New welfare act....

B

Bossanova

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 November 2004
Messages
10,284
Visit site
Seeing as post has gone, I will merely ask a general question...

[ QUOTE ]

also - whilst it is perfectly OK to foal outside it is less normal to do so with a first foal. As the foaling history of this mare was unknown - better indoors and monitored - especially as no knowledge of the size of the stallion responsible was available - stallion could have been 17.2 shire for all we know and far too large/heavy - as all the circumstances of the mares foaling history and the covering stallion were NOT known then the mare should have been brought indoors and monitored.

The YO is to blame for that

[/ QUOTE ]

I did ask in the last post but no one answered- why is the YO to blame?? YO isnt the owner of the horse nor has any role in caring for it, they merely own the land it's kept on. Isnt this like saying that if someone rents a field off a farmer then the farmer is responsible for looking after the horses
confused.gif
 
If a horse is stabled on a livery yard then the YO has a responsibility to the animals on his yard as they are deamed to be in his care.
 
If the YO is running a proper livery business under the old animal acts if the liveries were DIY then the YO could and did 'wash their hands' of the condition/care of the horses.

Under the new AW bill this is not the case if the YO is running a livery business then the welfare of the animals kept by that business IS the responsibility of the YO.

Hence why there should be livery contracts in place and one clause of which should be that "The YO reserves the right to summon veterinary attention for any horse on the premises".
 
[ QUOTE ]
If a horse is stabled on a livery yard then the YO has a responsibility to the animals on his yard as they are deamed to be in his care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even on a DIY yard, say, where the owner doesnt live on site?
Sorry probably being thick, it just seems odd to me!!
 
I thought the post had gone, yes I thought the YO has a responsibility to ensure the animals are being cared for as the YO is providing the livery service?
 
yes - absolutely right

so the YO in question in the post that has now gone is responsible for the lack of summoning of veterinary attention to a horse in need of that attention that was in the care of that YO.

Hence that YO is liable to prosecution under the new AW Act.

When the leasing of land is not in relation to a horse business then it is the owners of the horses in that rented field that are liable, not the farmer.
 
If it's a business then the YO is responsible

If they don't live on site then that doesn't abrogate their responsibility under the law.

The old maxim of "if in doubt ask" should apply to summoning vet. attention for any animal.

One of the first things that PClub kids are taught for their badges is the "signs of good and bad health" and "when to call the vet".

If we teach these things to 10 yr old pony club children then surely we have a right (now enshrined in law) to have the same level of care from a horse business.

If the YO doesn't live on site then the rule should be that all horses are left in good health with no question marks over their wellbeing.

In the case that was being discusssed the horse concerned was left not in goodd health and in satisfactory wellbeing and even a PClub C+ kid should have been wanting to call the vet !!!
 
I know that most local farmers around here would just give up renting out stables for liveries if they realised the true extent of this act. It seems like a legal minefield, wonder if anyone could get a prosecution to stand up in court....
 
I will put forward a situation ... purely hypothetical of course !
Say a livery bought a mare with unknown history that turned out to be pregnant.
The owner decided that due to the fact the mare appeared to dislike being stabled they would foal her in the field, despite the fact a stable had been cleared for the mares use.
One day they notice the mare looks like it is going to foal shortly, it's running milk and is generally a bit restless in itself. They may have even called the vet at this point.
Consensus is that the mare is likely to go into labour shortly.
They keep an eye on the mare
eventually later that night the mare appears to have gone into labour and is struggling. The vet is called.
There are complications with the birth and an emergency ceserian is offered. The owner isn't insured, there are no gaurentees that there will be a live mare and/or foal at the end of it and the mare is in significant discomfort.
The owner decides that it is in the mares best interest to be PTS.

How on earth is the YO responsible?
 
[ QUOTE ]

How on earth is the YO responsible?

[/ QUOTE ]

crazy.gif
God knows.
I really think livery places will be a lot harder to come by if people start throwing the blame at YOs, it's already pretty impossible to make any sort of money unless you're running it on a very large scale.
 
The RSPCA certainly are "delighted" with the new act - so I think you can reckon that they think they'll get prosecutions under this act.

It even covers the welfare of goldfish !! (and I've kept fish so I'm not being snobby)
 
But B&J in the example you give there has been no negligence - and this is NOT the same story as was given previously.
 
[ QUOTE ]
But B&J in the example you give there has been no negligence - and this is NOT the same story as was given previously.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, and I agree, that this could be the story from earlier but people jumped to conclusions and filled in gaps in the info given to come up with a situation where there was negligence....

Ets, sorry didnt mean this post to be about that, I am genuinely worried about this new act as my family own a livery business and it has serious implications.
 
[ QUOTE ]
But B&J in the example you give there has been no negligence - and this is NOT the same story as was given previously.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly ... and the story given previously was 3rd hand over the internet without the full first hand facts available!
 
The bottom line is that there should be formal written livery contracts both to protect the YO AND the Livery so that both parties to the contract know exactly what is and isn't included/covered.

One clause in any good livery contract should be, as I stated, That the YO reserves the right to summon veterinary attention for any animal on the premises without waiting for the animal's owner to be contacted, if the YO deems this veterinary care to be necessary.

Better safe than sorry and in some illnesses time can be of the essence and instead of playing telephone tag with an uncontactable owner the vet should be summoned first.
 
Have another one...

What if YO goes on holiday? Do they have to appoint someone to act on their behalf and hence make them liable to prosecution?
 
[ QUOTE ]
exactly ... and the story given previously was 3rd hand over the internet without the full first hand facts available!

[/ QUOTE ]
Was it? I thought that the OP was stating what had occurred after arriving on her yard this morning and being informed of what had happened?

Anyway I'm certainly not going to get in to an argument with everyone about it. If it happened exactly as reported - tragic. If it didn't - then we will never know the full story.
 
If your family own a livery business then get it approved under the BHS approvals scheme and rely on the excellent advise on new legislation that is provided by the BHS to scheme members. The staff in the approvals office of the BHS are absolutely helpful at all times on a very wide range of issues.

Also - research the information on the bill on the DEFRA website.

Also remember that under the Mirvahedy case you are already liable for prosecution if any animal escapes from any of your fields onto the public highway and causes an accident - even if you have taken 'all reasonable precautions'.

There has been an early day motion to try and undo this ridiculous interpretation of the law by the Court fo Appeal but so far it remains "case law".,

So if you run a livery yard, make sure you have watertight livery contracts with each and every client and read up on the Animal Welfare bill. I do know for a fact that this bill takes away the "they are DIY liveries" excuse for YOs when animals on their property are neglected.
 
I think Boss this is one more very good reason not to have a livery yard. Thank god we closed ours. With Business Rates and insurance and now this it is never worth it.
 
What does the ‘duty of care’ mean?
“Duty of care” is a legal phrase which means that someone has an obligation to do something. Prior to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, people only had a duty to ensure that an animal didn’t suffer unnecessarily. The new Act keeps this duty but also imposes a broader duty of care on anyone responsible for an animal to take reasonable steps to ensure that the animal’s needs are met. This means that a person has to look after the animal’s welfare as well as ensure that it does not suffer. The Act says that an animal’s welfare needs include:

a suitable environment (how it is housed);
a suitable diet (what it eats and drinks);
the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns;
any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and
protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
==========================================

above is quote directly from the DEFRA website

note the last sentence - "protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease"
 
The duty of care (the need to provide for an animal’s welfare) applies to animals for which a person is responsible. A person is responsible for an animal if he or she is:

the owner of the animal;
in charge of the animal, for example an owner of boarding kennels;
a parent or guardian of a person under 16 who is responsible for the animal.
A person can be responsible for an animal on a temporary basis; for example, looking after a friend’s cat whilst they are on holiday.

============================================

Defines the person responsible

"in charge of the animal - as in the owner of a ......read livery yard instead of boarding kennels......." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so the YO is responsible !!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]

Ets, sorry didnt mean this post to be about that, I am genuinely worried about this new act as my family own a livery business and it has serious implications.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was a YO I would have a clause in the livery contract to state that if the YO considers there is a case to answer under the new legislation, then the YO will act and charge the client. I would also set out fees and state that an owner must follow these rules - and state how often an owner must visit etc. and that should an owner fail to comply - they will be charged at a rate of x per day for full livery - to include all forage - but also a fee of y plus veterinary fees or y plus farriers fees, if neglect leads to emergency call outs of these services.

Get it all drawn up legally and then the owner knows what they are expected to do, and what they will be charged if not. I'd also include that bit about if the fees are unpaid you can claim the horse and sell to recover the unpaid livery.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think Boss this is one more very good reason not to have a livery yard. Thank god we closed ours. With Business Rates and insurance and now this it is never worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't tell that to my YO, they're only just setting up their livery yard!

I think the YO has a duty of care to ensure that DIY owners care daily for their horses, and its the YO's fault if the horse gets left for months with no care.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If your family own a livery business then get it approved under the BHS approvals scheme and rely on the excellent advise on new legislation that is provided by the BHS to scheme members.

[/ QUOTE ]

My sister has been running an exceptionally high quality full livery service for 17 years, the BHS approval system is expensive and seemingly unnecessary as they are happy to advise anyway. Our centre is already regularly inspected by the BHS as we are partly a 'riding school' and the local council.
I've seen some very grotty approved yards where the standards of care are nowhere near those that we keep so I do not trust the system.

In our contracts we already have permission to contact vets on owners behalfs and do so when necessary, I know plenty of loacls with DIY yards however that will not take the new act well and probably dont even know about it as they are not 'horsey'
 
How will the Act be enforced?
The Act gives some formal enforcement powers (such as the power of entry to certain kinds of premises, and the power to seize documents) to the police and ‘inspectors’. ‘Inspectors’ are people appointed by local authorities or, in England, by the Secretary of State (in England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in Wales) with responsibility for animal welfare. In practice this can mean a local authority employee with responsibility for animal welfare, or a State Veterinary Service (Animal Health) Officer.

However, the law (like most laws) is a ‘common informer’s Act’. This means that anyone is allowed to bring a prosecution for an offence. In practice, as now, the RSPCA intends to investigate many offences relating to animal cruelty or welfare of domestic animals, and in some cases farmed animals, and bring prosecutions where appropriate. However, the RSPCA does not have formal enforcement powers such as power of entry or the power to seize documents. For more information, please see the RSPCA website.

Defra, LACORS, the State Veterinary Service, the police, and the RSPCA are drawing up a ‘Statement of Intent’ which will set out the usual procedures for enforcement of the Act. When finalised, it will be available from this site.

In broad terms, the SVS and local authorities will continue to take the lead on enforcement of farm animal welfare. The RSPCA will deal with most cases relating to companion and domestic animals. The police are likely to be involved only in cases involving very serious offences or issues of public order.

=================================================

Note the fact that ANYONE can bring a prosecution under this act - so a hostile neighbour or someone that thinks you aren't looking after your animal properly - can bring a prosecution against you !!!

This act has teeth

YOs and others that have field kept horses, beware !!!
 
sorry got the postings out of line but if you look below I've copied/pasted some relevant words from the dEFRA website
 
If you look below I've done 3 postings consecutively where I've cut and pasted relevant bits from the dEFRA website regarding the responsibilities AND interestingly that ANYONE can bring a prosecution under this act - so field kept horse owners could have a prosecution brought against them by a 'busy body' if it is thought that their horses look a 'bit sad' - it's not just YOs that this act can affect.
 
While the YO may not own the horse, while the horse is at livery there then the YO has taken on some of the responsibility for the horse.
I found this on a website:
[ QUOTE ]
The owner is always regarded as having a responsibility for an animal. But that responsibility can be shared by another person who is in charge of the animal. This applies whether the person owns the animal or is in charge of the animal on a temporary or permanent basis. For example, if a horse were stabled at a livery yard, both the horse owner and the operator of the livery yard would have responsibility for the welfare of the horse. The owner would have a responsibility to ensure that the livery yard was a suitable place to leave the horse. The livery yard would have a responsibility for the day to day welfare of the horse. Where a DIY livery arrangement had been made, the livery yard operator would not normally be expected to have a responsibility for the day to day welfare of the animal. However, he or she would have a responsibility for the welfare of a horse if the horse owner or the person contracted to take care of the animal failed to attend to it.


[/ QUOTE ]
 
At our DIY yard at the ment there is a pony that is hugely fat. The YO is very worried about it and is going to talk to the owner, but it is a bit difficult.

The grass up our yard is very good, and the owner knows that there is a high risk of laminitus, and the pony is in the field of very little grass, the pony is fed over-soaked hay and handful of chaff with a balancer, but the pony is still massively overweight. The problem is that the owner does not exercise the pony at all, and YO feels that if left the pony is almost certian to get laminitus. Oh, and the pony is owned by an AI! YO is going to have a chat to the owner and drum in the risk of laminitus message agin, but in this case I really can't see what she can do?! She can't FORCE someone to exercise their pony. He is already being fed responsibly, he's just very, very fat. What would you do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top