the rarity
of a species, the pet trade poses a particularly significant risk
to rare species. (Conclusions from the Workshop on Trade in Tortoises
and Freshwater Turtles in Asia, Asian Turtle Working Group, Dec
1999 (TRAFFIC)). Back
7
The death rate during capture (and transportation) to pre-export
holding sites is rarely recorded but, injuries include paralysis,
claws wrenched from toes by sacking material, bites and scratches.
(Cold blooded conspiracy, Clifford Warwick, BBC Wildlife
magazine, March 2001). Back
8
For every bird bought from a pet shop, up to three others had
died during capture, transit, quarantine or in pet shops themselves.
(Flights to Extinction-The Wild-caught Bird Trade, EIA 12 March
2002). Back
9
Live Cargo, HSUS (website). Back
10
In March 2000, the USDA banned the import and interstate commerce
of three types of African tortoises because African ticks carrying
heartwater were found on imported tortoises. Heartwater is a rickettsial
disease of cattle, sheep and goats, and can cause mortality rates
of 60% in cattle and up to 100% in sheep. (Press release: USDA
prohibits the importations of certain land tortoises, 21 March
200, USDA) In addition to the animal losses due to this very serious
disease, the economic losses associated with its control measures
are also very high. West Nile Virus a disease currently devastating
the USA's native bird population is just one example of another
that could easily be introduced by the exotic animal trade. Back
11
It is estimated that 90% of all reptiles carry and shed salmonella
in their faeces. (Animal Protection Institute, 2001). Two other
diseases of major concern to WHO during the past year, namely
SARS and avian flu' H5N1, have been shown to have "exotic"
animal vectors. Back
12
Department of Health (UK), 2000. Back
13
An increasing problem in Britain is the release into the wild
of unwanted pets. For example, terrapins and bullfrogs grow into
large voracious predators that often outgrow their aquariums.
If released into a pond they can significantly reduce the numbers
of fish, native amphibians and small mammals, as well as feeding
on invertebrate creatures. (Royal Horticultural Society, June
2002) Other recent examples of pets becoming established in the
British countryside include: Mongolian gerbil; golden hamster;
fat dormouse; rose-ringed parakeet; and canary (serin). Though
these are not as yet major pests others may become so. Examples
of other escapees causing problems in the UK include coypu and
wild boar. Back
14
Strangers in our midst: the problem of invasive alien species.
McNeely, Jeffrey A, Environment; 7/1/2004. Back
15
More than 1,000 Internet sites offer exotic pets for sale and
provide chat rooms where buyers and sellers can haggle over the
price. (Animal Protection Institute, 2001). Back
16
A G Greenwood, P A Cusdin and M Radford (June 2001). Back
|
