The British Deer Society response to the Animal Welfare Act Draft Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs

The British deer Society has considered the Code in relation to the potential effect on individuals undertaking Deer Management activity and leisure stalking.

Whilst the British Deer Society is supportive of the general principle of guidance to assist dog owners in recognising and meeting their responsibilities towards their dog or dogs it is concerned that the code, as drafted, poses a significant risk to individuals undertaking what would currently be considered as normal practice and which, in our opinion, offers no threat whatsoever to the welfare of the animal. We believe that the particular needs of working dogs and the law relating to them were not fully understood when the code was drafted and as a result they are not adequately reflected in the draft code. This must be addressed before the code is ratified in 2009. We further believe that it is unfortunate that the devolved administrations in Wales and Scotland are likely to have different codes. This can only lead to further confusion.

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? In either case this presents a major problem. Working dogs are frequently left in Deer Managers vehicles whilst they are doing their normal stalking activities. The vehicle is effectively a mobile kennel for them, just as it is for a shepherd's sheepdogs. Similarly 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.

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 purpose" and whilst engaged in follow up activity, often in very thick undergrowth, this is particularly pertinent.  This exemption is crucial to stalkers and gundog owners and must be included.  The Society would support the proposition that where dogs are to be regularly worked without a collar then owners should be obliged to have a microchip inserted.

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 wording is potentially fraught with difficulties. Working dogs, following up a wounded deer inevitably and quite often sustain cuts, scratches, split pads, torn tails and similar minor injuries. These are very often 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. Working dog owners know a great deal about dogs, their illnesses and their treatment. We would argue that dog owners should have discretion over whether or not to involve a vet.

Restraint During Travel

Paragraph 1.2 says that during transportation "you should make sure that your dog is not able to move freely." It continues to discuss the need for safety harnesses and purpose-built cages. Many stalkers 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. 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 this statement? Unless specific evidence for this statement can be produced then this has no place in the code.

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. Stalkers will, during the summer months, 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 common sense.

CONCLUSION

Follow up dogs are a necessary part of normal deer management, and it is often the case that they are not taken out during the stalking process but are left in vehicles until required.  The Society is concerned that the code as drafted does not recognise this and the other issues raised above.  We do support it in principle but it cannot proceed un-amended in its current form because the code is specifically designed to help the courts interpret the law and in its current form it is liable to misinterpretation and dispute.

Stalkers 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.