Examination of Witnesses (Questions 172-179)
MR CLIFFORD
WARWICK, DR
ROGER MUGFORD,
MS ELAINE
TOLAND AND
MR GREG
GLENDELL
7 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q172 Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen,
you are most welcome to our final evidence-taking session taking
today. We have before us the Bio Veterinary Group—Clifford
Warwick, their director, and Professor Frederick Fry—
Mr Warwick: I am sorry but Frederick
Fry could not get here in time from California, so Roger Mugford
has taken his place.
Dr Mugford: I am an animal psychologist
with a specialist interest in the behaviour of all animals, captive
and wild.
Q173 Chairman: You are most welcome.
The Animal Protection Agency is represented by Elaine Toland,
and BirdsFirst is represented by Greg Glendell, the Honorary Director.
It is quite fun sitting here because when you are not quite certain
who the witnesses are going to be you can watch people in the
audience and you get some wonderful demonstrations, depending
what other witnesses are saying, of extremely good body language!
I almost feel in certain cases I do not have to ask some people
certain questions because I already know what the answers are.
Unfortunately for the sake of the official record body language
has not yet been recorded in Hansard, so we will give you the
opportunity to answer questions on some of the subjects on which
we would like your views. I would like to ask the respective organisations
the same question that I have asked by way of opening to all the
others; what is your headline issue as to why you think the Bill,
if you do, is a good idea, and what is the one major area of reservation
that you have that, amongst all the things that you will tell
us about, you would not want us to forget?
Ms Toland: The Animal Protection
Agency would applaud the introduction of a duty of care, and a
major concern of ours and a section of the Bill that we believe
sticks out like a sore thumb is the suggestion of licensing of
pet fairs.
Q174 Chairman: When you say it "sticks
out like a sore thumb", just refresh my memory: are you for
or against?
Ms Toland: Against, because we
believe the common view is that they are currently illegal according
to most local authorities we have been in touch with.
Dr Mugford: With my behavioural
interests I have been involved in seeing the workings of the 1911
Act, the Protection of Animals Act, which is very cleverly worded
and has done some terrific work in the two thirds of a century
it has been there, but I think the definition of suffering should
be extended to include behavioural deprivation and environmental
deprivation, so not necessarily scars and evidence of physical
abuse but behavioural suffering and behavioural deprivation should
be included in that broader definition of animal suffering.
Mr Warwick: I have, over some
20 odd years—I know you will not believe that but it is
totally true—of investigating biological phenomena in wildlife
in all sorts of circumstances seen some pretty horrendous, really
almost unrepeatable things that humans have done to animals, and
over this time as a biologist and more recently, as someone specialising
in infectious disease, I have found that probably pet markets
are the single worst manifestation of the use of animals, of wildlife,
that I have ever seen and I have seen some pretty gruesome things.
In general I believe the Bill is a wonderful move, and I commend
everybody for the initiatives behind them. The duty of care idea
is absolutely great and why did we not think of this 100 years
ago, but in terms of the fault, the focal fault for my view is
the whole issue of pet fairs. They are the worst thing I have
ever experienced.
Mr Glendell: I work as a pet bird
behaviourist; I use methods of applied behaviour analysis and
ethology to do work on birds. That is my day job, as it were.
I work as a volunteer for BirdsFirst, which is an animal welfare
organisation dedicated to welfare of all birds in captivity other
than agricultural birds. I am repeating what my colleagues have
said really. My main issue is that itinerant trading in any sentient
creature is incompatible both with the duty of care at the heart
of this Bill, which we strongly welcome, and it flies in the face
of the five freedoms which are at the heart of the Bill as well.
Secondly, there is a serious lack in local government in terms
of professional knowledge of veterinary surgeons and animal care
officers required to address the problems of non domesticated
animals in captivity. I used to work in local government; I used
to enforce the Pet Animals Act in Devon many years ago, and have
a serious worry about looking at the contents of the draft Act.
I would like to know why mammals were excluded from the concept
of itinerant trading, and I cannot get an answer out of anybody
as to why they were specifically excluded. I do not understand
that. I think that non domesticated animals who are not used to
being handled and who are not used to being in the close proximity
of people suffer more, so the problem of itinerant trading is
worse for non domesticated animals than it is for mammals. There
is a problem with how the knowledge and information was gathered
18 months to two years ago, and I think it is important that,
when questions are being asked of the public or of specialist
groups or of forums, neutral questions are asked. A neutral question
was asked with regard to pet shops, and people were asked "Should
animals be sold in pet shops?" and 58% said "No, they
should not". A neutral question was not asked on the matter
of itinerant trading and pet fairs. The question there asked was
"Should pet pairs be licensed?" with an inferred presumption
that they already exist but should they be regulated. As far as
I am concerned the 1983 amendment to the Pet Animals Act outlaws
itinerant trading in all pet animals to the public but these itinerant
fairs continue illegally up and down the country. My main voluntary
work is in ending those sales. I have been doing that for five
years and I will continue to do that as long as the provisions
of the Pet Animals Act 1951 are extant.
Q175 Chairman: Thank you. Dr Mugford,
you said that you felt that the Bill should have some definition
in it about behavioural suffering and deprivation, and I am assuming
that that would be an additional point in Clause 3 of the Bill
which deals with welfare. Is that where you feel that ought to
go in?
Dr Mugford: Yes, I think so. The
1911 Act sets a number of standards by which suffering can be
defined, the deprivation of needs and the infliction of physical
trauma, and what we are saying is that each species has its optimum
environment in which it can regulate itself in a content way,
and that on a species-by-species basis the definition of need
for that species should be made when assessing suffering. The
five freedoms we have mentioned and they go some way towards providing
an objective standard for assessing behavioural needs, but it
is a specialist area for certain species, particularly, say, reptiles;
particularly, say, for wild caught avian species that we have
been hearing about.
Q176 Chairman: Under (4)(a) the Bill
currently says it should have "the need for a suitable environment
in which to live"? If I have understood you correctly you
may be calling for something of greater length to define both
in physical and psychological terms what that might be, is that
right?
Dr Mugford: Yes, and it will differ
unfortunately on a species-by-species basis so, for instance,
a 24-hour water deprivation would be no deprivation at all for,
say, a camel but would be a very severe deprivation for a shrew,
which requires a constant intake of nutrients and liquor.
Q177 David Taylor: I think the award
for the most striking sentence in any of the evidence we have
received in terms of today's session was that of the APA: "Exotic
pet markets are an abhorrence that we would expect, and be more
likely to encounter, at a remote bazaar in the Far East—not
in Britain in the 21st century". I raised this example perhaps
an hour ago: Whitwick in Leicestershire last week is not the Far
East; it is the East Midlands in Britain in the 21st century,
and it was not a bazaar but at an accessible leisure centre where
parrots, parakeets, which are presumably in your definition of
exotic pets, were being shown and also in some cases sold in very
positive environments, they were being monitored properly and
there were good numbers of people who were looking at the conditions
that were in place at that time, therefore that would run directly
counter to an earlier sentence in your evidence which says: "standards
of animal husbandry at these events are invariably poor".
That means always, does it not? Well, it was not when I saw it.
Ms Toland: I was also at the Whitwick
event a week or so ago and, with respect, to an inexperienced
eye it is not always immediately obvious what the animal welfare
problems and public health problems associated with these events
are. What was first immediately obvious and was quite encouraging
was that the cages had been cleaned out which is quite unusual
for these events, so standards of hygiene were slightly more improved
than normal, but the cage sizes were small, the birds were overcrowded
and inappropriate, inadequate provision of food and water was
obvious. Some cages had no food bowls, we have filmed evidence
of this—
Q178 David Taylor: Sorry to interrupt
but did you raise this with the organisers because they did throw
one or two casual bookings out of the hall because of poor environmental
conditions that were pointed out to them, or that they found themselves?
Ms Toland: I did not raise it
with the organisers on the day because I was assessing visitor
behaviour at this event under scientific protocol and also the
public health problems associated with this particular event.
One example which showed a shocking lack of awareness of the public
health problems associated with these events was a fruit stall
in the centre of the event. Now, bear in mind that some exotic
bird diseases are airborne and you had visitors to the market
walking around touching birds, touching cage bars and then picking
up and purchasing fruit and walking around the event eating fruit
without washing their hands. That to me was a serious concern
and showed, as I say, a lack of awareness on behalf of the organisers.
Q179 David Taylor: Finally on this whole
area about legality, the APA in your evidence state that the common
view is that pet fairs or markets are currently illegal, although
the Pet Animals Act 1951 does make provision for sale of animals
at pet fairs, does it not? What is your understanding? Would you
accept there is a debate as to legality which this Bill is trying
to lay to rest?
Ms Toland: In the presence of
any doubt of the legality of these events, the National Exhibition
Centre last year hosted a huge bird market at which 100,000 birds
were licensed for sale. That event has since been moved to Stoneleigh
Agricultural Showground and Warwick district council have now
acknowledged that that event, should trading of birds take place,
would be illegal. This is the industry's flagship event which
they hold up as a shining example of how these events should be
run. Several organisations, including Animal Aid, the Captive
Animals Protection Society, BirdsFirst and the Environmental Investigation
Agency carried out an in-depth investigation of this event and
found overwhelmingly that even the basic standards of petshop
licensing were not met at this event.
Mr Glendell: Looking at the event
is one aspect of the event. From the birds' point of view they
have to travel to that event; they have to experience change of
ownership and have to travel somewhere else at the end of it.
It is hard for me to put over the degree of stress that some of
these birds will suffer. Where birds suffer extreme stress they
will be put out of public view so you will not be party to it,
and some of the problems that the birds find as a result of being
at these sales do not manifest for several days or weeks after.
The gentleman earlier who referred to a case of psittacosis in
a bird was a bird which I had had bought for me, it was one of
five birds bought for me, the Senegal parrot which was bought
last year at the NEC. The bird recovered with intensive veterinary
treatment. Another bird bought at a similar event, a Blue Crowned
Conure, died despite intensive veterinary treatment due to ulcerated
skull bones and acute liver failure. Another bird, a Black Capped
Conure bought at the same fair, died of acute liver failure. The
bird fairs, the genuine fairs—not the exhibitions but the
bird fairs—are at the jumble sale end of the market in general.
Their function is to allow people to buy and sell. People who
have minimum overheads, who may not have a pet shop licence at
any other place, will go to these places and sell birds. They
will buy birds cheaply, recently imported birds from the continent.
It is relatively easy to drive over to Belgium and buy some Timneh
Greys for about £50-60 each and sell them for £150.
An ordinary pet shop would have to sell Timneh Greys at £150-200,
maybe £300 but the overhead is minimal if all you are operating
is a white van and you are driving round from one market to another
trying to sell these birds. You need to look at the event as a
whole. Going there on the day does not tell you very much. It
tells you a little bit but symptoms of distress will not be the
same in a Black Capped Conure as they are in Hyacinth Macaw; they
are not going to be the same in a Lovebird as in an African Grey.
All these species have individual behavioural repertoires which
are very different, and until we know a lot more about them I
feel that the default position should be that where they are being
sold they should be sold in a quality environment, regulated,
within fixed premises, either direct from the breeder or from
pet shops.
|
