Memorandum submitted by the Animal Protection
Agency
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A practical asset of the Draft Animal Welfare
Bill is the proposed introduction of a "duty of care".
Extra Government funding, however, must be made available if this
proactive means of preventing animal suffering is to be genuinely
facilitated.
This submission is concerned mainly with the
proposed legalisation of pet fairs. Despite claims made by Defra
to the contrary, the proposal to lift the ban on pet fairs does
not have the support of animal welfare groups. The common view
is that pet fairs or markets are currently illegal and they have
been the subject of investigation and condemnation by numerous
animal welfare and environmental groups. Standards of animal husbandry
at these events are invariably poor and expert opinion has also
concluded that the majority of animals sold at these events are
of wild-caught origin.
Another matter, of major concern, is the propensity
of pet fairs or markets to act as "mixing pots" of infectious
diseases. Infections can be easily spread to other animals but
also to people.
The proposal to lengthen the annual licences
for pet shops to those that last for 18 months would mean that
inspection costs would be reduced but equally the opportunities
for breaches of guidelines and legislation would be increased.
Adequate regulation of sales of pet animals
over the internet is unfeasible without vast resources being made
available to facilitate it. Confining the commercial sale of pet
animals to conventional pet shops is a much more realistic option.
Exotic pet markets are an abhorrence that one
would expect, and be more likely to encounter, at a remote bazaar
in the Far East—not in Britain in the 21st century. The
sale of pet animals warrants tighter restriction, not extensive
liberalisation.
GENERAL COMMENT
1. A practical asset of the Draft Animal
Welfare Bill is the proposed introduction of a "duty of care".
By facilitating, in law, a proactive means of preventing animal
suffering, Parliament would greatly improve conditions for domestic
and captive animals. Extra Government funding, however, must be
made available if this much-needed protection for animals is to
be genuinely facilitated.
2. This submission, however, relates primarily
to one particular area of the Bill, which raises significant concern
for the Animal Protection Agency, and many other welfare groups.
This is the section that deals specifically with making provision
for specified activities involving animals and where Defra makes
clear, in Annex B of the Regulatory Impact Assessment, its intention
to legalise pet fairs or markets. The issue of internet sales
of pet animals is also addressed, as is the potential lowering
of welfare standards by the proposed introduction of 18 month,
rather than annual, licensing schemes.
FLAWED CONSULTATION
3. Defra concluded, from the responses to
the Animal Welfare Bill consultation, that there was widespread
support from welfare organisations for greater licensing controls
of pet fairs. The Animal Protection Agency, however, is not aware
of any animal welfare organisation that would give their support
to pet fairs or markets. This finding, in fact, resulted from
the biased wording of a question posed by Defra. Respondents were
asked whether pet fairs should be better regulated—when
the question should have been, "should the current ban on
pet markets be carried forward into the new Animal Welfare Act?"
There is no doubt that a more straightforward question would have
invited a very different response.
PET FAIRS
AND THE
LAW
4. Under the current legislation that governs
the sale of pet animals—the Pet Animals Act 1951—the
common view is that pet fairs or markets are illegal.
5. Numerous local authorities, independent
barristers and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
share the view that commercial sales of pet animals in public
places or markets are illegal. There have also been four magistrates"
rulings to support this view.
ANIMAL WELFARE
AT PET
FAIRS
6. The Animal Protection Agency has a wealth
of experience of pet markets. These events generally fall into
three separate categories, fish, bird and reptile although amphibians
and mammals are also found on sale. Bird and reptile markets have
also been the subject of investigation and condemnation by numerous
animal welfare and environmental groups including the RSPCA, Captive
Animals' Protection Society, Animal Aid, Birds First in Aviculture
and the Environmental Investigation Agency.
7. In our experience and that of many other
welfare groups, independent veterinary inspectors and consultant
biologists, standards of animal husbandry at these events are
invariably poor. Birds are commonly confined to cages not large
enough to allow them to spread their wings and snakes and lizards
are housed in plastic "takeaway" cartons with no appropriate
ventilation, temperature control or space. Expert opinion has
also concluded that the majority of animals sold at these events
are of wild-caught origin.
PUBLIC HEALTH
AT PET
FAIRS
8. Another matter, which is of major concern,
is the propensity of pet fairs or markets to act as "mixing
pots" of infectious diseases. Animals sold at pet markets
are imported from all areas of the globe—some from pathogenic
"hot spots". Many animals are immuno-compromised due
to their sick and stressed state and can act as vectors of disease.
Infections can be easily spread to other animals but also to people.
9. Certain types of bacteria can persist
in the general environment for some time after the event and therefore
compromise the venue for future events. Also, bacteria can be
carried by people, for instance, on their clothes, shoes and hair,
and infect others outside of the event. It is for these reasons
that pet markets represent a serious and enduring threat to public
health.
PET FAIRS
AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT
10. Many local authorities, acting on expert
advice, refused permission for pet markets in their areas. Animal
dealers, in direct response to this, sought to employ various
devices in attempts to avoid licensing. One tactic involved simply
re-titling the events as "private breeders meetings"
and "shows". The actual nature of the events was not
altered—they were still commercially orientated markets
that were open to the public.
11. Unfortunately, local authorities, often
owing to a lack of resources, found that they were unable to be
proactive in refusing permission for pet markets but first had
to carry out monitoring to determine the true nature of the events.
Where monitoring took place, local authorities were then in a
better position to block future events. As a result of this, a
pattern has developed where pet market organisers move from area
to area and from one local authority jurisdiction to another to
freely stage their events as markets "on the run".
SHORTFALL OF
EXPERTISE
12. The plight of captive exotic animals
in the pet industry is further exacerbated by the shortfall of
exotic animal veterinary practitioners and behaviourists. Recognising
stress in exotic animals at markets falls outside of the realm
of a veterinary inspector and would require a behaviourist who
specialised in birds or reptiles—of which there are very
few. RSPCA inspectors also lack the necessary expertise to monitor
exotic pet markets.
CODES OF
PRACTICE
13. Clause 8 of the Bill makes provision
for the formulation of Codes of Practice. However, in its Explanatory
Notes, Defra states that these will only be issued following consultation
with "relevant interest groups". In previous statements
made by Defra officials—at a stakeholder meeting in January
2003 and also at a reptile dealer/hobbyists meeting—it is
clear that these "interest groups" would include unqualified,
unscientific and commercially motivated groups such as animal
dealers and hobbyists.
14. In Annex B, "Proposal to Licence
Pet Fairs", of the Regulatory Impact Assessment, it is claimed
that many pet fairs already work to a code of practice. This serves
to raise further the concerns surrounding these events as, to
our knowledge, wherever they have been wrongly granted licences,
they have wholly and consistently failed to meet the requirements
of the Pet Animals Act.
15. It has been proposed, as part of statutory
codes of practice, that all vendors of pet animals should issue
information leaflets to prospective purchasers. The section on
Information Leaflets in Annex C gives reference to 25 separate
leaflets about different species currently produced by the Pet
Care Trust (an organisation with an established record of generating
false information). In the environment of exotic pet fairs, however,
this initiative would serve no useful purpose. Firstly, it is
simply not possible to condense the very detailed and complicated
data relating to exotic animal husbandry to a leaflet sized hand-out.
Second, the proposed authors of these care sheets are not themselves
experts in exotic animal care and the industry itself is frequently
responsible for imparting dangerous and misleading advice on exotic
animal biology and husbandry. Lastly, the idea that "25 separate
leaflets about different species", produced by the Pet Care
Trust, will suffice to satisfy even the initial knowledge requirements
of prospective buyers is flawed when there are known to be around
500 species of reptile in the British trade, each with its own
specific care requirements. Inviting pet dealers to set their
own or the public's standards of care may be akin to inviting
prison inmates to devise locks! Therefore, only genuine and fully
independent expert advice from non-trade-related sources should
be invited to devise comprehensive information on pet care.
16. In its section on Sustainable Development,
Defra claims that the Bill encourages the use of scientific knowledge
to develop policy. Defra's approach to the Animal Welfare Bill
consultation, however, has demonstrated the exact opposite to
this process of decision-making. Expert and scientific opinion
was undervalued or plainly ignored whilst "knowledge"
gained by unqualified, amateur hobbyists and dealers, was given
merit.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
OF LEGALISING
PET MARKETS
17. The wider implications of legalising
pet markets are significant and far-reaching. The exotic pet trade
is already out of control—it has been estimated that around
half of the trade is illegal. New species continue to arrive in
the trade whilst enforcement authorities struggle to monitor commercial
activity and keep track and record the status of these animals.
Meanwhile animal rescue shelters are faced with an ever-increasing
volume of neglected or abandoned exotic animals—without
the necessary specialised facilities or expertise, there is little
that they can do to help. Pet markets, if legalised, would drive
exotic animal keeping into the mainstream with disastrous consequences.
ADDITIONAL BURDEN
OF MONITORING
AND ENFORCEMENT
18. In the US, there has been growing disquiet
for many years about the disease risks to humans, and to wildlife
and agriculture, from exotic animal keeping. Public health sectors
in the UK are now echoing these concerns. The burden on public
bodies such as local authorities, health authorities and the police
with already overstretched resources would be added to greatly.
EFFECT OF
LEGALISING PET
FAIRS ON
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
AND ON
CHARITIES
19. Defra anticipates no substantial change
in public service expenditure or manpower and no significant additional
work for charities, as a result of the implementation of the Animal
Welfare Bill in its current form. The widely unpopular move to
legalise pet fairs would however involve a significant additional
financial burden to the taxpayer and would place a heavy burden
on charities. This cost would not only be incurred in the initial
stages but would represent an ongoing needless and prohibitive
encumbrance on the public purse and a drain on charity resources.
20. The inevitable failure by animal dealers
to meet minimal standards of animal welfare at these temporary
events and the consequential and obligatory requirement for local
authorities to take legal action would demand considerable extra
public expenditure. Now that the proposal to legalise pet fairs
has attracted the condemnation of many animal welfare groups and
genuinely independent experts, pet fairs, if legalised, would
be regularly exposed and presented for public scrutiny. This would
increase pressure on local authorities to take legal action where
necessary.
UNATTAINABLE STANDARDS
OF ANIMAL
WELFARE AT
PET FAIRS
21. The suggestion of introducing codes
of practice and a system of licensing is an unworkable concept.
In December 2003, the National Cage & Aviary Birds Exhibition,
licensed to sell 100,000 birds failed substantially to comply
with the Pet Animals Act 1951, the specific conditions attached
to the licence by the local authority and even to the organisers
own animal management criteria. Birds were kept in appalling conditions
and yet this "exhibition" was hailed as the industry's
flagship event. Reptile markets are much smaller but the husbandry
conditions are uniformly recognised by experts as abysmal.
EXTENDING THE
DURATION OF
PET SHOP
LICENCES
22. The supposed cost-saving measure of
replacing annual licences for pet shops and other activities with
those that would extend to 18 months is false economy. By lengthening
the licences to 18 months, inspection costs would be reduced but
equally the opportunities for breaches of guidelines and legislation
would be increased. Conversely, more intensive inspection is necessary
if standards of animal welfare are to be improved.
PROPOSAL TO
REGULATE THE
SALE OF
PET ANIMALS
OVER THE
INTERNET AND
ESTABLISHMENTS THAT
BREED SMALL
MAMMALS FOR
THE PET
TRADE
23. Annex D of the Regulatory Impact Assessment
refers to regulation of internet sales of pet animals. Adequate
regulation of this activity, however, is unfeasible without vast
resources being made available to facilitate it. The required
expenditure would, however, would not be publicly justifiable.
Confining the commercial sale of pet animals to better managed
and regulated conventional pet shops is a much more realistic
option.
FINAL WORD
24. Exotic pet markets are an abhorrence
that one would expect, and be more likely to encounter, at a remote
bazaar in the Far East—not in Britain in the 21st century.
Appropriate standards of animal welfare are simply unattainable
at these temporary events.
25. The Animal Protection Agency and a number
of other animal welfare organisations are making a concerted effort
to draw public attention to the issue of pet fairs. These fairs,
if legalised, would become the focal point of public condemnation
of the Animal Welfare Bill and would "single-handedly"
let the Bill down.
26. The sale of pet animals warrants tighter
restriction, not extensive liberalisation. A great deal can be
done to improve standards of animal husbandry in pet shops and
"enabling legislation" will hopefully facilitate this
change. For ease of monitoring and enforcement, confining the
sale of pet animals to better managed and regulated conventional
pet shops, would be a first step to ensuring a practical solution
to many animal welfare problems and provide a sound footing on
which to raise standards.
August 2004
| 
