If you have been following the progress of the Draft Animal Welfare Bill you will know of the various issues it set out to tackle, especially with regards the welfare of domestic animals.

However, the recent publication of the Animal Welfare Bill has received a lukewarm response.

On the plus side
The Bill introduced a ‘duty of care’. Owners will need to provide a manner of care appropriate for the animal. For dog owners, this will mean allowing the dog to live in a suitable environment, have adequate food and water, be able to exhibit normal behaviour, and be protected from pain and injury. This ‘duty of care’ plus the ‘cruelty prevention’ aspect of the Bill means that welfare groups will be able to intervene sooner if these conditions are not met. This in turn means that more can be done to actually prevent suffering in the first place. This is a great improvement from current law which only allows the prosecution of pet owners after suffering has occurred.

Deterrents in the form of fines and prison sentences have been increased along with the age at which a person can buy a pet. Anyone under 16 years of age will be prohibited from buying pets. Also, animals will not be allowed to be given as prizes, for example goldfish at funfairs.

On the other hand, the following question has been raised:

Does this Bill really change anything?
It does not ban tail docking, puppy farming, electric collars or even choke chains, or the sale of puppies and kittens in pet shops.

The response seems to be:

“The Bill is not about banning things. It is designed to set out the general principle that people have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of animals they are responsible for.” Quoted from the Defra website.

Amendments
The Bill is subject to subsequent orders and 2nd tranches. In this respect, the Bill is evolving and the potential is definitely still there. Some questions have been left open, such as tail docking and puppy farming. The issue of tail docking is part of the Bill that has been left particularly open ended and lacking in meaning.

Tail Docking



Claiming it to be “an issue of conscience” the Bill makes no pronouncement on docking. Instead, any decisions will be left to Parliament, to MPs who have little or no in-depth knowledge of the issues involved.

Supporters of a ban on tail docking believe the practice to be detrimental to the animal’s ability to express themselves and socially interact. A recent report also suggests that tail docking can compromise a dog’s balance, agility and back strength, plus the muscles of the pelvic and perineal region. Tail docking is seen as a cruel and unnecessary procedure, quite often performed for aesthetic purposes for the sake of the breed, tradition, and the show ring.

Pro-docking supporters claim that the pain of docking is minimal and that docking safeguards the animal from future tail injury. However, a number of reports show that injuries to the tail are actually quite rare and by no means restricted to or even more common among the breeds traditionally docked. Vets also say that tail injuries are not generally difficult to treat nor do they cause any more pain than tail docking itself.

Both pro- and anti-docking supporters will probably seek an amendment to the Bill. The Kennel Club says it will continue to lobby the government in support of a lack of a tail docking ban, preferring the choice to be left to the individual. The Council for Docked Breeds says that the “loss of freedom for breeders to make their own choice over docking would prove devastating for some of our best loved dog breeds”.

The Bill can seem quite contradictory when it comes to the issue of docking. Part of the Bill stresses that animals should be given the right “to express their natural behaviour” yet the Bill does not ban the practice of removing a dog’s tail, with which it naturally expresses itself. Also, the Bill goes as far as saying it will “ban mutilations of animals, with certain specified exemptions”. These exemptions will be detailed in a subsequent part of secondary legislation. This leads us to ask not only ‘if’ but ‘when’ the issue of tail docking is likely to be dealt with.

For a summary of all the key points of the Animal Welfare Bill, visit www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/bill/index.htm where you can also view the full Bill and access the explanatory notes.

Take action now
There is still time to make your voice heard but act soon as time is running out. The Animal Welfare Bill will have its second reading in the House of Commons on 10 January 2006. A quick letter to your MP could make all the difference. If you don’t know the name or contact details of your MP, visit www.locata.co.uk/commons and enter your postcode. Ask your MP to vote for a ban on docking. Each and every letter counts.

Dogs Trust gives a good example sentence for inclusion in your letter:

”Please attend the debate on January 10th and support the case for a complete ban on tail docking because it is cruel”.

There are also numerous petitions on the go. A good example can be found on the Emma The TV Vet website.

It only takes a couple of minutes to sign the petition online. The text reads as follows:

To: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

We, the undersigned, are petitioning to ban the barbaric act of cosmetic tail docking. The equally unpleasant practice of ear cropping was ended in Britain when your ancestor, King George 6th, told the Kennel Club he found the fashion distasteful.

We hope as a great animal lover you can go down in history as the monarch who gave every British dog the right to a natural, waggy tail. We feel sure that if you express a preference and choose to leave your next litter of Corgis as nature-intended this unnecessary mutilation will end.

Sincerely

The Undersigned


A final word from Dogs Trust
“The Animal Welfare Bill is finally on the brink of becoming law in England and Wales, and the similar Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill is going through the Scottish Parliament. This is great news as the new laws will give greater protection to animals in many ways, especially as they make responsible ownership a legal requirement for the first time!

But there is a vital piece of legislation missing and we need your help to ensure that this legislation is included.

If the Bills go through in their current form, tail-docking (the removing of a dogs' tail leaving a stump) may still be allowed if the dogs are believed to be working dogs. We believe that tail-docking is cruel and unnecessary. Not only is it a practice that causes pain and suffering to young puppies, but deprives dogs of a vital form of their canine expression and can have long-term adverse effects on health.

We are calling for a total ban on tail-docking other than for therapeutic medical reasons.”