« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 'PROPOSALS TO REVISE EXISTING ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION'
(6) Dangerous wild animals in captivity
Paragraph 16 of the consultation document stated: The dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 regulates the private keeping of specified animals by means of a licensing regime administered by local authorities. The Act does not prohibit keeping such animals, but the issue of a licence does require that those keeping them have the appropriate skills and facilities to secure public safety and the welfare of the animals. The Act was put in place in response to the growing number of people keeping exotic animals as pets, particularly large cats. Its broad purpose is to protect the public although there are associated animal welfare provisions to ensure that the animals are properly cared for.
17. Growing anecdotal evidence has suggested a high level of non-compliance and a report by the International Zoo Veterinary Group (IZVG) concluded that the Act has been broadly effective as there had been no reported serious injuries to the public. There was, however, compelling circumstantial evidence to support claims of significant non-compliance. They pointed to the view of many keepers that the controls extended to non-dangerous animals, some of which are now farmed, and widespread disparities in licence and inspection fees set by local authorities. They also identified weaknesses in the enforcement of the Act leading to fears of widespread flouting of its provisions and hearsay evidence that some local authorities were adopting blanket policies to refuse all licence applications.
18. We are considering amending the legislation to update the list of controlled species, to improve enforcement and to issue revised guidance to local authorities. The changes under consideration are:
(6.1) Amend the list of species in the Schedule of the Act so as to remove the animals that are unlikely to pose a serious risk to humans (such as some primates like titis; the woolly, broad nosed gentle and grey gentle lemurs; owl and squirrel monkeys), and those covered by other controls (e.g. farmed ostriches and wild boar which are already subject to separate controls applying to domesticated farm stock). We would like to add others - particularly some species of poisonous snakes (the Argentine black-headed snake, the South American green racer, the Peruvian racer, and the Amazon false viper), the Hemoscorpius lepturus scorpion and the dingo. Views are particularly welcome on whether other species should be added or deleted.
(6.2) Introduce a requirement for local authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers. The absence of up to date guidance on the operation of the Act has been a cause of confusion and inconsistency. We thus propose to issue guidance on the provisions of the Act as amended to which local authorities would be obliged to have regard.
(6.3) Increase the validity of licences from one calendar year to 48 consecutive months, so as to ease the bureaucratic burden for both keepers and local authorities.
(6.4) Add new mandatory conditions to all licences requiring the keeper to provide evidence annually of valid public liability insurance (such evidence is already required for the present annual licence) and to notify the local authority of any births, deaths, acquisitions, disposals or escapes of kept animals.
(6.5) Restrictions on the sale of controlled animals - vendors could be prohibited from selling controlled animals to an unlicensed keeper.
(6.6) Require local authorities to issue licences unless there are genuine reasons do not do so, and to specify their reasons where licences are refused.
(6.7) Amend the current provisions or introduce guidance on fees to clarify the fees be set at no more than the level necessary to cover the cost of inspection, administering and enforcing the scheme. At the moment there is evidence of a wide disparity in the fees charged by local authorities.
(6.8) The inspections required before granting a licence would no longer have to be undertaken by veterinary surgeons or practitioners, but inspectors would still have to be competent and independent. Zoo keepers and others might fulfil this role. We also propose that the inspections must be undertaken every two years (instead of annually when the licence is renewed at present), with the option of greater frequency if the local authority has good reason.
(6.9) Increase powers of entry to allow local authorities to enter premises where they have good reason to believe animals are being kept without a licence.
(6.10) Give keepers a right of appeal against seizure and disposal of their animals. At present local authorities have power to seize and destroy animals kept in contravention of the Act or where licence conditions have not been complied with, with no right of appeal. It would be consistent with natural justice for keepers to be given the right of appeal against such action taken by the authority.
(6.11) Clarification or amendment of the '72' hour rule. This rule requires a local authority proposing to attach a condition to the licence permitting animals to be moved to premises outside its boundary for more than 72 hours to consult the local authority in which the other premises are located. The intention was that animals could be moved for veterinary purposes, to film and TV studios and to fairs, but would ensure greater safeguards for periods of longer than 72 hours. This remains a reasonable objective. However, in practice the provisions are open to misunderstanding and could result in animals being kept in unsuitable, unlicensed premises. Views are sought on whether the flexibility necessary for short visits away from licensed premises could be achieved by licence conditions alone, with all premises used to house animals covered by licences, or whether the Act is necessary.
(6.12) Recovery of costs arising from escapes - local authorities will be entitled to charge a keeper their reasonable costs incurred in the recovery of an escaped animal.
19. Consultees are invited to comment and to offer ideas or suggestions to improve the scope and enforcement of the Act.
Overview
70 responses were received on this subject. Responders included 19 local authorities and their representative body LACORS; 2 police forces and their representative body ACPOS; 13 animal welfare groups; 3 animal sanctuaries and rescue organisations; 2 organisations dealing with exotic animals; 2 organisation which specifically worked with exotic animals and 14 individuals.
Response to the proposals
Responders answered this subject in the consultation document in a number of ways. A number considered each of the separate issues that were raised, while others considered one or a small number of them. A number of responders agreed with all the proposals, and in some cases made specific comments about aspects of them. (East Ayrshire Council, Falkirk Council, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, WAG, Canine Concern Scotland Trust, Inverclyde Dog Training Club, Scottish Kennel Club, Lothian Cat Rescue, 1 individual). Others also made general comments about the legislation. Two further organisations did not hold any views on the issue (The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland and Avon (Lanarkshire) Dog Agility Club).
Background: General comments on the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and the keeping of dangerous wild animals in captivity
A number of organisations and individuals made a range of general comments about The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, its current effectiveness and the ways in which it could be made more efficient and effective. A number of these reflected the wider views which had been expressed by the report of the International Zoo Veterinary Group (IZVG). Others noted concern at the keeping of these animals:
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 was primarily introduced to protect the general public from carnivorous big cats, wolves and other potentially dangerous exotic animals which some people, notably pop stars and other celebrities, liked to keep as pets. Other people kept such animals to profit from their use in advertising and public appearances. (Animal Concern)
Agree that there appears to be a high level of non-compliance with The Dangerous Wild Animals Act. (The Captive Animals' Protection Society)
The Society agrees that there is evidence of non-compliance with The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. (Scottish SPCA)
While there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some previously captive large cats - panthers, leopards etc - have been released into the wild to create a risk to humans and livestock, proper licensing and enforcement including notification of birth, deaths, purchases, sales and escapes is a necessary safeguard. (NFU Scotland)
Lack of serious injuries to the public is not evidence of compliance, it is evidence of the lack of serious injuries - extending it as evidence of compliance is a step too far. People who are aware of the numbers and types of animals kept as pets estimate at best a 10 per cent compliance and this would be my estimate. (PAWSI)
Prevention of private ownership of such species may be the most effective means of addressing the high level of non-compliance. (IFAW)
These animals pose a risk to the safety of people who come into contact with them such as the risk of attacks, escape or zoonotic disease. (Grampian Animal Defence League)
The risk of zoonosis should be made clear to owners/prospective buyers. (individual)
A new Bill should make it clear that the objective of the Bill is to safeguard the welfare of dangerous wild animals kept in captivity rather than public welfare. (2 individuals)
The current legislation tends to relate to the protection of the public and does not give great detail regarding the condition in which such animals should be kept. (West Lothian Council)
The new Bill should make it clear that its objective is not only directed at protecting the public but is also to safeguard the welfare of dangerous wild animals kept in captivity. (Advocates for Animals, individual)
Want to see a new act to cover the importation, breeding, sale and keeping of all non-native animals and birds. (Animal Concern)
A welfare element should be introduced for example in codes of practices for keeping exotic species. (The Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland)
The keeping of dangerous wild animals should be subject to statutory controls. The present system needs to be overhauled. (Scottish SPCA)
Any park which keeps wild animals must be licensed and be required to maintain the highest standards of safety and welfare of the animals. (Munlochy Animal Aid)
The Act should be clarified and strengthened so that there is no possibility of non-compliance, misunderstanding or disparity in application. (Cat Action Trust)
The more we learn about the biology and behaviour of wild animals, the more we realise the detailed nature of the requirements to maintain them in good health. Expertise is rare and expensive and anyone wanting to keep a wild or exotic animal should pay a lot for any licence. Licences should not be easy to get and should deter potential owners. No-one has a right to keep a wild or exotic animal. (Vetwork UK)
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act should remain as a separate piece of legislation. It should be revised in an identical manner to that in England and Wales. It makes good sense for the licensing regime and enforcement policies to be identical between the various nations of the United Kingdom. That would not only be contrary to good common sense but would also be suspect in terms of human rights legislation. It is relevant to remember that no other country within the European Union believes it to be necessary to have an equivalent to the DWAA and some countries, Republic of Ireland being a very good example, have categorically ruled out such legislation. (Pet Care Trust)
It should not be made easier to obtain a licence to keep an exotic animal in one part of the country than in another. (Animal Concern)
Welfare issues can only apply once a species is listed as being dangerous to the public. The Scottish Executive should remove consideration of the DWAA in the same way Defra has done and simply revise the DWAA itself in line with the outcome of Defra's own 4 year consultation process into the DWAA. (Pet Care Trust)
Specific account requires to be taken of the trade via the internet. (Glasgow City Council)
For corporate ownership of professionally owned animals, liability requires to be clarified. (City of Edinburgh Council)
As our own code and proposals are aimed at performing animals, we would like to see a register for trainers. We would expect that this is linked. (PAWSI)
Views on the subject reflect those of the report of the International Zoo Veterinary Group. (Mr Mike Radford)
Dangerous wild animals or wild animals should not be kept in captivity or as pets
A number of responders believed that dangerous wild animals or wild animals should not be kept in captivity or as pets, and also explained why they held these views:
Concerned that dangerous wild animals are being held privately. (individual)
The keeping of wild animals as pets by untrained or unqualified individuals is unacceptable. A ban on keeping these animals would be impossible. (WAG)
Private keeping of any wild animal as a pet, whether dangerous or not, is an abhorrent practice and should be totally prohibited. (Scottish Kennel Club)
Wild animals should not under any circumstances be kept as domestic or corporate pets. (Munlochy Animal Aid)
The keeping of wild animals as pets, especially exotic ones, dangerous or otherwise, should be banned. (Grampian Animal Defence League, 2 individuals)
There are compelling reasons against keeping wild animals in captivity. (Grampian Animal Defence League)
There remains the question of whether it is desirable to allow the private keeping of dangerous wild animals in captivity at all. In the absence of sound reasons for allowing this practice it might be better for the private keeping of the animals specified to be prohibited. (Glasgow City Council)
Most exotic species cannot behave in anything approaching a normal manner while in captivity and should therefore not be kept. (Vetwork UK)
Keeping exotic animals should be made as hard as possible - it is almost always an inappropriate activity - almost never in the animal's interest. (Vetwork UK)
Dangerous wild animals in captivity should only be permitted in areas where the species are being held captive for an educational reason or breeding to return to the wild. (individual)
Question 6.1
A number of different views were expressed on the amendment of the list of species. Responders made a number of general comments about the need to amend the list, the species that should be removed from it, those that should be added or included in it, and those that should not be removed from it. Their views are considered under four broad headings:
(1) General comments and issues that should be considered in revising the list
A range of organisations made a number of general comments about the need to amend the list of species that should be included in the Schedule. They also commented on the practical operation of the list and the way in which it could be included in the proposed legislation:
Update or amendment of the list of controlled species is welcomed. (Aberdeenshire Council, Fife Council, North Lanarkshire Council, Perth and Kinross Council, West Lothian Council, ACTA, Central Scotland Police, and 2 individuals).
The list of species needs attention. (PAWSI)
The list of species needs to be amended and updated in line with current practices. (LACORS)
The list of animals covered by the legislation is unclear to the public. (North Ayrshire Council)
There is a need to clarify the position in relation to hybrid animals as highlighted in the effectiveness study on the DWA Act 1976. (Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police)
The amendment of the list of species needs to be amended with expert opinion. (Fife Council, PDSA)
The list is more concerned with human welfare than animal welfare. (The Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, Pet Care Trust, individual)
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 is not appropriate legislation to address the welfare of so called 'exotic' pets as the main focus of this Act is human safety as opposed to animal welfare; whilst many of the 'exotic pet' species are not deemed 'dangerous' and are therefore not covered by the Act. (IFAW)
Any proposed changes should differentiate between exotic animals (regarding non indigenous or non dangerous) and other animals. (Midlothian Council)
A species should not be listed as dangerous in one part of the United Kingdom and not in another. (Pet Care Trust)
It should be possible to amend the list from time to time. (Aberdeenshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
Ministers already have power to amend the list of species in the schedule so primary legislation is not required. (RCVS)
(2) Certain species should be removed from the current list
A number of responders listed the species of animals that should be removed from the current list. These largely included animals that were currently farmed:
In agreement with the proposal. (East Lothian Council, Highland Council, Minches Hovawarts, individual)
The 'dangerous' tag should be removed from 'wild' animals whether or not they are 'dangerous'. (Glasgow City Council)
Should be dealt with on a case by case basis. (Stirling Council)
Animals removed from the list could be at risk. (Glasgow City Council)
Should not be removed as it could increase the trade in such animals. (The Vegetarian Society)
Animals that are now farmed (such as wild boar) should be covered by agricultural legislation. (Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Studies)
Wild boar are (or were) native to this country and still roam free in many parts of Europe. They avoid human contact and are unlikely to attack unless provoked. The emotive argument: From recent experience, the public's perception is of there being a danger from wild boar although this may in part have come about by their current definition in the Act as 'dangerous wild animals'. The ultimate decision rests with public safety, for which there would appear to be very little risk, and with the likelihood of damage by escapees, although, as a native species, it is hard to argue that they would cause any significant environmental damage. (A general point regarding wild boar - most are hybrids, and the present legislation is not clear regarding how it applies to hybrids). (Stirling Council)
While adult male ostriches can be dangerous under certain circumstances, they are perhaps, by comparison, no more so than a bull. (Stirling Council)
Ostrich. (Angus Council, Fife Council, Miller and Swann)
Buffalo. (Angus Council)
Wild boar as they are not of a greater risk to the public than other animals. Most wild boar are not truly wild as they are derived from Tamworth pigs. They are unlike the boar which is running wild around Europe. (Fife Council, Miller and Swann)
There is no evidence to suggest that wild boar pose any more of a risk to humans and other animals than any other species of livestock. (LACORS, Central Scotland Police)
There are existing domestic species that are more dangerous to the public than wild boar and ostrich. (Miller and Swann)
Dingos are a domestic dog type which had re-entered the wild. Why are they more dangerous than other canine breeds? (Minches Hovawarts)
(3) Certain species should be added to/included in the list
Responders considered that a number of specific species should be added to or included in the list:
Support the proposal that certain specific species should be added to the schedule. (Advocates for Animals)
Not opposed to further species being added. (The Vegetarian Society)
The list should include species that can be kept without a licence. (IFAW)
All wild animals. (Skye Environment Centre)
Animals which are not native to this country should be kept if there is an overwhelming need. (The Vegetarian Society)
There should be a much higher restriction on both the availability of exotic animals and the rights of the public to keep such animals, usually in very unsuitable conditions. (Lothian Cat Rescue)
Should include all exotic pets. (Animal Concern)
All 'exotic' animals should be added to the list. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
Support the addition of species to the schedule such as poisonous snakes, scorpions and dingo. (The Captive Animals' Protection Society)
All poisonous species. (ACPOS)
All poisonous snakes, spiders, and scorpions should be added to the list, along with creatures capable of inflicting serious injuries such as iguanas. (Grampian Animal Defence League)
Poisonous snakes. (individual)
All venomous creatures that could inflict injury to humans. (Scottish SPCA)
Species of venomous snakes. (The Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland)
All venomous snakes and large constricting snakes over 10 feet long. (individual)
Constrictor snakes such as pythons and boas. (Advocates for Animals)
Pythons and other constrictors. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
Large pythons, back fanged venomous snakes. (ACTA)
Certain giant snakes such as the Burmese python, which can grow in excess of 7 metres and can potentially kill an adult human. (Scottish SPCA)
Truly dangerous animals such as venomous reptiles, tigers etc. (Angus Council)
Certain breeds of dogs. Large dogs kept by people who neither have the appropriate skills, facilities or even interest to secure public safety and the welfare of animals. Often these dogs are potentially more dangerous than many of the animals listed under the Act. (ACPOS)
(4) Certain species should not be removed from the list
A number of responders noted reasons why certain species should not be removed from the list. Some regarded their removal as a retrograde step and an undesirable move, believing that such animals required specialist care. Although some responders suggested that a number of the species which were currently farmed should not be removed from the list, others considered that they should remain on it:
Strongly oppose to removing any species from the Schedule of the Act. See no clear evidence for the removal of any species from the Schedule. (The Captive Animals' Protection Society)
The removal of species and primates would be a retrograde step. (Mossburn Animal Centre)
Removal from the list could prompt a growth in ownership, which would be undesirable. (Scottish SPCA)
There is nothing in the farm animal legislation that protects either the public or the animal's welfare from the 'dangerous wild animal' viewpoint nor have any species-specific regulation in respect of ostriches or wild boar been made under the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. Animals listed in the schedule which are farmed e.g. ostrich and wild boar, continue to pose a safety risk whether kept as a pet or farmed commercially. (The Captive Animals' Protection Society, Advocates for Animals)
There is the potential for wild boar (in the same manner as pot bellied pigs) to be retained as pets giving rise to the danger of feral populations, similar to Central Europe being established. Any pigs kept as pets present a wider disease risk and as such, wild boar, should remain on the species to ensure traceability. (NFU Scotland)
Safety provisions would be required if ostriches and wild boar are removed from the list of species - not all are kept for agricultural purposes. (Scottish SPCA)
Other than farmed animals, no others should be removed from the list. (Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Studies)
The species listed for removal are all the primates which require a specialist knowledge if they are to be cared for properly. (Scottish SPCA)
Certain primates. (Advocates for Animals)
Question 6.2
The introduction of guidance was commented on by a small number of organisations, largely local authorities and enforcement bodies. They largely welcomed its introduction:
Local authorities should have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers. (East Lothian Council, Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, Advocates for Animals, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
Guidance is welcomed. (Aberdeenshire Council, Falkirk Council, Fife Council, South Ayrshire Council, North Lanarkshire Council, Stirling Council, West Lothian Council, Central Scotland Police, LACORS, Scottish SPCA, ACTA)
Only one organisation, Advocates for Animals, suggested an alternative to the use of guidance. It proposed that 'it would be better for the Minister to issue standards of modern practice, as in done under Section 9 of the 2000 Licensing Act rather than guidance'.
A small number of organisations listed the advantages which the introduction of guidance or guidelines would have on the application of The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976:
Would assist in the consistent application of the legislation. (East Lothian Council, Falkirk Council, South Ayrshire Council)
Would remedy the many problems that have occurred in the past. (Aberdeenshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police)
Organisations noted the role, character, and the ways in which the guidance should be developed:
Guidance should go alongside, rather than be part of the Act. (Central Scotland Police, LACORS)
Guidance should be clear and unambiguous to ensure that the authority does not act ultra vires. (East Ayrshire Council)
Guidance should be formatted in model standards and be species specific. (South Ayrshire Council)
Local authorities must be consulted and agree guidance. (Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police)
Guidance should be carefully drafted using appropriate expertise and is understood by all stakeholders. (PDSA)
Question 6.3
Responders had a range of views on the length of the validity of the licence. Most noted their agreement or disagreement with the proposal, though a number did not state a view. Their views are recorded under four headings:
Agree to the increase in the length of validity of the licence to 48 months, as noted in the proposal
7 organisations. (Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, South Ayrshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, The Vegetarian Society, Inverclyde Dog Training Club)
2 businesses. (Minches Hovawarts, Scotlean Pigs)
1 individual.
A number of these responders gave reasons for their decision, but also noted concerns with the proposal:
It would reduce the administration burden. However, it allows for a lot of deviation of performance to occur over a 48 month period between inspections. (Scotlean Pigs)
It will ease the bureaucratic burden on both keepers and local authorities. (Central Scotland Police, LACORS)
Is preferable to 12 months. However, it would be better to use the opportunity to bring animal licences with other licensing provisions (The Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 have licences which extend for three years). The introduction of a 48 consecutive month licence would mean that there would now be 3 different time periods for various animal welfare licences. We would suggest that the time periods for animal welfare licences are all rationalised to the one period of time. (South Ayrshire Council)
Should be used as a trial measure. (The Vegetarian Society)
The extension should be allowed as long as local authorities are able to properly undertake the work and also rigorously. (Inverclyde Dog Training Club)
Spot checks are required. (Minches Hovawarts)
(2) Agree to do away with the deadline with the current calendar year
(3) Agree to increase in the length of validity of the licence to another specified period
Reasons for decision
Would ease the administrative burden for local authorities. (East Lothian Council)
May be more effective than the current system. (The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland)
However, as proposed elsewhere in the consultation there should still be inspections every 24 months. (Scottish SPCA)
(4) Disagree or concerned with the proposal to increase in the length of validity of the licence
8 organisations. (Stirling Council, RCVS, PDSA, Vetwork UK, Grampian Animal Defence League, The Captive Animals Welfare Protection Society, Advocates for Animals, Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Studies)
5 individuals.
Licence validity should remain at one year. (Fife Council, Animal Concern, Grampian Animal Defence League, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, The Captive Animals' Welfare Protection Society, Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Studies)
A number of responders recorded their reasons for disagreeing with the proposal. These were largely expressed in terms of the welfare of the animals that would be covered by the licensing regime:
It will encourage more people to keep dangerous animals, given the seemingly loose regulation of the practice. (3 individuals)
Easing the bureaucratic burden for keepers and local authorities by inspecting every two years instead of one risks any deterioration of conditions being prolonged. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
The suggested change from yearly to 4 yearly licences 'to ease the bureaucratic burden for both keepers and local authorities' seems to overlook the purpose of licensing, which is to enable the local authority to check at regular intervals what animals of the relevant species are being kept and in what conditions. This is protection of the public and of animal welfare, not bureaucracy. Much could change from one year to the next. (RCVS)
Inspections have to be regular in order to maintain national standards of welfare and husbandry. (individual)
It could have a potentially detrimental impact on the welfare of animals and on public safety. (2 individuals)
This is likely to lead to breaches of animal welfare, public safety, omissions and neglect. (individual)
Retention of the [existing] period … would ensure welfare standards are maintained and help guard against illegal breeding or trading. (Animal Concern)
There is too much suffering in the illegal trade in exotic animals to reduce the policing available. (Vetwork UK)
This could mean that some discrepancies could be undetected for four years. PDSA would favour retaining a yearly re-inspection and every other year revalidation of licence. Ensuring sufficient resource allocation and process controls are in place would be the most appropriate action. (PDSA)
Concerned at proposal. There would need to be a clear requirement in the Act for regular inspection, i.e. at least annually. (Stirling Council)
There should be more visits, not less. (individual)
Other comments
Not all of the responders stated whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposals. Instead, they made a number of comments on the proposal to change the length of the licence. They were largely concerned with the administration of the licensing system and how it would fit into the current licensing activities of the local authorities:
This should be at the discretion of the local authority with regard to the experience of the applicant. (North Lanarkshire Council)
Increasing the duration of licences to 48 months seems an unusual figure. (North Ayrshire Council)
If the licence is changed from 12 to 48 months, keep the conditions to the annual requirement. (ACTA)
Many authorities have a combined licensing unit for all activities. At present, since they are under review by the Executive, liquor licences under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 ('the 1976 Act') last 3 years as do licences under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 ('the 1982 Act'). It may assist administration and create consistency if animal licences had a similar duration of 3 years. Otherwise local authorities can licence people to sell alcohol for only 3 years without a review, to operate taxis for only 3 years, but to keep or breed lions or other wild animals for 4 years at a time. In extending the licence duration from 12 months, some form of annual monitoring would be appropriate. This may be appropriate for some self-regulation, documented to the authority, to include insurance and also some form of welfare inspection, whether by a vet or a suitable other person. (North Ayrshire Council)
The number of Dangerous Wild Animal (DWA) licences in most authorities will be relatively few, so increasing the validity of these licences to two years (sic) instead of one, will be of no particular help to the licensing authority who have many other annual licences to issue. (Aberdeenshire Council)
Question 6.4
Some responders specifically noted that mandatory conditions should be added to all licences which require the keeper to provide evidence annually of valid public liability insurance. They had two approaches to this question:
(1) Agree to mandatory conditions to licences
12 organisations. (Aberdeenshire Council, East Lothian Council, Fife Council, Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council, South Ayrshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, PDSA, Grampian Animal Defence League, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, Catflap)
1 individual.
Agreement or disagreement is not specified
Comments on the mandatory conditions
Organisations, either local authorities or enforcement bodies, commented on aspects of the mandatory conditions that should be included in the licence:
As with other forms of licensing, it would be better to require applicants to produce evidence of such insurance at the time of making the application. Notification of births, deaths, acquisitions, disposal or escape should be made to the licensing authority. Failure to notify should be a specific offence with appropriate penalties and a duty should be imposed on vets, zoos, and other local authorities of incoming wild animals. Separate notes by vendor and purchaser to their respective local authorities should predate any transfers. (Glasgow City Council)
Keepers should provide evidence of valid public liability insurance, and should notify the local authority of changes in their collections. Keepers must maintain and provide records to the local authority stating where animals were acquired from and where, if applicable, disposal. (Scottish SPCA)
It should be an offence if the owner or keeper of any such animal fails to have the appropriate insurance cover. (North Lanarkshire Council)
The notification of births may not be practical in for example a wild boar farm with regular breeding. In recent experience, we had to concede that it is not practical for the licensee to be aware of the exact number of animals at any one time and thereby he may not necessarily be aware of any escapees other than by regularly checking the integrity of the boundary fences. (Stirling Council)
Agree that all poisonous species should be licensed and there should be a requirement for the purchaser/seller to produce the licence at the time of sale. The licence should also stipulate the numbers of animals allowed to be kept. (ACPOS)
A proviso that improvement notices could be served where standards required by the licence fall would be advantageous and also, subject to appeal, a licence could be withdrawn at anytime during its lifespan should a major non-compliance with the conditions be found. (LACORS)
Owners should also notify details of all animal movements through local authorities (could be a self-declaratory system similar to the one used for pigs). (North Lanarkshire Council)
Question 6.5
A number of responders specifically agreed to the proposal to impose restrictions on the sale of controlled animals:
18 organisations. (City of Edinburgh Council, Fife Council, Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council, Stirling Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, PDSA, Vetwork UK, Scottish SPCA, Advocates for Animals, Grampian Animal Defence League, The Vegetarian Society, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, Catflap, ACTA, NFU Scotland)
Agree to the sale of controlled dividends. (East Lothian Council)
All vendors including pet shops, should hold a valid dangerous wild animal certificate and should be prohibited from selling to unlicensed keepers. (Scottish SPCA)
Sale should be banned after a specific date. (The Captive Animals' Protection Society)
Two responders noted the advantage which the proposal, if it was adopted, would have. The Vegetarian Society believed that 'many potential new owners are unaware of the animal's social and welfare needs'. LACORS considered that 'this would overcome the current proposal whereby animals such as Bengal cats are bred and sold by unlicensed breeders to people who do not hold a DWA licence'.
Comments on the proposal
Responders made a number of comments on the broad proposal. They noted the need to have increased restrictions on the sale of these animals and the need for pet shops to be brought within the provisions of The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976:
This is covered by the Act indirectly in that animals may not be moved without local authority notification. (Stirling Council)
Wish to see increased restrictions on the sale of such creatures as many potential new owners are unaware of the animal's social and welfare needs. (The Vegetarian Society)
The sale and the purchase of dangerous wild animals requires to be better regulated. It is recommended a license has to be approved before any person can legally purchase such an animal. Controls and the requirement for stock recording and reporting to local authorities is an essential improvement to prevent the unauthorised and uncontrolled movement of dangerous animals. (City of Edinburgh Council)
Cannot believe that vendors are allowed to sell animals to an unlicensed keeper. There is a glaring loophole that you can legally sell the animals to someone without seeing proof of their licence. (Mr Bug Ltd)
If persons are to be licensed in order to privately keep dangerous wild animals in captivity, they should be prohibited from selling controlled animals to a person who is unlicensed. Such powers should extend to internet sales, private sales and also ownership transfers without charge. (Glasgow City Council)
Vendors should not be able to sell animals unless they hold a licence to do so. (individual)
Many 'inoffensive' animals such as horses now require a passport. Why not a passport for the dangerous exotic where the registered owner in the document must be 'approved' and can only transfer the creature to another 'approved' person. (individual)
A model may be the sale of televisions, whereby the supplier is responsible for advising licensing authority of a sale. (North Ayrshire Council)
Without tackling the lack of information at point of sale, there is little information available to assist licensing authorities in seeking out and identifying unlicensed animals. (North Ayrshire Council)
The Scottish SPCA has assisted several local authorities in assessing a person's ability to keep a listed species, and could continue to provide the services of inspectors with specialist knowledge. (Scottish SPCA)
Question 6.6
Responders had three viewpoints to this question. These were: (1) agreement to the proposal, (2) concern at the proposal, and (3) disagreement. A number of the responders recorded the reasons for their decisions:
(1) Agree to the proposal to require local authorities to issue licences unless they have genuine reasons not to do so, and to specify their reasons where licences are refused
13 organisations. (Aberdeenshire Council, East Lothian Council, Fife Council, Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, North Ayrshire Council, North Lanarkshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, Scottish SPCA, PDSA, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, ACTA)
Individual.
Reasons for agreement
It is usual in terms of other licensing legislation e.g. Civic Government (Scotland) Act, 1982 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1976, for the licensing authority to grant the licence unless there is a statutory ground for refusal and to provide written reasons for the decision if requested to do so. The proposed provision would therefore bring the licensing of dangerous wild animals in captivity into line with the main body of licensing law. (Glasgow City Council)
A presumption in favour of grant should cause no difficulty, though perhaps on similar lines to the 1976 Act for liquor licences, where guidance is given on the grounds of refusal in Section 17, and that unless one of these grounds is identified during the application process, an application should be granted. (North Ayrshire Council)
(2) Concerned at the proposal
Reasons for concern
(3) Disagree with proposal
Reasons for disapproval
It should not be made easier to obtain a licence to keep an exotic animal. (2 individuals)
Local authorities should be under no obligation to issue licences but should have the right to refuse the keeping of wild animals in their area if they choose. They should be able to have policies that are tighter than the current legislation. (Grampian Animal Defence League)
The suffering of the animals, the illegal trade and the cost of policing these things makes it important that a local authority can decide to make a blanket ban instead of leaving tax payers with a financial burden caused by a minority interest (that anyways frequently involves cruelty). (Vetwork UK)
Comments on the proposal
Comments were made about the licensing arrangements and conditions that should be incorporated in them, including the conditions that would constitute the reasons for refusal. A number of responders, especially local authorities, noted the need for a keeper to be competent in looking after an animal:
Local authorities should be allowed to gauge the opinion of direct neighbouring properties. (Scottish SPCA)
A proviso that improvement notices could also be served, where standards required by the licence fall, would be advantageous and also, subject to appeal, a licence could be withdrawn at anytime during its lifespan should a major non-compliance with the conditions be found. (Central Scotland Police)
Appropriate reasons for refusal could be written into the guidance. A potential keeper must provide evidence of competence to care for the species in question. (Central Scotland Police, LACORS)
The onus should be on local authorities NOT to issue a licence unless they are confident the keeper knows how to properly care for his or her pet without putting the public or the animal at risk. (Animal Concern)
The keeper should prove competence to care for each species that they intend to offer for sale. There should also be a staff training programme in place. (North Lanarkshire Council)
Local authorities refuse licences until such time as a potential keeper can demonstrate appropriate knowledge of and provisions for suitable care of the animal(s) in question, rather than have to provide reasons against licensing. Both the welfare of the animal and the safety of the public are of paramount importance, particularly with regard to dangerous wild animals. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
There should be some requirement for the person holding the DWA licence to have husbandry knowledge of the species being kept. (Aberdeenshire Council)
Prospective applicants for a licence must be able to demonstrate a competence in securing the welfare of the animal and, in the case of dangerous animals, licences should not be given to private individuals other than in exceptional circumstances where the applicant provides a valid reason for keeping the animal concerned. (Midlothian Council)
Question 6.7
This question comprised two parts, the first of which dealt with amendments to the current provisions relating to fees, and the second to the introduction of guidance to clarify the level of fees.
On the first part of the question, a small number of responders agreed to the proposal; one responder noted that it had a number of disadvantages. Responders more usually commented on the proposal, rather than stating their position.
(1) Agree to amend the current provisions relating to fees
7 organisations. (East Lothian Council, Fife Council, Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council, The Vegetarian Society, Catflap, ACTA)
1 business. (Minches Hovawarts)
Comments on the proposal
Responders, including those that did not specifically state a view, commented that the fees should be set at a uniform rate across the country, the character of the organisation that should be able to set the fees, and aspects of licensing which should be included in the fee:
The disparity of fees is silly and should be amended as soon as possible. (Minches Hovawarts)
Agree that there is a disparity with licence fees and we would welcome the introduction of a national charging scheme. (Fife Council)
There is currently a wide range of fees charged by local authorities. However, there are costs to authorities in providing dangerous wild animal licences. (Scottish SPCA)
The licence fee should be uniform throughout the country but in addition the cost should cover the costs of an independent veterinary or other inspections where required. Individuals with good knowledge of the species involved should carry out such inspections. Vets should not carry out inspections on their own clients. Licence fee income should be ring-fenced to ensure the system is properly maintained. (Animal Concern)
Licence fees should be consistent in all local authorities, but should cover regulation of the scheme itself as well as scheme costs, as detailed in the proposal. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
There should be uniformity across
all authorities with respect to fees and the manner in which the Act is interpreted and enforced. (Catflap)
Local authorities should be able to set their own fees. (Aberdeenshire Council)
The autonomy of the local authority to set its own fees must be maintained. If this is removed local authorities with large land areas adding additional travelling costs onto licensing inspections will be at a disadvantage to more urban local authorities. Guidance should be issued on setting fees taking into account costs etc, with a requirement to take cognisance of the guidance. (Central Scotland Police, LACORS)
A similar provision is including in the said Act of 1982 and, if there is to be a licensing system administered by the local authority, it would appear to be a fair and reasonable measure. Of course, such a measure may still produce a situation in which there is a wide disparity of fees being charged in different parts of the country. In some areas the level of non-compliance may be such as to increase the costs of enforcement and administration which would require to be reflected in the fees charged to all applicants. Consideration also requires to be given to funding inspection and enforcement costs over the duration of the licence. (Glasgow City Council)
After consulting with local authorities, the Executive should set the fees which could be scaled depending on the number of animals. (South Ayrshire Council)
A standard licence fee should reflect the local authority's expense. (Midlothian Council)
Licence costs will have to be high to pay for an appropriate licensing system. (Vetwork UK)
Fees should reflect the costs incurred in implementing legislation. (Falkirk Council)
Any additional cost could be passed to the licence applicant. (The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland)
Agree to amend the current provisions, provided the cost of any third party costs incurred, such as veterinary surgeons, can be recovered as part of the fees. (East Lothian Council)
(2) Disadvantages of the proposal
Both South Ayrshire Council and North Ayrshire Council believed that there should not be a standard fee set. North Ayrshire Council noted the reasons for its disagreement:
The uniqueness of each application may be lost. The keeping of a rare animal in an isolated part of North Ayrshire could feasibly require a 2 day journey and job for a specialist in such animals, where a more routine reptile kept within one of the towns could be visited by any local vet in under an hour. It may be problematic to average these locally, far less nationally. For this reason national fee levels should be avoided, though some over-riding balance between the public purse and applicants could be struck as in other legislation by requiring each authority's system to be self-financing. This would leave some discretion for authorities to set a single standard fee across their area, or assess each fee on the circumstances of the particular application. In either event, transparency would reassure the public that all fees received were used to meet processing costs, not raising general revenue.
In the second part of the question, a small number of responders agreed that guidance should be introduced to clarify the level of fees:
5 organisations. (Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, North Ayrshire Council, PDSA, ACTA)
1 individual.
Question 6.8
Responders had three viewpoints to this question. These were: (1) agreement with the proposal, (2) disagreement with the proposal (3) concern at the proposal. Each will be discussed in turn:
(1) Agree to the proposal that inspections undertaken before a licence is granted would no longer have to be undertaken by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner
Comments on the proposal
A number of organisations made a number of comments on the proposal:
The local authority must retain the option of using a veterinary surgeon or practitioner whenever it is deemed necessary and to recover any costs from the licence. It may also be necessary to define the competencies required by the inspectors. (East Lothian Council)
A list of approved inspectors would be of assistance. (Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council)
Responders also suggested the character of the inspectors that could undertake the inspection work. An individual suggested a zoo veterinary surgeon, and ACTA suggested that a fully qualified zoo veterinary surgeon should undertake all inspections. Fife Council noted that there should be 'a pool of competent veterinary surgeons or other suitably qualified inspectors to carry out the inspections to provide consistency of approach throughout the country'.
(2) Disagree with the proposal
7 organisations. (Fife Council, Glasgow City Council, South Ayrshire Council, The Captive Animals' Protection Society, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, ACTA, Vetwork UK)
4 individuals.
Reasons for disagreement
These organisations recorded a range of reasons why they disagreed with the proposals. They stated that it was important that inspection should be undertaken, and that there should be no weakening of the current arrangements. They did not think that zoo keepers were appropriate figures to undertake the inspection work:
A qualified expert should carry inspections out at least once a year and the costs of such inspections should be covered in the licence fee. (The Captive Animals' Protection Society)
Should be a fully qualified vet, as currently required. (individual)
Veterinary surgeon. (Fife Council)
There should be no weakening of the regulations on animal inspections and I do not believe a zoo keeper is necessarily qualified or sufficiently impartial to do so. (individual)
We would like to see fully qualified zoo veterinary surgeons undertake all inspections (ACTA)
It is felt that establishing competence and independence of any other inspector would increase the bureaucracy. At present, most local authorities have veterinary surgeons allied to their authority who have a wealth of knowledge and experience. (South Ayrshire Council)
There is an issue in relation to the competence of inspectors and it is considered that only 'competent' and trained veterinary surgeons are appropriate for this task. Obtaining inspectors from other groups could give rise to serious problems in relation to competence and independence. (Glasgow City Council)
Do not believe that zookeepers would be truly independent inspectors and oppose the proposal that inspections no longer be carried out by veterinary surgeons or practitioners. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
The more we know about animal behaviour and animal suffering, the more important it becomes that we raise the standards of inspection, not lower them. All inspectors should have a detailed knowledge of the species involved, as well as law etc. Nor should inspectors only come from those already in favour of captivity (e.g. zoo keepers). (Vetwork UK)
(3) Concerned at the proposal
Reasons for concern
We have reservations regarding the possible removal of the requirement for veterinary inspections - it would be necessary to be very clear as to the suitability of others. (Stirling Council)
The consultation paper proposes amending Section 1(5) of the Act so as to allow premises to be inspected by a competent and independent person other than a veterinary surgeon before a licence is granted. RCVS recognises that there are persons other than veterinary surgeons who are qualified to assess arrangements for the housing and care of wild animals in captivity, but a simple requirement for competence and independence would offer no guarantee that inspectors had real expertise in this specialised area. An inspection by a veterinary surgeon is also desirable before a licence for existing premises is renewed, so that the health and welfare of the animals already in place can be assessed. (RCVS)
There would need to be safeguards to stop rogue individuals from forming an association and then claiming to inspect each other's premises. A nationally recognised professional qualification should be held rather than the vague terms used of 'competent and independent'. (North Ayrshire Council)
Zoo keepers are a lot harder to come by than veterinarians and the increased costs would have to be charged to the applicant. (Dumfries and Galloway Council)
Most qualified vets in the United Kingdom do not have much lay experience in dealing with exotic wild animals. (individual)
There is a need to consider whether there will be sufficient numbers of new properly qualified inspectors to inspect them. (individual)
General comments on the proposal
Inspectors should be fully independent. Zoo keepers should not be used as they may be biased. They should be specifically employed for the purpose of belonging to an independent organisation such as the Scottish SPCA. Inspections should be carried out annually and be unannounced. (Grampian Animal Defence League)
Local authorities should be able to appoint outside persons with the appropriate knowledge as inspectors, and the Society would be willing to engage in this process. (Scottish SPCA)
Inspection should be undertaken by at least two inspectors, one of whom could be a veterinary surgeon, especially if the frequency of inspection was reducing. (individual)
It is important that veterinary surgeons or practitioners should carry out inspections accompanied by local authority staff. (Midlothian Council)
Inspections by 'competent and independent' non veterinary surgeons would have to be clarified. At present, vets undergo training on riding establishments before they can inspect such establishments, and are put on a list of approved inspectors. Perhaps such a system could be put into place, with each person's specialist species. Publication of a list of 'Approved Inspectors' would also be advantageous as would a list of experts in certain fields who could be asked for technical advice in relation to certain species. (Central Scotland Police, LACORS)
The people concerned should have the relevant qualifications and experience necessary to validate premises for the sake of the animals concerned. (individual)
If vets were no longer used for this function, the assessors would need to have a high level of competence, independence and understanding. Some from the veterinary profession would not favour inspections performed by a non-veterinarian, as uncertainty of the methods of assessing the competency of individuals would exist. Additionally, considerable difficulties would exist in making sure that they were uniform and consistent across the country. (PDSA)
Lack of appropriate training of enforcement officers encourages this attitude regarding the high level of non-compliance. (North Lanarkshire Council)
Frequency of the inspection
A small number of responders commented on the frequency at which inspection should be undertaken. One organisation (RCVS), and an individual, disagreed that the frequency of inspection should be increased to two years. A further six organisations (Fife Council, Stirling Council, Central Scotland Police, The Captive Animals' Protection Society, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, and ACTA) and an individual considered that the frequency of inspection should be retained at one year. Two organisations recorded why they believed that this period should not be extended. Stirling Council suggested that 'an annual inspection should be the minimum - a lot can happen in two years'. The RCVS stated that 'the proposed reduction in the frequency of inspections is a step in the wrong direction. The consultation paper suggests that the local authority might be given power to carry out more frequent inspection if it had good reason, but in a year when there was no inspection the authority might not find out that there were grounds for concern'. West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies believed that this inspection
'should not be at the same time as licence renewal, but at a different point in the year, as conditions particularly for exotic animals can deteriorate within a short period of time'.
Question 6.9
Responders expressed one of two viewpoints at the proposal to increase powers of entry to allow local authorities to enter premises where they have good reason to believe animals were being kept without a licence. They either: (1) agreed to the proposal, (2) were concerned at the proposal. Each will be discussed in turn:
(1) Responders agreed to the proposal
21 organisations. (Aberdeenshire Council, East Ayrshire Council, East Lothian Council, Highland Council, Fife Council, North Lanarkshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, Scottish SPCA, Advocates for Animals, Grampian Animal Defence League, The Captive Animals' Protection Society, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, The Vegetarian Society, Cats Protection, Perthshire Canine Club, Scottish Utility Breeds Club, ACTA, Vetwork UK, PDSA, NFU Scotland)
5 individuals.
Comments on the proposal
A number of these responders commented on the proposals. They stated the need to protect an animal and expressed the scope of the increased power.
The animal concerned should be protected while an appeal takes place. (The Vegetarian Society)
There is need to clarify the wording of 'increased power' - who and for what reason? (ACTA)
Feel that there may be an increase of power to enable anyone to enter private premises without a warrant and would oppose this. (Perthshire Canine Club)
Due to the nature of some of the animals listed, the police or local authorities should be able to enter premises under warrant, along with any other person they deem necessary, to seize and detain any unlicensed animal. (Scottish SPCA)
(2) Concerned at the proposal
Question 6.10
Responders had three viewpoints on the issue which would give keepers the right of appeal against seizure and disposal of their animals. They: (1) agreed to the proposal, (2) were not sure about the proposal and (3) disagreed with the proposal. Each of these viewpoints will be discussed in turn:
(1) Agree to give keepers a right of appeal against seizure
11 organisations. (Aberdeenshire Council, East Lothian Council, Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, PDSA, Vetwork UK, Catflap, Grampian Animal Defence League, ACTA)
1 business. (Minches Hovawarts)
1 individual.
(2) Not sure about the issue
(3) Disagree with the proposal
Comments on the proposal
A number of responders commented on the ways in which the proposal should operate. They noted difficulties and issues in its operation. These included the holding of animals during a period of appeal:
A right of appeal against seizure of animals should be granted to give effect to the ECHR. However, local authorities (including veterinary or other inspectors acting on their behalf) should be given powers to serve a 'notice of improvement'. A temporary licence could also be granted subject to remedial works being carried out within a set time scale. This should obviate the need for the seizure of animals. Local authorities are unlikely to have accommodation and staffing available to look after these seized animals, so other routes should be investigated first. If seizure is warranted, recovery of costs by the local authority should be included in the Act. All timescales for the appeal against any proceedings must be short in order that unnecessary costs are not incurred by all parties involved. (Aberdeenshire Council, Central Scotland Police, LACORS)
It is not clear what would happen to the animals during the period of appeal. The usual practice in terms of licensing law is that the licence holder is allowed to continue his activity pending appeal against a decision to refuse the renewal of a licence or to suspend the licence. Such appeals can last for over a year. The care of the animal during the appeal process must be a matter of concern and it is suggested that the animal must be removed during the appeal period. (Glasgow City Council)
Animals seized should be 'held' until appeal results are heard. (Minches Hovawarts)
There will be financial and welfare situations to contend with, if the animals have to be kept, pending appeal. To facilitate the right of natural justice, we would like to have the appeals heard by a Sheriff within 24 hours. (South Ayrshire Council)
There should be a short timescale for appeal. (Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council)
Every attempt should be made to avoid destroying any confiscated animals; they should be sent to a sanctuary or re-homed wherever possible. (Grampian Animal Defence League)
Section 4(1) of The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 gives the local authority power to seize an animal and either retain it or destroy it or otherwise dispose of it. The Faculty of Advocates considers that 'otherwise dispose of it' should perhaps be amplified to include disposal to a new keeper. Further, local authorities should be required to find a new keeper for any animal seized by them, if appropriate, before being entitled to destroy the animal. (Faculty of Advocates)
Selling or otherwise disposing of licensed animals should only be to another licensed keeper and failure to do so should be an offence. (Aberdeenshire Council)
Where an animal is to be disposed of, then every effort must be made to rehome it or bring in someone more competent to control the premises. (individual)
Arrangements should also be put in place to enable the recovery of costs from the owner should the appeal be unsuccessful. (Glasgow City Council)
Need for clear guidance and standards that are widely understood and correctly interpreted are essential. (PDSA)
Question 6.11
Only a small number of responders stated their viewpoint to the proposal to clarify or amend the 72 hour rule. They stated whether they agreed or disagreed with it.
(1) Agree to the clarification or amendment to the 72 hour rule
(2) Disagree with the proposal
This responder, who worked with dangerous wild animals, believed that 'better clarification is needed. Have regularly used this rule. Wherever DWA animals are taken away from premises the local authority is notified in writing; that local authority should then notify the local authority where they are being moved to. Notify the local authority ourselves. This has worked very successfully since the introduction of the licence. We can supply trained wild animals for film, TV, stills photography and live events.' (individual)
Comments on the proposal
A greater number of responders commented on aspects of the proposal. They stated how the 72 hour rule should be clarified or amended, the conditions under which the rule could be used, conditions that should be imposed when an animal is moved. They also recorded their general concern about the movement of dangerous wild animals from one premises to another:
There is a risk for reduced animal welfare and disease risks. (Scotlean Pigs)
Moving such animals, which will inevitably involve changes in temperature, humidity etc, can have a detrimental effect on reptiles. Listed mammals will also suffer the additional stress of being caught, confined and transported. The moving of a listed animal outside its licensed enclosure also increases the risk to the public. (Scottish SPCA)
Animals should not be moved unless for veterinary purposes. (Scottish SPCA, Grampian Animal Defence League, The Captive Animals' Protection Society, individual)
Should only be moved for rehoming. (Grampian Animal Defence League)
A definite no to animals to be moved for film, TV studio and especially fair purposes. (individual)
The 72 hour rule should be removed for film, TV and media animals - however as we are neither zoo nor circus we feel we should have our own filming animal licence under Defra administration to cover all species of non-human vertebrate, in-vertebrate, cephalopod and crustacean. (ACTA)
No misunderstanding must be left possible on the 72 hour rule. (Cat Action Trust)
Should be covered in the licence conditions. (East Lothian Council, Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council, Stirling Council)
The 72 hour rule might be very difficult to enforce in remote areas if the destination was not nearby. (individual)
The licence conditions seem appropriate. Close inter-authority working is required in areas of doubt. (Perth and Kinross Council)
At the moment all licensed animals require to be insured and if animals are to be moved temporarily, their insurance must extend beyond the licensed premises. (Scottish SPCA)
Any movement of animals within the 72 hour rule should enforce all conditions applicable to fully licensed premises. Safety and welfare must be paramount throughout this time. (individual)
Experience of the 72 hour rule is that it serves a business purpose and potentially could result in animals spending up to 72 hours in unlicensed and potentially unsafe premises. Prior notification works well provided adequate notice is given to the visiting Local Authority. (City of Edinburgh Council)
Animals should be kept in licensed premises when moved from one licensed premises to another. (PDSA)
Licence holders should not be permitted to move animals to other premises unless they can provide confirmation to the licensing authority that such premises are licensed or otherwise adequate for the keeping of the animal in question. It should be the responsibility of the licence holder to obtain the appropriate certification from the licensing authority in whose area the other premises are located. Premises should be defined to include vehicles and arrangements put in place to cover the period of transit and also 'rendezvous' transfer of animals. (Glasgow City Council)
The current 72 hour rule is sensible in that animals kept on site for longer will require perhaps more accommodation. Whilst a registered trainer would be expected to know and allow for this, an authority might wish to satisfy its tax payers that if someone is keeping dangerous animals in the area that their safety and welfare has been considered. On balance we support the 72 hour rule. (PAWSI)
Keepers should make an application to vary their licence conditions in order to move animals to premises outside its agreed boundary, and would suggest that 72 hours outwith licensed and therefore suitable premises is not the best welfare interests of the animal. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
The 72 hour rule is a recipe for disaster. If someone wants to take a dangerous animal on a trip then, just as a publican must apply for an extension to a drinks licence, the keeper should apply for an extension or variation to their keeper's licence and satisfy the issuing authorities (if the animal is to be taken to another council's jurisdiction a local temporary licence should be required) that all public safety and animal welfare precautions will be taken. (Animal Concern)
Question 6.12
Responders noted either their agreement to the proposal on the recovery of costs arising from escapes or offered comments on it.
Agree to proposal on the recovery of costs arising from escapes
13 organisations. (City of Edinburgh Council, East Lothian Council, Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, North Lanarkshire Council, South Ayrshire Council, Stirling Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, Grampian Animal Defence League, The Vegetarian Society, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, ACTA)
2 individuals.
Comments on the proposal
These responders commented on the need to ensure the responsibility for an escapee, ways for setting fees, ways in which an escaped animal should be recovered and difficulties of ascertaining ownership of an escapee:
Animals should be recovered dead or alive, as an escaped dangerous animal may need to be shot on grounds of public safety. (PAWSI)
It should be made very clear that it is the licensee's responsibility to recapture any escapees. (Stirling Council)
Costs should also be paid if the animal has to be pursued by the police and possibly humanely destroyed by a vet. (individual)
Recovery of costs should include powers to recover boarding and related costs. (Glasgow City Council)
Often no one will know who owns an escaped wild or dangerous animal. (Vetwork UK)
« Previous | Contents | Next »