Aspirations for Animal Welfare Reform a Summary

In this article, I want to touch on what elements of Animal Welfare reform that we should be advocating for, covering farm, and companion animals.

So when we look at Welfare Reform we need to recognise a suitable comparison between our laws and other countries which arguably have a better welfare standard then we do. Looking at the Swiss and Austrian systems. In the UK with our five animal welfare needs are the standards that we must hold people to account for the abuse of animals.

So what are these needs: Need for a suitable environment, Need for a suitable diet, Need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. Need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals and the Need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. These needs allow us to recognise the basic rights of the animal and what they require to be able to exist. This is furthered by are they able to meet the basic requirement of life as well as limiting suffering on the animal to ensure that they can behave in a normal way preventing abnormal behaviours which cause acute and prolonged suffering.

Now in terms of points where we can go further with Swiss and Austrian law provisions about freedom of an animals movement which could be arguably a move to prevent intensive farming in particular pigs who are kept in farrowing crates. This freedom of movement would protect them from a number of points that cause behaviour concerns and problems due to confinement. Now in intensive farming, it is arguable that whilst some farmers would argue confinement is necessary for the production of the animal associated products. Yet whilst Austria does still have clauses for this to allow farmers to use a form of confinement for safety reasons such as farrowing (when the sow has piglets) but generally speaking these limitations are vastly limited. Now carrying on with the farming point poultry are still getting the beaks trimmed which is a known area of suffering. The same arguably in areas that look at keeping calves with the heifer this is still recognisable as a form of suffering for the calf but it is something that can still be practiced. Both the Swiss and Austrian laws also mandate that they must see and be exposed to human interaction if it is deemed necessary. The three countries also recognise the need for animals to have suitable light exposure now all three make particular points for livestock with regards to light and this is something which is rightly protected. The other contentious issue is the exemption around religious slaughter many argue that any form of unnecessary suffering is overtly wrong. However, they specify that stunning is then done immediately following the ceremonious slaughter. This is something that is not required in other laws but does offer a way to protect the animal from prolonged suffering and although limiting the suffering further should be a goal this is a step in the right direction and easier to achieve than an outright ban. Laws around suffering looking particularly at pain and pain-causing circumstances as well as offering protection to selective invertebrates such as crustaceans and squid species. Now one area which certainly ranks lower across the board is animals used for draught and recreation which I will revisit in a later article.

In terms of the companion animal point, all three countries roughly meet the same standard of companion animal welfare. The main criticisms of all the items of legislation are as follows; Austria requires breeders to have a license to breed animals this would be something that if regulated correctly would reduce the advertising, of mass-produced litters and regulate the sale of young animals and banning on sales of animals. All of these limit the distribution of animals and would make criminal exploitation of these animals more difficult. This is something the Swiss and UK laws do not yet facilitate. UK provisions against mutilations for animals used in breeding is far more safeguarded in the UK which is a benefit to the animals as a whole. All countries arguably need to review how we control stray animal populations whether that be in the UK looking at how we rehouse animals that have been abandoned or in mitigating cat populations impact on wildlife. In the UK we arguably need to address the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 which is disputed globally as a poor method for protecting public safety and not euthanising animals unnecessary. All countries were also suggested to encourage a more sustainable pet ownership mechanism.

Now, this is only an introduction which is something which I aim to look at each point more specifically to revise a more apt system to protect our animals. We certainly should do more and elements of these laws can protect are animals from abuse which should then coincide with animal welfare legislation. Now this works is likely to make a series rather than a sole article which I will look at over the latter weeks. Please do look at https://api.worldanimalprotection.org to investigate which countries have stronger laws.

https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/en/home/tiere/tierschutz.html

https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/changingthelaw/whatwechanged/animalwelfareact

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/animal-welfare_how-well-are-swiss-animals-protected-/45489148

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/europe.php#switzerland

https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/article/why-welfare

https://www.alaw.org.uk/the-law-as-a-driving-force-for-animal-welfare-reform/

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228468611.pdf

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/animal-welfare/issues-paper

Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill

This week the latest incarnation of the Animal Welfare Sentencing bill is entering the house again for a further reading prior to entering the Lords. Now I want to highlight this because this particular bill could give us at the very least a potential avenue to attach Pet Theft Reform sentencing guidelines too. Now to begin with Animal Welfare sentencing in the UK needs to align with other western countries.

Now the guidance within this new bill would also make a particular focus on the changing digital world, paying a focus to where the offender films themselves committing the offence. This is both critical to allow social media platform and users to report and identify abusers which the police can then used as further evidence as an “aggravating factor”. Now for offenders who are caught on camera, this would not be the case but the differentiation of the attitudes of those knowingly committing the offence needs to be recognised and actioned accordingly. It was cited that the RSPCA identified that the filming of animal abuse had risen from 2019 and this needs to be apart of any reforms as it offers a way we can stop the open sharing of these acts of abuse on social media channels. It would also be worth addressing here that whilst points were made in the regard to recording the bill a potential area that needs further refining is the circulation and sharing of this content. Those found to be knowingly sharing this type of media need some form of penalty to act as a deterrent otherwise the work taken to seek justice against the abuser will be lessened by the circulation of the content. My hope is this will be addressed by the Government White Papers at online harms more broadly and that animal abuse is featured specifically.

Now whilst I would add here that when this issue was debated cross-party MPs both advocated for the bill to have amendments which at the very least would use the same sentencing guidelines as seen with robbery. However, it was pointed out by Tom Hunt the MP for Ipswich that at times these guidelines do not echo the sentiments of the public. He particularly cites Pet Theft here and the reason the call for reform is still needed in this case is because of the view that these sentencing guidelines give to the courts they treat the animal as an object and not in a specific way under the law. If the animal was treated specifically under the law it would provide us the general public and animal owners with the knowledge that those who commit these offences and also knowingly abuse someones beloved pet when they are stolen but that justice will be enacted. A further amendment to this bill would also make acts that are often associated with other crimes or forms of abuse against animals such as mutilation which are associated with dogfighting or baiting. These harsher sentences would enable our justice system to empower the police to protect our animals and tackle the criminal gangs perpetuating revenue from animal abuse.

A proposal presented to increase the effectiveness of the bill as well as making sure that animals are treated fairly and evenly not establishing systems where cruelty to domestic animals is targeted under this bill but not wild animals. The RSPCA and various other charities can report how acts of cruelty against wildlife can arguably be as severe as what we see in companion animals and no less worth safeguarding. Points which were raised that in particular areas that then targeted wildlife, in particular, were even less adequate than that which the bill seeks to rectify. The MPs however, do rightly point out to protect pets a subsequent amendment for wild animals may need to be included at a later point. It is therefore positive to see support for further animal rights reform in national politics.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2622/publications

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0014/200014.pdf

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4

Pet Theft Reform

Lockdown contributed to one of the largest rises in demand for companion animals. Some animals have seen a decline in demand. Many have found horses too expensive to keep, which has led to a drop in horse ownership and a rise in sales.

However, this demand for dogs and pets alongside increased funds that people are willing to pay has resulted in an epidemic of dog thefts. Now last year, people in Suffolk communities have had 46 beloved pets stolen from them. Thefts are now are over at a hundred percent increase from the average thefts in 2014-2019. Now at present, it is suggested the targets are working breeds, particularly spaniels, retrievers over that of other pedigree breeds. Now working dogs face a greater vulnerability due to being often kept in kennels, whereas pets in the home are fielded a safer environment. They are, however, being targeted because people are willing to pay for these breeds and are actively looking for these dogs. Now thefts occur across the borders, we know this. Actions are being taken from the constabulary to reduce this, but why is it happening?

Reputable breeders would have been unable to plan for the increase in demand, yet they also often do not want to increase their dogs' sales solely for monetary gains related to ambitions they have for their breed. This is because they are often bred for pets second and for working or other purposes first. Yet breeders likely will have been unable to legitimately plan their litters this year due to lack of access to the broader gene pool or attend the various shows. Prices for dogs on online websites have continued to increase and are rising, which will full demand. Whilst adoption searches are also growing, the provisions rescue groups have put in place have slowed down the process, which has faced more significant pressures due to lockdown as other businesses have. Many of these websites have less regulation than both "assured" breeders and rescue centres now, many would assume buyers would be looking at lower prices, but the price is also often a third higher for each dog. Ipswich MP Tom Hunt has said, "Current punishments represent a slap on the wrist for this cruel crime." The Home Secretary Priti Patel is also working on increasing the legislation around pet theft campaigned for by various organisations, campaigns and charities. This has to happen as, without harsher sentences, we are limited to a minor impact on criminals who are caught, such as a small fine. By making the punishments harsher, it will often be a deterrent once thieves are caught, as at this point, even once caught, the threat of consequence is low.

Now keeping your pets safe, what you need to know?

Firstly, the dogs at the most significant risk are 50% more likely to be stolen from your garden, so making your garden more secure is a better way to protect them and make them less visible. A further 16% are stolen from within the home now. Remember here that if someone is observing you and waiting for the opportunity, it is worth changing your routine occasionally, such as when you let your dog out in the garden, is it always the front or back garden as an example. Equally, in terms of protecting your home, ensure that if you have a security system that it is live when your not in the house, it is a really simple step but a clincher. Other areas are making sure your dog is not left outside the home in vulnerable positions off lead where your dog may be friendly and want to greet everyone, ensure that you can call them back before they are out of sight. Avoid leaving the dog outside a shop in a locked or unlocked car. Ensure your dog has all of the identification it needs legally but that it is not easy for it to be called away from you. Now when you're out on the walk, and you need extra safeguards, use apps such as https://hollieguard.com/, which will offer you an alarm system of shorts to highlight the crime to passers-by. Also, be aware of where you are and keep yourself safe as criminals have proven they will take the dog, not just wait for an opportunity for you to be separated. In terms of what to do when you are in a position where your dog has been stolen, the following article has many useful points https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-advice/protect-your-dog-against-theft. The key contacts for you in Suffolk: DogLost, NationalPetRegister and AnimalSearchUK are critical databases for stolen pets; as is social media, you must have up-to-date information on your pet, including a recent photo. The local dog wardens number are separated by the District Council. They are in a list for you below under the heading DW. Now to reduce your risk of buying a stolen dog, it is best to follow the guidance of recognised breed clubs or groups and your local rescue centres. These groups are best placed to recommend breeders of specific dogs and be aware of reputable litters. If you do not know where to start, start here or with national clubs like the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and the RSPCA.

Now in terms of positive steps, national organisations are backing Pet Theft reform. MPs such as Tom Hunt, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and Siobhan Baille are advocating for reform, with the Prime Minister and Home Secretary also advocating for more stringent reforms. Now, will you support Pet Theft Reform to safeguard the nation's pets sign and share the petition and find out more from the links below https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/560216.

DW:

Forest Heath dog warden 01638 71 97 33

St Edmundsbury dog warden 01284 75 70 58

Mid Suffolk dog warden 01449 72 45 00

Waveney dog warden 01502 52 31 17

Suffolk Coastal dog warden 01394 44 40 00

Ipswich dog warden 01473 43 31 15

Babergh dog warden 01473 82 66 22

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/dog-theft-statistics-in-suffolk-2700864

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dog-stolen-puppies-theft-lost-sell-buy-cost-coronavirus-suffolk-a9652231.html

https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/media-centre/2021/february/stronger-penalties-for-pet-theft-welcomed-by-the-kennel-club/

https://www.suffolk.police.uk/services/freedom-information/disclosure-logs/2019-disclosure-logs/crime-and-incident-statistics

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11895265/lockdown-pet-thefts-puppy-farming-fights/

https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-advice/protect-your-dog-against-theft

https://www.dogsforgood.org/good-advice/protect-dog-from-theft/

https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/24/how-to-avoid-accidentally-buying-a-stolen-dog-14139487/?ico=related-posts

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/9/5/209

https://www.pettheftreform.com/