The welfare state - rspca

The welfare state: Measuring animal welfare in the UK 2008

www.animalwelfarefootprint.com

CONTENTS

Measuring animal welfare in the UK 2008 Introduction

3–4

Generic indicators n Introduction 5 n The proportion of FTSE 100 companies with animal welfare improvements in their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies 6 n The number of relevant government advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) on which an animal welfare specialist is represented 9 n The proportion of people interested in improving animal welfare 12 n The proportion of UK schools that incorporate animal welfare into their curriculum 16 n The number of firework-related communications received by the RSPCA 20 n The number of stray dogs collected by local authorities in the UK 23 n The number of local authorities in the UK that have an animal welfare charter 27 n The number of relevant white papers published by the UK government that include a positive animal welfare component 30 n The number of investigations and convictions taken by the RSPCA under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 33

Farm animal indicators n Introduction n The number of animals transported live from the UK for slaughter and further fattening n The production of UK non-cage eggs as a proportion of total eggs produced n The number of meat chickens reared to higher on-farm welfare standards n Piglet mortality levels between birth and weaning n The number, nature and outcomes of Animal Health inspections of farms and livestock markets

35 36 40 43 47 50

Pet animal indicators n Introduction n The number of unwanted healthy animals taken into the care of the RSPCA n The number of non-microchipped cats and dogs taken into RSPCA care n The number of healthy dogs being euthanased due to irresponsible pet ownership n The number of organised animal fights in the UK

54 55 57 60 62

Research animal indicators n Introduction n The number of non-human primates used in scientific procedures in the UK n The amount of laboratory animal suffering n The proportion of non-animal methods in OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) test guidelines n The number of animals used in quality-control tests for release of veterinary vaccines in the UK n The percentage of scientific journals with ethical policies and guidelines relating to the use of animals in research and testing

66 67 70 72 74 76

Wildlife indicators n Introduction n The proportion of stranded cetaceans by-caught around the UK n The number of imported wild-taken reptiles and birds as a proportion of the total trade into the UK and EU n The provision of quality written information for the sale of non-domestic pets (reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals) in a sample of outlets n The proportion of fishing tackle-related swan incidents recorded by the RSPCA

80 81 84 89 96

measuring animal welfare in the uk 2008 n 2

Introduction

The welfare state: measuring animal welfare in the UK 2008 brings together a collection of animal welfare indicators that assess how the UK is performing with regards to its animals. The report, which is now in its fourth year, uses the most up-to-date information available, celebrates the year’s progress, identifies the areas of animal welfare that have remained unchanged and highlights where the situation has worsened. It brings together a diverse range of welfare issues that have an impact on the UK’s different animals and recognises that without knowing what is happening problems relating to animals cannot be addressed, solutions cannot be found and positive learnings cannot be replicated. The indicators in this report allow a picture to be created of the state of animal welfare in the UK, which is not only important from an animal protection perspective, but is essential for informing government, stakeholder policies and the public at large. It is envisaged that by tracking animal welfare year on year, this gauge will serve as a valuable guide to where legislation, government policy, industry practices, education, economics and social attitudes need to be addressed and changed for the better in the UK. This annual initiative aims to highlight the importance of objectively measuring animal welfare, demonstrates how it can or should be measured and how to encourage others to continue collating and publishing data in this area. It acknowledges that this is a challenge and whilst the process of accumulating data combined with producing sound and objective methodologies is not simple, it should not be a barrier to producing robust facts and figures. There are, however, limitations to research and data collection: further research is required in some areas; data needs to be made public and accessible in others; and regular, consistent collation of information in all areas is a necessity. As with previous editions of this report, in 2008 the lack of statistics remained a problem with a number of indicators having insufficient or no data, meaning that measurement cannot occur. Inconsistent publication or collection of figures has once again hampered the meaningful analysis of animal welfare issues. The majority of indicators focus on issues that directly impact on animals, such as those transported for slaughter, the live import of reptiles and birds, and the number of primates used in scientific

procedures. The four animal welfare chapters focus on farm animals, pets, animals used for research and testing, and wildlife. A further generic section looks at the indirect impacts on animals and covers a wide range of issues that include education, local government, consumer and social opinion. Each indicator sets the scene, identifies the welfare problem and any relevant legislation. Information gathering and methodologies are established, data is analysed and conclusions and recommendations are outlined.

Traffic lights are awarded to each indicator so as to represent any year-on-year progress. Red indicates that welfare has worsened, an amber light shows that little or no change has occurred over the year, green means that animal welfare has improved, and grey highlights the lack of available data or the need for further data. It must be noted that a green light signifies a degree of improvement only in that year – it does not mean there are no longer any welfare problems associated with the issue, further improvements and changes will still need to be made. Red

– animal welfare in this area has worsened.

– the animal welfare issue remains unchanged or there is little change from the previous year.

Amber

Green

– animal welfare in this area has improved.

Grey

– insufficient data are available or further data are required.


INTRODUCTION

It would be unrealistic to expect long-lasting, sound improvement to occur over a single year or even five years, however, it is vital that measuring and benchmarking animal welfare takes place in order to find out what is really happening. The report does have its limits. Due to the sheer number of animal welfare issues facing the UK, no index can include them all. The welfare state, however does provide a snapshot of important issues and encourages others to measure/ benchmark the many other aspects the report does not cover. Directly or indirectly, animal welfare is an issue we all impact on. To make any positive changes for animal welfare and for suffering to be alleviated, we must all be aware of the effects we have on animals. Measuring the state of animal welfare in the UK can assist with this, whilst also providing information about where improvements are needed and how these can be made.

Traffic light

Definition

2005

2006

2007

2008

RED

Animal welfare has worsened

6

2

4

5

AMBER

Negligible or no change

9

16

19

19

GREEN

Animal welfare has improved

6

6

5

6

GREY

Insufficient or no data

10

11

5

2

TOTAL

31

35

33

32

Directly or indirectly, animal welfare is an issue we all impact on. To make any positive changes for animal welfare and for suffering to be alleviated, we must all be aware of the Effects we have on animals.


A

Introduction GENERIC indicators

The animal welfare indicators in the generic chapter differ from the farm animal, pet animal, research animal and wildlife chapters because they don’t focus on the number of animals involved, how animal welfare is/can be compromised or direct animal suffering. Instead, the issues that make up this chapter look at a range of indirect impacts on the welfare of animals. These include how often animal welfare is taught in schools, future government policy, the work of local authorities and also the views of the general public. In 2008, as with previous years, an array of animal welfare stories was reported in the media. These reports were a mixture of news that highlighted positive developments for animals and those that provoked concern and disappointment. News headlines and media stories can provide an overview of what is happening in the UK and demonstrates the interest of the public with animal–related news. The following list is a short selection of animal welfare issues that received some level of media attention in 2008.

n Flooding in parts of Staffordshire saw RSPCA’s field staff work alongside the emergency services in rescuing animals and their owners7. n The first dog fighting related prosecution was brought under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. A man was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison after pleading guilty to four charges8. n A 17-point action plan was agreed by the Dairy Calf Welfare Forum, which was established by the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming9. The plan will work towards reducing the number of male calves either killed shortly after birth or exported to veal farms in Europe. Currently about 482,000 surplus calves are produced each year.

n In January, Channel Four aired a number of programmes featuring chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall that looked at how meat chickens are reared1. In 2008, the number of chickens reared to higher welfare standards increased by 40 million compared to the previous year. n The Welsh Assembly Government proposed that electric-shock dog collars would be banned2. n The Scottish Government announced that animal snares would not be banned, despite a high-profile campaign by a number of animal welfare organisations3. n Scientific evidence was published which further strengthened the case against keeping elephants in zoos4. n A cull of badgers was announced, in principle, by the Welsh Assembly Government to tackle bovine TB in cattle4. In the UK, the government committed funds to develop cattle and badger vaccines5. n The revision of European Directive 86/609, which regulates laboratory animal care and use across the European Union, continued6.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/river-cottage/hughs-chicken-run 2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7252665.stm 3 Harris M, Sherwin C and Harris S. 2008. The Welfare, Housing and Husbandry of Elephants in UK Zoos. Final report. 10 November 2008. Available online: http://randd.defra.gov.uk 4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7335855.stm 5 www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/080707b.htm 6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/proposal_en.htm 7 www.thisislichfield.co.uk/news/sheep-rescued-flood-horror/article-319904-detail/article.html 8 www.birminghammail.net/news/black-country/2008/04/16/walsall-man-clayton-beard-jailed- for-18-weeks-for-new-dog-fighting-offences-97319-20770225 9 www.calfforum.org.uk


Generic indicators

The proportion of FTSE 100 companies with animal welfare improvements in their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)1 2 policies welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the consideration of many aspects of a company’s performance and risks associated with issues such as employment, the environment, human rights, communities and business relationships. It is a way in which organisations can take more responsibility for how they impact on a variety of issues, is a measure of good business over and above compliance with minimum legal requirements, and goes beyond the more typical philanthropy of donating money to good causes. Currently, animal welfare is not seen as or considered an integral part of CSR, yet many organisations, including those from the public, private and third sectors have some impact on and involvement with animals and their welfare. The links to animal welfare could be obvious such as using animals in medical research or in the production of food. They could also be subtler, such as company food procurement policies or the destruction of animal habitats due to mining or construction, or the effect on animals by pollution of water, land or air. The RSPCA believes that animal welfare should be a consideration when organisations, across all sectors, are developing and implementing policies and encourages the acknowledgement that animal welfare has a crossover with the more conventional aspects of CSR. 2

THERE IS LITTLE CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

CSR is an important part of business with an ever-growing number of companies implementing policies, producing reports and even devoting whole departments to ensure the company has effective and worthy CSR policies. The UK government has: “An ambitious vision for Corporate Social Responsibility”3 and would like: “to see UK businesses taking account of their economic, social and environmental impacts, and acting to address the key sustainable development challenges based on their core competencies wherever they operate – locally, regionally and internationally”. However, it is not just the UK government that is encouraging the ethos of CSR. The European Commission launched the European Alliance on CSR described as: “An umbrella network for discussion and debate on new and existing CSR initiatives by large companies, SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) and their stakeholders4.” More recently, efforts have been made to encourage the voluntary sector to consider issues such as the environment and community and for them to become more accountable. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has funded ‘Every Action Counts’, a major initiative on social and environmental responsibility by community and voluntary groups5. Business in the Community (BITC)6 and FTSE4Good7 both index and benchmark businesses on various aspects of CSR. The BITC is a business-led charity that is encouraging companies to have a more positive impact on society. BITC has developed the Corporate Responsibility Index, which is used as a benchmarking tool and covers four impact areas – community, environment, workplace and marketplace. The FTSE4Good Index Series measures the performance of FTSE companies that meet globally recognised corporate responsibility standards. The selection criteria focus on three areas – environment sustainability, stakeholder relations and human rights. Neither BITC nor FTSE4Good make any provision for animal welfare nor use it as the basis of indices for benchmarking even though many of the companies that are listed will have some link to the welfare of animals. This animal welfare indicator has been developed to identify which of the largest UK-registered companies that form the FTSE 1008 have a policy on animal welfare, and which are taking steps to improve, protect and promote animal welfare. Some of the FTSE companies, for example pharmaceutical, food and retail, initially seem more predisposed to having either a policy or an acknowledgement that one is required, however all the companies could and possibly do have an impact on the welfare of animals. The RSPCA accepts that, for many reasons, animal welfare is perhaps not an obvious consideration when organisations are developing CSR policy and


Generic indicators

strategy, for example animal welfare is unlikely to be at the core of the business model. However the Society believes the incorporation of animal welfare into policy can not only benefit animals but also complement the social, economic and environmental aspects of CSR and, of course, add value to business and their bottom line. As this report itself highlights, measuring animal welfare objectively and successfully is challenging, however it should not be a barrier for organisations incorporating animal welfare into their policy. The RSPCA believes that animal welfare as a concept of CSR potentially fits in with environmental, economic and social impacts and has crossover with all three (using the triple bottom line model). Animal welfare fits across all the CSR areas and could be considered alongside the better established areas of CSR. It is, of course, vital that if animal welfare is to be viewed as a serious, measurable part of a company’s CSR strategy, then there must be some benefit for the business, beyond good public relations. Marks & Spencer and the National Trust are two very different organisations that have incorporated animal welfare into their business strategies. ‘Plan A’ from Marks & Spencer9 looks at a number of issues, including animal welfare. The National Trust10 launched its food policy in 2006 by stating that it wants to play a role in “connecting producers to consumers in the food chain”. One part of this is by aiming to “procure food produced to high animal welfare standards”. This had led the Trust to ensure that the 500,000 plus eggs it uses each year in its restaurants and tearooms are free-range, and it has received awards for such efforts11. Both organisations have recognised not only the importance of CSR but also acknowledged the role of animal welfare within their business.

The indicator figures All 100 FTSE companies were contacted and a copy of their CSR, sustainability or equivalent reports was requested along with any details of policy related to animal welfare. Of those that didn’t respond, reports, policies and information were obtained via websites. The majority of the companies have some form of CSR or sustainability policy and produce documentation about this area of their work – either in a report, annual review or via dedicated web pages. Companies may have statements or policy concerning animal welfare but are separate from their overarching, formal CSR policy. For example, a company might stipulate that it has an anti-fur policy or makes every effort to promote and implement the 3Rs12, but has not formally incorporated them into their CSR work per se. Or in some cases, policies and good practice are not written down or acknowledged as CSR. The indicator takes account of this and has not disregarded references to animal welfare just because it doesn’t form part of the organisation’s CSR policy. The policies are of varying levels and differ greatly with regard to depth, content and reporting. Initially, the literature and websites were used to identify whether the companies had a policy or made any reference to animal welfare or protection. At the time of collating information about the FTSE 1008 companies, 18 have some form of policy that concerns animal welfare which is one less than the previous year (19), but two more than in 2006 (16). As seen in other years, companies specifically focus on two key aspects of animal welfare – animal experiments and farm animals. Of these 18 companies, 11 aim to improve animal welfare, which is the same as last year.

Table 1: Number of FTSE 100 companies that had an animal welfare component, March 2009

Category/type of company Animal welfare reference Aim to improve animal welfare

Energy/mining

1

1

Food and drink

1

0

Healthcare

1

1

Pharmaceutical

6

3

Retail

6

6

Tobacco

1

0

Travel

2

0

Data source: FTSE 100.


Generic indicators

Table 1 identifies which category of company already has an animal welfare policy or statement, and which of these companies state an aim to improve animal welfare. The three pharmaceutical companies within the FTSE 100 that have a policy on animal testing and research, state an aim to minimise animal use and ensure the humane treatment of those animals used. All of the food retail companies had a policy or statement referring to farm animals and other aspects of animal welfare. Of the remaining 82 FTSE 100 companies, some made a reference to animals, conservation and biodiversity, however there was nothing concrete in their policies to indicate any real commitment to acknowledging animal welfare and their responsibility to it as a business. While it is encouraging that nearly 20 per cent of FTSE 100 companies mention animal welfare, it is equally disappointing that, as seen for the last two years, the number that plan to make improvements has remained at 11. There is still little sign of animal welfare being put forward as an important CSR issue by either the government or the business world. However, it is hoped that over time companies will begin to measure animal welfare and view it as an important issue within environmental, social and economic impacts.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 CSR comes under many guises and is also referred to as corporate responsibility, sustainability, corporate citizenship, and environment and social responsibility. 2 There is no universal definition of CSR, for the purpose of this report the UK government definition will be used. CSR is: “…the business contribution to our sustainable goals. Essentially it is about how business take account of its economic, social and environmental impacts in the way it operates – maximising the benefits and minimising the downsides… specifically we see CSR as the voluntary actions that business can take, over and above compliance with minimum legal requirements…” 3 Department of Trade and Industry. Corporate Social Responsibility – a government update. 2004. www.csr.gov.uk 4 www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/csr/policy.htm 5 www.everyactioncounts.org.uk 6 Business in the Community. www.bitc.org.uk 7 FTSE4Good. www.ftse.com 8 FTSE 100 companies identified as of March 2009. 9 Marks & Spencer. www.marksandspencer.com/gp/node/n/56223031/026-4943074 5263648?ie=UTF8&mnSBrand=core 10 www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-food_policy.pdf 11 www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-global/w-news/w-news-further_news/w-news-good_egg.htm 12 The 3Rs are the Replacement of animals with humane alternatives; a Reduction in numbers used; and Refinement of procedures and husbandry to reduce suffering and improve animal welfare.


Generic indicators

The number of relevant government advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) on which an animal welfare specialist is represented welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Government departments have a number of advisory NDPBs which are established by ministers, or by officials working on behalf of ministers, to: “provide independent expert advice to ministers on a wide range of issues”1. Those appointed to the advisory NDPBs are independent of government and are drawn from outside the public sector. With regard to animal welfare, a number of advisory NDPBs exist to provide independent and expert advice on particular topics of interest, such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) and the Animal Procedures Committee (APC). Both have obvious links to animal welfare and it is expected that a specialist in this field would be a member of the public body. There are a number of other advisory NDPBs that are not overtly linked to animals but are likely to have an impact on animal welfare. It is hoped that an animal welfare representative would be appointed to be a member of such an NDPB. The RSPCA believes that when issues affecting animals are being discussed by advisory NDPBs, with a view to developing policy and ultimately legislation that impacts on animals’ well-being, it is essential that independent animal welfare specialists are involved in such discussions and are represented on the relevant advisory NDPBs.

An NDPB is defined as: “a body which has a role in the processes of national government, but is not a government department or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm’s length from ministers”1. There are four types of NDPB, however it is the advisory NDPBs that can have a real impact on the welfare of animals and hence the focus of this indicator. In 2008, there were 440 advisory NDPBs in the UK that have been sponsored by UK government departments1. Both the Scottish Government2 and the Northern Ireland Executive3 are responsible for a number of advisory NDBPs as demonstrated in Table 2. In Wales, Assembly Government Sponsored Bodies (AGSB)4 are similar to NDPBs and funded by the Welsh Assembly Government. The number of advisory NDPBs that have links to animal health and/or welfare are also identified. The indicator has been constructed to identify who sits on which advisory NDPB in the UK. This will help to give an insight into whether animal welfare decisions and policy are developed with the assistance of necessary specialists. For the purpose of this indicator an animal welfare specialist is ‘a person with the primary purpose of representing animal welfare’, including both physical and behavioural aspects. It would seem to be beneficial, if not expected, that an animal welfare specialist be appointed in a personal capacity (rather than representing an organisation) to sit on an advisory NDPB to contribute expert advice and input into the policy-making process about the welfare of animals. Certain government departments, such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), are likely to have more NDPBs that concern the welfare of animals and therefore have more specialists in animal welfare. However, it is also expected that other government departments, such as the Home Office, will have animal welfare specialists sitting on NDPBs that may either directly or indirectly impact on animals.

There is a slight change from the previous year.


Generic indicators

Table 2: The number of advisory NDPBs/AGSBs that have an animal welfare specialist represented, 2007–2008 Country Number of advisory Animal welfare link Animal welfare NDPBs/AGSBs specialist represented

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

UK Government

441

410

15

14

5

7

Northern Ireland Executive

16

13

0

0

N/A

N/A

Scottish Government

14

13

1

1

0

0

Welsh Assembly Government

14

14

0

0

N/A

N/A

The indicator figures This is the second year that the indicator has focused on the UK government and those bodies created by the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For 2007 and 2008, information and figures concerning the three devolved institutions have been included along with the national UK government. Parliamentary questions were tabled in the past to identify the animal welfare linked advisory NDPBs. They were targeted at just four government departments and didn’t consider the sub-national governments of the UK. For the past two years, to find out about advisory NDPBs in 2008, reports and websites produced by the respective governments have been utilised. Previously, the Secretary of State for each department – Department for International Development (DFID), the Home Office, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform – was asked: “...which of his department’s advisory non-departmental public bodies are directly or indirectly connected with animal health and welfare; whether an animal welfare specialist is represented on each...”.

In the response to the parliamentary question in 2006, Defra confirmed that it is: “…the department with the lead responsibility for animal health and welfare. Partnership working with animal owners, the farming industry and others is the heart of the approach set out in the government’s Animal Health and Welfare Strategy”5. This demonstrates that the UK government very much sees animal welfare sitting in the folds of one department. While Defra is the only department that has the welfare and health of animals as part of its remit, other departments have an indirect or direct impact on animal welfare as demonstrated by looking at the advisory NDPBs. All four departments responded to the parliamentary question, however to gain a more holistic overview of the UK, research was carried out via the appropriate websites and other publications, and all departments were considered.

There are four types of NDPB, however it is the advisory NDPBs that can have a real impact on the welfare of animals.


Generic indicators

In 2008, 14 advisory NDPBs that had an animal welfare or/and health link were identified across four UK government departments and one from the Scottish Executive (Table 2). Unsurprisingly, Defra had the most (11) animal health and welfare related advisory NDPBs. The following five had at least one member who is an animal welfare specialist: n

n n n n

Animal Health and Welfare Strategy England Implementation Group (EIG)6 Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) Veterinary Residues Committee (VRC) Zoos Forum.

Two other government departments, the Home Office and the Food Standards Agency also have an animal welfare specialist on the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) and the Advisory Committee on Animal Foodstuffs. The other two NDPBs that were likely to

have an animal welfare specialist as a member were identified in Scotland and at the Ministry of Defence, however there was insufficient data available to determine who was a member of each of the respective bodies. In particular, it is hoped that the Ministry of Defence’s Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) has at least one of its four members as an animal welfare specialist, as the purpose of the committee is ‘…to review the care and welfare arrangements of animals used for defence research purposes in the UK’7. It is encouraging that five Defra advisory NDPBs have at least one member that represents the welfare of animals – this is an increase of one compared to the previous year. It is positive that half of the relevant advisory NDPBs have an animal welfare specialist as a member – this is two more than in 2007. It is hoped that next year and in subsequent years, more government departments encourage the membership of recognised animal welfare specialists on their advisory NDPBs.

It is encouraging that five Defra advisory NDPBs have at least one member that represents the welfare of animals.

Footnotes and references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Public bodies (2008). Cabinet Office. www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/PublicBodies2008_tcm6-6429.pdf www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/public-bodies/advisory-ndpbs www.dfpni.gov.uk/public_bodies_2008-4.doc?bcsi_scan_3AE3F9E5D26CB146=1 www.assemblywales.org/04-019.pdf HC Deb 9 May 2006 c.127W. The Animal Health & Welfare Strategy England Implementation Group was dissolved in September 2009. www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/ScienceandTechnology/AWAC


Generic indicators

The proportion of people interested in improving animal welfare

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

The UK is often referred to as a ‘nation of animal lovers’. It is viewed by some as a world leader in the treatment, care and respect of its animals, putting it way ahead of other countries. However, there is still much to be done to educate, create awareness and ultimately improve the lives of animals in the UK. For such improvements to be made to the welfare of animals, whether they are farmed for food, pets at home or animals used in research and testing, then awareness, understanding and support from the general public is vital. Members of the general public are very important, if not key, to animal welfare evolving and improving. If laws, behaviour, purchasing choices, and attitudes are to be changed positively and therefore improved, the RSPCA believes that animal welfare must be a concept everyone in the UK and abroad understands and is engaged and familiar with.

The UK has legislation relating to all categories of animals; those farmed for food, those kept as domestic pets, animals used in research and testing, and wildlife living free or in captivity. As well as laws, there are many animal protection/welfare organisations and individuals that work for and on behalf of animals in many different capacities including campaigning, lobbying, hands-on work, fundraising and donating money. The fact that organisations such as the RSPCA and hundreds of other animal organisations exist throughout the world shows that there is an ongoing need for improvements to be made. Most of these organisations are primarily supported by the public and rely heavily on financial contributions from individuals who believe in their aims and objectives. The role of the public in improving the welfare of animals can take many forms. At the highest level, contacting MPs (or Welsh Assembly Members and Scottish MPs) about a particular animal welfare concern, or responding to government consultations on an animal issue, can have a direct influence on animal welfare laws. Consumer purchasing power can help influence supermarkets, farmers, restaurants etc, change the way food is produced, and what products are sold. From the public’s actions, such as lobbying MPs, buying higher welfare food products and outcry at certain horrific instances of cruelty, it could be assumed that there are many people wanting to improve animal welfare in the UK. In measurement terms, however, this is an unscientific presumption and although assessing the public’s attitudes to animal welfare is important when attempting to define how the UK is performing with regard to its animals, it must be acknowledged that it is probably one of the hardest to gauge accurately. The RSPCA and other organisations measure public and social attitudes by commissioning opinion polls to find out how the general public view different aspects of animal welfare and whether they want improvements to be made. Polls are also a useful way of measuring change in behaviour and/or opinion. Polling is a well-established and commonly used tool for measuring the social attitudes and opinions of the general public on all sorts of issues. It is recognised that such polls are subjective, and whilst every attempt can be made to formulate questions in an unbiased and objective manner there is no way of preventing the public from giving an answer they believe the questioner would like to hear, misinterpreting the question or quite simply lying. Polling questions tend not to delve into why certain responses are given or explain the reasoning behind the answers, and assumptions can only be made as to why someone has such a viewpoint. Even with these limitations, opinion polls are

There is an increase in the proportion of people interested in improving animal welfare.


Generic indicators

still an extremely useful way to find out the attitudes and opinions of the general public. And with regard to animal welfare, they can be used as an important measuring tool to identify where changes and improvements need to be made, where they have been made, and where further public education work needs to take place.

The indicator figures The following questions are extracted from different RSPCA commissioned omnibus surveys1. They provide a window into the views and thoughts of the public, their attitude to animal welfare and interest in improving it. All questions have been interpreted by the RSPCA.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that: “In order for society to be truly civilised, animal welfare must be a key priority”? 2 3 4 5 The question was developed to find out if the general public thought animal welfare was an important factor when considering the society they live in. The question has been asked annually since 2006 and the results have changed significantly since then. In 2006, just over half (53 per cent) of the people questioned were in agreement with the statement, with about one-quarter (24 per cent) disagreeing. In 2007 nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of those questioned agreed with the statement with just nine per cent disagreeing. The survey commissioned in 2008 demonstrated that 80 per cent of people agreed that animal welfare should be a key priority with just seven per cent disagreeing with the statement. The latest poll revealed that 74 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement and although this shows a slight drop from the previous year, it is still a large increase since the initial survey was commissioned. It is extremely positive that the majority of people view animal welfare as an important societal issue. The slight fall in positive responses could be related to the current economic crisis, with people being more concerned with their own financial and personal situations rather than other wider issues. The question does have its flaws. It is difficult to assess why, since the question was first asked, such an overall positive change has taken place, or to pinpoint what has happened to encourage the general public to believe that animal welfare is such an important issue. It is hoped that the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England and Wales and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, along with public figures like Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall highlighting issues such as chickens bred for their meat, has increased the understanding and awareness of animals and the laws relating to their welfare.

“Some people say that in addition to factors such as price and quality, there are ethical factors involved when buying different items. On this card is a list of factors which come under this ethical heading. Please tell me which two or three, if any, you personally think are the most important.” 2 3 4 5 The Co-operative Bank’s latest edition of its Ethical Consumerism Report6 identified that the amount of household expenditure on ethical goods and services had increased by 15 per cent between 2006 and 2007. It reports that the overall ethical market in the UK is worth £35.5 billion a year and the spending on items like free-range eggs and poultry had increased by 21 and 12 per cent respectively. Notably it found that spending on Freedom Food had more than doubled (56 per cent) over a 12-month period. With the results of the Ethical Consumerism Report in mind, the RSPCA has for the fourth year commissioned a question to ascertain how the public rate animal welfare when comparing to the purchasing of other ethical goods. The following statements were provided: n

items are produced in an environmentally-friendly manner

n

items are produced without violation of human rights

n

items are produced in a way that minimises unnecessary suffering to animals

n

items are produced with fair trade issues in mind.

For the third year running, the question saw a rise in positive responses concerning the welfare of animals. Although there is just a small change between 2008 and 2009, from 57 to 59 respectively, there has been a significant increase between 2007 and 2009. In 2007, 48 per cent of people believed that animal welfare was important, with this increasing by 11 per cent in 2009. Although all the statements were considered important, the survey reveals that items produced in a way that minimises unnecessary suffering to animals are the most important consideration when ethically shopping. It would be unfair to say the survey demonstrates the public believe animal welfare is more important than the environment or human rights, but it would be fair to say that animal welfare is considered as important as the other ethical factors highlighted and that its importance when shopping reflects the overall growth in the sale of ethical goods.


Generic indicators

“Did you learn about animal welfare at school?” 2 3 The question was drafted to find out if there was any correlation between learning about animal welfare and whether or not it is something the public believes should be taught at school. Although, animal welfare does not form part of the statutory elements of the national curriculum it is included in a number of science and citizenship schemes. The RSPCA distributes a questionnaire each year to 6,400 schools throughout the UK (page 17) which demonstrates that within these schemes there are explicit references to the role of animals within our lives, and our responsibility to treat them and/or the environments within which they live with respect. The results for the opinion poll have remained consistent over the past three years, with a slight increase in the percentage of people having learnt about animal welfare at school in 2009. In 2007 and 2008, 21 and 22 per cent respectively of those questioned answered positively. The most recent survey showed the positive response increased to 24 per cent of those questioned having learnt about animal welfare whilst at school. For the third year running, the majority of those who said yes were in the 16–24 and 25–34 age categories. When schools in the UK were asked if they taught animal welfare as part of the curriculum, 88 per cent of those confirmed that they taught at least one lesson of animal welfare, the same as 2008. The school survey and the age of positive opinion poll responders suggest a number of explanations: perhaps over the past decade animal welfare is being taught more often; younger people can remember more about their school days, as they are more recent; or due to animal welfare playing such a small part of their education older responders fail to remember whether they were taught it or not. Although just a quarter of people said yes when questioned, it is very positive that animal welfare is an issue that at some level is being taught in schools.

“How important, if at all, do you think that it is for animal welfare to be one of the things young people learn about at school?” 2 3 This question was asked to find out if the public felt that formal education was the right arena to create awareness of animal welfare and if there was any correlation with being taught it at school. In 2009, 86 per cent of those questioned responded positively to the poll. This is slightly different to the previous years where in 2007 and 2008, 84 and 90 per cent respectively said they believed that animal welfare should be taught. All age groups believed it was important, which is extremely encouraging as it suggests the public

think that teaching animal welfare is something that is important and that school is the right vehicle for doing so. The results also complement the school survey, which found that 88 per cent of schools were teaching at least one lesson of animal welfare. It suggests that at a small level, schools are delivering and responding positively to public opinion, even if just 24 per cent remember being taught about welfare.

Higher welfare chicken At the beginning of 2008, there was huge media focus on how broiler chickens (chickens reared for their meat) are reared in the UK. This has coincided with a significant increase in the number of chickens being reared to higher on-farm welfare standards (page 45) for the same year. Over the past few years, and in particular 2008, a number of opinion polls have been commissioned to find out if the general public considers the welfare of chickens when they purchase them.

How strongly do you agree or disagree that: “Animal welfare is an important consideration when I buy chicken”? 7 8 With about 830 million chickens reared for their meat in the UK each year, it is important to find out if welfare is a factor when buying chicken. The question was asked in 2006 and repeated in 2008, alongside a number of other chicken-related questions. There is little change in the responses. In 2006, 72 per cent agreed that animal welfare is an important consideration when buying chicken. In 2008, this rose to 79 per cent. A further question formed part of the survey and looked at the actual purchase of chicken and if higher welfare options, that is free-range, organic or Freedom Food, were bought. Interestingly, in both 2006 and 2008 70 per cent agreed or said they would buy the higher welfare option of chicken. As with the first question about chicken, it is extremely encouraging that the public are thinking about the welfare of chickens and purchasing the higher welfare options.

“When I buy chicken I tend to choose higher welfare labels such as free-range, organic or Freedom Food.”9 The question formed part of a wider survey that looked at higher welfare meat, fish and eggs. The results of this particular question were rather different to the statement: ‘Animal welfare is an important consideration when I buy chicken’, with 39 per cent of those asked, agreeing with the statement. Just over one-third (34 per cent)


Generic indicators

disagreed. Although the questions are different, the emphasis and the aims are very similar. There are a number of reasons why the results are so different. The label question was asked in an online survey, whereas the other question was asked during telephone interviews. It could be the case that when interviewed by a person, respondents may be more inclined to say what they feel they ‘should’ say, that is what the interviewer wants them to say or what they believe is the ‘right’ answer. With online polls, respondents are more anonymous and perhaps this makes them feel more comfortable with giving honest thoughts/opinions. The question that identifies labels may also be clearer, alternatively it could be more confusing as the labels are not always recognised or understood by the public. As demonstrated in the farm animal indicator that focuses on the production of higher welfare chicken (see page 43), nearly 20 per cent of chickens produced in the UK are reared to higher welfare standards. Although just a fifth of UK production, this is a dramatic increase since 2006, when this figure was only three per cent. When considering the last two questions, there is quite a discrepancy between the responses and the actual production figures. This suggests a number of things: the public has good intentions about the sort of chicken they are purchasing but may not consistently buy the higher welfare option; labelling (lack of or confusion about wording and/or images); price (higher welfare chicken tends to be more expensive than standard); difficulty in finding higher welfare products; and/or lack of availability means that consumers do not always end up with the product they had planned to purchase. Interestingly when the public was asked about higher welfare labelled eggs, the results were closer to the actual number of cage free, that is higher welfare eggs produced in the UK. About 41 per cent of eggs produced in the UK are considered higher welfare that is barn, organic or free-range (see page 40) – the vast majority of which are from Freedom Food approved farms. Fifty-six per cent of those questioned about the eggs they bought agreed they bought free-range, barn, Freedom Food or organic. Whilst there is still a discrepancy between production figures and the intentions of the purchasing public, it does seem that the public are more aware of the issues relating to eggs produced from caged systems and the higher welfare alternatives. This indicates that more work is needed to educate the public about the rearing and production methods of meat chickens.

Footnotes and references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

An omnibus survey is a method of quantitative market research where data on a wide variety of subjects is collected during the same interview – this can be carried out by phone, face-to-face or online. Usually, multiple research clients will provide proprietary content for the survey while sharing the common demographic data collected from each respondent. Ipsos MORI poll: Results based on interviews with 2,028 adults aged 15+ in Great Britain. In-home, face-to-face interviews between 31 March and 6 April 2006. A split sample was used in 2006. Ipsos MORI poll: Results based on interviews with 1,936 adults aged 15+ in Great Britain. In-home, face-to-face interviews between 9–19 February 2007. Ipsos MORI poll: Results based on interviews with 2,110 adults aged 15+ in Great Britain, face-to-face interviews between 1–7 February 2008. Ipsos MORI poll: Results based on interviews with 1,012 adults aged 15+ in Great Britain. In-home, face-to-face interviews between 20–26 February 2009. The Co-operative Bank. Ethical Consumerism Report 2008. TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 2,011 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain. Telephone interviews between 8–17 February 2008. TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 1,013 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain. Telephone interviews between 12–14 May 2006. YouGov poll: Results based on interviews with 1,990 adults aged 18+ in Great Britain. Online interviews between 6–9 June 2008.

xxxx xxxxx measuring animal welfare in the uk 2008 n 15

Generic indicators

The proportion of UK schools that incorporate animal welfare into their curriculum welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern Many animal welfare issues have implications for individuals, the communities within which they live and society as a whole. In order for young people to understand the role of animals within their lives and society, and make a positive contribution to their welfare, the RSPCA believes animal welfare education should be an integral part of children’s formal education. For the majority of young people in the UK this formal education takes place in a school environment. The basic requirements of what is taught in schools are defined by the curriculum. Although the curriculum in all four UK countries includes a few explicit references to the role of animals within our lives and our responsibility to treat them and/or the environments within which they live with respect, far more references are made to the role of the curriculum in preparing young people to become active and responsible citizens. The RSPCA would like to see schools using both of these opportunities to explore the role of animals and their welfare in our lives and in a civilized society.

there is little change from the previous year.

Background The bodies responsible for education and learning in all four UK countries describe their vision for the school curriculum and communicate its purpose on dedicated websites and in published documents. Each country makes reference to the role of the curriculum in preparing young people to participate in society and make a positive contribution to the communities and environment within which they live. The Welsh Assembly’s ‘Personal and social education framework for seven to 19 year olds in Wales’ explains that one of the aims of this framework is to: “…empower learners to participate in their schools and communities as active responsible citizens locally, nationally and globally”1. Equally in its ‘Framework for children’s learning for three to seven year olds in Wales’ it suggests that this age group: “…should learn to demonstrate care, responsibility, concern and respect for all living things and the environment”2. England’s Qualifications and Curriculum Authority proposes three curriculum aims, one of which is to enable young people to become: “…responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society”3. On a similar theme, Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence aspires to: “…enable all children and young people to become successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors to society and at work”4. Northern Ireland’s statutory requirement for the curriculum (2007) is a: “…balanced and broadly based curriculum which (a) promotes the spiritual, emotional, moral, cultural, intellectual and physical development of pupils at the school and thereby of society; and (b) prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life by equipping them with appropriate knowledge, understanding and skills”5. In order for children and young people to understand the role of animals within their communities and society, and make a positive contribution to their welfare, they need to experience animal welfare education at regular intervals during their school careers. Positive behaviour towards animals requires an understanding of their needs and an appreciation of the responsibility that humans have for them. A number of laws exist that protect and support the welfare of animals and the RSPCA believes that children and young people should explore why these were created and how they relate to their own lives. Throughout their lives children and young people will be required to make everyday decisions that can affect the lives of animals, for example the food they buy and the toiletries they use. It is important that young people make these decisions with a thorough understanding of the moral and ethical issues involved and the implications of the different decisions they may make.


Generic indicators

Finally, the welfare of animals is promoted by a number of different voluntary organisations, many of which operate in the local community. Young people need to understand the purpose of these organisations, how they contribute to society and how they can support their work.

The indicator figures To find out more about the frequency and context of animal welfare education in schools, a questionnaire was developed by the RSPCA and sent to a representative sample (approximately 25 per cent) of primary and secondary schools in the UK. The questionnaire was sent to 6,400 schools in the UK and resulted in a seven per cent response rate. Although this was a higher response rate than the previous years (four and five per cent in 2007 and 2008 respectively), a number of schools submitted incomplete questionnaires which has proved detrimental to detailed analysis. Seventy-seven per cent of those schools who responded were primary schools, 11 per cent were secondary schools and 12 per cent did not indicate what type of school they were. The majority of responses, 66 per cent, were from schools in England which was expected due to England having around four times as many schools as the three other countries combined. The questionnaire asked four questions, the results of which are summarised below. These provide a ‘snapshot’ of animal welfare education in the UK today.

“By the time a pupil leaves your school how many lessons will they have experienced that used animal welfare as either a focus or context for delivering the national curriculum?” A significant number of schools in the UK (88 per cent) are providing at least one lesson about animal welfare, which is the same percentage as last year. Nine per cent of schools are failing to offer any lessons on animal welfare and three per cent of schools chose not to respond to this question. This is a slight change compared to last year, with a reduction in the number of schools failing to provide any lessons on animal welfare reducing from 12 per cent to nine per cent but an increase in the number of schools which chose not to answer this question, zero per cent to three per cent. Northern Ireland is the country in which a higher percentage of its schools (26 per cent) are failing to deliver any lessons on animal welfare. In contrast pupils in Scotland are most likely to experience more lessons on animal welfare during their time at school, with 45 per cent per cent of schools delivering more than seven lessons on animal welfare. Figure 1 illustrates the difference between the number of lessons provided by primary schools and those provided by secondary schools. Most primary schools are likely to provide between three and six lessons, which is the same as last year. The number of lessons provided by most secondary schools has actually reduced since last year, down from three to six lessons, to one or two. However it is worth noting that a significant percentage of secondary schools are increasing the number of lessons they offer, with those schools providing more than 10 lessons on animal welfare increasing from six per cent last year to 17 per cent this year.

Figure1: Number of lessons provided by primary and secondary schools on animal welfare, 2007–2009 40%

Primary Secondary

35%

Percentage of schools

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

2007 2008 2009 1–2 lessons

2007 2008 2009 3–6 lessons

2007 2008 2009 7–10 lessons

2007 2008 2009 More than 10

Data source: Education Direct.


Generic indicators

Figure 2: Ages at which young people experience animal welfare education at school, 2009

Number of schools providing animal welfare lessons

250

200

150

100

50

0 Birth to 3 years

4–5

5–6

6–7

7–8

8–9

9–10

10–1 1

1 1–12

12–13

13–14

14–15

15–16

16+

Ages


“Please explain why you don’t use animal welfare as either a focus or context for delivering the national curriculum” Only the schools which don’t provide lessons about animal welfare answered this question. Schools were able to provide more than one reason as to why animal welfare was not either a focus or context for delivering the curriculum. The main reason provided by schools was lack of curriculum time (39 per cent), with lack of curriculum resources accounting for 26 per cent of the responses. Twelve per cent of schools suggested that lack of knowledge about animal welfare issues was a contributing factor. The overall figures are similar to last year, when lack of curriculum time was the most popular response. The fact that 88 per cent of the schools that responded are able to provide at least one lesson on animal welfare suggests that time can be found within the curriculum and that perhaps this is more an issue of perception than reality. Lack of curriculum resources and/ or knowledge should not be a barrier to providing animal welfare education as the majority of animal welfare organisations provide curriculum-linked resources, and some provide teacher training on how to incorporate animal welfare as part of the curriculum.

“In what year group(s) is animal welfare part of your curriculum work?” Schools were able to choose more than one year group in response to which year group(s) is animal welfare part of your curriculum work. As Figure 2 demonstrates, children and young people may experience animal welfare education at any point during their school careers. However, this is more likely to occur between birth and age eleven

in all four countries reflecting the age at which most young people leave primary school and start secondary school. These results mirror those for the last two years. Animal welfare education is equally important whatever the age of young people and should be taught as a progressive set of skills, knowledge and attitudes. Some secondary schools are demonstrating this commitment and it is important that other schools do the same.

“In what subject(s) is animal welfare part of your school’s curriculum work?” Although animal welfare education is taught in a number of different subject areas, a combination of personal and social education/ personal, social and health education and citizenship education are the most popular subject areas overall, closely followed by science (Figure 3). This is true for all four UK countries with the exception of Wales, where English is a more popular subject for teaching animal welfare education than science. There has been a slight reduction in the number of secondary schools teaching animal welfare education as part of the science curriculum this year, however more secondary schools are teaching animal welfare in English and religious education lessons. This section provides an indication of which areas of the curriculum provide openings for animal welfare education and should enable those schools that don’t provide any lessons on animal welfare, or only provide a few, with pointers as to where to begin. Many animal welfare organisations produce curriculum resources, which support these areas of the curriculum.


Generic indicators

Figure 3. Subjects within which animal welfare education is taught, 2007–2009 60%

Primary Secondary

Percentage of schools

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2007 2008 2009 Science

2007 2008 2009 English

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 RE Geography PSHE/Citizenship

2007 2008 2009 Other


As with the previous two years, it is disappointing that such a small number of schools have responded to the questionnaire. With such a small per cent participating, it is extremely difficult to assess the true situation of animal welfare education in the UK. It is hoped that in future years more schools will respond to the questionnaire so a fuller conclusion can be drawn about the teaching of animal welfare in schools. It is welcoming that children are learning about some areas of animal welfare during their formal education, however it is hoped that more time is spent on the issue in the future.

Footnotes and references 1 Personal and social education framework for seven to 19 year olds in Wales (2008) Welsh Assembly Government Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. 2 Framework for children’s learning for three to seven year olds in Wales (2008) Welsh Assembly Government Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills. 3 The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority’s Aims of the curriculum: www.qca.org.uk 4 Learning and Teaching Scotland: www.ltscotland.org.uk 5 The Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007.


Generic indicators

The number of firework-related communications received by the RSPCA

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Fireworks are a universal symbol of celebration used for various cultural and religious events worldwide, primarily for aesthetic effect and entertainment purposes. In the UK fireworks are traditionally associated with Bonfire Night and New Year’s Eve, but they are also used throughout the year at weddings, concerts and festivals. Whilst fireworks create a spectacular backdrop to events, animals can suffer as a consequence of the noise created by them. The RSPCA is concerned for the welfare of animals affected by stress and anxiety caused by loud fireworks and is encouraging a more responsible attitude to their use by the public.

The charity Environmental Protection UK1 recognises that: “While adding excitement to occasions, fireworks can also frighten and disturb people and animals.” Its website (as well as others, including local authority sites) details the laws relating to fireworks: when they can be used, who can buy them, and what to do if you want to make a complaint about the noise of fireworks. These sites recognise that fireworks can have a negative effect on animals and provide an abundance of information about keeping animals safe when fireworks are going off. Most animal organisations produce information and advice about keeping animals safe when fireworks are going off, as it is increasingly recognised that fireworks can be a cause of great anxiety to animals. Opinion polls commissioned by the RSPCA in 20072 and 20083 show that of the respondents questioned who owned a pet, 57 and 63 per cent respectively said their animals were frightened of fireworks. The Firework Regulations 2004 set the maximum noise limit for fireworks sold to the public and prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from possessing fireworks in a public place and using them at night. The current noise limit for fireworks for use by the public is set at 120 decibels (dBAI), that is equivalent noise to a jet aircraft taking off4. The RSPCA would like to see the noise limit lowered to 97 dBAI, which is equivalent to a car door slamming shut, as this could help reduce the stress suffered by animals. The legislation has applied a curfew to the use of fireworks for private use. It prohibits the use of fireworks at night and states that no fireworks are to be used between the hours of 11pm–7am except during Bonfire Night (up to midnight), Diwali and Chinese New Year (up to 1am). Although a curfew may help, it is difficult to see how this will reduce the stress caused to animals, as they cannot tell the difference between a firework going off at 10.45pm and 11.05pm. Furthermore it is virtually impossible for authorities to detect where a firework has been fired from and who was responsible, making it difficult to enforce and police the curfew. Under the Environmental Protection Act 19905, local authorities have powers to prevent or abate noise nuisance from premises and land. Local authority environmental health officers have to judge whether a problem complained about might be considered a statutory nuisance and act accordingly. Complaints about fireworks and other noise problems should be reported to local authorities, but currently there are no centrally-held records of the number of firework-related noise complaints received6 and therefore it is difficult to judge how many people are complaining. When asked who should be contacted to complain about fireworks’ noise, 63 per cent of

there has been a drop in complaints about pets and fireworks.


Generic indicators

people did not know. Of those that knew who to contact, 75 per cent believed they had to call the police to complain about firework noise. In 2007 and 2008, nearly a quarter of people (22 per cent) correctly said they would complain to their local authority2 3. This clearly demonstrates that there is much confusion about who to contact about firework noise. The RSPCA is encouraging local authorities to make it clearer to the public about whom they should complain to and ideally record the number of complaints they receive about noise. The RSPCA, other animal welfare organisations7 8 and local authorities provide the general public with information about how to minimise stress and anxiety to animals when fireworks are being used. However it is up to pet owners, users of fireworks, firework manufacturers and distributors to join forces and promote a more responsible attitude towards the use of fireworks and make people aware of the negative effect they have on animals.

The indicator figures Throughout the year, the RSPCA, other animal organisations, local authorities and the police receive complaints about fireworks, including those that involve animals. However it is from around Bonfire Night in early November, that the RSPCA and others receive the majority of complaints. It is currently impossible to obtain information at a national level regarding the amount of communication received about fireworks and animals, therefore in an attempt to measure the problem RSPCA data and information is used here. In 2005, 2006 and 2008, the RSPCA contacted about 3,000 vets in England and Wales to find out how many animals they’d seen that had been affected by fireworks. Unfortunately the questionnaire received an extremely poor response rate each year. In 2009 a new survey was developed and it is hoped that more vets will complete it. For this welfare indicator to be representative and meaningful, the RSPCA wants to use a number of data sources, not just its own, to determine how many animals are affected by fireworks. Data from vets is vital if this is to be achieved. The limited results from the survey showed that the majority of animals seen by vets due to stress caused by fireworks are dogs. One possible explanation is that dogs are most likely to show obvious signs of stress and anxiety, whereas it is more difficult to observe stress behaviours in cats or small animals such as rabbits and guinea pigs. Trying to establish the impact fireworks have on wild animals and farm animals is especially hard, as there is little reporting on these issues. Therefore pets, mainly dogs, are the main focus for advice and literature. The charity, Cats Protection, commissioned a survey of veterinary practices in 2008 to determine the effect

Figure 4: The number of firework complaints and advice calls received by the rspca, 2004–2008 Advice

600

Complaint

500

400

300

200

100

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source: RSPCA.


Generic indicators

fireworks have on cats. The survey noted that the problems seen in cats with regard to fireworks are behaviour related, rather than physical. They found that the main problems associated with fireworks were cats spraying or soiling indoors, cats suffering from apathy or withdrawal and cats scratching or clawing at furniture9. While it is acknowledged that fireworks can cause anxiety and stress to some animals, the RSPCA believes it is important to find out how big the problem actually is and has looked at its own communications with the public regarding animals (usually pets) and fireworks. Every year, members of the public contact the RSPCA seeking advice, requesting fireworks literature or complaining, and during the build up to Bonfire Night this level of communication increases. Complaints about fireworks going off in local areas are received and advice is requested on how to look after pets when fireworks are going off and how to find animals that have bolted from their owners. Figure 4 shows the complaints and advice calls received by the RSPCA’s National Control Centre over the last five years. Since 2004, the RSPCA has been receiving less phone calls asking for advice, however in the same time period complaint calls have risen. One explanation is that information on how to keep pets safe is more readily available on the RSPCA website10 and other websites7 8. During the fireworks season the RSPCA cruelty and advice line’s recorded message advises callers to look at its website for information about keeping pets safe. In the second half of 2007 there were more than 10,000 visits to the RSPCA’s website firework pages, and this more than doubled in 2008 with around 21,000 visits. It would seem that pet owners are becoming more knowledgeable about the distress fireworks can cause to their animals, more aware of the preventative measures they can take to prevent their animals suffering and better informed about what to do if their animals become distressed. These changes mean that animal owners do not need to phone the RSPCA for advice. However the increase in the number of complaints received is harder to understand. Since 2004 complaints to the RSPCA have been steadily increasing, although they fell in 2008. One reason for the increase could be that fireworks seem to be used more often, over a longer period of time and seem to be getting louder which is causing upset animal owners to contact the RSPCA. The 2008 drop in complaints can possibly be explained by the change in the UK classification of explosives, which has meant that fireworks contain less flash powder (a pyrotechnic composition that can produce a big bang), so the ‘bang’ is not as loud as it once was.

Table 3: Firework communications sent and received by the RSPCA in 2007–2008

Communication

2007

2008

Information sent to general public

6,898

175,000

Website

10,000

21,000

Text messages

3,100

3,200

Complaints/advice calls

692

572

Data source: RSPCA.

Each year the RSPCA sends firework posters and leaflets to thousands of veterinary practices, public libraries and local authorities in England and Wales. Table 3 shows the different types of communication sent and received in 2007 and 2008. During this time the RSPCA aired radio adverts advising people to get in touch for information on looking after pets around the main firework period and more than 3,000 people responded by text. In 2008, 175,000 leaflets and posters were distributed to the general public offering advice and guidance about animals and fireworks, indicating that the public is eager for tips on how to alleviate the distress fireworks cause to animals. It is extremely positive that people are concerned about their pets’ welfare and are keen to receive information on how to alleviate the stress and suffering fireworks cause. It is unfortunate that a comparison between RSPCA data and that from other organisations and charities cannot be made, but it is hoped that in future the RSPCA will be able to obtain adequate external data to identify how big the fireworks problem is for the UK’s animals.

Footnotes and references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

www.environmental-protection.org.uk/neighbourhood-nuisance/fireworks TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 1,015 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain. Telephone interviews between 7–9 December 2007. TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 1,003 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain. Telephone interviews between 5–7 December 2008. Keep the noise down: Loud fireworks frighten animals. 2005. RSPCA. Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part III. Parliamentary question 2008 by Rob Marris. To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: “How many complaints about firework noise have been received by his department; and what statistics his department has collected on complaints regarding firework noise received by other public bodies in each month from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2007”. Mr Thomas replied: “Complaints about noise from fireworks are not collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost”. www.bluecross.org.uk www.berr.gov.uk/fireworks The effects of fireworks on cats survey was conducted during October 2008 by Lake Market Research on behalf of Cats Protection: www.cats.org.uk www.rspca.org.uk


Generic indicators

The number of stray dogs collected by local authorities in the UK

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

The RSPCA regularly receives enquiries about stray dogs, even though the Society does not deal directly with the issue. In April 2008 section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA) was implemented. The Act transferred the responsibility for receiving stray dogs out of hours from the police to local authorities in England and Wales. This has largely resulted in local authorities taking responsibility for receiving stray dogs outside the hours of 9am–5pm during weekdays and throughout the weekend. Whilst many local authorities fulfil their obligation to seize and detain stray dogs, others carry out additional proactive work such as microchipping, neutering and dog training advice either as independent councils or in partnership with animal welfare charities or other councils. The RSPCA promotes those local authorities that are providing a good service as well as those that are being more proactive in educating owners. This has largely been done through the RSPCA’s Community Animal Welfare Footprints (CAWF), an annual scheme that rewards and promotes good practice by local authorities and housing providers in the areas of their work that impact on animal welfare, including the stray dog service. In September 2008, the first year of the scheme, 28 local authorities successfully achieved the stray dog footprint and a further 21 received other footprints1. And 2009 has proved even more successful with 47 authorities receiving stray dog footprints. The RSPCA will continue to encourage, and in some cases assist, local authorities to implement more effective measures that could help reduce the number of stray dogs and increase the number of dogs returned to their owners. The Society will also continue to work with the government to solve the problem of stray dogs.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) defines a stray dog as: “One that is in a public place, not under the charge of its keeper2”. Under the Environmental Protection Act 19903 (EPA) local authorities are given specific orders to appoint an officer to be responsible for: “Discharging the functions imposed or conferred by this section for dealing with stray dogs found in the area of the authority”. The EPA also gives joint responsibility to police and local authorities for the receipt of strays, which in turn has sometimes created confusion in some authority areas about who is actually responsible for stray dogs. The CNEA was intended to resolve the confusion of joint responsibility by terminating police responsibility for stray dogs4 and passing sole responsibility for stray dogs to local authorities. It was agreed by Defra, following pressure from a number of local government and animal welfare organisations, that this could not be implemented until funding had been transferred from the police to local authorities. In November 2007, two years after the Act was passed, Defra announced the implementation date for the CNEA as 6 April 20084. A settlement of £4m to assist local authorities in providing an out-of-hours contact number and “where practicable” a reception point for strays was also agreed. One year on from the changes in legislation, there are early indications that it has created greater inconsistency in the quality of service local authorities are now providing. Local authorities have cited many reasons for this, but they are mainly focussed on three issues: a lack of funding, money not being ring-fenced, and a higher volume of stray dog-related out-of-hours calls than anticipated. To monitor the problem of stray dogs in the UK and to see if the numbers of dogs local authorities are dealing with on a yearly basis are increasing or decreasing, an information request was sent to local authorities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The FOIA entitles anybody to ask a public authority for any recorded information that they keep. A response must be made available within 20 working days from receipt of the request. The reason for using this method is to ensure that the survey produces a good response within the time parameters outlined in the Act, and therefore gives the RSPCA a more accurate picture of the situation. As with previous years, the survey was sent to all local authorities in England (354), Wales (22), Scotland (32) and Northern Ireland (26). To ensure there could not be any misinterpretation, those questions that concerned the collection and disposal of dogs in England and Wales were worded in line with the direction given in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.



Generic indicators

Whilst many local authorities fulfil their obligation to seize and detain stray dogs, others carry out additional proactive work such as microchipping, neutering and dog training advice either as independent councils or in partnership with animal welfare charities or other councils.

There are other methods of data collection that are used to determine how big the problem of stray dogs is in the UK. However, the essential difference between the RSPCA’s research on stray dogs compared to any others is that it seeks to clarify which dogs are euthanased after the statutory seven-day period5 and those that are euthanased on medical grounds.

The indicator figures The overall UK response to the survey was 266 from 434 (61 per cent) of local authorities, which is lower than the 304 (70 per cent) responses in the previous year. Northern Ireland had the best response rate with 77 per cent (20), while Wales had the worst response rate with just 11 of the 22 local authorities responding. The overall response rate is less than the previous years, where 70 and 75 per cent of local authorities responded. While this is disappointing, it could be reflective of the work and time pressures that those responsible for stray dog services are now under due to the legislative changes. It may also reflect some level of resistance to similar surveys being carried out regarding this issue and is something the RSPCA will seek to resolve in the forthcoming year. To effectively compare year-on-year data and due to a number of local authorities not participating in the survey, the stray dog figures for the past two years have been projected to reflect a 100 per cent response rate. The number of stray dogs collected in the UK in the 2007–2008 financial year (that is between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008) was 87,2876. The overall figure represents little change in the previous figure of 87,1837 between the 2006–2007 financial year. As Figure 5 shows, and despite the apparent increase in number of seized dogs, those being returned to their owners has remained relatively consistent with the previous year at around 44 per cent. During 2007–2008, Scotland returned the most stray dogs to their owners (58.9 per cent)8, more than 10 per cent better than the next placed country, England (48.4 per cent). Statistically, Northern Ireland had the poorest return rate with less than a quarter (20.7 per cent) of

stray dogs being returned to their owners. In the UK, 44 per cent of those seized by local authorities were returned to their owners, which is slight decrease on 48.6 per cent in the financial year 2006–2007. Whilst this change is not significant it has shown that the levels of stray dogs returned to owners are not improving. This is something that needs to be looked at in more detail and analysis carried out on what impact schemes, such as microchipping and neutering, are having on reducing stray dogs and increasing numbers returned. Information was also collected on the number of stray dogs given to members of the public and to rehoming establishments (Figures 6 and 7), in addition to those dogs euthansed both on medical grounds and after the seven-day statutory period. The total number of stray dogs being euthanased in the UK represents seven per cent (6,032) of all dogs. Although comparatively low, this represents a projected increase of 600 dogs on the previous year’s euthanasia figure of 5,414. England and Wales collectively saw a slight increase on the previous two years, of 3,863 or 5.4 per cent compared with 4.8 per cent or 3,548 in 2007 and four per cent or 2,632 in 2006. Scotland for a second year recorded the lowest euthanasia percentage with just 2.4 per cent at 132. However that was almost 50 per cent up on the previous year’s figures which represented just 1.6 per cent of all dogs seized. Northern Ireland was once again the highest rising from 20 per cent in 2007, to 23 per cent of strays being euthansed in 2008. Disturbingly this has meant that more dogs in Northern Ireland were put to sleep than returned to their owners in the financial year 2007–2008. Although the total number of dogs euthanased is important, what is far more significant is the number of dogs being euthanased after the statutory seven-day period, where they are likely to be healthy. These figures are slightly tainted by the fact that almost 3,000 of the 5,807 dogs euthanased in the UK were not classified in either health or medical grounds categories, or after the statutory seven-day period. Of the figures supplied 33.7 per cent of the total dogs euthased in


Generic indicators

Figure 5: The percentage of stray dogs returned to their owner by local authorities in the UK, 2006–2008 60

2006–2007

2007–2008

50

40

30

20

10

0

England

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

UK

Figure 6: The percentage of stray dogs given to the public by local authorities in the UK, 2006–2008 30

2006–2007

2007–2008

25

20

15

10

5

0

England

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

UK

Figure 7: The percentage of stray dogs given to establishments for rehoming by local authorities in the UK, 2006–2008 60

2006–2007

2007–2008

50

40

30

20

10

0

England

Wales

Scotland

Northern Ireland

UK

Data source: RSPCA.


Generic indicators

Table 4: The number of stray dogs reported to have been euthanased by UK local authorities, 2006–2008 Country Euthanased on Euthanased on Euthanased medical grounds non-medical grounds (no explanation) England

2006–2007

2007–2008

2006–2007

2007–2008

2006–2007

2007–2008

1,443

898

824

1,247

766

1,172

Wales

237

262

197

174

80

186

Scotland

20

33

71

20

80

79

Northern Ireland

826

5

0

591

1,775

1,365

UK

2,526

1,198

1,092

2,032

2,701

2,802

Data source: RSPCA.

the UK were done so after the seven-day statutory period and 19.9 per cent on medical grounds. Compared to the 2007 figures, they are quite different. Whilst the total number of euthanased dogs for 2008 – 6,032 – is similar to that of the previous year 6,319, the figures for reasons for euthanasia are very different. Unlike 2007, more dogs were euthanased after the seven-day statutory period (33.6 per cent or 2,032), than in 2007 when 1,092 or 17.3 per cent of all euthanased dogs were done so after the seven-day period in 2007. There is a similar turnaround on the figures for strays being euthanased on medical grounds. In 2008, 1,198 dogs were euthanased on medical grounds compared with 2,526 the previous year – a reduction of more than 52 per cent (Table 4). Overall, the results of the stray dog survey for the financial year 2007–2008 are very similar to that of 2006–2007. The data provided highlights a number of issues regarding a lack of consistency among

local authorities and contract stray dog kennelling/wardening services when it comes to information about the disposal of stray dogs. There appears to be a genuine need for a standard form of data recording for stray dogs, and while the balance must be made not to overburden local authorities and their staff with bureaucracy, it is important to get a consistency of collection across the tiers of local authorities in England and Wales. Without this, it will be difficult for trends to be accurately assessed and meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Ultimately, without truly accurate data, arguments over levels of funding for this important animal welfare service are difficult to make. The figures for 2008–2009, the first post-CNEA, are likely to highlight further the need for more accurate data collection to ensure that local authorities have the resources they need to deal with what is likely to be a significant increase in stray dog numbers.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

For further information on the CAWF scheme visit: www.rspca.org/cawf www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/dogs/strays.htm Environmental Protection Act.1990 s149 (1) and (3). Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. s68. Under Section 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 1990, a dog must be detained for seven days before it can be disposed of, that is rehomed or euthanased. Actual number of strays reported from the 266 local authorities in the UK was 55,292 dogs. The actual number of stray dogs seized in the uk was 60,053. Actual number of strays returned to owners 2,396 out of 4,070 seized from 24 of 32 local authorities in Scotland.


Generic indicators

The number of local authorities in the UK that have an animal welfare charter welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Local authorities in England and Wales are involved in a number of services that relate directly to animals, including the collection of stray dogs and the licensing of pet shops, dog breeding establishments and kennelling facilities. There are other areas of public service delivery that have some impact, directly or indirectly, on animal welfare, where the local authority may influence policy. These include areas such as housing provision, pest control and emergency planning. An animal welfare charter is a document that in its most basic form establishes some basic principles the local authority generally supports with relation to the welfare of animals. The implementation of a charter can encourage animals to be a consideration in all aspects of a local authority’s work and help to ensure that services have mechanisms in place to maintain and increase good standards of animal welfare. The RSPCA believes that all local authorities should adopt an animal welfare charter, so that the welfare of animals becomes a natural consideration within the authority’s decision-making and policy process.

The passing of two pieces of major legislation, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA)1 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA)2, in the last few years, has impacted on all tiers of local authorities in England and Wales with regard to services directly related to animals. Sections 55 and 56 of the CNEA give local authorities the power to issue dog control orders on any open spaces, including parks. The orders allow authorities to exclude dog access completely or exclude dogs not on leads, and increases fines for dog fouling. Section 68 removes any responsibility for stray dogs from the police, leaving local authorities with sole responsibility for them. Within the AWA, local authorities are given powers of entry and enforcement that they may exercise to improve animal welfare, although there is no obligation for local authorities to use these powers. However, they also must ensure that those they license adhere to the AWA. This means the Act should impact on the licensing of pet shops and events that involve animals, as well as ensuring that kennelling facilities used for stray dogs meet the welfare needs of the dogs held there. Local authority animal welfare charters come in a variety of forms. Some are a collection of policy statements on various aspects of local authority work, others are a set of principles the local authority aims to work to in all aspects of council business. The most effective animal welfare charters are those that cover both the principles and practical side and touch on areas of local authority work that may not be instantly linked with animal welfare e.g. social services and housing. However, in order for a welfare charter to be meaningful and effective it must be backed up by action. This in turn can create good public relation opportunities and link in with aspects of local authority work. For example, responsible pet ownership promotion could result in a reduction in problems such as stray dogs, fouling, barking and the use of dogs to intimidate others, all of which fit under the anti-social behaviour umbrella. The RSPCA believes that a robust and practical animal welfare charter would also go some way in assisting contractors, officers and managers who may not have a primary animal-related role to become more aware of the implications of their work on animal welfare. Currently there are no national local government or housing indicators that directly focus on animal services in the same way that waste management and anti-social behaviour do. The RSPCA recognises this as a major obstacle to seeing improvements in animal welfare related services.



Generic indicators

Figure 8: Number of local authorities that have an animal welfare charter in the UK, 2006–2008

10%

2006/2007

9%

2007/2008

Figure 9: Number of local authorities that are considering introducing an animal welfare charter, 2006–2008 2006/2007

20%

2007/2008

17.5%

8% 15% 7% 12.5%

6%

10%

5% 4%

7.5%

3% 5% 2% 2.5%

1% 0%

England

Wales

Scotland Northern Ireland

UK

0%

England

Wales

Scotland Northern Ireland

UK

Data source: RSPCA/local authorities.

In April 2008, we launched the RSPCA Community Animal Welfare Footprints (CAWF), a scheme to reward and promote good practice in animal welfare by local authorities and housing providers. The scheme generated strong interest from both local government and housing sectors, and the Society received more than 60 different footprint entries from 49 different local authorities. In 2009 the scheme grew substantially and more than 100 footprint applications from over 80 different organisations were received. The scheme appears to be producing the desired effects with local authorities being celebrated and rewarded for their good practice and then sharing info with other local authorities that are seeking solutions to their service problems. Further information about the scheme is available at: www.rspca.org.uk/cawf This animal welfare indicator was developed to monitor the number of local authorities that currently have animal welfare charters and those that are considering introducing a charter in the forthcoming year. However, it should be noted that this charter indicator is just an indication of whether the council, in particular the political leadership, view animal welfare as an important issue for the authority. It should also be noted that there are many local authorities doing excellent work to improve animal welfare that don’t have a charter.

The indicator figures An information request on animal welfare charters was sent to all 376 local authorities in England and Wales, as well as the 32 authorities in Scotland and 26 authorities in Northern Ireland3. The data was collected alongside the information request for stray dogs (see page 23) and as result saw a similar drop in response rate from 2008. In 2009 the response rate was 63.8 per cent or 277 from 434 local authorities in the UK, a drop of 63.8 per cent on the 304 local authorities that responded in 2008. In England and Wales in 2009, the number of local authorities that currently have animal welfare charters has remained around the same level as 2008 at 8.15 per cent. The number of local authorities considering the introduction of an animal welfare charter has increased for the second year running from seven per cent and 15 per cent in 2007 and 2008 respectively, to 17 per cent in 2009. However as Figure 8 shows, Welsh local authorities are still not declaring a charter and only one of the 11 respondents4 claims to be considering introducing one. It should also be noted that the majority of local authorities in Wales have been investigating animal welfare issues in some depth as part of the Wales Assembly Government’s CAWES (Companion Animal Welfare Enhancement Scheme) work. This means that in a number of cases, local authorities in Wales that


Generic indicators

do not have charters may well be carrying work that will improve animal welfare substantially. Once again England (Figure 9) had the highest percentage of local authorities with animal welfare charters and those that were considering or planning to introduce one in the next 12 months with nine per cent and 19 per cent respectively5. While the number of charters remains the same as the previous year, there is an impressive increase of four per cent for local authorities considering charters compared with 2008 (15 per cent). Northern Ireland was the only country to see an increase in the percentage of local authorities that had a charter. It improved from having no local authorities with charters or considering charters in 2008 to five per cent and 10 per cent respectively6. However this remains a very low number of local authorities involved. Scotland saw the reverse to Northern Ireland with the number of local authorities that stated they had an animal welfare charter decrease from eight per cent in 2008 to just four per cent in 2009. No local authority claimed to be considering introducing a charter, a drop from eight per cent in the previous year7. The inconsistency of these results is a concern. However it should be noted that in some cases the officer tasked with providing the response may not have been aware of the existence of the council’s animal welfare charter. While many of the local authorities with charters have placed animal welfare at the centre of much of their work, there are many more local authorities without charters that are going beyond their basic requirements to improve animal welfare. Both the Welsh Assembly CAWES project and the RSPCA’s CAWF scheme highlight this.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. S55, 56, 68. www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060045_en.pdf Unitary, metropolitan, London borough, district and Welsh unitary councils were surveyed. County councils were not included. 11 of 22 (50 per cent) of local authorities in Wales responded to the 2009 survey. 19 local authorities in England said they had a charter and 42 said they were considering introducing one, from the 222 that responded. One local authority had a charter in Northern Ireland. 20 out of 26 (77 per cent) local authorities responded. One local authority had a charter in Scotland. 24 out of 32 (75 per cent) local authorities responded.

xxxx xxxxx measuring animal welfare in the uk 2008 n 29

Generic indicators

The number of relevant white papers published by the UK government that include a positive animal welfare component

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

In the UK animal welfare is traditionally seen as an issue resting with one government department, namely the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). In the devolved governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, animal welfare rests with the Welsh Assembly Government’s Department for Rural Affairs, the Scottish Government’s Rural Affairs and the Environment Department and the Department of Agricultural and Rural Development in Northern Ireland. Other UK ministries, such as the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, have a direct role in setting policies on animal welfare or managing issues that have an impact on animal welfare, but they are usually not automatically considered when the issue of animals and their health and/or welfare is raised. Ideally, all government departments in all UK countries would consider the current and future needs of animals and acknowledge the relationship of animals with other issues when developing policy and laws even if there is not an obvious animal welfare theme. The RSPCA would like the UK government and devolved governments to take a holistic approach to animal welfare, and advocates that all government departments give the issue due consideration when developing and implementing policy and legislation.

Alongside Defra, other major departments that set animal welfare policy include the Home Office (animals used in research and testing), and the Department for Communities and Local Government (urban regeneration). Other ministries have an indirect impact – such as the Department for International Development (DFID), which has an animal welfare policy that is considered for any overseas programmes, and the Ministry of Defence which runs the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) and is responsible for the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC). By looking at the UK government’s plans for future policy, an assessment can be made about how animal welfare is currently viewed and whether aspects of it are being considered and incorporated into future plans across different government departments. To gain some insight into current and future government thinking and actions about aspects of animal welfare, white papers1 (documents produced by government departments to outline details of future policy) are reviewed. Although white papers are just one step in the process of making government policy, they are useful indices in measuring how legislators view animals and their welfare. By looking at white papers, it is hoped that cross-departmental thinking on animal welfare will be evident and encouraged to occur in future years.

The indicator figures Between January 2004 and December 20082 3, 53 white papers were published by different UK government ministries. During 2008, 12 were published. None of the white papers published during this five-year period were specifically about animals or their welfare and only one was produced by Defra, the department with overall, recognised responsibility for animal welfare. However, it would seem likely that a number of the issues covered by some of the white papers would have some direct or indirect impact on animals even if it wasn’t initially obvious. In order to assess whether animals and/or their welfare would be included in the white papers, the following questions were asked:


n

Does the title suggest that animals will be included in the white paper?

n

Does the foreword, preface or executive summary suggest that animal welfare will be incorporated into the document?

n

Does the government department producing the white paper have any direct or indirect links to animal health or welfare?


Generic indicators

Table 5: White papers published 2004–2007 that could have included a positive animal welfare component Date Department Title Animal welfare components

Country

No

UK

April 2004

Home Office

One step ahead: A 21st century strategy

to defeat organised crime4

Prospects for the EU in 20045

Yes

UK

Making globalisation a force for good6

No

UK

Yes

UK

April 2004

Foreign and

Commonwealth Office

Department of Trade

July 2004

Sept 2004

and Industry* Foreign and

White paper on the Treaty establishing

Commonwealth Office

a Constitution for Europe7

Home Office

Nov 2004

Building communities, beating crime:

Yes

England

A better police service for the 21st century 8

and Wales

Choosing health: Making healthier

England

Nov 2004

Department of Health

No

choices easier9

and Wales

Prospects for the EU in 200510

Yes

UK

No

England

Feb 2005

Foreign and

Commonwealth Office

Office of the Deputy

Sustainable communities: People, places

Feb 2005

Prime Minister**

and prosperity11

Department for

14–19 education and skills12

No

England

No

England

No

UK

Yes

UK

Feb 2005

Education and Skills***

Department for

Strong and prosperous communities:

Oct 2006

Communities and

The local government white paper13

Local Government

Department of Health

Dec 2006

Review of the Human Fertilisation and

Embryology Act14

A Sea Change15

Mar 2007

Department for

Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs

Data source: Weekly Information Bulletin2. * Now known as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. ** Now known as the Department for Communities and Local Government. *** Now known as the Department for Children, Schools and Families.


Generic indicators

If the previous questions were answered positively then those white papers were assessed according to the following criteria. n

Is there any reference to animal welfare?

n

How in depth does the white paper go?

n

Is the detail provided adequate?

n

By the nature of the document, should animal welfare have been considered?

Of the 41 white papers published between 2004 and 2007, 12 white papers were identified as having the potential to incorporate an animal welfare element within them. In 2008, not one was considered relevant. Table 5 lists the 12 white papers published between 2004 and 2008 that would be expected to consider animals and their welfare. The table highlights the government department that produced them so as to demonstrate the crossover of animal welfare within different areas of government policy. Just five of the 12 white papers that had the potential to incorporate animal welfare actually made reference to animal welfare within some capacity. The remaining seven did not mention animal welfare. The five white papers are listed here.

n

Sea Change15

The paper focuses on wildlife and habitat protection rather than directly on welfare. It refers to other legislation including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Habitat Regulations 1994. It is encouraging that the four white papers, not produced by Defra, make reference to animal welfare especially as three concern the EU and Europe. However it is equally disappointing that animal welfare is of little or no consideration when policy and debate concerns other issues relating to the UK such as education, local government and health. It is hoped that when different government ministries look at policy and legislation, animal welfare (where appropriate) is given due consideration and is reflected in future white papers. Using white papers as a year-on-year measurement of change and growth of cross-departmental thinking and policy is difficult because the number of white papers published each year changes. Each government department may produce a number of documents or none at all and it is expected that just a small selection will need to mention the welfare of animals in any detail. However, it does not take away the importance of the indicator as a measurement of and encourages cross-departmental thinking and future policy.

A Prospects for the European Union (EU) – 2004 and 20055 10 n

Both of the white papers include references to animal welfare, namely CAP16 (Common Agricultural Policy) reform and REACH 17 18 (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation for Chemicals). n

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe7

Article lll–121 states that: “In formulating the Union’s agricultural, fisheries, transport, internal market and technological development and space policies, the Union and the member states shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the requirements of animal welfare…” n

Building communities, beating crime8

The white paper’s foreword and executive summary do not explicitly discuss animals, however they do discuss dedicated neighbourhood policing teams and the government’s aim to: “reduce crime, to tackle anti-social behaviour and disorder”, in which dog fouling was later referred to as anti-social behaviour.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 White papers are produced by UK government departments, however they may or may not have an impact in all four UK countries. 2 Weekly Information Bulletin. On: www.parliament.uk 3 Office of public sector information website: www.opsi.gov.uk 4 Command paper: CM6167. 5 Command paper: CM6174. 6 Command paper: CM6278. 7 Command paper: CM6309. 8 Command paper: CM6360. 9 Command paper: CM6374. 10 Command paper: CM6450. 11 Command paper: CM6450. 12 Command paper: CM6476. 13 Command paper: CM6939. 14 Command paper: CM6989. 15 Command paper: CM7047. 16 The Common Agricultural Policy was first established in 1962. The CAP aims to have a sustainable and vibrant farming sector within the EU. 17 Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency and amending Directive 1999/45/EC. 18 REACH is the EU Commission’s proposals for a regulatory framework on chemicals.


Generic indicators

The number of investigations and convictions taken by the RSPCA under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

In 1822, England and Wales first enacted legislation specifically intended to prevent cruelty to animals with: “An Act to prevent the cruel and improper treatment of cattle”. This was one of the earliest laws on animal cruelty in the world and seems to refer to all livestock not just cattle. It was followed by the establishment of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824 for the purpose of enforcing this new Act and promoting education on animal issues. The RSPCA, as it became known in 1840 and which remains today, established an inspectorate to enforce the animal welfare related legislation. The RSPCA investigates and prosecutes the majority of offences of animal cruelty and breaches of animal welfare in England and Wales1. As Richard Martin MP, a founding member of the RSPCA, said in 1822: “If legislation is to be effective, it must be adequately enforced”. Nearly two hundred years later, the importance of this quote is still very much at the heart of why the RSPCA prosecutes individuals under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (POAA) and its successor the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA). In an ideal world investigations into animal cruelty and breaches of animal welfare, and any subsequent convictions, wouldn’t be necessary because animals would not be suffering as a result of neglect or cruelty. Unfortunately, this is unlikely ever to be the case, so a more realistic aim is for the year-on-year reduction of the number of investigations and convictions, resulting in an overall increase in the standard of animal welfare.

Until 2007, the laws relating to animal cruelty were found in the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Section 1 (1)(a) of the Act made it an offence to cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, torture, or terrify any domestic or captive animal, or wantonly or unreasonably to do or omit to do any act which causes such an animal unnecessary suffering. The AWA in England and Wales significantly updates this 97-year-old legislation and, most importantly, introduces a welfare offence2. This imposes a duty on a person responsible for an animal to take reasonable steps to ensure the needs of that animal are met to the extent required by good practice. For the purposes of the Act, an animal’s needs include its need for: a suitable environment; a suitable diet; to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease. The offence of causing cruelty and unnecessary suffering in the 1911 Act has been updated in the AWA3. Since 1824, the Society has conducted prosecutions of those alleged to have committed offences related to animals. Prosecutions are taken to bring offenders to justice and to protect animals from suffering by deterring others from offending. When the RSPCA takes a prosecution, the Code for Crown Prosecutors4 is applied and the evidence and public interest in bringing a prosecution is considered. The Society has a consistently high success rate with its prosecutions – in 2008, 97.6 per cent of the RSPCA’s prosecutions in England and Wales were successful. Although the RSPCA does take prosecutions using more than 30 pieces of animal legislation, the vast majority were taken under the 1911 Act and are now taken under the AWA. Data on the numbers of convictions achieved by the RSPCA under Section 1 (1)(a) of the POAA and subsequently the AWA are therefore a useful indicator to assess trends in England and Wales.

The indicator figures

There has been a rise in the number of cruelty complaints investigated.

Each year, the RSPCA receives more than one million phone calls to its cruelty and advice line. The calls include animal cruelty incident reports, members of the public seeking advice and concerns about the welfare of animals in England and Wales. In 2008, 1,098,680 telephone calls were received. During the same period, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA)5 received 126,250 phone calls and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA)6 in Northern Ireland received more than 1,000 calls each week. Therefore in 2008 about 1.3 million phone calls concerning the welfare of animals in the UK were taken by just three organisations. There are likely to be many more reports that are received by these charities via written correspondence and to


Generic indicators

other organisations such as the police and local authorities. Telephone calls made to the RSPCA lead to the majority of investigations the RSPCA carries out each day. Figure 10 shows the number of cruelty complaints investigated between 2004 and 2008. The number of cruelty complaints that led to investigations was at its highest in 2008 and since 2004 the numbers have steadily increased from 109,985 to 140,575 in 2008. However, many of the phone calls received by the RSPCA are from members of the public seeking advice and therefore will not lead to an investigation. Trying to explain the reason for this huge increase in cruelty complaints over the past five years is difficult, as there are a number of factors that could encourage the public to call the RSPCA. The increase doesn’t simply mean that cruelty or neglect of animals is getting worse or that more animals in England and Wales are unnecessarily suffering, although this could be true. Complaints could be rising because the public is more aware of whom to call if they see an incident or require advice about an animal welfare problem. Prior to the AWA coming into force, there were many public awareness campaigns and a lot of media information about the proposed changes in law and the need for animal protection laws to be strengthened. A series of RSPCA commissioned polls7 conducted between August 2006 and April 2007 demonstrated how in the months leading up to the implementation of the Act in England and Wales (April and March 2007 respectively), knowledge of the change in the law grew substantially. In August 2006, just 14 per cent of those questioned had heard about a change in the law, but when the same question was asked eight months later this awareness had grown to 57 per cent. This awareness of the law change or knowledge about animal welfare could have encouraged more people to contact the RSPCA and other organisations with complaints. It is also likely that people are more informed about whom to make complaints to because they have better access to knowledge and information via the media. The number of convictions for animal cruelty under the POAA and the AWA is shown in Figure 11. Since 2004, the number of convictions has changed year on year – this is looking at both Acts and combining the numbers in 2007 and 2008. In 2005 and 2007 the number of convictions were similar, but in 2004 and 2006 there were around 300 fewer convictions. To explain the reason why prosecutions and convictions rise or decrease each year is extremely difficult. If the figures increase in one year, but decrease the following and then rise again, it is too simplistic to simply say that in a certain year people were less or more cruel. There is a fairly stark jump in the number of convictions between 2007 and 2008 – 1,780 and 2,408 respectively. Again it is wrong to assume that in 2008 animal welfare was worse than previous years. With the introduction of the AWA and the ‘welfare offence’, for the first time people can be taken to court and subsequently convicted for not ensuring that the needs of their animals are met. With the introduction of this new offence, it is not surprising that convictions have risen. The RSPCA predicted that the AWA and the new offence could lead to an increase in the number of cases submitted to its prosecutions department, which would lead to more cases being taken to court and more people being convicted.

It is difficult to make any firm conclusions about the figures and trends until the new Act has been in place for a number of years. However, while people continue to fail to meet the welfare needs of their animals and cause suffering, there is a need to continue to investigate and subsequently prosecute those that carry out such crimes.

Figure 10: Cruelty complaints investigated, 2004–2008 145,000 140,000 135,000 130,000 125,000 120,000 115,000 110,000 105,000 100,000

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source: RSPCA.

Figure 11: Number of convictions and defendants convicted for offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, 2004–2008, and the Animal Welfare Act 2006, 2007–2008 DEFENDENTS

2,200

POAA

AWA

1,760

1,320

880

440

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source: RSPCA. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Some of the investigations and convictions are taken by other authorities but are assisted by the RSPCA. Animal Welfare Act 2006, s9. Animal Welfare Act 2006, s4. www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/code.html www.scottishspca.org www.uspca.co.uk Ipsos MORI poll: Results based on 1,011 telephone interviews conducted with adults aged 16+ in Great Britain from 13–15 April 2007; 1,007 telephone interviews conducted with adults aged 16+ in Great Britain from 9–10 December 2006; 1,005 telephone interviews conducted with adults aged 16+ in Great Britain from 17–18 November 2006; and 1,003 telephone interviews conducted with adults aged 16+ in Great Britain from 11–13 August 2006.


Introduction farm animal indicators

Safeguarding the welfare of all animals reared for food in the UK every year poses enormous challenges. The sheer number of animals involved – more than 900 million annually – and the varying and often complex physical and behavioural needs of the various farmed species contribute to those challenges. Proper understanding of species-specific needs, and ‘translation’ of that knowledge into appropriate farming practices, is essential if animals are to be provided with a good quality of life. Similarly, knowledge of current farming practices and their effect on welfare, and of ‘trends’ in levels of key welfare problems is necessary if efforts to improve livestock well-being are to be appropriately focused and effective. The need for reliable, objective, national data on key welfare-related issues is, therefore, self evident. Difficulties encountered by the RSPCA in finding such data when compiling the following section of this report underlines the continuing need – acknowledged in the government’s Animal Health and Welfare Strategy1 – to ensure that greater efforts are made to achieve this. During 2008, several significant events occurred in the area of farm animal welfare. n The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) issued a report on lamb castration and tail docking2. The RSPCA had submitted its views to the FAWC during the consultation process. Where appropriate, the RSPCA will be urging sheep producers to adopt the recommendations, some of which are also being used to help inform further development of our own welfare standards for sheep. n Bristol University welfare scientists started work on an RSPCA-funded project aimed at finding ways of encouraging increased use of the outdoor range by laying hens in free-range systems3.

n The RSPCA launched its meat chicken welfare campaign in January with a letter to all British supermarkets, published in the national press, challenging them to commit to only selling higher welfare chicken by 2010. The public were also asked to sign a petition to support the challenge.

The campaigning was planned to coincide with TV programmes on chicken production and welfare, hosted by celebrity chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, for which the RSPCA provided much scientific and technical advice and information.

n The Society launched a legal challenge to new regulations enabling the use of ‘ventilation shutdown’ (VS) – which permits turning off the ventilation system in poultry buildings – as a method to kill poultry in the event of a disease outbreak, such as avian influenza. The RSPCA opposed VS as it results in birds being left to die through hyperthermia, starvation, dehydration, lack of oxygen and/or of disease. Although the Society’s challenge failed, it did prompt Defra to set additional conditions on VS use and produce guidelines on how to try to reduce duration of suffering prior to death. n There were a number of governmental and other consultations on various farm animal welfare issues in 2008, to which the RSPCA submitted responses. Areas addressed included pig mutilations and environmental enrichment4, farmed rabbits5, chicken welfare6, slaughter/killing of farm animals7 and a proposed new national animal health body8.

Footnotes and references 1 Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain, Defra 2004. 2 Farm Animal Welfare Council report on the implications of castration and tail docking for the welfare of lambs. June 2008. 3 Range enhancement for laying hens, University of Bristol. 4 Farm Animal Welfare Council consultation on Mutilations and environmental enrichment in growing pigs. 5 Council of Europe Draft Recommendation Concerning Domestic Rabbits (T-AP (98) 1, 15th revision). 6 Defra Consultation on New Regulations and Code for Meat Chicken Welfare. 7 Defra Consultation on the draft EU Slaughter and Killing Regulation. 8 Defra Consultation on a new independent body for animal health: A modern governance and funding structure for tackling animal diseases.


FARM animal indicators

The number of animals transported live from the UK for slaughter and further fattening

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

The transport of live farm animals from the UK to other countries for slaughter or further fattening is a process that is both unnecessary and fraught with risk to animal health and welfare. The RSPCA advocates that all animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are reared, with the frequency, duration and complexity of any travel minimised, and the quality of the transport process as a whole optimised. Live transport from the UK for slaughter or further fattening fails to satisfy these criteria. Firstly, the travel is essentially unnecessary, as animals could be fattened and slaughtered in the UK and their meat exported instead. In addition, exported animals are taken on potentially long and complex journeys (involving both land and sea travel), which are governed by legislation that does not adequately protect their welfare. The law fails to take proper account of scientific research and practical experience relating to animals’ needs in areas such as journey length, space allowance and temperature/ventilation. In addition, some animals exported for further fattening may be sent to rearing systems that would be illegal in the UK, and/or provide conditions that fall below standard UK practice, further strengthening the welfare-related case for retaining animals in the UK for rearing.

Scientific evidence1 indicates that transport can result in serious health and welfare problems for farm animals. Livestock are subjected to a series of unfamiliar experiences and conditions, inevitably resulting in some degree of stress. Dehydration, thirst, hunger, heat and cold stress, inability to rest comfortably, injury and even death may occur in transit if the animals’ needs are not properly satisfied in terms of provision of food and water, appropriate temperature, humidity and ventilation, enough space and bedding, and effective monitoring by accompanying hauliers/attendants. Poor driving technique, such as cornering too quickly or braking too hard, also has a major effect on welfare, leading to falling and injury1. Animals can become ill after travel due to a suppressed immune system resulting from stress1, whilst animals already suffering from disease during transport can become more ‘infective’ when stressed, so are more likely to transmit illness to others in transit2. The journey complexity is also important. Journeys involving more than one loading/unloading process, and/or different modes of transport, such as those undertaken during export from the UK, clearly add to the potential for stress, distress and injury, with the loading and unloading processes being particularly challenging to some species. It has also been recommended – on the basis of research – that some young animals, such as calves under four weeks of age, should not be ‘marketed’ at all due to their inability to cope adequately with all the physical and mental challenges posed by the transport and associated processes3. Current EU legislation on live transport4 is implemented in the UK through the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006. However, the law fails to protect adequately the welfare of farm animals in transit. For example, it fails to take account of research indicating how much space farm animals need, what maximum travel times and feed/water intervals should be for different species and ages of animal, and appropriate temperatures and humidity. Poor enforcement of the law in some countries, as evidenced by the European Commission’s own inspection body, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)5, as well as by the findings of investigations undertaken by other bodies including the RSPCA6, adds to the likelihood of welfare problems occurring.

The indicator figures There is little change from the previous year.

The number of live animals transported from the UK has been reported by Defra on its website for a number of years. The figures were obtained from sailing reports made by State Veterinary Service (now called Animal Health) staff. However, from mid 2006 onwards



Table 1: Number of live farm animals7 exported from the UK for slaughter or further fattening, 2000–2008

Number for fattening Number for slaughter Total number 2000

Not available

Not available

752,150A

2001B

Not available

Not available

109,316

2002C

Not available

Not available

130,048

2003

61,931

6,682

68,613

2004

41,622

6,826

48,448

2005

Not available

Not available

37,104

2006D

192,383

338,205

530,588E

2007F

155,422

305,156

460,578G

2008H

145,614

300,046

445,660I

Data source: Defra website, except for 2006 (see point D below) and 2007 (see point F below). A – Includes 1,230 pigs. B – In 2001, exports only took place during January and part of February, due to the ban imposed following the outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD). C – In 2002, live exports did not resume until July following the end of the FMD outbreak. D – Data obtained from answer given by the Minister of State for Defra in answer to a parliamentary question – Hansard: HL Deb, 17 July 07, c9WA. E – Includes 128,028 cattle (122,028 of which were for further fattening), 289,529 sheep (70,335 went for further fattening) and 113,031 ‘other’ livestock (20 of which were for further fattening). F – Data obtained from Defra via a Freedom of Information Act request, July 2008. Defra’s source quoted as the EU Commission TRACES database. G – Includes 167,252 cattle (147,719 of which were for further fattening), 205,622 sheep (7,668 of which went for further fattening) and 87,704 other livestock (namely pigs and goats, 35 of which went for further fattening). H – Data obtained from the response to a Parliamentary Question by the Minister of State for Defra – Hansard: HL Deb 17 March 2009 c1016W. I – See Table 2 for species-specific details.

these figures were no longer available on Defra’s website. In order to obtain figures for 2008 a parliamentary question was developed and tabled to Defra7. As the source (UK government) was essentially the same as that from which previous years’ figures were obtained, a valid comparison could be made. However, it should be noted that a similar approach had failed to elicit the 2007 figures from government. Hence, the live export figures for 2007 had to be obtained via a Freedom of Information Act disclosure request to Defra8. When responding, Defra quoted its source as the EU Commission’s TRACES database. This is different from the data source previously used by Defra. However, as both sources are governmental, it will be assumed that it is reasonable and meaningful to make a direct comparison between the data from 2007 and other years. Unsurprisingly the figures show that live exports fell sharply following the Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001, with 2005 levels being only five per cent of those in 2000. This could indicate that alternatives were sought and successfully developed for the livestock

(primarily sheep) that were no longer being transported overseas. Slaughtering animals in the UK and exporting the meat instead is already the way in which the vast majority of lamb is exported. The negative effect of transport-related stress and injury on meat quality is well documented9. Hence, the export of meat instead of livestock is a positive approach in terms of both animal welfare and product quality, lending further incentive to achieving complete phasing out of live exports for slaughter and further fattening. The figures showed a very significant increase in the number of cattle exported live from the UK during 2006 – from zero in 2005 to 128,028, the vast majority of which (122,028) went for further fattening. It is reasonable to assume that this was primarily due to the resumption of the trade in live calves to the Continent for veal production, following the lifting in May 2006 of the 10-year ban on UK bovine exports imposed due to high levels of BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in the UK. The demand for these mainly dairy-bred calves in veal producing countries such as the Netherlands,



Table 2: Number of live cattle, sheep, goats and pigs transported from the UK to other EU member states during 2008

Livestock type

Number for fattening

Number for slaughter

Total number

Cattle

84,484

17,597

102,081

Sheep

58,416

256,447

314,863

Goats

4

1

5

Pigs

2,710

26,001

28,711

Total number

145,614

300,046

445,660

Data source: Collected by Defra from TRACES database.

coupled with an unfavourable UK market for these animals and a poor economic situation in the UK dairy industry, resulted in an immediate rekindling of an active trade as soon as the ban was lifted. The veal crate system, in which calves were reared in small, barren individual pens, was banned throughout the EU from January 2007, and it is thought that most veal producers had already converted to group housing systems by the time the UK calf exports resumed in May 2006. However, concerns about the conditions in which the calves are reared in Continental Europe remain due to continuing discrepancies between even the new EU legislation and UK law, as well as between common UK industry practice and systems used on the Continent. The resumption of the trade in live calves to veal-rearing systems abroad halted the previously encouraging decline in total live exports for further fattening noted over several years up to 2006. This steady fall had indicated that alternative outlets may have been developed and utilised for some animals, and hence that the process of live export could indeed be successfully replaced. However, it is also clear that for a number of years, many dairy bull calves have been killed on-farm at an early age (e.g. around 150,000 in 2007 according to Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board [AHDB] estimates10) due to difficulties in finding a market for them in the UK. This added further incentive to look for practical solutions to the live calf export trade that would satisfy all stakeholders and improve animal welfare. This led to the formation of a forum Beyond Calf Exports Forum, initiated in 2006 by the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming, which brought together all the major stakeholders with involvement or interest in the issue, including the food and farming industries, livestock welfare research scientists and government. The reasons behind the trade in calves are a complex mixture of factors, and the aim of the forum has been to develop financially and practically viable alternatives to the live calf export trade that can help to ensure dairy-bred calves remain in the UK for rearing.

Three sub-groups have explored potential ways forward in three key areas: i) identifying opportunities for developing new markets for beef and veal from male dairy calves in the UK ii) identifying the barriers (and potential solutions) to developing a sustainable (in welfare and commercial terms) dairy cow in the UK iii) investigating the question as to how to ensure acceptable levels of welfare for male dairy calves during rearing in the UK, particularly looking at the options put forward by the two other sub-groups. The forum completed its initial work at the end of 2007, and produced a report11 setting out clear recommendations as to the way forward. Progress continued during 2008, with some highly positive and potentially very effective initiatives being put in place by several major UK retailers aimed at encouraging and sustaining the utilisation of dairy bull calves within the UK beef market. Facilitating the use of sexed semen to produce calves of the desired gender, and linking their dairy suppliers directly with their beef suppliers, are two such processes initiated by food retailers. Comparison between the live export figures for 2008 and those of the previous year indicate that the total number of animals exported live from the UK in 2008 for further fattening or slaughter fell slightly (by around 15,000) compared with 2007. A fall is seen in both categories, and follows on from the drop in total live exports of 70,000 noted between 2006 and 2007. However, whilst far fewer cattle, pigs and goats were transported overseas in 2008 than the previous year, there was a significant rise in the number of sheep exported (314,863 in 2008 versus 205,622 in 2007) particularly for further fattening purposes (58,416 versus 7,668 respectively). The reason for this is unclear, but is concerning from an animal welfare viewpoint. It also raises questions



Scientific evidence indicates that transport can result in serious health and welfare problems for farm animals.

relating to possible reputational risk to the British sheep industry, in view of the known public concern about the export of live animals. In contrast, there were fewer live cattle (including calves) exported from the UK in 2008 compared with the previous year, the overall fall being around 65,000 (i.e. 102,081 versus 167,252). Cattle exports for slaughter and for further fattening both fell, though the latter category saw the more significant drop (from 147,719 in 2007 to 84,484 in 2008). It is highly likely that this reduction was due, at least in part, to the fall in demand seen in 2008 for UK animals from major veal calf importers such as the Netherlands, as a result of concerns about bovine TB in the UK herd. However, it is also worth noting that several of the initiatives resulting from the work of the Beyond Calf Exports Forum were beginning to take effect during 2008, and could also have been responsible for the retention of greater numbers of dairy calves in the UK for beef production. Although the rise in sheep exports is disappointing, the decline in transport overseas of other species (namely pigs and goats), coupled with the on-going

efforts of the Calf Forum members, lead the RSPCA to believe that it will still be feasible for the export of live animals for slaughter or further fattening to cease within the next few years. This would avoid the many associated risks to welfare faced by livestock during the export process and in some cases, subsequent rearing and/or slaughter overseas. In addition, the RSPCA is keen to see significant improvements in content, implementation and enforcement of European legislation relating to live transport as a whole, particularly with regard to reduced journey times, greater space allowances, stricter temperature requirements and more resources allocated to monitoring and enforcement in all member states. At the time of writing, discussions are ongoing at the level of the European Commission about amending EU live transport regulation. The RSPCA will be pressing the Commission to ensure that the key welfare-related issues previously mentioned are included in that review, in the hope that legislation that more effectively protects animal welfare in transit will result.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare report: The welfare of animals during transport (details for horses, pigs, sheep and cattle). March 2002. Kent J E and Ewbank R. (1986). The effect of road transportation on the blood constituent and behaviour of calves. II. One to three weeks old. British Veterinary Journal 142, 131–140. Kent J E and Ewbank R. 1986. The effect of road transportation on the blood constituent and behaviour of calves. III. Three months old. British Veterinary Journal 142, 326–335. Knowles T G. (1995). A review of the post-transport mortality among younger calves. Veterinary Record 317, 406–407. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. For further information on the FVO, including its reports on implementation and enforcement of live transport law in EU countries, see: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/food/fvo/index_en.htm Standing room only – science and suffering in European live animal transport. Chapter 3. RSPCA 2003. HL Deb 17 March 2009 c1016W. HL Deb 29 April 2008 c285W. Gregory N G. 1998. Animal Welfare and Meat Science, CAB International. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) is a NDPB (non-departmental public body) established under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order 2008. It became operational on 1 April 2008. www.ahdb.org.uk Beyond Calf Exports Forum: Report on Conclusions and Recommendations, January 2008.



The production of UK non-cage eggs as a proportion of total eggs produced welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

More than half of UK egg laying hens, about 17 million birds, still face a life in battery cages that do not meet the welfare needs of the birds1. Conventional barren cages are to be banned from 20122, however, so-called ‘enriched’ battery cages will still be allowed. Enriched cages provide a minimum of just 50 square centimetres extra usable space (about the size of a beer mat) for each hen compared to conventional cages, and limited facilities. Evidence indicates that neither conventional nor enriched cages adequately satisfy the birds’ physical or behavioural requirements1. The RSPCA believes that all hens should be kept in properly managed free-range or barn systems3, which can provide hens with much higher standards of welfare compared with cages1.

There are several key welfare issues relating to laying hens. n Space allowance Hens naturally carry out numerous basic comfort behaviours, such as feather ruffling, head scratching, body shaking, wing stretching and flapping. Insufficient space in both types (conventional and enriched) of battery cage does not allow the birds to properly carry out these behaviours. In contrast, free-range and barn systems allow free movement of hens over a large area so that they can move away from other birds, increase bone strength and gain access to all the different facilities without difficulty 1 . n Dustbathing Dustbathing is an important physical and behavioural requirement for laying hens, enabling them to preen and recondition their feathers as well as helping to maintain a comfortable body temperature. A scratch area is provided in enriched cages, but the RSPCA believes that the scratch area is not only restrictive in space, but cannot provide the appropriate substrate for adequate dustbathing. In free-range and barn systems hens are provided with enough space as well as access to litter in which the birds are able to dustbathe when and where they choose 1 . n Egg laying Hens are extremely motivated to gain access to a suitable nest site in which to lay their eggs and will perform complex pre-laying behaviours 1 . Currently enriched cages provide only one small nest space in each cage and birds will be forced to compete for this site each day. In free-range and barn systems there is considerably more nest area available compared to enriched cages, giving the hens plenty of opportunity to gain access to and spend appropriate time in the nest site of their choice 1 . n Perching Depending on the positioning of perches in enriched cages, it may be difficult for birds to perch undisturbed or move around the cage. In free-range and barn systems hens are able to freely use perches that do not detract from the overall floor area 1 .

there is an increase in the proportion of non-caged eggs produced.

In three years’ time the European Directive on the protection of laying hens will be implemented in full, which will mark the end of conventional battery cages throughout Europe. Producers will then have the choice of barn, free-range, organic or enriched cages in which to keep hens for egg production.



The RSPCA would like to see all cages banned and converted to non-cage or ‘alternative’ systems, compliant with the RSPCA’s Welfare Standards for Laying Hens 4. In support of this, research has shown that some barn systems can offer a financially comparable alternative to the cost of installing enriched cages 1 . Evidence also shows that the vast majority of UK caged egg producers will have written off their existing conventional cage equipment costs and will be ready to invest in new equipment by 2012 irrespective of the Directive 5.

Figure 1: Eggs produced in different systems as a percentage of total annual egg production, 2004–2008 70 60 50 40

The indicator figures Data on the number of eggs produced in the UK, according to the method of production, is collected by Defra every three months. The data is based on egg packing throughput surveys for all class A eggs (suitable for retail) and is widely quoted by the egg industry and other relevant organisations. Numbers are given for cage, barn and freerange (which includes organic) eggs. These production figures give a picture of the UK egg market and provide a general indication of the welfare of hens by determining what proportion of the total number of eggs are produced in higher welfare systems compared to cages. From these figures changes in the use of different methods of production over a period of years can then be analysed. Since 2006, the numbers of organic eggs produced have also been collected. Any trends in the use of this type of production system over successive years will be apparent when there is enough data. The majority of class A eggs will be found on supermarket shelves and so an indication of consumer choice and influence on the supply of eggs from different systems of production can also be gained from the changes in numbers of eggs produced. In 2008 approximately 30 million hens in the UK produced 8,885 million class A eggs. The percentage of eggs produced in each system was as follows.

30 20 10 0

2004 Caged

2005

2006

2007

Free-range and organic

2008 Barn

Data source: Defra.

Figure 2: Number of eggs produced in different systems in millions, 2004–2008 6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000 n

Cages: 58 per cent..

n

Free-range: 38 per cent (of which six per cent were organic)

n

Barn: Four per cent.

Data source: Defra.

The proportion of eggs produced in non-cage systems has increased by four per cent compared to the previous year. This is one of the most significant year-on-year changes in the last 10 years. In terms of numbers of eggs, non-cage have increased by 14 per cent since the previous year, cage have decreased by one per cent.

2,000

1,000

0

2004 Caged

2005

2006

2007

Free-range and organic

2008 Barn

Data source: Defra.



Looking over the last decade, the indicator figures show an encouraging movement of the industry as a whole towards higher welfare alternative systems for housing hens. In 1998 just 21 per cent of class A eggs in the UK were produced in alternative systems, totalling 1,817 million eggs compared to 7,022 million caged eggs. By 2008, this had doubled, to a figure of 42 per cent and the number of birds in the UK non-cage flock had more than doubled. The trend over the past five years is shown in Figures 1 and 2. Consumer demand, changes in retailer policy and industry growth can help to explain the decrease in cage eggs. Regarding 2008 in particular, it was reported that the first three months saw a significant increase in sales of free-range eggs, with British Lion eggs claiming that free-range retail egg sales rose by almost 20 per cent in volume in February 20086. Additionally, The Co-operative stopped selling eggs from caged hens in February 2008 and Waitrose, already selling only non-cage eggs, completed the move to 100 per cent non-cage eggs as an ingredient in own-brand products, such as quiches, cakes, pasta and sandwich fillings. Positive changes in the indicator are hoped to continue in the next few years as more major retailers plan to decrease or stop the sale of whole eggs or those eggs used as an ingredient from caged hens. For

example, Sainsbury’s ceased selling cage eggs at the beginning of 2009, a year ahead of their target date and equivalent to 2.5 million cage eggs per week, or half a million hens7. Sainsbury’s is also committed to using only free-range eggs as an ingredient in all own-brand products by 2012. Morrisons continue the trend by committing to the phasing out of the sale of boxes of own-brand cage eggs by 2010. This follows the lead of Marks & Spencer, the first retailer to sell only free-range whole eggs, and which since 2002 included products containing eggs. In 2008, Hellmann’s made the decision to use only free-range eggs in its mayonnaise in response to growing media attention and consumer concern for chickens8. Along with Cadbury Creme Egg, The National Trust, and Subway, Hellmann’s was among the winners of Compassion in World Farming’s ‘Good Egg Awards 2008’9. The RSPCA believes that in the future increasing alternative egg production requires government to take the lead concerning transparent information for consumers buying eggs in any form (whole or as an ingredient). The RSPCA would like to see 100 per cent of UK eggs being produced in cage-free systems.

Looking over the last decade, the indicator figures show an encouraging movement of the industry as a whole towards higher welfare alternative systems for housing hens.

Footnotes and references 1 The case against cages: Evidence in favour of alternative systems for laying hens. 2005. RSPCA. 2 The Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens currently requires that conventional battery cages be phased out by 2012. However, the review of the Directive, due in 2005, has yet to be undertaken. 3 The vast majority of alternative egg production systems in the UK are Freedom Food accredited, complying with RSPCA Welfare Standards. 4 www.rspca.org.uk/farmanimals 5 Coming of age: The age structure of UK caged egg production facilities. 2006. RSPCA. 6 www.brittegg.co.uk 31 March 2008. 7 Sainsbury’s to stop selling eggs from caged hens, J Sainsbury plc, 17 January 2009. 8 www.ciwf.org.uk/news/laying_hens/hellmanns_uk_goes_freerange.aspx 9 www.ciwf.org.uk/good_egg_awards/english/default.aspx



The number of meat chickens reared to higher on-farm welfare standards

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

In the UK, the average annual consumption of chicken meat exceeds that of any other type of meat1. Consequently, meat chickens (broilers) are by far the most numerous farm animals reared for meat in the UK (about 830 million each year) accounting for approximately one-third of total meat production1. The welfare issues faced by many chickens can be particularly severe. Fast growth rates, low space allowance and poor environmental conditions can all contribute to major welfare problems being experienced by today’s meat chicken. However, the adoption of higher welfare standards can effectively address these issues and significantly contribute to the improvement of chicken welfare2. The RSPCA would like all chickens to be reared to higher welfare standards akin to those developed by the Society.

Owing to the number of animals involved and the severity of the welfare issues that can be encountered, the number of chickens reared to higher welfare standards is an important welfare indicator to monitor. There are currently four key issues that can have a significant effect on the welfare of meat chickens. One of the issues – growth rate – concerns the bird itself, whereas the other three relate to the management of the birds. n Growth rate The rate at which broilers grow can have a considerable effect on their welfare3. Meat chickens have been genetically selected to grow quickly. In production terms, genetic selection for high growth rate has been very successful: the time from when the birds first hatch to appearing on the supermarket shelves can be as little as five weeks. However, this rapid weight gain can cause severe health problems, such as lameness and heart defects3.. n Stocking density Stocking density refers to the amount of space allocated to each bird and is expressed as bird weight per square metre. High stocking densities can impair welfare directly through movement restriction and indirectly by contributing to poor litter and air quality3. When stocking densities exceed 30kg per square metre there is a steep rise in the frequency of serious welfare problems3. For example, at high stocking densities, the prevalence of lameness and skin diseases can substantially increase. High stocking densities also make it difficult for birds to perform many of their natural behaviours3. n Lighting Welfare problems can arise at light intensities below 20 lux3. At low light intensities birds are less active, which can contribute to the development of lameness and contact dermatitis. At very low light levels, birds can develop eye abnormalities4. Meat chickens may also be reared under a near-continuous lighting regime as this encourages the birds to feed for longer periods, which maximises their growth rate. There is scientific evidence showing that preventing meat chickens from having a proper dark period adversely affects their welfare5. n Environmental enrichment

there is a large increase in the number of chickens reared to higher welfare standards.

A more stimulating, enriched environment encourages birds to be more active, which can help reduce leg and skin problems3. Chickens provided with an enriched environment are more active – walking and running more, and sitting down less – than those kept without any form of enrichment6.



Table 3: Summary of key differences in on-farm welfare standards between ACP and RSPCA standards

Key welfare issue ACP standards RSPCA standards (the chicken industry’s own standards) (as used by Freedom Food) Average genetic growth rate (g/bird/day)

No restriction

Maximum 45

Stocking density in house (kg per square metre)

Above 38 permitted

Maximum 30

Lighting Intensity Minimum of 10 lux

Minimum 100 lux over 75% of floor area and 20 lux over remaining 25%

Dark period

Minimum four hours – except first seven and last 10 days whereby minimum one hour.

Minimum six hours – except first seven and last three days whereby minimum two hours

Natural lighting

No requirement

Required by 1 January 2010

Environmental No requirement enrichment

Straw bales, perches and pecking objects

Data source: ACP and RSPCA.

Chickens can be raised either indoors or with access to the outdoors, i.e. free-range, but their welfare is primarily affected by the standards they are reared to. Most chickens are reared according to standards set by the UK chicken industry’s own assurance scheme – Assured Chicken Production (ACP). However, chickens can be reared to higher welfare standards, such as those of the RSPCA, which are implemented by the Society’s own farm assurance scheme – Freedom Food. Table 3 compares the RSPCA’s Welfare Standards for Chickens7 with the ACP standards8 for the key issues affecting chicken welfare on-farm. It should be noted, however, that the RSPCA standards require higher standards of welfare to be implemented throughout the whole of the chicken’s life – from hatching right the way through to slaughter – and not just during rearing, i.e. on-farm. In addition to ACP standards, some supermarkets also require some or all of their suppliers to rear chickens to standards that the supermarket has set itself, which can be higher than those set by ACP. The Co-operative’s British Elmwood Chicken, Marks & Spencer’s Oakham Chicken, Tesco’s Willow Farm Chicken, and Waitrose Select Farm Chicken are all reared to higher on-farm welfare standards, compared to those of ACP. Such chickens are referred to as ‘standard plus’. The retail of standard plus chickens is a recent phenomenon: Tesco and Waitrose launched their standard plus lines during June and September 2006, respectively, whilst Marks & Spencer’s and The Co-operative’s standard plus lines were not available until May and October 2007, respectively. In June 2010, the Council Directive9 laying down minimum rules for

the protection of chickens kept for meat production comes into effect across the European Union. It is the first piece of legislation specifically concerning broilers and will bring some common standards for the treatment of chickens across Europe. Disappointingly, however, the Directive will permit producers to stock chickens at 42kg per square metre, a density that is unacceptable and will have a detrimental impact on chicken welfare. This stocking density is above that of current UK industry standards8 (Table 3) which do not allow producers to plan to stock chickens at more than 38kg per square metre and well above that of 30kg per square metre which the RSPCA believes to be the maximum level at which good welfare can be achieved. The Society is concerned that the industry will further weaken their standards to be in line with the legislation and that the welfare of chickens could worsen not only in the UK, but in some other European countries too. The legislation also does nothing to address the very serious welfare issues associated with the fast growth rates of broilers.

The indicator figures The approximate number of meat chickens reared in the UK to higher welfare standards10 and to the chicken industry’s own standards (ACP) is shown in Table 4. There has been a steady annual decline in the total number of meat chickens reared in the UK over the last five years (down 38.7 million between 2004 and 2008, Table 4). Between 2004 and 2008, inclusive, there was a year-on-year reduction in the number of chickens reared to ACP standards (down 184.6 million, 21.7 per cent).



Table 4: The approximate number and proportion of meat chickens reared in the UK to higher welfare standards and to the chicken industry’s own standards (ACP), 2004–2008

Standard/system Total number of birds Proportion of total (%)

reared (million)

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2004

2005 2006

2007

2008

849.38

827.51

814.09

719.00

664.74

97.82

96.13 95.23

85.19

80.12

–

–

–

69.39

91.79

–

8.22

11.06

10.07

22.69

25.14

35.65

50.70

1.16

4.22

6.11

4.70

1.03

0.53

ACP a

Standard plus

RSPCA (indoor) b d

RSPCA (free-range) c d

Free-range e

7.84

9.38

13.77

8.48

15.42

0.90

1.09 1.61

1.00

1.86

Organic f

1.06

1.22

1.84

2.74

2.63

0.12

0.14

0.32

0.32

Total

868.35

860.80

854.84

843.96

4.40

–

–

2.64 2.94

829.68

0.22 100

a C ommercial broiler chick placings in the UK from UK and non-UK (i.e. imported broiler chicks) hatcheries. Due to calculations, figures also include a small number of chicks reared as free-range and organic or to standards other than ACP. Data from Defra 11. b Chickens reared indoors to RSPCA welfare standards and within the Freedom Food scheme. c Free-range chickens reared to RSPCA welfare standards and within the Freedom Food scheme. d D ata supplied by Freedom Food Ltd. Chickens reared to the RSPCA standards and not within the Freedom Food scheme have not been included. For years 2004–2006, inclusive, only one figure is presented for chickens reared indoors and as free-range (where applicable). RSPCA welfare standards can be applied to all systems of production, i.e. indoor and free-range, including organic. e D oes not include free-range chickens reared to the RSPCA’s standards and within the Freedom Food scheme. Data supplied by four largest UK free-range producers, which represent the majority of the UK free-range market. This data is not collected centrally by any organisation. f Data from Defra 12. Data collected by organic certification officers during annual on-farm inspections. Data therefore represents number of chickens on farm at that time and not the total throughput of animals during the year.

Over the same period, the total number of chickens reared to higher welfare standards increased (up 146 million birds, 769.5 per cent). Compared to 2007, the number of birds reared to higher welfare standards in 2008 increased by 40 million birds, which equates to an increase of 32 per cent (up from 14.8 to 19.9 per cent of the total market). Therefore, in 2008, approximately one in every five chickens produced in the UK were reared to welfare standards higher than those of ACP. This large increase was primarily due to the number of chickens reared to individual supermarkets higher welfare standards, i.e. standard plus (up 32.3 per cent), but also to birds reared indoors to RSPCA standards and those reared as free-range only, which increased by 42.2 and 81.8 per cent, respectively. However, birds reared as free-range to RSPCA standards decreased by 49.4 per cent. This decrease was, in part, due

to difficulties in obtaining genetically slower growing birds to meet the growth rate requirement within the RSPCA standards. There was little change in the number of organic birds reared. In 2008, 55.7 per cent (55.5 per cent in 2007) of chickens reared to higher welfare standards were reared to the individual supermarkets’ own higher welfare standards, i.e. standard plus. This was followed by those chickens reared to the RSPCA standards (33.4 per cent) (35.5 per cent in 2007), then those reared as free-range only (9.3 per cent) (6.8 per cent in 2007) and then organic (1.6 per cent) (2.2 per cent in 2007). Total free-range production represented 2.4 per cent (19.8 million birds) (two per cent/17.2 million birds in 2007) of the total market and 12 per cent of the higher welfare market in 2008. Of all the free-range birds reared, 22.2 per cent (50.6 per cent in 2007) were reared to RSPCA standards. The RSPCA believes that the significant media attention on the



production of chickens during 2008 helped with the rise in the number of meat chickens reared to higher welfare standards. In January 2008, Channel Four aired a number of programmes that looked at how chickens are reared. TV chefs Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall both appeared in programmes that put the spotlight on the rearing of chickens. Jamie’s Fowl Dinners13 demonstrated the reality of ‘how chickens live and die to put food on our plates’. Hugh’s Chicken Run14 challenged the realities of intensive farming with Fearnley-Whittingstall setting up and managing a free-range and an intensively reared chicken unit. Around 12.4 million people watched the two programmes. An opinion poll15 commissioned by the RSPCA demonstrated that 57 and 43 per cent of those questioned had watched Jamie’s Fowl Dinners and Hugh’s Chicken Run, respectively. The same poll15 showed that 79 per cent agreed that animal welfare is an important consideration when buying chicken. In 200616 and 200815, 70 per cent of people stated that they usually buy higher welfare chicken, that is labelled Freedom Food, free-range or organic. However, in 2006, just over two per cent of chickens produced in the UK were reared to such higher welfare standards, and although this has now increased to 8.82 per cent, there is still a large discrepancy between what people say or believe they are buying and the actual production figures. This could be due to a number of factors, such as labelling (either the lack of labelling or confusion about wording and/or the images depicted), price (higher welfare chicken can be more expensive than standard chicken), a difficulty in finding higher welfare products and/or a lack of availability or choice. The RSPCA welcomes the increase in the number of chickens reared to higher on-farm welfare standards and would like to see all meat chickens reared to higher welfare standards, akin to the RSPCA’s Welfare Standards for Chickens, which take proper account of the birds’ physical and behavioural needs. However, the Society is concerned about the potential impact on the welfare of chickens in the UK when the new Directive comes into force in 2010 and is calling on the chicken industry, at the very least, to not further weaken their standards. The RSPCA would also welcome the collection and publication of data on the number of chickens produced under the different methods of production.

46 xxxx xxxxx

Footnotes and references 1 National Farmers Union and British Poultry Council. (2006). British Chicken – What Price? NFU, Warwickshire and BPC, London. 2 Paying the price: The facts about chickens reared for their meat. (2005). RSPCA. 3 European Commission – Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. (2000). The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. June 2006. London. 4 Prescott N. (2005). The importance of light and vision to poultry. Proceeding of the workshop on lighting for domestic fowl. Silsoe Research Institute, Bedford, UK. March 2005. 5 Blockhuis H J. (1983). The relevance of sleep in poultry. World Poultry Science Journal, 39, 33–37. 6 Kells A and Dawkins M S. (2001). The effect of a ‘Freedom Food’ enrichment on the behaviour of broilers on commercial farms. Animal Welfare, 10, 347–356. 7 RSPCA. (2008). RSPCA Welfare Standards for Chickens. RSPCA, UK. 8 ACP. (2007). Assured Chicken Production Standards 2007–2008, Assured Chicken Production, UK. 9 Council Directive 2007/43/EC 10 Refers to chickens reared to individual supermarkets higher welfare standards, i.e. standard plus (see text), RSPCA welfare standards, organic certification scheme standards and birds reared as free-range. 11 Defra. (2007). Poultry and Poultrymeat Statistics Notice Defra, London. Available from: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/ppntc.pdf 12 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Organic Statistics United Kingdom. June 2006. Defra, London. Available from: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/orguk.pdf 13 www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/jamie-oliver/jamies-fowl-dinners 14 www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/river-cottage/hughs-chicken-run/index.html 15 TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 2,011 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain. Telephone interviews between 8–17 February 2008. 16 TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 1,013 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain. Telephone interviews between 12–14 May 2006.



welfare indicator:

Piglet mortality levels between birth

and weaning

RSPCA concern

Background

The average mortality rate of piglets between birth and weaning (which on average in the UK takes place at just over 27 days of age1) experienced on commercial pig farms in the UK is influenced by a number of factors, including the animals’ environment, health care, management, nutrition and genetics of the mother and/or piglets. It is reasonable to assume that in many cases, the deaths of these piglets will have been preceded by a period of suffering, with the nature, degree and duration of suffering depending on the cause of death and, potentially, the time of death; whether it occurred in utero, during the farrowing process or post farrowing. The RSPCA believes that a reduction in the levels of pre-weaning piglet mortality would clearly be an important development in pig welfare.

Much research has been carried out investigating the causes of pre-weaning piglet mortality, with the predominant cause dependent on the production system in use. On outdoor units, where sows farrow loose in individual huts, a significant proportion of deaths result from overlaying or crushing by the piglet’s mother, the sow2 3. Factors that contribute to the likelihood of crushing are numerous and include breed or genetic-related differences in the mothering behaviour and ability of sows4, the genetics of the male, boar, and the age and condition of the sow5. On indoor units, where farrowing crates predominate, starvation, savaging and severe diarrhoea are more common causes of pre-weaning mortality. In addition, farrowing time is often longer in farrowing crates6, which has been shown to result in the sow, or at least her uterine muscle tissue, becoming tired. This increases the risk of neonatal death, particularly of the last two to four piglets, for which the likelihood of death is approximately 50 per cent7 8. Recently, a nutritional supplement has been developed for sows during farrowing that reportedly cuts stillbirths and neonatal mortality, mainly due to a reduction in farrowing time7 8. For both types of production, providing optimum nutrition during gestation and lactation is an important measure to help boost piglet birthweights and therefore survival; the risk of mortality in live-born pigs falls for piglets weighing 1.4kg or more9. The thermal environment is also important, particularly on indoor units; insulated accommodation, drying and warming the piglets immediately after birth, the provision of straw and extra heat (including floor heating) during farrowing, and fan ventilation as opposed to natural ventilation are all associated with reduced piglet mortality5 10 11. Currently, research is being conducted to investigate the possibility of using thermal cameras to identify piglets suffering from hypothermia in the first few days after farrowing12. This would allow the prompt and appropriate treatment of weak newborn piglets, improving their chances of survival. Stock-keeper input can also have a considerable affect on piglet mortality, with mortality being reduced by up to half when the stock-keeper is present during farrowing5 13. This is presumably as a result of increased detection of problems during farrowing and therefore a higher level of intervention when problems arise. Techniques and equipment are currently being developed to aid the detection of imminent farrowing and thus alert the farmer for supervision12. Additionally, checking of the sow and her piglets twice a day, as opposed to once a day is associated with higher piglet survival rates5. The level of fearfulness of sows towards their stock-keepers




Figure 3: Average mortality levels (%) from birth to weaning of piglets born alive in the uk 15

12

9

6

3

0

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source: BPEX Pig Yearbook 2009.

has been shown to affect both the length of time a sow takes to give birth and pre-weaning piglet survival with higher fearfulness being associated with higher death rates14. This illustrates the importance of positive, considerate handling and stockmanship in order to ensure that the pigs have trust in and lack of fear towards their stock-keepers. There may also be a seasonal effect on pre-weaning mortality. Recent data has indicated lower levels of pre-weaning mortality occurring in the summer and winter with small peaks occurring in the spring and autumn15. Pre-weaning mortality is usually defined as the percentage of piglets that are born alive per litter that die prior to weaning. However, the percentage of those piglets born alive but die prior to weaning does not reflect the total number of potentially viable piglets that die. Stillbirths (0.63 piglets per litter in 20081) are the most common cause of death on indoor units16. Such deaths are not usually captured in data on pre-weaning mortality, thus total mortality (pre-weaning mortality plus those born dead) may, in fact, be a more useful welfare indicator. Not only do those piglets born dead represent a waste of life, we do not know at what stage of the farrowing process they died and whether their death was associated with pain and/or suffering. Such data is difficult to capture, particularly on commercial farms. However, it would provide a more valuable measure.

The indicator figures As illustrated in Figure 3, having increased in 2006 to just over 13 per cent1, 2007 saw a slight reduction in pre-weaning mortality levels to 12.6 per cent which has been maintained in 20081. Closer analysis of the data shows that the total number of piglets born alive per litter and the number of piglets reared per litter have both increased slightly on the previous year. As the mortality level has remained the same, in actual terms, more piglets per litter are dying. However, given that the national breeding herd has shrunk in overall terms, the total number of piglets dying before weaning has shrunk from 1.4 million in 2007 to 1.3 million in 200817. It is encouraging that the pre-weaning mortality figure has remained the same, despite the number of piglets born alive increasing. Traditionally an increase in pre-weaning mortality would have been expected as larger litter sizes usually lead to smaller and therefore more vulnerable piglets18 which are more likely to be crushed by the sow. The reason for this may be two-fold. A new vaccine (PCV2) to combat multisystemic wasting diseases was introduced in 2008. Preliminary reports suggest that its use is associated with reduced mortality and an increase in weaned litter size of up to half a piglet per litter19 20. In addition, anecdotal reports from the industry and pig breeding companies suggest that breeding goals are beginning to change, from litter size to parameters associated with survivability. It is interesting to note the Danish industry has changed the focus of their breeding goals from ‘total born piglets’ to ‘live piglets day five’ to reflect the fact that it is the number of piglets that survive rather than the number born per se that is important6. Clearly, reducing pre-weaning piglet mortality to a figure near to zero would be extremely difficult to achieve. However, in view of the indications from practical experience that piglet mortality levels significantly lower than the national average can be achieved on some farms (pre-weaning mortality levels are more than two per cent lower in the top 10 per cent compared to the average1), there is clearly the potential for improvement. This, coupled with the growing availability of information both on the causes of piglet deaths, and ways in which the problem might be reduced, would suggest that an annual reduction in the average level of one per cent over the next five years would be a realistic aspiration. If achieved, this would result in a fall from just under 12.6 per cent (in 2008) 1 down to just over seven per cent by the end of 2013, a drop that would prevent the deaths of approximately 1.6 million piglets21 over that period. Such a reduction would be of benefit both to the pig industry in economic terms and, most importantly, to pig welfare.



The RSPCA believes that a reduction in the levels of pre-weaning piglet mortality would clearly be an important development in pig welfare.

Footnotes and references 1 BPEX Pig Yearbook. (2009). 2 Svedensen J, Bengtsson A C H and Svedensen L S. (1986). Occurrence and causes of traumatic injuries in neonatal pigs. Pig News Information 7: 159–179. 3 Cronin G M and Smith J A. (1992). Effects of accommodation type and straw bedding around parturition and during lactation on the behaviour of primiparous sows and survival and growth of piglets to weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 191–208. 4 McPee C P, Kerr J C and Cameron N D. 2001. Peri-partum posture and behaviour of gilts and the location of their piglets in lines selected for components of efficient lean growth. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 1–12. 5 An epidemiological study of risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality on commercial pig farms. (2005). Report to Defra by the University of Bristol and the University of Warwick. Available to download from: www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/AW0133/AW0133_4600_FRP.doc 6 Pedersen LJ. (2008). Neonatal piglet mortality: crates versus indoor pen housing in relation to breeding for improved survival. In: Housing of farrowing and lactating sows on non-crate systems. DJF internal report animal science NR. 11, September 2008, eds LJ Pedersen and VA Moustsen. 7 Pig World March (2007). 8 Farmers Weekly 23 February 2007. 9 Baxter E M, Jarvis D, D’Eath R B, Ross D W, Robson SK, Farish M, Nevison I M, Lawrence A B and Edwards S A. (2008). Investigating the behavioural and physiological indicators or neonatal survival in pigs. Theriogenology 69: 773-783. 10 Randolph C E, O’Gorman A J, Potter R A, Jones P H and Miller B G. (2005). Effects of insulation on the temperature within farrowing huts and the weaning weights of piglets reared on a commercial outdoor pig unit. Veterinary Record 157: 800–805. 11 Malmkvist M, Pedersen L J, Damgaard B M, Thodberg K, Jørgensen E and Labouriau R. (2006). Does floor heating around parturition affect the vitality of piglets born to loose housed sows? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 88–105. 12 Oliviero C, Heinonen M, Pastell M, Heikkonen J, Valros A, Vainio O and Peltoniemi O (2007) Modern technology in supervision of parturition to prevent piglet mortality. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 49(Suppl 1): S12. 13 White KR, Anderson DM and Bate LA. (1996). Increasing piglet survival through an improved farrowing management protocol. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76: 491-495. 14 Janczak A M, Pedersen L J, Rydhmer L and Bakken M. (2003). Relation between early fear- and anxiety-related behaviour and maternal ability in sows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 121–135. 15 NADIS (2009) Veterinary Report & Forecast – February 2009 Available at: www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/20540/nadis-veterinary-report-forecast-february-2009 16 Riart G R, Edwards S A and English P R. (2000). Estudio de los factores que afectan mortalidad pre-destete en lechones nacidos a campo: compración con sistemas intensivos. In: Congreso Mercosur de Producción Porcina. 17 Based on BPEX Pig Yearbook (2009) figures for number of breeding sows, piglets born alive per sow and piglet mortality rate in (2008). 18 Weary D M, Phillips P A, Pajor E A, Fraser D and Thompson B K. (1998). Crushing of piglets by sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 103–111. 19 Farmers Weekly, 27 February 2009. 20 British Pig Executive. (2009). BPEX Annual Technical Report 2008–2009 pp43. 21 Calculated on the basis of the (2008) figure for percentage of piglets born alive, litters born per sow per year and the total number of sows in the UK, and assuming stable annual figures for these parameters.



The number, nature and outcomes of Animal Health1 inspections of farms and livestock markets

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

The welfare of animals in the UK on farms and at livestock markets is governed by specific legislation. While the RSPCA believes that in a number of areas the law fails to protect farm animal welfare adequately, it does at least provide a baseline standard which all are required to achieve. Monitoring of the implementation of animal welfare legislation and ensuring its enforcement are, therefore, of considerable importance, and must be undertaken effectively – in terms of both quantity and quality of inspection. Similarly, the government issues codes of recommendation for the welfare of livestock that aim to set out ‘best practice’ in terms of the care of farm animals. Ascertaining the degree to which the codes are followed across the farming industry can, provide a general indication of the overall welfare state of farm animals in the UK. The RSPCA believes the government must allocate increased resources to its farm animal welfare inspection (in terms of number and nature of inspection visits) of farm animal holdings, to ensure that legislation relating to livestock welfare is being implemented across the country, and that some of the important animal welfare conditions that are not presently recorded become an integral part of the veterinary surveillance programme in the future.

Animal Health is an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and it also works on behalf of the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and the Food Standards Agency. Animal Health succeeded the State Veterinary Service in 20071. It is described on the government’s website2 as: “...the government’s executive agency primarily responsible for ensuring that farmed animals in Great Britain are healthy, disease-free and well looked after.” The agency is the official inspection body acting on behalf of Defra, the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) and the Welsh Assembly Government. A significant part of its work involves undertaking visits to livestock premises to ascertain the level of compliance with, and undertake enforcement of, UK legislation relating to farm animal welfare on farms. This includes the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which sets out the general requirements for looking after all animals, and is supplemented by the detailed requirements set out in the Welfare of Farmed Animals [England] Regulations 2007 and at livestock markets (primarily the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 and amendments). Compliance with government Codes of Recommendation for the Welfare of Livestock, is also checked. Failure to achieve the ‘codes’ is not in itself a legal offence, but can be used as evidence of falling below ‘best practice’ in the event of an animal welfare-related prosecution. Under the reformed EU Common Agricultural Policy, the outcome of checks by the inspection agency on ‘cross compliance’ with livestock welfare legislation has a bearing on the level of subsidy payments that may be received by a producer. Failures in cross-compliance can result in some of the payment being withheld. Although in several areas, the RSPCA believes that current EU (and hence, for the most part, UK) farm animal welfare-related legislation fails to afford adequate protection to livestock, compliance with the law does at least help to ensure minimum standards of care. Government Codes of Recommendation, which set generally higher standards, help to offer more protection. The work of the agency is, therefore, very significant on several counts. The data it generates can be extremely valuable in terms of providing information on the status quo regarding the level of compliance with welfare law and codes, and also of assisting in decisions on where best to focus efforts to bring about necessary improvements. The number of visits and hence the proportion of livestock holdings visited is obviously also significant if a truly representational picture of the welfare state of the UK’s livestock is to be ascertained. Visits are undertaken on both a targeted and random basis, resulting not only from complaints but also from an elective process.




Table 5: Number of visits and inspections undertaken by Animal Health on farms and at livestock markets, 2003–2008

Year

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Farms

2,817 (4,964)

3,149 (5,431)

3,349 (6,123)

3,834 (6,407)

3,978a

4,124 (10,165)

Markets

3,647 (8,735)

3,658 (8,719)

2,943 (7,293)

2,569 (6,706)

2,425 (6,113)

2,819 (7,087)

Data source: Defra: The report of the Chief Veterinary Officer – Animal Health 2003–2008. Note: T he number of inspections is the second figure, shown in brackets. More than one ‘inspection’ may take place during a single ‘visit’ to one premises, for example if more than one species is held at the site. a

C omparable figures for ‘inspections’ are not available for 2007. Welfare inspections on farm consist of up to 11 assessment criteria and the figures for the total number of assessments made for each criteria are now reported.

Indicator figures The total number of farm animal holdings (premises with farm animals) in the UK is estimated as being about 300,000 (this includes a substantial number of holdings which could not be classed as commercial farms, but still have a holding number because they have a small number of farm animals at the premises)3. Table 5 shows that there has been a small but steady year-on-year increase in the number of visits to farms undertaken by SVS/Animal Health between 2004 and 2008. However, the figures also show that the maximum number of visits to farms by SVS/Animal Health in any one of the years 2004–2008 was 4,124, which represents a relatively small percentage of the total number of holdings. This contrasts with the coverage achieved by farm assurance schemes, a number of which visit every scheme member every year, and a few of which undertake additional visits. It is, however, the case that the number of farms involved in a single scheme is significantly lower than the total in the country so higher ‘coverage’ is clearly easier to achieve. The total number of livestock markets in the UK is around 1504. On average, therefore, each market received nearly 19 Animal Health visits during 2008. The outcome of the visits made by Animal Health is also reported in the Defra Chief Veterinary Officer’s (CVO) report. The outcomes are recorded as falling into one of four categories: A (compliance with legislation and codes); B (compliance with legislation but not codes); C (non-compliance with legislation); and D (unnecessary pain, unnecessary distress seen on the visit). The data are presented in the form of graphs in the CVO’s report, without the actual figures being stated, making it difficult to report exact information here. However, the following conclusions regarding the situation in 2008 can be drawn from the graphs presented in the 2008 report.

n Non-compliance with Codes of Recommendation is seen most frequently on pig, beef and sheep and goat farms. Overall: n around 40 per cent of assessments undertaken on pig, beef and sheep and goat holdings during complaint or targeted visits identified a failure to comply with the relevant codes, and around two per cent of the visits recorded that sheep and goats had been caused unnecessary pain and distress, though this figure was found to be only around 15 per cent on programme, elective and cross-compliance visits with no record of animals having suffered unnecessary pain and distress n the non-compliance figures for broilers were around 30 per cent (complaint/targeted and elective respectively), which was an improvement of around 10 per cent for the complaint/ targeted visits, but was more than 10 per cent worse for the elective visits compared to the previous year n for miscellaneous poultry, the figures were nearly 40 per cent (complaint/targeted) and almost 15 per cent (programme/ elective). Both figures are slightly higher than the previous year, possibly reflecting the increased number of small poultry keepers who had registered their holdings.



n Combining data relating to all species visited, non-compliance with codes found on complaint or target farm visits was most common in the areas of: n disease treatment (around 50 per cent non-compliance – no change on the previous year) n housing (around 50 per cent, showing no change on the previous year) n environment (about 48 per cent, compared with around 53 per cent the previous year)

n

records (48 per cent – 2007 was about 51 per cent)

n staffing issues (about 48 per cent compared with more than 45 per cent in 2007)

freedom of movement-related (just over 20 per cent of cases, a similar figure to the previous year’s findings).

n

n

a bout 10 per cent non-compliance with legislation on feed and water was seen on complaint and target visits, with some unnecessary pain and distress being observed as a result, which was about the same as the previous year (but no failures were seen on programme/elective visits).

n Overall, nearly 40 per cent of all assessments made on complaint or target farm visits identified a failure to comply with Codes of Recommendation for the welfare of livestock, representing no change from the previous year. Around 15 per cent on programme and elective visits noted codes non-compliance indicating a rise of around five per cent compared to 2007. Just under 10 per cent of assessments (complaint and target visits) noted non-compliance with legislation, a similar figure to 2007. n At livestock markets, the most common areas of non-compliance with codes were those relating to:

n

feed and water (just under 30 per cent of assessments identifying failures – similar to 2007)

n

b edding (approximately 28 per cent – slightly up on the 2007 figure of 25 per cent)

n

c are of unfit animals (just over 20 per cent, a small improvement on the 25 per cent noted the previous year)

n

loading onto/unloading from vehicles (around 11 per cent, continuing the downward trend of the previous year).

n With regard to legislation:

n

n

n

a n approximate 18 per cent failure rate in complying with requirements on keeping farm records was noted on complaint or target farm visits representing no change on the 2007 figure. This figure was found to be around five per cent on programme and elective visits, which was slightly less than the previous year a round a 12 per cent failure rate to comply with the law relating to disease treatment was noted on complaint and target visits, which illustrated no real change from the previous year (with no failures seen on programme/elective visits) failure to adhere to legislation relating to animals’ environments was noted in around 10 per cent of cases on programme/target farms, which was a slight improvement on the previous year (with no failures on programme/elective visits)

Generally, the incidence of non-compliance with legislation at livestock markets was reported as being very low, full compliance being recorded during 99 per cent of market inspections, which was the same as the previous year.

Animal Health succeeded the State Veterinary Service in 2007. It is described on the government’s website as: “...the government’s executive agency primarily responsible for ensuring that farmed animals in Great Britain are healthy, disease-free and well looked after.”



These data indicate some encouraging improvements in 2008 compared with the previous year in a number of areas relating to SVS/Animal Health findings on farms and at markets regarding compliance with law and codes. There are, however, a number of areas where little if any progress has been made. Similarly, the number of visits undertaken by the agency has increased only slightly, with visits only covering a relatively small percentage of holdings with farm animals. This makes it difficult to accept the outcome of Animal Health visits as truly representative of the situation across the whole livestock farming industry. However, other developments during 2007 relating to the qualitative side of the Animal Health’s work have been encouraging. In its Business Plan for 2007–2008, the agency stated that it intends to: “Establish an Inspections Programme, to analyse critical inspection points and on-farm activities and develop consistent risk-based inspections”. From 1 January 2007, its work included inspections to check cross-compliance with animal welfare Statutory Management Requirements as part of EU Cross-Compliance Regulations. The risk model has been specifically developed and implemented for the purpose of allocating these inspections. In addition, the agency has previously stated that it is working with government to help develop

government policies that are: “both deliverable and focused on outcomes”, an important development if the welfare of livestock is to be effectively assessed and, where necessary, improved. The RSPCA would like to see a more outcomes-based approach to farm and market inspections, in which a formal assessment is made not only of the resources (in terms of environment, feed and water etc.) provided, but also the end result in terms of the animals’ health and welfare. Whilst acknowledging that there have been some improvements compared to 2007, the nature of the information contained in the report still does not allow us to meaningfully evaluate the health and welfare of herds and flocks within the UK. For example, the Animal Health report 2008 informs us about adherence to legislation and the codes, but provides little, if any, information which would allow us to understand the level of mastitis in the dairy herd, or lameness in the national sheep flock. These conditions are often very painful, and affect the welfare of a significant number of animals. The RSPCA believes it is unacceptable that Animal Health does not routinely record the incidence of these conditions, and publish its findings in the annual report of the CVO. It is a prime example of an outcomebased measure.

Footnotes and references 1 2 3 4

In April 2007, the State Veterinary Service (SVS) merged with various other bodies involved in overseeing aspects of the livestock farming sector and wildlife, and the resulting agency was named Animal Health. www.defra.gov.uk/animalhealth Defra (National Statistics) June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture, published 18 December 2008. Source: Livestock Auctioneers Association: www.laa.co.uk and the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland: www.auctioneersscotland.co.uk July 2008.


Introduction pet animal indicators

There are about 23 million owned pets in the UK with nearly half (43 per cent) of the population owning a pet1. Cats and dogs are the most popular animals to be kept as pets, with populations of eight million each1. Bearing these figures in mind it is not surprising that the welfare of pet animals can be compromised owing to a number of factors especially irresponsible pet ownership, which is often due to ignorance or lack of understanding of animals’ welfare needs. Unfortunately, there are also people who intentionally cause animals pain, suffering and cruelty. For the purposes of this chapter, the majority of data and statistical information concerning pets has been obtained from the RSPCA’s own internal data-collecting sources. Many statistics concerning pet animals are not collected at a national level or by a central source in the UK, therefore the information the RSPCA collates and publishes must be regarded as an objective reflection of pet issues, as little else exists. It will hopefully be considered representative of England and Wales, if not the whole of the UK. With the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) in England and Wales and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 coming into effect in 2007, there is an expectation that the results may be quite different to previous years especially those concerning the new welfare offence, which places a duty of care on those responsible for animals to provide for all of their animals’ welfare needs2: n a proper diet (including water) n somewhere suitable to live n any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals n allowing animals to express normal behaviour n protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

During 2008, the following events occurred in the area of pet animal welfare. n The Companion Animal Welfare Enhancement Scheme3 was set up by the Welsh Assembly Government to promote companion animal welfare in Wales. The scheme provides funding for Welsh local authorities to broadly assess compliance levels with the Animal Welfare Act. n The Welsh Assembly Government issued two codes of practice, one for cats4 and one for dogs5, under Section 14 of the Animal Welfare Act. Both codes came into force in November 2008 with the purpose of providing advice on how to meet the welfare needs of cats and dogs. The codes only applies to Wales. n The first dog fighting related prosecution was brought under the Animal Welfare Act 20066. A man was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison after pleading guilty to four charges. n A BBC One documentary Pedigree dogs exposed, investigated some of the serious health and welfare issues experienced by many pedigree dogs as a result of the way they are bred7. n The RSPCA commissioned an independent scientific report on pedigree dog breeding in the UK8. The report showed that the welfare and quality of life of many pedigree dogs is seriously compromised as a result of established selective breeding practices. n The Welsh Assembly Government proposed that electric-shock dog collars would be banned9.

Footnotes and references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-population-figures-.htm Section 9. Animal Welfare Act 2006. http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/animalwelfare/pets/cawescheme/ deliveringpetwelfareinwales/?lang=en http://wales.gov.uk/docs/drah/publications/081205catcodesummaryen.pdf http://wales.gov.uk/docs/drah/publications/081205dogcodesummaryen.pdf www.birminghammail.net/news/black-country/2008/04/16/walsall-man-clayton-beard- jailed-for-18-weeks-for-new-dog-fighting-offences-97319-20770225 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7569064.stm www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/issuesindepth/pedigreedogs/position http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/animalwelfare/?lang=en


PET animal indicators

The number of unwanted healthy animals taken into the care of the RSPCA

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

In the UK nearly half of all households, around 23 million, own a pet1 the majority of which are cats and dogs. Currently, the cat and dog population stands at around eight million of each with nearly two million smaller animals such as rabbits, hamsters, gerbils and rats being kept as pets. More ‘exotic’ animals, about 200,000 snakes and more than 100,000 turtles/tortoises, are also being kept as pets. With so many pet animals in the UK it is perhaps not surprising that there is an abundance of unwanted animals that need new homes. Unfortunately, not all pet owners are aware of the long-term commitment they are taking on when initially getting an animal, and some are unable to continue to provide the suitable environment or care for their chosen animal. In extreme cases these animals can suffer either physical or emotional cruelty or are simply abandoned. When an animal is no longer wanted or the owners’ circumstances change, the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations are often turned to for help. It is a concern that some animals suffer unnecessarily due to the irresponsibility of the very people who should ultimately be responsible for them. The RSPCA would like to see the number of unwanted animals in the UK significantly reduced until the problem no longer exists.

There are many reasons why the UK has a problem with unwanted pets and why many of these animals will end up being cared for by animal welfare organisations and other parties until new homes can be found for them. This can be the result of impulse buying, availability of animals, lack of research carried out before an animal is acquired, irresponsible and indiscriminate breeding and changes to owners’ circumstances. Pets are often purchased when they are small and look cute, with little thought given to what owning an animal actually means. Impulse buying can result in rabbits spending the majority of their time alone in a small hutch, dogs not given any or enough exercise and hamsters ignored when a child becomes bored with them. Lack of forethought about the implications of owning a pet can also result in animals being unwanted and in need of a new home. Appropriate behavioural training is often neglected, and is one of the many reasons that a significant number of unwanted animals pass through rehoming and rescue centres. Other reasons why a pet may need to be found a new home include changes in family, health or financial circumstances. In the UK, there are more than 100 rehoming and rescue centres for pet animals2 run by animal charities. These include the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA). Many more rehoming centres are run by smaller organisations. These organisations, and other establishments, have a finite amount of space and funds so are unable to take in all the animals that may need a new home. The RSPCA, like many other organisations, aims to find new homes and owners for every animal that enters into its care, however as discussed on page 60, this isn’t always possible. Unwanted animals that do not end up in the care of the RSPCA or other animal welfare organisations, are advertised via websites or in newspapers, given away to family and friends or some may even be euthanased by vets at the request of the owner. In some instances animals are simply abandoned or allowed to stray, as they are no longer wanted. Bearing in mind that animal rehoming centres are usually full with animals in need of new homes and organisations work tirelessly to promote the responsible pet ownership message, it can be concluded that there is a continuing problem with unwanted pets in the UK. To begin to gauge the scale of the problem, the number of healthy animals entering the care of the RSPCA in England and Wales each year is focused on here.

there is little change from the previous year



The indicator figures Ideally, this indicator would look at the number of unwanted healthy animals in the whole of the UK. The figure would incorporate the number of animals euthanased by vets at the owners’ request, the number of animals the RSPCA care for and the number of animals that enter non-RSPCA establishments. Currently, there is no nationallyestablished format to identify the total number of unwanted pets that are dealt with each year in the UK and therefore the information used is RSPCA data that is collected on an annual basis. In an attempt to establish the true extent of the problem, a search of other organisations websites and annual reviews/reports helped to identify the number of animals rehomed each year. Figure 1 shows the approximate number of animals the different organisations rehome each year. The five largest animal welfare organisations in the UK annually rehome a combined total of about 145,000. However, it is expected that thousands more animals are unwanted and are dealt with by other organisations, vets, local authorities or individuals. For the purpose of this indicator, RSPCA data has been used, but in future it is hoped that year-on-year figures can be obtained from many other organisations in the UK so as to give a more accurate and representative picture of the problem regarding unwanted animals. The number of unwanted animals is calculated by combining the number of animals rehomed by the RSPCA and the number of healthy animals euthanased. This figure includes cats, dogs, equines, birds, and small mammals, and non-domestic or exotic animals such as snakes, lizards and terrapins. Figure 2 shows that over the past five years the number of healthy animals entering the care of the RSPCA has remained relatively constant at about 75,000. Between 2007 and 2008, the figure rose by about four per cent with just over three thousand more unwanted animals being dealt with by the RSPCA. The amount of healthy animals euthanased was at its highest in five years, although more animals were found new homes within the same period. It is disappointing that in 2008 and previous years thousands of unwanted animals were placed into the care of the RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations, most of which are charities and rely solely on the generosity of the general public and other donors. The majority of animal organisations in the UK also promote neutering, microchipping and responsible pet ownership, in an attempt to help avoid the problem of unwanted pets and to encourage pet owners to think about the long-term issues that arise from owning a pet. However, with at least 150,000 animals in the UK needing new homes, much more needs to be done to reduce the number of unwanted animals and prevent the suffering that can be caused to them. There still remains a huge problem with breeding, impulse buying of pets and general irresponsible behaviour that leaves many animals needing new homes and animal welfare organisations and others left to pick up the pieces.

Figure 1: Number of animals rehomed in the UK by animal welfare organisations, 2007–2008 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

2007 2008

2007 2008

2007 2008

RSPCA

2007 2008

USPCA5

Cats Protection Dogs Trust

2007 2008

SSPCA6

3

4

Data source: RSPCA, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust, USPCA and SSPCA.

Figure 2: Number of unwanted animals taken into the care of the RSPCA, 2004–2008 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Animals rehomed Healthy animals euthanased Total number of animals entering rspca care Data source: RSPCA. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Pet Food Manufacturer Association’s data: www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-population-figures-.htm 2 Information gathered from the websites of the following animal welfare organisations in the UK: RSPCA, Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Mayhew Animal Home, Dogs Trust, the Blue Cross, Cats Protection and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 3 www.cats.org.uk/workwedo/howwework.asp 4 www.dogstrust.org.uk 5 www.uspca.co.uk 6 www.scottishspca.org



The number of non-microchipped cats and dogs taken into RSPCA care

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Microchipping is an inexpensive way of ensuring permanent identification of pet animals and being able to link animals to their owners. Although a dog owner has a legal requirement to ensure that their dog while on a highway or in a public place wears a collar with the name and address of the owner inscribed on it1, there is no legal requirement for a dog to be microchipped and there is no equivalent legislation for cats. Collars and tags are an important but unreliable method of identification – collars can break and identification tags can fall off or be removed from the dog. It is much harder to reunite a dog with its owner by just relying on a collar and a tag. When fitted with a microchip, dogs, especially, are more likely to be reunited with their owner if they become lost or stray. The RSPCA believes that all cats and dogs should be fitted with a microchip and that microchipping should be encouraged as part of responsible pet ownership.

Microchipping is a simple procedure where a small ‘chip’, the size of a grain of rice, is inserted under the skin between animal’s shoulder blades. The microchip bears a unique code number that is entered onto a national database alongside the owner’s details. A hand-held scanner, often carried by RSPCA inspectors, vets, animal centres and local authority dog wardens, is used to read the details of the microchip if a lost, injured or dead animal is found. Every year, the RSPCA, other animal welfare organisations, vets, police and local authorities handle a large number of animals that are reported as strays, are sick or injured, have become trapped or have wandered from their owners. They also deal with reports of dogs and other animals that are lost or may have been stolen. Many animals are never reunited with their owners, often because the owner or pet cannot be identified. In 2008, just under half of all dogs identified as strays in the UK by local authorities were returned to their owners. If all of these dogs had been microchipped, it is likely that many more would have been returned to their owners, or at least their owners could have been located. Microchips are most commonly used in cats, dogs and equines, but can also be used on smaller animals such as rabbits, ferrets and birds. This method of identification is a requirement of the Horse and Pet Passport schemes2, however there is no legal obligation for pets to be microchipped if they are not going to be taken out of the UK. Microchipping can help with proving ownership of an animal and can be very useful when dealing with incidents of pet theft, straying animals and cruelty, and is one of the most reliable methods of tracing pets or their owners, although this is very much reliant on pet owners keeping their details up to date on the relevant databases. In 2008, the Petlog3 reunification service assisted with more than 97,000 telephone calls from people who had either lost their animal or had found animals that were microchipped, an increase of nearly 10,000 calls on the previous year. Sweden is a good example of where responsible dog ownership and microchipping has resulted in the country having limited problems with unwanted dogs and straying animals. Unlike the UK and most other European countries, in Sweden it is a legal requirement for all dogs to be registered and permanently identified from four months of age4, with microchipping being the preferred method of identification. This has resulted in more than 90 per cent of dogs that have strayed, and/or are not accompanied by their owners, being reunited with their owners within 24 hours.

there is little change from the previous year



Although microchipping is not compulsory in the UK, many organisations are making concerted efforts to encourage pet owners to microchip their animals. Every June, the Kennel Club coordinates National Microchipping Month5 throughout the UK in an endevour to promote microchipping and to encourage responsible pet ownership. The RSPCA, and other animal welfare organisations, councils and vets also organise events where microchipping is offered at discounted rates or free of charge. The RSPCA promotes microchipping as the preferred method of animal identification, specifically through its rehoming efforts, as every animal leaving the care of the RSPCA is fitted with a microchip unless it already has one. The RSPCA also offers a welfare microchipping service that is carried out at the request of pet owners.

The indicator figures This indicator aims to establish if the microchipping message is being effectively communicated and understood by owners and keepers of pet animals. It will help to assess whether more needs to be done by local authorities, vets, breeders and welfare organisations in promoting the benefits of microchipping as a part of responsible pet ownership. Although the majority of animal welfare organisations and rehoming centres microchip animals before they leave their care and promote microchipping via publications and websites, it is still difficult to establish the extent of the microchipping work that each organisation is carrying out as there is no central method of collating this data. Therefore, the information used for this indicator primarily focuses on the cats and dogs the RSPCA microchips as they leave its care and enter new homes. Figure 3 shows that the majority of cats and dogs that came into the care of the RSPCA over a five-year period were without a microchip. In 2007 and 2008 just one-fifth of all cats and dogs were already microchipped – this figure has remained steady over the past five years. These statistics suggest that the microchipping message is slowly being taken on board by some animal owners with more people understanding the benefits of microchipping. Although the figures are positive the vast majority of cats and dogs, around 80 per cent, are still not microchipped when they come into the care of the RSPCA for rehoming. It can perhaps be assumed that someone who gives up their cat or dog is perhaps less likely to have had their pet microchipped because they have not considered the long-term impact of pet ownership, or

perhaps thought it was not important. However, to try and put these figures into context, Figure 4 demonstrates the amount of welfare microchipping that is also carried out by the RSPCA on the request of cat and dog owners and by RSPCA microchipping initiatives. Since 2004 the number of owned animals being microchipped by the RSPCA has dramatically increased. In 2004, 6,669 owned cats and dogs were microchipped increasing to 27,985 and 27,385 in 2007 and 2008 respectively. To try and find out how pet owners in the UK are responding to microchipping messages, the four UK microchipping database companies were approached to find out how many cats and dogs are being registered, and therefore microchipped each year. The database companies contacted were Identichip6, Petlog7, Petrac8 and Virbac9. As with previous years, three out of the four companies responded and provided figures for cats and dogs over the last five years. Figure 5 shows the total number of cats and dogs that have been microchipped and registered by the three schemes between Figure 3: Number of microchipped and nonmicrochipped cats and dogs entering the RSPCA, 2004–2008 30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Dogs Cats 2004

Dogs Cats Dogs Cats 2005 2006 2007

Microchipped

Dogs Cats 2008

Non-microchipped

Data source: RSPCA.

The RSPCA believes that all cats and dogs should be fitted with a microchip and that microchipping should be encouraged as part of responsible pet ownership.



Figure 4: Dog and cat welfare microchipping performed by the RSPCA, 2004–2008

Figure 5: Total number of cats and dogs registered each year on the Virbac, Identichip and Petlog databases, 2004–2008

30,000

1,000,000

25,000 750,000 20,000 15,000

500,000

10,000 250,000 5,000 0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source: RSPCA.

Data source: Virbac, Identichip and Petlog.

2004 and 2008. Over the past five years the total number of cats and dogs registered on the databases has increased by about 28 per cent. In 2008, 63,886 more cats and dogs were microchipped than the previous year. This is likely to be due to increased public awareness and education about microchipping during national microchipping month and other events. Nationally, the number of cats and dogs that are microchipped each year is rising, yet the number of microchipped cats and dogs entering RSPCA centres is remaining fairly low, indicating that while the microchipping message is getting through to some people, the overall responsible pet ownership message needs to be improved. There are about eight million cats and eight million dogs in the UK, yet far more dogs are microchipped than cats. This suggests that more targeted public awareness is needed to encourage owners to microchip their cats10. It also indicates that the status of cats within

the UK is seen as lower than dogs, which could be because dogs are seen more as part of the family than cats and therefore owners have a more responsible attitude towards them. Ideally every cat and dog in the UK will be microchipped. For microchipping to be effective, not only do all pets need to be registered but details such as change of ownership or address need to be updated when necessary. Local authorities, welfare organisations, vets and others who come in contact with lost, abandoned or straying animals need to have microchip scanners and for them to be used routinely. It is positive that more animals are being microchipped each year, however the number of pet animals is increasing therefore this could explain the rise. It seems that the responsible pet ownership message is not getting through to many pet owners.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 A badge or plate is also acceptable. Control of Dogs Order 1992, SI 1992/901, art 2 (1). 2 EC Regulation 998/2003 of 13 June 2003 on the non-commercial movement of pets. www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarantine/pets/procedures/support-infor/guide.htm 3 www.thekennelclub.org.uk/caring/petlog 4 Stray Animal Control Practices (Europe). A report into the strategies for controlling stray dog and cat populations adopted in thirty-one countries. 2006–2007. RSPCA International and WSPA. 5 www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/578 6 ww1.identichip.co.uk 7 www.thekennelclub.org.uk/meet/petlog.html 8 www.avidplc.com/pettrac.asp 9 www.virbac-backhome.co.uk/pages/what.htm 10 In 2007 and 2008, 492,107 and 525,227 dogs respectively were registered on the three UK databases. Just 287,129 and 317,895 cats respectively were registered during this period.



The number of healthy dogs being euthanased due to irresponsible pet ownership

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Every year the RSPCA, vets, local authorities and other animal welfare organisations reluctantly carry out the humane destruction of healthy dogs that are no longer wanted and/or are unable to be rehomed. Some dogs cannot be rehomed due to aggression, ill health or injury, however there are a large number of dogs that need new owners but there are simply not enough people to give these animals a new home. Irresponsible pet ownership and other factors can result in the arguably preventable humane destruction or euthanasia of healthy dogs and many other pet animals when new owners cannot be found. The RSPCA would like to see a future where no healthy dog or any pet animal in the UK is euthanased unnecessarily. This can only be achieved through animal owners, keepers and breeders adopting more responsible attitudes towards pet animals.

There are a number of reasons pet animals, such as dogs, are euthanased. These include if they are sick, injured or, with particular reference to dogs, are a danger to the public. Euthanasia is always carried out by trained operators such as vets using approved, humane methods. Unfortunately, some healthy animals are also euthanased for non-medical reasons, such as when they cannot be found new homes, or at the owners’ insistence because the animals are no longer wanted. In certain areas of the UK, the number of unwanted and stray dogs is so large there are not enough people able to offer them homes. The RSPCA, other animal welfare organisations and vets use different methods to aid rehoming of these unwanted animals including putting adverts in the local press, on websites and transferring long-stay animals to different parts of the country. The RSPCA transfers long-stay animals to animal centres around England and Wales giving different members of the public an opportunity to view the dogs, which hopefully results in them finding a new owner. The RSPCA is opposed to the long-term confinement of animals due to distress and mental suffering that can be caused. Whilst every effort is made to find dogs and other animals a new home, there is sometimes no other option than to euthanase, once all possible methods of rehoming have been exhausted. Each year thousands of unwanted pets in the UK end up in the hands of animal charities and welfare organisations that attempt to find new homes for these animals. The RSPCA has seen time and time again that many unwanted dogs are purchased as puppies and are signed over to the RSPCA when they are between two and four years old. This can happen for a number of reasons including owners becoming bored of the dogs once they are adults, owners being unable to cope with behavioural problems caused by inadequate training, and owners failing to make long-term plans for the care of the dogs. Sadly, not all of these animals will be found new homes. The number of healthy dogs put to sleep by the RSPCA and others could be reduced with a combination of simple, practical actions. Microchipping would assist with locating pet owners and could reduce the number of strays. Neutering of dogs could prevent unwanted pregnancies and help control the size of the dog population. The provision of suitable information and guidance from pet sellers could also improve the welfare of the animal concerned. Generally, a responsible pet ownership attitude needs to be adopted by every potential and current pet owner, so as to avoid dogs (and other animals) being needlessly euthanased. Ultimately, before anyone decides to adopt or purchase a dog, the question: “Are you able to care for a dog, or make sure he/she is cared for,

there has been an increase in the number of healthy dogs euthanased.



every single day of his/her life?”, needs to be asked and answered positively. This refers to providing exercise, companionship, training and understanding the financial commitment required amongst other things. By considering this question and the implementation of other activities, this would potentially reduce the number of unwanted animals and therefore reduce the need to euthanase healthy dogs.

The indicator figures This indicator measures the number of healthy dogs the RSPCA has to euthanase each year. The total number of healthy dogs euthanased each year in the UK is likely to be a lot higher, however there is no easy way to find out what this figure is. Local authorities, vets (at the owners’ request), and some animal welfare organisations will euthanase unwanted healthy dogs, but these statistics are not widely available or collected nationally. A search of other animal welfare organisations’ websites and annual reviews could not find any figures on the euthanasia of the dogs that are taken into their care. In 2008 and 2009, the RSPCA wrote to each local authority in the UK in an attempt to determine the stray dog problem including focusing on how many healthy dogs are euthanased. In an attempt not to duplicate figures collected by the Dogs Trust1, which commissions an annual survey2 throughout the UK about the number of stray animals it euthanases each year, the RSPCA utilised the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A number of questions were asked about dogs that were euthanased for medical and non-medical reasons, as previous studies have never separated this data. Between April 2007 and March 2008, the RSPCA local authority survey revealed that 6,032 dogs were euthanased by local authorities in the UK3. Of these, 1,198 were euthanased on medical grounds, 2,032 were euthanased after a seven-day period on non-medical grounds, and there was no explanation for the remaining dogs. Although the number of strays euthanased has remained fairly constant over a two-year period, nearly twice as many dogs were euthanased for non-medical reasons, that is they were healthy for the period 2007–2008. Previously, in 2006–2007, more dogs were euthanased for medical reasons and less healthy animals were euthanased. It is a concern that this change has taken place and indicates that there are less avenues and resource for these unwanted stray dogs. Figure 6 shows the number of healthy dogs the RSPCA has had to euthanase over the past five years. In 2004, 1,315 healthy dogs were euthanased by the RSPCA compared to 2008 when 1,595 dogs were euthanased. Between 2007 and 2008, the number of healthy dogs euthanased has increased by 365 dogs or 23 per cent. The percentage increase is fairly large, however in real terms the number

Figure 6: Number of healthy dogs being euthanased by the RSPCA, 2004–2008 1,800

1,500

1,200

900

600

300

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source: RSPCA.

of dogs being euthanased by the RSPCA is still relatively low when compared to the number of dogs the RSPCA rehomes – 15,872 dogs were rehomed in England and Wales during 2008. Combining the figures from local authorities in the UK and the RSPCA’s own figures for England and Wales, at least 3,627 healthy dogs were euthanased in 2008. It is expected that the actual figure is much higher if data was available from vets and other animal organisations. This euthanasia figure is still unacceptable, as ideally no healthy dog will be euthanased by local authorities, the RSPCA or any other organisation. To try and measure how many dogs are euthanased nationally, further publication and collation of figures from other organisations is required to gauge the extent of the problem in the UK. It is hoped that with more responsible pet ownership campaigns that promote the benefits of neutering and microchipping, and explain what owning a dog for life entails, the number of animals euthanased will decrease until ultimately there is a home available for every healthy animal in the UK.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 The Dogs Trust survey doesn’t distinguish between dogs that have been euthanased for medical reasons and healthy animals. 2 www.dogstrust.org.uk/press_office/pressreleases/2008/straydogsurvey.htm 3 See page 23 for more information.



The number of organised animal fights in the UK

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Animal fighting, that is pitting one animal against another, is viewed by the RSPCA as one of the most barbaric areas of animal cruelty. Although UK animal baiting and animal fighting legislation was first introduced in 18351, and subsequently up-to-date laws that protect animals such as badgers2 have followed, there is still grave concern about such activities continuing and also new areas of animal fighting developing. Organised animal fighting activities are deliberate, calculated, and by their very nature cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering to the animals involved. The RSPCA and other agencies are working to combat these barbaric activities in an attempt to see the eradication of all forms of organised animal fighting within the uk.

Traditionally, animal fighting has been clandestine and covert and therefore extremely difficult to combat. The RSPCA’s Special Operations Unit investigates three main areas of animal fighting involving dogs, cockerels and badgers3. n Dog fighting Dog fighting traditionally involves a large number of people coming together to ‘pit’ one fighting dog against another, with large amounts of money being placed as bets on the outcome of the fight. The dogs used in organised fights are almost exclusively American pit bull terriers, a breed that is banned in the UK by the Dangerous Dogs Act 19914. The fights take place in a pit, constructed to a size and standard recognised by the dog fighting fraternity, with the dogs being fought according to strict rules enforced by a referee. The fights can vary in length from a matter of minutes to a couple of hours and dogs may suffer from a large number of bite wounds. The owner of the dog will probably treat these injuries and any subsequent infection. Treatments will include suturing wounds and administrating steroids and antibiotics. It is unlikely the dogs will be taken for veterinary treatment because of the breed of dog involved and the nature of the injuries inflicted on the dogs. Recently, more impromptu, less organised dog fights have started to take place. Such fighting usually takes place in public areas such as streets or parks. The dogs involved are usually so-called ‘status’ dogs. The term status dog is often used by the media to refer to dogs associated with young people and used in aggressive or intimidating ways towards other animals and the public. The dogs involved tend to be tough looking dogs such as pit bull-type dogs, Staffordshire bull terriers and mastiffs. n Cockfighting Cockfighting usually involves a large number of people watching and betting on fighting cockerels in a pit area with a referee enforcing strict rules. The birds are conditioned to fight and may have the natural spurs on their feet sharpened so as to inflict the maximum damage to their opponents, other cockerels. Alternatively the natural spurs may have been removed and replaced with sharpened 5cm steel spikes, which are fitted and bound to the birds’ legs. Bouts may last anything from a few seconds to one hour. Often one of the birds is killed and many others receive severe injuries. n Badger digging/baiting

There hAS BEEN A RISE IN THE NUMBER OF REPORTS OF DOG FIGHTING.

Badger digging is carried out by small groups of people and involves terrier dogs entering badger setts to locate and corner badgers deep in the tunnels of the sett. The dogs usually wear electronic transmitter



collars that provide a signal, which the diggers can detect on the surface of the sett. When a dog has cornered a badger the signal will become stationary and the diggers can then dig down to where the dog and badger are located, irreparably damaging the badger sett in the process. At this time both the dog and the badger are likely to receive severe bite injuries because a badger will fight fiercely when cornered. Once the diggers reach the dog and badger, both will be removed from the sett. The badger may then be killed with a knife or a spade. On other occasions the badger may be set free on the surface and several dogs set upon it to kill it, with the badger often suffering a slow and painful death. More organised baiting of badgers also takes place with badgers taken away from the sett and baited in a pit with several dogs attacking it at once. The badger is not the only animal that suffers, as the dogs involved will receive serious bite injuries, which may be treated by the owners rather than receiving proper treatment from vets. The participants and organisers of animal fighting and animal baiting are often involved in other areas of serious criminality, especially those involved in dog fighting. Due to their criminal background and knowledge of investigative techniques, the perpetrators are difficult to trace and track, requiring investigators to employ specialist skills and techniques to bring them to justice. There are a number of factors that make investigating animal fighting extremely difficult. n National and international boundaries Those involved are prepared to travel long distances to participate in their chosen area of animal fighting. Different enforcement agencies are required to coordinate investigations as police, county and international boundaries are crossed. Suspects crossing police force boundaries who are stopped/arrested are unlikely to be linked to any previous offences in other police force areas. n Animal injuries Animals that have been used in fighting will often have distinctive injuries. Therefore owners will not take them for veterinary treatment as this could raise suspicion about the source of the injuries.

Consequently animals are treated by their owners when injured, so it is rare for vets to see animals that have been used in fighting. n Communication With advanced communication networks such as mobile phone technology and the internet, it is now easier for information to be transferred undetected. New factions of animal fighters are constantly emerging, as access to information becomes more available and international travel becomes easier. n Prosecution It appears that animal fighting participants are willing to risk being prosecuted. The current penalties/sentences do not seem to be a deterrent, as there are many repeat offenders. n Profile It is extremely difficult to identify or profile the type of person who is involved in animal fighting because a ‘typical’ animal fighter cannot be identified by a particular socio-economic group, race, nationality or age. Due to the difficult nature of getting information on the perpetrators of animal fighting, investigations are extremely costly and the cost of bringing cases before the courts is also very high. In terms of RSPCA manpower, the time, specialised training and equipment required, makes the cost per conviction higher than any other area of the RSPCA inspectorate’s investigative work. Typical operation costs involved in prosecuting animal fighting include: investigators’ man-hours, prosecution costs, dog boarding costs, veterinary fees, expert witness fees and legal fees. Animal fighting, despite being prohibited for many years, still occurs in the UK. This is an important welfare indicator because of the intentional cruelty and the suffering it causes, and due to the fact that long-established laws are still being broken. Dog fighting in particular has cross-border implications where information, techniques and even dogs work at an international level. Many countries with their own animal fighting problems look to the UK, with its long legislative history and status as a nation of animal lovers, to help solve the problem, yet the problem still exists in the UK..

Organised animal fighting activities are deliberate, calculated, and by their very nature cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering to the animals involved.



The indicator figures Due to the criminal and covert element of animal fighting activities, it is difficult to establish the scale of the problem in the UK. Unlike many other areas of animal cruelty that are openly reported to the RSPCA5, relatively few complaints are received from the general public about animal fighting. With other types of animal cruelty, reporting issues to the RSPCA can be seen as a good indication of how big a problem is, but unfortunately with animal fighting this is not a definitive way of measuring the extent of the issue. Figure 7 identifies the number of reports of animal fighting the Society received between 2004 and 2008. In 2008 the RSPCA received more than one million telephone calls to its cruelty and advice line and investigated 140,575 cruelty complaints, yet received just 470 complaints about animal fighting. Reports of cockfighting, badger digging/baiting and sett interference have remained consistent and relatively low over the past five years. Due to the secretive nature of these activities it is unsurprising that the figures are extremely low. Since 2004, reports of dog fighting have increased from 24 to 358 in 2007 and 284 in 2008. There are a number of reasons why more calls were received in 2007 than in the previous four years including the widely publicised tragic death of five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson in Liverpool who was killed by an illegally owned pit bull-type dog. In addition the UK’s first pit bull amnesty took place in Northern Ireland during January 2007 and two high-profile dog fighting cases in the West Midlands area may have prompted more reports as the public became more aware of dog fighting and dangerous dog offences. Figure 8 identifies the reports of dog fighting to the RSPCA that relate to instances where youths or ‘hoodies’6 were allegedly fighting dogs in public areas such as streets or parks. Although reports of dog fighting have fallen over the past year, the number that include dogs such as Staffordshire bull terriers and pit bull-type dogs being fought in public places has risen considerably. In 2007, 37 per cent of reports concerned dogs and street fighting, in 2008 two-thirds of all calls are related to this. The RSPCA’s figures are supported by Metropolitan Police figures, which show a massive increase in the number of dogs seized in London under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Between 2003 and 2006, the numbers averaged out to about 38 dogs a year. This increased to 173 between May 2006 and April 2007 and leapt to 719 between May 2008 and April 2009. Of the total figures, about 80 per cent of the dogs are pit bull-types, with the remainder being dogs that are dangerously out of control7.

Figure 7: Reports of animal fighting given to the RSPCA, 2004–2008 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Dog fighting

Cockfighting

Badger digging/baiting

Badger sett interference

Data source: RSPCA.

Figure 8: Reports of dog fighting to the RSPCA, 2006–2008 360

270

180

90

0

2006 Reports relating to fighting in public places

2007

2008

Total number of reports

Data source: RSPCA.



Figure 9: Successful convictions for animal fighting obtained by the RSPCA, 2004–2008 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Protection of Animals Act 1911

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Cockfighting Act 1952

Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Animal Welfare Act 2006 Data source: RSPCA.

Organised animal fighting is a continuing problem and it is extremely challenging to measure how big the issue is.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

An Act to consolidate and amend the several laws relating to the cruel and improper treatment of animals and the mischief’s arising from the driving of cattle (Pease’s Act) 1835. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992. (Consolidating the Badgers Act 1973, the Badgers Act 1991 and the Badgers [Further Protection] Act 1991). Although badgers and cockerels are not pet animals, it is important to include them when discussing animal fighting. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s1. The RSPCA’s 24-hour cruelty and advice line number is: 0300 1234 999. The terms ‘hoody’ and ’hoodies’ are common phrases used to describe young people that wear hooded jackets or jumpers, and is used by members of the public when reporting possible incidents of animal cruelty involving young people. Metropolitan Police figures refer specifically to the year this number of dogs left the police system. The project brings together three well-known animal charities (Battersea Dogs Home, The Blue Cross and the RSPCA) with the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police and Wandsworth Council. Animal Welfare Act 2006, s8.

In 2006, the RSPCA produced a leaflet and poster encouraging owners of status dogs to provide adequate care for their dogs and highlighting the legislation that protects dogs such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) and the Control of Dogs Order 1992. The RSPCA is extremely concerned that more reported incidents of dog fighting seem to involve young people in public places. In February 2008, the Society became involved with an education initiative, the People With Dogs Project8, which aims to reduce intimidating and anti-social behaviour on London’s streets. Another way to identify the scale of animal fighting is to look at the number of successful animal fighting convictions over the past five years (Figure 9). The Animal Welfare Act 2006 has repealed the Cockfighting Act 1953, therefore such offences are now taken under the new Act. The AWA has created new animal fighting offences and in 2008 two convictions under the Act were secured9. It is useful to look at the number of convictions, as this demonstrates that animal fighting is still taking place and perpetrators are being caught, however it does not clearly represent the true scale of the problem. More convictions in a given year does not necessarily mean the problem is worsening, it could just mean more people were caught or many people were involved at one event and subsequently convicted. Conversely, if the number of convictions dropped, this isn’t necessarily a sign that fighting is occurring less, as it could simply mean those involved are not being caught. With regard to dog fighting convictions, there can be a big difference between the number of cases reported and the number of convictions because of the delays in bringing the cases to court. It is possible for a large number of convictions to take place in a year although the relevant arrests occurred the previous year. The fact that people are still being convicted for animal fighting clearly demonstrates that there is an ongoing problem with these illegal activities. Organised animal fighting is a continuing problem and it is extremely challenging to measure how big the issue is, which makes it difficult to statistically gauge whether animal fighting is increasing or decreasing. However, with new types of dog fighting factions appearing, more reports of incidents and a higher number of convictions, it must be concluded that animal fighting, especially dog fighting, is increasing.


Introduction research animal indicators

Estimates of the number of animals used across the world each year in research and testing usually range between 50 and 100 million. More than 12 million are used across the European Union (EU)1. Official statistics for 2008 show2 that this includes more than 3.5 million animals used in the UK, which represents a seventh consecutive annual rise and the highest number of animals used since the mid 1980s. If progress is to be achieved in reducing animal use, reducing suffering and replacing animal experiments with humane alternatives, action is needed not only at national, but also at international level. Given the increasingly global nature of science and industry, the use of animals in one country, such as the UK, can be profoundly influenced by the legal requirements, guidelines and scientific developments in other countries. For example, a pharmaceutical company based in the UK will have to carry out animal tests according to the legal requirements of all the countries in which it wishes to market a new medicine. As a member of the EU, the UK must take particular account of European laws and standards, and work to improve them. The international dimension offers both challenges and opportunities. Legislation regulating the use of animals in experiments can vary widely between different countries. Reaching agreement on harmonised controls, and on legal requirements for the use of animals in safety testing for example is difficult, even within the EU. On the other hand, organisations such as the World Congresses on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Office International des Epizooties (OIE, also known as the World Organisation for Animal Health) provide platforms for introducing improvements for animal welfare worldwide. The importance of the international dimension is reflected in the following list of important events of 2008 relating to the use of animals in experiments. n The revision of European Directive 86/609 that regulates laboratory animal care and use across the EU continued3 4. Draft proposals published in November 2008 are currently under discussion between the Council of Ministers and European Parliament (EP), and national bodies are consulting with stakeholders.

n To inform decisions on the future of primate use, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) was asked to produce an opinion on the need for primate experiments, and the possibilities for their replacement. A call for evidence was made in May 2008, and a limited consultation held in November 2008. n Meanwhile, in the UK, the government has been undertaking a general review of how European legislation is transposed in the UK, with a view to reducing unnecessary administrative burden5. In relation to the regulation of animal experiments, the Home Office has established a steering group of the major stakeholders which has been considering possible changes to current practices. The RSPCA is represented, and argues that any changes made must not have a detrimental effect on animal welfare, weaken the legislation or reduce public accountability. n Following a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pronouncement6 that meat and milk products from cloned cattle, pigs, goats and their offspring were safe for human consumption, it was expected that commercial use of cloned animals and their offspring as food products could be globally widespread by 2010. In January 2008, the European Group on Ethics7 stated that given the current level of animal suffering and health issues involved, it is doubtful whether the cloning of animals for food is ethically justified. In September 2008, the EP voted overwhelmingly in support of a motion urging the European Commission to prohibit the cloning of animals for food. Footnotes and references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

European Commission (2007). Fifth report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union (data for 2005). Brussels. Home Office (2009). Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2008. London: HMSO. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/home_en.htm Since 2002, scientific staff from the RSPCA’s research animals department have provided expert input into the revision process at various stages and on a range of issues, often on behalf of Eurogroup for Animals. The RSPCA is lobbying for many changes to the Directive. These include: extension of the Directive to cover all research that may cause animals to suffer and a clearly defined and effective system of licensing, control and inspection for all member states. This must incorporate an ethical evaluation of animal use including a harm/ benefit assessment that takes into account the lifetime experience of the animals. A system of local and national ethical review processes must also be an integral part of a licensing process as must the requirement for greater focus on the 3Rs of reduction, refinement and replacement. http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/legislation/better-regulation US Food and Drug Administration (2008) ‘Animal cloning: A Risk Assessment’. www.fda.gov/cvm/Documents/CloningRiskAssessment_FINAL.pdf European Group on Ethics (2008) ‘Ethical Aspects of Animal Cloning for Food Supply. Opinion No.23’. http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion23_en.pdf


Research animal indicators

The number of non-human primates used in scientific procedures in the UK

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

The use of non-human primates (from here referred to as ‘primates’) in research and testing is a matter of particular concern to the RSPCA and the wider public. This has been recognised at a governmental1 and regulatory level, with some countries making special provisions for primates in legislation – for example, either implementing specific bans2 or emphasising the need to replace and reduce experiments on these animals3. The RSPCA believes that the special nature of primates means that ending their use is an essential goal which governments, regulators, industry, scientists and research funders worldwide should accept and make a high priority. The Society would like to see the indicator figures showing significant reductions over successive years.

In the UK about 3,000 primates (mostly marmosets and macaques) are used in research and testing annually4. Across the European Union (EU) this figure is around 10,0005 and worldwide it is estimated that more than 100,000 are used each year6. Much primate use is for developing or testing the safety and effectiveness of medicines and vaccines, but primates are also used in more fundamental biological research, for example in studies into brain function and behaviour. There is no question that primates experience pain and distress and many aspects of the lifetime experience of laboratory primates can cause stress and suffering. Primates in laboratories cannot control their environment, social grouping or what is done to them7. Any pain or distress associated with experimental procedures is compounded by additional adverse effects resulting from the capture of wild primates, breeding practices, transport, housing, husbandry, identification, restraint, and finally, euthanasia. In September 2007, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) categorically backed a declaration8 that called for an end to the use of great apes and wild-caught primates in research in Europe, and a clear strategy for replacing all primate experiments with humane alternatives. This was an important statement, given that the European Directive regulating the use of animals in experiments across the EU is currently under revision9. It also reflected the principles set out in a resolution10 initiated in 2005 by the RSPCA and backed by animal protection organisations worldwide. In its official response to the parliament’s declaration, made in January 2008, the European Commission (EC) stated that a phase-out of primate use is not practical. Proposals for revision of the Directive on animal experiments were published in November 2008. They contained no measures likely to lead to a phase-out of primate use. They did, however, propose a ban on the use of wild-caught primates and restrictions on the use of primates in research to experiments relating to lifethreatening and debilitating human diseases. A ban on the use of great apes was weakened by a clause allowing their possible use in health emergencies. Even if accepted into the final Directive, these measures are unlikely to reduce primate use significantly.




Figure 1: The number of primates used in scientific procedures in the UK, 2004–2008

3,500

2004

2005

2007

2008

Figure 2: The number of primates used in scientific procedures in the EU, 1999, 2002 and 2005

2006

1999

2002

2005

10,000

3,000 8,000 2,500 6,000

2,000 1,500

4,000

1,000 2,000

500 0

Prosimians

New world monkeys

Old world monkeys

0

Great apes

Data source: Home Office.

Prosimians

New world monkeys

Old world monkeys

Great apes

Data source: European Commission.

Note: (i) the above figures represent the number of individual animals used in licensed procedures for the first time during the course of the year in question (e.g. an animal used for the first time in 2007 and then reused in 2008, will only appear in the total for 2007). (ii) the EU figures for 1999 and 2002 relate to 1 5 member countries, whilst the figure for 2005 also includes the data for the 1 0 new ascension states, thus now covering data for 25 EU members for the first time. However, with regard to the impact on trends of primate use of adding data for these 1 0 new EU member states, it should be noted that they were responsible for the use of just 57 of the total 10,443 primates used in 2005.

The indicator figures The number of primates used in the UK and Europe are reported in Home Office and EU official publications respectively. The UK figures are published annually, but in the EU they are only made available every three years. Accurate figures for most other countries are not available. Data for Figure 1 have been taken from Table 1a of the Home Office annual statistics publications, 1999–2008 (published 2000–2009). Data for Figure 2 have been taken from Table 1.1 of the third11, fourth12 and fifth13 reports on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the EU (published by the EC in 2003, 2005 and 2007 respectively). The four categories of primates are explained as follows. n Prosimians

– the most primitive group of primates, they may or may not have a tail e.g. lemurs, lorises, pottos and bushbabies/galagos.

n

n

n

New world monkeys – primates native to Central or South America e.g. marmosets, tamarins, squirrel monkeys, and capuchins. Old world monkeys – primates native to Africa or Asia e.g. macaques and baboons. Great apes – all of these primates lack a tail e.g. chimpanzees and gorillas.

The need for annual statistics to be published for the EU is illustrated by the data on great apes. The official EU figures for 2002 and 2005 show no apes were used in scientific procedures in these years. This could lead people to infer that none were used in the intervening time yet six chimpanzees were used in the Netherlands during 200414. This, and other important information, may go unreported where figures are only produced every three years.



there has to be a radical shift in thinking away from “how can we ensure we can continue to use them” to a more enlightened and humane approach of “what do we need to do to avoid their use”.

The available data, both for the UK and EU, show that there is no significant downward trend in primate use and there have been suggestions that primate use may actually increase in the coming years15. The RSPCA believes there should be an immediate, internationally coordinated effort, involving governments, regulators, industry, scientists and research funders to define a strategy to bring all non-human primate experiments to an end. This needs to incorporate an effective European-wide mechanism for challenging and assessing the justification for primate use, including full assessment and recognition of all of the harms to the primates involved, i.e. from acquisition and transport, confinement in the laboratory, and from scientific procedures and their effects. Since primate use is of such serious concern, there has to be a radical shift in thinking away from “how can we ensure we can continue to use them” to a more enlightened and humane approach of “what do we need to do to avoid their use”.

Footnotes and references 1 For example: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/petitions_dir86_609.pdf 2 The use of great apes in scientific procedures with the potential to cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm is not allowed in New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK or Austria. Northern Ireland goes further and does not licence the use of any primate in invasive experiments. 3 For example, the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and Council Decision (1989) on the European Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes [Official Journal of the European Communities]. 4 Home Office (2009) Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2008. London: The Stationery Office. 5 European Commission (2007). Fifth report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union (data for 2005). Brussels. 6 Hau and Schapiro (2006) ‘Non-human primates in biomedical research’ Scandinavian Journal of Laboratory Animal Science 33, 9–12. 7 See: The welfare of non-human primates used in research (2002) – Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare, European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out83_en.pdf 8 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/declaration_nhp_en.pdf 9 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/revision_en.htm 10 ‘Call to end the use of non-human primates in biomedical research and testing from animal protection organisations worldwide’ Berlin, August 2005. 11 European Commission (2003). Third report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union (data for 1999). Brussels. 12 European Commission (2005). Fourth report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union (data for 2002). Brussels. 13 European Commission (2007). Fifth report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union (data for 2005). Brussels. 14 See page 189 (‘Comment of the Dutch authorities’): European Commission (2007). Fifth report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union (data for 2005). Brussels. 15 For example, see Ragan C I & Chapman K L (2007) ‘Testing of biologicals: reducing primate use’ Toxicology 231, p91–99.



welfare indicator:

The amount of laboratory animal suffering

RSPCA concern

Background

The RSPCA believes that the reduction of suffering of animals used in experiments is an essential goal. The most urgent need is to end ‘substantial’ suffering for these animals, although the ultimate aim is to avoid discomfort, pain, or distress altogether. Reducing suffering is central to the widely accepted principle of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) and some progress has already been made. However, it is not currently possible to assess how much has been achieved because there is no available data on the level and nature of pain or distress experienced by each animal. Better reporting of animal suffering would encourage more effective recognition, alleviation and prevention of pain and distress, so that progress with reducing suffering could be monitored. In addition, it would lead to greater openness and transparency regarding animal use and help to focus attention on issues of particular concern. Suffering may be caused to laboratory animals as a result of how they are sourced, transported, housed and used in experiments. However, this indicator relates only to suffering experienced during, or as a result of, experimental procedures as this is the only information currently formally recorded for publication in the Home Office (HO) annual statistics.

The HO for England, Scotland and Wales1, and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for Northern Ireland2 publish annual statistics on animal use in research and testing in the UK. These provide basic information on the species and numbers of animals used, but suffering is currently only reported in terms of ‘average’ predictions of the amount of suffering within each project. These average assessments usually cover a range of scientific procedures, with different levels of severity, involving different numbers of animals. Furthermore, they are assigned before the research is conducted, so they are only predictions and do not convey the level, nature or duration of suffering that the animals actually experienced3. In recognition of these issues, the Laboratory Animal Science Association (LASA) and the Animal Procedures Committee4 (APC) formed a working group to explore new ways of collecting and reporting data on severity. This included extensive consultation and pilot studies within industry and academia. The final report of the LASA/APC working group was published in October 20085. It recommended reporting the maximum severity actually experienced by each animal using the categories ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ and ‘substantial’. This would enable data on severity to be correlated with other information in the HO statistics such as species and purpose. Linking the severity data to the project licence abstracts currently published on the HO website6, by ‘tagging’ the abstracts with severity category labels, would also increase the quality of the information available to the public. The HO and the APC’s own suffering and severity working group have agreed to work together to address some practical issues arising from the report and the APC group is expected to report in the first half of 20097. At the time of writing, the proposal for the revision of Directive 86/609 (see introduction) includes a requirement for statistics on the actual severity of procedures to be collected and published annually8. The work carried out by the LASA/APC working group has been submitted to the European Commission and the concept of retrospective reporting of severity has been supported in principle by the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA)5.

InsufficiEnt datA ARE available.



The indicator figures The RSPCA wants to see a reporting system that will accurately convey the level of suffering experienced by individual animals. The Society therefore supports the concept of retrospective reporting and the recommendations of the LASA/APC working group. Annual publication of the number of animals who actually experienced mild, moderate or substantial suffering would represent a significant improvement over the current situation. However, this would still only provide a basic indicator of whether laboratory animal suffering is increasing, decreasing or staying the same. Supplementary information would be necessary and the Society supports the

recommendation that publicly-available project licence abstracts should be linked to retrospective severity data. This whole approach would require changes to the gathering and publishing of the statistics9, which the LASA/APC group has taken into account5. The proposal for retrospective reporting of severity within the 2008 draft Directive (currently under discussion) is welcome, as EU statistics have been woefully inadequate to date. The RSPCA strongly supports the concept of retrospective reporting throughout the EU, as part of the Society’s goal to achieve a much more comprehensive, transparent and meaningful system of reporting animal use10.

The RSPCA wants to see a reporting system that will accurately convey the level of suffering experienced by individual animals.

Footnotes and references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Home Office (2009) Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2008. London: The Stationery Office. Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2009) Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Northern Ireland 2008. Belfast: The Stationery Office. Smith J A and Jennings M on behalf of the Boyd Group and RSPCA (eds) (2004). Categorising the severity of scientific procedures on animals. Summary and reports from three round-table discussions. RSPCA Research Animals Department, Science Group: www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/severity_report.pdf APC: The independent body that advises the government on the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Smith J A (rapporteur) (2008). Final report of a LASA/APC working group to examine the feasibility of reporting data on the severity of scientific procedures on animals. LASA/APC: www.apc.gov.uk/reference/lasa_apc_final_report.pdf For abstracts, see: www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications- and-reference/001-abstracts/ See: www.apc.gov.uk/reference/December-10-2007-minutes.pdf See: www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/revision_en.htm Reed B (2004). RSPCA response to the Animal Procedures Committee consultation paper on the statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain. RSPCA Research Animals Department, Science Group. For further information, see: www.rspca.org.uk/directive86609



The proportion of non-animal methods in OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) test guidelines welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

More than a million animals are used in the European Union (EU) every year in tests intended to evaluate the safety of products such as new medicines, pesticides and industrial chemicals1. The numbers of animals used for this purpose worldwide are not known, but are undoubtedly much higher. The amount of suffering caused by these tests varies according to the test, and is often unpredictable since new products may range from harmless to highly poisonous. Nevertheless, large numbers of animals, including primates and dogs, are kept in laboratory conditions, subjected to distressful dosing procedures, suffer some adverse effects from the test substances and, ultimately, are killed. The RSPCA believes that safety tests using animals must be replaced with humane alternative methods. To achieve this end, much more effort is needed to develop non-animal test methods and to accelerate their worldwide acceptance and implementation as alternatives to the existing methods using animals.

The majority of safety testing is done in such a way that the results will satisfy legal requirements for the safety of products for people, and the environment. For some types of product, testing on animals is required by law, whereas for others, the use of animal tests is recommended in guidelines issued by regulatory authorities2. Many different safety tests are used to detect or measure the wide range of effects that chemicals can have on living organisms. They include tests for irritation to the eyes and skin, acute and chronic poisoning, effects on reproduction, and the ability to cause cancer. Some tests are designed to measure chemical effects on wildlife species. There are also many possible variations in the way each test is done, for example in the range of chemical concentrations used, the species and strain of animal, and the length of time they are exposed to the chemical. Various international bodies have attempted to standardise the methods used in safety assessment. The test guidelines produced by the OECD Test Guidelines Programme3 are the most widely accepted. If tests are done in accordance with OECD guidelines the results are ensured acceptance by regulators in the 30 OECD member countries, and probably beyond. The methods apply to all chemical products, including pesticides and medicines. The number of test guidelines is expanding because previously unsuspected hazards of chemicals continue to be identified. For example, the possible effects of chemicals on human sex hormones have only been recognised comparatively recently. The existing tests are not considered sufficient to identify these endocrine disrupting chemicals or ‘gender benders’, and new ones are being developed. There is therefore an increasingly urgent need for methods of safety testing which are more reliable than existing animal tests, and which do not involve inflicting suffering on animals. A great deal of effort has already been put into the development of alternative, non-animal methods of safety testing, but much more needs to be done. The RSPCA promotes the development of nonanimal alternative methods and, for chemical products, the acceptance of such tests into the OECD test guidelines is a crucial final step.

There is no change from the previous year.



The indicator figures The proportions of ‘animal’ and ‘non-animal’ tests in the OECD guidelines are used as a rough guide to progress with the replacement of animals in toxicity testing. Only tests using vertebrate animals are included, and only those non-animal tests that detect an effect which might otherwise be measured in animals. The indicator is expressed as the percentage of relevant OECD test guidelines describing exclusively non-animal tests (Figure 3). The actual numbers of non-animal and animal test methods are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3: Percentage of non-animal tests in OECD TGs, 2004–2008 25

20

The ultimate objective is to see all the animal tests removed and replaced with non-animal tests, i.e. 100 per cent of test guidelines based on non-animal methods.

15

n An increase in the proportion of non-animal tests would be positive

10

n

progress towards this objective. In 2008, no new relevant tests were adopted. In the three years since these data were first used as an indicator, only one new nonanimal test has been accepted – an in vitro method for measuring the absorption of chemicals by the skin – and no animal tests have been deleted. This is very disappointing, particularly in view of the fact that since 2002 close to ¤100M has been invested by the EU in research on alternatives to animal testing. The OECD Test Guidelines Programme has made progress in reducing animal use by means other than introducing completely non-animal tests. A number of methods have been introduced which use fewer animals than previously, and in some test guidelines non-animal methods can be used to reduce the number of chemicals which have to be tested on animals. However, these beneficial changes are not reflected in the indicator figures.

5

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Figure 4: Number of OECD TGs using non-animal or animal methods, 2004–2008 60

Animal Non-animal

50

40

30

20

10 Footnotes and references 1 The latest available data are for 2005: European Commission (2007) Fifth report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union. Brussels. 2 For example, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) and the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP). 3 www.oecd.org

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source for Figures 3 and 4: OECD.



The number of animals used in quality-control tests for release of veterinary vaccines in the UK

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Animals kept as companions, and those on farms or in zoos, are routinely vaccinated against common, often life-threatening, diseases1. Some wildlife populations are also vaccinated. In addition to routine use, veterinary vaccines are also manufactured as an emergency stand-by in case they are needed to help control disease outbreaks such as Foot-and-Mouth Disease. European regulations require that batches of veterinary vaccines are subjected to a variety of tests, some of which involve animals, before they can be released onto the market. Large numbers of animals are used and some will experience considerable suffering. Thus, whilst vaccines help safeguard the health and welfare of many animals, this is only achieved at a considerable cost to others, presenting a difficult ethical dilemma. The RSPCA believes more can and should be done to address this problem, for example by a concerted effort to develop tests that will replace or avoid the use of animals and/ or substantially reduce the level of suffering and numbers involved. The adoption of more humane test methods by regulators and manufacturers internationally also needs to be accelerated. Although some work is already going on in this area, it is difficult to assess its effect because the numbers of animals used and levels of suffering in the different types of test is not published regularly. Reporting of these figures in the public domain is an essential first step in monitoring progress on this issue.

There are two main types of test that are performed on batches of veterinary vaccines – for potency (strength and effectiveness) and for safety. Some potency tests require animals to be infected with harmful bacteria or viruses, which can result in substantial suffering. For example, the potency test for Clostridium chauvoei vaccine (given routinely to sheep to protect against gas gangrene) involves injecting guinea pigs with bacteria, resulting in painful infections. The guinea pigs are usually euthanased to end their suffering. Such tests are of greatest concern, and it is important that efforts are concentrated on developing alternative methods to replace them that either do not involve animal tests, or use animals in ways that cause less suffering and use smaller numbers. For example, for many vaccines it is now possible to replace traditional, infection-based potency tests with less harmful methods, where the strength of the vaccine is assessed by measuring antibody levels in vaccinated animals. This reduces the level of suffering to the animals and fewer are needed. Until recently, regulations required that tests on animals had to be used to check the safety, as well as potency, of every batch of veterinary vaccine. Tests to assess safety can involve injecting animals with relatively large volumes of vaccine, which may cause discomfort or pain. Even when tests involve relatively mild procedures, these may involve housing animals in a laboratory environment that can, in itself, be a source of distress. However, the legislation has changed and under certain conditions veterinary vaccine manufacturers can apply for permission to discontinue such tests2. Manufacturers now have a clear opportunity to significantly reduce the numbers of animals used, and it is important that they seize this chance. However, it is by no means certain that they will. In 2008, the RSPCA produced a report3, which takes a critical look at testing requirements for veterinary vaccines. Aimed at regulators, policy makers and vaccine manufacturers, it is hoped that if these parties take forward the report’s recommendations it will have a significant impact on the numbers and suffering of animals used. For example, the report recommends that particular tests should be discontinued; that the process of incorporating more humane tests into the regulations is speeded up; and that research efforts should focus on replacing or modifying tests that involve lethal infectious disease agents, to reduce the suffering of those animals involved. The RSPCA believes that there is considerable scope for a reduction in the number of animals used to test each batch of vaccine and for refinement of the tests to reduce suffering and the development of alternative test methods that do not require animals. This will require serious commitment from regulatory authorities and manufacturers.

InsufficiEnt datA ARE available.



The indicator figures Although some efforts are already being made to reduce the suffering of animals in veterinary vaccine testing, it is difficult to assess its effect because the numbers of animals used and levels of suffering in the different types of test are not published regularly. Publication of these figures is essential if future progress is to be monitored.

Figure 5: Number of animals used in quality control tests for release of veterinary vaccines

15

n total number of animals used to test each batch of veterinary vaccine n

number of animals used in different types of batch potency tests

n

number of animals used to test the safety of each batch

n

number of animals used in other batch tests 4.

In the UK, manufacturers must submit details of the methods and results of tests performed on each batch of vaccine to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) before the batch can be released. In 2005, the VMD released statistics relating to the number of animals used in tests for batch release in the UK during 2003. The data included the total numbers of animals used and batches released with a breakdown of how many animals had been used for each type of test. During 2003, quality-control tests for release of batches into the UK involved the use of more than 31,000 animals5. No data for subsequent years have been published. However, in 2007, Defra acknowledged6 that making information available on the number of laboratory animals used in the production and regulatory testing of vaccines “…is necessary if government is to focus attention on priority areas for the development of alternatives to animal testing and to encourage a reduction in the use of laboratory animals and severity of testing for regulatory purposes”. Defra has since commissioned work to this end. The RSPCA is hopeful that more up-to-date data will be available for inclusion in next year’s report.

Average number of animals per batch

In particular it is important to be able to calculate the: 12

9

6

3

0

Potency tests

Safety tests

Other tests

2003 used per batch in all Note: The average total number of animals tests = 28.2 (based on 31,047 animals used to test 1 , 10 1 batches). Data source: Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

Footnotes and references 1 For example, dogs are routinely vaccinated against canine distemper, cattle against cattle blackleg and pigs against swine pneumonia. 2 Manufacturers can apply for permission to discontinue the batch safety test for a particular vaccine if 10 consecutive batches have previously passed the test and providing there have been no major changes to the manufacturing process. 3 RSPCA (2008). Advancing animal welfare and the 3Rs in the batch testing of veterinary vaccines. RSPCA, Horsham. 4 Other batch tests may include tests for extraneous agents, toxoid contents etc. inactivation etc. 5 Spagnuola-Weaver M, Ilott M and Price S. 2005. Animal usage in quality control tests for the release of immunological veterinary medicinal products in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, Berlin, August 2005, p223 – ALTEX Volume 22, Special Issue. 6 Defra (2007). Animal Health and Welfare Research Requirements Document 2008/2009. Available at: www.defra.gov.uk/science/funding/historical.htm



The percentage of scientific journals with ethical policies and guidelines relating to the use of animals in research and testing

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Effective ethical review of animal studies is an integral part of the scientific process. It encompasses the identification and evaluation of harms, the assessment of harms versus benefits, and provides an opportunity to ensure that the 3Rs – reduction, refinement and replacement – are fully implemented. Ethical review should be a continuous process throughout the life of every project, but there are a number of defined stages when a more formal consideration of the issues it encompasses should be addressed. These include when the research is funded, when it is authorised by the relevant legislative body (for example, the Home Office in the UK), and when it is considered for publication in a scientific journal. Funding organisations, legislative bodies and scientific journals can all have an important role in ensuring that the objectives of ethical review are fully met, but each will have a different focus and extend its influence in a different way. The RSPCA believes that every journal publishing research involving animals should have a publication policy that (i) recognises the importance of ethical review and animal welfare, and (ii) describes the factors relating to these that will be taken into account when considering manuscripts for publication. Each journal should also require authors to include information on issues relating to animal welfare, and how the 3Rs were applied, in the papers they submit for publication. This information is essential for a proper description of the scientific protocol as well as animal welfare.

Scientific journals, have a significant opportunity to influence both the ethical acceptability of research and how it is conducted. This opportunity arises because publication is essential to the success of research teams and future research funding. Journals can act as a driving force to improve standards worldwide, by requesting the inclusion of specific animal welfare and 3Rs information in scientific papers, for example species, numbers, details of housing and care provided, analgesia and anaesthesia. By ensuring that adherence to the publication policy is a requirement for publication, journals will facilitate the uptake and implementation of the 3Rs and, in turn, contribute to the development of more humane science. By publishing more information, journals can also stimulate informed discussion of the ethical and welfare issues that are integral to the use of animals in research and testing. This helps to ensure that such issues are addressed and, in turn, contribute to greater openness and transparency regarding the use of animals in science. In 2007 (using data for 2005/6), the RSPCA began an annual review of journal publication policies to assess whether, and how well, these issues were addressed. The results of the 2009 (using data for 2007/2008) survey are described here.

The indicator figures There are currently nearly 12,000 scientific journals in circulation worldwide. Between July 2007 and June 2008, 2,342 of these published, in English, primary data originating from the observation and/or investigation of any non-human animal; collectively publishing around 121,436 articles. In this survey period 2,046 journals published four or more articles involving the use of animals in research and testing1. A statistically representative sample of 324 journals was randomly selected from this pool, and the publication policies of these were collated directly from each journal’s website. Where a policy relating to animal use was not given on the journal’s website, the presence or absence of such a policy was confirmed by e-mail to the editor. The journal policies were then scored out of a maximum of 12 according to the following criteria.

There is little change from THE previous year.



Table 1: Scoring criteria

Points awarded

Having a policy relating to the use of animals in research

1

Stating that adherence to the policy was a requirement for publication

1

Referring authors and provided links to specific guidelines, codes of conduct or legislation relating to

research involving animals

1

Having an overall considered, positive statement regarding animal welfare or the ethics of animal use

1

Requiring that research submitted for publication has:

n undergone ethical review

1

n implemented the 3Rs

1

n followed contemporary good practice (and improved upon minimum standards set out in the relevant

legislation) for animal housing and care

1

n used appropriate anaesthesia and analgesia to minimise discomfort, distress and pain

1

n defined and implemented humane endpoints

1

n been carried out by investigators and personnel who are appropriately trained and qualified to handle

and use animals

1

n carried out euthanasia according to best contemporary practice

1

n included all information that is suitable for publication, such as species, strain and numbers

of animals and other pertinent details including refinements in husbandry and procedure

Total

1 12

Data source: RSPCA.

This year’s survey achieved a high response rate of 95 per cent (309 journals), on a par with last year’s 97 per cent, and was met with much openness, interest and encouragement on the part of the journals’ staff and their publishers. It was not possible to confirm the presence of an editorial policy for 15 (4.6 per cent) of the journals sampled. Out of the remaining 309 journals surveyed, 40.5 per cent (125 journals) had an editorial policy but did not include a section relating to the use of animals in research and testing. This is of great concern to the RSPCA, given that they collectively published a total of 8,133 articles involving animal use in the year surveyed. The remaining 59.5 per cent (184 journals) did have a relevant

editorial policy. Although the highest score achieved was nine out of 12, this was by one journal only. The average score was just 2.4, a minimal increase over the average scores of the previous two years (2.04 in 2005/6 and 2.23 in 2006/7). 20.1 per cent (62 journals out of 309) referred authors to and provided links for specific guidelines, codes of conduct or legislation relating to research involving animals. Although this is important, it is insufficient on its own. Legislation and guidelines can be very variable in scope, level of detail and standards required, and complying with the law is a necessity, not an option. It does little to ensure that a robust ethical review has taken place, or that the 3Rs have been implemented.



Figure 6: The percentage of journals, for which no publication policy could be found, those confirmed to have no policy relating to the use of animals in research (score 0), plus those with a policy achieving the range of possible scores (1–12) 50

Figure7: The percentage of journals whose publication policies cover each of the points in the survey criteria 60

2006

50

2007 2008

40 Percentage

40

Percentage

30

2007 2008

30

20 20 10 10

2

3

4

5

6 7 Score

8

9

10

11

12

Data source: RSPCA.

Data source: RSPCA.

Furthermore, only:

n 2.8

n 17.8

per cent (55 journals) required that the research submitted had undergone ethical review (including the weighing of the likely adverse effects on the animals against the benefits of the work).

n 15.5

per cent (48 journals) had an overall considered, positive statement regarding animal welfare or the ethics of animal use.

n 7.12

per cent (22 journals) required that appropriate anaesthesia and analgesia had been used to minimise discomfort, distress and pain.

n 4.9

per cent (15 journals) stipulated that information relevant to the interpretation of the data should be included within the article (such as species, strain, housing conditions etc).

ER

P 3R s H M i ous n i m in g ise Eu pain tha na s Hu Tra ia ma ini ne en ng dp Inf oin orm t s ati on

No 0 1 policy found

No

0

me

nti

on Us Gu e ide l i n Ad he es re Sta nce tem en t

0

per cent (eight journals) required any euthanasia of an animal to have been carried out according to best contemporary practice.

n 0.3

per cent (one journal) required authors to confirm that individuals involved in the care and use of animals were trained and skilled to an acceptable level of competency.

n Moreover,

only 7.4 per cent of journals (23 journals) required adherence to the editorial publication policy as a condition for publication, meaning that irrespective of what stipulations they detailed within their policy, it was not a requirement to conform to them in order for an article to be published in their journal.



This is of concern to the RSPCA as these 184 journals collectively published a total of 25,274 articles, covering a substantial number of animals, of a variety of species, with a range of severity limits. The RSPCA believes that editorial policies should contain more specific requirements, if they are to realise their potential in contributing to more robust ethical review and better implementation of the 3Rs. On a more positive note, as a direct result of our correspondence, 21 journals (6.8 per cent) of the 309 found to have an editorial policy in this year’s survey, either adapted or are in the process of adapting their policies to include details relating to the use of animals. Furthermore of the 82 journals that had been assessed previously (25 per cent), four journals had changed their polices and showed an improvement on their scores from previous years. The RSPCA would like every scientific journal publishing research involving the use of animals to: n

n

n

acknowledge that the use of animals in scientific procedures raises serious ethical and welfare issues define the nature of the research that editors consider is acceptable/unacceptable for publication on ethical grounds request confirmation from authors that research has undergone a rigorous harm-benefit analysis as part of an ethical evaluation, and that animal welfare and other 3Rs issues have been properly addressed

n

n

n

n

be prepared to publish sufficient information on experimental design, the 3Rs and animal welfare in order to help disseminate this to the wider scientific community clearly explain what information authors need to include in papers for the research to be accepted for publication and make instructions easily accessible require reviewers to make sure the above points are taken into account in the papers they review require adherence to the editorial policy as a stipulation for publication.

The RSPCA has produced a leaflet outlining what is believed to be included in journal publication policies. A number of journals and publishers have shown an interest in it and are working with us to adapt their editorial policies. In the coming year the Society will be working with journals and publishers on a separate project with the hope of encouraging journals to adopt policies, tailored to their own particular publications, which relate to the use of animals in research and testing. By developing journal policies, the RSPCA believes that significant advances can be made in the welfare of the many animals used in research each year.

Less than 20 per cent of journals required that research submitted had undergone ethical review.

Footnotes and references 1 This information was obtained using Michael Newman’s (Stanford University, USA) protocol to undertake a targeted interrogation of the Entrez Pubmed records database (www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/PubMed), searching for English language journals which have published original research articles tagged as involving animal use.

79 xxxx xxxxx


Introduction WILDLIFE indicators There were many occurrences with repercussions for the UK’s wildlife in 2008, both good and bad. These included strategies to tackle disease outbreaks and non-native species in the UK, influential conferences, changes to legislation and the release of valuable scientific research findings.

n Taking on board the findings of recent scientific research8, young birds in all RSPCA wildlife centres have been played recordings of the dawn chorus since June 2008. These recordings should help young fledglings to develop their natural song repertoires, and so increase their chances of survival after release.

n News for badgers was mixed as strategies to tackle bovine TB in cattle were announced. Although the Independent Scientific Group had recommended against badger culling, the Welsh Assembly Government announced that a badger cull would, in principle, take place1. A more welcome stance was taken by Defra, which ruled out a cull and committed additional funds to develop usable badger and cattle vaccines.

n Support for the RSPCA’s stance against the keeping of primates as pets was garnered at the International Primatological Society (IPS) conference in Edinburgh. More than 360 experts have now signed up to our joint statement with the Monkey Sanctuary Trust, which states that if primates are kept by private keepers, it should only be for the purposes of sanctuary or species conservation, and not simply for companionship. Members of the wildlife department also attended the winter meeting of the Primate Society of Great Britain, where the subject was discussed and more support gained. As a result of our dialogue, the IPS has passed a policy statement voicing opposition to the practice of keeping these animals as pets.

n The RSPCA contributed towards a series of best practice guides produced by the Deer Initiative, which aim to safeguard the welfare of both deer and humans2. The Society produced a factsheet on road traffic accidents involving deer, which covered ways to reduce the risk of accidents and what to do if an injured animal is found3.

n In May, the Great Britain Non-Native Species Secretariat published their Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain9; the RSPCA responded to a public consultation on this in 2007. It sets out a strategy to deal with non-native species deemed to be invasive, such as American mink and ruddy ducks, and covers topics including prevention, early detection, mitigation and control measures.

n Further scientific research was published which strengthens the case against keeping elephants in zoos. Defra commissioned research, part-funded by the RSPCA, that found very high rates of lameness, obesity and abnormal, stereotypic behaviour in UK zoo elephants4. Another study, published in the journal Science, reported vastly reduced lifespans in European zoo elephants compared to counterparts living in the wild and in timber camps5. n Discarded fishing tackle remains a significant problem for swans in England and Wales. RSPCA data shows n The UK government conducted a public consultation there is little sign of improvement in the proportion of on the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The RSPCA swans affected by discarded fishing line and hooks10. responded, highlighting the risk to animals if proposed changes were adopted. These included removing all n Although the number of wild-caught birds imported into reference to animal welfare from the Act and at least the UK has all but ceased since an import ban came doubling the time between inspections. Although the into force in July 2007, worryingly, numbers of wild- UK government thankfully recognised the role of the Act caught reptiles continue to rise11. in pre-empting animal welfare problems, it unfortunately intends to proceed with changes to licensing and Footnotes and references inspection requirements6 that will likely lessen 1 www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/report/final_report.pdf 2 www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/html/bestpractice.htm protection for animals. n The 23rd meeting of the Animals Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) took place in Switzerland7. A total of 24 agenda items were discussed, including the periodic review of CITES- protected species. Other topics covered were the conservation and management of sharks and criteria used to decide whether trade in a particular species is ‘sustainable’.

80 xxxx xxxxx

3 RSPCA. 2008. Factsheet: Road traffic accidents involving deer. www.rspca.org.uk 4 Harris M, Sherwin, C and Harris S. 2008. The welfare, housing and husbandry of elephants in UK zoos. Final report. 10 November 2008. Available online at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk 5 Clubb R, Rowcliffe M, Lee P, Mar K U, Moss C and Mason G J. 2008. Compromised survivorship in zoo elephants. Science 322(5908): 1649. 6 www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/protect/dwaa/review.htm 7 Scientific staff represented the Society at AC23 and worked alongside like-minded organisations to lobby decision-makers to protect animals from the negative impact of international trade. 8 Spencer K A, Harris S, Baker P J and Cuthill I C. 2007. Song development in birds: the role of early experience and its potential effect on rehabilitation success. Animal Welfare 16(1): 1–13. 9 The Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy of Great Britain. 2008. Available online at: www.nonnativespecies.org/documents/Invasive_NNS_Framework_Strategy_GB_E.pdf 10 See page xx of this document. 11 See page xx of this document.


WILDLIFE indicators

The proportion of stranded cetaceans by-caught around the UK

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

By-catch is the term used to describe non-targeted animals that are entangled, trapped or injured in fishing nets. The issue of by-catch continues to pose a significant threat to the welfare and conservation of cetaceans in waters around the UK and globally. The RSPCA is extremely concerned about the levels of suffering by-caught cetaceans endure. Cetaceans caught in nets can become injured as they struggle for freedom and eventually die if unable to return to the surface to breathe. As a result, some animals may later be found stranded dead or alive. Entanglement injuries can be used as an indicator that animals were previously caught in nets. The number of porpoises and dolphins dying in UK fisheries over the last 10 years has been consistently high, yet no consistent effort of mitigation has been undertaken, even though enforcement of UK cetacean by-catch legislation would bring a reduction in the frequency of by-catch. The RSPCA believes the government must take action to enforce such legislation, and must be proactive in supporting research into alternative fishing technology and by-catch mitigation methods, with the aim of eliminating all cetacean by-catch.

It has been estimated that almost 60,000 cetaceans are killed throughout the world every year as a result of becoming tangled in fishing gear1. Common dolphins and harbour porpoises are the most frequent casualties of the UK fishing industry2; in 2008 it was estimated that 600 porpoises and 300 dolphins die per year in set net fisheries waters off the south-west coast3. The various fishing methods affect species differently; dolphins tend to get caught in pelagic (open ocean) trawls such as bass pair trawling, while porpoises are more often trapped in bottom-set gillnets and tangle nets. The issue of small cetacean (dolphin and porpoise) entanglement caused by UK fisheries was first highlighted in 1992, when large numbers of dead dolphins washed up on the beaches of Cornwall and Devon. Within the first three months of 1992, 118 dead dolphins were stranded, and post-mortem investigations revealed for the first time that the deaths of many of these animals could be attributed to by-catch4. Post-mortem evidence pointed clearly at a prolonged and traumatic death for the animals – blood-filled froth had started to form in the lungs, skin was lacerated by net meshes and teeth were broken, all suggesting a sustained struggle by these air-breathing mammals trapped underwater. Cetaceans are conscious breathers, and death was found to be a result of asphyxia when their oxygen supplies ran out4. In an attempt to identify the source of dolphin mortality, observers were placed on fishing vessels in south-west England between summer 1992 and spring 19945. The findings revealed that, rather than dolphins, many porpoises were dying in nets set on the sea floor (bottom-set gillnets). More than 2,000 porpoises were estimated to die as by-catch each year in that fishery alone5 – a level considered to be a threat to the survival of the population as well as a huge welfare concern. Subsequent studies in other European fisheries revealed dolphin deaths in trawl nets at a rate of one to two dolphins every 100 hours of fishing6. Efforts have been made to mitigate cetacean by-catch. Acoustic alarms (called ‘pingers’) have been developed to deter porpoises from gillnets and have proved effective at reducing porpoise by-catch by up to 90 per cent in trials in North America and south-west England7. More recent research into whether aspects of netting (such as tension) attract porpoises to nets has suggested some correlation but further work is needed3. Pingers, while promising, are not seen as the definitive solution to the problem8 and further fishing gear development is required. Ongoing work in the UK9 and in Europe is aiming to address the deaths of common dolphins in trawl nets. Mortality rates in the sea bass fishery in the English Channel and south-west approaches are



WILDLIFE indicators

extremely high and indicate that more than 900 common dolphins died in the UK bass fishery between 2000 and 200510 11. Many more French than UK boats use this fishery, so total mortality will be significantly greater. Research into designing escape hatches from trawl nets, and deterring dolphins from entering trawl nets using acoustic deterrent devices has shown that the latter method is more effective at reducing by-catch, however additional work is needed3. Under the EU Common Fisheries Policy, a regulation has been introduced to monitor and reduce cetacean by-catch in certain fisheries. The UK has adopted this regulation into domestic law12, thus placing an obligation on certain fisheries either to carry observers or to fix acoustic deterrent pingers onto their nets. Though the observer work is underway13, some fishermen are failing to comply with pinger requirements, as they believe that pingers are unreliable, costly and potentially dangerous14. Additionally, because these regulations only apply to boats that are 12 metres long or more, a large number of boats using bottom-set gillnets (known to cause porpoise deaths) are exempt from obligation.

The indicator figures The actual death toll of cetaceans in fisheries is unknown, but estimates can be made from observer programmes that sample a small proportion of fishing fleets, and from the analysis of carcasses found on beaches. The total number of cetaceans stranding on UK shores doubled over the 13 years between 1994 to 2006, from 360 to 71915 16. This is possibly due to the growth in a method of fishing known as pair trawling, used largely to catch sea bass. Since then however, the total number of cetacean strandings has decreased by almost 20 per cent, to 583 in 20082. Post-mortem examinations were conducted on stranded cetaceans that were not badly decomposed in order to try and determine the cause of death2 15 16 17. Figure 1 shows the numbers of stranded cetaceans examined, and the numbers of those deaths known to have been a result of by-catch. Figure 2 illustrates these figures as percentages. Until 2008, the proportion of deaths attributed to by-catch remained relatively consistent at around 20 per cent. However, just 7.3 per cent of animals post mortemed in 2008 were found to have been by-caught. This included eight harbour porpoises and two common dolphins – the lowest numbers recorded of both species for 18 years2. Many factors could be responsible for this decrease, including changes in distribution of prey, fishing effort and weather conditions, and/or cetaceans themselves2. It is also worth noting that two mass live stranding events occurred in 20082 18,

which will have affected the proportion of deaths attributed to by-catch. These post mortem figures don’t provide information on the scale of the problem, as most discarded carcasses never reach the beach19. There is no doubt that enforcement of UK and EU cetacean by-catch legislation could bring a reduction in the frequency of their entanglement in nets. The government must take action to enforce the legislation, and must be proactive in supporting research into alternative fishing technology and by-catch mitigation methods. While the fall in the number of cetacean strandings overall could be seen as encouraging, it is important to appreciate that this decrease is likely to be due to normal inter-annual variation in UK waters17. The proportion of cetaceans by-caught, meanwhile, has remained consistently high over the last 10 years and, despite a fall in 2008, shows no sign of a significant decline.

Figure 1: The number of stranded cetaceans examined and number of deaths caused by by-catch, 1994–2008 250

Stranded cetaceans examined at post-mortem By-catch

200

150

100

50

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Data source: Institute of Zoology.


WILDLIFE indicators

Figure 2: Proportion of total deaths (%) known to be caused by by-catch and other causes, 1994–2008 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

20 10 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

By-catch

Not established

Data source: Institute of Zoology.

83 xxxx xxxxx

Other causes

1 Joint Nature Conservation Committee website: www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1564 June 2009. 2 Deaville R and Jepson P D (compilers). 2009. UK Strandings Investigation Programme: Annual report to Defra for the period 1 January–31 December 2008 (contract number CR0364). 3 Sea Mammal Research Unit. 2008. Monitoring, Impact and Assessment of Marine Mammal By-catch. Research Project Final Report (Defra project code MF0736). 4 Kuiken T, Simpson V R et al. 1994. Mass mortality of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in south-west England due to incidental capture in fishing gear. Veterinary Record, 134, 81–89. 5 Tregenza N J C, Berrow S D, Hammond P S and Leaper R. 1997. Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by-catch in set gillnets in the Celtic Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54, 896–904. 6 Morizur Y, Tregenza N, Heessen H, Berrow S and Pouvreau S. 1996. By-catch and discarding in pelagic trawl fisheries. Report to European Commission DGXIV on study BIOECO/93/017. p.182. 7 Trippel E A, Strong M B, Terhune J M and Conway J D. 1999. Mitigation of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by-catch in the gillnet fishery in the lower Bay of Fundy. Can. J. Aquat. Sci. 56, 113–123. 8 Cox T M, Read A J, Solow A and Tregenza N. 2001. Will harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) habituate to pingers? Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 3, 81–86. 9 Sea Mammal Research Unit, St Andrews, UK. 10 Northridge S N, Sanderson D, Mackay A and Hammond PhS. 2003. Analysis and mitigation of cetacean by-catch in UK fisheries: final report to Defra Proj. MF0726, SMRU. P.25. 11 ICES. 2005. Interaction of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) and fisheries in the north-east Atlantic. www.ices.dk/advice/cetaceans/dolphinbycatchadvice.pdf Technical annex. 12 E.g. Sea Fisheries, England, Conservation S. I. 2005 No.17. The incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries (England) Order 2005. 13 Sea Mammal Research Unit. 2009. Annual Report of the United Kingdom to the European Commission on the implementation of Council Regulation 812/2004 on cetacean by-catch. Results of fishery observations collection during 2008. 14 Caslake R and Lart W. 2006. Trial of acoustic deterrents (‘porpoise pingers’) for prevention of porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) by-catch. Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) Project FEP 686A Extension Trial March 2006 Technology Implementation Department, Confidential Report number CR210. 15 Out of the Blue – The UK Whale & Dolphin Stranding Scheme. The Natural History Museum. 2005. 16 Deaville R and Jepson P D (compilers). 2007. UK Strandings Investigation Programme: Annual report to Defra for the period 1 January–31 December 2006 (contract number CR0346). 17 Deaville R and Jepson P D (compilers). 2008. UK Strandings Investigation Programme: Annual report to Defra for the period 1 January–31 December 2007 (contract number CR0346). 18 Deaville R and Jepson P D (compilers). 2009. Investigation of the common dolphin mass stranding event in Cornwall, 9 June 2008. 19 Of 22 porpoise bodies tagged then discarded from fishing vessels off Cornwall, none were found to strand. Cornwall Wildlife Trust: Dolphin group observations, 1992–1994.


WILDLIFE indicators

The number of imported wild-taken reptiles and birds as a proportion of the total trade into the UK and the EU

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

A huge range of live birds and reptiles is available for sale to hobbyists and the pet-keeping public from many sources including pet shops, commercial breeders and the internet. Hundreds of thousands of wild reptiles continue to be removed from the wild each year to supply the demands of the pet trade in the EU, including the UK. This is despite improvement in experienced keepers’ knowledge of the needs of many commonly-kept species, and the ability of commercial breeders to supply some species completely from captive-bred animals. UK and EU bird imports have decreased significantly following the introduction of EU legislation in October 2005, preventing the importation of live birds taken from the wild into all EU member states. The RSPCA will continue to monitor the trade in birds, but the ban appears to have all but halted trade in these animals. The RSPCA is concerned that where animals are taken from the wild, many suffer or die before being exported, during transportation and once held in captivity for the pet trade1 2. To prevent the suffering of these animals, the Society advocates far stricter regulations to stop their importation into the EU – the largest global market for reptiles. Stopping trade in animals taken from the wild will reduce the impact on wild populations and encourage traders to focus on species already available from captive-bred sources.

Many pet keepers in the UK assume that every animal on sale is captive-bred and that all wild animals are protected from the pet trade by international regulations. Both of these assumptions are untrue. International trade in wild animals is only regulated for species that are endangered or threatened by trade, and which are consequently listed on the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) appendices. This Convention is implemented through EU CITES trade regulations3 and enforced through the UK COTES (Control of Trade in Endangered Species) legislation4. Of the approximate 10,000 species of birds5 and 7,700 species of reptiles6 recorded in the wild, just under 15 per cent of bird species and eight per cent of reptile species are protected by CITES. In order to get an idea of the level of trade in reptiles and birds as well as the source of animals involved, it is necessary to look at more than one database. Figures on the movements of all animals into the EU and between EU member states are collated into the central EU database called TRACES (the Trade Control and Expert System) and the European Community Eurostat database. However, neither database records the source of the animals being traded, making it impossible to know how many are captured from the wild. In contrast, CITES data records source information but represents only a proportion of total trade as not all species are CITES-listed. Therefore CITES data has been used to monitor the source of animals and investigate any shifts in numbers taken from the wild compared to those bred in captivity. An added data complication now exists. Since deregulation7 in 2007, bird movements into the UK from the EU are apparently no longer recorded – making it almost impossible to monitor trends in total bird trade. Figures for CITES-listed reptiles and birds have been sub-divided according to the source assigned to each animal: wild-caught, captive-bred or ranched/captive-reared. Ranching involves the rearing in a controlled captive environment of specimens, such as eggs or hatchlings, which have been taken from the wild.

Total number of wild-caught, live CITES-listed reptiles imported into the EU. LITTLE CHANGE.

Total number of wild-caught, live CITES-listed reptiles imported into the UK. SLIGHT INCREASE.

Number of wild-caught reptiles as a proportion of the total trade in live CITES-listed reptiles imported in the EU. INCREASE.

Number of wild-caught reptiles as a proportion of the total trade in live CITES-listed reptiles imported into the UK. little change.


WILDLIFE indicators

For a more detailed explanation of CITES source codes used in this report and in-depth results, please refer to the Animal Welfare Footprint website: www.animalwelfarefootprint.com

The indicator figures – live reptiles Total live reptile trade (TRACES and Eurostat data) In terms of trade in all live reptiles, the Society estimated in 2006 that between 3.6 and 5.9 million live reptiles were imported into the EU that year8. This was based on 2005 EU data indicating that 1,613,842 reptiles were imported9. 178,2449 animals entered the UK from outside the EU in 2006, but only 1,4709 arrived from other EU member states. This means that 99 per cent of all live reptiles imported into the UK originated from outside the EU. In previous years, this has been from South American or African countries where CITES-listed reptile species are found in the wild10. Unfortunately, comparable data on the total number of individual reptiles imported into the EU in 2006/7, and into the UK in 2007/8, were not provided by the government so the latest trends cannot be shown11 12. Source of reptiles (CITES data) The number of live reptiles imported into the EU under CITES, and the proportion of these that were wild-caught, for 2000–2007 13 14,

are shown in Figure 3. At the time of writing, 2008 data were not available. Overall, the number of imports has increased slightly from 2006 to 339,209 animals. Reptiles taken from the wild accounted for 52.6 per cent of all imports in 2007 – an increase of 14.8 per cent on the previous year. There are now more than twice as many reptiles being caught from the wild and imported into the EU as there were in 2000. In the last two years alone, the number of wild-caught animals (i.e. removed from wild but not ranched) has more than doubled. Data for CITES trade into the UK from outside the EU between 2000 and 200813 14 are shown in Figure 4. Since 2000, the trade in live CITES-listed reptiles has increased, particularly between 2005 and 2006 where numbers jumped from 12,128 to 24,872 respectively. The total number of imports is now more than five times what it was in 2000, with an increase of 67 per cent between 2005 and 2008. While the proportion of animals taken from the wild decreased to 61 per cent in 2008, this is more likely due to a rise in the number of captive-bred reptiles rather than a fall in the number of animals taken from the wild. In actual fact, the number of wild-caught animals increased by four per cent between 2007 and 2008. It will be interesting to see whether the increase in captive-bred animals continues in the coming years. Reptile trade seems to have been increasing steadily since 2000, possibly due to a rise in popularity of keeping these animals as pets. The greatest impact on wild animal trade since October 2005 is probably the introduction of EU-wide legislation that stopped the

Figure 3: Total number of CITES-listed reptiles imported into the EU, and proportion (%) of these reptiles that were obtained from the wild, 2000–2007 350,000

60

300,000

50

250,000 40 200,000 30 150,000 20 100,000 10

50,000 0

2000

2001

2002

2003

Total number of CITES-listed reptiles imported into EU

2004

2005

2006

2007

0

Proportion of these CITES-listed reptiles that were wild-caught (%)

Data source: UK government and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre.


WILDLIFE indicators

Figure 4: Total number of CITES-listed reptiles imported into the UK from outside the EU, and proportion (%) of these reptiles that were obtained from the wild, 2000–2008 u{{{{

z{

tv{{{

y{ x{

t{{{{

w{ sv{{{ v{ s{{{{ u{ rv{{{ t{ r{{{{

s{

v{{{

r{

{ s{{{

s{{r

s{{s

s{{t

Total number of CITES-listed reptiles imported into UK

s{{u

s{{v

s{{w

s{{x

s{{y

{

Proportion of CITES-listed reptiles that were wild-caught (%)


importation of wild birds into all EU member states on health grounds in an effort to reduce the risk of transmission and spread of avian influenza15. There is always a risk that the suspension of one trade may contribute to a shift in the effort of trappers and exporters, as demands change, towards different animals in order to maintain business. The overall growth in reptile trade into the UK over the last three years (Figure 3) could therefore have occurred following a shift from exporting wild birds towards wild reptiles. To support such a shift, a wild-bird keeper in the EU would need to be willing to shift their interest to wild-caught reptiles, in preference to acquiring captive-bred birds that are already kept and sold in the EU to supply the trade. It is possible that heightened public concern about potential disease – namely avian influenza – may have led to pet keepers preferring reptiles over birds. Commercial pet retailers may also be intentionally shifting their efforts towards buying and selling reptiles to the public, in response to the stop on imports of wild-caught birds. Following the implementation of the US import ban of wild CITESlisted birds in 199216, there was a temporary peak in the number of live reptiles imported the following year (totaling 3.29 million reptiles; 15 per cent more than the previous year). However, numbers then decreased each subsequent year until reaching a low in 1996 of

0.72 million animals17. It is currently unclear whether the growth seen in reptile trade into the UK and EU will follow a similar trend in the long term. A large proportion of the reptiles imported from the wild into the EU do so without any monitoring or controls on the numbers exported for the pet market – raising concerns about how few reptile species are protected from international trade. While the RSPCA fully supports the end of the wild-bird trade into the EU on welfare grounds, the Society would not welcome any subsequent shift within the pet trade to another taxa of sentient animals, such as to reptiles, or an increase in the pet trade targeting non-CITES-listed animals. Whatever the reason(s) for the increase in reptile imports, trade into the EU of over a million live reptiles demonstrates a need for regulation of the reptile trade into, and within, the EU. The importation of species most vulnerable to suffering and mortality once captured and removed from the wild should be restricted. Reptile traders and keepers also have a responsibility to carefully consider the source of the animal to be acquired; to choose species in the trade that can be supplied from captive-bred animals; and to provide the facilities and care necessary to secure the animals’ welfare when kept in captivity.


WILDLIFE indicators

The indicator figures – wild birds Total live bird trade (TRACES and Eurostat data) Obtaining data regarding the total trade of birds into the EU and UK is extremely difficult. Historical figures for the number of all birds imported into the EU appear to be unreliable, as numbers provided are lower than CITES-listed species alone (e.g. 521,90618 in 2005 cf. 524,850 CITES-listed birds)8. It was not possible to obtain current figures on the number of birds imported into the EU between 2000 and 200812. Looking at the trade of all bird species into the UK shows that only 54 birds were imported in 2006 for conservation purposes, compared to over 50,000 in previous years9. Unfortunately, comparable figures for 2007 and 2008 were not provided by the government11 12, however due to the current import ban it is highly likely that this trend has continued. Despite the deregulation of birds moving from the EU into the UK being cited as the reason for lack of data in our 2007 report, the government this year was able to provide data on the import of birds into the UK between 2004 and 200812. The number of birds imported into the UK from within the EU rose dramatically; the import total in 2008 was almost 130 times what it was in 2004. The greatest increase occurred between 2004 (48,725 birds) and 2005 (3,049,918 birds), the year in which the ban on wild bird imports was implemented. This may be due to keepers and sellers seeking to obtain birds (both captive-bred and wild) from within the EU open market rather than from source countries in anticipation of the ban and also as a result of concern over avian ‘flu. In contrast, the overall number of birds imported from outside the EU

decreased by 99.8 per cent between 2004 and 2008. The largest fall was in 2006, again following the introduction of the bird import ban. Numbers fell from a high of 71,898 in 2005 to 291 animals the next year; this decrease appears to have continued, with the number imported in 2008 being 89. Source of reptiles (CITES data) Figures 5 and 6 show the CITES-listed birds imported into the EU as a whole and into the UK from outside the EU, and the proportion of these birds that were wild-caught. Thousands of wild-caught CITES-listed birds were imported annually into the EU between 2002 and 200514, but following the EU-wide ban on imports of wild birds15, the trade in CITES-listed species has all but ceased (Figure 5). Looking at CITES-listed bird imports into the UK, the figures show a similar trend (Figure 6). From UK and EU bird import figures, it seems that, while overall trade remains high, the import ban on wild birds has effectively ended the legal trade in wild-caught CITES-listed birds. The RSPCA supports the European Commission’s decision to amend EU legislation and introduce a permanent ban on the importation of wild-caught birds into the EU. However, the Society also welcomes the continued monitoring of trade in all species of birds and reptiles, particularly as there are some early indications that trade may be shifting from birds to reptiles. A close watch on the total trade (including species not listed on CITES) is needed to monitor whether trade in particular species should be controlled or stopped on welfare grounds.

Figure 5: Total number of CITES-listed birds imported into the EU, and proportion (%) of these birds that were obtained from the wild, 2000–2007 100

900,000

90

800,000

80

700,000

70 600,000 60 500,000

50

400,000

40

300,000

30

200,000

20

100,000

10

0

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

Total number of CITES-listed birds imported into EU

2004

2005

2006

2007

Proportion of these CITES-listed birds that were wild-caught (%)



WILDLIFE indicators

Figure 6: Total number of CITES-listed birds imported into the UK from outside the EU, and proportion (%) of these birds that were obtained from the wild, 2000–2008 80,000

100 90

70,000

80 60,000 70 50,000

60 50

40,000

40

30,000

30 20,000

20

10,000

10 0

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Total number of CITES-listed birds imported into UK

2005

2006

2007

2008

Proportion of CITES-listed birds that were wild-caught (%)


FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

Total number of wild-caught, live CITES-listed birds imported into the EU. Little change, trade has virtually ceased.

Total number of wild-caught, live CITES-listed birds imported into the UK. Little change, trade has virtually ceased.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Altherr S and Freyer D. 2001. Mortality and morbidity in private husbandry of reptiles. RSPCA. Maas B. 2000. Prepared and shipped – A multidisciplinary review of the effects of capture, handling, housing and transport on morbidity and mortality. RSPCA. Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (and subsequent amendments). The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997. Birdlife International website: www.birdlife.org CITES website: www.CITES.org Animal Health. July 2008. Pers comm. The welfare state: Measuring animal welfare in the UK 2006. RSPCA. Lord Rooker, House of Lords written answers, 26 January 2007. CAWC. 2003. The report on the welfare of non-domesticated animals kept for companionship. Jonathan Shaw, Defra minister, Hansard, 30 April 2008. Huw Irranca-Davies, MP, Hansard, 14 July 2009. Hansard. 9 May 2006. CITES trade statistics derived from the CITES Trade Database, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. European Commission Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC, as amended by Decision 2005/862/EC, Decision 2006/79/EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2007. Wild Bird Conservation Act in 1992. Franke J and Telecky T. 2001. Reptiles as pets – An examination of the trade in olive reptiles. Lord Rooker, Minister of State (Lords), Hansard, 18 December 2006.


WILDLIFE indicators

The provision of quality written information for the sale of non-domestic pets (reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals) in a sample of outlets

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Before acquiring any animal it is essential for the animal’s welfare that the person responsible for its care is fully prepared and understands the animal’s long-term needs in captivity, whether it be a dog, rabbit or less common pet such as a snake or a terrapin. There is a diverse range of animals available to keep as pets, which can be acquired from many different sources. These include breeders, specialist pet shops that sell non-domestic animals, generalist pet shops, pet fairs, animal auctions, animal centres, small-ad papers, hobbyist groups, distance sellers (such as the internet), and from friends and family. The animals may have been bred in the UK, bred overseas or caught in the wild before being exported for sale. The RSPCA believes that to help inform the person thinking about keeping an animal as a pet, anyone selling or rehoming the animal has a responsibility to help provide good-quality husbandry advice appropriate for the species.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England and Wales clearly recognises the responsibility of any pet keeper to take reasonable steps to meet the animal’s welfare needs in captivity. The Animal Welfare Bill’s Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) also recognised the responsibility of pet vendors to help educate prospective buyers in the husbandry and care of animals on sale, both domestic and non-domestic species. It was therefore advocated in the RIA that all commercial vendors of pet animals should issue information leaflets; a requirement that may be incorporated into new pet vending regulations1. In 2002, the RSPCA commissioned research to investigate the ownership of non-domestic pets or ‘exotics’ (that is, animals such as reptiles and amphibians), including where the animals were acquired2. The surveys completed by keepers from around the UK (who kept reptiles, amphibians or insects) revealed that pets were acquired from four main sources: 51.2 per cent from a non-domestic (specialist) pet shop; 16.6 per cent from a general pet shop; 22.5 per cent from a private breeder; and 9.8 per cent from a friend or relative. The same respondents were also asked what husbandry advice they were given. Almost half were given only verbal advice by the seller, 31.2 per cent were given written information and 20.5 per cent were given no husbandry advice at all. The pet keepers then went on to state, when asked, that the most common problem they experienced with their pet was the lack of information provided by the supplier. As two-thirds of suppliers in the study were identified as being either specialist or generalist pet shops, that sector of the pet trade clearly provides an important source for passing on advice to those considering or already keeping a companion animal. Pet shops play an important role in helping inform the pet-buying public about the needs of animals in captivity and what equipment and long-term care is required once the animal is taken home. Therefore the RSPCA has carried out research into the provision of good-quality written information, appropriate for the non-domestic animals on sale in the pet shops.



WILDLIFE indicators

The type of information recorded and scored is based on the five welfare needs of animals as outlined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006: an animal’s need for a suitable environment, a suitable diet, opportunities to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, any need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals, and its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

A sample of pet shops in England and Wales were surveyed between January and May 2009. Information is gathered on the type of non-domestic animals on sale from four broad animal groups: mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The availability of good-quality, appropriate information on the welfare needs of animals on display is also monitored, both on display near enclosures and in a form that can be taken away for reference by those considering or intending to buy an animal. n

Information scoring

The type of information recorded and scored is based on the five welfare needs of animals as outlined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006: an animal’s need for a suitable environment (e.g. enclosure size); a suitable diet (e.g. food type, and provision of water); opportunities to exhibit normal behaviour patterns (e.g. branches for climbing/ perching); any need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals (grouping and issues of breeding); and its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease (e.g. health issues, the need to seek veterinary advice). Other issues considered desirable for pet shops to cover included: adult size, lifespan, source (e.g. captive-bred or wild-caught), price and sources of further information (e.g. staff, websites, free care sheets). Surveyors were also asked to note if staff approached them and volunteered any care information. Further details on the survey methods and more detailed results are available at: www.animalwelfarefootprint.com

Figure 7: Availability of different animal groups in surveyed pet shops, 2009 80 70 60 % Pet shops

The indicator figures

50 40 30 20 10 0 Invertebrates Fish

Mammals

Birds Amphibians Reptiles

Data source: RSPCA.


WILDLIFE indicators

Table 1: Estimated number of non-domesticated animals on sale in surveyed pet shops Estimated number of animals on sale Extrapolation to pet shops across all Average per shop (range) Total of England and Wales

Mammals

24 (2–97)

2,837

6,803

Birds

39 (1–147)

3,548

8,512

Reptiles

48 (2–410)

3,817

8,934

Amphibians

10 (1–70)

498

1,070

Fish

675 (7–3,000)

67,518

161,661

Invertebrates

74 (1–2,500)

4,160

9,937

Total

82,378

196,917

Data source: RSPCA.

n

Animals on sale

Out of 226 pet shops spread across England and Wales that were investigated 168 sold animals belonging to at least one of the four target groups; the remainder either did not sell any target animals or no longer appeared to be in business. As in last year’s survey, mammals were sold in the largest proportion of shops, followed by fish, birds, reptiles, invertebrates, then amphibians (see Figure 7). An estimated 10,700 animals belonging to the four target groups (mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians) were on sale. On top of this, around 67,500 fish3 and 4,200 invertebrates were recorded (see Table 1). Although not every pet shop across England and Wales was visited in this study, data gathered from the surveyed sample can be used to get some idea of the total number of animals on sale. Assuming a similar proportion of non-surveyed pet shops held target animals (74 per cent), and in similar proportions (see Figure 7), it

is estimated that more than 25,000 mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians were on sale across England and Wales, and a further 162,000 fish and 10,000 invertebrates (see Table 1). The most common species on sale, across the four groups, are shown in Table 2. The distribution of species has changed little from last year. Hamsters, mice and rats were the most commonly sold mammals, followed by gerbils and chinchillas. Rarer species included chipmunks and sugargliders. Budgies were the most popular bird, followed by canaries and finches. Cockatiels, macaws, large parrots and parakeets were found in 17 to 24 per cent of surveyed shops. Most shops that sold reptiles stocked various species of lizards and snakes, although tortoises were also popular. Fewer shops sold terrapins and crocodilians (e.g. caimans). Amphibians were the least common group on sale, mainly consisting of various species of frogs and toads.


WILDLIFE indicators

Table 2: Number of surveyed pet shops that sold each animal type Animals on sale No. of % Animals on sale No. of % Animals on sale No. of shops shops shops

%

Mammals

122

72.6

Birds

96

57.1 Reptiles

80

47.6

Hamster

102

60.7

Budgie

82

48.8

Lizard

77

45.8

Mouse/rat

92

54.8

Canary

62

36.9

Snake

65

38.7

Gerbil/jird

74

44

Finch

62

36.9

Tortoise/turtle

58

34.5

Chinchilla

43

25.6

Cockatiel

41

24.4

Terrapin

24

14.3

Degu

21

12.5

Macaw/large parrot

32

19

Crocodilian

4

2.4

Chipmunk

10

6

Parakeet

29

17.3

Amphibians

42

25

Sugar glider

3

1.8

Lovebird

21

12.5

Frog

31

18.5

Primate

1

0.6

Conure

8

4.8

Toad

19

11.3

Other

46

27.4

Other

36

21.4

Salamander

12

7.1

104

61.9 Invertebrates

58

34.5

Newt

7

4.2

Fish Data source: RSPCA.

Pet shops play an important role in helping inform the pet-buying public about the needs of animals in captivity and what equipment and long-term care is required once the animal is taken home. Therefore the RSPCA has carried out research into the provision of good-quality written information, appropriate for the non-domestic animals on sale in the pet shops.


WILDLIFE indicators

Figure 8: Availability of written information on signage displayed in pet shops for at least one of the four groups surveyed 90

2007 80

2008

70

% Pet shops

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Price

Info other than price

One or more welfare needs'

All five 'welfare needs'

Adult size

Lifespan

Source of animal

Sources of further information

Data source: RSPCA.

n Care

information provided to potential buyers – on signs

Most pet shops (83.3 per cent) displayed some sort of written information about at least one of the four species surveyed. However, the cost of the animal was most commonly on display, and only about half (57.7 per cent) of shops displayed information in addition to price, which is similar to last year’s survey (see Figure 8). Availability of information specific to animals’ welfare needs (environment, diet, behaviour, social grouping and health) showed little change compared to last year (see Figure 8). Almost half (47.6 per cent) of pet shops displayed this information on signs for at least one of the surveyed species, but just over one in 10 (14.3 per cent) provided information on all five aspects of welfare (see Figure 8). Compared to last year, a similar proportion of shops provided some welfare-related information for at least one surveyed species (see Figure 8). Information relating to the provision of a suitable environment, substrates to allow the performance of natural behaviours and diet were displayed on signage by between 35.7 and 39.9 per cent of shops, which is slightly higher than last year.

Health-related information, such as signs of ill health to look out for and mention of the need to take the animal to a vet if it became ill was the least often provided (21.4 per cent of shops, compared to 16.2 per cent recorded last year). No change was seen in the proportion of shops that displayed information about the lifespan of the species, and therefore the degree of commitment required of buyers, which was reported on signage in around a quarter of shops (see Figure 8). An important aspect that people should consider before buying a pet is how large the animal can grow; particularly when buying a reptile. Similar to last year’s results, reptiles most often had this sort of information on display (26.2 per cent of reptiles surveyed). Some shops sold boa constrictors, which can grow to more than three metres in length, yet this information was not always displayed to the public. Information regarding the source of the animal (e.g. bred in captivity or taken from the wild) was rarely displayed for any animal but reptiles most commonly had this information on display (21.3 per cent of shops). Several shops also informed potential buyers of an owner’s duty of care to meet their animal’s needs under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.


WILDLIFE indicators

Figure 9: Availability of written information to be taken away from pet shops free of charge for at least one of the four groups surveyed 40

2007 2008

35 30

% Pet shops

25 20 15 10 5 0

One or more 'welfare needs'


Adult size

Lifespan

Source of animal


Data source: RSPCA.

n Care

information provided to potential buyers – free written information to take away

Results relating to the availability of free care sheets are presented in Figure 9. Care sheets were available to members of the public in a third of shops surveyed (33.9 per cent), which is very similar to last year (34.2 per cent). An additional 3.6 per cent of shops usually did hold care sheets but they were unavailable at the time of the survey (e.g. because they were being updated) and another 9.5 per cent held care sheets on some species, but not those selected for the survey. Therefore, around half of shops surveyed usually held care sheets of some description. However, as with previous years, most care sheets were collected in a single chain of pet stores – Pets at Home – and discounting these brought the proportion down to just 14.3 per cent (compared to seven per cent last year). Of these, most appeared to produce their own care sheets, although some provided care sheets produced by the Pet Care Trust or pet food manufacturers.

When care sheets were provided, at least one of the five welfare needs of the animal in question was always covered, and 84.2 per cent contained information on all five aspects, which is very similar to the situation reported last year. There is thus much more information provided in care sheets, when they are available, than on signage. A high proportion of sheets also provided valuable information about the expected lifespan of the animal (80.7 per cent of sheets). Overall, free information in some form (either on signs in store or in care sheets) was available in 84.5 per cent of shops surveyed, compared to 82 per cent last year. Excluding the price of animals on sale brings this down to just over half of the shops surveyed, around the same as last year (see Figure 10). Welfare-related information, covering at least one of the five ‘welfare needs’ as described in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, was provided for just over half of the animals surveyed, but only about a third covered all five ‘needs’. Most shops did not provide specifics on the source of animals or the number of years they could live (see Figure 10).


WILDLIFE indicators

Figure 10: Availability of any sort of free written information in surveyed pet shops for at least one of the four groups surveyed 90

2007

80

2008

70

% Pet shops

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Price

Info other than price

One or more 'welfare needs'


Adult size

Lifespan

Source of animal


Data source: RSPCA.

n

Information provided by staff

An additional avenue of information delivery is of course from staff in store. Members of staff approached surveyors in over half of the shops surveyed (52.4 per cent of shops), which is around the same as last year (59.5 per cent). Staff were very helpful and knowledgeable in several stores, and in some cases made it clear that they would not sell an animal unless they were confident the buyer fully understood the animal’s needs and the level of commitment required. Overall, the availability of free written information has changed little compared to last year. Around half of surveyed shops provided information other than the price of the animal on sale, and only a third provided free care sheets (14 per cent if a major pet chain is discounted). More encouragingly, when written care information is provided, the scope of the information is quite wide.

Improvements could still be made, though, in both signage and the availability of free care sheets. Staff represent an important source of information and can check that people know what they are taking on before they buy a new pet. However, good-quality, written information remains a vital means of informing potential pet owners, allowing them to mull over the options and make the correct choice, both for them and the animal. Pet shop regulations under the Animal Welfare Act (2006) have not yet been drafted. It is hoped that the regulations will improve the availability of care sheets. The Welsh Assembly Government has produced codes of practice on the care of dogs, cats and horses. It is expected that others will follow. These codes are not yet available in England. Without any codes of practice, pet shops are reliant on care sheets produced by their own trade association, their head office or their staff. Therefore, different advice and information will be available.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/act/secondary-legis/petsales_fairs.htm 2 Wells D. (2002). The ownership and welfare of exotic pets. RSPCA. 3 Although all numbers are estimates, figures for fish should be treated with caution due to the difficulty in counting individuals, especially of smaller species.


WILDLIFE indicators

The proportion of fishing tackle-related swan incidents recorded by the RSPCA

welfare indicator:

RSPCA concern

Background

Litter is responsible for the injury and death of thousands of animals each year. Lost and discarded fishing tackle is part of this problem, and poses a significant threat to a range of wildlife and other animals, but particularly swans. Discarded fishing line, hooks and weights used by anglers are responsible for thousands of phone calls made to the RSPCA about swans each year. Fishing tackle can also present a hazard to swans while it is being used. While it is inevitable that casualties will occur as long as humans live alongside wildlife, the RSPCA believes that education and public awareness is the key to ensuring that as few swans (and other animals) as possible suffer unnecessarily due to the carelessness of humans.

Lost and discarded fishing tackle presents a real hazard to wildlife: hooks are swallowed and pierce through skin; weights and floats are ingested; and line is swallowed and becomes wrapped around bodies and limbs. As a result, discarded fishing tackle can cause painful injuries, internal blockages, poisoning and sometimes death. Swans are particularly badly affected. Fishing tackle has been identified as the single most important cause of mute swan rescues1 and admissions to an RSPCA wildlife centre2. It has been estimated that 8,000 swan rescues take place each year in Britain, with 3,000 caused by fishing tackle1. This could of course underestimate the true scale of the problem, as many swans may go unnoticed and/or unreported. Lead poisoning resulting from the ingestion of fishing weights has also caused significant mortality in swans, although in recent years, as lead weights have been replaced, this appears to be a less significant, albeit lingering problem2. In addition to discarded and lost tackle, observations suggest that a significant proportion of incidents are caused by swans eating baited hooks or swimming through lines while they are in use1; unattended fishing rods thus pose a particular threat. Education and awareness-raising initiatives obviously play a key role in fostering greater care and vigilance and teaching good angling practice. Codes of practice and coaching courses initiated by some angling organisations go some way towards achieving this, but given that most problems appear to involve anglers that are inexperienced or of average skill1, further outreach may be required in order to engage more casual anglers who are not members of any organisation.



WILDLIFE indicators

Figure 11: Proportion of swan incidents recorded by the RSPCA that involved fishing tackle, 2000–2008 30

Proportion of phonecalls about swans

25

20

15

10

5

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source: RSPCA.

The indicator figures The proportion of swan incidents recorded by the RSPCA that involve fishing tackle has been monitored. Data indicate that the vast majority of incidents involve mute swans, but data on all species of swan are included. An increase in incidents could indicate more carelessness and less public concern, but, equally, it could indicate a higher rate of reporting by a more vigilant and compassionate public. Figures could also be affected by other factors, such as swan numbers and the activity of rescue groups. Regardless of the underlying causes, the RSPCA takes the view that any human-induced harm to wildlife is a potential cause for concern and is therefore worthy of monitoring. Two sources of RSPCA data, covering 2000 to 2008, were used: 1) telephone calls made to the RSPCA’s cruelty and advice line by members of the public regarding swans and fishing tackle (these include unconfirmed accounts but this should not affect any trends over time), and 2) admission records of mute swans from three of the RSPCA’s four wildlife centres3.

Between 2000 and 2008, the number of calls about swans and fishing tackle fell by 45 per cent, from 3,590 to 1,959, most notably between 2003 and 2004; and by 10 per cent between 2007 and 2008. However, the RSPCA has seen a decline in all calls over the nine-year period (by 31 per cent), as well as between 2007 and 2008 (by seven per cent). The long-term pattern could be attributed to changes in the way calls were handled over this period, including the establishment of the RSPCA’s National Control Centre. There are various other factors that could influence the absolute number of calls, and so from a trend point of view the proportion of calls about swans that involved fishing tackle gives a more informative picture. Figure 11 shows a slight drop in the proportion of tackle-related calls received from 2006, when it went from 26–27 per cent (of 2,698–3,590 calls about swans) to 22–23 per cent (of 1,959–2,371 calls about swans) of calls each year. No change has been seen over the last year.


WILDLIFE indicators

Figure 12: Proportion of mute swans affected by fishing tackle admitted to three RSPCA wildlife centres, 2000–2008 15

Proportion of mute swans admitted

12.5

10

7.5

5

2.5

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Data source: RSPCA.

Looking at admissions to RSPCA wildlife centres, recent years have seen fewer mute swans admitted in total (from 920 in 2000 to 823 in 2008) and fewer suffering from tackle-related injuries (from 113 in 2000 to 92 in 2008). More importantly, Figure 12 shows the proportion of swan admissions that involved fishing tackle. The slight drop seen in 2006 and 2007 (from 11 and 15 to nine per cent of admissions) might have been a normal variation in the data, as figures crept up to 11 per cent in 2008, which is comparable to proportions seen in 2002 and 2004. The results to date are still somewhat inconclusive regarding longterm changes, but over the last year, no improvement has been seen in the proportion of swans affected by fishing tackle.

An increase in incidents could indicate more carelessness and less public concern, but, equally, it could indicate a higher rate of reporting by a more vigilant and compassionate public.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Perrins C, Martin P and Broughton B. 2002. The impact of lost and discarded fishing line and tackle on mute swans. R&D Technical Report W-051/TR. Environment Agency, Bristol. 2 Kelly A and Kelly S. 2004. Fishing tackle injury and blood lead levels in mute swans. Water birds 27(1): 60–68. 3 Data from the RSPCA’s fourth wildlife centre was not included due to incompatible recording methods.


For more information on this report, e-mail:

[email protected]

phone:

0300 123 0212

External affairs, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RS write to:

visit:

www.animalwelfarefootprint.com