Memorandum submitted by The Game Conservancy
Trust
The Game Conservancy Trust conducts research
into the biology and ecology of game animals and the flora and
fauna that share their habitats. The research aims to improve
knowledge so that these species can be better managed and conserved.
This knowledge is passed to the public through regular publications
and scientific papers. Direct advice to land managers is given
on a fee-paying basis by the Advisory Service of our wholly-owned
subsidiary organisation Game Conservancy Limited.
The Trust employs some 14 post-doctoral scientists
and over 49 other research staff with expertise in such areas
as ornithology, entomology, biometrics, mammalogy, agronomics
and fisheries science. The Trust undertakes its own research as
well as projects funded by contract and grant-aid from Government
and private bodies. In 2003 it spent over £2 million on research.
1. SUMMARY
1.1. We support the Bill in principle, but
we think it is probably too long and overly explicit. There are
some areas where there is ambiguity which need clarification.
2. GENERAL POINTS
2.1. While we found the Bill long and probably
overly explicit in many places, we are pleased to support it in
both its overall intention and its approach to this difficult
area.
2.2. We like the concept of a broadly based
piece of enabling legislation which supports separate regulations
and codes of practice for different aspects of animal keeping.
2.3. We think the major offences of cruelty,
animal fighting and welfare are appropriate.
2.4. We think the powers of inspection and
intervention are probably appropriate.
2.5. We think it right that large scale
or commercial operations, which keep animals other than as pets,
should be subject periodic inspection to ensure conformity to
regulations.
2.6. We welcome Defra's proposal (Annex
I) to adopt the Game Farmers Association's voluntary code of practice
as the basis for a statutory one to be brought-in in 2006.
2.7. We welcome the proposal (Annex L) that
inspections of Game Farms should be carried out by the State Veterinary
Service.
3. THREE ISSUES
3.1. There are three areas where we think
that the drafting needs to be improved so that the Act does not
unintentionally sweep in practices that are currently legal and
acceptable.
3.2. Clause 1 (4) page 10. Definition of
a mutilation. We think it should be made clear that mutilation
does not include the clipping of fur, feather, claw or beak where
dead tissue alone is removed.
3.3. Clause 2 (3)—page 11 line 18.
Definition of an animal fight. It occurs to us that certain field
sports and forms of pest control could fall within this ambit
if they are not specifically excluded. For example, hawking is
hunting with a tame hawk which aims to catch a wild bird or mammal
such as a pigeon or a rabbit, or ferreting is where one uses a
tame ferret to flush out or kill wild rabbits in a warren. Terriers
are also sometimes used to kill rats in hayricks or barns. None
of these activities is staging a fight, but a mischievous prosecutor
and perhaps a naïve magistrate could allow it to be portrayed
as one. We suggest that after 2(3) one adds "but not including
activities where a protected animal is used for taking a free-living
wild animal either for sport or pest control".
3.4. Clause 54 (2)—page 37 line. Definition
of a protected animal. Pheasants and partridges are released many
weeks before the shooting season. However, even after release
and are living in a wild state they will continue to be fed by
the game keeper. This should not mean that pheasants continue
to be protected animals any more than wild blue tits, feeding
on a bird table, become protected animals under this act. Perhaps
it could be made clear that caring for wild animals, or caring
for them after they have become wild, does not make them qualify
as protected for the purpose of this Act.
4. THE ANIMAL
PROTECTION ACT
(1911)
4.1. We note that it is proposed that the
above Act will be repealed by this new Bill. It has been pointed
to us that under the 1911 Act there was a requirement to check
spring traps set for rabbits and hares every day. If it is necessary
to retain this provision we recommend that a similar clause should
be inserted into the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) rather
trying to incorporate it into this Animal Welfare Bill. Trapping
involves wild animals and these are beyond the intended scope
of this Bill.
24 August 2004
| 
