« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 'PROPOSALS TO REVISE EXISTING ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION'
(13)
The welfare of captive pheasants that are being bred for sport shooting
Paragraph 35 of the consultation document stated: Farmed birds, primarily reared for consumption are subject to the provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and associated welfare codes. However, game birds for sport shooting are not subject to the same provisions. There has been some recent concern about the welfare of game birds, it would seem appropriate to make the industry subject to similar provisions as those in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. This would give Ministers the power to introduce a statutory code of practice which would remove the apparent anomaly between birds reared for food and those primarily reared for sport shooting.
36. Do you think that this is the most appropriate way forward?
Overview
66 responses were received on this subject. Responders included 11 agricultural, countryside and shooting organisations; 12 local authorities and their representative body, LACORS; 7 welfare organisations; 3 veterinary organisations; 16 individuals also responded.
Comments on the proposals
Responders gave a number of views on this subject. They ranged from broad agreement to the proposal and agreement that there should be regulation of game birds for sport shooting to disagreement with the proposals. Some also suggested that the rearing of captive pheasants for sport should be banned. Their responses are recorded under the following headings:
(1) A statutory code is the best way forward
18 organisations. (City of Edinburgh Council, East Ayrshire Council, East Lothian Council, Falkirk Council, Perth and Kinross Council, Game Farmers' Association, BASC Scotland, Union of Country Sports Workers, Scottish Countryside Alliance, South of Scotland Wildlife Hospital, RCVS, Vetwork UK (but also wants the practice banned), The Vegetarian Society, Cat Action Trust, Lothian Cat Rescue, Inverclyde Dog Training Club, National Working Terrier Federation, Scottish Agricultural College)
2 business. (Minches Hovawarts, Scotlean Pigs)
5 individuals.
(2) Captive pheasants bred for sport shooting should be subject to the same provisions that exist in the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968
(3) Captive pheasants bred for sport shooting should be given the same standard of welfare as other farmed animals or other animals
7 organisations (Stirling Council, Scottish Kennel Club, League Against Cruel Sports, IFAW, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences, NFU Scotland)
1 individual.
(4) Captive pheasants bred for sport shooting should be given protection/legislation
(5) A statutory code should be introduced, but only to cover part of the rearing process
(6) The activity should be licensed
(7) Do not agree that a statutory code of practice is the best way forward
(8) A statutory code is insufficient
(9) Present provisions are adequate
(10) Not aware of any welfare problems in this area
(11) The rearing of captive pheasants for sport shooting should be banned
(12) No stated agreement, but commented on aspects of the breeding of captive pheasants for sport shooting
7 organisations. (Scottish SPCA, Glasgow City Council, West Lothian Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, The Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland, Avon (Lanarkshire) Dog Agility Club)
1 individual.
Reasons why controls should be placed on the welfare of captive pheasants bred for sport shooting
Responders noted the reasons why they considered that controls should be placed on the welfare of captive pheasants bred for sport shooting. This included the importance of the sport shooting industry to the national and local economies, the business status of the activity, the need to ensure the welfare of the birds, that they have consistent welfare standards with all 'farmed' animals, and their health standards are maintained:
High animal welfare standards are imperative to game farmers as the object is to release a fit and healthy bird, well adapted to life in the wild. Sport shooting is a very significant activity in rural Scotland. There are more than 40,000 participants who generate economic activity worth in excess of £78 million per annum. Most reared game production is small in scale and highly seasonal, with activity being concentrated into just 5 months of the year, and birds being released from captivity into the wild at 10-12 weeks of age. Most major game farmers are members of the Game Farmers' Association, but many small producers rear game birds in association with game-keeping or other estate management activities. The industry is a significant component of the rural economy and would not survive without high standards of animal welfare. (Scottish Countryside Alliance)
Sport shooting in most estates will be classed as a business activity and also provides income. (Perth and Kinross Council)
There has been recent concern about the welfare of game birds. (BASC Scotland)
Bred to be Wild has uncovered welfare concerns on the rearing of pheasants for sport shooting. (League Against Cruel Sports)
Aware of both health and welfare problems affecting game birds bred and reared for the purpose of sport shooting. (Scottish Agricultural College)
The welfare standards for all 'farmed' animals should be consistent. (Stirling Council)
All birds raised in captivity, regardless of their eventual outcome, should be provided with adequate care. (IFAW)
The production of these birds amounts to livestock farming. (RCVS)
Welfare standards should prevent the battery farming of pheasants. (League Against Cruel Sports)
The current practices within this area are inconsistent. Legislation should be introduced to improve these birds. (WAG)
It is unacceptable for there to be no power available. (Advocates for Animals)
It would be sensible to remove this anomaly in the legislation. (Macaulay Institute)
Ministers should have power to make binding regulations in respect of pheasants as they already have the power to make regulations in respect for poultry farming for meat. (Advocates for Animals)
There should be no anomalies in the provision of welfare between birds reared for food and birds reared for 'sport shooting'. (Cat Action Trust 1977)
It is not enough to give pheasants 'similar' protection to that which farmed birds received in the 1968 Act. They should receive the same provisions, or clear justification given for any discrepancy. (League Against Cruel Sports)
Accepts that game birds reared for sport shooting do generally enter the food chain and as such it would be appropriate for game birds to be subject to similar provisions to those applicable to farmed birds reared for consumption. (NFU Scotland)
To maintain health standards to avoid problems with disease such as salmonella getting into the food chain. (Animal Concern)
Reasons why current practices are adequate
Responders considered why the current welfare practices for captive pheasants bred for sporting purposes were adequate. They suggested that the industry already had a code of practice and the birds had a higher level of husbandry than other types of birds reared in captivity:
The present provision for pheasants, both those reared for consumption and those reared for sport shooting, are adequate. (The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland)
Do not believe that any changes are required to current practices which are governed by Codes of Practice within the industry. (Scottish Association for Country Sports Workers)
Do not see why the rearing of 'game birds' should be singled out from other birds. Game birds are probably better looked after than many other birds, as the keeper's livelihood will depend upon their good husbandry, whereas birds of prey sometime take a long time to kill their prey. (individual)
Generally the welfare of these birds is of prime concern to the gamekeeper who is rearing them. Surely they are looked after better than battery hens. (individual)
The relationship between the rearing of pheasants for sport shooting and commercial poultry rearing and farming
The proposals noted that captive pheasants could be brought under the same provisions as those for farmed birds. In response, a number of responders explored the relationship between the rearing of pheasants and commercial poultry. They pointed out that they did not have comparable welfare and husbandry systems and as a result, pheasants should not be regarded as livestock:
Birds reared for shooting have to be healthy, fit and well adapted to the wild. Rearing systems have been specifically designed for the short-time requirements of game birds, from day old chicks up to 6 weeks of age when they are released. To try and draw parallels between the requirements for commercial poultry operators and birds reared for shooting is totally inappropriate. (Union of Country Sports Workers)
This industry should not be subject to the similar provisions as in agriculture. Game birds are raised completely differently to farmed birds, and react differently to the same stimuli. (The Brittany Club of Great Britain)
Do not believe that free-flying game birds should continue to be regarded as livestock, and consequently fall under the statutory code of practice, just because they could be regarded as 'managed or dependent upon man'. There may be some dependence on man through provision of supplementary food, additional to what birds would find for themselves in the wild. The provision of this food, on a regular basis, does not mean that they should be regarded as livestock nor does the provision of food through the winter and spring months for game birds mean that such game birds should be classified as livestock, and therefore falling under a statutory code of practice. An additional complexity is introduced by the fact that released game birds integrate with naturally occurring, wild populations and it is virtually impossible to distinguish between those birds that have been released and those that are wild. (BASC Scotland)
Issues to be considered when introducing a code of practice and/or regulation
Responders suggested a number of issues which should be considered when introducing a code of practice and/or regulations. These included the need to change definitions in The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, inspection and enforcement of the legislation. One responder also suggested that the scope of the legislative review could be expanded:
The removal of the anomaly would require a change in the definition of the Act. (Central Scotland Police, LACORS)
Inspection and enforcement could be difficult given the nature of the sport and the type of ground involved which tends to be classed as 'rough'. (East Ayrshire Council)
The Minister could specify that a code of practice should apply to all animals reared for shooting purposes. (Central Scotland Police)
The review of legislation could usefully be widened to include other types of game and matters such as licensing fees which have not kept pace with current values. (Midlothian Council)
Difficulties in developing and introducing a code of practice or a regulation
Responders suggested a number of difficulties which would arise in developing a code of practice or a regulation. They believed that the provisions would be not be practicable or satisfactory and that legislation would be unenforceable:
A statutory code of practice would not ensure that welfare requirements were adhered to and would propose compulsory regulations as with other captive bred birds. (West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies)
The welfare interests of reared game birds may not be served if they were subject to the same provisions as the 1968 Act. (Scottish Rural Property and Business Association).
Strengthening the legislation relating to game birds so that they are brought under similar provisions as those of farmed birds may prove to be unenforceable due to the nature of the activity. (West Lothian Council)
The extent and nature of the code of practice
A number of comments were made about the extent and the nature of the code of practice that could be introduced. These noted the need to involve the industry in the development of a code and suggested ways in which this could be developed (e.g. from existing codes used in the industry). They considered the character of the codes, such as the extent of their application throughout Britain and the aspects of pheasant rearing that should be covered, including practices that should be restricted, banned or regulated:
Expect industry involvement in any planned introduction of a statutory code to ensure that it is practical and will not significantly disadvantage those currently rearing game birds or impact on the significant wider economic benefits generated from sport shooting. (NFU Scotland)
It is essential that the detail of any code is practical and realistic. (Game Farmers' Association)
Game bird production is subject to codes of practice issued by governing bodies. The
Code of Good Game Rearing Practice was published in 1994 and covers issues such as hygiene, disease, transport, stocking rates, housing, temperature and ventilation and controlling aggressive behaviour. (Scottish Countryside Alliance)
A more detailed
Code has since been published by the Game Farmers' Association covering husbandry and welfare, law, certification and record keeping. It is fully supported by commercial game farmers. (Scottish Countryside Alliance)
The Game Farmers' Association
Code of Practice from 1999 strikes a good balance between animal welfare and practicability. It is based very closely on the existing Government approved codes for other sectors. It is well regarded by the veterinary profession and has already been accepted (via its inclusion in the
Code of Good Shooting Practice) as the industry standard throughout the United Kingdom. The GFA
Code should be used as the basis of any forthcoming statutory code for game rearing in Scotland. (Game Farmers' Association)
The code of practice should be based on the already existing code of practice of the Game Farmers' Association which is currently being amended. (BASC Scotland)
Support the Game Farmers' Association and National Gamekeepers Association
Code of Practice. (Union of Country Sports Workers, Scottish Countryside Alliance, National Working Terrier Federation)
Welcome the wider endorsement of the Game Farmers' Association
Code of Practice - particularly by the Scottish Executive - and adoption across the entire game production industry, including the smaller producers. (Scottish Countryside Alliance)
The Game Farmers' Association code addresses the majority of welfare issues in respect of game birds. (BASC Scotland)
Need to consider the question of when reared game should cease to be the subject of the code. (Game Farmers' Association, BASC Scotland)
Regulations must start at the hatchery stage and govern the treatment of the birds within the breeding sheds, rearing pens and release enclosures. (Advocates for Animals)
A code should be developed for reared game birds to the point of release only. Thereafter, voluntary codes, such as the existing
Code of Good Shooting Practice, fully account for the welfare of such quarry species. (Scottish Rural Property and Business Association).
Under other legislation at present, the time when the bird liberates itself by leaving the release pen is taken as the cut off point. This applies to the Theft Act (game birds in pens are regarded by the courts as property and can be stolen; game birds outside pens are wild and cannot be stolen, only poached). A similar demarcation is to be found in the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Game Acts. (Game Farmers' Association)
The transition should only occur after pheasants and partridges have been introduced to release pens in the summer months and at a point in time when individual birds leave the release pen willingly and unaided. We accept that they may indeed return to the release pen. However, their presence or the presence of free-flying birds in or around a release pen should not constitute their continued classification as livestock. Consequently, even for individual release pens there will not be one specific date when all the birds using that pen will be regarded as having left the classification of livestock and entered the classification of wild birds. This will be a gradual process. (BASC Scotland)
The Bill should cover the welfare of pheasants once they have been released from rearing pens, as those birds cannot be considered wild after release. Released pheasants cannot strictly be classified as wild (under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) or farmed (under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968). Released pheasants currently receive none of the protection afforded to birds covered by these Acts. (League Against Cruel Sports)
There is a problem with applying the proposed Bill to game birds after release by making them livestock. It would be impossible to check each bird daily, as is required of livestock. It is impossible to know whose bird was which (when released they cease to be property). There would be a real problem in relation to legal liability e.g. for example a road accident was caused by a bird. The time of release as a cut off point is both logical and practical. (Game Farmers' Association)
At the time of release the animals (including game birds) must be fit and able to survive in the wild. There would be no point at all in releasing game birds were they not fit and able to survive. (Game Farmers' Association)
Bits and de-beaking are used as a last resort to prevent suffering and do not deter or interfere with their ability to eat or drink and there are no lasting side effects. (Scottish Gamekeepers Association)
The practice of 'bitting' (removable 'bits' clipped on the nostrils and passing between the upper and lower beaks for the prevention of feather pecking) is necessary and should be done prophylactically rather than wait until the damage has been done. Bits are normally applied at three weeks and removed at release. Not all birds will feather peck but most will and the UCSW believes that prevention is better than cure. (Union of Country Sports Workers)
The use of bits is necessary in many situations to avoid feather pecking which can seriously compromise the welfare of young game birds. Spectacles should continue to be available but only when the spectacles themselves are not of a type that pierces the nasal septum. (BASC Scotland)
The use of bits and specs is time consuming and expensive and game rearers do not use them lightly. They are used to prevent potentially very serious welfare problems of feather pecking and cannibalism
before they occur. It is vital that the use of these techniques in accordance with the terms of the GFA Code, is retained. (Game Farmers' Association)
Pinioning, brailing, debeaking and use of spectacles or blinkers on game birds should not be used on birds kept in rearing pens. (Scottish SPCA)
Regulations should prohibit de-beaking and the use of bits and spectacles. (Advocates for Animals, League Against cruel Sports)
The codes of practice should be reviewed with regard to drugs prescribed for pheasants. (League Against Cruel Sports)
« Previous | Contents | Next »