Memorandum submitted by the Animal Consultants
and Trainers Association
ACTA have read the draft Bill have the following
views:
We are in agreement with all points with the
exception of:
1. CRUELTY
1(d) A clearer definition of this is needed—what
suffering is unnecessary.
2. (b) Please clarify this matter, as
it would not be possible to supervise all staff at all times.
Just to point out an example:
Berosini v PeTA, in Baltimore
USA 1981.
4 Clearer definition of mutilation
13. OTHER POWERS
IN RELATION
TO ANIMALS
IN DISTRESS
(2) (a) please clarify that the animals
would be killed humanely
Proposal to Licence Circuses with Performing
Animals and Other Animals Related entertainment.
Paragraph 1. We agree in general with this,
although would disagree with the RSPCA to close or end acts in
smaller circuses as they would also be using the same codes of
practice.
Paragraph 2. We welcome new regulations,
licensing and inspections.
Paragraph 3. We would prefer a 12 month
licence, but would acknowledge the 18 months licence to reduce
costs to both businesses and local authorities. The standards
need to be realistic, achievable and not prejudiced.
Paragraph 5. We also agree with the right
of entry for local authority inspectors but would like clarification
of inspectors in advance, to ensure that all Inspectors are bonifide.
A list should also me made available for the travelling circuses
and theatres to acquaint themselves with whilst on tour.
Paragraph 6. No amateur theatres should
be exempt. This encourages the unprofessional and illegal supply
of animals to the entertainment world. Such an exemption is counter-productive
to aims of the Animal Welfare Bill.
ANNEX B—PROPOSAL
TO LICENCE
PET FAIRS
We felt that there should be some form of license
for pet fairs, but felt that they should not be so inflexible
that the pet fairs become secreted from the general public.
ANNEX C—PROPOSAL
THAT THE
MINIMUM AGE
Yes we agree with a minimum age and feel it
should be 16 years.
Also in agreement with the issue of information
leaflets.
ANNEX D—PROPOSALS
TO REGULATE
THE SALE
OF PET
ANIMALS OVER
THE INTERNET
We felt that a pet shop licence should apply.
ANNEX E—ANIMAL
SANCTUARIES
We felt that all sanctuaries should be licensed
and inspected with a one set fee for all.
ANNEX F—LIVERY
YARDS
All Livery yards should be licensed and inspected.
Tethering of horses should be to a statutory
code of practise.
ANNEX G—TAIL
DOCKING
Tail docking, for cosmetics should be under
veterinary supervision, but ACTA as a group will not dock a tail
for the purpose of filming.
Dew claws, castration etc are more for remedial
purposes and again should only be carried out under veterinary
supervision.
Breed characteristics should be supported by
the Kennel Club and Breed societies to change their breed standards.
ANNEX H—PROPOSAL
TO LICENCE/REGISTER
KENNELS AT
DOG RACE
TRACKS
We feel that the same rules and codes of practice
should apply for all tracks.
We also feel that it should be the responsibility
of the dog owner for its welfare after the dogs racing career
is over.
ANNEX I—PROPOSAL
TO INTRODUCE
A STATUTORY
CODE OF
PRACTICE FOR
THE KEEPING
OF GAME
BIRDS FOR
SPORT SHOOTING
We feel there should be a statutory code of
practice for the keeping of these birds.
ANNEX J—OFFENCES
AND PENALTIES
Paragraph 3. We do not agree, this is not
consistent with democracy.
Paragraph 4. We would need to clarify this
before we pass comment—A list of offences should be defined.
Also a list of approved inspectors.
DEPRIVATION
We passed no comment on this.
DISQUALIFICATION
ORDERS
Paragraph 2. We felt that this would be
acceptable but under supervision and with a time limit.
Paragraph 3 As above
ANNEX K—SETTING
UP AND
OPERATING A
NATIONAL DATABASE
FOR RECORDING
LICENCES HELD
UNDER PROPOSED
ANIMAL WELFARE
ACT, ANIMAL
CRUELTY OFFENCES
AND BEST
PRACTICE
We did not agree with the database being held
by the RSPCA or any other public body. This database should be
held by the government and should not under any circumstances
be made public property.
We would like some proof of the 800-1,000 convictions,
we felt that this was rather high.
We did agree with the list of offenders to be
made public, by way of something similar to the sex offenders'
register.
We felt that the Option 1 would be the basis
for the setting up of the data base.
17 August 2004
| 
