Memorandum submitted by the ACPO Police
Dog Practitioners Working Group
The Draft Bill was circulated to members of
the above committee, below are comments raised by those members.
SECTION 3 WELFARE,
SUBSECTION 2 (B)
This will impact on Chief Constables and or
Heads of Dog Sections. The Chief Constable/Police Authority own
the animal, the Head of Section is responsible for the animal.
If an offence of cruelty is committed by the
handler, what would be the liability to the above persons, who
would have no direct control or knowledge of the handlers actions?
SUBSECTION 4 (C)
THE NEED
TO BE
ABLE TO
EXHIBIT NORMAL
BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS
Chasing sheep/prey and killing them could be
described as the above, if this behaviour is prevented by force
would the handler/person responsible for the animal commit an
offence?
(Note from Inspector McIver Avon and Somerset,
I believe Section 1 subsection 3 c (ii) would provide a defence
in this situation, am I correct?)
Subsection 6 subsection 2 (a) (ii) and (b) are
guidelines going to be issued re cage size etc for the transportation
of dogs (Police dogs in patrol vehicles), and secondly the construction
of accommodation/kennels for dogs (Police dogs at centres and
handlers home address).
A point raised by a Police Inspector who was
involved in the post incident debrief of Essex Police and the
death of Police Dog Acer:
"Having witnessed the problems at Essex
and the subsequent with hunt that followed concerning the police
use of the pinch collar and remote training aid (electric collar),
I would have expected to see something in the new bill which made
their use unlawful to all persons".
During the enquiry the RSPCA and NCDL considered
the use of such equipment as cruelty, as a result this equipment
is banned from use by Police dog handlers and trainers, so why
is it's use not banned for members of the general public?
23 August 2004
| 
