« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 'PROPOSALS TO REVISE EXISTING ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION'
Executive Summary
The Scottish Executive issued a consultation document on 31
st March 2004 on its 'Proposals to Revise Existing Animal Welfare Legislation' which raised a series of questions on the welfare of domestic and wild captive animals. A total of 2,100 copies of the document were sent to a wide range of organisations and individuals. In addition, four public and nine focus group meetings were held with a number of these consultees. A total of 325 written responses were received, many of which were substantial documents, some in excess of 50 pages. It was clear that a number of responders had taken much time and effort in their responses and had carefully considered the different areas. The majority of the responses were from organisations or businesses but there was a significant number from individuals. Responses were received from all the main stakeholder groups and dealt with each of the question areas raised in the consultation document. The proposals to revise current animal welfare legislation were met with enthusiasm and positive support.
(1) Definition of 'Animal'
Comments were received from 103 responders on the definition of 'animal' to be used in the new legislation. The consultation document had suggested that it should cover all vertebrate animals, cephalopods and crustaceans which are owned, kept, managed or dependent on man. There was a range of comments on the scope of this definition with the majority of responders in favour of including cephalopods and crustaceans. However, it was pointed out that some crustaceans were small parasites, including fish lice, affecting other marine creatures, and if included in the legislation it would be impossible to treat lice in fish farms. If it were felt necessary to include cephalopods and crustaceans then it may be advisable to limit this to specific species.
A minority of responders felt that insects and other invertebrate animals should be included; some even felt that all living creatures should be covered. A number of responders suggested that the Scottish Ministers should reserve a power to alter the definition by secondary legislation. One organisation suggested that the scope should be limited to non-human vertebrates and some others pointed to difficulties with the interpretation of 'managed or dependent'. It was pointed out by a couple of responders that the research on pain felt by invertebrates was not extensive.
Despite the consultation paper making it clear that the Executive's proposals were to strengthen and modernise welfare legislation for domestic or captive animals, there were a number of organisations who argued for the proposed legislation to cover animals in the wild. On the other hand, there were some responders who stressed the need to limit the legislation to domestic and wild animals in captivity. Strong arguments were put forward for the need for the legislation to protect wild animals which have been captured or confined, even temporarily. A particular concern was raised about 'managed' wild deer. Whilst there was no disagreement with the inclusion of farmed deer within the legislation, there was genuine concern if the definition were to include wild deer.
(2) An obligation to ensure good welfare
The consultation paper proposed that anyone responsible for animals should have a duty to secure and promote their welfare. The paper acknowledged that this obligation goes much further than current legislation. This attracted 85 responses with only one organisation against the proposal. Many organisations and individuals were enthusiastic about the proposal and some felt that it was central to the development of new legislation. There was general agreement that new legislation should be about the promotion of welfare and education of animal keepers (including pet owners) rather than legislation which concentrates on animal cruelty and suffering. This would introduce a new law which would help in the prevention of cruelty before it occurs, rather than legislating for a prosecution afterwards. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Scottish SPCA) gave a number of examples of cases where existing legislation was insufficient to protect animals from very poor welfare conditions but as they were not actually 'suffering' it was not possible to remove the animals from what was very clearly unsuitable conditions without the owners' consent.
Responders agreed with the concept to secure good welfare but some were concerned with how this should be defined. There were some who considered that there was a need to set specific welfare criteria according to each species and this should focus on the provision of an appropriate diet; accommodation; physical, psychological and behavioural needs; and environmental conditions. However, a number of responders pointed out that this will not be easy. Many responders stressed that any new obligation to ensure good welfare should not mean that the offence of cruelty would be lost. They saw a clear distinction between a failure to promote good welfare and a deliberate act of cruelty, a need for different offences and penalties and for the offence of cruelty to be retained.
A number of responders felt that the concept of promoting animal welfare found in existing regulations governing the welfare of farm animals could be adopted for all animals, and some (but not all) felt that the 'five freedoms' of the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) could be used as the basis to define a duty of care.
(3) Abandonment
There were mixed views from the 79 responders who commented on whether a specific offence of abandonment should be created. Most agreed with the suggestion but some felt that this was not needed as anyone abandoning an animal would have committed an offence by failing in a duty to promote and ensure animal welfare. Graphic examples of the problems caused by abandonment were provided including the inappropriate release of an animal into the wild. It was pointed out that abandonment is a complex issue, could be difficult to define and any attempt to set a time limit, after which an offence had been committed, must be species specific. Even then, the specific circumstances of each case would need to be taken into account. There would be difficulties in collating evidence to bring a case to court.
There was concern about the difficulty in tracing the owner of an abandoned animal and, in order to make this easier, some responders suggested that all animals should be microchipped or licensed.
(4) Animal Fighting
Responses on animal fighting were received from 71 organisations and individuals and there was overwhelming support to strengthen legislation prohibiting animal fights, both between animals and between animals and man. Some stressed the need to separate an offence connected with animal fighting from one of cruelty. Nobody disagreed with the suggestion that organising, participating in or betting on animal fights should be illegal and some went further by suggesting that it should be an offence to own, possess, store, sell, supply, or distribute any article used in animal fights or used to train an animal to fight. Those who commented on the penalties for involvement in animal fighting believed that conviction should attract the most severe penalties, including a lifetime ban on keeping animals.
The consultation paper stated that a prohibition on animal fighting would not apply to the hunting of game or other wild animals. There was a mixed response to this proposal with many responders adamant that there should be no exceptions and that dogs should not be used to hunt any animal. Others believed that it was appropriate for dogs to be used in the hunting and retrieving of wild game and to control vermin and other pests. It was pointed out that sometimes animals used in film and TV enact fighting either between themselves or with people. This fighting is simulated, controlled and monitored by vets.
(5) Animals in circuses/performing animals
Views were sought on whether all performing animal acts should be licensed and inspected and if there should be restrictions placed on the species of animals allowed to perform. Comments were received from 87 organisations and individuals, some very detailed and lengthy, and from these contributions is was clear that circuses with performing animals rarely visit Scotland and some local authorities prohibit animals to be used in circus performances. However, this does not necessarily mean that there are no animals. Often it can mean that the circus animals remain on site and caged, but not used in the performance. A number of responders were concerned about the transportation and living conditions for animals in travelling circuses and other shows - both when on the road and in winter quarters. A sizeable number of responders felt that animal acts in circuses should be banned or, at least, limited to domesticated animal e.g. horses, dogs, etc. The view expressed by one respondent who opposed the use of animals in any form of entertainment where distress or suffering is likely to be caused, sums up the feelings of many who commented. There was no consensus in the views expressed on what species of animals should be allowed to perform.
Responders drew a distinction between circus animals and animals used in stage, film and TV work, believing that the latter work is far less stressful for the animals. There was concern about the effectiveness of the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 and most responders believed that it should be revised and modernised with the existing registration requirement replaced with a license and inspection system. However, the difficulties of licensing the thousands of 'performing' animals used in TV and film was pointed out, and it was suggested that it might be better to licence the animal trainers.
A number of responders stressed the need for a very clear definition of 'performing animal' and there was a general feeling that 'circus type' performances should not be treated in the same way as show jumping, sheep dog trials and dog agility displays. A number of responders were concerned about the growing trend for animals (often birds of prey) to be displayed in town centres or shopping malls and argued that this type of activity should be licensed.
(6) Dangerous wild animals in captivity
Comments were received from 70 responders on proposed revisions to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Many shared a concern about non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and others saw an opportunity to ensure that a revised Act should focus on animal welfare as well as public safety. Some believed that wild animals (whether dangerous or not) should not be kept in captivity and certainly not as pets. There was no clear agreement on which, or whether, animals should be removed or added to the list of dangerous animals. Some thought that farmed animals, such as ostrich, buffalo and wild boar should be removed, but this was opposed by others. There was general agreement that venomous and giant snakes should be added to the list and some responders argued for all wild or 'exotic' animals to be included, whether dangerous or not.
There was no consensus on whether to increase the validity of a licence from 12 to 48 months. However, responders did agree that mandatory conditions should be added to all licences requiring the keeper to provide annual evidence of public liability insurance. There was greater agreement on the proposal to impose restrictions on the sale of controlled animals, but no clear agreement on the proposal to require local authorities to issue licences unless there were genuine reasons against so. Although the local authorities who responded to this question were content, there was general agreement that licence fees should be set at a level necessary to cover the cost of inspection, administration and scheme enforcement and that guidance of the fee level should be issued. There were mixed views on whether initial inspections need be carried out by veterinary surgeons and whether the frequency of inspections could be reduced from 12 to 24 months.
Most responders agreed that there was a need to increase the powers of entry where there was a good reason to believe that animals were being kept without a licence and to give animal keepers the right of appeal against seizure and disposal of their animals.
(7) The sale of young companion or pet animals
The section attracted 99 responses. Many of these stressed the need to reform the pet trade and cited a number of welfare problems caused by the commercial breeding of puppies. A number of comments related to the trade in companion animals between Ireland and Scotland, the lack of regulations in puppy rearing establishments in Ireland and the welfare problems with transportation. Many of the canine and animal welfare organisations made their opposition to this trade quite clear. However, if the trade were to continue then responders were quite clear that it should only do so if it was regulated and licensed. Responders suggested a range of conditions which should be attached to these licences. A number of responders also noted deficiencies in the current legislation relating to the sale of dogs and dog breeding establishments. In particular, they were concerned about the difficulties in making complaints about badly reared puppies, felt the legislation was confusing, its enforcement was difficult and its scope was insufficient. There can be difficulties in deciding whether a person is breeding dogs as a hobby, which does not require a licence; or as a commercial enterprise, which does require a licence.
Most responders agreed that dealers should be licensed and, although they admitted that this could be difficult, many suggested ways to define a 'dealer'. Suggestions included taking into account the number of animals bought and sold, whether animals are sold for financial gain, whether their sale is undertaken as a trade or business, the sale of animals where the seller does not own the mother, and whether the person who is selling the animals is involved in the rearing of animals.
The vast majority of responders felt that the present regulations covering dog breeding establishments should be extended to cats and other companion animals including birds.
(8) Pet shops
One hundred responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals were received on this issue. Most agreed that the minimum age to purchase a pet should be increased from 12, most felt that 16 would be appropriate but a few suggested other ages ranging from 14 to 21. A number of responders pointed out that pet ownership can give children a sense of responsibility and that any raising of the age at which young people can legally buy an animal should not prevent them, with parental consent, from becoming its owner and responsible for its care.
There was overwhelming support for the proposal that written information on the care and welfare of animals must be given to customers by pet shops. However, four organisations disagreed. There was some concern that pet shops were excluded from the provisions of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and there was wide, but not universal, support for this exclusion to be removed. Some felt that these animals and other wild or exotic animals should not be on display or sold in pet shops. Views on whether pet shops should be inspected by specialists where exotic animals are on display or sold were mixed. Most felt that this was a positive suggestion but others felt that this was not needed, particularly where specialist advice is available.
A number of suggestions were made for further changes to the Pet Animals Act 1951 and to improve licensing and licence conditions. A small minority of responders believed that animals should not be sold in pet shops and a number of others felt that the range of animals sold should be restricted. Some believed that the existing legislation was outdated, failed to reflect modern notions of animal welfare and gave no guidance on the required standards to the enforcing agencies. Licence conditions should include the need to ensure the welfare of the animals, including their physical and mental well-being and accommodation standards. It was felt that the Act should be extended to cover all places where animals are sold and should state specifically where such sales should be prohibited. Clarification on whether the regulations apply to wholesale establishments supplying pet shops was sought. It was also suggested that local authorities should be able to impose additional licence conditions if they thought it appropriate.
It was considered that all animal sales should be registered and the names and addresses of all purchasers recorded. Conditions of sale for both the pet shop and purchaser should be set and some responders believed that potential buyers should have to prove their competence before they were allowed to purchase an animal. There was strong support for the introduction of a statutory code of practice for pet shops which could include sections on staff training, staff competence, qualifications and animal husbandry.
(9) Pet fairs
Whether pet fairs should be licensed attracted 70 responses, although it was acknowledged that these events were relatively uncommon in Scotland. Responders noted that the current legislation needed to be clarified, but some believed that such events were prohibited and were concerned that new legislation would remove that prohibition. However, the majority of responders believed that pet fairs should be allowed but only if regulated and licensed. Some pointed out differences between large events and small gatherings of hobbyists where some small scale buying and selling of animals may take place but only as a secondary activity. This would draw a distinction between commercial sales to the general public and club meetings.
(10) Keeping exotic or dangerous animals as pets
Seventy responses were received on this topic. The vast majority of responders believed that there should be greater restrictions on the buying and selling of exotic or dangerous animals or that keeping such animals should be banned. Reasons given included the need to protect endangered species, not all 'exotic' animals are covered by the dangerous wild animal legislation, high mortality rates among imported animals, poor knowledge of animal husbandry, unsatisfactory welfare conditions, possibility of escape and disease transmission.
Some responders noted that it was difficult to define 'exotic' and pointed out that rabbits, gerbils, ornamental fish and common cage birds are not indigenous to the British Isles and thus are 'exotic'. However, some suggestions for animals, in addition to those listed in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act, which should be covered by new legislation included monkeys, venomous reptiles and insects. It was also suggested that rather than attempt to produce a long list of animals which require a licence it would be better to produce a list of animals which can be kept without a licence.
(11) Shoeing of horses
The 57 responses on the couping, or uneven shoeing, of horses comprised very different and opposing views. Some acknowledged that the subject was not straightforward and there was a need to differentiate between corrective, remedial and cosmetic shoeing. If couping is primarily undertaken for the show ring then it is cosmetic in nature. Although it is a long established practice, there were many responders who were concerned that it had an adverse effect on the hooves and limbs of horses.
Guidance from the Clydesdale Horse Society on coup shoeing had recently been updated and widely distributed to the society's members and farriers. Some felt that, if this guidance was adhered to, then no damage would be done to a horse. However, a significant number of others believed that uneven shoeing, unless for therapeutic purposes, should be banned. Arguments were presented which stated that the practice causes the animal pain and suffering.
There was general agreement that the views of organisations most closely involved should be carefully considered before any decision is reached. A number of responders thought that the best way forward was through the regulation of shoeing practices or should only be undertaken subject to a statutory code of practice. However, this view was by no means universal as there were a number of responders who believed that there were already sufficient safeguards to protect the welfare of horses.
(12) Greyhound racing
This was another issue to attract a substantial response with 65 responders commenting. Responders, especially organisations involved in regulating and running greyhound racing, provided a great deal of detailed evidence on the organisation and regulation of the industry, as well as the registration of racecourses and dogs. There were a number of responders who believed that greyhound racing caused a number of welfare problems, not only restricted to the races themselves, but also with dogs unsuitable for racing and the disposal of dogs at the end of their racing career. A minority argued for greyhound racing to be banned or phased out, but the majority of responders felt that greater regulation or licensing by local authorities should be introduced for all racing tracks, including those not under control of the National Greyhound Racing Club.
Of the responders who commented on the proposal for a veterinary surgeon to attend all race meetings, only one felt that it might be adequate for a vet to be on call. All of the others felt that is was necessary for a vet to be in attendance. Some stressed that this must include trials as well as races and that all dogs should be inspected before and after each race. Most responders felt that there should be a limit on the frequency on which dogs can race, with views ranging from once per day to no more than once per fortnight.
A number of comments were made on the responsibility to ensure the welfare of greyhounds once their career was over. The vast majority agreed that this responsibility should be placed on the owner, in particular a requirement to ensure that animals were properly cared for or appropriately rehomed. Some disagreed, believing that the greyhound racing industry had the ultimate responsibility. A small number of responders believed that if rehoming efforts were unsuccessful and the owner was unable to keep the dog, then it could be humanely destroyed. Responders also believed that the industry should make more money available to support rehoming initiatives.
(13) The welfare of captive pheasants bred of sport shooting
The majority of the 66 responders who commented on this issue believed that some form of statutory protection was required. Most felt that a statutory code of practice and regulations similar to those which presently exist for farmed birds should be introduced. A few, however, considered that the current practices were adequate if the provisions in the existing industry code was followed and also argued that there was significant differences between game birds and farm poultry.
A number of responders stressed the importance of drawing a clear distinction between the status of birds from the time spent in hatcheries, breeding sheds, rearing pens and release enclosures, and after their release even if they return to these enclosures. After release, the birds are effectively wild and thus would no longer fall within the definition of animals protected under the legislation.
There were mixed views on whether 'bits' and spectacles designed to prevent feather pecking should be permitted.
(14) Tail docking and mutilations
This issue attracted 232 responses from dog clubs and breed societies, pro- and anti- tail docking organisations, local authorities, veterinary organisations, animal welfare/rights organisations, agricultural and countryside organisations, dog owners and other individuals. In the main, views were robust and resolute for and against tail docking. A ban on tail docking, either a total ban or a ban with the exception for animal welfare or medical reasons, was supported by 67 organisations and individuals, and a further 28 responders were opposed to tail docking for cosmetic reasons. Allowing tail docking for working dogs was supported by 24 responders and a further 113 were opposed to a ban on tail docking or wished to see the existing provisions continue.
Those opposing a ban were concerned about the need to maintain breed standards and as a preventative measure to avoid tail damage. They argued that when it was properly undertaken, it was not a cruel practice and did not harm the dogs, either mentally, physically nor impair their communication. The exact opposite view was taken by most responders that wanted a ban on tail docking. They felt that it was an out of date practice, no longer permitted in some species and (in dogs) in some countries, it caused pain and suffering, affected a dog's ability to communicate, could not be justified either medically or scientifically; they were also opposed to using docking as a method of maintaining breed standards.
A number of organisations and individuals argued for tail docking to be allowed in working dogs. They believed that it was a necessary preventative measure to avoid tail damage and considerable suffering when the dogs were working in dense cover or underground. However, some responders pointed out that any exemption for working dogs could be difficult as it would be impossible to identify which pups will end up as 'working' dogs when only a couple of days old. The view that working dogs should be exempt from any docking ban was by no means universal and a number of responders believed that there was little scientific evidence to support the claim that working dogs were more prone to tail injury than other dogs, not all 'gun' dogs have docked tails, and the main reason for docking working dog breeds was for breed standard or cosmetic purposes.
Some responders commented on the person who should be permitted to undertake tail docking. Current legislation only permits this to be carried out by veterinary surgeons and some responders thought that this should to be better enforced. However, other responders felt that it could be undertaken by experienced lay persons.
A number of responders compared the tail docking of dogs to the tail docking of lambs. Some of them felt that all such mutilations should be viewed in the same way. It was pointed out that farmers were allowed to dock lambs' tails but only veterinary surgeons were permitted to dock dogs' tails. A small number of responders commented on typical farming practices in addition to tail docking such as castration, de-horning and tooth clipping.
The removal of dew claws attracted some comment and a number of responders thought that this was a more serious procedure than tail docking, but considered that it is necessary on welfare grounds. Some felt that such a procedure should only be carried out by veterinary surgeons. However, others thought that it could also be undertaken by suitably trained para-professionals.
(15) Markets
Almost all of the 57 responders who commented on this issue believed that markets should be licensed. However, there were a few responders who believed that licensing was unnecessary as markets were already well regulated by existing legislation. Responders generally considered that current inspections were effective, that existing animal welfare standards were high and problems were rare. There was some concern, however, about the sale of horses.
It was pointed out that markets were only one of the places where animals are bought and sold. Most responders, but not all, believed that it would be necessary to ensure that any licensing regime for markets must be extended to seasonal markets, collection centres, hauliers who gather stock on their premises, livestock dealers and traders. Some responders believed that this was important as these premises operate to different standards and it would be essential not to over regulate official markets and leave other places where animals are traded unregulated.
Responders suggested a number of conditions which should be part of a licence. These included: a requirement to inform the enforcement body about where and when operating; the competence and qualifications of animal handlers; the appointment of a welfare officer; veterinary attendance; set standards for accommodation, equipment, feed and water; stocking densities, and biosecurity.
(16) Animal sanctuaries
The proposal to license animal sanctuaries attracted 91 responses, including 14 from sanctuaries and rescue centres. The vast majority, including the main organisations involved in rescue, rehoming and rehabilitation, agreed that sanctuaries should be licensed with some proposing that registration, regulation, monitoring or control would be more appropriate. Responders pointed out that 'sanctuaries' covered a wide range of facilities ranging from large rehoming centres where animals can be sold to the public, to wildlife rescue centres where animals are prepared for re-introduction back to their natural environment and small establishments run by volunteers dealing with a specific species or breed. Four responders felt that there was no need to place any control on sanctuaries and there was some concern that a licensing requirement could result in some centres being forced to close due to increased bureaucracy and cost. Some thought that any licence fees should be minimal or waived, or perhaps a two tier structure based on the size of the sanctuary.
Reasons given for licensing or registration included: the ability to identify sanctuaries, to conduct inspections, set minimum standards and maximum occupancy, to ensure appropriate feeding and housing, for disease prevention, and an appropriate use of charitable funding. On the other hand, a few responders felt that current arrangements were satisfactory with existing laws preventing any animal suffering. Some breed clubs were concerned that any licensing requirement might affect their rehoming work where a dog is looked after in the home of a member until a new permanent home can be found. Some responders suggested that a sanctuary need only be licensed if more than a certain number of animals were housed.
Some responders believed that small cat rescue centres in domestic gardens and fostering should be excluded from any licensing system, and that a licensing system should not be so burdensome so as to deter people from running a sanctuary or conditions set so high that it would be impossible for charities to meet.
(17) Livery stables and yards
There was overwhelming support from the 75 responders for the proposal to license livery stables and yards. A very small number considered that licensing should only apply to premises that had more than a certain number of horses. A few responders believed that there was no need for further regulation. Responders noted a number of problems with the current standards provided at livery yards and stables. In particular, their omission from a licensing scheme was acknowledged to cause problems within the equine industry and for the enforcement of the Riding Establishments Acts.
A minority of responders raised concerns about a licensing scheme. They were especially concerned about the cost of a licence and the additional bureaucracy and administration on small scale operations.
Responders had divided opinions on how a licence scheme should operate. Most thought that a licence scheme for boarding horses should operate in a similar way to the existing regulations for dog and cat boarding. A small group felt that a scheme similar to the licensing of riding establishments would be more appropriate.
Some thought that there was a need to carefully define 'livery' as the distinction between riding establishments and livery yards was far from clear, especially where riding lessons were provided, and there were a number of different types of livery available. 'DIY' and 'part-time' livery could pose problems as the responsibility for the welfare of the horse was not always clear and some thought that small livery yards only looking after a small number of horses should be exempted from a licence requirement. There was a suggestion that in some cases it would be appropriate for a duel responsibility for the welfare of the horse to be established and perhaps contracts between the horse owner and the yard proprietor.
Responders suggested a number of conditions which should be part of a licence. These included: competence, knowledge, training and qualifications in handling and care of horses; provision of advice to horse owners; inspection; and set standards for accommodation and turn-out facilities.
There was some concern about the need to amend the existing Riding Establishments Acts. In particular, responders noted the need to review the licence fee structure, to provide guidance on standards of housing and care, qualifications of riding instructors and other staff, the frequency of inspections and unannounced spot checks, improved biosecurity, heath and safety, and the introduction of a statutory code of practice.
(18) Tethering of horses
Comments about tethering were received from 55 responders. Most animal welfare organisations favoured a regulatory approach to control tethering while most equine organisations believed that a code of practice would be sufficient. Two organisations believed that tethering should not be permitted. Of the responders who expressed a preference, 26 thought that a code of practice or specific guidance would be sufficient and 17 responders felt that legislation, regulations or a licence scheme was needed.
A small number of responders suggested that any code of practice should include guidance on the tethering site, the type and length of tether, age and condition of the horse, frequency of inspection, provision of water and feed, and the ability to trace the person responsible for the horse. Additionally, animal welfare enforcement authorities should have the power to seize and confiscate horses that were incorrectly tethered.
Some responders took the opportunity to suggest that any conditions for tethering horses should also be applied to other species, including cattle, goats, dogs, donkeys and birds of prey.
(19) Power to seize animals
The vast majority of the 82 responders agreed that a previous proposal to give statutory powers to local authorities to remove livestock which are at risk of suffering should be extended to all animals as defined in the new legislation. Only one responder recorded their disagreement, although a few others raised some practical problems and issues.
A number of local authorities were concerned that the power to seize animals could be given to a charitable or voluntary organisation. Two responders felt that such powers should be restricted to the police. On the other hand, the Scottish SPCA felt that they should be able to apply to a Sheriff for a warrant. A number of responders commented on the requirement to obtain a warrant before any animal could be seized. They felt that it is important that this should not lead to a delay in any help being offered to a neglected animal and that action should be able to be taken without a warrant in emergency situations.
There was some concern that animals may only be seized after court proceedings had been brought and if that was the case then there would be problems. A better approach might be to allow the seizure of animals if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution and any appeal process should not delay the removal of animals at risk and adequate care provision should be made for the animals until the case is heard and all appeals exhausted.
Responders also noted that it would be important for any new legislation to comply with Human Rights legislation, but stressed the importance of courts using the full range of penalties available to them in cases of animal cruelty, including the power to ban people from keeping animals.
Responders felt that there would be a number of practical problems which would need to be addressed. These included accommodating the seized animals, the cost of their keep, and who would be responsible for their welfare.
Human rights, sustainable development and equal opportunities
A few responders commented on the requirement that the legislation must be compatible with the 'convention rights' drawn from the European Convention on Human Rights. No one felt that the proposals in the consultation paper would undermine any convention rights and a number stated that the right to keep animals must not allow their ill-treatment or abuse.
A couple of responders drew attention to the issue of removing animals from the wild and the damaging effect that this can have on a sustainable wild population and their habitat whereas good management of animals can have a beneficial effect on the countryside. There was some concern about stocking densities and the lack of appropriate veterinary treatment of farmed animals. The argument was that lower stocking densities would ensure a healthier animal and secure higher prices. On the other hand, one responder stressed the importance of ensuring that animal welfare legislation in Scotland was not so costly that it would place the Scottish livestock industry at a commercial disadvantage, leading to the importation of more animal products from countries with lower animal welfare standards.
Responders felt that none of the proposals had a direct impact on equal opportunity issues, including guide and other assistance animals used by people with disabilities.
Deer
A number of comments were received from responders who wished to see changes to the Deer Scotland Act 1996 which would make improvements to the welfare of deer. A separate consultation has since been issued by the Deer Commission for Scotland and the responses to the animal welfare consultation on deer issues have been forwarded to the Deer Commission who will take them into consideration.
Conclusion
The consultation attracted a large number of lengthy and comprehensive responses from a wide range of organisations and many individuals who were enthusiastic about the Executive's proposals for new legislation. There was overwhelming support to introduce a new duty of care which would secure and promote the welfare of animals, an obligation which goes considerably further than existing requirements. The majority of responders agreed with the proposals to strengthen the legislation on abandonment; animal fighting; the sale of animals whether from pet shops, pet fairs or dealers; statutory protection for the welfare of captive pheasants; the operation of markets; the licensing or registration of animal sanctuaries and livery stables; and the tethering of horses.
Many responders called for the licensing and regulation of greyhound racing and were concerned that some racing takes place outwith the control of the National Greyhound Racing Club and without a veterinary surgeon being present. The uneven shoeing of horses attracted a large number of responses with views quite divided on whether this practice had an adverse effect on their hooves and limbs. There was some support for a statutory code of practice but this was not universal with other responders who were totally against uneven shoeing unless for medical reasons, and others who believed that sufficient safeguards to protect horses already existed.
The most controversial proposal and the one which attracted the greatest number of responses was that of tail docking. Very robust views were expressed by pro- and anti- docking interests, with some arguing strongly for a total ban except where a tail had to be amputated for medical reasons and others arguing equally strongly for the existing provisions to continue. A large number of responders were against docking for cosmetic reasons or to maintain breed standards. However, there was some support to allow tail docking for working dogs, but this was by no means universal with a number of responders who were not convinced that tail docking was needed for working dogs.
There were mixed views on which species of animal and whether wild animals should be included in the legislation and it was suggested that it would be beneficial if the legislation were worded in a way that would allow the scope of the legislation to be changed by secondary legislation. The proposal to seize animals at risk or in danger of suffering attracted a number of comments, with the vast majority in support. However, a number of practical difficulties were pointed out, including the need to assure that financial provisions are made to allow the enforcing authorities to undertake this additional task.
Interest was shown in the welfare of 'exotic' animals and there was much concern about the unregulated sale of such animals; the operation of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976; and the lack of regulations dealing with performing animals, particularly in circuses.
« Previous | Contents | Next »