What is the Point of the Animal Welfare Act?

[MrsMozart]

I have my view, but am interested in others'...

 

[jhoward]

its like the british law in general, bloody pointless. yes a few people get the odd slap but the worst offenders just carry on and get away scot free.

 

[unicornleather]

its like the british law in general, bloody pointless. yes a few people get the odd slap but the worst offenders just carry on and get away scot free.

You put that beautifully and it is SO true!
Oz

 

[sunshine19]

The animal welfare act is only as good as the person who uses it.

Over the years I have met some damn good animal welfare inspectors, police officers and sheriffs (in Scotland) who are dedicated, up to date with their legislation and do their job well. I have seen many get excellent results with The Animal Welfare Act.

On the other hand I have met many lazy, incompetent and unconfident Inspectors/Officers who fail in their day-to-day tasks and Sheriffs who fail to see the importance of imposing adequate penalties.

The new Animal Welfare Act is far better than the antiquated 1912 act, which was extremely out dated.

As I said at the beginning, legislation is only as good as the person who uses it.

 

[trendybraincell]

Ditto sunshine19

It may not be perfect, as with many of our laws but its better than nothing. The legal system (laws etc.) is an ever evolving beast, sometimes it takes a long while for it to get better.

 

[Miss L Toe]

What are the main points of the AW act, I know I was pointed in direction of Section 9, but not sure how it works in practice, I looked on RSPCA and came up withThe five welfare needs

This means pet owners are now legally obliged to care for their pet properly - which most owners already do - by providing these five basic needs:

somewhere suitable to live
a proper diet, including fresh water
the ability to express normal behaviour
for any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals
protection from, and treatment of, illness and injury.

Find out what your pet needs in all about animals.

All a bit wooly, can't see that working in practice.

 

[Ibblebibble]

wasn't it supposed to make it easier to bring cases to court rather than having to wait until the death of an animal that was the theory but of course as already mentioned, if the welfare orgs choose to ignore any cases that aren't newsworthy it is just another useless piece of legislation

 

[jhoward]

well we all know the RSPCA 5 freedoms are crap, they for example support the brand.. happy eggs, yet investigations have showed the chickens live in awful conditons, with only a few hundred out of thousands making it outside, they have a high death rate, and the birds are all losing feathers.


see it again highlights my original point. british law is rubbish and the worst offenders just continue to offend .

 

[Dolcé]

What are the main points of the AW act, I know I was pointed in direction of Section 9, but not sure how it works in practice, I looked on RSPCA and came up withThe five welfare needs

This means pet owners are now legally obliged to care for their pet properly - which most owners already do - by providing these five basic needs:

somewhere suitable to live
a proper diet, including fresh water
the ability to express normal behaviour
for any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals
protection from, and treatment of, illness and injury.

Find out what your pet needs in all about animals.

All a bit wooly, can't see that working in practice.

mmmmm....the five freedoms, brilliant aren't they! Apparently though, contrary to what I thought was correct, they are only guidelines not law!!!! I was informed of this by WHW when trying to report an owner whose stallion is only turned out approx every 2 weeks for a couple of hours, and only then so that his stable can be mucked out - the only time it gets done and the only time he is ever taken out of it. I am appalled, I thought the act was going to change things but apparently not, total waste of time and money!

 

[LEC]

Absolute waste of paper. This is a prime example.

There is a woman in Somerset who has lots of minis - they are starving, there is a 2yo who is still feeding off its mother as never been weaned, mother due to die very soon from malnutrition and having the life literally sucked out of her, the colts, stallions and mares all run together so pregnancies. They have no water and live on dirt. The RSPCA and WHW know all about this woman but do nothing about it.

Horses keep dying there - one broke its leg and was not treated for days. A friend went and felt so guilty that she gave them hay and absolutely rollocked the owner who is basically a fruit loop and lazy. She has money but just cannot be bothered. Friend was wasting their breath saying anything as woman just will not do anything and kept making crap excuses. How can this be allowed to go on?

Another scenario - BTW friend shoots horses for a living so sees lots of this. Two horses in the middle of Bristol. RSPCA present - one is dead and the other a cob is incredibly poor. Basically as the one is dead the RSPCA will not do anything and owner says they are going to move cob so as far as RSPCA is concerned problem solved. The owners had no idea about hay. Will probably move the horse for a day or two then move it back.

 

[Pearlsasinger]

Absolute waste of paper. This is a prime example.

There is a woman in Somerset who has lots of minis - they are starving, there is a 2yo who is still feeding off its mother as never been weaned, mother due to die very soon from malnutrition and having the life literally sucked out of her, the colts, stallions and mares all run together so pregnancies. They have no water and live on dirt. The RSPCA and WHW know all about this woman but do nothing about it.

Horses keep dying there - one broke its leg and was not treated for days. A friend went and felt so guilty that she gave them hay and absolutely rollocked the owner who is basically a fruit loop and lazy. She has money but just cannot be bothered. Friend was wasting their breath saying anything as woman just will not do anything and kept making crap excuses. How can this be allowed to go on?

But that is not the fault of the legislation. That scenario would have been prosecutable under the old Act. As said above, any law is only as good as the people enforcing it.
It seems to be customary for RSPCA to bring prosecutions but in fact if the law is being broken, prosecutions could be brought by police/CPA, just like any other law.
IMO it's not the law that needs to be tightened up but the procedures followed by the people who are supposed to enforce the law.
Another scenario - BTW friend shoots horses for a living so sees lots of this. Two horses in the middle of Bristol. RSPCA present - one is dead and the other a cob is incredibly poor. Basically as the one is dead the RSPCA will not do anything and owner says they are going to move cob so as far as RSPCA is concerned problem solved. The owners had no idea about hay. Will probably move the horse for a day or two then move it back.

 

[rara007]

I can give you the text book answer My end of first year at RVC presentation and essay were on the act and the history of it.

I think the docking of dogs does seem less common now

My vote is that it's the media and their effect the publics perceptions that is responsible for the state of animal welfare as opposed to legal acts. Although, since the first act protecting animals was passed in 1822 the perception of animals as being beings rather than belongings has impacted on the welfare of animals in a postive way and the act is easier acted upon than it was intially (Burns trial) but has a long way to go.

 

[unicornleather]

I recently reported a woman to the RSPCA for keeping 3 cats in total darkness in a windowless bathroom in her tiny flat, they are only allowed out into the hall (also without natural daylight) when she goes out, they are not allowed outside and to be honest the flat is right on a busy main road and if were allowed out would soon be run over. She doesn't leave the lights on in the bathroom for them or in the hall.
She has a hamster too, never been seen, she has fish,not seen them, one jack russell x Chihuahua dog as well,this dog never goes out for a walk, yet there is a park 5 mins walk away, he has behaviour problems being cooped up all day and has bitten a child in the face that was visiting her with the child's mother. The woman in question who owns him has a baby of her own now too. She is also looking for a kitten to add to the lot she already has as she "loves cats" she's out of work so has to rely on benefits to provide for them.She also has a rabbit which she's palmed off on to her mother.
She's totally irresponsible and should not have these pets in this tiny windowless flat.RSPCA have been round to "advise" her. Pets are all still there despite not having access to any natural daylight and the litter tray for the cats is very rarely cleaned out, it is so obvious she can't change their situation other than to let them have the run of the flat, something she is unwilling to do, if she lets the cats out they won't last 5 minutes on the road, so why don't the rspca remove the animals and re home them if they can to stop them suffering any further ?
They are still in the dark and still suffering and if the dog bites her baby the dog gets put down instead of sorting it out now before it happens.

 

[ColandMe]

The animal welfare act is only as good as the person who uses it.

Over the years I have met some damn good animal welfare inspectors, police officers and sheriffs (in Scotland) who are dedicated, up to date with their legislation and do their job well. I have seen many get excellent results with The Animal Welfare Act.

On the other hand I have met many lazy, incompetent and unconfident Inspectors/Officers who fail in their day-to-day tasks and Sheriffs who fail to see the importance of imposing adequate penalties.

The new Animal Welfare Act is far better than the antiquated 1912 act, which was extremely out dated.

As I said at the beginning, legislation is only as good as the person who uses it.

Absolutely agree with that, i've met some damn awful, couldn't care less welfare officers, dogs left shut in a house from Friday to Monday every weekend, finally someone attended luckily I was walking past at the right time, officer told me she'd looked through window, dogs looked ok so she'd not be taking it any further, to my recent experience with the dumped horse. Did meet 1 fab officer though, came to see a horse ( 2 years after 1st reported) and arranged there and then to get vet out and transport to get it removed.
If the enforcer can't be bothered then there is no hope.

 

[Miss L Toe]

I would not put it down to one officer, tbh, it must be due to management, or institutional mis-management if we wish to use current media talk.
If officers on the ground are not getting support for prosecutions they will give up.
The RSPCA is a charity, if it is not fulfillling its charitable functions should a letter of protest by all who post about it on here be sent to the Charitable Commission to provoke action?
If illegal acts are being carried out report the matter to your chief Constable.

 

[ColandMe]

I would not put it down to one officer, tbh, it must be due to management, or institutional mis-management if we wish to use current media talk.
If officers on the ground are not getting support for prosecutions they will give up.
The RSPCA is a charity, if it is not fulfillling its charitable functions should a letter of protest by all who post about it on here be sent to the Charitable Commission to provoke action?
If illegal acts are being carried out report the matter to your chief Constable.

Maybe, but don't you think the attitude of the officers plays a large part? If they can't even be bothered to look at a reported cruelty cases or look and dismiss then certain failings are down to them. I work in a school and have banged my head against a wall 1000 times over when I've discussed welfare issues re children with those higher than me, only for nothing to be done. Doesn't mean i'll ever stop caring or stop trying to help. If they no longer care enough to at least try, then they shouldn't be doing the job.

 

[miss_bird]

I find the 5 laws are there and can be interpreted as the officer wants or can be bothered.
A good welfare officer will just them to their best advantage in each situation and lazy officer can misuse them as needed when they cant be bothered.

 

[soloequestrian]

The Animal Welfare Act was an update of various bits of animal welfare legislation, and the huge difference between it and the old law is that legal action can be taken in situations where suffering is LIKELY to happen, and not in situations where suffering IS happening. This means that animals can be removed from situations before they suffer, which was not legally possible before. The Codes of Practice that go along with the act are not law, but can be referred to as standards during a court case.
Obviously, as well as solid legislation, there have to be the resources to implement it, and I think that generally in this country this is done well - we have some of the highest levels of animal welfare in the world. The examples given above are shocking, but they are exceptions.
It's a circle - concern for animal welfare promotes good welfare, which promotes interest in legislating against the possibility of poor welfare, which improves the legislation, which helps to raise standards further, which focusses concern on what originally were considered less important aspects of welfare - gradually the standards ratchett up.
Hopefully soon this kind of concern will see the end of broiler sheds for cheap chicken and farrowing crates for pigs, which are the animals that are currently let down by the law. Oh, and fish..... fishing was too political to challenge with the new Act......

 

[muddygreymare]

its like the british law in general, bloody pointless. yes a few people get the odd slap but the worst offenders just carry on and get away scot free.

TOTALLY agree! Also it depends on the officer i think but yeah as jh said.. pointless to an extent!

 

[Miss L Toe]

Maybe, but don't you think the attitude of the officers plays a large part? If they can't even be bothered to look at a reported cruelty cases or look and dismiss then certain failings are down to them. I work in a school and have banged my head against a wall 1000 times over when I've discussed welfare issues re children with those higher than me, only for nothing to be done. Doesn't mean i'll ever stop caring or stop trying to help. If they no longer care enough to at least try, then they shouldn't be doing the job.

ah now that is different, in your case you are "the inspector" who finds that he gets no support from superiors.
If you were not employed but were for example a "concerned person" your complaint would be to the SPCA, whereas I think that it is quite possible that your superiors/employers have not passed on your concerns, does that make sense?

 

[ColandMe]

ah now that is different, in your case you are "the inspector" who finds that he gets no support from superiors.
If you were not employed but were for example a "concerned person" your complaint would be to the SPCA, whereas I think that it is quite possible that your superiors/employers have not passed on your concerns, does that make sense?

Yes it does, and i do see what you're saying, however I must be a lot more cynical, maybe less charitable. The role of inspector, in whatever situation owes it to those that rely on them to do their very best, whether it falls on deaf ears or not, otherwise what's the point? Maybe if an inspector had a strong word instead of ignoring and walking away it would make a difference, not always, but sometimes. See, if I'm the 'inspector' I will do whatever is in my power to ease the situation for those I'm responsible for, I couldn't walk away knowing I'd ignored and not even tried.