Memorandum submitted by Centaurholistic
Ltd
The statement that "non farmed animals
being kept in a way that suffering will probably occur in the
future" is much too vague and open to abuse by extreme groups
of anti-animal activity persuasion. It is also very subjective
to personal viewpoint.
CRUELTY
1. (1)(a) suffering is not defined and is
subjective to personal viewpoint. When anatomy, physiology, histology
and biologically correct lifestyle are compromised, the animal
may suffer.
WELFARE
3. (3) definition of abandonment
4. Welfare should be judged against the
five criteria listed, plus the need to be treated and handled
with respect to the animal's response to such treatment.
REGULATION TO
PROMOTE WELFARE
2. (a)(v) must be tailored
to each individual sport or entertainment and not a blanket coverage.
(b) accommodation provision
must be suitable for biologically correct lifestyle environment
for that particular animal.
(g) Must not interfere
with correct physiological body function.
(n) Marking of animals
should be non invasive, easily seen with the naked eye and not
require any special equipment for detection.
(q) Vital that a non
campaigning, non profit making organisation with the function
of advising and representing animal owners is established as soon
as possible.
ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS; GENERAL
2. (b) Should only be
removed after discussion with owner or keeper and full facts of
the situation are gathered. Too subjective for one person to make
a judgement on the spot.
POWERS TO
REMOVE AN
ANIMAL IN
DISTRESS
12. (4) Unfair to make
owner pay for costs. This should be covered by prosecutors funds.
Expenses for conviction should take this into consideration.
13. (3) Owner must be
advised and consulted of destruction of an animal unless on humane
grounds by a vet.
ANIMALS IN
DISTRESS; PROCEEDINGS
PENDING
2 (a,b,c) a separate
body to gather the evidence and pass this on to the prosecutor
(why not the crown prosecution service, under an animal department,
instead of a new prosecutor?) the acting of both evidence gatherer
and prosecutor is unfair and brings an element of bias into cases.
These two roles are separate in every other legal case.
16. (2)(d) No profit
must be made by prosecutor even under the "expenses"
label. Any profit must be returned to owner.
19. (1) Marking of animals
must not be invasive (microchipping) or permanent eg branding
or damaging to the animal's future value should the case not be
proved. Any notice to court must also be advised to owner or keeper
of the animal.
(4) No prosecutor of other person should
exercise undue pressure or harass an owner or representative in
any way. No property should be damaged during an entry and inspectors
should have no right of legal proceedings if damaged during such
a procedure, except where deliberate action was taken, eg shots
were fired or traps laid.
SECTION 20
(1) Unfair—this does not happen in non
animal cases.
(2) Who sets prosecutor costs? Prosecutors could
use exaggerated cost claims to make a profit. Again this is unfair
and not in line with other non-animal cases.
POWERS RELATING
TO SEARCH
AND INSPECTION
(8) Should be mandatory to give receipts
of goods taken. Should be mandatory to give a second sample of
anything removed to owner or keeper at the time. Invasive procedures
such as blood taking, just be undertaken by a vet.
(10)(b) Must be mandatory to give a copy
of the report to the owner or keeper.
Offences under the Animal Act—
Convictions must not be used for publicity or
advertising purposes or for campaigning.
Prosecutors should have no interest whether
financial, political or personal in the outcome of a case. Animal
welfare should be the only consideration.
No proceeding should be started without the
knowledge of the person on whom the proceedings are being brought.
Adequate rights of appeal should be in place.
Offences should be able to be tried in a Crown
court if necessary.
Regulation of prosecutors does not appear to
have been considered. There is a police complaints authority,
why not an animal prosecutors authority?
An offence should be created of damage to animals,
persons or property on the sole grounds of animal keeping.
Clause 42—why the need to appoint another
prosecutor?
Clause 44—Local authorities to appoint
inspectors.
Definition of a livery yard is not clear. Does
this exclude situations where a farmer simply rents out a field
and plays no part in the care of the animals? Other owners to
be exempt from prosecution, arising from the action of yard manager
or owner. Failure to allow for this will lead to closure of many
facilities.
Tethering to be banned as a means of permanent
keeping procedure. Maximum of four hours without at least two
hours free range movement to be introduced. Freedom of movement
is a vital requisite for the health of the horse due to the hooves
being a very important part of the circulatory system, and movement
induces muscle activity which in turn produces heat. Psychological
damage from lack of movement is dangerous to the horse's health
and to the human in some cases.
23 August 2004
| 
