Memorandum submitted by Ark Group
INTRODUCTION
Ark Group was set up four years ago by Gordon
Glasson and Steve Woodward as a non-moneymaking web site designed
to bring people with a similar interest together for the purpose
of exchanging knowledge about the animals they keep by discussion
and the exchange of information. Members are encouraged to help
each other in the improvement of the general welfare of the animals
they keep.
Ark Group consists of the two original administrators
along with a small team of Moderator/helpers. Ark Group now has
over 350 members mainly from the UK but also abroad. The main
website and forums can be found at http://p196.ezboard.com/barkreptilegroup
Ark Group was involved in the testing of the
Hypoaspis Mite as a harmless biological control of the blood sucking
snake mite. We have recently been informed that the RSPCA is going
to be recommending this method in their, as yet, unpublished reptile
keeping handbook.
The Ark Group website is also responsible for
setting up and maintaining the National Re-homing Data Base.
An interactive listing that puts potential re-homers
in touch with people looking to find a new home for their unwanted
pet. This facility is also used by a number of re-homing sanctuaries
in the UK.
Ark Group is affiliated to and supports the
work of the Federation of British Herpetologists.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In replying to the draft Animal Welfare Bill
we have tried to consider what effects each new piece of legislation
will have on both the animal and the keeper and where it has the
potential to be detrimental to the welfare of the animal or the
legitimate activities of the keeper, we have suggested changes
or asked for improvements to be made to the clause in question.
Given the recent activities of certain animal
rights groups, we have also tried to predict how some of this
new legislation could be miss used and where we have found a potential
for miss use we have asked that Defra look at ways to clarify
the purpose of the new clause.
Our greatest concern relates to the potential
risk that groups with a non-democratic, strong animal rights agenda
could be tempted to apply for positions of power such as prosecutors
or inspectors in the hope of missusing this new legislation to
attack and criminalise perfectly legitimate, law abiding, animal
keepers and with this in mind we have asked that Defra put into
place regulations prohibiting such groups or people from attaining
such a position.
We have finished by highlighting a number of
subjects that we feel should be included in this draft Bill but
are not present. We hope that Defra will see fit to consider reviewing
these topics for future inclusion.
ARK GROUPS' WRITTEN EVIDENCE FOR EFRA, RE
THE DRAFT ANIMAL WELFARE BILL
1. CRUELTY
Re (2)(a)
Where a person employs a third party, such as
a professional kennel owner, on trust to look after their animal
while they are away from home, they surely can not be held responsible
for the actions of that person during their absence as any act
of cruelty would be done without the owners knowledge. Subsection
(2)(a) could be adjusted to cover this situation by adding the
word knowingly, as in:
(2)(a) he knowingly permits another person
to cause the animal to suffer.
Re (4)(a) (b) and (c)
The reptile hobby has seen a gradual increase
of venomoid snakes in recent years. This involves a small operation
to remove the venom producing glands from venomous snakes. Current
thinking is varied, some say this operation causes no problems
and little stress to the snake but has the benefits of making
the snake safe to handle without the keeper needing grabs, hooks
or sticks to control the animal which leads to a much calmer,
relaxed snake. Others feel this could be a painful operation that
compromises the welfare of the snake and shouldn't be permitted
under any circumstances.
Given that this could be called a mutilation,
Ark Group requests that Defra consider the pros and cons to the
snake provided by this operation and that they make their findings
clear on this subject in the final Bill.
Re (7)(a) (b) and (c)
A large number of snake keepers keep and breed
mice to ensure they have a supply of healthy food for their snakes.
Where a large number of mice are to be killed for freezing and
later use, it is normal for the keeper to use an inert gas, such
as CO2 pumped into a gas box to kill the mice. This procedure
is as recommended by the Home Office in their Codes of Practice
for the humane killing of animals under Schedule 1 to the Animals
(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Can Defra confirm that this method will still
be an accepted method (possibly as referred to under Welfare subsection
(6)) or will subsection (7)(a) (b) and (c) now cause this act
to be considered illegal?
2. FIGHTING,
ETC
While Ark Group agrees fully with this section
we are concerned that it is only made clear in the explanatory
notes that incidental fighting between animals during other legitimate
actions is legal. Fighting between a male and a female, during
mating, is a normal part of the mating ritual in many species
of reptiles and amphibians (and, we understand, in certain mammalian
species as well). When an investigator encounters animals which
are, or have been, involved in fights it is important that they
are aware that allowing animals to engage in normal mating behaviour
is not the same as setting up an animal fight.
Ark Group feels that a subsection giving clarity
to these circumstances should be added, possibly under subsection
(3).
Ark Group is also concerned that the feeding
of a live vertebrate to a snake that is refusing frozen and thawed
food could be construed as the placing together of two vertebrates
for the purpose of fighting and would welcome a sub section clarifying
this ambiguity. (See also Other concerns, 3. Live Feeding.)
3. WELFARE
Re (4)(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e)
This section would appear to be based upon the
Five Freedoms. Ark Group expressed concerns in the original consultations
about the inappropriateness of the Five Freedoms when transferred
from farm livestock to the very variable companion pet world.
Of the five sections our greatest concern relates
to (4)(c), as all animals in captivity behave differently to their
wild counterparts, and it is not possible for any pet, however
well domesticated, always to exhibit the "normal behaviour
patterns" of its wild counterpart. This section is stating
that a keeper has failed in his duty regarding the welfare of
his animal if he isn't allowing his dog to join a pack and hunt
small deer or isn't providing his pet iguana with a vivarium wide
enough and high enough for it to spend part of each day sitting
on a branch 10 metres high overhanging a river, even pet cats
that live partly as house pets and partly as free roaming animals
do not behave in the same way as their truly wild counterparts.
Subsection (4)(c) just doesn't work and must either be dropped
or reworded to take into account that ALL animals adapt
to and behave differently in captivity.
4. SALE TO
PERSONS UNDER
16
Ark Group agrees with this section but feels
that it should be made clear that this is not banning under-16s
from involvement with animals just that an adult will be held
responsible for the welfare of any animal being cared for by some
one under the age of 16.
Ark Group also has concerns relating to the
difficulty for vendors, of judging the age of some of the more
mature looking under sixteens.
5. GIVING AS
PRIZES
Ark Group fully agrees.
6. REGULATIONS
TO PROMOTE
WELFARE
Ark Groups members are hobbyists not legal experts
and section 6 relates more to legal issues than animal welfare.
Our only concern is that under subsection (6)
the appropriate Stake Holder Groups are consulted before any new
draft legislation is placed before either house. This would be
to make sure that any new legislation would have the desired effect
and not cause any detrimental welfare issues.
7. CODE OF
PRACTICE
Ark Group fully agrees.
8. MAKING AND
APPROVAL OF
CODES OF
PRACTICE
9. MAKING CODES
OF PRACTICE
IN WALES
10. REVOCATION
OF CODES
OF PRACTICE
Again Ark Group members are hobbyists not legal
experts. Ark Group finds nothing unacceptable in sections 8, 9
and 10.
11. POWERS TO
TAKE POSSESSION
OF, AND
RETAIN ANIMALS
IN DISTRESS
Re (2)(b)
This section is about dealing with animals in
distress, how does Defra justify giving an inspector or constable
the power to remove a healthy animal, without a veterinary surgeon's
opinion on the grounds that if circumstances don't change it is
likely to suffer? If the animal is likely to suffer but not actually
suffering at the time, there is no reason why the inspector or
constable shouldn't wait for a veterinary surgeon's opinion.
This section could easily be abused by an inspector
or constable who has a personal dislike of the keeper or the type
of animal being kept.
Ark Group feels that the only reason for an
inspector or constable to remove an animal without a second opinion
is if the animal is clearly suffering, as suggested in (2)(a).
12. POWERS TO
REMOVE AND
CARE FOR
ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS
Re (1)(b)(i)
Ark Group is concerned that an inspector, having
removed an animal under 11(1)(a)(b)(c) or 11(2)(a)(b) is then
given the authority to retain the animal at the same premises
under 12(1)(b)(i) where the initial problem had arisen. If there
was a problem with the standard of accommodation that was likely
to cause the animal(s) to suffer, what has been gained by continuing
to maintain them at the same place? There is nothing in either
the clause or the explanatory notes to say the situation must
be improved before this situation can arise.
13. OTHER POWERS
IN RELATION
TO ANIMALS
IN DISTRESS
Ark Group has no specific concerns regarding
section 12.
14. ENTRY TO
SEARCH FOR
AND DEAL
WITH ANIMALS
IN DISTRESS
Re (1)(a)(b) and (2) and (3)
This section appears to give powers of entry
to an inspector onto private premises using reasonable force,
at any time, on his/her own, except between the hours of 11 pm
and 5 am (when a constable must be present), without the need
for a warrant just based on reasonable belief that a protected
animal may be suffering there in. As far as Ark Group can ascertain
the police would currently require a warrant to enter private
premises under these circumstances and would also need a warrant
to enter premises where greater crimes than this were being committed.
Ark Group is extremely concerned that Defra
appears to be conferring greater powers on an inspector than those
currently available to the Police. Ark Group is also concerned
that section 4 is also removing the need for Police to obtain
a warrant before entering a premises purely based on reasonable
belief.
With regards to (2) , how would the inspector
know in advance, if the part of a premises he is about to force
his way into is being used as a private dwelling until he was
actually inside?
Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20—Animals
in distress: proceedings pending
Again Ark Group members are hobbyists not legal
experts. Ark Group sees nothing disagreeable in these 6 sections.
Our only concern relates to what criteria will be used in deciding
who will be given the authority to perform the function of prosecutor.
Ark Group would be extremely concerned if groups
such as the RSPCA with their strong anti exotic pet stance and
general dislike of animals in cages were to be given such powers.
Ark Group's members are extremely concerned
that organisations given the authority to perform the function
of prosecutor should not be organisations biased by internal policies
which state that exotic pet keeping is, in itself, wrong. We believe
that a fair unbiased approach to a case is unlikely to be obtained
if the prosecutor is an organisation involved in animal rights
activities or governed by members of recognised animal rights
groups. Such organisations should be excluded from acting as prosecutor.
In both cases Ark Group feels that while everyone
has a right to hold their personal views, regardless of how extreme,
giving power to such persons and their organisations would be
the equivalent of putting the British National Party in charge
of race relations and immigration.
Sections 21, 22, 23—Animals kept for fighting,
etc
Again Ark Group members are hobbyists not legal
experts. Ark Group finds nothing unacceptable in these three sections.
Our only concern is that these sections have the potential to
cause animals to be removed because they are of a recognised fighting
type and not because they are being used for fighting. While some
reptiles and amphibians will and do fight during mating and territorial
squabbles none are recognised as animals used for fighting so
this might not directly concern our members, but Ark Group can
see this causing problems for legitimate keepers of some dogs
and chickens of the game type breed and feels that regulations
should be put in place to protect innocent keepers from over zealous
inspectors.
Sections 24 through to 34—Powers following
conviction
Again Ark Group members are hobbyists not legal
experts. Ark Group finds nothing unacceptable in these 10 sections.
Nevertheless we would urge Defra to include a section giving preference
to the re-homing of animals considered rare or listed as endangered
rather than issuing a destruction order.
Sections 35 through to 41—Enforcement powers
Again Ark Group members are hobbyists not legal
experts. Our main concern with the above sections is the amount
of freedom being given to inspectors and constables to enter premises
without a warrant. There also seems to be a lack of clarity as
to what part of a premises should be considered a private dwelling.
Many private animal keepers keep their animals in their garden.
Is a garden considered to be part of a private dwelling or can
animal keepers expect to find their gardens raided without the
need for a warrant in the near future?
Sections 42 and 43—Prosecutions
Ark Group is extremely concerned by 43(1)(a).
We are dealing with the lives of animals and people. It is totally
unacceptable to prolong the start of any case beyond a maximum
of one year and should preferably be shorter. Both the animal(s)
and the owner would be in a state of limbo for this period (assuming
the animal lives that long or is allowed to live under the new
regulations) and in the event of being found innocent owners would
find themselves reunited with an animal they would hardly know.
Ark Group is totally opposed to this section.
Sections 44 and 45—Inspectors
As already stated under the heading of Animals
in distress: proceedings pending, Ark Groups' major concern
about the appointment of organisations or individuals into the
positions of prosecutors and inspectors is that there should be
set regulations laid down prohibiting any one or group with Animal
Rights connections from being considered.
To consider offering such powers to a person
or organisation with such extremist opinions would be totally
wrong in a democratic society such as we boast of, here in the
United Kingdom.
Sections 46 through to 57 general
Again Ark Group members are hobbyist's not legal
experts, our only concern relates to section 53 where it is suggested
that invertebrates could be added to the act by the appropriate
national authority in the future.
Countless numbers of invertebrates are deliberately
injured or killed daily throughout the country by our use of insecticides,
molluscicides, poisons, traps and fly swats. Adding invertebrates
to the Bill would make most people resident in the UK offenders
and open to prosecution should their attempts to kill an invertebrate
fail and lead to its "unnecessary suffering".
Even if the types of invertebrate covered by
the Bill were to be restricted to those currently bred as feeder
animals for reptiles, birds and fish, Ark Group believes this
move could cause a serious knock-on effect should new regulations
prove too restrictive for the small number of breeders now supplying
our reptiles with live invertebrates. The welfare implications
for insectivorous animals whose owners cannot purchase insects
are unthinkable.
OTHER CONCERNS
1. Neglect
In Defra's initial consultation there was a
request for peoples' views on the subject of neglect. Ark Group
felt that deliberate cruelty was a worse crime than neglect caused
accidentally by a person's inability to care for his/her animal(s)
due to reasons beyond their control.
Ark Group is disappointed that no heading covering
the situation of neglect appears to be in this draft Bill. This
appears to make all cases come under the heading of cruelty regardless
of the circumstances involved.
2. Street photographers
Ark Group raised concerns in the original consultation
about the use of animals by street photographers as photographic
props. Animals suffer the constant disruption of being repeatedly
passed from person to person and have to face all kinds of weather
conditions, this is not conducive to good animal welfare and clear
suffering is often visible.
Ark Group requests that Defra consider making
this activity an offence in the same way as giving pets as prizes
is now to become an offence.
3. Live feeding
While UK snake keepers do not condone the feeding
of live vertebrates to snakes, there are rare occasions especially
with hatchlings and newly captive specimens where only a live
vertebrate will be accepted as food. This always leaves the keeper
with the dilemma of either feeding live or allowing the snake
to starve to death. As far as Ark Group can determine, this practice
is currently legal so long as not practised in a public place.
There has always been confusion over the legality of this practice
as no regulation directly relating to this has ever been decreed.
Many millions of rodents are destroyed every year by break back
traps and poison, compared to these methods the kill by a snake
is swift and efficient.
Ark Group would like to see Defra clarify the
situation regarding the feeding of live vertebrates to other vertebrates
when no alternative exists, setting out clear indications of the
circumstances under which this practice can legally take place.
4. Education
Ark Group is surprised and saddened that no
attempt is made in this Bill to encourage organisations, welfare
groups and the school authorities to offer any form of education
to the public regards improving their husbandry standards and
the welfare of their animals.
5. Animals in Transit
Currently under the Distance Selling Regulations
2000 there is no caveat made for animals being sold remotely.
They are not regarded (rightly) as perishable goods but as such
are legally permitted to be returned to the vendor within seven
days without argument. This has critical implications for the
welfare of animals undergoing a second episode of stressful travel
in such a short time.
The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997
does states in Schedule 6 in relation to article 4 that: Other
vertebrate and cold blooded animals shall be transported in such
receptacles of means of transport, under such conditions (in particular
with regard to space, ventilation, temperature and security) and
with such supply of liquid and oxygen as are appropriate for the
species.
Article 4(1) States "No person shall
transport any animal in a way which causes or is likely to cause
injury or unnecessary suffering to that animal".
But there is still nothing to stop animals being
continuously shuttled back and forth between supplier and customer
on numerous occasions.
Ark Group sees this Bill as the perfect opportunity
for Defra to bring in legislation to correct this current situation.
6. Protection for keepers
Ark Group is deeply concerned that Defra has
not suggested appointing an ombudsman to over see the actions
of all the new inspectors likely to be created by this Bill. There
are clear and well respected complaints procedures in place for
any member of the public who feels she/he has been treated unfairly
by the Police but who can any member of the public go to if she/he
feels they have been treated unfairly by Defra's new inspectorate?
To put it simply; who is inspecting the inspectors?
21 August 2004
| 
