Memorandum submitted by the Ornamental
Aquatic Trade Association (OATA)
SUMMARY
1. OATA's view is that good welfare and
husbandry are consistent with and indeed demanded by sound commercial
practice. OATA has no issue with legislation that seeks to raise
welfare standards and enables effective and proportionate implementation
and enforcement.
2. By their very nature pet shops, including
those selling fish and other aquatic organisms, are open to daily
scrutiny by large numbers of the public. Among their number are
many fish keeping enthusiasts, whose knowledge and understanding
of fish husbandry, should not be ignored. Thus pet shops are "inspected"
by practical experts sometimes hundreds or even thousands of times
daily.
3. Codes of practise should focus on outcomes
not processes. They should be simple to understand, use and implement.
Codes should not be written in a prescriptive style that would
prevent the development of new and better husbandry techniques.
4. Provision should be made to avoid prosecutors
using their appointment to further public campaigning stances.
5. Inspection schedules should be established
to enable more resource to be focused on practical visits rather
than administration.
6. Veterinary surgeons are not omni-competent,
indeed great practical expertise for some taxa lies mainly outside
of the veterinary profession. Thus for inspection purposes the
needs of animals would be better served by making the provision
that "expert advice, which may or may not be provided by
a veterinary surgeon, be available, as required, to the licensing
officer undertaking an inspection".
OATA
7. OATA represents the interests of some
600 businesses. Among our members are importers, wholesalers,
breeders and retailers of ornamental fish. We also represent the
interests of a number of companies producing dry goods such as
aquariums, pond liners and fish treatments.
8. OATA has a code of conduct, parts of
which concerning water quality parameters were incorporated unaltered
in the Local Government Association "Model Standards for
Pet Shop Licence Conditions" document published in November
1998. We provide information on the interpretation of the LGA
document to all district authorities. OATA provided on site training
to trainee RSPCA inspectors for two years and provided additional
support materials as requested thereafter.
9. OATA provides training by distance learning
and point of sale information, for display or distribution to
customers, to its members.
10. OATA is recognised, in the guidance
notes to the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000, as an
"Organisation to consult in the case of specialist or unusual
species".
THE INDUSTRY
AND HOBBY
11. Some 2,000 species of ornamental fish
are in trade. Most are produced in aquaculture.
12. Ornamental fish are the third most popular
pet group, in the UK, after cats and dogs. It has been estimated
that over three million UK households (14% of the total) keep
pet fish. We estimate some100 million fish are owned as pets by
members of the public.
SECTION 7. CODES
OF PRACTISE
13. We welcome these codes, though we believe
proper and consistent implementation of the LGA Guidelines would
have achieved the same aim. The flexibility inherent in the codes
(particularly 7(3)) is welcome. In many instances there are several
husbandry systems that will effectively promote and protect the
welfare of a particular species. 7(4)a should not weaken the recognition
of this fact. The Bill must allow, as a necessity, the codes to
accommodate developments in husbandry. Otherwise the codes themselves
may serve to confound innovative approaches which could otherwise
enhance animal welfare.
14. A panel or panels, perhaps derived from
stakeholder groups who develop the codes, of appropriate experts
and stakeholders might be created who may be consulted in cases
of dispute. This may allow the resolution of many concerns without
the need to resort to formal legal proceedings. In considering
these issues its comments might not just help resolve individual
problems but identify developments in best practice, which if
communicated effectively may promote general welfare standards.
These groups might be termed Animal Welfare Panels.
15. The Bill wishes to ensure good animal
welfare as an outcome. This we applaud. The wording 7.4(a) states
failure to comply with a code will tend to establish liability.
We believe because of the fact that many species can be kept,
and their welfare demonstrably maintained, in a number of ways
that might not be reflected in detail in a code, an addition may
be required here. This would be "tending to establish liability.
Demonstration that the husbandry system met the reasonable welfare
needs of the animal would be a defence." This will amplify
the intent of 7(3) and ensure that the target of maintaining welfare
standards would remain of paramount importance rather than the
process by which this target was met. The language of 7(4) a.
should indicate clearly that outcomes in animal welfare are more
important than strict adherence to particular techniques or processes.
16. By identifying outcomes and not being
prescriptive there will not only be the welfare benefits outlined
above. Administrative burdens and associated costs will be reduced
as the codes themselves will not need to be updated as every development
in husbandry best practice is identified.
SECTION 8. MAKING
AND APPROVAL
OF CODES
OF PRACTICE
17. We note that Clause 8 sct1 stipulates
that the Secretary of State shall "consult such persons about
the draft as he thinks fit". This wording leaves it entirely
within the Secretary of States discretion as to whom may be deemed
appropriate consultees. We favour the wording in the guidance
notes (which of course do not have force of law) "that codes
of conduct shall only be issued following consultation with relevant
interest groups". The guidance notes infer a reasonable right
for interested parties to be consulted rather a privilege in the
gift of Secretary of State as is indicated in the Bill. The bill
should be amended to reflect the intent expressed in the guidance
notes.
18. Codes of practice should be clear and
simple to understand and use. In paragraphs xx below we explain
how we have tried to achieve this in the OATA code of conduct.
MAINTAINING FISH
WELFARE IN
RETAIL AND
WHOLESALE PREMISES
19. The best indicator of welfare is the
fish, and perhaps many other species, themselves. Irrespective
of any readings, obtained if they are behaving abnormally then
a problem must be suspected. The colouration and both general
and feeding behaviour should always be carefully observed and
only when they are normal should stock be sold. If the care of
the animals along the supply chain has been good, which requires
significant investment in welfare related activities and /or technology,
this may be achieved very quickly after arrival and relatively
easily maintained thereafter.
WATER QUALITY
AND FISH
WELFARE
20. OATA's code of conduct deliberately
and specifically identifies water quality as a fundamental cornerstone.
Fish kept in good quality water, all other things being equal,
thrive. Thus defining minimum water quality outcomes is more important
than a lengthy reiteration of all the methods by which those standards
may or may not (with the exception of prolonged starvation) be
achieved
21. The alternative, to using water quality
parameters, was to identify stocking densities. Given that there
are some 2,000 species (and hundreds of varieties) in at least
three or four different sizes any document using stocking densities
would have been massive and complex. The notional stocking densities
would have been based mainly on data from research on trout and
salmon. The length weight relationship, temperature preferences,
oxygen requirements would have differed from all, or at the very
least most, ornamental fish species. We also wondered about the
efficacy of a code that would require non-experts to estimate
the number and biomass of fish in an aquarium or pond.
22. Water quality was chosen because it
has universal application is easy to measure, using over the counter
test kits, and easy to interpret. Any standards can thus be easily
implemented and enforced cost effectively. The standards themselves
can be printed on a single sheet of paper and explanatory materials
in a small booklet.
23. The decision 13 years ago to adopt this
approach seems to be vindicated by recent research results from
Stirling University. Their results demonstrate that stocking density
is not a good indicator or predictor of fish welfare. Good husbandry
standards appear to influence welfare outcomes more significantly.
That said OATA does make some very broad advisory stocking guidelines.
A rider has been added that if acceptable water quality parameters
are breached, even at lower stocking densities, then in those
conditions only lower stocking densities are acceptable.
SECTIONS 11-15 "LIKELY
TO SUFFER"
AND POWERS
TO TAKE
AND RETAIN
ANIMALS
24. The power of inspectors or prosecutors
to take action in cases of emergency, on the advice of a veterinary
surgeon, in situations where animals are "are likely to suffer
or not be properly cared for" if action is not taken is,
is as is made clear in the guidance notes, an extension of the
powers already included within the Animal Protection (Amendment)
Act 2000.
25. We are of the belief that the law should
be able to enable actions to avert unnecessary suffering being
caused. However, to avoid misuse these powers should be used only
when there is reasonable doubt as to the continued welfare of
animals, and possibly only when adverse welfare outcomes are very
highly likely, in particular situations.
26. We have no wish that the welfare of
animals be put at unnecessary risk and so would offer the following
comment to enable to avoid misuse. Under the Animal Protection
(Amendment) Act 2000 prosecutors are required to make annual reports.
If annual reports were required to contain reports of the use
of powers in situations where animals were deemed "likely
to suffer or not be properly cared for", whether or not succesful
prosecutions followed, useful lessons might be learnt and disseminated.
27. As commented elsewhere vets are not
omni-competent, neither are local authority or RSPCA inspectors.
Mistakes, of inaction or precipitate action, will be honestly
made and lessons should be learnt from these, the reporting mechanism
would facilitate this process
SECTIONS 15-20 INSPECTORS
AND PROSECUTORS
28. The appointment of inspectors and prosecutors
should be undertaken with great care. Those organisations appointed
should be well informed, firm, fair and unbiased.
29. Those who have expressed political aims
to abolish activities that are both legal and widely appreciated
must only ever be appointed to these positions when stringent
and sufficient safeguards are in place to avoid the use of their
appointment to further their campaigns.
30. In 1999 the RSCPA mounted a campaign
during which they wrote to every district authority responsible
for licensing pet shops. At the start of their campaigning letter
they stated " The RSPCA is opposed to the sale of animals
in pet shops.". If given effect this policy would spell the
end of the 5,000 pet shops in the country and many of the businesses
that supply them with either animals or dry goods. The loss of
employment would be severe. Where, how or if the public might
then buy pets is unclear?
31. We note that the RSPCA are already "approved
prosecutors" under the Protection of Animals (Amendment)
2000 Act and the tenor of the consultation document infers such
status will continue should this bill be passed in its current
form. Will the approved prosecutors powers be extended to any
"duty of care" concerning either commercial or domestic
animals?
32. We also note that the RSPCA are suggested
as the organisation responsible for entering data on to an offenders
register. Despite being a charity they have been referred to as
an "enforcement agency" by Defra officials.
33. Provisions of the Act must ensure that
the activities of prosecutors are restricted only to actions that
protect, promote welfare and do not further an organisations campaigning
aims.
ANNEXES C AND
D—INFORMATION AT
THE POINT
OF SALE
34. Reference is made in Annex C to the
provision of separate leaflets for different species. The care
leaflets provided should be clear and accurate but should, as
appropriate, provide information on a range of species with similar
requirements. Some 2,000 species of ornamental fish are sold.
The care and husbandry of large groups of species, which have
essentially the same environmental and husbandry requirements,
could be adequately explained care sheets. A requirement to produce
over 1,000 separate species specific care sheets would not provide
a welfare benefit that would be proportional to the cost of production.
35. We see in the guidance notes concerning
internet sales (Annex D) that care notes need only to appear on
the web pages ie be made available to the public. At Annex C it
is explicit that written documents must be given to the purchaser
at the point of sale. There seems to be a disparity particularly
as a retailer is well placed to offer additional verbal or other
advice at anytime. Internet vendors are unable to offer this "face
to face" support. To ensure a degree of equity between traditional
retailers and e-tailers of live animals could be required to offer
free to use email and telephone advice services. Provision to
take account of the distance selling legislations, seven day cooling
off period and the implications for animal welfare may also need
to be incorporated into the bill.
36. The cost assessment for care leaflets
is understated or does not take account of ornamental fish. OATA
estimates that the cost of providing care sheets for fish at the
point of sale is at least £700,000 based on the estimates
included in the annex. Care sheets and these costs are accepted
as necessary in protecting animal welfare but may need to be incorporated
into the assessment to accurately reflect the investment in welfare
already made or required by the ornamental fish industry.
ANNEX L—PET
SHOPS
Periods Between Inspections
37. We note the proposed extension of period
between inspections to 18 months and applaud the logic, to reduce
administration inputs and costs, behind the scheme. However, we
would suggest that savings could be made by issuing permanent
licences, subject to satisfying inspecting officers visiting at
approximately 12 month intervals. To permit variations in the
time of year inspections occur a provision may be added that inspections
should not ordinarily be less than night months nor more than
15 months apart. Where evidence of a failure to fulfil the "duty
of care" is available the bill already provides for interventions
at any time.
38. A permanent licence would reduce the
administrative costs both to pet shops and local authorities to
a minimum. Ensuring the maximum resources are available for investment
in husbandry by the pet shop or the quality of licensing visits
by local authorities.
39. An annual inspection may make for easier
budgetary control by local authorities. An 18 month period may
provide for a biennial cycle in income streams.
Veterinary Presence at Inspections
40. The insistence that a veterinary surgeon
be present at all inspections to an extent presumes they are omni-competent.
There training makes this unlikely. For instance, the number of
years a veterinary degree lasts may exceed the number of hours
spent studying fish within that course. Some, but by no means
all, veterinary surgeons would have the necessary knowledge and
skills to assess the finer points of fish welfare and husbandry.
An exception to this general comment would be the members of the
Fish Veterinary Society, however the relatively few members of
this group are widely spread geographically.
41. Attendance by a veterinary surgeon at
every licence visit may be an unnecessary burden on shops with
a continuing demonstrably high standard of husbandry. The resources
saved, which nationally may exceed £0.5 million annually
(based on a conservative estimate of additional annual costs of
£100 for each of the nations 5,000 pet shops) might be better
invested more extensively where and when deficiencies are reasonably
suspected or programs of improvement require monitoring.
42. We believe the needs of animals would
be better served by making the provision that "expert advice,
which may or may not be provided by a veterinary surgeon, be available,
as required, to the licensing officer undertaking an inspection".
Such wording would allow authorities the discretion to call on
the most appropriate expert advice available.
4 August 2004
| 
