Memorandum submitted by Poole & Parkstone
Cage Bird Society
1. INTRODUCTION
The above Society has been in existence for
in excess of 60 years and was kept active through out the 2nd
World War; such is the dedication of our members to their charges.
Therefore our members are more than a little
concerned at some of the points under discussion in the Animal
Welfare Bill.
Our Chairman attended the meeting called by
the Parrot Society on Saturday 17 July 2004. The meeting was addressed
by Mr Graham Thurlow of Defra and attended by representatives
of other Bird and animal groups.
2. WHAT IS
THE TRUE
PURPOSE OF
THE PROPOSED
BILL?
All of our members support the idea, in principal,
that we should have a bill to protect, and ensure, the welfare
of all creatures and fully support Clauses 1 Cruelty, or 2 (Fighting).
Both of which we feel proper to the humane, and responsible, care
of all animals.
We also have no objections to the concept of
ensuring the proper welfare of animals and birds as outlined in
clause 3 (1), 3 (2) 3 (3) of the proposed bill.
3. AREAS OF
SOME CONCERN
ARE CLAUSE
3 (4)
Our members are concerned as to what interpretations
could be put upon some of the needs listed in clause 4. For example
what about being kept or housed with it's like? Does that mean
all the budgerigars/Canaries/Rabbits, etc that are kept as pets,
will become illegal? These types of pets are the only company
for a lot of older people.
It seems clear that most of the paragraphs if
not all have originated from so called animal welfare groups,
and those with purely anti-animal, and bird keeping, intentions.
Our members support the opportunity, which we
hope the bill affords towards the regularisation, and improved
animal welfare.
We are concerned about the potential for malicious
or vindictive actions being brought by over zealous and or vindictive
non-statutory bodies in pursuing and supporting prosecutions that
are not warranted.
We could not argue against the ideals proposed
in clause 3(4). But who is to define what is normal behaviour
patterns for any animal, bird, or reptile, or even the common
goldfish. Or what is a suitable environment for them to live in.
Given that the great majority of the birds kept by our members
are bred in captivity, and have a great deal of time,and money,
dedicated to their well-being, not to mention years of experience
obtained over many years in the fancy that is passed on from generation
to generation.
It seems likely that bird breeders would know
better than anyone what is best for their stock.
We also fear that parties and organisations
with radical and, or extreme views on the keeping of birds and
animals will have a free hand to exploit the courts and use them
as a launch pad for their extreme views despite the provisions
of clauses 5 (a b & c).
4. SALE OF
ANIMALS TO
YOUNG PERSONS
The proposal that no animals should be sold
to anyone under 16 years of age we feel should not be introduced
as it is proposed, the reasons being:
— There is a lot to be gained by introducing
and encouraging young people to the care and compassion of looking
after any living animal we should surely be encouraging this rather
than making it more difficult with unnecessary legislation.
— Most young people show a great deal
of love and dedication to their pets and soon acquire a good knowledge
of what is required to keep them happy and well.
— In reality, adults are just as likely
to neglect or mistreat animals, as youngsters are, and that with
the safe guards proposed in the bill this clause in not necessary.
If it is felt that some tightening of the law
regards sale of animals to young people is required, then we would
like to suggest that, sales of animals, and birds, to persons
between the ages of 12 and 16 years should only be permitted then
they are accompanied by a parent on guardian.
5. APPOINTMENT
OF LOCAL
AUTHORITY INSPECTORS
We feel very strongly that under no circumstances
should Local Authorities appoint Inspectors who are or have been
members of any non-statutory or non-professional animal welfare
group or organisation, such as the RSPCA, or RSPB, etc. All of
which have either open, or implied, agenda's against the keeping
of all animals, and birds, with the exception to agriculture.
So their impartiality will always be mistrusted and suspect.
Surely if there is a need for inspectors then
the best people would be those who know about the particular species.
There has been numerous occasion's over the
years when so called expert bodies have seized birds and animals
only to let them perish through lack of expertise and knowledge.
We would be particularly concerned about the
protection afforded to authorised inspectors under Clause 45.
Against all bird fanciers, and animal keepers.
6. PET FAIRS.
ANNEX B
It is the overwhelming view of our members that
all regular, and/or routine, meetings of bird clubs, can certainly
not be described as Pet Fairs whether or not there are birds present.
These types of meetings are open only to members who have paid
a yearly subscription, and invited guests (speakers or the like)
and are regulated by club rules.
Any sales of birds at such meetings would be
between hobbyist, and, private transactions between members acquiring
or disposing of stock. Such meetings should not require or be
subject to any form of licensing, or regulations.
Most bird clubs and societies, stage either
open shows, or invitation members shows, annually. The public
are generally allowed in on payment of a small entry fee, to help
offset the cost to the club staging the show. There may be sales
classes for exhibitors to enter birds they wish to dispose of,
these must be entered in appropriate cages for the species, and
judged with the rest of the exhibits. These birds are always fanciers
surplus stock rather than any commercial trading. A small entry
fee is invariably charged to enter birds in the sales classes.
It is also quite common for clubs to invite a local pet shop to
rent a table for the day, for a small fee or donation, towards
the running cost of the show, at which they offer seed, appliances,
and rarely a few birds. This is a very small-scale activity, and
a way for clubs to offset the inevitable loss that will be incurred
by the promoting club.
Such shows are generally held in Schools or
community centre, therefore helping them with extra income, the
public attendance is often minimal and the pet shop and, or trader
participating do so more as a gesture of goodwill to his local
club, than for any financial gain. It is strongly urged that these
shows, that are competitive exhibitions and not fairs or sales
orientated, should not be subject to licensing or legislation.
There are also Specialist societies that cater
for one particular species of birds they also run annual shows,
where birds are judged against a set of written down standards,
and the birds are staged in what are known as standards show cages.
These shows are run on the same lines as described above, and
we do not se any reason or justification, for licensing or regulations
of these events, which are conducted and organised to a high standard.
Commercial fairs and Auctions are held in two
main forms.
(a) Local Clubs staging an Auction of Birds
and bird equipment
These events are usually organised to generate
funds in support of their annual show and to finance speakers
and, or demonstrations over the year, without this income most
clubs would struggle to survive.
The public are admitted on payment of a temporary
membership fee, and any one can put in items to be auctioned including
live- stock (in these cases birds) we feel that as all those present,
pay a membership fee, this type of sale, may need regulation but
not necessarily licensing.
(b) Commercial Ventures
Much larger auctions are held as commercial
ventures. They offer potential buyers the opportunity to examine
and buy stock of their choice under one roof instead of having
to travel to different premises often involving a long journey.
However it is stressed that the nature of these types of auctions
and sales, their locations, and the usually high entry fee tend
to make these a much more business venture. And some form of licensing
would be appropriate.
(c) Combined Sales and exhibitions
NATIONAL EXHIBITION
This is a very large combined bird show and
trade show, and is staged and organised by Cage and Aviary Birds
(a magazine dedicated to Cage birds and owned by IPC Media.).
This is by far the largest cage bird show of its kind held in
the UK. It involves both a large competitive bird show, and a
trade section where large numbers of birds are displayed for sale,
as well as all kinds of cages and equipment. The National attracts
a large number of fanciers, (almost a pilgrimage to bird fanciers).
The number of non-fanciers I think would be relatively small;
distance, entry fee, car parking etc would discourage the casual
visitor.
Both 1/ and 2/ could be expected to withstand
the impact of licensing fees and because of there already existing
high standard of bird welfare and vigilance would need very little
adjustment to meet any reasonable requests by the authorities.
SUMMARY
Although broadly supporting the draft bill,
we make the following recommendations.
(a) The total removal of clause 3 (4) and
3 (5).
(b) To remove clause 4 and amend to allow
animal sales to persons between the ages of 12 and 16 years, only,
when they are accompanied by a Parent or Guardian. No animals
to be sold to persons under the age of 12 years.
(c) A requirement upon Local authorities
that they shall under no circumstances appoint existing or ex
members of non statutory or non professional animal welfare groups
as animal Inspectors.
(d) Those monthly regular or routine meetings
of bird clubs shall not be deemed as animal fairs and require
no registration, regulation, or licensing.
(e) That members shows and sales staged by
bona-fide bird clubs should not require to be registered, or licensed,
providing that no large scale trading in birds take place.
(f) That where a show involves large-scale
animal trading, and registration and licensing is deemed necessary
by the local authority. That the fee involved for the license
shall not be too excessive, so that the financial burden to the
promoters would defeat the purpose of the event.
4 August 2004
| 
