RSPCA Animal Welfare Act - is it being enforced enough?

[Horseymumma]

After starting a previous thread regarding a lone horse that lives nearby my home. I got in touch with the RSPCA.

Their findings were, as the horse had water, grass and was enclosed in the field they could do nothing more.

So I checked their website, in particular the Animal Welfare Act that had been introduced in 2007.

It states among other things that animals should have the ability to express normal behaviour and for any need to be housed with (or apart from if necessary) other animals. Surely a horse on its own out of sight of any other horses would fall under this category? Or are horses not considered under this law?

It also got me thinking about a previous yard I was on, where a show horse was kept. This poor horse was kept in its stable 24/7 apart from a couple of hours a week where he was placed in a field to graze. The owners were so worried that their prize horse may get a knock or bruise that would potentially cost them a place. He wasn't even ridden or led out they also used to dehydrate him the day before being measured to help ensure he was under the maximum height allowed in his class. (I personally don't know the ins and outs of how this works but apparently it helps???)
It's beyond me the way some people can be like this. But surely this would also be another case that the RSPCA should intervene? Physically, he was in beautiful condition so I presume not?!

I am really disappointed with the outcome of the first horse, he looks so sad and depressed all the time.

Sorry a bit of a ranting post really, I know there are horses that are in much worse conditions but you would think that giving an animal a chance to act out it's normal behaviour (at least some of the time) is something the RSPCA should enforce more strictly and owners should be more clued up on. For all the funding they get, I've now totally lost any faith I had in them!

 

[Moomin1]

The Animal Welfare Act is not a law aimed at RSPCA. It is Local Authority Officers and police officers only that can use the powers afforded by it.

The issue of a horse being kept alone is far too subjective a subject to be enforced by any law. A vet would have to stand up in court and say that by being alone, that animal is suffering or likely to suffer if it doesn't get company. Then, you are asking a vet to delve into horse psychology, which of course is a complete minefield legally and is extremely difficult to prove in a court of law. For instance, it could then be argued that by travelling a horse long distance alone, could be deemed to be causing 'suffering' or likely to. Or a horse on long term box rest. Or a horse left at home for a day whilst another is taken to a show. The list goes on.

 

[Fenris]

The Animal Welfare Act is not a law aimed at RSPCA. It is Local Authority Officers and police officers only that can use the powers afforded by it.

The issue of a horse being kept alone is far too subjective a subject to be enforced by any law. A vet would have to stand up in court and say that by being alone, that animal is suffering or likely to suffer if it doesn't get company. Then, you are asking a vet to delve into horse psychology, which of course is a complete minefield legally and is extremely difficult to prove in a court of law. For instance, it could then be argued that by travelling a horse long distance alone, could be deemed to be causing 'suffering' or likely to. Or a horse on long term box rest. Or a horse left at home for a day whilst another is taken to a show. The list goes on.

A bit like the man who was prosecuted by the RSPCA for having a fox skin drying i the same barn as his rabbits lived in. Their claim was that as a fox is a natural predator of rabbits the rabbits would have been stressed (never mind the fact that these were tame rabbits and wouldn't have recognised a fox until it bit them!!!) and therefore were undergoing mental suffering.

The Act doesn't give a specified amount of unnecessary suffering, any amount of unnecessary suffering is a crime. Even one single flea bite.

As for a vet needing to stand up in court - No, it is not a vet job to speculate on mental suffering. It needs someone like Roger Mugford.

 

[competitiondiva]

how do you know that this animal is suffering? other than "he looks sad". I agree that in an ideal world horses would have company, but I also know of horses that would kill another if put in with them. Unless the horse is showing physical signs of mental distress due to the situation it is in then I think it is far too subjective to bring a case to court. Remember what is right for one horse isn't necessarily right for another, you could also use your arguement to say no-one should own 1 dog, rabbit or budgie etc? I think you could find a huge number of animal owners in the uk guilty of this.

Fenris, just because the rabbits were domestic rabbits doesn't stop them being prey animals kept in a barn with a strong smell of a predator without the ability to escape?? If a court found them guilty then that's your answer!

 

[Goldenstar]

It is a huge weakness in the system we have developed here that the RSPCA are the main body taking cases forward .
The RSPCA is a charity and has every right to pick and choose what it does but it would much better if the offices of the state, the police and the CPS did this in my opinion .ATM its a case of the RSPCA or no one and that's not right we don't expect the NSPCC to prosecute child abuse cases do we.

 

[Horseymumma]

how do you know that this animal is suffering? other than "he looks sad". I agree that in an ideal world horses would have company, but I also know of horses that would kill another if put in with them. Unless the horse is showing physical signs of mental distress due to the situation it is in then I think it is far too subjective to bring a case to court. Remember what is right for one horse isn't necessarily right for another, you could also use your arguement to say no-one should own 1 dog, rabbit or budgie etc? I think you could find a huge number of animal owners in the uk guilty of this.

- The horse in question used to have a companion but now doesn't. He has since lost weight, rarely grazes, the field is full of rubbish and the horse is never rugged, even during the coldest weather (he is a fine type not a native). It isn't just a case of him being on his own although I do think that this has had a detrimental affect on him as I pass him every day on my way to work.

It just seems to me, that more could be done. The RSPCA have the power to educate owners, it doesn't always have to turn into a court case to remove animals every time and that's not what I am saying should happen. But when the RSPCA attend on numerous occasions (as they have done with this particular case) you would think that improvements in the horse's living conditions would be seen and all I see is an animal getting worse.

 

[Horseymumma]

It is a huge weakness in the system we have developed here that the RSPCA are the main body taking cases forward .
The RSPCA is a charity and has every right to pick and choose what it does but it would much better if the offices of the state, the police and the CPS did this in my opinion .ATM its a case of the RSPCA or no one and that's not right we don't expect the NSPCC to prosecute child abuse cases do we.

I totally agree with you Goldenstar.

 

[camilla4]

OP, if you genuinely feel that this is a welfare case then I would try calling another charity: World Horse Welfare or the BHS are better placed to assess equine cases.

 

[Goldenstar]

Try speaking to BHS welfare , they will often spend a huge amount of time trying to get owners to make even small changes to make horses life's better you can't make people keep horses as you might wish but you can try to persuade people to make small changes .

 

[JillA]

Sadly I think most of the welfare charities are so busy dealing with equines in poor bodily condition it has to take priority and anything else is low on the list. WHW are very good but when I rang them about some cobs on a mud patch with broken down fencing etc etc near my house their first question was about their condition score. If it is okay they won't do anything.
The Animal Welfare Act 2007 was intended to prevent suffereing rather than clearing up after the event, but as has been said above it is really much too subjective to stand up in court. Prevention has little or no evidence on which to rely, if the horses referred to began to lose weight or exhibit behaviour known to result from extreme and continuous stress there might be a chance, but without it, sadly not.

 

[fburton]

According to the Animal Welfare Act of 2006:

9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare

(1) A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include—

(a) its need for a suitable environment,
(b) its need for a suitable diet,
(c) its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,
(d) any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
(e) its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

(3) The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular—

(a) any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and
(b) any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal.


Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/9

(I haven't looked at any 'Changes and Effects' or 'Commencement Orders' yet to be applied, and assume they do not apply yet.)

The clauses about exhibiting normal behaviour patterns and being housed with other animals are separate from the need to protect against suffering, so it would appear that the Act does not deem suffering to be the sole arbiter of what is lawful or not. So who decides what are the "normal behaviour patterns" that constitute a horse's needs and are required to ensure its welfare? Under what circumstances should they be housed with or apart from other horses? There seems very little point including these in legislation if they are going to be ignored.

A vet would not have to be an expert on horse psychology to testify on this matter. (In any case, not all vets receive training in 'horse psychology'.) All she or he would have to say is that there is a broad range of behaviour patterns that involve the interaction between two or more horses. There is no need to 'delve' into a horse's mind at all, merely know what normal equine behaviour is.

 

[Goldenstar]

I am pretty sure all an owner keeping a horse alone would have to say is he attacks other horses or is very afraid of other horses and they would have a defence and it would be pretty hard to disprove .

 

[competitiondiva]

how do you know that this animal is suffering? other than "he looks sad". I agree that in an ideal world horses would have company, but I also know of horses that would kill another if put in with them. Unless the horse is showing physical signs of mental distress due to the situation it is in then I think it is far too subjective to bring a case to court. Remember what is right for one horse isn't necessarily right for another, you could also use your arguement to say no-one should own 1 dog, rabbit or budgie etc? I think you could find a huge number of animal owners in the uk guilty of this.

- The horse in question used to have a companion but now doesn't. He has since lost weight, rarely grazes, the field is full of rubbish and the horse is never rugged, even during the coldest weather (he is a fine type not a native). It isn't just a case of him being on his own although I do think that this has had a detrimental affect on him as I pass him every day on my way to work.

It just seems to me, that more could be done. The RSPCA have the power to educate owners, it doesn't always have to turn into a court case to remove animals every time and that's not what I am saying should happen. But when the RSPCA attend on numerous occasions (as they have done with this particular case) you would think that improvements in the horse's living conditions would be seen and all I see is an animal getting worse.

"Power to educate"?? if as you said, they have made numerous attendances and no improvements that you can see have been made how do you know that they haven't tried to "educate"? You say "it doesn't always have to turn into a court case to remove animals everytime" you are right, but then if the owner is refusing to act or sign over/rehome the animal then a court case is the only way to have the animal removed...

Yes it is a shame the RSPCA are seemingly the only ones left to uphold animal welfare legislation, the police and local authority are the "inspectors" appointed under the act afterall, but the police aren't trained in it and the local authority have as all local councils suffered major cuts and most have had their offices halved! So are unlikely to take more work on! Instead it is left to a charity to be the voice of the animals!

 

[Goldenstar]

The thing is unkind not very good management often just does not give the RSPCA the right to remove , a vet has to be confident that the behaviour is unlawful and be prepared to stand up in court and be cross examined .
In my experiance that the RSPCA do act when they feel the law allows them and they do try to nudge , strong arm whatever you want to call it owners to make changes I have stood with them and done it .
I hate a good bit of what the RSPCA stand for now but when I was active in the welfare field I worked along side officers who worked very very hard to get people to provide better for their animals .
Sometimes the tide of idiots with animals they could not afford and knew nothing about was just about overwhelming.

 

[Fenris]

Fenris, just because the rabbits were domestic rabbits doesn't stop them being prey animals kept in a barn with a strong smell of a predator without the ability to escape?? If a court found them guilty then that's your answer!

The RSPCA dropped the charges half way into the case.

Applying these criteria would prevent the keeping of a budgie and a kitten. Or a cat and a dog.

 

[Goldenstar]

The RSPCA dropped the charges half way into the case.

Applying these criteria would prevent the keeping of a budgie and a kitten. Or a cat and a dog.

Good point I'll tell the cat she's on the sofa with two Labradors .

 

[Moomin1]

The thing is unkind not very good management often just does not give the RSPCA the right to remove , a vet has to be confident that the behaviour is unlawful and be prepared to stand up in court and be cross examined .
In my experiance that the RSPCA do act when they feel the law allows them and they do try to nudge , strong arm whatever you want to call it owners to make changes I have stood with them and done it .
I hate a good bit of what the RSPCA stand for now but when I was active in the welfare field I worked along side officers who worked very very hard to get people to provide better for their animals .
Sometimes the tide of idiots with animals they could not afford and knew nothing about was just about overwhelming.

Then of course you get the tide of idiots who try to support these people who neglect animals, and try to get them off scot free!!