Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Animal Protection Agency
Please consider this note as an appendix to
the original submission by the Animal Protection Agency. This
document encompasses our observations of the oral evidence given
by the pet trade lobby. We appreciate that you must have already
received a small mountain of material on this one issue alone
and are therefore grateful for the conscientious approach that
the Committee has taken in inviting additional memoranda.
We note that the pet industry representatives
were very keen to promote the positive side of pet ownership but
failed to mention the negative aspects. Many thousands of unwanted
or abandoned pet animals are euthanased every year and a large
number of animal cruelty cases result in prosecutions. We believe
that the suffering of exotic animals would be proportionately
greater than that of domestic animals given that they commonly
fail to thrive in captivity. Therefore, these are some of the
negative aspects of the pet trade, which should not be overlooked.
The pro-pet trade groups expressed a keenness
for The Local Government Association's publication "Model
Standards for Pet Shop Licence Conditions (1998)" to be granted
basis in statute. This document is not only obsolete—in
that it advises that pet fairs can be licensed—but the guidelines
relating to animal husbandry are grossly deficient and outdated.
For pet shop owners these "model" guidelines would be
easy to fulfil and would represent a convenient and misleading
semblance of "appropriate" conditions. The Pet Care
Trust as a co-author of the "model standards" document
would enjoy the benefits that would come by the promotion of their
organisation, as indeed they would were their own "care sheets"
adopted and bulk purchased as has been proposed by DEFRA.
Mr Newman, speaking for the pet trade and hobbyists,
advised the Committee that his organisation recommends that veterinarians
be present at pet fairs, although these events are unlawful. Few
vets however wish to be associated with these events. Indeed,
numerous vets have withdrawn from inspecting pet fairs due to
their concerns regarding animal welfare. Certain pet industry
representatives argued that vets should not be requested to inspect
pet shops as they are not suitably qualified to do so but bizarrely
also argue that pet shops are already subject to daily inspections
by members of the public and that this scrutiny is somehow adequate!
In our view, vets are eminently qualified to inspect pet shops
selling dogs and cats but in the case of exotic animals, where
a vet is not specialised, this task should be deferred to properly
qualified and specialised biologists and there are simply not
enough of these professionals.
There was, in our view, a clear attempt by pro
trade groups to generate confusion over the difference between
a pet market and an exhibition or competition such as Crufts.
The distinction however is quite clear and under current legislation
any event that allows the commercial sales of animals outside
of pet shops should not be allowed. We reiterate that pet animals
should not be sold under any situation save for conventional pet
shops.
During the session in which my colleagues and
I gave evidence, I discussed with Mr Taylor an event that took
place in Leicestershire on 30 August 2004. It may be of interest
to the Committee to note that North West Leicestershire District
Council has since taken independent legal advice and has resolved
to allow no further events of this nature within its jurisdiction.
This is one of five local authorities that have drawn comparable
legal conclusions against pet fairs within the last five weeks
alone!
One market, however, Stafford Bird Show, was
licensed by the local authority despite the licensing officer's
recommendations that the event be disallowed. During our inspection
of the event, which took place at the Staffordshire County Showground
on 10 October 2004, we noticed an experimental protocol to provide
temporary stand off barriers between the public and birds. Not
only was this barrier conceptually highly questionable in its
supposed benefits to the birds, but sections of the barriers were
breached and destroyed with no enforcement consequence of any
kind. Also, disturbingly and curiously, we learned that this prototype
and defective barrier was conceived by Defra officials in advance
of the event. It is worrying to note the poor standards of inventiveness
generated by Defra on this occasion.
As indicated above, on behalf of the Animal
Protection Agency, two vets attended this event where tens of
thousands of birds were on sale. They filmed evidence of severe
animal suffering, despite Stafford Bird Show being reportedly
one of the best of its kind. The organisers of the event (being
the Parrot Society and extraordinarily also being members of the
Defra Animal Fairs Working Group) have taken legal action to suppress
the evidence we gathered from being made public. Our legal advisors,
however, have given the green light for us to reveal this information
and we intend to do so most fully. Therefore, we are compiling
what is a disturbing undercover film for distribution.
We would be grateful if the Committee would
also take time to view (or experience!) this film as the material
graphically emphasises that no regulation or enforcement measures
can be pragmatically applied to the management of pet markets
under any circumstances. The film they didn't want you to see,
and which we hope you will(!) depicts what will come to pass on
a massive scale if the Select Committee allow any provision for
pet markets in the proposed new legislation.
14 October 2004
| 
