« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT 'PROPOSALS TO REVISE EXISTING ANIMAL WELFARE LEGISLATION'
(18) Tethering of horses
Paragraph 44 of the consultation document stated: It has been suggested that some horses are tethered in situations which is likely to cause them suffering. We believe that it is appropriate to issue a statutory code of practice which would provide guidance on the tethering of all equines. (18.1) Would this be sufficient or (18.2) do you believe that specific regulations are required?
Overview
55 responses were received. Responders included 7 equine organisations; 4 canine organisations; 1 veterinary association; 8 local authorities and their representative organisation, LACORS; 1 police force, and a range of welfare organisations and sanctuaries; 12 individuals also commented.
Background
Responders made a number of comments about the practice of tethering. The Scottish SPCA noted that the practice was 'fairly rare' in Scotland. A further individual observed that it 'was less commonly seen in Scotland' and another had not seen the practice in the country. Others were aware that in England it was associated with gypsies and travellers (PAWSI, Union of Country Sports Workers, 2 individuals). One organisation, Union of Country Sports Workers, thought that a prohibition on the practice was discriminatory against gypsies and travellers. A small number of responders were aware that the provisions of The Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 applied in England and Wales, though not in Scotland. However, NEWC suggested that this legislation was problematic as 'The Act, supported by various non statutory Codes of Practice, is ineffective because it is rarely enforced nor are Codes of Practice followed by those who choose to tether horses'.
A number of responders considered whether tethering should be permitted to be undertaken. They recognised that there was a link between the practice and horse welfare: It:
Should only be allowed for short periods for example at shows, in yards prior to riding out or treatment by farriers or vets. (Animal Concern, British Horse Society, 2 individuals)
Should only be allowed when being managed for stable maintenance. (Munlochy Animal Aid)
Supervised tethering may be suitable in certain circumstances but unsuitable tethering may cause injury to an animal and should be banned. (individual)
Tethering that causes or is likely to cause unnecessary suffering should be made a specific offence. (ILPH, Grampian Animal Defence League)
Should not be permitted and should be abolished. (Mossburn Animal Sanctuary, Scottish Kennel Club)
Responses to the proposal
The responses to (18.1) and (18.2) will be dealt with together. A total of 45 of the responders specifically stated how the tethering of horses could be appropriately dealt with; the remaining ones commented on aspects of the proposals. Responders suggested a number of options which they believed to be the most appropriate way forward. These were: (1) a code of practice, (2) specific regulations, (3) legislation, (4) specific guidance, (5) licence, (6) a general welfare offence. It is clear from these options that the animal welfare organisations generally opted for the more stringent options, while the equine organisations favoured a code of practice. Each of these options will be discussed in turn:
(1) A code of practice
16 organisations. (Aberdeenshire Council, East Lothian Council, Glasgow City Council, Perth and Kinross Council, West Lothian Council, The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland, Scottish Equestrian Association, Trekking and Riding Society of Scotland, Home of Rest for Horses, British Horse Society, NEWC, ILPH, BVA Scottish Branch, Dogs Trust, Avon (Lanarkshire) Dog Agility Club, Inverclyde Dog Training Club)
1 business. (Scotlean Pigs)
4 individuals.
(2) Specific regulations
6 organisations. (East Ayrshire Council, Scottish Kennel Club, The Captive Animals' Protection Society, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, Lothian Cat Rescue, Cat Action Trust)
6 individuals.
(3) Legislation
(4) Specific guidance
4 organisations. (East Ayrshire Council, LACORS, Central Scotland Police, Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland)
1 business. (Minches Hovawarts)
(5) Licence
(6) General welfare offence
Reasons for the options
A small number of organisations suggested their reasons for their options. Those that suggested the need for the more stringent options considered that a code of practice would be insufficient. Two responders (Scottish Kennel Club, individual) suggested that a code would be insufficient and would not be followed or 'would not work', or be 'effective' or 'suitable'. Another responder, West Lothian Animal Rights and Veggies, did not think that it would go 'far enough to discourage inappropriate tethering of horses'. Two enforcement organisations, Central Scotland Police and LACORS, believed that 'specific guidance on tethering horses would be helpful backed up by an obligation to take cognisance of the guidance'. One organisation, Advocates for Animals, considered that legislation should be introduced as it was available in England and Wales.
The code of practice and conditions that should be included
A small number of responders noted the conditions that should be included in the code of practice and how these should be developed:
A code of practice for tethering horses, mules, and asses has been produced by the National Equine Welfare Committee and the RSPCA. (individual)
The code of practice should be produced on the lines of this Code of Practice. (NEWC). (Scottish SPCA).
The NEWC Code of Practice includes advice on choosing the site, type of tether, age and condition of the horse, clean water, food, frequency of inspection, changing the site, the law. (individual) A number of other responders also suggested conditions noted in this code (The Brittany Club of Great Britain, Animal Concern, ILPH) and the need to define minimum standards for types and lengths of tethers, methods of tether and monitoring, (Animal Concern, British Horse Society, ILPH), the need to trace the person responsible for a horse (Animal Concern, individual), ensure that where tethering was used, it was undertaken in a responsible manner and did not compromise the welfare of an animal (Scottish SPCA), the need to define tethering, assess the suitability of the equine, the area to which the tethered equine has access, exercise, supervision, identification and veterinary treatment (ILPH).
Licensing authorities should have sufficient powers to seize and confiscate horses that were incorrectly tethered. (NEWC)
It should be a criminal offence to tether a horse on land without the landowner's written permission. (NEWC)
The Code should be formulated by the Scottish Equestrian Association. (Trekking and Riding Society of Scotland)
Extension of the provisions relating to the tethering of other species of animals
Responders assessed whether there was a need to apply the proposals to a wider range of species of animals. Eight responders suggested that they should be extended to cover a wider range of species. The Scottish SPCA pointed out that other species, especially dogs and birds of prey, were also tethered and that complaints about abandoned animals often recorded that an animal was tethered. The Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland had developed codes of practice which covered the tethering of birds of prey. Responders suggested the range of species that should also be included in a code of practice:
All animals. (BVA Scottish Branch, Advocates for Animals, Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences, individual)
Dogs. (BVA Scottish Branch, Dogs Trust, 2 individuals)
Goats. (BVA Scottish Branch, Mossburn Animal Sanctuary, Scottish Centre for Animal Welfare Sciences)
Birds of prey. (Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, Animal Concern)
Donkeys. (BVA Scottish Branch)
Cattle. (BVA Scottish Branch, individual)
« Previous | Contents | Next »