Memorandum submitted by Protect Our Wild
Animals (POWA)
POWA welcomes the government's proposal to update
the 93 year old Protection of Animals Act, despite the fact that
the Bill relates largely to the suffering of domestic and captive
animals and not to wild animals that are the main concern of POWA.
Our comments are submitted in the hope that by the time the Bill
is submitted to Parliament the hunting of wild animals with dogs
will have been outlawed by the Hunting Bill. If this is not the
case then POWA may wish to suggest further amendments to the Animal
Welfare Bill.
1. POWA welcomes the Bill's provisions that
allow for intervention when animals are being kept in conditions
that are likely to lead to suffering, instead of the current situation
where prosecution is not possible until the animal's welfare deteriorates
and suffering is obvious.
2. We are very concerned about the absence
of radical reforms in the Bill. It appears that instead of outlawing
outmoded, unnecessary and unsavoury forms of animal exploitation
the government instead seeks to rely on regulations, licences
and codes of practice. In particular we are concerned about the
implications of section 6, "Regulations to promote welfare".
We note that such regulations are to be made by the national authority
(ie the government) "for the purpose of promoting the welfare
of animals", but we fear that eventually such regulations
may turn out to be for the protection of humans involved in commercial
enterprises involving the exploitation of animals ie farming,
transportation, slaughter, sport and entertainment. We are similarly
concerned about section 7, Codes of practice.
We note that under section 6 and 8, the drafts
of such regulations and codes must be approved by both Houses
of Parliament before implementation, and we hope that Members
of Parliament will ensure that no such drafts are approved unless
they clearly promote animal welfare and are not merely for the
purpose of complying with international trade obligations or easing
the commercial exploitation of animals.
3. We are disappointed that apart from section
4 (Sale to persons under 16) and section 5 (Giving as prizes)
there is no proposal to outlaw the trade in exotic animals. POWA
would support the total abolition of this trade that clearly leads
to misery and death for many hundreds of thousands of animals,
birds, reptiles, and insects. At the very least, the trade in
creatures captured from the wild should be prohibited. This is
the sort of area where regulations or codes of practice in sections
6 and 7 could easily end up protecting the trade rather than "promoting
animal welfare", which clearly would be best served by banning
the trade. This also applies also to Pet Fairs that we believe
should be prohibited rather than licensed.
4. Section 25 (Deprivation) and section
26 (Disqualification)
These sections allow the courts to deprive offenders
of their animal victims and disqualify them from keeping or owning
animals. We recognise that section 27, for the first time, requires
the courts to give reasons for NOT making a deprivation or disqualification
order and we support that concept. However, we suggest that where
a person is convicted a second time of offences under the legislation,
disqualification for owning or keeping animals should be mandatory.
5. Section 54 (General interpretation)
This section defines "protected animal"
and we welcome the inclusion for the first time of protection
for animals "temporarily in the custody of man" as well
as those being "kept by man". However, there needs to
be clarification of the phrase "in the custody of man".
For instance is an animal caught in a snare "in the custody
of man"? If so, would the illegal suffering include that
caused by the terror of being in the grip of the snare and the
pain and injury inflicted by the instrument, or would the suffering
only be illegal if there was some additional cruelty inflicted
by a person while the animal was in the snare? The same question
can apply to any other form of trap, including live-cage traps.
POWA fears that this an area where "regulations
and codes of practice" could actually protect the person
who sets the snare or trap, rather than "promote animal welfare".
6. Section 2 (Fighting etc.)
We note that under subsection 3, "animal
fight" means an occasion on which a protected animal is "placed
with an animal", for the purpose of fighting, wrestling or
baiting. Not withstanding that the Hunting Bill will hopefully
be on the statute book by the time the Animal Welfare Bill is
debated, there are likely to be exceptions granted for "terrier-work"
in which terriers are sent underground to "bolt" wild
animals (mainly foxes) or to prevent them escaping until the animals
can be dug out. We consider terrier-work to involve "placing
a dog with an animal" and is therefore either "fighting"
or "baiting". However, the owner or keeper of the dog
would no doubt claim that the fighting or baiting that occurs
in "terrier-work" is not "for the purpose of fighting
or baiting", but is for the purposes of "pest control".
POWA believes that the use of dogs in any situation
where fighting or baiting is likely to occur should be an offence,
both on the grounds of cruelty to the dog, but perhaps even because
of the suffering of the fox, if it could be judged to be "in
the temporary custody of man".
7. On other issues, we are disappointed
that the Bill does not outlaw the use of performing animals in
circuses and other "entertainment". In Annex A (page
83) of the draft Bill, it states, "Due to the decline in
the use and numbers of performing animals in circuses it is not
proposed to ban the use of animals in circuses."
POWA believes that the decline in performing
animals is in fact a very good reason for actually banning the
activity! When the government was in the course of outlawing fur
farming, the small number of farms was cited as a reason for proceeding
with the ban!
8. Annex 1 "Rearing game birds for
shooting"
POWA does not accept the view expressed in the
Annex, "Whilst there is little concern generally about the
welfare of gamebirds . . .". Reports published by the League
Against Cruel Sports and Animal Aid reveal that the bloodsport
of shooting relies heavily on 20-30 million non-indigenous birds
supplied primarily by factory farms, and that such rearing causes
significant suffering. POWA believes that the suffering of the
birds shot and the activities of gamekeepers in trapping snaring
(and sometimes illegally poisoning) some five million indigenous
wild animals and birds, is enough to warrant the abolition of
shooting pheasants for sport, let alone the suffering caused to
birds during their rearing.
22 August 2004
| 
