Memorandum submitted by the Barnet Association
of Responsible Dog Owners
Overall we welcome the initiative to consolidate
much of the existing legislation and to bring it up to date. We
also welcome the ability of approved agencies to be proactive
and able to take action at a much earlier stage than previously
and not wait until there is visible evidence of animal suffering.
Whilst not wanting to denigrate the bill there
are a number of points on which we feel unhappy.
1. CLAUSES 7
AND 8 CODES
OF PRACTICE
One of the biggest dangers with new legislation
is interpretation. In the case of animal welfare there is also
the danger of anthropomorphism, especially when the prosecutors
are able to make subjective decisions. What one person's idea
of animal suffering may be different from another's. In the same
way, what may be acceptable for a cat may not be acceptable for
a pony.
We would urge that the Codes of Practice are:
(a) Compiled on the basis of scientific knowledge
and after consultation with other animal welfare groups.
(b) Are issued as soon as practical and before
any prosecutions under the new act are attempted.
2. CLAUSE 13
AND CLAUSE
30
It is appreciated that an inspector should be
able to euthanise an animal that is clearly in distress and cannot
wait for the appearance of a veterinary surgeon. However we would
hope that any action of this kind would be accountable and subject
to subsequent justification.
3. CLAUSE 15
PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES
It is appreciated that the introduction of the
RSPCA as a Prosecuting Authority will likely lead to more prosecutions,
as clearly the various police forces do not always see animal
welfare as an issue in which they feel confident about policing.
What concerns us is that the RSPCA is a charity
and its staff are not necessarily trained to the standards we
would expect from the Police.
If we could be assured that any "non-police"
inspector will be vetted and trained to the same extent that police
officers are, we would be much happier.
4. CLAUSE 24
IMPRISONMENT OR
FINE
There is strong scientific evidence that shows
that animal abuse is often a precursor to more serious crimes.
Whilst we welcome the increased penalties available to the courts,
we would have liked the potential for even greater sentences.
It is important that the bill and society clearly shows that animal
abuse is not acceptable and all living things are entitled to
respect.
5. CLAUSE 31
DESTRUCTION OF
FIGHTING ANIMALS
We would hope that the destruction of animals
that have been seized subsequent to an offence of organised animal
fights are not destroyed on the basis of prejudice and are properly
evaluated before being destroyed.
Finally, we are saddened that the act makes
no reference to the distress caused to animals by Fireworks. It
is appreciated that the Government has just issued new laws regarding
the use of fireworks but sadly it too fails to address this problem.
25 August 2004
| 
