The SHG response to the Breeding of Dogs Consultation
1.
 x The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) is an organisation which was originally set up to provide support and legal advice to people being investigated or prosecuted by the RSPCA.
2.
   We are increasingly being consulted on other aspects of animal legislation, including issues relating to dog breeding and the actions of local authorities.  This puts us in a unique position of hearing how legislation affects individual dog owners and breeders, and their fears and concerns.
3.
   The SHG is concerned that the inevitable effect of more stringent regulations will be to reduce the number of people prepared to keep and breed dogs.
4.
   The SHG believes that this legislation is so badly worded and so patently unfair that it will put many responsible breeders in breach of it by default.   
5.
   As a principle, the SHG does not believe that licensing and inspection is the most cost effective way to improve animal welfare.  This legislation will inevitably push the price of puppies higher as breeders attempt to recover their costs.   It will thus make breeding even more lucrative and attractive to those who to fail to register.
6.
   The SHG has been campaigning for an animal NHS since 1990.  One of the most frequent calls we receive on the helpline is from people who cannot afford vet bills and whose animals are too old to qualify for affordable insurance, if there is insurance available at all.  If all of the animal legislation that has been imposed in that time period had been replaced by funded veterinary treatment, if only for the animals of pensioners, it would have produced a far greater positive impact on animal welfare for the money spent.
7.
   We also note that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) covers all mistreatment or neglect of animals, and suggest that any licensing system for dog breeding is therefore redundant.  Either dogs, whether commercial or otherwise, are kept in accordance with the requirements of the AWA or they are not.  If they are not the local authority can issue improvement notices or take the appropriate action.
8.
   It would make more financial sense for the Welsh Assembly to remove the requirement for licensing in total since there is no situation that could arise which cannot be dealt with by the AWA itself.

 

Q1:  Do you believe that the definition and requirements of a licence holder in the proposed kennel conditions is clear?  If not please give your reasons in detail.
9.   The wording of S. 4 is far too vague. 
10.   How is a breeding bitch to be defined (S.4(2))?  A frequent complaint to the SHG arising from local authority inspections is their claim that any female is potentially a breeding bitch unless she has been neutered.  For show breeders who are responsible enough to keep their older dogs to be penalised in this way would be grossly unfair.  There are also serious concerns about the health and behavioural effects of spaying and neutering which many breeders and dog keepers take into consideration. See attached:  The long term health effects of spay/neuter in dogs, Laura J. Sanborn march 27, 2007 and Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete One veterinarian’s Opinion, Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP, 2005.
11.   S.4(2)(a), (b) and (c) takes no account of the differences in breed fecundity.  For some breeds a litter may consist of one or two puppies.  For others litters of more than ten are normal.  The hobby breeder who wishes to produce a puppy to show is going to be lumped in with large scale breeders by default if their preferred breed is one that tends to have large litters.  Why should such a breeder be penalised and forced to register if they sell one litter of 10 or more excess puppies who do not meet their showing requirements, or who would be excellent show dogs but cannot all be kept?
12.   S.4(2)(d).  What exactly does this mean?  If a breeder advertises a litter for sale is that within the meaning of this clause?  Is a show breeder who has bred one litter a year or every two or three years to fall within this clause if they advertise their puppies for sale?  Will the fact that they have a KC name for their stud be used to indicate that they are a business? 
13.   S.4(2)(e), and (f).  Of course kennel accommodation is going to be consistent with commercial dog breeding.  Especially if the kennel accommodation is of good quality and provides for the dog’s needs.  Many people who keep dogs keep them in kennel accommodation.  Are they all to fall within the remit of this clause? 
14.   If terms are going to be used that define whether an activity should be regulated it is reasonable to expect the terms themselves to be defined accurately. Far too many hours of expensive court time are wasted each year as attempts are made to define exactly what was meant by the wording of a particular piece of legislation.
15.   S. 4(3).  It should always be the job of an enforcer or prosecutor to prove their case. What happens if someone takes in a stray?  Is it the intention of this legislation to discourage people from helping out lost or injured animals because there would be no way they could disprove the assumption that such an animal was theirs?  If not then this clause needs rewriting.

 

Q2: Do you think that the scope of the definition of a licence holder is adequate? If not, please give your reasons in detail.
16.   The SHG believes that the definition is far too complex and will lead to confusion and appeals to the higher courts for clarification.  Granting wide ranging powers on the back of terms such as “reasonably believes” (S. 4.(2)(f)) without any guidance as to what is reasonable is a recipe for disaster.
17.   Another cause for concern is the wording of S.5(3).  This is so far ranging that an inspector could refuse a licence for virtually any reason whatsoever.  Is the applicant’s conduct fawning enough?  Did they dare point out an error?  That a suggested course of action would actually be harmful to their dogs?  What circumstances would be so far removed that they would not be relevant?  Perhaps a parking ticket would be considered relevant by some local authorities!
18.   Laws like this provide fodder for neighbour disputes. The vast majority of cases that come in on the SHG helpline are the result of neighbour disputes over other matters. Complaints are made about dogs (and other animals) as an easy way to “score”.  Even if the complaint is unfounded an official calls and investigates, thus using resources that could be better utilised elsewhere.

 

Q3: Do you consider that the proposed Guidance is sufficiently detailed enough to enable both enforcement officers and dog breeders to understand the standards to be met at a licensed dog breeding establishment?  If not, please give your reasons in detail.
19.   Again the guidance is confusing and will actually harm some breeds.
20.   Some dogs such as Northern Breeds find summer weather uncomfortable and prefer to lie on cool surfaces or even damp ground.  A requirement that bedding is provided will reduce their living space unnecessarily at times when those dogs are seeking every opportunity to cool down.  Such a requirement will also make their owners vulnerable to inspectors who do not understand the requirements of the breed.
21.   Temperature and heating is another minefield.  Different breeds are happiest at differing ambient temperatures.  The real measure is whether the dogs appear distressed or comfortable in any set up.
22.   The amount of water needed depends on the ratio between the size of bowls and the size of dogs.  It also varies depending on the type of food, is it dry, complete?  Or mixed?  One large bowl might be more than adequate for half a dozen small dogs but inadequate for one large dog.  It also seems redundant to specify requirements that are already part of the AWA.
23.   The requirements to vaccinate do not take into account the objections many people have against vaccinations.  People refuse to vaccinate their children, so why should they be forced to vaccinate their dogs?  There are alternative homeopathic vaccines available and this should be a matter of personal choice.
24.   There has been much debate over whether puppies should be vaccinated before they are fully weaned, and whether they should be fully weaned before 12 weeks of age.  Until a puppy is weaned it is getting antibodies from its mother’s milk.  Vaccinating at this time can negate both the natural antibodies and the vaccination itself.
25.   The SHG is opposed to compulsory microchipping.  The government has just committed to closing down the ID card database.  Dog microchipping is just another register of people.
26.   Registering microchips to the breeder will mean that the purchaser has to pay to enter their details onto a database they might well object to.
27.   Far more importantly, there are serious health issues with microchips.  They may move within the dog’s body.  There are certainly instances where chips that have been inserted for pet passports have not been found resulting in dogs facing long stays in quarantine. Microchips appear to be associated with the appearance of tumours at the site of the chip.  No responsible pet owner is going to want to risk the health of their animal for a dubious benefit.  Indeed, the procedure might well be in breach of the AWA.  http://www.chipmenot.org/
28.   Tattooing appears to be a far less dangerous procedure and at least is visible on the dog, unlike microchipping which needs specialist equipment.  There is already a dog tattoo register.  http://www.dog-register.co.uk/ . 

 

Q4:  Do you consider that the standards set in the proposed Guidance for a dog’s environment, diet, behaviour, companion and health needs are suitable?  If not, please give your reasons in detail.
29.   A requirement to lodge a written exercise programme will be difficult for small hobby or show breeders to put together and will be disproportionately onerous on them when compared to large scale commercial breeders.
30.   Many animal keepers use different vets for different aspects of their animal health care.  For instance they might prefer to use one vet who is good with bitches whelping, another who is better with broken bones, and yet another who happens to be cheaper for vaccines and wormers. Making it a requirement that a breeding establishment should register with a veterinary practice removes that freedom of choosing the best and most cost effective care for their dogs.  The requirement that details of a breeders vet are given to the Licensing Authority puts the right to confidentiality between vet and client at risk.
31.   The public are becoming increasingly concerned about the choice of vets to provide the best care for their animals.  See http://www.goodvetguide.co.uk/index.php
32.   If biosecurity measures are deemed important for the breeding establishment there should be a requirement that all visiting local authority inspectors, or indeed anyone they bring with them onto a breeding establishment, should disinfect their footwear and clothing. 
33.  
    The SHG believes that there should be a written code of conduct for local authority inspectors and all other visitors to adhere to which is provided to every licensed breeding establishment.

 

Q5: Do you think that the minimum staff:dog ratio of 1 full-time attendant per 20 dogs and 1 attendant to 10 dogs for a part-time attendant is appropriate?  If not, please give your reasons in detail.
34.   The staffing requirements are too restrictive.  They do not take into account size and type of dog.  Indeed, many animal rescue organisations would fall foul of them.  Again, the real measure is whether the dogs appear well and happy.

 

Q6: At present, the draft Regulations only require a record for all unneutered females and puppies born after the Regulations come into force.  Do you agree?  If not, please give your reasons in detail.
35.   The SHG does not believe that females who are not going to be used for breeding should be included at all.  The SHG is opposed to such databases.

 

Q7: At present the Regulations only require unneutered females and puppies born after the Regulations to be microchipped.  Should there be a requirement to extend this to all dogs kept at a breeding establishment?  If not, please give your reasons in detail.
36.   The SHG does not believe that dos who are not going to be used for breeding should be included at all.  As already stated, the SHG is opposed to such databases and has grave concerns about the health and privacy implications of microchipping.

 

Q 8: Do you agree that all puppies should be microchipped before it is 56 days old or before it leaves the premises, whichever is the later?  If not, please give your reasons in detail.
37.   To re-iterate, the SHG is opposed to compulsory microchipping.  The potential health problems mean that it should be a decision made by the owner, not one forced by government.  For example, see http://www.antichips.com/cancer/
38.   If there is to be enforced microchipping, is the Welsh Assembly going to foot the bill for any resulting health problems in the affected dogs?  Might there not be a human rights implication involved in forcing people to damage their property?

 

Q9: Do you agree that the first registration of a puppy should be to the licensed breeder?  If not, please give your reasons in detail.
39.   Only those dogs which are part of private registration schemes, such as dogs registered to the Kennel Club or the Greyhound Stud Book, should be required to comply with such registrations.  Why should the ordinary purchaser of a puppy be forced to have a registration that is not required by law for the ordinary pet owner?  This is the creation of a dog database by the back door.

 

Q10: Are there any premises such as sanctuaries, hunt kennels and licensed boarding kennels that should be exempt from the requirement outlines?  If so, why?  Please give your reasons in detail?
40.   Hunt Kennels should be exempt as their main function is not to breed for sale or profit.  Likewise boarding kennels who are supplying a service.  Small breeders should also be exempt.  Perhaps a better way of defining who should be included would be to determine whether the profit made would support the business and its employees.  If not then it is in no way commercial.
41.  

There should be no exemption for animal sanctuaries.  Indeed, most ought to be registered for a Pet Shop licence as they are clearly flouting the regulations by selling animals under the guise of asking for a “minimum donation”, i.e. a selling price.  Allowing such contortions of the law that should apply to everyone is not in the public interest and if the argument is that Local Authority inspections are necessary to monitor the health and well being of animals for sale commercially then such inspections should clearly apply to all. 

 

Q11:  Do you agree that as currently drafted, the Regulations require that puppies cannot leave the breed premises until they are at least 56 days old? (Previous legislation allowed puppies to be moved off the breed premises earlier as long as it was direct to a pet shop owner).  If not, give your reasons in detail please.
42.   There appears to be no exemption for puppies whose mother has lost her milk or is otherwise unable to care for the puppies.  What about puppies who need to be moved for other unforeseen reasons, such as damage to the premises?  It is important that every option remains open to cater for the welfare of the puppies.  Yet again, this situation is covered by the AWA.  Either the welfare of young puppies is catered for or there has been a breach of existing legislation.

 

Q12:  Do you agree that as currently drafted, dog breeding licenses should be issued for a period of up to 3 years, subject to a local authority considering the frequency of inspections and risk, and be renewed as appropriate?  If not, please give your reasons in detail.



43.   The SHG does not believe that dog breeding should be licensed.  Such repeated bureaucratic expenditure of resources at a time of recession will only serve to remove resources from real animal welfare issues.

 

Q13:  These proposals might incur costs to bring dog breeders up to the required animal welfare standards.  Please provide appropriate evidence based information.
44.   Small scale breeders are going to find these requirements disproportionately expensive as compared to large scale breeders.  The inevitable result is going to be fewer people prepared to jump through the bureaucratic hoops and expense with the resulting loss of good dog breeders.
45.   A reduction in the number of people keeping animals is the usual result of such animal rights driven legislation.

 

Q14: We have asked a number of specific questions.  If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please us this space to report them:
46.
   The cost of enforcement and licensing officers.
 

Anne Kasica & Ernest Vine
The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA.

 

 
O
The SHG response to the Dangerous Dog ConsultationO
  0

O O O 

1 0
The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) is an organisation which was originally set up to provide support and legal advice to people being investigated or prosecuted by the RSPCA. 
O
2  
We are being increasingly consulted on other aspects of animal legislation, especially issues relating to “dangerous dogs”.  This puts us in a unique position of hearing how legislation affects dog owners and their fears and concerns.
O
3  
Any change in the legislation relating to dogs is going to affect every single dog owner in the country.  To consult with a few special interest groups, some of which have been actively campaigning for legislation that restricts dog ownership is not a proper consultation. It is asking those with a vested interest in increasing legislation and power, and those who are already campaigning for such legislation whether it should be enacted.
O
4  
No new legislation or restrictions of any sort should be imposed without giving every single dog owner or potential dog owner the chance to be consulted.
O
Q1:  Do you think that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be extended to cover all places, including private property where a dog is permitted to be?  Why?
O
5  
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) should not be extended to cover all places including private property.
O
6  
All dogs need exercise and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) requires dogs to be allowed to exhibit their normal behaviour patterns and to play and exercise.  It would be wrong to impose regulations on private land that would limit the owner’s ability to comply with the requirements of the AWA, not simply because it would leave those owners vulnerable to prosecution but because it would be detrimental to the well being and needs of the animals so restricted.
O
7  
Criminal legislation should only be imposed where there is a clear need for it and no other means of obtaining the same result.  The main concern appears to be the protection of public sector employees.  The Royal Mail already notifies people that post will not be delivered if there is a dog loose that frightens the postman. Their protection is easily achieved by lockable post boxes being positioned outside properties. Alternatively people collect their mail from local post offices. Both of these approaches also occur in many country areas where the Royal Mail refuses to drive down rough tracks.
O
8  
By leaving the Dogs Act 1871 in place dogs on private property can be dealt with and people do not face the problems that having to declare a criminal conviction can cause in both their work life and travelling abroad, for example.
O
9  
The availability of civil proceedings for negligence provides an adequate remedy for those who are injured by dogs on private property without the need to criminalise the owner.
O
Q2: Do you think that extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover all places could have a financial impact upon the police/court service/Crown Prosecution Service? Why?
O
10  
It is inevitable that there will be a large increase in the work of the above agencies and therefore a large financial impact.
O
11  
Laws like this provide fodder for neighbour disputes. The vast majority of cases that come in on the SHG help line are the result of neighbour disputes over other matters. Complaints are made about dogs (and other animals) as an easy way to “score”.  Even if the complaint is unfounded an official calls and investigates, thus using resources that could be better utilised elsewhere.
O
12  
The only way to prevent the problem of legislation being used to further neighbour disputes would be to include a severe penalty for false complaints, and that penalty would have to be seen to be imposed in order to get the message across that time wasting complaints would not be tolerated.
O
13  
Organisations like the RSPCA, who originally campaigned for the DDA, and who actively identify “dangerous dogs”, would not hesitate to use the legislation and to push the police to prosecute.  It is inevitable that there would be an “RSPCA generated” increase.
O
Q3: Do you think that extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover all places could have a financial impact upon welfare organisations/dogs homes?  Why?
O
14  
The RSPCA does not take in stray and unwanted animals.  This means that they will be immune to the effects of extending the DDA to cover all places.  The real welfare organisations will have to deal with people letting dogs loose out of fear of prosecution or simply handing them in to those rescues that still have places.  Most are claiming to be full.
O
15  
As the SHG predicted in its evidence to the EFRA committee during the consultations on the Animal Welfare Bill, the numbers of people giving up animals for rehoming has increased drastically.  This had nothing to do with the recession.  During previous recessions RSPCA figures showed that there was no such increase, in fact people prepared to take on animals actually increased.  What is different this time around is fear of prosecution and a pro-active RSPCA ordering people to get rid of their animals.
O
16  
An extension of the DDA will inevitably lead to an increase in the numbers of people giving up their dogs.
O
Q4:  Do you think that breed –specific legislation , in its current form, is effective in protecting the public from dangerous dogs?  Why?
O
17  
Breed specific legislation (BSL) actively endangers the public.  It wastes resources by targeting friendly family dogs of the wrong body shape.  It creates a false sense of safety in dealings with breeds of dog that are not banned, thus encouraging inappropriate behaviour around other breeds of dog.
O
18  
Looking at Table 1. it can be seen that there was an incredible increase in the number of people found guilty of owning pit bull type dogs and of those permitted to be added to the index during the years 2007 and 2008.  Prior to those years the trend had been downwards with very small numbers involved.
O
19  
The SHG believes that this increase has little to do with a sudden increase in the numbers of these dogs but rather an increase in the RSPCA claims about them being reported in the media and increased police activity.  We have taken many calls from people who have been visited by RSPCA and police as a result of “neighbour complaints” that their dog is of a banned type.  The fortunate few have pedigree papers to prove their dog is not “type”.
O
20  
Before history repeats itself it should be remembered that the DDA was passed as a result of the hysterical moral panic led by RSPCA campaigns which misled the public into believing that increased reporting of dog bites actually reflected an increase in such attacks.  It did not.
O
21  
Not only are dogs which are not pit bull type being seized, the authorities admit it is impossible to tell which dogs are which. In 2003 DEFRA actually advised people NOT to bring American Staffordshire terriers into the country because they could not guarantee that the dog would not be seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act and its fate decided by a court.  Types of Dogs prohibited in Great Britain PB 8711 (DEFRA)
O
22  
Dealing with the small annual increase of people found guilty of offences under Section 3, about 50 or 60 per year, this is again likely to be due to increased willingness on the part of prosecutors to take action a result of publicity campaigns.
O
Q5: Do you think that breed-specific legislation should be extended to include other breeds or type of dogs?  If yes, which?
O
23  
BSL should not be extended.  No other breeds or types of dogs should be included.
O
Q6: If breed-specific legislation were extended to include other breeds or types of dogs, what is the evidence to justify doing so?
O
24   None
O
Q7: Do you think that breed-specific legislation should be repealed?  Why?
O
25  
Breed specific legislation should be repealed.  As detailed above it wastes money and resources, targets responsible owners whose dog has developed into a body shape that has no relation to its temperament.  It allows campaigning organisations like the RSPCA to harass people and bully them into giving up or killing their animals.
O
26  
What BSL does not do is deal with problem dogs.  It has led to people not reporting bites for fear that the dog will be killed.  It has led to people failing to seek medical attention for fear that it will lead to a report that will lead to the death of the dog.
O
27  
Looking at the differences in the rates of increase year on year in Table 1 for Section 3 and Section 1 offences it appears that the dramatic increase in convictions of S.1 offences does not correlate to a corresponding increase in ownership of pit bull “type” dogs during the lat two years when compared with the static yearly increases (about 50/year) in those guilty of dogs being dangerously out of control.  If it does indicate an increase in the numbers owned then clearly the fact that there is no corresponding increase in S. 3 indicates that there is no reason for these dogs to be banned.
O
Q8: Do you think extending breed-specific legislation would have a financial impact upon other organisations, such as the police and dog shelters?  If yes, in what way?
O
28  
Extending BSL would increase the numbers of people and dogs affected.  Even the run up to such an extension would result in more animals being abandoned or given up to already overflowing shelters.  The police would have to seize and accommodate many more animals.  But far worse would be the increase in human and animal misery that would result.
O
Q9: Do you think repealing breed-specific legislation would have a financial impact upon other organisations, such as the police and dog shelters?  If yes, in what way?
O
29  
Repealing BSL will dramatically reduce the numbers of dogs being held while their fate is determined, freeing up those places at dog shelters.  It will reduce the amount of time and resources the police need to put into investigating complaints that someone is keeping banned breeds of dogs.
O
Q10: Do you think that the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment should be removed? Why? 
O
30  
If the Act remains in place the amendment should remain.  But the requirement to neuter dogs and microchip them should be removed due to the health problems these procedures can cause.  Also, it seems strange to enforce neutering when it can lead to an increase in aggression.  See attached: 
The long term health effects of spay/neuter in dogs, Laura J. Sanborn march 27, 2007
and 
Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete One veterinarian’s Opinion, Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP, 2005.
O
31  
The need to wear a muzzle in public should be amended. For instance it should not be a breach of the Act to remove the muzzle of a dog that would otherwise have choked while vomiting.  Nor should the inside of a car be classed as a “public place” for the purposes of the DDA.
O
Q11:  Do you think that the exemption should be kept, but with tighter restrictions?  If yes, what sort of restrictions do you think should be added?
O
32  
The exemption should only be kept if the DDA itself is not being repealed.  No further restrictions should be added.
O
Q12:  Do you think that introducing an alternative monitoring system to the index introduced by the 1997 amendment would improve the current situation regarding dangerous dogs?  Which system would you consider best?
O
33  
BSL is inherently flawed legislation.  Tinkering with the monitoring system will not make it work.
O
Q13:  Do you think that removing the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment would allow more effective enforcement of the current dangerous dogs legislation?
O
34  
Removing the exemption would take us back to the situation where dogs were being killed simply because of their looks.  The DDA is supposed to deal with problem dogs, not create human misery by destroying perfectly well behaved dogs.  It would make the legislation far more difficult to enforce as people will refuse to support what they see as draconian legislation.
O
Q14: Do you think that removing the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment could have a financial impact upon welfare organisations/dog rescue homes?  Why?
O
35  
Removing the exemption would mean that more people would fight to try to prove their dog was not “type” and so dogs would have to stay in kennels for as long as the appeals ran.  Currently, if people accept that their dog is “type” the courts are invited to enter it on the Index and the dog is released after a relatively short stay in kennels.  This is bound to increase costs for everyone concerned.
O
Q15:  Do you think that removing the exemption introduced by the 1997 amendment could have a financial impact upon the police force/other enforcement agencies?  Why?
O
36  
The inevitable increase in long and bitterly fought court cases will be expensive both in financial terms and public relations.
O
Q16: Do you think Dog Control Notices might be an effective preventative measure for tackling dogs which are not being properly controlled?
O
37  
Dog Control Notices (DCNs) would be a disaster. Restrictions on people’s liberties should only be imposed by the courts.  While some local authority employees might be able to handle the power and to keep their own beliefs and prejudices in check others would not.
O
38  
There is already a dearth of legal aid for animal related prosecutions.  There is no legal aid available for people to make an application for the return of an animal seized under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, leading to great suffering of both people and animals.  Unless full legal aid was available for people to appeal DCNs we will again see wide ranging injustice as a result of animal legislation.
O
Q17: What sort of incidents do you think could be covered by Dog Control Notices?
O
39  
The SHG opposes the introduction of DCNs and believes no incidents should be covered by them.
O
Q18:  Do you think the proposed remedial measures are appropriate or would you remove any of them? Why?
O
40  
As already stated, microchipping and neutering are controversial and can lead to serious health problems, which means that enforcing them could be in breach of the AWA.
O
41  
If a dog is contained in its own secure garden why should it be muzzled? 
O
42  
The only reasonable measure is that a particular dog should be kept on a lead in public.  And then only if a court orders it.  Enforced muzzling is a possible cure for extreme situations but unfortunately even if the act stipulated this the prosecuting agencies would work to extend that to cover most situations, as always happens, so we would be reluctant to see it as an option.
O
43  
Training schemes for dog and owner have the potential to go very badly wrong.  It would all depend on the abilities of the trainer to interact with a worried and/or angry owner.  We see little evidence of any need for this.
O
Q20: Do you think there should be an appeal process for all Dog Control Orders?
O
44  
Yes.  It is outrageous to consider such an interference with people’s property and rights without any checks and balances.  But it is not good enough to simply provide an appeal process.  There must be legal aid available to enable people to use the appeal process.  Rights which are effectively unenforceable due to lack of funding are of no use whatsoever.
O
Q21: Who do you think should be responsible for Dog Control Notices, if they were to be introduced?
O
45  
The police.  There is too much duplication of responsibilities in animal legislation which serves only to confuse the public and allow the different enforcement bodies to pass the buck.  It should certainly not be a campaigning body. 
O
Q22: Do you think enforcement authorities should have powers to ban dogs from certain areas on public safety grounds?  Why?
O
46  
No.  Dogs need to be part of everyday life, not swept out of sight.  If youngsters are mistreating or abusing their dogs there is already legislation to deal with those problems.  If youngsters are acting in a threatening manner, whether with a dog or not, then that can also be dealt with by existing legislation.
O
47  
The only reason to introduce new restrictive legislation is if existing legislation has failed to control the situation.  Currently there is no evidence that is the case.
O  
Q23: Do you think that introducing Dog Control Notices will have a financial impact on enforcement agencies?  Why?
O
48  
If there is a right to appeal backed by legal aid then the DCNs will inevitably be appealed through the courts.  If there is no legal aid then people will attempt to act as litigants in person and while they will then have little chance of success they will still clog the court system and tie up witnesses and prosecutors.
O
Q24: Do you think that third party insurance should be compulsory for all dog owners?  Why?
O
49  
No.  Putting further costs on people who are doing nothing wrong in a recession is ridiculous. It penalises the poor for being poor and pushes them further out of the normal activities that everyone else takes for granted.  Only those who are law abiding would comply.  The people who are likely to have “out of control dogs” would not.
O
Q25: If you support the requirement that all dogs should be covered by third-party insurance, how should such a requirement be introduced and enforced?
O
50  
The SHG does not support such a requirement.
O
Q26: Do you think that third-party insurance should be compulsory for owners of only certain breeds of dog? If yes, why and which breeds?
O
51  
The SHG does not support the idea of compulsory insurance for any category of dog owners or breeds of dog.
O
Q27: Do you think that requiring all dogs to be covered by third-party insurance could have a significant financial impact upon individual dog owners?  Why?
O
52  
Most people are not extremely wealthy.  They have to struggle to pay their bills.  Each time another cost is added to any activity the number of people who can afford it decreases.  What is it suggested should happen to the dogs of those people who simply do not have the money for yet another bill?  The RSPCA will not accept dogs unless they are “RSPCA generated”.  Other rehoming organisations are full.  Are we going to start killing the dogs of the poor?  Or of people who simply forget to renew their insurance?
O
Q28: Do you think that requiring all dogs to be covered by third-party insurance could have a significant financial impact upon welfare organisations/dog homes?  Why?
O
53  
It will have no effect on the RSPCA since they no longer take homeless animals or animals that people can no longer afford to keep.  It will have an impact on genuine welfare organisations and dog homes to whom people will inevitably turn when they can no longer afford to keep their dogs.
O
Q29: Do you think that all dogs should have to be microchipped?  Why?
O
54  
The SHG is opposed to compulsory microchipping.  The government has just committed to closing down the ID card database.  Dog microchipping is just another register of people.  It does nothing to prevent dog theft or to help find dogs that are lost.  Indeed, reading reports of missing dogs there seem to be as many lost and stolen that are microchipped as those that are not.  There is no evidence that this leads to an increased percentage of dogs that are microchipped being found when either lost or stolen.  Since there seems to be no correlation in Table 1 between the numbers of people found guilty of keeping banned “types” of dog and those who are prosecuted for dogs being dangerously out of control, the idea that microchipping would somehow deter people from keeping dangerous dogs is puzzling.
O
55  
Far more importantly, there are serious health issues with microchips.  They may move within the dog’s body.  There are certainly instances where chips that have been inserted for pet passports have not been found resulting in dogs facing long stays in quarantine. Microchips appear to be associated with the appearance of tumours at the site of the chip.  No responsible pet owner is going to want to risk the health of their animal for a dubious benefit.  Again the procedure might well be in breach of the AWA.
O
56  
Tattooing appears to be a far less dangerous procedure and at least is visible on the dog, unlike microchipping which needs specialist equipment.  There is already a dog tattoo register.  http://www.dog-register.co.uk/ .
O
Q30: Do you think that all puppies born after a specficied date should be microchipped before the age of one year?  Why?
O
57  
The SHG is opposed to compulsory microchipping at any age.  The arguments are the same.
O
Q31:  How do you think such a requirement could be introduced and enforced?
O
58  
Only by great intrusion into people’s privacy and by introducing the sort of database and registry of people and their movement that has already been condemned by campaigners and withdrawn by the government for ID cards.
O
Q32:  Do you think that it should be compulsory for some specific breeds of dog to be microchipped?  If so, why and which breeds?
O
59  
As above, the SHG does not support the compulsory microchipping of any dogs, of whatever breed.
O
Q33: Do you think that requiring all dogs to be microchipped will have a significant financial impact upon individual dog owners?  Please provide evidence.
O
60  
It is difficult to provide evidence when the proposed sum has not been stated.  Nevertheless, it is unlikely that anyone would disagree that many people are struggling financially during the recession.  Any extra expenditure is likely to be beyond the means of many dog owners.  Even those who are not actually in debt are unlikely to have spare cash. 
O
61  
We are getting calls in on the help line from people who had asked the RSPCA for help with veterinary fees only to be told that they could either hand their animal over to be treated and rehomed or euthanised or they would be prosecuted.  People are being given the choice of paying up front for veterinary treatment or having their animal put down when vets tell them an animal needs expensive treatment.  You only have to look in the newspaper reports every week to see examples.
O
Q34: Do you think that requiring all dogs to be microchipped could have a financial impact upon welfare organisations/dog homes?  Why?
O
62  
Yes.  They will have to take the dogs of the people who simply cannot afford to comply.  They will also be expected to take the dogs of people who oppose microchipping on health or privacy grounds.
O
Q35: Do you think that maintaining an up-to-date database of owners’ details would have a financial impact?  Who do you think should be responsible for maintaining this database?
O
63  
Someone is going to have to enforce the database.  Someone is going to have to pay for it.  It is inevitable that costs will rise as the difficulties become apparent.  People will move.  They will be required to change their details.  If they do not they will have to be found and punished for breaching the requirement.  It is a bureaucratic nightmare that is bound to be expensive to implement and enforce.
O
64  
Responsibility for maintaining the database must be with the government, whether an existing agency or a new one.  This must not be put in the hands of the RSPCA.  Dog owners would be terrified at such a prospect.
O
65  
More important is the question of who would have access to the information held within the register.  We would oppose any access being made available to any campaigning body such as the RSPCA.  Indeed, the thought of their being able to see who owns how many dogs where is likely to deter people from complying with any such law.
O
Q36:  Do you think that all legislation relating to dangerous dogs should be consolidated into a single piece of legislation?  Why?
O
66  
The SHG believes that the DDA should be repealed totally and that the Dogs Act 1871 combined with the right to sue the owner in negligence is sufficient to deal with any situation. 
O
Q37:  Do you think that more effective enforcement of current legislation would improve the current situation regarding dangerous dogs?  Why?
O
67  
As above, there is already legislation to cover every situation that has been suggested even with the repeal of the DDA.  Until situations occur that cannot be dealt with by existing legislation being enforced there should be no further legislation, especially such restrictive legislation as is being proposed.
O
Q38:  Do you think further training for police officers to become Dog Legislation Officers would improve the current situation regarding dangerous dogs?
O
68  
The SHG is saddened but not surprised to hear official confirmation that there is a problem with the police understanding and enforcing the law relating to dangerous dogs.  Legislators should remember that in a country where lack of knowledge of the law is deemed to be no excuse it is the duty of legislators to ensure that laws are easily understandable by the people they apply to.  If even experts such as the police find this legislation difficult to understand without specialist training then the answer is not to provide further training for the police but to simplify the legislation.
O
Q39:  Do you think the government needs to do more to raise public awareness of the existing law and what to do if you are aware of a possible breach?
O
69  
What more could the government possibly do when the campaigning bodies have been raising the issues regularly? 
O
Q40:  Do you think there are better ways for the government to communicate with the public and dog owners, including owners of ‘statusdogs’?
O
70  
The government needs to listen to individual dog owners more than the special interest groups.  We are hearing from dog owners who tell us that when their current dog dies they will not have another.  They say that dog owning is no longer fun.
O

Anne Kasica & Ernest Vine
The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA.

 

The SHG response to the Legal Aid Consultation

1.     

We run a help line which provides general and legal advice for people who have run into difficulties in the field of Animal Welfare Law.  Usually this involves the RSPCA, and crosses the boundaries between criminal and civil law.  We put people in touch with solicitors who are experts in Animal Welfare Law.
2.

This area of law is extremely specialised and there are only a handful of solicitors round the country who could be said to be experts in their field.  Clients who have instructed solicitors who are not specialists in Animal Welfare Law may find that they receive the wrong advice and we have several clients who are attempting to change their initial Guilty plea after having received expert advice. 

 
3.

It is false economy if the system in place forces people into the position of feeling that they have to appeal the original judgement.  The following figures are taken from our evidence as submitted to the EFRA committee hearings on the Animal Welfare Bill:  The number of defendants who pleaded not guilty in prosecutions brought by the RSPCA is almost 3 times greater than that in prosecutions brought by the CPS, the number of defendants who appealed in prosecutions brought by the RSPCA is almost 3 times greater than in prosecutions brought by the CPS and the number of defendants who were successful in their appeals in prosecutions brought by the RSPCA is over 4 times greater than successful appeals in prosecutions brought by the CPS.

 
4.

A copy of the EFRA submission containing these figures can be found at http://the-shg.org/Final%20reply.htm or if required we will provide a copy.

 
5.

Due to the current way Legal Aid franchises are awarded, one case can necessitate the use of two different firms of solicitors for the same client.  For example, applications for return of animals are civil, but criminal proceedings are likely to be brought.

 
6.

Furthermore, because Legal Aid does not become available until a summons is issued the client’s case is seriously damaged in terms of enabling experts to be instructed and to inspect the animals and their conditions at the relevant time.

 
7.

A further problem is that intense pressure may be put on clients to sign their animals over to the RSPCA before any proceedings are initiated.  Vulnerable people, often elderly, have no idea of their rights. 

 

8.

Cases may be long and complex, including several defendants, many, sometimes hundreds of animals, and run into several days or even weeks.  The case will usually hinge on expert evidence.  It is going to be absolutely impossible to run such cases  on a fixed cost basis.

 
9.

Prosecutions are often spurred by campaigns the RSPCA are running at the time.  For instance, in 1999 the RSPCA wrote to all local authorities stating  that they were opposed to the sale of animals in pet shops.  This letter has never been retracted and their policy remains unchanged.  How then can the RSPCA comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors which requires a prosecutor to be “fair, independent and objective”  Indeed, how can the RSPCA be in any way independent when investigating the very activities that it is often campaigning to prohibit?

 
10.

An example of the results of this conflict of interest is the case of a pet shop in Doncaster which was told that if they handed in their pet shop licence the prosecution against them would be dropped.  They defended the case with the aid of a solicitor specialising in Animal Welfare Law with the result being that the case was thrown out at half time.  Had this advice not been available up to five people would have lost their jobs.

 
11.

We can provide further examples and people prepared to give evidence if required.

 
12.

The SHG believes that Animal Welfare Law should be classified as a Specialist Area.

 
13.

People should must retain the right to instruct their specialist solicitor of choice even if that means instructing firms outside their Legal Aid catchment area if they are to receive a fair trial.

 
 

 





The SHG response the EIG Consultation

Our first observation is that if the EIG wishes to consult the animal owning public then the way to do so is to ensure that the letter of consultation is delivered to every home in the UK and to advertise in the newspapers and on television so that no-one can miss it.

The vast majority of people in this country are working increasingly long hours in order to survive and do not have time to trawl government web sites each day to check if yet another regulatory organisation has been created to remove even more of their remaining rights and freedoms.

We were appalled to discover the existence of the EIG, an organisation with a non-elected committee, discussing and planning how people are to be permitted to keep and work with their animals. We were even more appalled when we discovered that the EIG Committee had been discussing the licensing or registering of every home that keeps an animal.

Such a move will do nothing to improve animal welfare. All it will do is discourage people from keeping or working with animals. Surely this can not be an aim of the EIG?

If the Government or the EIG genuinely wish to improve animal health and welfare as opposed to registering, regulating and controlling animals and their owners, the most obvious means would be to put in place an animal NHS, initially for pensioners and their animals and later covering any animal owner on low income. It should also provide for those animals which are strays or wildlife.

It is wrong that in one of the world's wealthiest nations, one whose people are renowned for being animal lovers, people on low incomes are faced with the stark choice of having to let a vet kill their animal because they do not have the money to pay for treatment.. How many of us could afford to pay for our own medical treatment?

A cost/benefit analysis might well find that providing free veterinary treatment would encourage people to take their animals to a vet, having removed the fear of being reported to the RSPCA for failing to purchase expensive treatments that they have no means of affording. This would have a far more beneficial effect on overall animal health and welfare than any regulatory regime.

Furthermore, if the animal owning public are to understand and support government wishes to impose higher standards of animal health and welfare then government must not be seen to be undermining the process by creating situations in which both the introduction and spread of disease are inevitable.

This means that the second thing the EIG can do, if it wishes to reduce the likelihood of exotic disease outbreaks, is to advise the Government to re-instate our borders and customs checks, and to end the pet travel schemes. Otherwise it is merely a matter of time before we have an outbreak of rabies or some other imported disease, and then we shall see the reason for pet registration as Britain's pets are slaughtered in their tens of thousands.

Yours sincerely

 

 


Anne Kasica
 

 

Return to Main Page