Memorandum submitted by Catholic Concern
for Animals
1. OMISSIONS
At first glance this legislation looks like
a vast improvement over the 1911 Act and subsequent additions.
We consider however that the deliberate omission of farmed animals
and animals used in scientific research is highly regrettable,
as all animals are of absolute value to themselves (and to their
creator, God), whether or not human beings make use of them in
different ways.
2. RIA CONCLUSIONS
— The comments in the Conclusion (para
10) that "the legislation concerning farmed animals had
kept up to speed" is considered to be startlingly complacent
in the light of the many practices still involving intense suffering
to many millions of animals.
— Conclusion para 13: We too
endorse better regulation of animal sanctuaries and, at a pinch,
livery yards, but consider that there should be no need to regulate
for animals in circuses, for there should be none—there
is no justification for them to be there and their suffering has
been many times recorded (viz the Mary Chipperfield case and others).
We would similarly like to see outright bans on pet fairs, greyhound-racing
and the rearing of pheasants. The principle of animals being at
risk of suffering simply for human pleasure is not one we accept.
— Conclusion, para 19: the privileging
of commercial interests over the banning of electronic training
aids and electric fencing is felt to be reprehensible.
3. Fighting. We feel that the Bill
requires clarification over the definition of "fighting"
(2:1-3) so that it includes the deliberate setting of animals
against each other in coursing, beagling, fox hunting, ferreting,
ratting with terriers, and any other pursuit which results in
causing the suffering of either animal. (The control of rodents
on farmland or food-store environments should be the most humane
possible, preferably where the animal is stunned or rendered unconscious
before being killed.) The use of hooks in angling, and of live
bait, are also omitted—and yet these are proven to cause
pain and suffering.
4. Clause 3 Welfare the following
comments—
— 3:(4)(a) The needs of an animal
for a suitable environment—this should preclude the use
of domestic homes for non-domesticated animals, such as all batrachians,
snakes, insects and arachnids; also all exotic animals and those
originating from non-European countries, eg ostriches (whether
intended for consumption or not), bears, camels, large felines,
chipmunks and similar. The climate and terrain of the UK being
unsuitable for such creatures, suffering is a likely outcome.
This applies to zoos, wildlife parks and circuses—although
certain wildlife parks may be able to demonstrate they possess
a sufficient amount of land for normal behaviour patterns to be
exercised and can supply appropriate housing and shelter.
— 3:(4)(c) The needs of all animals
to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns should prohibit
the tethering of dogs and equines (and, of course, all intensively-reared
farmed animals and fowl should be protected by this clause).
— 3:(4)(d) This needs to be strengthened—As
normal behaviour includes the social interaction of social species,
there should be an embargo on the sale of single-animal/bird cages,
hutches and all other housing which prevents this normal social
interaction. Animal owners should also be aware of the social
needs of animals confined to solitary imprisonment in apartments,
houses, cars and similar for several hours every day (when, for
example, their owners leave them while they are at work). The
keeping of ponies, horses and donkeys in solitary isolation in
fields and paddocks should also be regarded as against the best
interests of the animals, and owners encouraged to find other
means—possibly by the convergence of adjoining land which
is then shared between several equines, or the placing of companion
animals with the resident equine (goats make good company with
donkeys, for example). Perhaps notice could be given for action
to be taken, followed by penalties for non-compliance unless good
reasons be given, ie those which would satisfy an RSPCA Inspector
that alternatives are impossible and that the animal receives
frequent attention.
— 3:(4)(e) Protection from pain
should include the abolition of the "spectacles" fitted
to game birds (pheasants), cutting of beaks of farmed chickens
and, of course, the deliberate infliction of suffering caused
in scientific experiments. Even the keeping of animals for experiments
prevents the full enjoyment of their lives outside the actual
laboratory.
— 3:(6) More protection needs to
be given to the animals killed in a so-called `appropriate and
humane manner', particularly where that involves abattoirs and
slaughter-houses—especially where those involved in the
killing are paid on piece-rates or have a quota to fulfil in a
certain time. It makes no sense to deprive some animals of the
protection awarded to others, just because some are `farmed'.
— Low-cost `no-kill' spay—and
spay and release—solutions have been successfully undertaken
overseas. These schemes could be adopted in the UK, thus obviating
the need to euthanise feral dogs and cats in the high numbers
killed.
5. Clause 4: Sales to persons under
16. This is in the right direction—but it could be tightened
up considerably. For example, it should not permitted for any
animal to be sold from any premises which are left unattended
overnight, such as garden centres, DIY stores or pet shops which
have no qualified carer on duty overnight, at weekends or bank
holidays. It should be established that puppy-farms and similar
commercial enterprises are provided with no legitimate outlet
and that their activities should be proscribed. Non-commercial
private owners could be allowed to sell the litter of a dog or
a cat, but only on a limited ration, eg one litter per mother-animal.
Advertisements (media and internet) should be followed-up and
monitored by inspectors to ensure that `private homes' are not
a cover for puppy-farming. Ideally, ways should be sought to make
the commercial sale of pet animals illegal while there are so
many unwanted dogs and cats in rescue centres. Meanwhile pet shops
and other commercial outlets should retain some responsibility
for the animals sold on, in which case they should be obliged
to implement home checks and training courses to ensure the owners
are fully appraised of the needs, physical and emotional, of their
animals before a sale can be made. The commercial sellers need
to be empowered to refuse a sale where the likelihood is that
the animal will suffer. All commercial sellers and those in their
employ should be licensed and registered, having passed tests
devised by vets, the RSPCA and local authority inspectors, in
animal care.
— There is evidence that `Fur and feather'
auctions take place where animals are sold for the purpose of
terrier-men training their dogs, and for smaller animals to be
used as live food for snakes and similar. Such auctions should
be banned.
6. Clause 44: We consider that a
weakness of the Bill is the reliance on local authorities for
the appointment of inspectors. There have been documented
cases of local council officials ignoring the plight of animals
in boarding kennels, pet-shops, breeding kennels, etc and of councillors
having vested financial interests in some of these enterprises.
There needs to be the provision of checks from independent agencies,
such as the RSPCA, to ensure that corruption or apathy in the
local authority provision of inspections does not impact on welfare.
There is also the case of a kennels being involved in an RSPCA
investigation changing its name to a "rescue centre"
and becoming immune from further legal action (details of these
are available from the address above). All rescue centres, sanctuaries,
boarding kennels and catteries should be subject to thorough investigation
by veterinarians and inspectors without notice and more frequently
than the every five-years limit suggested.
BRIEF SUMMARY:
While this has much to commend it, we consider
that the Bill needs to be further tightened up to protect animals
in all vulnerable situations (including farming and in experiments)
and to prevent the proliferation of animals bred commercially.
We are concerned about the implementation of regulations where
the authorities or their agents themselves are less than diligent
in preventing animal suffering. The principle of animals being
used for human pleasure where there could be suffering implicit
in the activity (such as dog-racing, hunting etc) is one which
is abhorrent to us. So is the likelihood of suffering as a result
of animals being kept in unsuitable conditions because of human
negligence or culpable ignorance. We feel that punitive sanctions
should be imposed on those deliberately inflicting suffering,
with higher fines and longer sentences than those suggested, to
draw attention to the principle of welfare and the preciousness
of all sentient life.
18 August 2004
|
