Memorandum submitted by the Canine Crisis
Council
SUMMARY
The submission relates to dogs and seeks to
preserve the one provision for public safety in the draft Bill
and to maintain the rigour of the draft provision for entry to
premises.
The submission recommends that the value of
a dog should not mitigate penalties for neglecting it.
The submission recommends the setting up of
a database, specific to and including all dogs, which will identify
owners and breeding establishments large and small.
Failing to protect a dog from straying should
be an offence.
INTRODUCTION
The Canine Crisis Council is concerned with
improving the laws relating to the control of dogs in public places
for the benefit of communal health and safety. These aims are
consistent with good health and welfare of dogs. This response
relates mainly to pet domestic dogs, but embraces working, guide,
companion and breeding dogs.
The draft Animal Welfare Bill is manifestly
an enabling Bill, but it can also be seen as a disabling Bill
in that it, once again, defers consideration of positive measures
to preserve the rights of non-dog owners.
Nevertheless, the Bill `sets the stage' for
measures to alleviate the stress suffered by dumped dogs. Adoption
of CCC's recommendations and proposals will facilitate progress
in that direction.
Recommendations relating to the draft Bill
Our ref 1
Section 6 Regulations to promote welfare
Subsection (5)
Recommendation
This subsection should be retained in its entirety.
Reason
Ensuring public safety should take priority
over all other considerations.
Our ref 2
Section 14 Entry to search for and deal with
animals in distress
Subsections (5) and (6)
Recommendation
These subsections should be retained in their
entirety.
Reason
It would be tempting for any would-be offender
deliberately to incorporate into living quarters, sites where
cruelty might be practiced.
Our ref 3
Section 17 Orders for disposal of animals taken
under sections 11(1) or 16(1)
Subsection (6)
Recommendation
This subsection to be deleted and replaced by:
In determining whether to make an order under
subsection (1) or (2), the court shall have regard to, but not
be bound by, the circumstances, including the value of the animal
and avoidance of increasing the defendant's costs.
Reason
The value of an animal is subjective and might
depend on a fine distinction as to breed. If courts were required
to take the value of an animal into account it could result in
unfairness to poor people. Courts should be allowed to disregard
the value of an animal if circumstances warrant it.
Our ref 4—Annex K
Setting up and operating a National Database
for recording Licences held under Proposed Animal Welfare Act;
Cruelty Offences; and Best Practice
Recommendation
This should be supplemented by the following:
(a) A separate specific database to include
all dogs shall be set up.
(b) A revised definition of breeding establishments
as in proposed Annex N facilitates their inclusion in a database
as in proposed Annex M.
Reason
The circumstances under which dogs are kept
are various and different from those of any other animal. Cruelty
to dogs by neglect or abandonment far exceeds active cruelty.
A separate specific database to include all dogs is therefore
required.
Proposed New Annexes
Our ref 5
Establishment of a Registration Database—New
Annex M
Any dog above a specified age (to be determined)
should be included in a single central database or in regional
interlinked databases. A dog's identity should include a sufficient
specification of the animal to enable it to be unambiguously distinguished
from any other individual. It should also enable the animal's
owner to be identified. Further data relating to the dog and its
owner, and accessible only to a proper authority, should be lodged
in the database. Essential features of the data centrally held
should include all previous owners and a legal definition of its
breed. The initial identification procedure should be integrated
with provisions of any Breeding and Sale of Dogs legislation.
Reasons
Local authorities bear by far the greater burden
of stray dogs and pick up 111,000—140,000 annually. Half
of these are simply `dumped' dogs. The cost to the taxpayer is
ignored. Dealing with stray dogs has been bedeviled by difficulty
in identifying owners. Technology has moved on, and coupled with
a compulsory registration scheme there is now no practical obstacle
to the identification of dogs by implanting of microchips.
Rescue organisations proclaiming they will re-home
a dog more considerately than the prospective dumper, create a
climate where consciences are salved by the belief that an abandoned
dog will be picked up by `someone' and cared for. That `someone'
will also undertake the task of destroying the dog if need be;
a cheap solution for dog owners, a cruel one for the dog. Allowing
a dog to become a stray or dumping it at the doors of an animal
sanctuary should be an offence.
Our ref 6
Definition of a Breeding Establishment and of
a licensed Breeder—New Annex N
Whether or not a dog is intended for disposal
to another party, anyone who allows a dog in their custody to
mature beyond the specified age (to be determined) becomes a breeding
establishment by virtue of being the first person required to
include that dog in the identity database (see Annex M above).
Appropriate standards of treatment then become obligatory, whether
numerous dogs are kept or only a few. This definition of a breeding
establishment thus defines who is responsible for initially making
a dog identifiable.
In practical terms, a licence to breed relates
to scale of operation and concern with health, welfare and conformity
with laws regarding premises, whereas the definition of a breeding
establishment, as above, embraces both licensed and non-licensed
breeders.
Reasons
There has been so much attention paid to `Puppy
farms' that the number of dogs bred by small scale enthusiasts
is easily overlooked. Home-bred puppies need as much protection
as do others.
12 August 2004
| 
