Fw: Advocates for Animals'' latest news release - DELIGHT AT EXECUTIVE''S PLAN TO BAN ALL TAIL-DOCKING IN SCOTLAND - 21 February 2006

Originally from: coleen
                        
Good news for dogs...but notice the part about wide speeping SLAUGHTER powers in the event of a disease outbreak.

Coleen

----- Original Message -----
From: ...

Originally from: "Alexis Lacy" <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: Advocates for Animals' latest news release – DELIGHT AT EXECUTIVE'S PLAN TO BAN ALL TAIL-DOCKING IN SCOTLAND – 21 February 2006

DELIGHT AT EXECUTIVE'S PLAN TO BAN ALL TAIL-DOCKING IN SCOTLAND

Advocates for Animals today congratulates the Scottish Executive on its
announcement that it plans to prohibit all tail-docking of dogs in
Scotland
under the new Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill. The new position
was revealed today in the Executive's response (1) to the Environment and
Rural Development's Stage 1 Report (2). However, Advocates is disappointed
that the Executive is not willing to include animals such as lobsters and
octopuses in the Bill's definition of 'animal' and is very concerned at
the
Executive's planned broad sweeping slaughter powers in the event of a
disease outbreak.

TAIL-DOCKING OF DOGS
Tail-docking is the painful amputation, without anaesthetic, of all or
part
of a dog's tail. Both the British Veterinary Association (BVA) and British
Small Animals Veterinary Association support Advocates' call for all
tail-docking to be prohibited in Scotland, except for the therapeutic
docking of an injured or diseased tail. All major veterinary bodies agree
that tail-docking causes pain in puppies; the BVA states that ".puppies
suffer unnecessary pain as a result of tail-docking, and are deprived of a
vital form of canine expression." Despite claims by pro-dockers that there
should be an exemption for working dogs, the BVA states that it ".sees no
justification for an exemption for working dogs". The Executive rightly
notes that there is no reliable scientific evidence from other countries
that a ban on tail-docking has resulted in an increase in tail injuries to
working dogs.

DEFINITION OF ANIMAL
Advocates is disappointed that the Executive does not plan to include
cephalopods (e.g. octopuses) and decapod crustaceans (e.g. lobsters and
crabs) in its definition of "animal". The Scientific Panel on Animal
Health
and Welfare of the European Food Safety Authority recently concluded,
after
examining the scientific evidence, that decapod crustaceans and
cephalopods
are able to experience pain and distress and accordingly should receive
legislative protection. It is important to note that a number of
jurisdictions – including New Zealand, Norway, Austria, the Australian
Capital Territory and Queensland Australia – include some or all of these
creatures in their legislation's definition of "animal".

SLAUGHTER POWERS
The Bill gives the Executive very wide powers to slaughter animals to
control a disease outbreak. Ministers can order animals to be slaughtered
even if they are not infected with disease; even if they have not been in
contact with infected animals; and even if they have not been in any way
exposed to the disease. These new powers are unacceptably broad and would
enable the Executive to order the slaughter of even more animals than in
the
2001 foot-and-mouth epidemic. Advocates is disappointed that the Executive
is opposing an express requirement on the face of the Bill that any use of
the slaughter powers should be dependent on the Minister first having
sought
and considered appropriate veterinary and scientific advice. Advocates
also
believes that the powers are still far too wide-ranging and open to abuse.
In addition Advocates believes that Ministers' slaughter powers should be
curtailed in the case of pet or sanctuary animals as the usual monetary
compensation cannot compensate their owners for the loss of these rescued,
pet or companion animals.

Advocates' Director, Ross Minett, says: "We are absolutely delighted that
the Executive has had a change of heart on the issue of tail-docking and
is
now proposing a complete ban of this outdated and unjustifiable
mutilation.

It is, however, disappointing that the Executive is refusing to include
animals such as lobsters and octopuses in the Bill's definition of
'animal'.
Given the clear conclusion of the EU's Scientific Panel on Animal Health
and
Welfare that these creatures are able to experience pain and distress, the
onus is surely now on the Minister to justify why he refuses to include
these animals within the new legislation.

We are also disappointed that the Executive is refusing to have a
requirement on the face of the Bill that it should seek veterinary and
scientific advice before using its new slaughter powers as this leaves the
powers open to abuse. We also believe these powers to be far too
wide-ranging.

Though we have some serious reservations, we warmly welcome much of the
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill, which will form the basis of
increased protection of Scotland's animals for many years to come."

– ENDS –
Notes to Editors
For interviews, further information or photographs please contact
Advocates'
Director, Ross Minett on 0131 2256039 (07946 517585).
1
www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/environment/reports-06/rar06-
01-vol01–01.htm
2
www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/environment/papers-06/AHW_Com
mitteeReportResponse.pdf

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 – Release Date:
20/02/2006

—No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 – Release Date: 20/02/2006