« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 'PROPOSALS TO REVISE EXISTING ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION'
Issues raised in the consultation document
(1) The definition of 'Animal'
Paragraph 11 of the consultation document stated: For the purpose of any animal welfare legislation we are considering defining an animal as 'any non-vertebrate, cephalopod, or crustacean kept by, owned by, managed or dependent on people'. Cephalopods are certain types of marine molluscs, such as octopuses, squids and cuttlefish. Crustaceans include lobsters, crabs, shrimps and prawns. 'Managed or dependent' will not include the intermediate feeding of wild animals or the management or river fisheries, but would include fish farming. Do you agree with this definition?
Overview
103 responses were received on this subject. Responders included 16 local authorities and their representative organisation, LACORS; 2 police forces and their representative organisation, ACPOS; 6 veterinary organisations; 10 canine organisations (and 2 businesses); 3 equine organisations; 2 feline organisations; 2 performing animal organisations; 4 animal sanctuaries; 3 pet organisations; 10 animal welfare groups; 6 countryside organisations and 2 agricultural organisations (and 1 business); and 20 individuals.
Views on the proposal
A total of 33 organisations and businesses and 8 individuals agreed with the definition of 'animal'. A further 3 organisations and 4 individuals considered that the definition was not suitable. The remaining responders did not state their opinion on the suitability of the definition, but commented on its scope. The respective responders which made these views were:
(1) Agree with the definition
32 organisations (Glasgow City Council, Fife Council, Highland Council, Aberdeenshire Council, Falkirk Council, East Lothian Council, North Lanarkshire Council, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, Central Scotland Police, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Macaulay Institute, Scottish SPCA, Advocates for Animals, RCVS, British Equine Veterinary Association, Union of Country Sports Workers, Scottish Association for Country Sports, Grampian Animal Defence League, IFAW, The Vegetarian Society, Cat Action Trust, Cats Protection, Lothian Cat Rescue, Kirkwall Dog Training Club, The Bearded Collie Club of Scotland, Avon (Lanarkshire) Dog Agility Club, National Working Terrier Federation, British Horse Society, CARROT, Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland)
2 businesses. (Minches Hovawarts, Scotlean Pigs)
8 individuals.
(2) The definition should be expanded
17 organisations. (South Ayrshire Council, East Ayrshire Council, Stirling Council, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, ACPOS, Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association, Scottish Beekeepers Association, Scottish Kennel Club, Inverclyde Dog Training, Greyhound Action Scotland, Avon (Lanarkshire) Dog Agility Club, Canine Concern Scotland Trust, PDSA, Munlochy Animal Aid, IFAW, Vetwork UK, The Scottish Hawk Board)
1 business. (Edelhof Kennels)
5 individuals.
(3) The definition should be simplified
(4) The definition should be limited
(5) Do not agree that the definition is suitable
(6) Alternative definitions
4 organisations. (PAWSI, PDSA, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, Scottish Countryside Alliance)
(7) Neither in agreement or disagreement with the definition, but commented on its scope
22 organisations. (West Lothian Council, Midlothian Council, Angus Council, RCVS, British Veterinary Zoological Society, Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences, Scottish Agricultural College, Association of Deer Management Groups, Skye Environment Centre Ltd, Canine Crisis Council, WAG, Born Free Foundation, The Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, The Shellfish Network, Animal Concern, Munlochy Animal Aid, Game Farmers' Association, Scottish Countryside Alliance, CAWC, ACTA, IFAW, Pets at Home)
3 individuals.
Need to expand the definition
A number of responders suggested how the proposed definition was deficient and how these deficiencies could or should be remedied:
Should include
every species of living creature except humans. (Munlochy Animal Aid)
Any animal. (Vetwork UK)
All species capable of feeling pain. This would apply to all animals whether domesticated, captive or in a wild state. (IFAW)
Definition is not sufficiently inclusive. It should include any non-human creature capable of feeling pain and or showing distress. (Stirling Council)
Should include the word 'sentient'. (individual)
All living creatures. The 1912 Act defines 'animal' as including any animal 'of whatsoever kind of species, and whether quadruped or not'. It would represent a weakening of the law to change that description and exclude certain animals. (2 individuals)
All animals with no exceptions. (Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary)
The words 'in the captivity of' should be included in the definition. (Scottish Kennel Club)
Does not include random acts of abuse by persons unconnected with the animal which compromise the welfare of the animal which may in fact be owned or managed by another individual. (Canine Concern Scotland Trust)
Does the definition go far enough? What about spiders and scorpions? (Edelhof Kennels)
Definition fails to include large spiders or scorpions and as more people are keeping such species, the inclusion of arachnids within the definition may be beneficial. (ACPOS)
As snakes and various forms of insects and spiders are now popularly bred and sought, they should be included. (Munlochy Animal Aid)
The definition would appear to exclude spiders (e.g. tarantulas) and insects (e.g. stick insects) which are sometimes kept for bait etc. These other species should be included within this definition, as the essential issue regarding this consultation document is that the animals are kept by, owned by, managed by and dependent on people. (Scottish Agricultural College)
Insects need to be included as an increasing number of stick insects, butterflies etc are being kept as 'pets'. This is likely to increase in popularity if current pet owning trends continue to diversity. (PDSA)
Definition excludes the majority of invertebrates. It would be less arbitrary and perhaps ensure clarity under the law if the line is drawn to ensure the law is applied to vertebrates only. (Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association)
Ruminants should be included. What is the definition in Section 87(1) of the Animal Health Act? (East Ayrshire Council)
Might include honeybees. (Scottish Beekeepers Association)
Should include marine life. (individual)
Should include domestic aquariums. (Inverclyde Dog Training Club)
Suitable with regard to dogs though is not comprehensive with regard to some exotic pets. (Canine Concern Scotland Trust)
Beneficial if racing greyhounds had a special category in addition to 'companion' or 'pet' animals which would be 'companion animals used for sport'. (Greyhound Action Scotland)
Should extend to temporary management or dependency e.g. kennels, animal/house sitters and possibly dog walkers. (Avon (Lanarkshire) Dog Agility Club)
Should include animals that are not managed or dependent on humans as all animals require protection from acts of cruelty. (South Ayrshire Council)
Should include river fisheries and wild animals. (individual)
Need to limit the definition
One organisation suggested that the proposed definition should be limited and have a narrower scope:
Need to simplify the definition
One organisation suggested that the proposed definition should be simplified:
Should be simplified to read 'all managed or dependent non-human vertebrae, cephalopod or crustaceans.' Any exception to fundamental welfare protection has to be seen as indefensible and therefore the revision of animal protection legislation must ensure that all interactions and management of animals is regulated and is the subject of good animal practice. (City of Edinburgh Council)
Activities that should be excluded from the definition
Two organisations considered that specific activities should be excluded from the proposed scope of the legislation:
Keeping of fish under suitable conditions for angling purposes. (Trekking and Riding Society of Scotland)
A wild animal caught, for treatment, perhaps because it has been injured, might not be included as it could be argued that it is neither managed nor dependent. (Dogs Trust)
Other definitions
Four organisations each suggested an alternative definition that should be used. Three of these referred to the relationship between animals and human beings:
Any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish (including shellfish) or related organism, insect, crustacean, or organism of any kind, but does not include a human being. (PDSA)
As defined in the PAWSI Code,
Guidelines and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Animals in the Audio Visual Industries, PAWSI believe the definition of Animal to be: 'Any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, insect or other multi-cellular organism that is not a plant or fungus'. (PAWSI)
Should be refined to 'any non-human vertebrate, cephalopod, or crustacean kept by, owned by, managed and dependent on people'. (Scottish Countryside Alliance)
Existing definitions should be retained. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
Comments on the proposed definition
A number of responders provided advice on the general principles that should be incorporated into the definition, the scope of the definition and the relationship between the current legislation and the proposal. They also commented on the inclusion of invertebrates and the scope of the definitions of 'owned,' 'managed' and 'dependant on man':
The definition of 'any animal' is very important with respect to the scope of this proposed legislation. (BASC Scotland)
Essential to define clearly which animals are covered by the proposed legislation. The definition may be partly based on species, but must also take environment or individual circumstances into consideration. (Scottish SPCA)
There should be a working definition of any animals that could be perceived as coming within the scope of the Act. (Canine Crisis Council)
In reviewing the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, the RCVS has come to the view that an 'animal' would be better left undefined in that Act. Currently it says only that the term includes birds and reptiles, and this unnecessary provision has served only to create uncertainty about what else counts as an animal for the purposes of the Act. (RCVS)
The Scottish Ministers should reserve a power to alter the definition by statutory instrument if this became necessary. (Faculty of Advocates)
In order to cover the eventuality for the need to include other phyla in this definition, the Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs of the Scottish Executive should establish the means to include, but
not exclude, different phyla as and when there is substantial evidence of reasoning to do so. (Born Free Foundation)
The proposal that the Animal Welfare Bill should extend to 'any non-human vertebrate, cephalopod, or crustacean' is certainly no wider than the present definition, and arguably narrower in not extending to insects. It is also much clearer than the previous definition. Similarly, the substituting of the wording 'kept by, owned by, managed or dependent on people' for the previous tests of captivity and confinement (which have been subject to an artificially restrictive interpretation by the courts) is to be welcomed (subject to very careful drafting which makes it apparent precisely what these terms mean). (Mr Mike Radford)
Any new definition must not weaken the definition of 'animal' in the 1912 Act set out as including any animal of whatsoever kind of species, and whether quadruped or not. (individual)
Changes to the definition of an 'animal' will enable legislation to be applied to a wider range of animals than at present which will better reflect the range of animals encountered today. (West Lothian Council, individual)
Welcome the widening of the definition is welcomed. There is a need to reflect modern day practices not conceived when the old legislation was put in place. (LACORS)
If it is the Executive's view that local authorities lead on the protection of the welfare of all farmed, commercially kept, companion animals and pets, the definition should be as wide as possible. (Angus Council)
Care should be taken when drafting this legislation to discriminate carefully between domestic and non-domestic kinds. (The Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland)
Animals that are independent of people can also be targeted for maltreatment. (individual)
It is essential that no loophole should exist that would allow unscrupulous individuals to utilise and abuse animals. The question why include 'cephalopods and crustaceans'. The answer is very simple: no suffering should be done to any creature just because we can. We do not wish to adopt an extremist view but feel that too often issues of suffering to species have been ignored just because they cannot give a vocal protest. (WAG)
Defra is not including invertebrates within the definition. (Pet Care Trust)
The inclusion of invertebrates would set a dangerous precedent for use by the extremist fringe who would call for the likes of crickets, wasps and ants to be protected likewise. This would have major implications for the restaurant and fishing industries. (Pet Care Trust)
It is difficult to know where to draw the line. Why add some arthropods (the crustacea) and not others (such as arachnids)? Some spiders and inspects are kept as pets, but obviously other insects are used as live food for reptiles. This would also mean updating slaughter methods for invertebrates. More research on pain and humane slaughter in invertebrates may be needed. (Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences)
Any Act should focus on animals that are generally regarded to be 'domestic, captive or managed animal'. (Canine Crisis Council)
The definition should be 'kept by, owned by, managed by or dependent on people'. (Canine Concern Scotland Trust)
Animal should be any non-human living creature whether it is kept, owned, managed and is dependent on people, or whether it is independent of people. Dependent is 'relying on people for the basic essentials to sustain life, and for physical and mental well being'. (individual)
The proposals, in some instances, are seeking levels of controls and duties of care for other animals that exceed those for humans. This is in our view completely unacceptable. … we must balance our treatment of animals with the way we treat ourselves. We must not lose our sense of perspective in an indulgence of ill-balanced control-all legislation. (The Scottish Hawk Board)
Need for further clarification of aspects of the proposed definition
A number of organisations considered that aspects of the proposed definition should be further clarified. Although these largely related to the concepts of 'managed', or 'dependent on man', they also included a range of other terms:
Do not know what the word 'intermediate' means, when used with respect to the feeding of wild animals. (BASC Scotland)
Why is there the inclusion of 'kept by owned by, managed or dependent on people?' This comes back to the welfare of wild animals. (Skye Environment Centre)
The responsibility for 'managing' needs to be further clarified. (BASC Scotland)
The definition of 'managed' or 'dependent' needs to be tightened. (Midlothian Council)
The Faculty is concerned that 'managed or dependent on people' is a loose phrase that is open to different interpretations. The concept of 'care and control by a person' of an animal might be a better phrase - see definition of 'keeper' of an animal in the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987. (Faculty of Advocates)
Concerned at the definition as it encompasses animals 'managed or dependent on people'. This definition could potentially represent every single animal in Scotland, wild and domestic, as they are all, to one extent or another, 'managed' by man. If we consider the Scottish deer herd, these animals are very much controlled and managed by man, but we do not think that we have a duty of care for them, beyond the proper control of their numbers. This definition does raise a certain number of contradictions as well. Again, by taking deer as our example, is it in the interests of the specific hind to be shot in order to keep the rest of the deer herd healthy. This is an example where the well-being or the welfare of an individual within a population has to be seen relative to the health and welfare and long term survival of the population of the herd as a whole. Would culling hedgehogs be against the principles of this legislation despite their detrimental effect on certain species of birds? At the very least these judgements would be a matter of opinion and would make many decisions concerning the appropriate management of our wild animals more difficult. (Scottish Countryside Alliance)
What is the definition of 'captivity'? The consultation states that the welfare of wild animals is not in captivity is largely a matter of public safety rather than animal welfare. We would argue that animal welfare is a major part, otherwise people can commit acts of cruelty against wild animals with no legal action being possible. People can throw stones at wild herds or animals as they are not in captivity and this is clearly a welfare issue. According to the existing legislation there appears to be nothing to prevent this. (Skye Environment Centre)
How does one define 'Zoological conditions' where owners allow animals to inhabit their land by default? (Canine Crisis Scotland)
Definitions are also needed for 'exotic' and 'commercial'. (Pets at Home)
A definition of 'wild' as in 'wild animals' should also be included with a broad definition as possible. (Munlochy Animal Aid)
Issues raised by the proposed definition
The inclusion of a number of specific different types of animals in the definition raised a number of issues. These related to: (1) crustaceans and cephalopods; (2) invertebrates; (3) foetuses, embryos and larvae; and (4) the interface between the wild and captivity:
( 1) Crustaceans and cephalopods
New Zealand legislation, The Animal Welfare Act 1999, has a wide definition of animal and includes reptiles, amphibians, fish, octopus, squid, crab, lobster or crayfish including freshwater crayfish. Section 10 imposes an obligation on every person in charge of such an animal to ensure that the physical, health and behavioural needs of the animal are met in a manner that is in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge. Section 12 makes it a criminal offence for any person in charge of an animal if he fails to comply with Section 10 or kills the animal in such a manner that the animal suffers unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress. It makes no distinction between domesticated or wild animals save for an exemption in the case of hunting and fishing and a captured wild animal so long as its capture is for the purpose of facilitating its imminent destruction. Otherwise wild animals in captivity are covered by the legislation. There is similar legislation in at least two States in Australia with encompass crabs, lobsters and crayfish and which afford them protection against unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress. (individual)
Support the inclusion of cephalopods and crustaceans. (Scottish SPCA)
Crustaceans and cephalopods should be included. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
All species of animal such as any non-human vertebrate, invertebrate, cephalopod, crustacean to be included, but with conditions attached. (ACTA)
Lobsters are included in the new definition. In this area we have various fish wholesalers who keep live lobsters and other shellfish in holding tanks for onward sale both for the local market and export. (South Ayrshire Council)
The document is silent on whether current culinary preparation methods of crustaceans would be 'deemed' 'cruel'. (East Ayrshire Council)
Marine life should come under the definition. Concerned at the welfare and slaughter of lobsters and other shellfish which are currently boiled alive. Any legislation relating to fish farming should include shellfish farming regarding the welfare of animals. … There is good scientific evidence to question whether shellfish feel pain. Vigorous lobsters and crabs react to boiling water or water gradually brought to the boil. They have shown violent struggling movements and attempts to escape from the pot. The possibility of pain cannot be ruled out in smaller shellfish and even the simplest invertebrates (e.g. sea anemones, earthworms and insects). (The Shellfish Network)
Concerned that crustaceans may be removed from the definition. Opposed to this as there is strong scientific evidence that crustaceans are capable of feeling pain. Lobsters have a chain of nerve centres all along the mid-line from head to tail. Crabs have two main nerve centres at the middle front and rear. A humane stun/kill device has been developed for crustaceans by the University of Bristol and Silsoe Research Institute. The existing definition in 1912 Act defines a 'captured animal' as including any animal 'of whatsoever kind or species, and whether a quadruped or not.' This arguably means that crustaceans are already included in the definition of 'animal' and it would represent a weakening of the law to remove them from that definition. (Advocates for Animals)
Definition should include cephalopods and crustaceans kept in captivity for both culinary and zoological purposes. It is now recognised that fish feel pain and react to adverse stimuli including visual stimuli such as sight of predator species. Cephalopods are extremely intelligent. Legislation should include provision for the humane treatment and dispatch of crabs, prawns and lobsters in the restaurant trade. As the proposed new laws are designed to be enabling legislation we hope that it will be amended to include compulsory use of 'The Crustastun', a device for pre-stunning shellfish prior to killing, currently under development in England. (Animal Concern)
It is now generally accepted that crustaceans such as crabs, lobsters, and crayfish are sentient creatures. Research on the subject goes back many years, but relatively recent research on the sentient nature of crabs and lobsters was carried out in the 1970s by Dr John Baker of the Department of Zoology at Oxford University who published a number of papers on the subject. More recently research carried out by Dr Kestin and Dr Robb at the Food Animal Science Division of Bristol University School of Veterinary Science confirmed the view that crustaceans are more than likely to be conscious and sentient creatures. In this regard there is a separate Report from Dr CM Sherwin of the Department of Clinical Veterinary Science dated 6 November 2002 which also supports this view as well as a Report from Dr Robb. It is clear both from these reports based on research and the fact that there is current legislation in certain countries which includes crustaceans such as crabs, lobsters and crayfish within the protection of animal welfare legislation, that it is generally becoming accepted that as sentient creatures they need the same protection against unreasonable pain or suffering as other animals both in their maintenance and in the method of their killing. (individual)
There is no substantive or scientifically valid work to demonstrate that cephalopods and crustaceans can appreciate pain or fundamentally have their welfare constrained. (Pet Care Trust)
Many authorities will have limited knowledge on dealing with cephalopods and crustaceans and it is considered that a more meaningful response may be obtained from authorities that deal with such matters. If implemented, it would have staffing and training implications. It would also raise a question as to welfare of crustacean kept for food purposes i.e. lobsters in restaurants. (West Lothian Council)
Questions whether we have knowledge of the behavioural needs of cephalopods or crustacean. More research into the behavioural and physiological needs of animals could be commissioned. (Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences)
While the decision to include crustaceans is laudable to ensure the welfare of farmed or managed species such as shrimp, lobsters and crabs, we do not believe the whole subphylum crustacean should be included in the definition. It should be limited to the order Decapoda, or best still, the specific species to which legislation is aimed (just as all mollusca are not included, just cephalopods). Crustacea includes approximately 42,000 species. It is believed the legislation is aimed at protection of economically important lobster, crabs and shrimps, all members of the Decapoda. Decapods include a quarter of the crustacean species, so more specifically, ideally to species level is to be recommended. Crustacea also includes classes such as Branchiura, which contains economically important fish lice species such as Argyllus spp and Copepods include the Lernaea spp anchor worm parasites common in captive and farmed fish. Their inclusion would open legal loopholes where treated infected farm fish may not be possible, and in turn their welfare may be seriously compromised. Other economically important crustaceans included Cirripedia barnacles, which may be an economic consideration for shipping, fishing vessels, and post facilities; Daphnia spp water fleas are reared and dried for use as fish food; Isopoda such as woodlice; Pentastomida class parasites are also crustaceans. (British Veterinary Zoological Society)
It may be acceptable to include cephalopods, which are not normally kept outside public aquaria or research establishments, including crustaceans is much less understandable. This group includes not only lobsters and crabs but also shrimps that may be kept specifically, or incidentally present, in freshwater as well as marine aquaria. It also commonly includes species that are parasites or used as food-animals for vertebrates. (Pets at Home)
( 2) Invertebrates
The inclusion of 'invertebrate' is absent from the proposals. (ACTA)
There are two situations which would fall outside the definition. The first is in relation to insects. It might be that in future Ministers consider it appropriate to introduce provisions relating to specific types of insect. It is therefore suggested that an enabling provision be included, which would permit Ministers to extend the scope of the Act, by means of secondary legislation, to specific types of animal which fall outwith the general definition proposed. (Mr Mike Radford)
There is evidence of whether invertebrates can suffer in an article by C. M. Sherwin, in
Animal Welfare 10 (2001), pp.103-110. He observes that: 'It is a popular notion that, compared to vertebrates, invertebrates have a reduced capacity to experience suffering. This is usually based on arguments that invertebrates show only simple forms of learning, have little memory capacity, do not show behavioural responses to stimuli that would cause 'higher' vertebrates to exhibit responses indicative of pain, and have differences in their physiology that would preclude the capacity for suffering. But, how convincing is this 'evidence' of a reduced capacity to suffer? Suffering is a negative mental state - a private experience - and, as such, it cannot be measured directly. When assessing the capacity of an animal to experience suffering, we often compare the similarity of its responses with those of 'higher' animals, conceptualised in the principle of argument-by-analogy. By closely examining the responses of invertebrates, it can be seen that they often behave in a strikingly analogous manner to vertebrates. This paper discusses published studies that show that invertebrates such as cockroaches, flies and slugs have short and long-term memory; have age effects on memory; have complex spatial, associative and social learning; perform appropriate in preference tests and consumer demand studies; exhibit behavioural and physiological responses indicative of pain; and, apparently, experience learned helplessness. The similarity of these responses to those of vertebrates may indicate a level of consciousness or suffering that is not normally attributed to invertebrates. This indicates that we should either be more cautious when using argument-by-analogy, or remain open-minded to the possibility that invertebrates are capable of suffering in a similar way to vertebrates.' (The Shellfish Network)
(3) Foetuses, embryos, and larvae
The Animals (Scientific) Procedures Act 1986 extends protection in relation to their foetal, larval, or embryonic form, in case of a mammal, bird or reptile, after half the gestation or incubation period for the relevant species; and in any other case, when it becomes capable of independent feeding. It is submitted that a similar provision should be included in the Animal Welfare Bill. Alternatively, an enabling provision should be included which would permit Ministers to extend the definition of animal accordingly by means of regulations. (Mr Mike Radford)
( 4) Interface between the wild and captivity
Regarding the question of free living wild animals, there really appears to be no moral basis for making the offence of cruelty (as distinct from a duty to ensure welfare) inapplicable. It is appreciated that wild mammals enjoyed limited protection under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, as amended. Nevertheless, the situation in Britain is to be compared to Northern Ireland, where the corresponding legislation makes no distinction between domestic, captive, or wild animals. Indeed, it extends to all mammals, birds, fish and reptiles, regardless of the circumstances in which they are living. Consideration should be given to applying a similar principle to Scotland in relation to the offence of cruelty. (individual)
Legislation should also provide for captured wild animals. The expression 'captive animal' means any animal (not being a domestic animal) of whatsoever kind or species, and whether quadruped or not, including any bird, fish, or reptile, which is in captivity, or confinement, or which is maimed, pinioned, or subjected to any appliance or contrivance for the purpose of hindering or preventing its escape from captivity or confinement. (Scottish SPCA)
The definition should also include animals that are confined, such as wild animals that have been temporarily brought into captivity. (IFAW)
The Society has already raised the issue of individual wild animals captured by people, often for the specific purpose of tormenting them. Prior to the passage of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act, it was impossible to frame cruelty charges in a serious case of fox-baiting, because the animal was held by hand and baited with dogs. There have been several cases in 2004 where children killed or tortured frogs, but unless an appliance or contrivance was used to restrain them (as it was in one case) cruelty charges could not be brought. The game sector lies between farmed livestock and wildlife (see
Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain). Managed wild deer populations should have protection. However, each independent deer herd is managed differently, depending on factors such as geography and the use of the deer. It may be difficult to define a managed herd. The ultimate definition is likely to be based on the extent of management undertaken, and deer managers' herd plans showing the intended level of intervention might be used as an indicator. It will be necessary to define the point at which game birds reared for release cease to be dependent on man. (Scottish SPCA)
There is a clear distinction between domesticated species and wild species of deer, in that the welfare requirements for each are quite different and that they would be more clearly dealt separately in legislation. (Association of Deer Management Groups)
There is a clear distinction between animals 'kept' and animals 'managed'. Released game birds are 'managed' in the sense that food may be put out for them and their predators are controlled. It does not mean that they are 'kept' animals any more than wild game birds managed in exactly the same way or indeed songbirds visiting a garden bird table. (Game Farmers' Association)
Any legislation must not be capable of being used against practices currently employed by the reared game industry. Much as the definition of 'animal' should cover those animals 'managed or dependent on people' when birds are released into the wild the duty of care that rested with the owner or manager, should cease. As soon as the birds are reasonably able to survive in the wild, despite the periodic feeding by the gamekeeper to keep the birds in the same vicinity, the birds should be considered 'wild' and the manager no longer subject to this legislation. (Scottish Countryside Alliance)
Intermediate feeding of certain species in the wild may not be controlled by people. There needs to be recognition of hatcheries for river and loch fishing, the 'keeping of' deer on large estates and the use of other so called wild species for 'sport'. (BVA Scottish Branch)
There may be some difficulty in deciding whether a particular specimen is wild or not, especially in view of the fact that all domestic animals are modified versions of wild species. There are cases where groups of wolves are managed and to a limited extent, petted by humans. To what extent are feral animals that are fed and kept viable by humans to be regarded as managed? (Canine Crisis Council)
While we agree that many aspects of the legislation are out-dated we are concerned about the introduction of a new classification under the heading 'sport'. We do not feel that there is a need for this specific category since game birds, for example, reared for sporting purposes, could possibly be best classified as livestock until the stage of their release when, technically speaking they become wild animals. Welfare of animals 'not in captivity' is excluded from the consultation and only brings other quarry species within the remit of this consultation for a short period of their lives. We are concerned about the specific mention of wild deer in Scotland 'where they are managed', since it has to be accepted that it is the aim of managers to ensure adequate active management of deer resident on their land. The use of the term 'in control terms' we take to mean active management through culling, rather than specific control schemes as outlined in Section 7 of the 1996 Deer (Scotland) Act. We do not accept that wild deer can or should fall under the provisions of the legislation being proposed in this document. We question, certainly with respect to deer, the inclusion of all managed species. For example, all vertebrate pest species such as foxes, mink and stoats are managed by either trapping, snaring, shooting but given that they are wild animals we do not feel that they should fall under this welfare legislation. It would be safer to say 'managed and dependent' on people. (BASC Scotland)
« Previous | Contents | Next »