HOT BRANDING IN SCOTLAND - ACTION NEEDED!

[Anastasia]

I know that some people do not believe in branding, but for us who have it done, it is one of the quickest and less stressful means of horse identification. I have witnessed a huge amount of brandings over the year and I have yet to see one horse have a bad reaction to it, or the brand itself require anything further done to it afterwards.

We had hot branding last year and microchipping. Each of my foals were far more stressed with a vet standing at the side of them trying to get a needle in their neck than opposed to having someone come up quickly to give them a brand, and within 1-2 seconds were away again.

I touched each of the brands afterwards and the foals gave no reaction.......when I touched the necks of those that had got the microchip, each foal was tender and pulled away from me. One foal had three attempts to get it into its neck and was getting very stressed out and rearing to get away from the vet, and we were worried about him injuring himself!!

I think that if a foal was to have a bad experience of the microchipping that it could have a bigger reaction later on with getting normal injections into the neck for vaccinations.

Anyway for those who wish to do something about this you need to act BEFORE THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY!!

[ QUOTE ]


T: 0131-244 6462 F: 0131-244 6616
E: ian.strachan@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

To all on the attached list

23rd December 2009


Dear Sir or Madam

HOT BRANDING OF EQUINE ANIMALS

As you may be aware section 20 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 makes it an offence to carry out a procedure on a protected animal which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal. The Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 exempt certain procedures from this general prohibition and one of these exempted procedures is the hot branding of equine animals for identification purposes. However, hot branding of equine animals is only permitted in Scotland where a specific authorisation has been issued by Scottish Ministers.

Since these Regulations came into effect specific authorisations have only been requested for a number of Exmoor ponies.

Since July this year, it has been a requirement for all horses and ponies to be microchipped and this has considerably weakened the case to allow hot branding. In addition, the British Veterinary Association (BVA) issued a recent policy statement which stated:

“Hot branding is generally carried out without analgesia and is undoubtedly a painful process. The BVA believe that the continued use of hot branding as a means of identifying certain breeds is unacceptable and should be banned on welfare grounds”.

This statement goes further than the statement issued by the British Equine Veterinary Association, who wished to see hot branding of equine animals “phased out”.

As a consequence, we have been reviewing our policy which has allowed hot branding of certain horses and ponies under the restrictions of a specific authorisation. Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, has indicated that he would like to remove the exemption for hot branding of equine animals, making the hot branding of any equine animal in Scotland an offence. This will mean that the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 will need to be amended.

It is a requirement of section 20 (6) of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 that before any Regulation is made under section 20, Scottish Ministers must consult “such persons appearing to them to represent relevant interests….as they consider appropriate”.

Thus this letter is designed to inform you of the Scottish Government’s intention to lay an amending Regulation in Parliament and to allow you the opportunity to make your views known to us. In the meantime, no further authorisations to hot brand any equine animal in Scotland will be issued.

If you wish to comment on our plans to remove the exemption for hot branding, thus making it an offence to hot brand any equine animal in Scotland, please send your respond by 28 February 2010 to the following email address: animal.health@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Or by post to:

Pam Kennedy
Animal Welfare Branch
Room 350
Pentland House
47 Robb’s Loan
EDINBURGH
EH14 1TY

Yours faithfully

Ian W Strachan
Head of Animal Welfare Branch


Copied to:

Advocates for Animals
Animal Aid
Animal Concern
The British Equine Veterinary Association
The British Horse Society
The British Equine Veterinary Association
The British Veterinary Association
The Dartmoor Pony Society
The Donkey Sanctuary
Edinburgh and District Riding Club
Edinburgh University
The Exmoor Pony Society
Glasgow University
Horse Trust
The National Equine Welfare Council
The New Forest Pony Society
The Pony Club
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Scotland for Animals
The Scottish Equine Association
The Scottish SPCA
Scottish Voice for Animals
World Horse Welfare

A number of individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]


As you can see copies of this correspondence has not been sent to any of the sports horse organisations.

For those who get their foals branded I URGE you all to write a letter to the above person. If this gets introduced into Scotland it will only be a matter of time before the rest of the UK is affected!!

Sportshorse Studbooks affected by this are the BHHS, Oldenburgs and British Warmbloods that I know of, that still do branding.

 

[Biscuit]

Has freezemarking been proven more humane than hot branding? If so, perhaps that is the way to go?

 

[bailey14]

I agree. I think hot branding is about 10 seconds of pain for a lifetime of proof of identity and I don't know what the problem is. People are a little bit too sentimental these days.

 

[sywell]

If Ian Strachan had carried out a comprehensive review of all procedure like cold branding,pin firing and blistering it might be acceptable but it is clear they say the emotive word hot and assumed that cold burns are not painful nor are any of the other processes.

 

[PalominoMare]

[ QUOTE ]
makes it an offence to carry out a procedure on a protected animal which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal

[/ QUOTE ]

So will that include freeze marking? Or are they not including that? Even through its a longer proces for the animal?

Also..why is always Scottish Law that kick starts these debates and ultamitely affect everyone! Smoking ban...hunting ban...

 

[magic104]

As an owner who chose to have their foal branded I dont see what the fuss is about. I have had 6 horses in my life time freeze-marked & they had more of an issue then the foal being branded. I thought it was another way of identification, but in our case you are hard pushed to see the brand. If it was not for that I would do it again. If he suffered he sure as hell hide it well..

 

[genie]

I have seen hot branding on 6month old foals. I thought it would be a terrible ordeal for them but in fact it wasn't anything for them to worry about at all. They hardly noticed. The next few days weren't an issue either and there were no after effects or even signs that the foals were sore in any way.

I think forcing people to have young foals micro chipped is babaric. We had ours done last year(to comply with cruel legislation) and it was very definitely not a pleasant experience all round.

 

[levantosh]

I am not against hot branding and would have it done, but in all fairness my foal last year had a microchip and did not even flinch when the needle was put in, nor has he had any problems with touching it since. I suppose horses react differently to different things.

 

[hippomaniac]

I have to say I have not been involved in hot branding so can't comment on that, I have however had all my foals chipped and have not had any adverse reactions and the foals were happy to have it done, and had no problems with handling afterwards.

 

[Tharg]

Is hot branding done in Ireland?

 

[Eothain]

Whatever about branding, I think it's silly and wouldn't do it to any of my stock if it was available in Ireland but to say that microchipping is "traumatic" is utterly ridiculous and a little bit soft on people.
From our own experiences, a foal should be chipped in a bout 5 seconds flat. No problem at all. If you don't like that, well I suggest you build a bridge and get over it!

 

[hippomaniac]

I do agree with you Eothain, possibley the vet has not been quick enough with the foals they had problems with.
I have to say I would choose chipping over the more archaic forms of identification. this is not to say it is wrong, just my opinion. what I do get fired up about is the power's that be constantly taking away our choices, often with purely emotive thoughts, and without proper knowledge of the equine industry.

 

[Anastasia]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever about branding, I think it's silly and wouldn't do it to any of my stock if it was available in Ireland but to say that microchipping is "traumatic" is utterly ridiculous and a little bit soft on people.

From our own experiences, a foal should be chipped in a bout 5 seconds flat. No problem at all. If you don't like that, well I suggest you build a bridge and get over it!

[/ QUOTE ]

Eothain, I have been breeding for a very long time and have been branding throughout that time, and have seen many many horses receive it, and have never seen a horse get stressed out. In my opinion it is one of the best form of identification.

At a recent sale of Scottish horses showed, microchipping as a form of identification is just laughable!! Horses can only be branded the once, where we know that horses have been given double identifications through microchipping.

I am far from soft, but my horses welfare comes first. If I do not like microchipping then that is my opinion to have, am I concerned that you agree with me or not.......well not really! The reason for my post was to let people know what is happening, and if they wish to take action, they can.

Another argument is the following, taken from another breeding forum:

[ QUOTE ]
I *think* that it can be argued if for instance a Hanoverian foal in Germany can be branded but a Hanoverian foal in Scotland cannot and as a result the Scottish breeder is therefore at a disadvantage selling their non branded foal, it can be argued this contravenes EU trading laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above could be correct in that breeders in the UK could end up being at a disadvantage.

As I said above, it is for individuals to make up their own minds (in the UK there are many people who get horses branded). For those who wish to take action, you need to do this before the 28th February.

 

[Eothain]

Hang on now for just a second. I'm not going to get into an argument with anybody on an internet forum. We're not twelve!!!
I didn't say don't hot brand. I didn't say don't freeze mark. Said nothing of the sort. I said I think they're silly. I think horses look ridiculous with brands and marks on them and I wouldn't do it. Would it stop me buying a horse? No. Absolutely not.
However, I role my eyes and laugh when I see microchipping being described as cruel and barbaric etc. Never in my life until now, have I heard of/seen a horse adversly affected by a microchip in its neck. They're not arcane or draconian or anything of the sort. They're merely a reality so we have to get over it.
As for hot branding being threatened, well its just another example of people with power sticking their nose where it doesn't belong

 

[Fahrenheit]

As microchipping foals is now law and is going to have to be done anyway... people can ask the vet to do what my vet did if people are finding their foals are getting traumatised, he gives all the foals a small injection of local with a fine needle before microchipping and microchipping then passed without incident, infact all my foals had their ID drawings, micro chips, hair plucked for DNA and worming done in one hit that day. It went, I held, the vet injected the local, drew the foal ID, injected the microchip, plucked the tail hair and wormed the foal NEXT! No problemo!

(and he didn't charge extra for the local)

 

[siennamum]

I wish someone had anaesthetised my youngster before they microchipped him, he was done as a 3 year old, I think. He will not tolerate a vet anywhere near him now.
I shall have to sedate him to have him vaccinated I think - it's a total pain in the arse.

 

[Anastasia]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I role my eyes and laugh when I see microchipping being described as cruel and barbaric etc

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I describe microchipping as cruel and barbaric? I stated a fact that my foals had a far bigger reaction to a microchip needle than a hot iron. I am fully aware it is a legal requirement, but I still do not have to believe in it being the best form of identity for a horse.

[ QUOTE ]
people can ask the vet to do what my vet did if people are finding their foals are getting traumatised, he gives all the foals a small injection of local

[/ QUOTE ]

You are lucky in that your vet does not charge, as most I am sure would. I can understand your reasons for doing so, but I dont want to have to go round sedating foals either. That is something that is not needed when it comes to branding.

Maybe that is what is annoying BEVA more, the fact that a vet is not involved, so they have no revenue from it.

 

[magicgirl]

I had a foal microchiped last year and I wish I never had to have it done to another foal. My filly was well mannered and liked people but did not have a good time with the microchip and was very difficult about having ner neck touched for a long time. The same vet did her vacinations previously and she wasn't bothered.

 

[genie]

I think chipping is pointless. cruel and a waste of time. I have also been breeding for many years and prefer branding as a means of permanent identification.....at least with a good brand anybody can see it from a distance and no doubt about it.

we had 1 filly foal last year that was very distressed at being chipped and we also had a 12 year old mare that was chipped that bled quite a lot. It doesn't matter if it was down to the vet or whatever.......it was a bad experience for the foal. and also for the 12 year old mare. We had a couple of others that didn't seem to notice it being done too, so no bad reactions there.

I don't quite follow why we should have forced identification anyway but if its the law then thats it.

Nobody else on here is arguing like twelve year olds but I found your post a bit patronising and also a bit rude telling people to build bridges and get over them..and anybody who knew me would never call me soft but I am definitely not at all happy with chipping.

 

[Fahrenheit]

[ QUOTE ]
I can understand your reasons for doing so, but I dont want to have to go round sedating foals either

[/ QUOTE ]

FTR my foals were not sedated, they had a small amount of local to numb the area where the chip was going.

 

[ColourFan]

Actually ! if anyone at one of the governing organs bothers to READ the European legislation about horse identification they would read that, as an alternative to microchipping, branding with DNA typing is acceptable !!

The only problem for most Ministries is that there is no revenue to be made or collected out of branding + DNA typing! Whereas with microchipping there are buckets of cash to be made by all those along the food-chain .....

Of course they will also quote another problem being traceability of a branded horse .... I'll leave this discussion with its gapping holes open for another time.

 

[Eothain]

I can assure you all that I wasn't intending to be rude or patronising. More so to the point, I was simply trying to get people to get on with it.
I can't see how its cruel or pointless. Indeed, had we not had a microchip in a pony in early 09, it would've been stolen on us had we not done it. He is quite a good little pony so I will defend microchipping to the bitter end. It could've been different if the pony had less ability than what he has!
I just can't see whats cruel about chipping. As far as branding is concerned, I think that freezemarking and hot branding look awful. I'd nearly rather a bit of bleeding than look at a brand for the rest of a horses life. Thank god the I.S.H doesn't brand is all I can say.
... And yes ... ... I realise that's a silly reason to not like something.
Apologies again if you thought the post to be rude, but I guess they are the perils of being on the internet at 4a.m!!!

 

[Anastasia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can understand your reasons for doing so, but I dont want to have to go round sedating foals either

[/ QUOTE ]

FTR my foals were not sedated, they had a small amount of local to numb the area where the chip was going.

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies for picking that up in the wrong way. Still think you were very lucky your vet never charged though, mine definately would have.

 

[Alec Swan]

Eothain,

I've read the previous thoughts of others. You are entirely correct, in my view, in that taking a beautiful creature, and then intentionally scarring it, should be an anathema to most of us. I'm simply assuming that this was your point.

However, those who keep and breed those horses which are entitled to wear a badge, by way of identification, and a badge which perhaps, should be worn with pride, are entitled to make that decision for themselves. I'm sure that you accept this point.

The real argument, in my view, should be with the fact, that there is a body who would have this changed. I'm staggered at the level of audacity, which is displayed by those who would refer to a branding, as mutilation, and they are without doubt, the same people who were responsible for the shambolic, and patently shameful stud farm sale which occurred in Scotland at the tale end of last year. The level of understanding of the equine, by the SSPCA, or the English version, is such that I wouldn't leave them in charge of a dead horse.

That the welfare bodies have far more clout than those who actually deal with the animal, is to be entirely understood. That there are those who would postulate the use of the word "welfare", when their own sense of importance is predominant, must be obvious to all.

I have never witnessed either a branding, or the insertion of a micro chip. From what I've read however, improperly performed, then either is likely to cause needless distress. Strangely, those who perform brandings seem to be highly experienced, and all too often those who insert the chips, are those who seem to somehow get it wrong.

I too fail to see the point of intentionally creating a flaw. That said, the question is apparently one of welfare, and in Great Britain I am certain that we lead the world in the care of the equine. It is most certainly galling to be told by those who speak with little authority and even less experience that what we are doing is barbaric.

Alec.

 

[Tharg]

[ QUOTE ]

As for hot branding being threatened, well its just another example of people with power sticking their nose where it doesn't belong

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true!

I have no problem with hot/cold branding/microchipping. The more methods of identification the better! But show me general stupidity and over sentimentality and I see red!

The downfall with microchipping is that it is not a visible marker and they can be removed. Are there any cases of chips implanted that turn out to be faulty? Is there just one scanner for all chips or is this dependent on country/manufacture.

The suggestion about no gov revenue from branding is a good one.

 

[amandaco2]

not sure about foals
but i had my horses done as adults (well the filly was 3)
i had them chipped and freezemarked.
they were not bothered much by either,
although i have to say I felt green looking at the needle used to put the chip in!!!bloody huge!
they were all twitched for the chipping and had a little swelling for 24hrs after but were not distressed by it.
imagine foals may well be more sensitive..? suppose alot will depend on the foals temperment and level of handling as well as the vets skill!

 

[MiriamG]

Hot branding is undoubtedly a painful procedure. Scientific research has proved this; more stress hormones were released in a study than just the handling process (sham branding), or in actual fact freeze branding.

Obviously nobody wants to put an animal through a painful process unless it is absolutely necessary. So the question is, is hot branding necessary? As the law change is due for scotland only, I will refer to that - I do understand a wider ban on branding would have complications that would need further thought.

The historical reasoning behind hot branding is identification, before microchipping was invented. Now by law all ponies must be microchipped, which gives a much more accurate method of identification.

Now the reasoning behind hot branding is to allow "semi-feral" (unhandled) ponies to be identified from a distance. However, having managed a large herd of branded Exmoor ponies (all branded by different people), I know that it is impossible to accurately identify ponies by their hot brand from 2 metres away, never mind from a distance! For most of the year their coat is too long and obscures the brand, otherwise they are often hard to distinguish due to individual variation in scarring (especially between numbers such as 6,8 and 9; 1 and 7; 5 and 6 etc). This means that for any ponies who are wild and can't be examined up close, hot branding is an insufficient means of identification.

Also there are no large semi-feral herds co-grazing in scotland. Therefore the situation is very different to the new forest - all ponies in each area are owned by the same person. After only 3 years of managing a herd I can accurately identify each individual in a group of 60+ ponies from a distance without the use of brands. I believe this is a basic aspect of animal management that owners should be able to do with their own animals (bearing in mind herds in scotland are usually under 20 ponies).

The third thing to bear in mind is the number of hot brands that are applied to a foal. The EPS applies a star, a herd number (both on the shoulder) and individual number (flank). The herd and individual number can each be 3 digits long, which means 7 brands being applied to the same young foal. This is a lot of pain and trauma for a young animal. A microchip takes under a seccond to insert, and if requested local anaesthetic can be used to make the process as pain free as possible. After having witnessed brandings and microchippings, I can honestly say the branded foals are much more traumatised by the experience. They often have an extreme reaction such as rearing up or crashing down to the floor, which can cause inury to people or pony.

The fourth thing is that in Sotland hot branding is carried out by EPS inspectors. They are trained by the EPS, but are not audited by any outside body. They have no veterinary training, and from the few brandings I have witnessed there is an unacceptable variation in branding technique.

I would also like to correct an earlier statement and say that BEVA are now totally in support of a ban in hot branding in scotland (do not wish for it to be "phased out" as they believe alternatives are already in place).

 

[MiriamG]

Also if we are going down the "methods of identification" route, hot brands can easily be tampered with unlike microchips. This can be very misleading and allow horses to be sold on with a different identity if we continue to rely on numbers!

Also there are cases in the EPS of ponies being sold as one and later being identified as another, ponies being branded and then later told they can not be registered (even though they passed inspection and were branded as such), and questions over parentage because mares were poorly identified. Branding is not the only culprit in these mistakes, but it illustrates that branding is a poor method of identification!

 

[Matisse]

Having experienced Exmoor pony hot brandings and handled branded foals and ponies, there is no doubt that it is painful and causes lasting behaviour ranging from mild apprehension to full blown resistance to subsequent handling. Branding combined with abrupt restraint and weaning does not give the ponies the best start and it is thought by some to contribute to their reputation of being 'difficult'. Some ponies cope better than others with the experience.

With compulsory microchipping of all equines, there is no welfare or management reason to hot brand ponies living a domestic life in ground and this should not be an option for owners. Colt foals, particularly, who are not returning to a free-living situation and who will not be used for breeding, do not need to be hot branded.

However, the problem lies with the identification of the semi-feral herds, particularly where there are mixed-owner herds living in the same area. Currently, the argument given is that hot branding is needed to identify the ponies from a distance. However, Miriam's comments outline the reasons why hot branding is proving to be a poor method of identification. Sheep and cattle are no longer branded in this country but ear tagging is an unacceptable and painful method of identification for ponies and a suitable alternative method of visual identification has not yet been found for semi-feral ponies.

While hot branding is undoubtedly unpleasant, research is needed into a suitable, safe, reliable form of visual identification of the semi-feral ponies. Research is also needed into reliable DNA testing for semi-feral herds to accurately prove parentage and enable ponies to be correctly registered in the stud books.

 

[guccigivi2001]

when i bought my horse she had already been microchipped, which i was happy about, but if shes stolen, nones going to know she was unless they check for her microchip because the has very few indentifiable characteristics. i would rather she was hot branded as well as i dont think 10 seconds of pain is a lot to pay for a lifetime of security knowing that with a unique brand or number she would be less likely to be stolen. whilst i have no problem with branding, i would also like to point out i think calling microchipping barbaric and so on is just a bit stupid, we do it to our dogs and cats as its the only way of tracing them if they go missing etc, theres no reason it should be any different for a horse.