Gamekeepers Alarmed By Dog Code

1 December 2008

The National Gamekeepers' Organisation has expressed serious concern at the Government's draft dog welfare code, likely to be issued during 2009 under the terms of the Animal Welfare Act.

The NGO said that if the code wasn't changed, innocent people could find themselves in court. "There is a great deal of work to be done before this draft code can be considered fit for ratification,"  said a spokesman.

The NGO has considered the draft code, which was first published last month, particularly in relation to its potential impact on gundogs and the gamekeeping profession.

The NGO made the following comments:

General Comments:

• The idea of issuing guidance to help dog owners to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act is sensible. The Act requires that a dogs needs are met, yet is unclear what this means in practice, so sensible guidance would help.

• The problem is that under the Act, courts shall have regard to what is specified in the code when determining whether or not a welfare offence has been committed. Anyone not following the letter of the code is therefore at considerable risk.

• At 28 pages, the draft code produced by Defra is far too long for Government to expect that every dog owner in England will read, understand and follow it.

• It is unfortunate that the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland are likely to have different codes. That can only lead to further confusion.

• The particular needs of working dogs and the law relating to them are not adequately reflected or summarised in the draft code. This must be addressed.

Specific Comments:

Dogs in Vehicles

Page 4, under the heading ‘Travel', states: "Dogs should not be left unattended in a vehicle." This is contradicted on page 9 (paragraph 1.13) which says: "Dogs should not be left unattended in a car or other vehicle in warm weather." Which does Defra mean? Either way there is a major problem. Working dogs are frequently left in gamekeepers' vehicles whilst they are doing their job (checking a trap or stalking a deer for example). The vehicle is effectively a mobile kennel for them, just as it is for a shepherd's sheepdogs. Likewise, gundogs may often be left in vehicles for short periods - during lunch on a shoot day, for example. Further examples of the same thing are everywhere. Dog walkers may leave their dog in a supermarket car park whilst they do the shopping. There is no evidence that any of these instances creates a welfare issue yet the code as drafted could lead to innumerable legal wrangles wherever a dog happened to be found alone in a car, albeit temporarily. The code should not proscribe things in this way. The key is that dogs should not be left in vehicles in circumstances that would cause them distress.

Involving a Vet

Page 6, under ‘Health Care' states, "You must ensure your dog is treated promptly by a vet if it is injured or ill." The implication here is that if you do not, a court may well conclude that you have committed an offence under the welfare section of the 2006 Act. This is ludicrous. Working dogs, either in the beating line or picking up shot game, inevitably and quite often sustain cuts, scratches, split pads, torn tails and similar minor injuries. These are invariably treated by the dog's owner at home and without any need to involve a vet. Seriously injured dogs are of course taken to a vet. Gundog owners and gamekeepers generally know a great deal about dogs, their illnesses and their treatment. Just as a parent makes a judgement whether or not to take a sick child to the doctors, so too should dog owners have discretion whether or not to involve a vet.

Collars and Identification

Page 5, under ‘Identification' says that a dog "must wear a correctly fitted collar and identity tag when in a public place and should be permanently identified, preferably with a microchip." This is amplified under paragraph 5.9 and is a summary of a provision of the Control of Dogs Order 1992. But it fails to mention the key exemption that a dog can be collarless "while being used for sporting purposes." This exemption is crucial to gundog owners and gamekeepers and must be included.

Kennel Size and Bedding

An outdoor kennel clearly needs to be large enough for the dog(s) in it and to be kept reasonably clean but why does the code need to go beyond this? Para 1.6 states "The kennel should be large enough for you dog to lie comfortably both in and beside its bed and it should be provided with clean, comfortable bedding." Some kennels are designed so they are ‘all bed', so there is no room beside the bed, yet they are perfectly large enough. Many working gundogs are bedded on straw - is that regarded as ‘clean'? Is an old blanket used as a bed going to be regarded as ‘clean' if it is only occasionally washed? Some professional kennel owners do not use bedding at all but have heated kennels instead. The point is that common sense must be allowed to prevail. There is danger in using over prescriptive phrases or ill-defined words in a code to which a court will be expected to have regard in judging whether or not a welfare offence has been committed by a dog owner.

Faeces

Paragraph 1.10 says: "It is good hygiene practice to clean up after your dog at home using a plastic bag or a ‘pooper scooper' and to dispose of any faeces in the waste bin." That may make some sense in the context of a small urban yard or garden but it makes no sense whatever in the countryside where many dog owners have large gardens, paddocks and even whole farms at their dog's disposal. If someone owns half a dozen dogs - not unlikely in a gundog context - it is clearly impractical to clear up after them all and the faeces are far better left to rot where they lie than collected and put in with domestic rubbish, which then has to be handled, transported (think of the total weight of dog faeces countrywide) and eventually disposed of at high cost. If it is ‘good practice' to collect and bag faeces, does the code imply that it is bad practice not to - and therefore that an offence may be committed. Where is the welfare angle in all this? The code is supposed to be about welfare, not the environment.

Restraint During Travel

Paragraph 1.2 says that during transportation "you should make sure that your dog is not able to move freely." It goes on to talk about the need for safety harnesses and purpose-built cages. Many gamekeepers and gundog owners do have a purpose built dog box in their vehicles but not all. Most pet dog owners do not have one and every day we all see dogs being transported in cars without any restraint. Working dogs are often transported short distances without restraint - in the back of a beaters' wagon or a gun bus for example. The speeds are low and there is no danger. Many farmers take dogs round the farm in the back of open pick-ups, also at very little risk. The danger is that including phrases like this in the welfare code may potentially result in all the above examples being prosecuted for a welfare offence when in reality there is very little risk to actual dog welfare.

Feeding

Paragraph 2.10 reads, "Generally it is better to feed an adult dog twice a day rather than the traditional once." Where is the evidence for that statement? Wild dogs such as hyena often don't eat even once a day. They gorge themselves on a kill and then lie up. Yet including this phrase means someone only feeding their dog once a day might not be able to rely on the support of a court.

Paragraph 2.16 specifies that: "dogs should not be fed within an hour before or after vigorous exercise". Again this is far too precise. Is someone in danger of committing a welfare offence if he feeds a gundog 50 minutes after it has finished working? Defra may think this and other matters raised here are trivial points but they are not. Shooting and shooters have opponents who will try to use every phrase and nuance of the law and the welfare code to trip people up. There have been plenty of precedents in other areas and we are already seeing animal rights bodies attempting to exploit the Animal Welfare Act in the courts for their own ends.

Exercise in Hot Weather

Paragraph 3.15 states, "You should avoid walking your dog during the hottest part of the day." This is poorly worded. Every day, even in midwinter, has a ‘hottest part'. It is also impractical. Gundogs are worked in all weathers and have to be. Pigeon shooters will use dogs all day in summer, as will grouse moors operating in August and September. Gamekeepers will also need to work dogs on occasion when it is hot. Such people use common sense. They don't overwork their dogs and they make sure they get plenty of rest periods and water. Including this statement in a Government code can only lead to potential legal problems for anyone seen walking or working a dog in the heat of day.

Leaving Dogs

Paragraph 4.7 says: "Dogs should not be routinely left on their own for more than a few hours during the day as they are likely to become bored." How long is ‘a few hours'? Can dogs be left for longer if they have the company of other dogs? Is a welfare offence indicated if they have been left for longer than this? How many times a week, month or year makes something ‘routine'? This simply isn't clear enough and should be left out, leaving the matter to the dog owner's comment sense.

Grooming

"A long haired dog... will need grooming once a day" (Paragraph 5.6). Ridiculous. It may do, or its owner may choose to groom it once a day whether it needs it or not. Grooming an outdoor dog too much in winter will give it a thin coat and cause it to be cold. The key thing here is the endpoint not the time interval. The dog's coat should not be allowed to become badly tangled or matted. That is all that needs to be said.

CONCLUSION

Were it just informal guidance to dog owners, many of our criticisms would be less important but as the code is specifically designed partly to help the courts interpret the law, it has to be right.

Gamekeepers and other dog owners need to be confident that they will not face prosecution or unfair treatment by the courts because of unfortunate wording in this code.