rspca: animal welfare in the uk

The welfare state:MEASURING ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE UK 2007

www.animalwelfarefootprint.com

CONTENTS

MEASURING ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE UK 2007 � 3

Measuring animal welfare in the UK 2007 5–7

Introduction 8–9

Generic indicators 10–39� Introduction 11� The proportion of FTSE 100 companies with animal welfare improvements in their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies 12� The number of relevant government advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) on which an animal welfare specialist is represented 15� The proportion of people interested in improving animal welfare 18� The proportion of schools that incorporate animal welfare into their curriculum 21� The number of firework-related communications received by the RSPCA 26� The number of stray dogs collected by local authorities in the UK 29� The number of local authorities in the UK that have an animal welfare charter 33� The number of relevant white papers published by the UK government that include a positive animal welfare component 35� The number of investigations and convictions taken by the RSPCA under the Protection of Animals Act 191 1 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 38

Farm animal indicators 40–57� Introduction 41� The number of animals transported live from the UK for slaughter and further fattening 42� The production of UK non-cage eggs as a proportion of total eggs produced 45� The number of chickens reared to higher on-farm welfare standards 48� Piglet mortality levels between birth and weaning 51� The number, nature and outcomes of Animal Health inspections of farms and livestock markets 54

Pet animal indicators 58–73� Introduction 59� The number of unwanted healthy animals taken into the care of the RSPCA 60� The number of non-microchipped cats and dogs taken into RSPCA care 62� The number of healthy dogs being euthanased by the RSPCA due to irresponsible pet ownership 65� The number of organised animal fights in the UK 67� The number of animal welfare complaints investigated by RSPCA inspectors 71

Research animal indicators 74–87� Introduction 75� The number of non-human primates used in scientific procedures in the UK 76� The amount of laboratory animal suffering 79� The proportion of non-animal methods in OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) test guidelines 81� The number of animals used in quality-control tests for release of veterinary vaccines in the UK 83� The percentage of scientific journals with ethical policies and guidelines relating to the use of animals in research and testing 85

Wildlife indicators 88–106� Introduction 89� The number of stranded cetaceans by-caught around the UK 90� The number of imported wild-taken reptiles and birds as a proportion of the total trade into the UK and EU 92� The provision of quality written information for the sale of non-domestic pets (reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals) in a sample of outlets 97� The proportion of fishing tackle-related swan incidents recorded by the RSPCA 104

4 � MEASURING ANIMAL WELFARE IN THE UK 2007

Measuring animal welfare in the UK 2007

For the third year running the RSPCA has produced its annual publication of indicators that

assesses how the UK is performing with regard to the welfare of its animals. This collection

of indicators highlights the diverse range of welfare issues that impact on the UK’s many

different animals, and tracks where changes, both positive and negative, have been made.

SUMMARY


The five chapters focus on farm animals, pets, animals used inresearch and testing, and wildlife, and includes a generic section thatconcentrates on more indirect animal issues such as Corporate SocialResponsibility, local government and social aspects. Each indicatorsets the scene, and identifies welfare implications and the lawsprotecting those animals. They outline the information gathering andmeasurement techniques that have been used to provide data foreach of the animal welfare issues and ultimately identify whereimprovements could or should be made.

Whenever possible some of the issues incorporate data that hasbeen collected over a number of years to see if trends are alreadydeveloping. This year a lack of statistics was still a huge problem,with 15 per cent of all indicators in 2007 having insufficient or no datameaning that they cannot be measured. Another problem is thatdata is not always consistently collated and/or regularly published,hampering the meaningful analysis of information about a particularissue. Each of the issues has been measured to demonstrate whereand how improvements are being made, to identify where no changeis taking place or where and how areas of animal welfare areworsening. Improvements are noted in some areas, however this initself does not mean that the welfare problems for these animals nolonger exist. For all the animal issues highlighted in this report thereis still considerable room for improvement, and it is also likely thatthe animal welfare issues not measured and included in the reportwill also need to be improved.

All of the chapters call for more regular, comprehensive, objectivedata collection and subsequent publication to ensure that animalwelfare is properly measured and benchmarked. Once this is achieveda true picture can be established to identify how big a problem is,if indeed one even exists, and how solutions can be developed toultimately improve the lives of animals in the UK.

By identifying how the UK is performing with regard to its animals,it is hoped that everyone involved with the welfare of animals – frommembers of the public to those involved in making laws – will focuson areas where improvements are needed, will find appropriatesolutions, will learn from and be encouraged by positive changes thatare already being made and will recognise the UK as a world leaderin animal welfare.

The major stories highlighted in this year’s report include:

� a rise in reports of dog fighting

� a huge decrease in imports of wild birds into the UK and EU

� an increase in chickens reared under higher welfare conditions

� a rise in the number of members of the public interested inimproving animal welfare.

BY IDENTIFYING HOW THE UK IS PERFORMING WITH REGARD TO ITS ANIMALS, IT IS HOPED

THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED WITH THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS – FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

TO THOSE INVOLVED IN MAKING LAWS – WILL FOCUS ON AREAS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE

NEEDED, WILL FIND APPROPRIATE SOLUTIONS, WILL LEARN FROM AND BE ENCOURAGED BY

POSITIVE CHANGES THAT ARE ALREADY BEING MADE AND WILL RECOGNISE THE UK AS A

WORLD LEADER IN ANIMAL WELFARE.


INDICATORS

Generic indicators

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

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

The proportion of people interested in improving animal welfare

The proportion of schools that incorporate animal welfare into their curriculum

The number of firework-related communications received by the RSPCA

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

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

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

The number of investigations and convictions taken by the RSPCA under the Protection of Animals Act 191 1 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006

Farm animal indicators

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

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

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

Piglet mortality levels between birth and weaning

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

Pet animal indicators

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

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

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

The number of organised animal fights in the UK

The number of animal welfare complaints investigated by RSPCA inspectors

Research animal indicators

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

The amount of laboratory animal suffering

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

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

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

Wildlife indicators

The number of stranded cetaceans by-caught around the UK

The number of wild-caught reptiles as a proportion of the total trade in live CITES-listed reptiles imported into the UK

The total number of live, wild-caught CITES-listed reptiles imported into the UK

The number of wild-caught reptiles as a proportion of the total trade in live CITES-listed reptiles imported into the EU

The total number of live, wild-caught CITES-listed reptiles imported into the EU

The total number of live, wild-caught CITES-listed birds imported into the UK

The total number of live, wild-caught CITES-listed birds imported into the EU

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

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

The traffic lights

TRAFFIC LIGHTS


TRAFFIC LIGHT

AMBER There is little change from the previous year


GREEN There has been an increase in the proportion of people interested in improving animal welfare





GREEN The relevant white paper included a positive animal welfare component

GREY Further annual data are required

AMBER There was an overall fall in the number of live animals transported from the UK in 2007, but live calf exports increased


GREEN There is a large increase in the number of chickens reared to higher welfare standards





RED The number of healthy dogs being euthanased has increased

RED There has been an increase in reports and convictions for animal fighting

GREY Further annual data are required


GREY Insufficient data are available






RED There has been an increase in the number of reptiles imported into the UK


RED There has been a slight increase in the number of reptiles imported into the EU

GREEN The trade has virtually ceased

GREEN There is a very large decrease in the number of birds imported into the EU; the trade has virtually ceased




As with previous editions of this report, this third edition utilisesthe most up-to-date information available, celebrates the year’sprogress, identifies the areas of animal welfare that have remainedunchanged and highlights the areas where the situation hasgot worse. It acknowledges that measuring animal welfare is achallenge and that the process of data collection, accumulationof information and the development of robust and objectivemethodologies is not a simple process.

The animal welfare indicatorsThe indicators in this report allow a picture to be created of thestate of animal welfare in the UK, which is not only important froman animal protection perspective, but is essential for informinggovernment and stakeholder policies. It is envisaged that bytracking animal welfare year on year, this gauge will serve as avaluable guide to where legislation, government policy, industrypractices, education, economics and social attitudes need to beaddressed and changed for the better in the UK.

The animal welfare issues facing the UK are numerous anddiverse, so no index can include them all. However, the areasincluded in this report are viewed by the RSPCA as being of highanimal welfare importance and provide a good representationfrom across the spectrum.

The generic indicators cover a wide range of issues such asconsumer buying patterns, awareness of welfare issues, andgovernment and corporate activity – all of which have less of anobvious impact on the welfare of animals. The majority of indicators

in this report focus on direct animal welfare issues and these issuesare divided into sections on farm animals, pets, animals usedin research and testing and wild animals.

Data collectionThe report brings together many different methods of data collectionand research techniques. Each indicator issue has been looked atindividually and the most appropriate methodology put into practice.Just as each animal welfare issue is unique, the measurement of thatissue must also be unique. A variety of primary and secondary datahas been utilised in the following ways:

� journal and literature reviews

� use of the Freedom of Information Act 2000

� opinion polls

� UK government and European Union statistics

� online research

� questionnaires

� parliamentary questions.

However, there are limitations to research and data collection. Aswith previous editions of this report, this edition highlights areaswhere further research is required, where more information needsto be made public and where, in some instances, data needs to becollated regularly in a consistent manner. A lack of statistics is still ahuge problem; in 2007 five indicators could not be measured as therewas insufficient or no data available.

Introduction

The welfare state: measuring animal welfare in the UK 2007 brings together a collection

of indicators that aim to establish how the UK is faring with regards to its animals.

Each of the indicators demonstrate how animal welfare issues can or should be objectively

measured and encourage others to either begin measuring, or to continue collating

and publishing information. Without knowing what is really happening in the UK,

problems cannot be addressed, solutions cannot be found and positive learnings

cannot be replicated.

INTRODUCTION


Traffic lightsTo broadly represent the progress of the indicators year on year,traffic lights are awarded to each issue. These signify the areas thatare improving, standing still or getting worse. A green light signifiesa degree of improvement only. It does not mean that there are noanimal welfare problems associated with the particular issue andtherefore no further improvements are required or could be made;it simply means for that particular animal welfare issue progresshas been made during that year.

Red – animal welfare in this area has worsened.

Amber – the animal welfare issue remains unchangedor there is little change from the previous year.

Green – animal welfare in this area has improved.

Grey – insufficient data are available or further dataare required.

The future

It is accepted that changes in animal welfare may not happenovernight, within a single year or even within five years. However, ifimprovements are to be made to the lives of millions of animals inthe UK, and subsequently the rest of the world, animal welfare mustbe measured and benchmarked with a view to use this knowledge tomake such improvements.

The RSPCA would like to see the measuring of animal welfarebecome normal practice. It would like animal welfare to be viewed asan issue that everyone understands, for it to be seen as important forsociety as well as the individual, and as something that we all havean impact on. Ten years ago climate change, carbon footprints andglobal warming were unfamiliar terms, but today they are part ofeveryday language and have become the norm. Very few peoplein the UK would be unaware how to make positive changes to theenvironment they live in. It is hoped that a similar shift will occurfor animal welfare, as we all impact on animals and can all makea positive contribution to their lives and well-being.

THE RSPCA WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE MEASURING OF ANIMAL WELFARE BECOME NORMAL

PRACTICE. IT WOULD LIKE ANIMAL WELFARE TO BE VIEWED AS AN ISSUE THAT EVERYONE

UNDERSTANDS, FOR IT TO BE SEEN AS IMPORTANT FOR SOCIETY AS WELL AS THE

INDIVIDUAL, AND AS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL HAVE AN IMPACT ON.

Traffic light Definition 2005 2006 2007

RED Animal welfare has worsened 6 2 4

AMBER Negligible or no change 9 16 19

GREEN Animal welfare has improved 6 6 5

GREY Insufficient or no data 10 11 5

TOTAL 31 35 33


PIC CREDITS: ANDREW FORSYTH (X3), TIM SAMBROOK/RSPCA PHOTOLIBRARY, JANE COOPER

INTRODUCTION GENERIC INDICATORS

Directly and indirectly the welfare of animals affects andis impacted on by everyone in society. This could be inthe form of an obvious impact resulting from the foodwe eat and the pets we have in our homes, or a moresubtle impact such as the litter we drop or the cosmeticswe use. The impacts could be even less apparent – thejobs we do, the leisure activities we participate in orwhere we purchase our pets. However tenuous thecause and effect, everyone makes a positive or negativecontribution to the lives of animals.

In 2007, a number of animal welfare issues werereported in the UK media. Whether quirky, serious, cuteor shocking, these reports highlighted both positivedevelopments for animals and cause for concern anddisappointment. The following list is a short selection ofanimal welfare issues that received some level of mediaattention in 2007.

� Two of the most significant pieces of legislation toaffect the welfare of animals in the UK came intoforce: The Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England andWales (April and March respectively) and The AnimalHealth and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Thelegislation means that animal owners now have alegal responsibility to meet the welfare needs oftheir animals1.

� The law banning the docking of dogs’ tails forcosmetic purposes came into force in England2 andWales3. In Scotland, all tail docking of dogs (unlessfor medical reasons) became illegal4. The first RSPCAprosecution for the offence was taken under theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 in Wales in June 20075.

� In January the tanker MSC Napoli ran aground inSouth Devon. RSPCA staff rescued more than 1,000oil-covered seabirds6.

� Revised EU legislation on the protection of animalsduring transport came into effect in January 20077.

� Major flooding in parts of the UK saw around one-third of the RSPCA’s field staff work alongside theemergency services in rescuing both owners andtheir animals8.

� A ruling concerning the mandatory use of cushionedwhips in flat horse races was introduced9.

� The Council of Europe adopted new guidelines for thehousing and care of animals used in laboratories10.

� A review of the schedule of the Dangerous WildAnimals Act 1976 took place. Many species wereremoved from the schedule, including emus, squirrelmonkeys and raccoons11.

� Five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson was killed by an illegallyowned pit bull-type dog12.

� The UK’s first pit bull amnesty took place inNorthern Ireland13.

� A ban on the importation of wild birds into the EUwas enacted14.

News headlines and anecdotal evidence can providea selective overview of what is happening in the UKwith regard to some aspects of animal welfare. Whilstnot exhaustive, this can help form part of the picture inidentifying what is happening to the millions of animalsin the UK that are farmed, live as pets, used for researchpurposes and exist in the wild.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Section 9, Animal Welfare Act 2006.2 www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/docking.htm3 http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/animalwelfare/

Companiondomesticanimalwelfare/taildocking/?lang=en4 www.scotland.gov.uk/news/releases/2007/02/071025005 www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/07/30/rspca-report-shock-rise-in-animal-

cruelty-cases-91466-21428669/6 www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2007/07/16/napoli_timeline_feature.shtml7 www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/transport/eu-transportreg.htm8 www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/articles/2007/07/23/flood_help_feature.shtml9 The Horseracing Regulatory Authority. Modification of ‘The orders and rules of racing’ H8

whips – specifications (rule 149(ii)).10 www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety,_use_of_animals

/laboratory_animals/Revision%20of%20Appendix%20A.asp#TopOfPage11 Defra information bulletin ‘Changes to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 – revision to

Schedule of Controlled Species’. 1 October 2007.www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/071001c.htm

12 www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2007/09/05/killer-dog-jealous-of-ellie-lawrence-100252-19735795/

13 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6224009.stm14 Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2007.


RSPCA concernCorporate Social Responsibility (CSR)2 is theconsideration of many aspects of a company’sperformance and risks associated with issues such asemployment, the environment, human rights,communities and business relationships. It is a way inwhich organisations can take more responsibility for howthey impact on a variety of issues, is a measure of goodbusiness over and above compliance with minimumlegal requirements, and goes beyond the more typicalphilanthropy of donating money to good causes.

Animal welfare is not seen as or considered anintegral part of CSR, yet many organisations, includingthose from the public, private and third sectors, havesome impact on and involvement with animals and theirwelfare. The links to animal welfare could be obvioussuch as using animals when safety-testing chemicalsused in industry or agriculture, or animals used inmedical research or in the production of food. Theycould also be subtler, such as company foodprocurement policies or the destruction of animalhabitats due to mining or construction, or the effecton animals by the pollution of water, land or air.

The RSPCA believes that animal welfare must be aconsideration when organisations, across all sectors, aredeveloping and implementing policies and encouragesthe acknowledgement that animal welfare has acrossover with the more conventional aspects of CSR.

BackgroundIn 2004, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown said:“Today, Corporate Social Responsibility goes far beyond the oldphilanthropy of the past – donating money to good causes atthe end of the financial year – and is instead an all-year-roundresponsibility that companies accept for the environment aroundthem, for the best working practices, for their engagement in theirlocal communities...”3. Four years later, CSR is an increasinglyimportant part of business with an ever-growing number ofcompanies implementing policies, producing reports and evendevoting whole departments to ensure the company has effectiveand worthy CSR policies.

The UK government has: “an ambitious vision for Corporate SocialResponsibility”3 and would like: “to see UK businesses taking accountof their economic, social and environmental impacts, and acting toaddress the key sustainable development challenges based on theircore competencies wherever they operate – locally, regionally andinternationally”. However, it is not just the UK government that isencouraging the ethos of CSR. The European Commission launchedthe European Alliance on CSR, describing it as: “An umbrella networkfor discussion and debate on new and existing CSR initiatives by largecompanies, SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) and theirstakeholders4.” More recently, efforts have been made to encouragethe voluntary sector to consider issues such as the environment andcommunity and for them to become more accountable. TheDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) hasfunded ‘Every Action Counts’, a major initiative on social andenvironmental responsibility by community and voluntary groups5.

Business in the Community (BITC)6 and FTSE4Good7 are twoorganisations that index and benchmark businesses on variousaspects of CSR. The BITC is a business-led charity that is encouragingcompanies to have a more positive impact on society. BITC hasdeveloped the Corporate Responsibility Index, which is used as abenchmarking tool and covers four impact areas – community,environment, workplace and marketplace. The FTSE4Good IndexSeries measures the performance of FTSE companies that meetglobally recognised corporate responsibility standards. The selectioncriteria focus on three areas – environment sustainability, stakeholderrelations and human rights.

As with the UK government and European Commission, neitherthe BITC nor FTSE4Good make any reference to or provision foranimal welfare. Nor do they use it as the basis of indices forbenchmarking even though many of the companies that are listedwill have some link to the welfare of animals.

This animal welfare indicator has been developed to identify


WELFARE INDICATOR: The proportion of FTSE 100 companieswith animal welfare improvements in their CorporateSocial Responsibility (CSR)1 policies

THERE IS LITTLE CHANGE FROM THEPREVIOUS YEAR.

which of the largest UK-registered companies that form the FTSE 1008

have a policy on animal welfare, and which are taking steps toimprove, protect and promote animal welfare. Some of the FTSEcompanies, for example pharmaceutical, food and retail, seem morepredisposed to having either a policy or an acknowledgement that

one is required, however all the companies could and possibly dohave an impact on the welfare of animals. The RSPCA accepts that,for many reasons, animal welfare is perhaps not an obviousconsideration when organisations are developing CSR policy andstrategy, for example animal welfare is unlikely to be at the core ofthe business model. However the Society believes the incorporationof animal welfare into policy can not only benefit animals but alsocomplement the social, economic and environmental aspects of CSRand, of course, add value to business and their bottom line. As thisreport itself highlights, measuring animal welfare objectively andsuccessfully is challenging, however it should not be a barrier fororganisations incorporating animal welfare into their CSR strategy.

The RSPCA believes that animal welfare as a concept of CSRpotentially fits in with environmental, economic and social impactsand has crossover with all three (using the triple bottom line model).Figure 1 simply demonstrates how animal welfare fits across all theCSR areas and could be considered alongside the better establishedareas of CSR.

If animal welfare is to be viewed as a serious, measurable part ofa company’s CSR strategy it is, of course, vital that there be somebenefit for the business, beyond good public relations. Marks &Spencer and the National Trust are two very different organisationsthat have incorporated animal welfare into their business strategies.‘Plan A’ from Marks & Spencer9 looks at a number of issues, includinganimal welfare. The National Trust10 launched its food policy in 2006by stating that it wants to play a role in “connecting producers to

GENERIC INDICATORS


Data source: RSPCA .

Figure 1: Triple bottom line CSR model and howanimal welfare fits within it

Economic

Environmental

Animalwelfare

Social

Table 1: Number of FTSE 100 companies8 that had an animal welfare component, February 2008

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

Chemical 1 0

Finance 1 0

Food retail 4 4

Health 3 2

Oil 1 1

Pharmaceutical 3 3

Retail 2 1

Services 1 0

Tobacco 1 0

Travel/Tourism 2 0

Data source: FTSE 100.

consumers in the food chain”. One part of this is aiming to “procurefood produced to high animal welfare standards”. This had led theTrust to make sure the 500,000 plus eggs it uses each year in itsrestaurants and tearooms are free-range. Subsequently, it hasreceived awards for such efforts11. Both organisations have recognisedthe importance of CSR and have acknowledged the role of animalwelfare within their business.

The indicator figuresFor the third year running, each of the FTSE 100 companies werecontacted and a copy of their CSR or equivalent reports wererequested along with any details of policy related to animal welfare.Of those that didn’t respond, reports and policies were obtained viawebsites. Initially, the literature and websites were used to identifywhether the companies had a policy or made any reference to animalwelfare or protection. The majority of FTSE 100 companies have someform of CSR policy and produce documentation about this area oftheir work – either in a report, annual review or via dedicated webpages. Some of the organisations have statements or policyconcerning animal welfare, but these are separate from theiroverarching formal CSR policy. For example, an organisation mightstipulate that it has an anti-fur policy or makes every effort to promoteand implement the 3Rs12 but it has not formally incorporated theminto its CSR work per se. This indicator has attempted to consider thisand not disregard references to animal welfare just because they don’tform part of the organisation’s CSR policy. The policies are of varying

levels and differ greatly with regard to depth, content and reporting.Nineteen out of the 100 FTSE companies have some form of

policy that concerns animal welfare, which is just one more thanin 2007, but three more than in 2006. The companies specificallyfocus on two key aspects of animal welfare – animal experimentsand farm animals. Of these 19 companies, just 11 aim to improveanimal welfare.

Table 1 identifies which category of company already has ananimal welfare policy or statement, and which of these state an aimto improve animal welfare. The three pharmaceutical companieswithin the FTSE 100 that have a policy on animal testing and researchstate an aim to minimise animal use and ensure the humanetreatment of those animals used. All of the food retail companies hada CSR policy or statement referring to farm animals. Of the remaining81 FTSE 100 companies, some made a reference to animals,conservation and biodiversity, however there was nothing concrete intheir policies to indicate any real commitment to acknowledginganimal welfare and their responsibility to it as a business. While it isencouraging that nearly 20 per cent of FTSE 100 companies mentionanimal welfare it is equally disappointing that the number planning tomake improvements has remained at 11 since 2006.

There is still little sign of animal welfare being put forward as animportant CSR issue by either the government or the business world.However, it is hoped that over time companies will begin to measureanimal welfare and view it as an important issue withinenvironmental, social and economic impacts.



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 governmentdefinition 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 environmentalimpacts 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 abovecompliance 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.htm5 www.everyactioncounts.org.uk6 Business in the Community. www.bitc.org.uk7 FTSE4Good. www.ftse.com8 FTSE 100 companies identified as of February 2008.9 www.marksandspencer.com10 www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-food_policy.pdf11 www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-global/w-news/w-news-further_news/w-news-

good_egg.htm12 The 3Rs are the Replacement of animals with humane alternatives; a Reduction in

numbers used; and Refinement of procedures and husbandry to reduce suffering andimprove animal welfare.

RSPCA concernGovernment departments have a number of advisoryNDPBs which are established by ministers, or by officialsworking on behalf of ministers, to: “provide independentexpert advice or to provide input into the policy-makingprocess” 2. Those appointed to the advisory NDPBs areindependent of government and are drawn from outsidethe public sector. With regard to animal welfare, a numberof advisory NDPBs exist to provide independent andexpert advice on particular topics of interest, such as theformer Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG)and the Animal Procedures Committee (APC).

The RSPCA believes that when issues affecting animalsare being discussed by advisory NDPBs, with a view todeveloping policy and ultimately legislation that impactson animals’ well-being, it is essential that independentanimal welfare specialists are involved in such discussionsand are represented on the relevant advisory NDPBs.

BackgroundAn NDPB is defined as: “a body which has a role in the processesof national government, but is not a government department or partof one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extentat arm’s length from ministers” 2. There are four types of NDPB, howeverit is the advisory NDPBs that can have a real impact on the welfareof animals and hence the focus of this indicator.

In 2007, there were 44 1 advisory NDPBs in the UK that havebeen sponsored by UK government departments 3. Both the ScottishGovernment and the Northern Ireland Executive are responsible fora number of advisory NDBPs as demonstrated in Table 2. In Wales,Assembly Government Sponsored Bodies (AGSBs), which are similarto NDPBs, are funded by the Welsh Assembly Government. Theyhave been included in Table 2. The number of advisory NDPBs thathave links to animal health and/or welfare are also identified.

This indicator has been constructed to identify who sits on whichadvisory NDPB in the UK. This will help to give an insight intowhether animal welfare decisions and policy are developed with theassistance of necessary specialists. It would seem to be beneficial,if not expected, that an animal welfare specialist be appointed ina personal capacity (rather than representing an organisation) to siton an advisory NDPB to contribute expert advice and input into thepolicy-making process about the welfare of animals.

It is expected that certain government departments such as theDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) andNorthern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture and Rural Development(Dardni) will have more NDPBs that concern the welfare of animalsand therefore have more specialists in animal welfare. However, it isalso expected that other government departments will have animalwelfare specialists sitting on NDPBs that may either directly orindirectly impact on animals such as the Home Office or theDepartment for International Development (DFID).

The indicator figuresIn the previous two years’ editions of this report, this indicator hasfocused on just the UK government and did not consider bodiescreated by the devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland. For the 2007 figures the three devolved governments havebeen included along with the national government.

Parliamentary questions were tabled in the past to identify theanimal welfare linked advisory NDPBs. They were targeted at justfour government departments and didn’t consider the sub-nationalgovernments of the UK. To find out about advisory NDPBs in 2007,reports and information produced by the respective governmentswere utilised instead.


WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of relevant governmentadvisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) onwhich an animal welfare specialist 1 is represented

GENERIC INDICATORS


Previously, the Secretary of State for each department – DFID,the Home Office, Defra and the Department for Business, Enterpriseand Regulatory Reform (formerly Dti) – was asked: “...which of hisdepartment’s advisory non-departmental public bodies are directlyor indirectly connected with animal health and welfare; whetheran animal welfare specialist is represented on each...” All fourdepartments responded to the parliamentary question.

The Home Office identified its one advisory body that isconcerned with animal health and welfare – the APC 7. The followingwritten statement was provided: “All members of the committee sharea common concern for the welfare of animals used in scientificprocedures, and in considering any matter must have regard bothto legitimate requirements of science and industry and to theprotection of animals against avoidable suffering and unnecessaryuse.” Current membership of the APC includes a member employedby the RSPCA and a member employed by the National Centrefor the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals inResearch (NC3Rs).

DFID acknowledged that it had supported a number of livestockinitiatives: “…recognising that disease and poor animal welfare threatenthe potentially important role that productive use of livestock canplay in poverty reduction” 8. Other efforts by DFID include improvingveterinary service delivery, developing vaccines, providing annualfunding to support the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR). In the past two years, the department has provided £30million to support global efforts to control avian influenza.

In response to a parliamentary question in 2006, Defra confirmedthat it is: “…the department with the lead responsibility for animalhealth and welfare. Partnership working with animal owners, thefarming industry and others is the heart of the approach set out inthe government’s Animal Health and Welfare Strategy” 9. Its responsehighlights that the UK government very much sees animal welfaresitting in the folds of one department – Defra. While Defra is the onlydepartment that has the welfare and health of animals as part of itsremit, other departments have an impact on animal welfare asdemonstrated by looking at the advisory NDPBs.

In 2007, 15 advisory NDPBs were identified across four UKgovernment departments and one from the Scottish Governmentthat had an animal welfare or/and health link (Table 2). Unsurprisingly,Defra had the most (12) animal health and welfare related advisoryNDPBs, although the following four were the only ones to have ananimal welfare specialist as a member:

� Animal Health & Welfare Strategy England Implementation Group

� Farm Animal Welfare Council

� Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB 10

� Zoos Forum.


Table 2: The number of advisory NDPBs/AGSBs by country in 2007

Country Number of advisory Animal welfare link Animal welfareNDPBs/AGSBs specialist represented

UK Government 3 441 15 5

Northern Ireland Executive 4 16 0 N/A

Scottish Government 5 14 1 0

Welsh Assembly Government 6 14 0 N/A

Data source: UK Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Government.

THERE ARE FOUR TYPES OF NDPB,

HOWEVER IT IS THE ADVISORY NDPBs

THAT CAN HAVE A REAL IMPACT

ON THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS.

The Home Office has only one advisory NDPB, the APC, whichhas an animal welfare specialist, whereas the Food Standards Agencyhas no specialist on its Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs.The other two NDPBs that were likely to have an animal welfarespecialist as a member were identified in Scotland and at theMinistry of Defence, however there was not enough data availableto determine who was a member of each of the respective bodies.In particular, it is very much hoped that the Ministry of Defence’sAnimal Welfare Advisory Committee 1 1 has at least one animal welfare

specialist, as the purpose of the committee is: “…to review the careand welfare arrangements of animals used for defence researchpurposes in the UK”.

It is encouraging that four Defra advisory NDPBs have at leastone member that represents the welfare of animals. This hasremained the same for the past two years. It is hoped that inyears to come, more government departments encourage themembership of recognised animal welfare specialists on theiradvisory NDPBs.


GENERIC INDICATORS


1 An animal welfare specialist is a person with the primary purpose of representing animalwelfare (including both physical and behavioural aspects). This definition is for the purposeof this report.

2 Public bodies: A guide for departments. 2006.www.civilservice.gov.uk/documents/pdf/public_bodies/2006/overview.pdf

3 Public bodies 2007. Cabinet Office.www.civilservice.gov.uk/documents/pdf/public_bodies/public_bodies_2007.pdf

4 www.dfpni.gov.uk/public_bodies_2007.pdf5 www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/public-bodies/advisory-ndpbs6 www.assemblywales.org/04-019.pdf7 HC Deb 6 February 2007 c.789W.8 HC Deb 6 February 2007 c.766W.9 HC Deb 9 May 2006 c.127W.10 The ISG disbanded after producing its final report on bovine TB in 2007.11 www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/aboutdefence/whatwedo/scienceandtechnology/AWAC

IN 2007, 15 ADVISORY NDPBs WERE IDENTIFIED ACROSS FOUR UK GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENTS AND ONE FROM THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT THAT HAD AN ANIMAL

WELFARE OR/AND HEALTH LINK.

RSPCA concernMembers of the general public and consumers are veryimportant, and most likely key, to ensuring that animalwelfare evolves and improves. Contacting MPs (orAssembly members or members of the ScottishParliament) about a particular animal welfare concern,or responding to government consultations on an animalissue, can have a direct influence on animal welfare laws.Consumer purchasing power can help influencesupermarkets, farmers and restaurants, can change theway food is produced, and impacts on what productsare sold. Awareness, understanding and support fromthe general public is required if improvements are to bemade to the welfare of animals, whether they areanimals farmed for food, pets or animals used in researchand testing.

If laws, behaviour, purchasing choices, and attitudesare to be changed positively and therefore improved, theRSPCA believes that animal welfare must be a familiarconcept everyone understands and is engaged with.

BackgroundThe UK has legislation relating to all categories of animals: thosefarmed for food, those kept as domestic pets, animals used inresearch and testing, and wild animals living free or in captivity.Arguably, animal welfare laws in the UK are of the best in the world.

There are also many animal protection/welfare organisations andindividuals that work for and on behalf of animals in many differentcapacities including campaigning, hands-on work, fundraising anddonating money. In this sense the UK is often viewed and referredto as a ‘nation of animal lovers’ and a world leader in the treatmentof its animals. Of course the UK is not perfect and the mere fact thatorganisations such as the RSPCA , RSPB, The Dogs Trust and otheranimal organisations exist indicates the ongoing need forimprovements to be made throughout the UK. As these organisationsare primarily supported by the public and rely on financial contributionsfrom those individuals who believe in their raison d’être, it couldbe assumed that there are many people wanting to improve animalwelfare in the UK. However, in measurement terms this would be anunscientific presumption. Therefore, assessing the public’s attitudesto animal welfare is an important consideration when attempting todefine how the UK is performing with regard to its animals, yet it isprobably one of the hardest areas to gauge accurately.

To try to measure public and social attitudes, the RSPCAcommissions annual opinion polls in an attempt to find out how thegeneral public views different aspects of animal welfare and whetherthere is any indication that they want improvements to be made.Polling is a well-established and commonly used tool for measuringthe social attitudes and opinions of the general public on all mannerof issues. It is recognised that such polls are often subjective, andwhilst every attempt can be made to formulate questions in anunbiased and objective manner there is no way of preventing thepublic from lying or giving an answer they believe the questionerwould like to hear. Polling questions do not delve into why certainresponses are given or explain the reasoning behind the answers,and assumptions can only be made as to why someone has sucha viewpoint. Even with these limitations in mind, opinion polls arestill an extremely useful way to find out the attitudes and opinionsof the general public. And with regard to animal welfare, they canbe used as an important measuring tool to identify where changesand improvements need to be made and if more public educationalwork needs to take place.


WELFARE INDICATOR: The proportion of people interested inimproving animal welfare

THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN THEPROPORTION OF PEOPLE INTERESTED INIMPROVING ANIMAL WELFARE.

The indicator figuresThe following questions are extracted from different RSPCA commissionedomnibus surveys 1 and provide a window into the views and thoughts ofthe public, their attitude to animal welfare and interest in improving it. Thisis the third year that two of the questions have been asked. A further twohave been repeated from last year and one is being compared to datafrom 2006. 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, animalwelfare must be a key priority”? 2 3 4

The question was developed to understand if the public thoughtthat animal welfare was an important factor when considering thesociety that we live in. The question has been asked annually since2006 and the results have changed significantly since then. In 2006,just over half (53 per cent) of the people questioned were inagreement with the statement, with about one-quarter (24 per cent)disagreeing. In 2007 nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of thosequestioned agreed with the statement with just nine per centdisagreeing. The latest survey commissioned in 2008, demonstratesthat 80 per cent of people agreed that animal welfare should be akey priority with just seven per cent disagreeing with the statement.This is a very positive change and suggests that the majority viewanimal welfare as an important societal issue. The question has itsflaws, as it is difficult to assess why in two years such a change hastaken place or to pinpoint what has happened to encourage thegeneral public to believe that animal welfare is such an importantissue. It is hoped that the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act2006 in England and Wales and the Animal Health and Welfare(Scotland) Act 2006, and the publicity surrounding them, hasimproved understanding and awareness of animals and the lawsrelating to animal welfare.

“Some people say that in addition to factors suchas price and quality, there are ethical factors involvedwhen buying different items. On this card is a listof factors which come under this ethical heading.Please tell me which two or three, if any, youpersonally think are the most important.” 2 3 4

In 2007, the eighth edition of The Ethical Consumerism Report 5 waspublished and identified that the amount of household expenditureon ethical goods and services had doubled over the past five years.It reports that the overall ethical market in the UK is worth £32.3billion a year and grew between 2006 and 2007 by nine per cent.The question was asked in order to ascertain how the public rate

animal welfare when shopping for ethical goods, and if animalwelfare is comparable to the ethical market in general.

The following statements were provided:

� items are produced in an environmentally-friendly manner

� items are produced without violation of human rights orexploitation of people in developing countries

� items are produced in a way that minimises unnecessarysuffering to animals

� items are produced with fair trade issues in mind.

When the question was asked in 2007 nearly half (48 per cent) ofrespondents felt that minimising unnecessary animal suffering isimportant. In 2008, this figure rose by nine per cent (57 per cent).The most recent survey shows animal welfare as the most importantconsideration although this is only by two per cent. Also each of theissues rate higher than the previous year.

It would be wrong to infer from the survey that the public believesanimal welfare is more important than the environment or humanrights. However, it would be fair to say that animal welfare is consideredas important as the other ethical factors highlighted and that itsimportance reflects the overall growth in the sale of ethical goods.

“Did you learn about animal welfare at school?” 2 3

Animal welfare does not form part of the statutory elements of thenational curriculum but it is included in a number of science andcitizenship schemes. Within these schemes there are explicit referencesto the role of animals within our lives, and our responsibility to treatthem and/or the environments within which they live with respect.

The question was drafted to find out if there was any correlationbetween actually learning about animals and whether or not it issomething that should be taught at school. The results for both yearsare almost identical with just 2 1 and 22 per cent of those questionedhaving learnt about animal welfare at school. As with the previousyear, in 2008 the majority of those who said yes were in the 16–24and 25–3 4 age ranges. When schools in the UK were asked if theytaught animal welfare as part of the curriculum, 88 per cent of thoseconfirmed that they taught at least one lesson of animal welfare 6

(see page 21). The school survey and the age of positive opinion pollresponders suggest a number of explanations: perhaps animalwelfare has been taught more often during the past 10 years, ormaybe younger people can remember more about their school daysbecause they are more recent. Even though a small number ofrespondents said yes when questioned, it is very positive that animalwelfare is an issue that is at some level being taught in schools.

GENERIC INDICATORS


“How important, if at all, do you think that it is foranimal welfare to be one of the things young peoplelearn about at school?” 2 3

The above question was asked to find out how important the issueof animal welfare is and to understand if the public felt that formaleducation was the right arena to create awareness. In 2007, 84 percent of those questioned responded positively to the poll and in2008 this increased to 90 per cent of responders.

The response to the poll is extremely encouraging as it suggeststhe public think teaching animal welfare is important and that schoolis the right vehicle for doing so. The results also complement theschool survey (see page 21), which found that 88 per cent of schoolswere teaching at least one lesson of animal welfare6. It suggests thatat a small level, schools are delivering and responding positively topublic opinion.

How strongly do you agree or disagree that:“Animal welfare is an important consideration whenI buy chicken”? 7 8

Every year about 850 million chickens are reared for their meat inthe UK. With the sheer numbers of animals affected and the potentialnegative welfare implications, it is important to find out if the generalpublic considers the welfare of chickens when they buy them. Thequestions were asked in 2006 and 2008 and formed part of abroader survey about chickens bred for meat.

In 2006, 72 per cent agreed that animal welfare is an importantconsideration when buying chicken. In 2008, this rose to 79 per cent.A further question formed part of the survey and looked at the actualpurchase of chicken and if higher welfare options, that is free-range,organic or Freedom Food, were bought. Interestingly in both 2006and 2008, 70 per cent agreed or said they would buy the higherwelfare chicken option. As with the first question about chicken, it isextremely encouraging that the public are thinking about the welfareof chickens and purchasing higher welfare options. However, asshown in another indicator (see page 48), 1 4.8 per cent of chickensproduced in the UK are reared to higher welfare standards. In 2006,this figure was just three per cent. For both years there is quite adiscrepancy between the opinion poll figures and the production

figures. It suggests that the public have good intentions about thesort of chicken that they intend to buy, but due to labelling (lack oflabelling or confusion about wording and/or images depicted), price(higher welfare chicken tends to be more expensive than standardchicken), difficulty in finding higher welfare products or lack ofavailability, shoppers do not always end up with the product theyhad planned to purchase.



1 An omnibus survey is a method of quantitative market research where data on a wide varietyof 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 thesurvey while sharing the common demographic data collected from each respondent.

2 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.

3 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.

4 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 wasused in 2006.

5 The Co-operative Bank. The Ethical Consumerism Report 2007.6 Questionnaire sent to 6,400 schools, January 2008.7 TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 2,011 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain.

Telephone interviews between 8–17 February 2008.8 TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 1,013 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain.

Telephone interviews between 12–14 May 2006.

IN 2006, 72 PER CENT AGREED THAT ANIMAL WELFARE IS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION

WHEN BUYING CHICKEN. IN 2008, THIS ROSE TO 79 PER CENT.

RSPCA concernMany animal welfare issues have implications forindividuals, the communities within which they liveand society as a whole. In order for young people tounderstand the role of animals within their lives andsociety, and make a positive contribution to their welfare,the RSPCA believes animal welfare education should bean integral part of children’s formal education.

For the majority of young people in the UK thisformal education takes place in a school environment.The basic requirements of what is taught in schools aredefined by the curriculum. In all four countries of the UKthe curriculum includes a few explicit references to therole of animals within our lives and our responsibilityto treat them and/or the environments within whichthey live with respect.

The RSPCA believes there are many more opportunitiesto use animal welfare as a focus or context for thedelivery of the curriculum and would like to see allschools using them.

BackgroundThe bodies responsible for education and the curriculum in all fourUK countries describe their vision for education and communicate theirpurpose on dedicated websites and in published documents. Eachcountry makes reference to the role of education in preparing youngpeople to participate in society and make a positive contributionto the communities within which they live.

The Learning and Development section of the Welsh AssemblyGovernment 1 suggests that young people are entitled to: “…be ableto learn about things that interest you and affect you”, and “...beinvolved in volunteering and be active in your community”. England’sQualifications and Curriculum Authority’s working draft of ‘A bigpicture of the curriculum’ 2, highlights three curriculum aims, oneof which is to enable young people to become: “responsible citizenswho make a positive contribution to civic society”. One of itsaccountability measures is: “to secure civic participation”. NorthernIreland’s Strategic Plan for Education 3 states one of its aims as:“To foster the personal development of young people, includingan understanding of their rights and responsibilities within society”.One of its desired outcomes is: “…young people with the self-esteemto be confident, happy and ambitious and contribute positively totheir local community and wider society.” Scotland has five goalsin its Lifelong Learning Strategy 4, including: “A Scotland where peoplehave the confidence, enterprise, knowledge, creativity and skills theyneed to participate in economic, social and civic life”.

If children and young people are to understand the role of animalswithin their communities and society, and make a positive contributionto their welfare, they need to experience animal welfare education atregular intervals during their school years. Positive behaviour towardsanimals requires an understanding of their needs and an appreciationof the responsibility that humans have for them. A number of lawsexist that protect and promote the welfare of animals. The RSPCAbelieves that children and young people should explore why thesewere created and how they relate to their own lives. Throughouttheir lives children and young people will be required to makeeveryday decisions that can affect the lives of animals such as thefood they consume and the cosmetics they use. It is importantthat young people make these decisions with a thoroughunderstanding of the issues involved and the implications of thedifferent choices they may make. Finally, the welfare of animals ispromoted by a number of different voluntary and non-governmentalorganisations, many of which operate within the local community.It is beneficial for young people to understand the purpose ofthese organisations, how they contribute to society and howthey can support their work.

GENERIC INDICATORS


WELFARE INDICATOR: The proportion of schools that incorporateanimal welfare into their curriculum


To find out more about the frequency and context of animal welfareeducation in schools, a questionnaire was sent to a representativesample (20 per cent) of primary and secondary schools 5 in the UK.This was twice as many as the previous year, where 10 per cent(3,200) of schools in the UK were sent a questionnaire.

The indicator figuresThe questionnaire was sent to 6,400 schools in the UK and resultedin a five per cent response rate – only 322 schools completed thesurvey. The response rate, although marginally better than theprevious year (just four per cent of schools responded), is extremelydisappointing. Of those schools that responded, 86 per cent wereprimary schools and 14 per cent were secondary schools. Seventy-oneper cent of these responses were from schools in England although

this was not unexpected as England has around four times asmany schools as the other countries combined.

The questionnaire consisted of four questions, which wouldprovide a ‘snapshot’ of animal welfare education in the UK today.

“By the time a pupil leaves your school how manylessons will they have experienced that used animalwelfare as either a focus or context for delivering thenational curriculum?”

A significant number of schools in the UK (88 per cent) are providingat least one lesson about animal welfare. This is an increase of 1 1 percent from last year, however 12 per cent of schools are failing toprovide any lessons about animal welfare.

Figure 2 illustrates the difference between the number of lessons


Data source: Education Direct.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

More than 107–10 lessons3–6 lessons1–2 lessonsNo lessons

Primary

Secondary

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

Perc

enta

geof

scho

ols

Figure 2: Number of lessons provided by primary and secondary schools on animal welfare, 2007–2008

IF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE ARE 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 YEARS.

provided by primary schools and those provided by secondaryschools in 2007 and 2008. The number of primary schools providingat least one lesson about animal welfare has increased from 87 percent in 2007 to 90 per cent in 2008, but unfortunately the numberof secondary schools providing at least one lesson about animalwelfare has actually decreased from 84 per cent in 2007 to 79 percent in 2008. However those secondary schools that are providinganimal welfare education, are more likely to provide a greater numberof lessons than they were in 2007 (most secondary schools providedone to two lessons in 2007, in 2008 they provided three to sixlessons). By way of contrast the number of lessons provided inprimary schools has reduced, with more schools likely to providethree to six lessons and less likely to provide seven or more lessonsthan they were in 2007.

“Please explain why you don’t use animal welfareas either a focus or context for delivering thenational curriculum”

Only the schools that don’t provide lessons about animal welfareanswered this question. Schools were able to provide more than onereason to why animal welfare was not either a focus or context fordelivering the curriculum. The main reason given by schools inEngland, Wales and Scotland was lack of curriculum time, accountingfor 47 per cent, 67 per cent and 47 per cent of the responsesrespectively. Only two responses were recorded by schools fromNorthern Ireland and these were: “Don’t think it is important” and“Other”. Lack of animal welfare knowledge was felt to be an importantfactor by 26 per cent of the schools in Scotland and 1 1 per cent ofthe schools in Wales, whereas the second most popular reason(18 per cent) for schools in England was lack of curriculum resources.

In 2007, 75 per cent of primary schools suggested that lack ofcurriculum time was the reason why animal welfare was not partof their curriculum, however in 2008 this reduced to 48 per cent,although this was still the most popular response. In 2008, moresecondary schools recorded lack of curriculum time, increasing from40 per cent to 45 per cent. Lack of animal welfare knowledge hadincreased significantly as a reason why primary schools are notdelivering animal welfare; four per cent of schools recorded this


GENERIC INDICATORS


0

3

6

9

Num

bero

fsch

ools

prov

idin

gan

imal

wel

fare

less

ons

12

15

15–1614–1513–1412–131 1–1210-1 19–108–97–86–75–64–5Birthto 3 years

Figure 3: Ages at which young people experience animal welfare education at school, 2008

as a reason in 2007, 18 per cent in 2008. By way of contrast, lackof curriculum resources has become less of an issue for secondaryschools, with a reduction from 40 per cent in 2007 to 15 per centin 2008.

The fact that 88 per cent of the schools that responded are ableto provide at least one lesson on animal welfare suggests that timecan be found within the curriculum and that perhaps this is more anissue of perception rather than reality. Lack of curriculum resourcesand or knowledge should not be a barrier to providing animal welfareeducation as the majority of animal welfare organisations providecurriculum-linked resources, and some provide teacher training onhow to incorporate animal welfare as part of the curriculum.

“In what year group(s) is animal welfare part of yourcurriculum work?”As Figure 3 demonstrates, children and young people may experienceanimal welfare education at any point during their school careers.However, this is more likely to occur between the ages of four and11 in England, between birth and 11 years in Wales, and between fiveand 12 years in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Overall the pattern ofthese results reflects those from last year, mirroring the age at whichyoung people leave primary school and start secondary school inEngland, Wales and Scotland. In Northern Ireland young peopletransfer to secondary school in their twelfth year, however asignificant number of secondary schools continue to offer animalwelfare education during this first year. Animal welfare education isequally important whatever the age of young people and shouldbe taught as a progressive set of skills, knowledge and attitudes.Some secondary schools are demonstrating this commitment andit is important that other schools do the same.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

OtherPSE/CitizenshipGeographyREEnglishScience2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

Primary

Secondary

Perc

enta

geof

scho

ols

Figure 4. Subjects within which animal welfare education is taught, 2007–2008

“In what subject(s) is animal welfare part of yourschool’s curriculum work?”Although animal welfare education is taught in a number of differentsubject areas, Personal, Social, Health and Citizenship Education(PSHCE) and Science are the most popular subject areas overall.Science has become more popular for animal welfare educationin secondary schools than last year, with a corresponding reductionin the amount of animal welfare education taught as part of thePSHCE curriculum.

Figure 4 illustrates the subjects that schools (primary andsecondary) taught animal welfare in as part of their curriculum work.This provides useful information indicating which areas of thecurriculum provide openings for animal welfare education and shouldenable 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 already produce curriculumresources that support these areas of the curriculum.

It is extremely disappointing that such a small number of schoolschose to respond to the questionnaire. Without information anddata from more schools it is difficult to know whether this is a truerepresentation of animal welfare education within the UK. It is hopedthat in future years more schools will respond to the questionnaireso a clearer picture is provided. From the little knowledge we have,thanks to those schools that took part in the survey, it seems it canonly be of benefit that children are learning about some aspects ofanimal welfare during their formal education. It is hoped that moretime is spent on the issue in the future.

GENERIC INDICATORS



1 Welsh Assembly Government website: www.new.wales.gov.uk2 A big picture of the curriculum (working draft). July 2007.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.3 Strategic Plan for Education April 2006–March 2008 Northern Ireland.4 The Lifelong Learning Strategy for Scotland published 2003.5 For the purpose of the survey, primary schools have been defined as those schools that

children attend between the ages of three and 11; secondary schools have been defined asthose schools that children attend between the ages of 12 and 16.

FROM THE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE, THANKS TO THOSE SCHOOLS THAT TOOK PART

IN THE SURVEY, IT SEEMS IT CAN ONLY BE OF BENEFIT THAT CHILDREN ARE LEARNING

ABOUT SOME ASPECTS OF ANIMAL WELFARE DURING THEIR FORMAL EDUCATION.

RSPCA concernFireworks are a universal symbol of celebration used forvarious cultural and religious events worldwide primarilyfor aesthetic effect and entertainment purposes. In theUK fireworks are traditionally associated with BonfireNight, but are also used throughout the year at weddings,concerts and festivals. Whilst fireworks can create aspectacular backdrop to events and occasions, there isa chance that animals can suffer as a consequence ofthe noise created by them especially as animals’ hearingis far more sensitive than humans and loud noises candistress them1.

The RSPCA is concerned for the welfare of animalsaffected by stress and anxiety caused by loud fireworksand is encouraging a more responsible attitude totheir use.

BackgroundThe charity Environmental Protection UK 2 recognises that: “Whileadding excitement to occasions, fireworks can also frighten anddisturb people and animals.” Its website (as well as others, includinglocal authority sites) details the laws relating to fireworks: when theycan be used, who can buy them, and what to do if you want to makea complaint about the noise of fireworks. Most animal organisationsproduce information and advice about keeping animals safe whenfireworks are going off, as it is increasingly recognised that fireworkscan be a cause of great anxiety to animals. A poll commissionedin 2007 by the RSPCA showed that of the 44 per cent questionedwho owned a pet, 57 per cent said their animals were frightenedof fireworks 3 and more animal owners are looking for advice fromtheir vet, animal charities or relevant websites on how to alleviatethe suffering their animals endure.

The Firework Regulations 2004 set the maximum noise limit forfireworks sold to the public and prohibit anyone under the age of18 from possessing fireworks in a public place and using them atnight. The current noise limit for fireworks for use by the public is setat 120 decibels (dBAI). A noise survey commissioned by the RSPCAproved this to be the equivalent noise to a jet aircraft taking off.The RSPCA would like to see the noise limit lowered to 97 dBAI,which is equivalent to a car door slamming shut1, as this could helpreduce the stress suffered by animals. The legislation has applieda curfew to the use of fireworks for private use. It prohibits the useof fireworks at night and states that no fireworks are to be usedbetween the hours of 1 1pm–7am except during Bonfire Night(up to midnight), Diwali and Chinese New Year (up to 1am). Althougha curfew may help, it is difficult to see how this will reduce the stresscaused to animals, as they cannot tell the difference between afirework going off at 10.45pm and 1 1.05pm. Furthermore it is virtuallyimpossible for authorities to detect where a firework has been firedfrom and who was responsible, making it difficult to enforce andpolice the curfew.

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 4, local authoritieshave powers to prevent or abate noise nuisance from premises andland. Local authority environmental health officers have to judgewhether a problem complained about might be considered a statutorynuisance and act accordingly. Complaints about fireworks and othernoise problems should be reported to local authorities, but currentlythere are no centrally-held records of the number of firework-relatednoise complaints received5 and therefore it is difficult to judge thenumber of people complaining. In a recent poll 58 per cent of peopledid not know whom they should contact if they had a complaintabout noise. Of those that knew who to call, 75 per cent believed


WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of firework-relatedcommunications received by the RSPCA


they had to contact the police to complain about firework noise andonly 22 per cent correctly said they would complain to their localauthority 3. This demonstrates that there is still confusion about whoto contact and the RSPCA believes local authorities should make itclearer who members of the public need to complain to and recordthe number of complaints they receive.

The RSPCA encourages members of the public, regardless ofwhether they are pet owners or not, to act responsibly towardsanimals when fireworks are being used. This is done by:

� encouraging people to attend public firework displays rather thanhold their own

� encouraging local authorities to publicise events well in advanceof a fireworks display and informing residents that live near tothe event

� encouraging the purchase of lower-noise fireworks and informingneighbours about displays so provisions can be made for pets.

The RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations 6 7 provide thegeneral public with information about how to minimise stress andanxiety to animals when fireworks are being used. However it isup to pet owners, users of fireworks, firework manufacturers anddistributors to join forces and promote a more responsible attitudetowards the use of fireworks and make people aware of the negativeeffect they have on animals.

The indicator figuresDuring the firework season, the RSPCA , other animal organisations,local authorities and the police will receive complaints about fireworks,including those that involve animals. This indicator focuses solelyon the communication received by the RSPCA from the publicconcerning animals and fireworks, because obtaining informationfrom other sources is currently not possible.

In 2005 and 2006, the RSPCA contacted nearly 3,000 vets inEngland and Wales to ascertain how many animals they had seenthat had been affected by fireworks. Unfortunately, due to thequestionnaire’s poor response rate a survey was not conducted in2007. It is hoped that in future a new survey will be developed andmore vets will choose to complete it. For the indicator to berepresentative and meaningful, the RSPCA would like to use a numberof data sources rather than just its own. The results from previousyears showed that the majority of animals that were seen by a vetdue to stress caused by fireworks were dogs (Figure 5). One possibleexplanation is that dogs are most likely to show obvious signs ofstress and anxiety, whereas it is more difficult to observe stressbehaviours in cats or small animals such as rabbits and


GENERIC INDICATORS

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

20072006200520042003

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

WildlifeSmall animalsHorsesDogsCats



Figure 6: The number of firework complaints andadvice calls received by the RSPCA, 2003–2007

Figure 5: Animals seen by vets due tofireworks-related incidents, 2005–2006

2005 2006

Advice Complaint

guinea pigs. Trying to establish the impact fireworks have on wildanimals and farm animals is especially hard, as there is little or noreporting on these issue. Therefore pets, mainly dogs, are the mainfocus for advice and literature.

While it is acknowledged that fireworks can cause anxiety andstress to some animals, the RSPCA believes that it is importantto find out how big the problem actually is and has looked at itsown communications with the public regarding animals (usuallypets) and fireworks. Every year, members of the public contactthe RSPCA about fireworks, whether this is to seek advice, torequest firework literature or to make a complaint. During thebuild up to Bonfire Night, the RSPCA receives an increased levelof communications from the public. Complaints about the noiseof fireworks going off in local areas are received and advice isrequested on how to look after pets whilst fireworks are goingoff and how to find animals that have bolted from their owners.

Figure 6 shows the complaints and advice calls received by theRSPCA’s National Control Centre over the last five years. In 2003,the RSPCA received fewer complaints and more calls asking foradvice, however in recent years more complaint calls have beenreceived. This could be because information on how to keep pets safeis now more readily available on the RSPCA website6 and otherwebsites 8. During the fireworks season the RSPCA cruelty and adviceline’s recorded message advises callers to look at the website forinformation about keeping pets safe. From June to December 2007,more than 10,000 visits were recorded to the RSPCA website’s fireworkpages. Pet owners are becoming more knowledgeable about thedistress fireworks can cause to their animals, more aware of thepreventative measures they can take to prevent their animalssuffering and better informed about what to do if their animalsbecome distressed. These changes mean that animal owners do notneed to phone the RSPCA for advice.

However the increase in the number of complaints received isharder to understand. Since 2003, complaints to the RSPCA havealmost doubled. There was a slight decrease in calls in 2006, butthey increased again in 2007. One reason for the increase could bethat fireworks seem to be used more often, over a longer periodof time and seem to be getting louder thus causing upset animalowners to contact the RSPCA.

Each year the RSPCA sends firework posters and leaflets toabout 6,500 UK veterinary practices, public libraries and localauthorities in England and Wales. Table 3 shows the numberof items of literature that were sent out from October to December2007. The materials are also available to the general public andRSPCA branches across England and Wales. RSPCA branches

ordered the most materials, which is not surprising as they havedirect contact with the public and many hold events to promote theRSPCA’s fireworks campaign.

In 2007 the RSPCA aired radio adverts the weekend before BonfireNight advising people to contact the RSPCA for information on lookingafter pets. More than 3,000 people responded, which indicates thatthe public are eager for tips on how to alleviate the distress fireworkscause to animals.

This indicator demonstrates that people are concerned about theirpets’ welfare whilst fireworks are being set off, and are keen to receiveinformation on how to alleviate the stress and suffering fireworkscause. It is difficult to compare these results with other organisationsand charities, as there are no similar data easily available. It is hopedthat in the future the RSPCA will be able to obtain adequate externaldata to identify how big the problem of noisy fireworks is for theUK’s animals.



1 Keep the noise down: Loud fireworks frighten animals. 2005. RSPCA.2 www.environmental-protection.org.uk/neighbourhood-nuisance/fireworks3 TNS poll: Results based on interviews with 1,015 adults aged 16+ in Great Britain.

Telephone interviews between 7–9 December 2007.4 Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part III.5 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 beenreceived by his department; and what statistics his department has collected on complaintsregarding firework noise received by other public bodies in each month from 1 January 2003to 31 December 2007”. Mr Thomas replied: “Complaints about noise from fireworks are notcollected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost”.

6 www.rspca.org.uk/fireworks7 www.bluecross.org.uk8 www.rospa.com/homesafety/advice/fireworks/index.htm

Table 3: Firework communications sent andreceived by the RSPCA in 2007

Type of communication Informationsent/received

Information sent to general public 6,898

Phonecalls received 300

Fireworks materials sent to RSPCA branches 18,000

Visits to RSPCA website fireworks pages 10,000

Text messages received 3,100

Data source: RSPCA.

RSPCA concernThe RSPCA regularly receives calls about stray dogs eventhough the Society does not deal directly with the issue.In April 2008 section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoodsand Environment Act 2005 (CNEA) was implemented.It transferred the responsibility for receiving stray dogsout of hours (generally accepted as outside the hoursof 9am–5pm during weekdays and throughout theweekend) from the police to local authorities in Englandand Wales.

Many local authorities fulfil their obligation to seizeand detain stray dogs, others carry out additionalproactive work such as microchipping, neutering andgiving dog training advice either as independent councilsor in partnership with animal welfare charities, collegesor other councils. This will not only potentially reducestray dog numbers, but also tackle issues such asanti-social behaviour with dogs. The RSPCA is keen topromote the local authorities that are providing a goodservice as well as those that are being more proactivein educating owners. For this reason, in April 2008the RSPCA launched its Community Animal Footprintsscheme, an annual initiative that rewards andpromotes good animal welfare practice by localauthorities and housing providers – including afootprint for stray dog services.

The RSPCA is encouraging local authorities, and insome cases assisting them, to implement more effectivemeasures that could help reduce the number of straydogs and increase the number of dogs returned totheir owners.

BackgroundAlthough there is no legislative definition, the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) defines a stray dog as“One that is in a public place, not under the charge of its keeper 1 ”.Under the Environmental Protection Act 19902 local authorities aregiven specific orders to appoint an officer to be responsible for:“Discharging the functions imposed or conferred by this section fordealing with stray dogs found in the area of the authority”. The Actalso gives joint responsibility to police and local authorities for thereceipt of strays, which in turn has sometimes created confusion insome authority areas about who is actually responsible for straydogs. The CNEA was intended to resolve the confusion of jointresponsibility by terminating police responsibility for stray dogs3

and passing sole responsibility for stray dogs to local authorities.It was agreed by Defra, following pressure from a number of localgovernment and animal welfare organisations, that this could notbe implemented until funding had been transferred from the policeto local authorities. In November 2007, two years after the Act waspassed, Defra announced the implementation date for the CNEAas 6 April 2008, along with the settlement of £4m to be divided upproportionately between local authorities in England and Wales(about £10,000 each).

To monitor the problem of stray dogs in the UK, data wasgathered from local authorities using an information requestunder the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The FOIAentitles anybody to ask a public authority for any recordedinformation they keep. A response must be made availablewithin 20 working days from receipt of the request. The reasonfor using this method was to ensure that the survey produced agood response within the time parameters outlined in the FOIA,and therefore give the RSPCA a more accurate picture of thesituation. The survey was sent to all 376 local authorities inEngland (354) and Wales (22), but unlike the survey carriedout in 2006, the 32 local authorities of Scotland and 26 ofNorthern Ireland were also included. To ensure that there couldnot be any misinterpretation, those questions that concernedthe collection and disposal of dogs in England and Wales wereworded in line with the direction given in the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990.

There are other methods of data collection that are usedto determine how big the UK stray dog problem is in the UK.The essential difference between the RSPCA’s research onstray dogs compared to others is that it seeks to clarify whichdogs are euthanased after the statutory seven-day period4

and which are euthanased on medical grounds.


GENERIC INDICATORS

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of stray dogs collected bylocal authorities in the UK


The indicator figuresThe 304 UK local authorities (70 per cent) that responded to thesurvey covering the 2006–2007 period, reported they had collected87, 1835 stray dogs. In England, around 70 per cent respondedcompared to 59 per cent of Welsh local authorities that completedthe survey. Seventy five per cent and 65 per cent of Scottish andNorthern Irish local authorities respectively responded. This responserate is disappointing. To gain a true insight into the stray problem inthe UK all local authorities need to participate in the survey.Therefore, to compensate for this lack of information and to effectivelycompare year-on-year data, the stray dog figures have been projectedto reflect a 100 per cent response rate.

Table 4 demonstrates the difference between the number of straysrecorded by local authorities in England and Wales over a two-yearperiod. The number of dogs seized between 2006 and 2007 inEngland and Wales was 72,8466 7, which is considerably higher thanthe 64,4688 reported previously between 2005 and 2006 (Table 4).The number of dogs returned to their owners also rose comparativelywith number of dogs being seized (11 per cent), unfortunately so didthe total euthanasia figure. Between 2005 and 2006, the reportednumber of dogs euthanased in England and Wales was fairly low incomparison to the number of dogs that local authorities seized.A year later the numbers are still comparatively low however theyhave increased by around 900 (25 per cent). Table 4 shows that inEngland and Wales 4.8 per cent (3,5489) of all dogs seized wereeuthanased between 2006 and 2007 compared with four per cent(2,63210) between 2005 and 2006.

In 2006–2007, Scotland returned the most stray dogs out of allfour UK countries (Figure 7), with 56 per cent of all dogs beingreunited with their owners. Northern Ireland had the poorest returnrate with just under one-third (29.7 per cent) of stray dogs beingreturned to their owners. It is clear from these figures that there isstill an important role for both local authorities and animal welfareorganisations to educate and assist the general public about beingresponsible dog owners. This includes the promotion of permanentdog identification (microchipping), and regular updating of associatedinformation, as 50 per cent of dogs that stray in the UK are notreturned to their owners.

Information was also collected on the numbers of stray dogsgiven to members of the public and to rehoming establishments(Figure 7). Around one-third of all stray dogs were given to rehomingestablishments in the UK with a further 10 per cent given to thepublic. Welsh local authorities gave more than half of all their straysto rehoming establishments with just five per cent going straight tothe public. In Northern Ireland around one-quarter of all strays weregiven to the public with less than 10 per cent, the national average,going to rehoming establishments.

Table 5 demonstrates the number of dogs that were euthanasedby each country between 2006 and 2007. The total number of dogseuthanased each year is important to identify, however it is far moresignificant to identify the number of dogs being euthanased after thestatutory seven-day period on non-medical grounds because thedogs are likely to be fit and healthy. Collectively England and Wales


Table 4: Stray dogs recorded by local authorities in England and Wales, 2005–2007

Year Number of strays Returned to owner Total euthanased

1 April 2005 – 31 March 2006 64,468 29,655 2,632

1 April 2006 – 31 March 2007 72,846 33,415 3,548

Data source: RSPCA.

THE RSPCA IS ENCOURAGING 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.

(4.8 per cent) has a lower euthansia rate when compared to theoverall figure for the UK (6.6 per cent). Scotland recorded the lowesteuthanasia percentage with 3.1 per cent. Northern Ireland was thehighest with more than 20 per cent of strays being euthanased in2007. These figures are slightly tainted by the fact that the majority ofauthorities in Northern Ireland, which had the largest percentage ofeuthanased dogs, were unable to provide information on the reasonfor euthanasia.

For the period 2005–2006, 28 per cent of local authorities inEngland and Wales were unable to separate their data into dogs thatwere euthanased on health and medical grounds, and those thatwere euthanased after the statutory seven-day period. Where thedata could be separated, 31.2 per cent of dogs were euthanased onmedical grounds and 40.8 per cent after the seven-day period in

England and Wales. The figures a year later identified that aboutone-quarter of reported euthanasia in England and Wales couldnot be defined. There was a substantial reduction in the percentageof dogs being euthanased after the seven-day period with 28.8 percent reported euthanased under this legislation, a reduction of 12per cent. There was a sharp percentage rise of 16.2 per cent for thenumber of dogs being euthanased on health or medical groundsat 47.4 per cent.

Anecdotally there appear to be more authorities claiming to havenon-destruction policies. However, about one-third11 of dogs in the UKare given to establishments at the end of the seven-day period(Figure 7). Whilst it is likely that many of the dogs will be rehomed,it is a sad reality that some will be euthanased or spend a lifetimein kennels.


GENERIC INDICATORS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

UKNorthern IrelandScotlandWalesEngland

Figure 7: The percentage of stray dogs recorded by local authorities in the UK, 2006–2007

Data source: RSPCA.

Returned to owner

Given to the public

Given to establishments for rehoming

Total euthanased

It should also be noted that 10 per cent or 8,732 dogs are given tomembers of the public by local authorities after the seven-day period,which demonstrates the commitment that many local authorities andtheir contracted kennels have made to reducing the prospects ofdogs being euthanased.

The implementation of section 68 of the CNEA in April 2008 islikely to put further pressure on local authorities with an increase inseized dogs and a resulting increase in the number that need to bereunited or rehomed. It is therefore important that animal welfareorganisations and local authorities work closer on preventativemeasures to educate owners about the law, the importance of beinga responsible owner and improving the chances of their dog beingreturned should it stray.

Table 5: The number of stray dogs reported to have been euthanased by UK local authorities, 2006–2007

Country Euthanased on Euthanased on Euthanasedmedical grounds non-medical grounds (no explanation)

England 1,443 824 766

Wales 237 197 80

Scotland 20 71 80

Northern Ireland 826 0 1,775

UK 2,526 1,092 2,701

Data source: RSPCA.



1 Defra website: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/localenv/dogs/strays.htm2 Environmental Protection Act 1990 s149 (1) and (3).3 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 s68.4 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.5 The actual number of stray dogs seized in the UK was 60,053.6 The actual number of stray dogs seized in Wales was 6,631. This was from a response from

13 local authorities questioned, 2006–2007.7 The actual number of stray dogs seized in England was 43,509. This was from a response

from 250 local authorities questioned, 2006–2007.8 The actual number of stray dogs seized in England and Wales was 48,523. This was from a

response rate of 75 per cent, or 283 from 376 local authorities questioned, 2005–2006.9 The actual number of dogs euthanased in England and Wales is 2,420, 2006–2007.10 The actual number of dogs euthanased in England and Wales is 1,974, 2005–2006.11 The actual number of stray dogs in the UK given to establishments is 20,387, 2006–2007.

RSPCA concernLocal authorities in England and Wales are involvedin a number of services that relate directly to animals,including stray dog collection and the licensing of petshops, dog breeding establishments and kennellingfacilities. There are other areas of public service deliverythat have some impact, directly or indirectly, on animalwelfare where the local authority may influence policy.These include areas such as housing provision, pestcontrol and emergency planning.

An animal welfare charter is a document that, in itsmost basic form, establishes some basic principles thelocal authority generally supports with relation to animalwelfare. The implementation of a charter can encourageanimals to be a consideration in all aspects of a localauthority’s work and help to ensure that services havemechanisms in place to maintain and increase goodstandards of animal welfare.

In April 2008, the RSPCA launched the CommunityAnimal Footprints, a scheme to reward and promotegood practice in animal welfare by local authorities andhousing providers. It is hoped this scheme will encouragemore local authorities to adopt animal friendly policiesin areas that impact on animal welfare includingintroducing a charter.

The RSPCA believes that all local authorities shouldadopt an animal welfare charter, so that the welfare ofanimals becomes a natural consideration within theauthority’s decision making and policy process.

BackgroundThe passing of two pieces of major legislation, the CleanNeighbourhoods and Environment Act 20051 (CNEA) and the AnimalWelfare Act 2006 (AWA)2 in the last few years, has impacted onall tiers of local authorities in England and Wales with regard toservices directly related to animals. Sections 55 and 56 of the CNEAgive local authorities the power to issue dog control orders on anyopen spaces, including parks. The orders allow authorities to excludedog access completely or exclude dogs not on leads, and increasesfines for dog fouling. Section 68 removes any responsibility forstray dogs from the police, leaving local authorities with soleresponsibility for them.

Within the Animal Welfare Act 2006, local authorities aregiven powers of entry and enforcement that they may exerciseto improve animal welfare, although there is no obligation forlocal authorities to use these powers. However, they also mustensure that those they license adhere to the Animal Welfare Act2006. This means that the Act should impact on the licensingof pet shops and events that involve animals, as well as ensuringthat kennelling facilities used for stray dogs meet the welfareneeds 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 oflocal authority work, others are a set of principles that the localauthority aims to work to in all aspects of council business. Themost effective animal welfare charters are those that cover both theprinciples and practical side and touch on areas of local authoritywork that may not be instantly linked with animal welfaree.g. social services and housing. However, in order for a welfarecharter to be meaningful and effective it must be backed up byaction. This in turn can create good public relation opportunitiesand link in with aspects of local authority work. For example,responsible pet ownership promotion could result in a reductionin problems such as stray dogs, fouling, barking and the use ofdogs to intimidate others, all of which fit under the anti-socialbehaviour umbrella.

The RSPCA believes that a robust and practical animal welfarecharter would also go some way in assisting contractors, officersand managers that may not have a primary animal-related roleto become more aware of the implications of their work onanimal welfare.

This animal welfare indicator was developed to monitor thenumber of local authorities that currently have animal welfarecharters and those that are considering introducing a charterin the forthcoming year.


GENERIC INDICATORS

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of local authorities in the UKthat have an animal welfare charter


The indicator figuresAn information request on animal welfare charters was sent to376 local authorities in England and Wales3, and, for the first time,the request was also sent to 32 authorities in Scotland and 26authorities in Northern Ireland.

2008 saw a 20 per cent rise in responses to the questions onanimal welfare charters, rising from 50 per cent in 2007 to 70 per centthis year for England and Wales collectively 4. This is likely to be downto two factors. Firstly because the information request was includedin a questionnaire about stray dogs, resulting in there being onequestionnaire to complete, and secondly the number of questionssent were drastically reduced from 2007’s survey meaning theinformation was easier to collate.

Only data collated from England and Wales can be compared to2007, as this is the first year of data collection in Northern Ireland andScotland. Figure 8 shows that twice as many local authorities haveanimal welfare charters in England and Wales. This has risen from4.4 per cent to 8.4 per cent in the last twelve months. There was alsoa rise in the number of responding local authorities that wereplanning to implement an animal welfare charter (or were consideringimplementing one) in the next 12 months, from 7.4 per cent to 15.2 percent. There are a number of potential reasons for this increase, themain one being that many of the 2008 responders did not reply tothe 2007 survey, including some that had animal welfare charters.Two pieces of animal-related legislation may have been factors:

the AWA in England and Wales; and section 68 of the CNEA. Althoughmany local authorities have not taken on additional powers ofinvestigation under the AWA, it has clearly focused the minds of thosethat were already contemplating introducing an animal welfare charter.

As can be seen in Figure 9, Wales and Northern Ireland’s figuresare largely insignificant individually with no responding authority ineither country claiming to have an animal welfare charter.Furthermore none of the authorities in Northern Ireland plans tointroduce one. Statistically Scotland looks slightly better with 8.3per cent of local authorities having a charter with the same amountconsidering introducing one.

This is the first time the figures have been divided up by country.Given the 20 per cent increase in responses it is difficult to assesssatisfactorily whether animal welfare is becoming a more significantpart of local governments’ agendas. The signs are positive, but untilnext year’s statistics are produced it is difficult to conclude a trend.



1 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. S55, 56, 68.2 Animal Welfare Act 2006.3 Unitary, metropolitan, London borough, district and Welsh unitary councils were surveyed.

County councils were not included.4 The response rates in England and Wales were 70.6 per cent and 59 per cent.

0

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

20082007


0

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

UKNorthern Ireland

ScotlandWalesEngland

Data source: RSPCA.

Figure 9: Number of local authorities that havean animal welfare charter in the UK, 2008

Have an animal welfare charter

Considering introducingan animal welfare charter

Have an animal welfare charter

Considering introducingan animal welfare charter

Figure 8: Number of local authorities that havean animal welfare charter in England and Wales,2007–2008

RSPCA concernIn the UK animal welfare is traditionally seen as an issueresting with one government department, namely theDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Defra). In the devolved governments of Wales, Scotlandand Northern Ireland, animal welfare rests with theWelsh Assembly Government’s Department for RuralAffairs, the Scottish Government’s Rural Affairs and theEnvironment Department and the Department ofAgricultural and Rural Development in Northern Ireland.Other UK ministries, such as the Home Office and theMinistry of Defence, have a direct role in setting policieson animal welfare or managing issues that have animpact on animal welfare, but they are usually notautomatically considered when the issue of animalsand their health and/or welfare is raised. Ideally, allgovernment departments in all UK countries wouldconsider the current and future needs of animals andacknowledge the relationship of animals with otherissues when developing policy and laws even if thereis not an obvious animal welfare theme.

The RSPCA would like the UK government anddevolved governments to take a holistic approach toanimal welfare, and advocates that all governmentdepartments give the issue due consideration whendeveloping and implementing policy and legislation.

BackgroundAlongside Defra, other major departments that set animal welfarepolicy include the Home Office (animals used in research andtesting), 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 anyoverseas programmes, and the Ministry of Defence which runsthe Defence Animal Centre (DAC) and is responsible for theAnimal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC).

By looking at the UK government’s plans for future policy,an assessment can be made about how animal welfare iscurrently viewed and whether aspects of it are being consideredand incorporated into future plans across different governmentdepartments. To gain some insight into current and futuregovernment thinking and actions about aspects of animalwelfare, white papers1 (documents produced by governmentdepartments to outline details of future policy) are reviewed.Although white papers are just one step in the process ofmaking government policy, they are useful indices in measuringhow legislators view animals and their welfare. By looking atwhite papers, it is hoped that cross-departmental thinking onanimal welfare will be evident and encouraged to occurin future years.

The indicator figuresBetween January 2004 and December 2007 2 3, 41 white paperswere published by various government ministries. During 2007,10 were published. None of the white papers published duringthis four-year period were specifically about animals or theirwelfare and just one was produced by Defra, the departmentwith overall, recognised responsibility for animal welfare.However, it would seem likely that a number of the issues coveredby the white papers would have some direct or indirect impacton animals even if it wasn’t initially obvious. The followingquestions were used to assess the white papers and to initiallyjudge whether animals and/or their welfare would be includedin the documents.

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

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

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


GENERIC INDICATORS

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of relevant white paperspublished by the UK government that include a positiveanimal welfare component

THE RELEVANT WHITE PAPER INCLUDED APOSITIVE ANIMAL WELFARE COMPONENT.


Table 6: White papers published 2004–2007 that could have included a positive animal welfare component

Date Department Title Animal welfare Countrycomponents

April 2004 Home Office One step ahead: A 21st century strategy No UK

to defeat organised crime4

April 2004 Foreign and Prospects for the EU in 20045 Yes UK

Commonwealth Office

July 2004 Department of Trade Making globalisation a force for good6 No UK

and Industry*

Sept 2004 Foreign and White paper on the Treaty establishing Yes UK

Commonwealth Office a Constitution for Europe7

Nov 2004 Home Office Building communities, beating crime: Yes England

A better police service for the 21st century 8 and Wales

Nov 2004 Department of Health Choosing health: Making healthier No England

choices easier9 and Wales

Feb 2005 Foreign and Prospects for the EU in 200510 Yes UK

Commonwealth Office

Feb 2005 Office of the Deputy Sustainable communities: People, places No England

Prime Minister** and prosperity11

Feb 2005 Department for 14–19 education and skills12 No England

Education and Skills***

Oct 2006 Department for Strong and prosperous communities: No England

Communities and The local government white paper13

Local Government

Dec 2006 Department of Health Review of the Human Fertilisation and No UK

Embryology Act14

Mar 2007 Department for A Sea Change15 Yes UK

Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs

Data source: Weekly Information Bulletin3.

* 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.

Each of the white papers was then read in detail with the followingquestions in mind.

� Is there any reference to animal welfare?

� How in depth does the white paper go?

� Is the detail provided adequate?

� By the nature of the document, should animal welfare havebeen considered?

Of the 31 white papers published between 2004 and 2006, 11 whitepapers were initially identified as having the potential to incorporatean animal welfare element within them. Of the 10 published in 2007,just one was considered relevant.

Table 6 lists the 12 white papers published between 2004 and2007 that would be expected to consider animals and their welfare.The table highlights the government department that produced themso as to demonstrate the crossover of animal welfare within differentareas of government policy.

� A Sea Change: A Marine Bill White Paper15 16

It is perhaps not surprising that this Defra white paper refers to andconsiders animal welfare and conservation. The title clearly suggeststhat marine life would be mentioned. The white paper introduces:“…a new framework for the sea, based on marine planning, thatbalances conservation, energy and resource need.” A section of thepaper outlines the vision for marine species protection. Whilst thepaper focuses on wildlife and habitat protection rather than welfare itdoes refer to the other legislation already in place that is applicable tothe marine area. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)identifies certain protected species including basking sharks, whalesand porpoises. The Habitat Regulations 1994 protect species such asmarine turtles and whales. The paper also acknowledges that thetrade in protected species is restricted and that certain methods ofkilling or taking of certain species are prohibited. It is welcoming thatDefra clearly considers animals throughout its white paper, and thatin 2007 the result of this particular indicator is positive.

It does need to be acknowledged that measuring cross-departmentthinking and policy year on year is difficult because the number ofwhite papers published each year changes, with differentdepartments producing documents. It is expected that only a smallselection will need to mention animal welfare in any detail andtherefore it is only fair to draw firm conclusions once informationhas been collected over a five-year period.


GENERIC INDICATORS


1 White papers are produced by UK government departments, however they may not have animpact in all four UK countries.

2 Weekly Information Bulletin. On: www.parliament.uk3 Office of public sector information website: www.opsi.gov.uk4 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 whole of the UK is affected by this white paper.

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.

RSPCA concernIn 1822, England and Wales first enacted legislationspecifically intended to prevent cruelty to animals with:“An Act to prevent the cruel and improper treatment ofcattle”. This was one of the earliest laws on animalcruelty in the world and seems to refer to all livestocknot just cattle. It was followed by the establishment ofthe Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in1824 for the purpose of enforcing this new Act andpromoting education on animal issues. The RSPCA,as it became known in 1840 and which remains today,established an inspectorate to enforce the animal welfarerelated legislation. Today there are about 330 RSPCAinspectors in England and Wales.

The RSPCA investigates and prosecutes the majorityof offences of animal cruelty and breaches of animalwelfare 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 adequatelyenforced”. Nearly two hundred years later, theimportance of this quote is still very much at theheart of why the RSPCA prosecutes individuals underthe Protection of Animals Act 1911 (POAA) and itssuccessor the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA).

In an ideal world investigations into animal crueltyand breaches of animal welfare, and any subsequentconvictions, wouldn’t be necessary because animalswould not be suffering as a result of neglect or cruelty.Unfortunately, this is unlikely ever to be the case, so amore realistic aim is for the year-on-year reduction of thenumber of investigations and convictions, resulting in anoverall increase in the standard of animal welfare.

BackgroundUntil 2007, the laws relating to animal cruelty were found in theProtection of Animals Act 1911. Section 1 (1)(a) of the Act made it anoffence to cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, torture, or terrify any domestic orcaptive animal, or wantonly or unreasonably to do or omit to do anyact which causes such an animal unnecessary suffering. The AWA inEngland and Wales significantly updates this 96-year-old legislationand, most importantly, introduces a welfare offence2. This imposes aduty on a person responsible for an animal to take reasonable stepsto ensure the needs of that animal are met to the extent requiredby good practice. For the purposes of the Act, an animal’s needsinclude its need for: a suitable environment; a suitable diet; to exhibitnormal behaviour patterns; any need to be housed with, or apartfrom, other animals; and to be protected from pain, suffering, injuryand disease.

The offence of causing cruelty and unnecessary suffering in the1911 Act has been updated in the AWA3. The RSPCA only takesprosecutions when the Code for Crown Prosecutors4 is met.The Society has a consistently high success rate with its prosecutions– in 2007, 97.2 per cent of the RSPCA’s prosecutions in England andWales were successful. Although the RSPCA does take prosecutionsusing more than 30 pieces of animal legislation, the vast majority(more than 85 per cent) were taken under the 1911 Act and will nowbe taken under the AWA. Data on the numbers of convictionsachieved by the RSPCA under Section 1 (1)(a) of the POAA andsubsequently the AWA are therefore a useful indicator to assesstrends in England and Wales.

The indicator figuresEach year, the RSPCA receives more than one million phone calls toits cruelty and advice line. The calls include animal cruelty incidentreports, members of the public seeking advice and concerns aboutthe welfare of animals in England and Wales. In 2007, 1,175,469telephone calls were received – just over 5,000 more than theprevious year. During the same period, the Scottish Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA)5 received 105,522 phonecalls and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(USPCA)6 in Northern Ireland received more than 1,000 calls eachweek. Therefore in 2007 about 1.3 million phone calls concerning thewelfare of animals in the UK were taken by just three organisations.

Telephone calls made to the RSPCA lead to the majority ofinvestigations the Society carries out each day. Figure 10 shows thenumber of cruelty complaints the RSPCA investigated between 2003and 2007. The number of cruelty complaints that led to investigationswas at its highest in 2007 and since 2003 the numbers have steadily


FURTHER ANNUAL DATA ARE REQUIRED.

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of investigations andconvictions taken by the RSPCA under the Protectionof Animals Act 1911 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006

increased from 105,932 in 2003 to 137,245 in 2007, a rise of 29.5 percent over five years. However, many of the phone calls received bythe Society are from members of the public seeking advice and willtherefore not lead to an investigation.

Trying to explain this huge increase in cruelty complaints isdifficult, as there are a number of factors that could encourage thepublic to call the RSPCA. The increase doesn’t simply mean thatcruelty or neglect of animals is getting worse or that more animalsin England and Wales are unnecessarily suffering – although thiscould be true. Complaints could be rising because the public aremore aware of the telephone number and therefore know whoto call if they see an incident that concerns them, or if they requireadvice about an animal welfare problem. Prior to the AWA cominginto force, there were many public awareness campaigns and a lot ofmedia information about the proposed changes in law and the needfor animal protection laws to be strengthened. A series of RSPCAcommissioned polls7 conducted between August 2006 and April 2007demonstrated how in the months leading up to the implementationof the AWA in England and Wales (April and March 2007 respectively),knowledge of the change in law grew substantially. In August 2006,just 14 per cent of those questioned had heard about a change inthe law, but when the same question was asked eight months laterthis awareness had grown to 57 per cent. This awareness of the lawchange or knowledge about animal welfare could have encouragedmore people to contact the RSPCA with complaints.

The number of convictions for animal cruelty under the POAA andthe AWA is shown in Figure 11. As the AWA came into force in 2007,and as it takes time for cases to go to court and reach conclusions,conviction data still largely relates to the AWA’s predecessor, thePOAA. In 2008, data for convictions under the AWA will provide amore complete picture.

Since 2004 the number of convictions has changed year on year.In 2005 and 2007 the number of convictions were similar, but in2004 and 2006 there were around 300 fewer convictions. To explainthe reason why prosecutions and convictions rise or decrease eachyear is extremely difficult, so it would seem beneficial to analyse atleast five years’ worth of figures to identify any real trends inconviction figures.


GENERIC INDICATORS


1 Some of the investigations and convictions are taken by other authorities but are assistedby the RSPCA.

2 Animal Welfare Act 2006 s9.3 Animal Welfare Act 2006 s4.4 www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/code.html5 www.scottishspca.org6 www.uspca.co.uk7 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 conductedwith adults aged 16+ in Great Britain from 9–10 December 2006; 1,005 telephoneinterviews 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 from11–13 August 2006.

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

130,000

140,000

135,000

120,000

125,000

20072006200520042003



Figure 10: Cruelty complaints investigated, 2003–2007

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2007200620052004

Figure 11: Number of convictions and defendantsconvicted for offences under the Protection of Animals Act1911 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006, 2004–2006

POAA AWA


PIC CREDITS: RSPCA, ANDREW FORSYTH/RSPCA PHOTOLIBRARY (X4)

INTRODUCTION FARM ANIMAL INDICATORS

More than 900 million farm animals are reared for foodin the UK every year. The numbers involved, and thewide range of species and welfare issues, makesensuring acceptable quality of life for farmed livestock achallenging, complex task. Proper understanding ofspecies-specific physical and behavioural needs, and‘translation’ of that knowledge into appropriate farmingpractices, is essential if welfare is to be safeguarded.Similarly, appreciation of the current situation and of‘trends’ in key welfare areas is necessary if efforts toimprove livestock well-being are to be appropriatelyfocused and effective. The need for reliable, objective,national data on key welfare-related issues is, therefore,self evident. Difficulties encountered by the RSPCA infinding such data when compiling the following sectionof this report underlines the continuing need –acknowledged in the government’s Animal Health andWelfare Strategy1 – to ensure that greater efforts aremade to achieve this.

During 2007, several significant events occurred in thearea of livestock welfare.

� In January, new EU-wide regulations on welfare duringtransport came into force2. Whilst the regulationsintroduced stricter provisions for horses and welfare-focused competency testing of livestock hauliers,in other ways the updated law fell far short ofprotecting animals.

� In June, the EU adopted the first ever legislationcovering meat chicken welfare3. The Directive willintroduce common standards across Europe, andsome elements will improve on typical industrypractice in some countries. However, the RSPCA,which submitted evidence-based views to governmentduring its deliberations on content, was disappointedwith the outcome, which was wholly inadequate inaddressing the serious welfare issues associatedwith rearing meat chickens.

� EU egg marketing regulations4 were also updatedduring 2007.

� Consumers lack of knowledge about livestock specieswas revealed in a survey commissioned by theRSPCA’s Freedom Food scheme5. Around 40 per centof 1,297 respondents got more than half the questions

about farm animal wrong, one startling result beingthat 88 per cent didn’t think pigs were intelligent.As well as raising media interest in livestock, thesurvey highlighted the need to increase publicunderstanding of farm animal production and welfare.

� There were a number of governmental and otherconsultations on various farm animal welfare issues in2007, to which the RSPCA submitted responses. Areasaddressed included live transport6, game birdproduction7, chicken welfare8, farm animal mutilations9

and national livestock disease control planning andadvice provision10.

� Key reports issued by influential bodies in 2007included two ‘opinions’ on laying hen welfare by theFarm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC)11.

� The RSPCA was involved in minimising the effectson livestock welfare of an outbreak of Foot-and-MouthDisease. As well as being directly involved in thegovernment’s activities relating to overseeing diseasecontrol, the Society worked with the farming industryto set up a telephone helpline to assist farmers andtheir animals affected by the emergency ban onlivestock movements.


1 Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain, Defra 2004.2 Council regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and

related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation(EC) No 1255/97.

3 Council directive 2007/43/EC of the 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for theprotection of chickens kept for meat production.

4 Council regulation (EC) No 557/2007 laying down detailed rules for implementing CouncilRegulation (EC) No 1028/2006 on marketing standards for eggs.

5 ‘Survey reveals pig ignorance’ – RSPCA Freedom Food press release 24 September 2007.6 ABM/ABP Livestock Transport Standards.7 FAWC Opinion on the Welfare of Farmed Gamebirds (in GB).8 AFS/Assured Chicken Production Stakeholder Consultation Scheme Standards 2008–2009.9 The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations.10 Foot-and-Mouth Disease – Defra Advice to Farmers Fact Sheets 1–3.11 FAWC Opinion on Beak Trimming in Laying Hens, and FAWC Opinion on Enriched Cages for

Laying Hens, November 2007. The RSPCA had concerns about the views expressed in thereports on the welfare of hens in enriched cages, and on beak trimming of laying hens, andcontacted the FAWC to put forward our evidence-based views, and to request clarification ofthe reasons for the FAWC’s position.


RSPCA concernThe transport of live farm animals from the UK to othercountries for slaughter or further fattening is a processthat is both unnecessary and fraught with risk to animalhealth and welfare. The RSPCA advocates that all animalsshould be slaughtered as close as possible to where theyare reared, with the frequency, duration and complexityof any travel minimised, and the quality of the transportprocess as a whole optimised. Live transport from theUK for slaughter or further fattening fails to satisfy thesecriteria. Firstly, the travel is essentially unnecessary,as animals could be fattened and slaughtered in the UKand their meat exported instead. In addition, exportedanimals are taken on potentially long and complexjourneys (involving both land and sea travel), which aregoverned by legislation that does not adequately protecttheir welfare. The law fails to take proper account ofscientific research and practical experience relating totheir needs in areas such as journey length, spaceallowance and temperature/ventilation. In addition,some animals exported for further fattening may besent to rearing systems that would be illegal in the UK,and/or provide conditions that fall below standard UKpractice, further strengthening the welfare-related casefor retaining animals in the UK for rearing.

BackgroundScientific evidence1 indicates that transport can result in serious healthand welfare problems for farm animals. Livestock are subjected to aseries of unfamiliar experiences and conditions, inevitably resultingin some degree of stress. Dehydration, thirst, hunger, heat and coldstress, inability to rest comfortably, injury and even death may occurin transit if the animals’ needs are not properly satisfied in terms ofprovision of food and water, appropriate temperature, humidity andventilation, enough space and bedding, and effective monitoring byaccompanying hauliers/attendants. Poor driving technique, such ascornering too quickly or braking too hard, also has a major effect onwelfare, leading to falling and injury 1. Animals can become ill aftertravel due to a suppressed immune system resulting from stress1,whilst animals already suffering from disease during transport canbecome more ‘infective’ when stressed, so are more likely to transmitillness to others in transit2. The journey complexity is also important.Journeys involving more than one loading/unloading process, and/ordifferent modes of transport, such as those undertaken during exportfrom the UK, clearly add to the potential for stress, distress and injury,with the loading and unloading processes being particularlychallenging to some species. It has also been recommended – on thebasis of research – that some young animals, such as calves underfour weeks of age, should not be ‘marketed’ at all due to their inabilityto cope adequately with all the physical and mental challenges posedby the transport and associated processes3. Current EU legislation onlive transport4 is implemented in the UK through the Welfare ofAnimals (Transport) (England) Order 2006. However, the law fails toprotect adequately the welfare of farm animals in transit. For example,it fails to take account of research indicating how much space farmanimals need, what maximum travel times and feed/water intervalsshould be for different species and ages of animal, and appropriatetemperatures and humidity. Poor enforcement of the law in somecountries, as evidenced by the European Commission’s owninspection body, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)5, as well as bythe findings of investigations undertaken by other bodies includingthe RSPCA6, adds to the likelihood of welfare problems occurring.

The indicator figuresThe number of live animals transported from the UK has beenreported by Defra on its website for a number of years. The figureswere obtained from sailing reports made by State Veterinary Service(now called Animal Health) staff. However, from mid 2006 onwardsthese figures were no longer available on Defra’s website. In order toobtain figures for 2006 a parliamentary question was developed andtabled to Defra7. As the source (UK government) was essentially the


WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of animals transported livefrom the UK for slaughter and further fattening

THERE WAS AN OVERALL FALL IN THENUMBER OF LIVE ANIMALS TRANSPORTEDFROM THE UK IN 2007, BUT LIVECALF EXPORTS INCREASED.

same as that from which previous years’ figures were obtained, avalid comparison could be made. However, a similar approach failedto elicit the 2007 figures from government. In response to aparliamentary question initiative by the RSPCA, asking for live exportnumbers in 2007, Defra minister Jonathan Shaw responded: “Theinformation requested is not collected centrally and to do so wouldincur disproportionate cost8.” Hence, the live export figures for 2007had to be obtained via a Freedom of Information Act disclosurerequest to Defra8. When responding, Defra quoted its source as theEU Commission’s TRACES database. This is different from the datasource previously used by Defra. However, as both sources aregovernmental, it will be assumed that it is reasonable andmeaningful to make a direct comparison between the data from2006 and 2007.

Unsurprisingly the figures show that live exports fell sharplyfollowing the Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001, with 2005levels being only five per cent of those in 2000. This could indicatethat alternatives were sought and successfully developed for thelivestock (primarily sheep) that were no longer being transportedoverseas. Slaughtering animals in the UK and exporting the meatinstead is already the way in which the vast majority of lamb is

exported. The negative effect of transport-related stress and injury onmeat quality is well documented9. Hence, the export of meat insteadof livestock is a positive approach in terms of both animal welfareand product quality, lending further incentive to achieving completephasing out of live exports for slaughter and further fattening.

The figures showed a very significant increase in the number ofcattle exported live from the UK during 2006 – from zero in 2005 to128,028, the vast majority of which (122,028) went for further fattening.It is reasonable to assume that this was primarily due to theresumption of the trade in live calves to the Continent for vealproduction, following the lifting in May 2006 of the 10-year ban onUK bovine exports imposed due to high levels of BSE in the UK.The demand for these mainly dairy-bred calves in veal producingcountries such as the Netherlands, coupled with an unfavourable UKmarket for these animals and a poor economic situation in the UKdairy industry, resulted in an immediate rekindling of an active tradeas soon as the ban was lifted. The veal crate system, in which calveswere reared in small, barren individual pens, was banned throughoutthe EU from January 2007, and it is thought that most veal producershad already converted to group housing systems by the time the UKcalf exports resumed in May 2006. However, concerns about the

FARM ANIMAL INDICATORS


Table 1: Number of live farm animals7 exported from the UK for slaughter or further fattening, 2000–2007

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

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).

conditions in which the calves are reared in Continental Europeremain due to continuing discrepancies between even the new EUlegislation and UK law, as well as between common UK practice andsystems used on the Continent. This added further incentive to lookfor practical solutions to the live calf export trade that would satisfyall stakeholders and improve animal welfare. This led to the formationof a forum: Beyond Calf Exports, initiated in 2006 by the RSPCA andCompassion in World Farming, which brought together all the majorstakeholders with involvement or interest in the issue, including thefood and farming industries, livestock welfare research scientistsand government.

The reasons behind the trade in calves are a complex mixture offactors, and the aim of the forum has been to develop financially andpractically viable alternatives to the live calf export trade that can helpto ensure dairy-bred calves remain in the UK for rearing. Threesub-groups have explored potential ways forward in three key areas:

i) identifying opportunities for developing new markets for beef andveal from male dairy calves in the UK

ii) identifying the barriers (and potential solutions) to developing asustainable (in welfare and commercial terms) dairy cow in the UK

iii) investigating the question as to how to ensure acceptable levelsof welfare for male dairy calves during rearing in the UK,particularly looking at the options put forward by the two othersub-groups.

The forum completed its initial work at the end of 2007, andproduced a report10 setting out clear recommendations as to the wayforward. Progress is being reviewed during 2008.

The resumption of the trade in live calves to veal rearing systemsabroad halted the previously encouraging decline in live exports forfurther fattening noted over several years up to 2006. This steady fallhad indicated that alternative outlets may have been developed andutilised for some calves, and hence that the process of live exportcould indeed be successfully replaced. However, it is also clear thatmany dairy bull calves are killed on-farm at an early age (e.g. around150,000 in 2007 according to the Agriculture and HorticultureDevelopment Board [AHDB] estimates11) due to difficulties in findinga market for them in the UK.

The live export figures for 2007 have, by necessity, been obtainedfrom a different original source (see above) though still via Defra.However, in view of the nature of the sources (i.e. governmental foreach year cited), it is reasonable to assume that direct comparisonsbetween them are valid. Such comparison indicates that the totalnumber of animals exported live from the UK in 2007 for furtherfattening or slaughter fell by around 70,000 compared with theprevious year. This encouraging drop is reflected in the export figuresfor both further fattening and slaughter. However, whilst live sheepexports dropped by more than 80,000 animals between 2006 and2007 (from 289,529 to 205,622), there was an increase of almost40,000 in the number of cattle (including calves) transported fromthe UK. Figures provided by AHDB11 to the RSPCA (personalcommunication) suggest that 96.2 per cent of bovine exports in 2007

were animals below six months of age, and 93.8 per cent of bovineanimals exported during the first four months of 2007 were less thantwo months of age. This increase in cattle and calf exports between2006 and 2007 is not unexpected as the 2006 figure related only toexports between May (when the bovine export ban was lifted) andDecember, whilst the 2007 data relates to the full 12-month period.In addition, it would have been too soon for the various initiativesengendered by the Beyond Calf Exports Forum activities to havehad much effect on 2007 figures. It is to be hoped, however, that byproviding alternative outlets for dairy bull calves which allow themto stay in the UK to be reared, these initiatives will bring about areduction in calf export figures in future years.

The decline in transport overseas of sheep and other species(namely pigs and goats), coupled with the on-going efforts of the calfforum, lead the RSPCA to believe that it will still be feasible for theexport of live animals for slaughter or further fattening to cease withinthe next five years. This would avoid the many associated risks towelfare faced by livestock during the export process and in somecases, subsequent rearing and/or slaughter overseas. In addition, theRSPCA is keen to see significant improvements in content,implementation and enforcement of European legislation relating tolive transport as a whole, particularly with regard to reduced journeytimes, greater space allowances, stricter temperature requirementsand more resources allocated to monitoring and enforcement in allmember states. The European Commission has indicated that itintends to review the EU live transport regulation during 2008.The RSPCA will be pressing the Commission to ensure that the keywelfare-related issues previously mentioned are included in thatreview, in the hope that legislation that more effectively protectsanimal welfare in transit will result.



1 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.

2 Kent J E and Ewbank R. 1986. The effect of road transportation on the blood constituent andbehaviour of calves. II. One to three weeks old. British Veterinary Journal 142, 131–140. KentJ E and Ewbank R.,1986. The effect of road transportation on the blood constituent andbehaviour of calves. III. Three months old. British Veterinary Journal 142, 326–335.

3 Knowles T G. 1995. A review of the post-transport mortality among younger calves.Veterinary Record 317, 406–407.

4 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport andrelated operations.

5 For further information on the FVO, including its reports on implementation andenforcement of live transport law in EU countries, see:http://ec.europa.eu/comm/food/fvo/index_en.htm

6 Standing room only – science and suffering in European live animal transport.Chapter 3. RSPCA 2003.

7 HL Deb 17 July 2007 c.9WA.8 HC Deb 29 April 2008 c.285W.9 Gregory N G. 1998. Animal Welfare and Meat Science, CAB International.10 Beyond Calf Exports Forum: Report on Conclusions and Recommendations, January 2008.11 The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) is a NDPB (non-departmental

public body) established under the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Order2008. It became operational on 1 April 2008. www.ahdb.org.uk

.

RSPCA concernMore than half of UK egg laying hens, about 19 millionbirds, still face a life in battery cages that do not meetthe welfare needs of the birds1. Conventional barrencages are to be banned from 20122, however, so-called‘enriched’ battery cages will still be allowed. Enrichedcages provide a minimum of just 50 square centimetresextra usable space (about the size of a beer mat) foreach hen compared to conventional cages, and limitedfacilities. Evidence indicates that neither conventionalnor enriched cages adequately satisfy the birds’ physicalor behavioural requirements1.

The RSPCA believes that all hens should be kept inproperly managed free-range or barn systems3, whichcan provide hens with much higher standards of welfarecompared with cages1.

BackgroundThere are several key welfare issues relating to laying hens.

� Space allowance

Hens naturally carry out numerous basic comfort behaviours, suchas feather ruffling, head scratching, body shaking, wing stretchingand flapping. Insufficient space in both types (conventional andenriched) of battery cage does not allow the birds to properly carryout these behaviours. In contrast, free-range and barn systems allowfree movement of hens over a large area so that they can moveaway from other birds, increase bone strength and gain access toall the different facilities without difficulty 1 .

� Dustbathing

Dustbathing is an important physical and behavioural requirementfor laying hens, enabling them to preen and recondition their feathersas well as helping to maintain a comfortable body temperature.A scratch area is provided in enriched cages, but the RSPCAbelieves that the scratch area is not only restrictive in space, butcannot provide the appropriate substrate for adequate dustbathing.In free-range and barn systems hens are provided with enoughspace as well as access to litter in which the birds are able todustbathe when and where they choose 1.

� Egg laying

Hens are extremely motivated to gain access to a suitable nest sitein which to lay their eggs and will perform complex pre-layingbehaviours 1. Currently enriched cages provide only one small nestspace in each cage and birds will be forced to compete for this siteeach day. In free-range and barn systems there is considerably morenest area available compared to enriched cages, giving the hensplenty of opportunity to gain access to and spend appropriate timein the nest site of their choice 1.

� Perching

Depending on the positioning of perches in enriched cages, it maybe difficult for birds to perch undisturbed or move around the cage.In free-range and barn systems hens are able to freely use perchesthat do not detract from the overall floor area 1.

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


WELFARE INDICATOR: The production of UK non-cage eggs asa proportion of total eggs produced



The RSPCA would like to see all cages banned and convertedto alternative systems, compliant with the RSPCA’s Welfare Standardsfor Laying Hens4. In support of this, research has shown that somebarn systems can offer a financially comparable alternative to thecost of installing enriched cages1. Evidence also shows that the vastmajority of UK caged egg producers will have written off theirexisting conventional cage equipment costs and will be readyto invest in new equipment by 2012 irrespective of the Directive5.

The indicator figuresData on the number of eggs produced in the UK, according to themethod of production, is collected by Defra every three months. Thedata is based on egg packing throughput surveys for all class A eggs(suitable for retail) and is widely quoted by the egg industry andother relevant organisations. Numbers are given for cage, barn andfree-range (which includes organic) eggs. These production figuresgive a picture of the UK egg market and provide a general indicationof the welfare of hens by determining what proportion of the totalnumber of eggs are produced in higher welfare systems comparedto cages. From these figures changes in the use of different methodsof production over a period of years can then be analysed. Since2006, the numbers of organic eggs produced have also beencollected. Any trends in the use of this type of production systemover successive years will be apparent when there is enough data.The majority of class A eggs will be found on supermarket shelvesand so an indication of consumer choice and influence on the supplyof eggs from different systems of production can also be gained fromthe changes in numbers of eggs produced.

In 2007 approximately 30 million hens in the UK produced 8,473million class A eggs. The percentage of eggs produced in each systemwas as follows.

� Cages: 62 per cent.

� Free-range: 34 per cent (of which six per cent were organic)

� Barn: Four per cent.

Data source: Defra.

The indicator figures over the last 10 years show an encouragingmovement of the industry as a whole towards higher welfarealternative systems (barn and free-range) for housing hens. In 1997just 15 per cent of class A eggs in the UK were produced in alternativesystems, totalling 1,334 million eggs compared to 7,480 million cagedeggs. By 2007, this had more than doubled, to a figure of 38 per cent.During this period the number of caged eggs reduced by 30 per cent,while alternative eggs increased by 1 43 per cent.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

20072006200520042003

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

20072006200520042003

Data source: Defra.

Data source: Defra.

Caged Free-range and organic Barn

Caged Free-range and organic Barn

Figure 1: Eggs produced in different systems asa percentage of total annual egg production,2003–2007

Figure 2: Number of eggs produced in differentsystems in millions, 2003–2007

While there has been a continual decrease in the proportion ofeggs produced in cages over the past five years as shown in Figures 1and 2, the difference in the last couple of years is negligible. Thissituation could possibly be explained in part by increasing costs offeed and slim producer margins6, which in turn may have resulted ina lack of new investment in the industry and hence a decrease insupply (a shortage of free-range eggs occurred in late 2006 6). Also,information regarding the production system is often not clear orprominent on egg boxes, which, as well as misleading pictures andterms, can cause confusion amongst consumers.

In addition to the eggs which are sold at retail level, about25 per cent (more than 2,000 million) of the total number of eggsproduced in the UK every year are used for further processing. Sadly,European legislation, which has required the labelling of whole eggsand boxes with the method of production since 2004, is notextended to eggs used as ingredients in food products, such assandwich fillings and cakes, and the vast majority of these eggs arethought to be produced by caged hens 7.

Positive changes in the indicator are expected in the next few

years as some major retailers, due to consumer demand, plan todecrease or stop the sale of eggs from caged hens in their stores.For example, in 2008 The Co-operative stopped selling any eggsfrom caged hens and both Sainsbury’s and Morrisons have madea commitment to phase out the sale of boxes of (at least) own-brandshell eggs from caged hens by 20 12. This follows changes in policymade by other companies, including Waitrose and Marks & Spencer,which since 2002 has only sold whole eggs and products containingeggs from free-range systems. It has also been reported that the firstthree months of 2008 have seen a significant increase in sales offree-range eggs. In particular, British Lion eggs claimed thatfree-range retail egg sales rose by almost 20 per cent in volumein February 20088.

The RSPCA believes that the trend of the indicator in increasingalternative egg production requires government to take the leadconcerning transparent information for consumers buying eggsin any form and a review of the call to ban all cages in the UK.

The RSPCA would like to see 100 per cent of UK eggs beingproduced in cage-free systems.




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 phasedout 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 Foodaccredited, complying with RSPCA Welfare Standards.

4 www.rspca.org.uk/farmanimals5 Coming of age: The age structure of UK caged egg production facilities. 2006. RSPCA.6 Ranger, British Free Range Egg Producers Association. March 2008.7 British Egg Industry Council/Deans Foods, International Egg Forum, 20 June 2007.8 www.brittegg.co.uk 31 March 2008.

THE INDICATOR FIGURES OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS SHOW AN ENCOURAGING

MOVEMENT OF THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE TOWARDS HIGHER WELFARE ALTERNATIVE

SYSTEMS (BARN AND FREE-RANGE) FOR HOUSING HENS.

RSPCA concernThe average annual consumption of chicken meat in theUK exceeds that of any other type of meat1. Consequently,meat chickens (broilers) are by far the most numerousfarm animals reared for meat in the UK, accounting forapproximately one-third of total meat production1.

The welfare issues faced by many meat chickenscan be particularly severe. Fast growth rates, low spaceallowance and poor environmental conditions can allcontribute to major welfare problems being experiencedby today’s meat chicken. The adoption of higherwelfare standards can effectively address these issuesand significantly contribute to the improvementof chicken welfare 2.

The RSPCA is keen to see more chickens rearedto higher welfare standards, such as those developedby the RSPCA.

BackgroundOwing to the number of animals involved and the severity of thewelfare issues that can be encountered, the number of chickens rearedto higher welfare standards is an important welfare indicator to monitor.

There are currently four key issues that can have a significanteffect on meat chicken welfare. One of the issues – growth rate –concerns the bird itself, whereas the other three are to do with themanagement of the birds.

� Growth rate

The rate at which broilers grow can have a huge effect on theirwelfare 3. Meat chickens have been genetically selected to growquickly. In production terms, genetic selection for high growth ratehas been very successful: the time from when the birds first hatchto appearing on the supermarket shelves can be as little as fiveweeks. However, this rapid weight gain can cause severe healthproblems, such as lameness and heart defects 3.

� Stocking density

Stocking density refers to the amount of space allocated to eachbird and is expressed as bird weight per square metre. High stockingdensities can impair welfare directly through movement restrictionand indirectly by causing poor litter and air quality 3. When stockingdensities exceed 30kg per square metre there is a steep rise in thefrequency of serious welfare problems 3. For example, at high stockingdensities, the prevalence of lameness and skin diseases cansubstantially increase. High stocking densities also make it difficultfor birds to perform many of their natural behaviours 3.

� Lighting

Welfare problems can arise at light intensities below 20 lux 3. At lowlight intensities birds are less active, which can contribute to thedevelopment of lameness and contact dermatitis. And, at very low lightlevels, birds can develop eye abnormalities 4. Meat chickens may alsobe reared under a near-continuous lighting regime as this encouragesthe birds to feed for longer periods, which maximises their growth rate.There is scientific evidence showing that preventing meat chickensfrom having a proper dark period adversely affects their welfare 5.

� Environmental enrichment

A more stimulating, enriched environment encourages birds to bemore active, which can help reduce leg and skin problems 3. Chickensprovided with an enriched environment are more active – walkingand running more, and sitting down less – than those kept withoutany form of enrichment 6.


WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of chickens reared to higheron-farm welfare standards

THERE IS A LARGE INCREASE IN THENUMBER OF CHICKENS REARED TOHIGHER WELFARE STANDARDS.

� Welfare standards

Chickens can be raised either indoors or with access to the outdoors,i.e. free-range, but their welfare is primarily affected by the standardsthey are reared to. Currently, most chickens are reared according tostandards set by the UK chicken industry’s own assurance scheme –Assured Chicken Production (ACP). However, chickens can be rearedto higher welfare standards, such as those of the RSPCA , which areimplemented by the RSPCA’s own farm assurance scheme –Freedom Food. Table 2 compares the RSPCA’s Welfare Standardsfor Chickens 7 with the ACP standards 8 for the key issues affectingchicken welfare on-farm. It should be noted, however, that the RSPCAstandards require higher standards of welfare to be implementedthroughout the whole of the chicken’s life from hatching right theway through to slaughter, and not just during rearing, i.e. on-farm.

In addition to ACP standards, some supermarkets may also requiretheir suppliers to rear chickens to standards that the supermarket hasset itself, which can be higher than those set by ACP. The Co-operative’sBritish Elmwood Chicken, Marks & Spencer’s Oakham Chicken, Tesco’sWillow Farm Chicken, and Waitrose Select Farm Chicken are all rearedto higher on-farm welfare standards, compared to those of ACP. Suchchickens are referred to as ‘standard plus’. The retail of standard pluschickens is a recent phenomenon: Tesco and Waitrose launched theirstandard plus lines during June and September 2006, respectively,whilst Marks & Spencer’s and The Co-operative’s standard plus lineswere not available until May and October 2007, respectively.

The indicator figuresThe approximate number of meat chickens reared in the UK to higherwelfare standards9 and to the chicken industry’s own standards (ACP)is shown in Table 3.

There has been a steady annual decline in the total numberof meat chickens reared in the UK over the last four years (down24.4 million between 2004 and 2007, Table 3). Between 2004 and2007, inclusive, there was a year-on-year reduction in the number ofchickens reared to ACP standards (down 1 30.4 million, 15.4 per cent).Over the same period, the total number of chickens reared to higherwelfare standards increased (up 106 million birds, 558.7 per cent).

Compared to 2006, the number of birds reared to higher welfarestandards in 2007 increased by 84.2 million birds, which equatesto an increase of 206.7 per cent (up from 4.8 to 1 4.8 per cent of thetotal market). This large increase was primarily due to the numberof chickens reared to individual supermarkets higher welfare standards,i.e. standard plus. Birds reared to RSPCA standards and those rearedas organic increased by 76.4 and 48.9 per cent, respectively, over thisone-year period. However, birds reared as free-range only, i.e. not toRSPCA standards and within the Freedom Food scheme, decreasedby 38.4 per cent. But this is expected to be due to more free-rangebirds being reared to RSPCA standards.

In 2007, 55.5 per cent of chickens reared to higher welfarestandards were reared to the individual supermarkets’ own higherwelfare standards, i.e. standard plus. This was followed by those



Table 2: 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)

Genetic growth rate No restriction Maximum 45(g/bird/day)

Stocking density (in house) Above 38 permitted Maximum 30(kg per square metre)

Lighting Intensity Minimum of 10 lux Minimum 100 lux over 75% of floor areaand 20 lux over remaining 25%

Dark period Minimum four hours – except first seven and Minimum six hours – except first seven andlast 10 days whereby minimum one hour. last three days whereby minimum two hours

Natural lighting No requirement Required by 1 January 2010

Environmental None Straw bales, perches andenrichment pecking objects

Data source: ACP and RSPCA.

chickens reared to the RSPCA standards (35.5 per cent), thenthose reared as free-range only (6.8 per cent) and then organic(2.2 per cent). Total free-range production represented 2.03per cent (17.2 million birds) of the total market in 2007 –50.6 per cent were reared to RSPCA standards.

The RSPCA welcomes the increase in the number ofchickens reared to higher welfare standards and would liketo see all meat chickens reared to higher welfare standards,akin to the RSPCA’s Welfare Standards for Chickens, which takeproper account of the birds’ physical and behavioural needs.The Society would also welcome the collection and publicationof data on the number of chickens produced under the differentmethods of production.



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 workshopon 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 Refers to chickens reared to individual supermarkets higher welfare standards, i.e. standard

plus (see text), RSPCA welfare standards, organic certification scheme standards and birdsreared as free-range.

10 Defra. 2007. Poultry and Poultrymeat Statistics Notice Defra, London. Available from:http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/ppntc.pdf

11 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

Table 3: The approximate number and proportion of meat chickens reared in the UK to higher welfarestandards and to the chicken industry's own standards (ACP), 2004–2007

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

reared (million)a

2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007

ACP b 849.38 827.51 814.09 719.00 97.82 96.13 95.23 85.19

Standard plus – – – 69.39 – – – 8.22

RSPCA (indoor) c e 10.07 22.69 25.14 35.65 1.16 2.64 2.94 4.22

RSPCA (free-range) d e 8.70 1.03

Free-range f 7.84 9.38 13.77 8.48 0.90 1.09 1.61 1.00

Organic g 1.06 1.22 1.84 2.74 0.12 0.14 0.22 0.32

Total 868.35 860.80 854.84 843.96 100

a Some figures may be different to those previously published due to more accurate methods of calculation being employed.

b Commercial 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 numberof chicks reared as free-range and organic or to standards other than ACP. Data from Defra 9.

c Chickens reared indoors to RSPCA welfare standards and within the Freedom Food scheme.

d Free-range chickens reared to RSPCA welfare standards and within the Freedom Food scheme.

e Data supplied by Freedom Food Ltd. Chickens reared to the RSPCA standards and not within the Freedom Food scheme have not been included. For years2004–2006, inclusive, only one figure is presented for chickens reared indoors and as free-range (where applicable). RSPCA welfare standards can be applied to allsystems of production, i.e. indoor and free-range, including organic. No organic chickens were reared to the RSPCA’s standards under the Freedom Food schemefrom 2004–2007, inclusive.

f Does not include free-range chickens reared to the RSPCA’s standards and within the Freedom Food scheme. Data supplied by four largest UK free-rangeproducers, which represent the majority of the UK free-range market. This data is not collected centrally by any organisation.

g Data from Defra 10. Data collected by organic certification officers during annual on-farm inspections. Data therefore represents number of chickens on farm at thattime and not the total throughput of animals during the year.

RSPCA concernThe average mortality rate of piglets between birth andweaning (which on average in the UK takes place ataround 27 days old1) experienced on commercial pigfarms in the UK is influenced by a number of factors,including the animals’ environment, health care,management, nutrition and genetics of the motherand/or piglets.

It is reasonable to assume that in many cases, thedeaths of piglets pre-weaning will have been precededby a period of suffering, with the nature, degree andduration of suffering depending on the cause of death.

The RSPCA therefore believes that a reduction in thelevels of pre-weaning piglet mortality would clearly bean important development in pig welfare.

BackgroundIn addition to causes such as disease and illness, studiesinvestigating the factors affecting pre-weaning mortalityhave shown that a significant proportion of deaths result fromoverlaying or crushing by the piglets’ mother (the sow) 2 3. Thereare known to be breed or genetic-related differences in themothering behaviour and ability of sows, resulting in different levelsof sow-related piglet deaths between strains 4, whilst recent researchindicates that the genetics of the male (boar) may also influence thelevel of piglet mortality 5. Newly published research indicates that theage and condition of the sow is also important, with sows that havegiven birth (farrowed) to their first litter (gilts) or third or more litter(third parity +) more likely to lose piglets, as are fatter sows 5. Thismay be due to a lack of maternal experience in gilts, whilst older andfatter sows are larger and may therefore have difficulty in getting upand lying down, increasing the risk of piglet crushing. Sows with skindamage or abscesses are also associated with higher levels of pigletmortality, which could be due to an increased risk of infection, orgenerally poor physical condition 5.

Stock-keeper input can also have a considerable effect on pigletmortality, with mortality being reduced by up to a half when thestock-keeper is present during farrowing 5 6. This is presumably asa result of increased detection of problems during farrowing andtherefore a higher level of intervention when problems arise.Techniques and equipment are currently being developed to aidthe detection of imminent farrowing and thus alert the farmer forsupervision 7. Additionally, checking of the sow and her piglets twicea day, as opposed to once a day, is associated with higher pigletsurvival rates 5, whilst the level of fearfulness of sows towards theirstock-keepers has been shown to affect both the length of timea sow takes to give birth and pre-weaning piglet survival; higherfearfulness being associated with higher death rates 8. This illustratesthe importance of positive, considerate handling and stockmanshipin order to ensure that the pigs have trust in and lack of fear towardstheir stock-keepers.

In addition to these sow-related factors, a number of environmentaland management features have been shown to affect piglet survival.Fostering of piglets within 27 hours of birth, if fostering is to takeplace, dipping of the navel with disinfectant and the use of ironinjections for piglets are all associated with higher piglet survivalrates 5 9. Recently, a nutritional supplement has been developed forsows during farrowing which reportedly cuts stillbirths and neonatalmortality, mainly due to a reduction in farrowing time 10 1 1. A longerfarrowing period, which is associated with larger litter sizes, resultsin the sow, or at least her uterine muscle tissue, becoming tired.



WELFARE INDICATOR: Piglet mortality levels between birthand weaning


This increases the risk of neonatal death, particularly of the last twoto four piglets, for which the likelihood of death is approximately 50per cent 10 1 1. The thermal environment is also important, with insulatedaccommodation, the provision of extra heat (including floor heating)during farrowing, and fan ventilation as opposed to natural ventilationall associated with reduced piglet mortality 5 12 13 in indoor systems.Currently, research is being conducted to investigate the possibility ofusing thermal cameras to identify piglets suffering from hypothermiain the first few days after farrowing 7. This would allow the prompt andappropriate treatment of weak newborn piglets, improving theirchances of survival.

It is clear that the implementation of appropriate husbandryand management practices (including development and effectiveimplementation of veterinary health plans) can help to reducemortality, which should facilitate a positive outcome in both welfareand economic terms.

The indicator figuresAs illustrated in Figure 3, after remaining fairly constant at approximately10–11 per cent until 2005, in 2006 pre-weaning piglet mortality levelsincreased to just over 13 per cent1. However, 2007 saw a slight reductionin pre-weaning mortality levels to 12.6 per cent1. Whilst this isencouraging, this still represents the deaths every year of about 1.4million piglets14 before weaning at three to four weeks of age.

The reason for this slight decrease in pre-weaning mortality is, atfirst sight, unclear. The main factor that influences this figure, litter size,has not gone down; in fact, in 2007 it continued to increase slightly(larger litter sizes usually lead to smaller and therefore more vulnerablepiglets15). However, there are a number of possible explanations, someor all of which may have contributed to the slight reduction seen lastyear. In recent years, the UK pig industry itself has recognised theimportance of striving for improvements in pig health and welfare, andhas been encouragingly proactive in setting up several initiativesaimed at gathering information on, and taking action to improve,the well-being of farmed pigs, including reducing pre-weaning mortality.The BPEX Knowledge Transfer (KT) team16 has been proactive inestablishing a number of producer workshops; discussion topics haveincluded ‘improving piglet survival’, ‘on farm disease eradication’, and‘straw-based nursery management’. A number of leaflets aimed atproducers have also been produced, including one on ‘newbornmanagement’. The industry also received a grant in 2007 from Defra’sFarm Health Planning group, which enabled producers to get togetherin regional groups to discuss specific health issues and share theirexperiences. All of these initiatives may have helped to make producersand stock-keepers more alert to the issue of pre-weaning mortality,


0

3

6

9

12

15

200720062005200420032002

Figure 3: Average mortality levels (%) from birthto weaning of piglets born alive in the UK

Data source: BPEX Pig Yearbook 2008.

as well as giving practical advice as to ways to tackle the problem andreduce the prevalence.

Clearly, reducing pre-weaning piglet mortality to a figure near tozero would be extremely difficult to achieve, even with high standardsof environment, health care and management. However, in view ofthe indications from practical experience that piglet mortality levelssignificantly lower than the national average can be achieved onsome pig farms (pre-weaning mortality levels are nearly two per centlower in the top 10 per cent compared to the average1), thereis clearly the potential for improvement in this area. This, coupled

with the growing availability of information both on the causesof piglet deaths, and ways in which the problem might be reduced,would suggest that an annual reduction in the average level ofone per cent over the next five years would be a realistic aspiration.If achieved, this would result in a fall from just over 1 2.6 per cent(in 2007)1 down to just over seven per cent by the end of 20 1 2,a drop that would prevent the deaths of approximately 1 .6 millionpiglets17 over that period. Such a reduction would be of benefitboth to the pig industry in economic terms and, most importantly,to pig welfare.


1 BPEX Pig Yearbook. 2008.2 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 andgrowth 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 giltsand 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 oncommercial pig farms (2005). Report to Defra by the University of Bristol and the Universityof Warwick. Available to download from:www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/documentlibrary/AW0133/AW0133_4600_FRP.doc

6 White K R, Anderson D M and Bate L A. 1996. Increasing piglet survival through an improvedfarrowing management protocol. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 76: 491–495.

7 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 VeterinariaScandinavica 49(Suppl 1): S12.

8 Janczak A M, Pedersen L J, Rydhmer L and Bakken M. 2003. Relation between early fear- andanxiety-related behaviour and maternal ability in sows.Applied Animal Behaviour Science 82, 121–135.

9 O’Reilly K M, Harriss M J, Mendl, Held S, Moinard C, Statham P, Marchant-Forde J andGreen L E. 2006. Factors associated with pre-weaning mortality on commercial pig farmsin England and Wales. Veterinary Record 159: 193–196.

10 Pig World. March 2007.11 Farmers Weekly. 23 February 2007.12 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 pigletsreared on a commercial outdoor pig unit. Veterinary Record 157: 800–805.

13 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 loosehoused sows? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 88–105.

14 Based on BPEX Pig Yearbook 2008 figures for number of breeding sows, piglets born alive persow and piglet mortality rate in 2007.

15 Weary D M, Phillips P A, Pajor E A, Fraser D and Thompson B K. 1998. Crushing of pigletsby sows: effects of litter features, pen features and sow behaviour.Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61, 103–111.

16 More information can be found on the BPEX website at:www.bpex.org.uk/PracticalAdvice/ProducerKt/KtTeam/Blog.aspx

17 Calculated on the basis of the 2007 figure for piglets born alive per year in the UK pig herd,and assuming a stable annual figure for this parameter.



IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROPRIATE HUSBANDRY AND MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES (INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT AND EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF VETERINARY

HEALTH PLANS) CAN HELP TO REDUCE MORTALITY, WHICH SHOULD FACILITATE A POSITIVE

OUTCOME IN BOTH WELFARE AND ECONOMIC TERMS.

RSPCA concernThe welfare of animals in the UK on farms and atlivestock markets is governed by specific legislation.While the RSPCA believes that in a number of areasthe law fails to protect farm animal welfare adequately,it does at least provide a baseline standard which all arerequired to achieve. Monitoring of the implementation ofanimal welfare legislation and ensuring its enforcementare, therefore, of considerable importance, and must beundertaken effectively – in terms of both quantity andquality of inspection. Similarly, the government issuescodes of recommendation for the welfare of livestockthat aim to set out ‘best practice’ in terms of the care offarm animals. Ascertaining the degree to which the codesare followed across the farming industry can, therefore,provide a valuable indication of the overall welfare stateof farm animals in the UK.

The RSPCA believes the government must allocateincreased resources to its farm animal welfareinspection (in terms of number and nature of inspectionvisits) of farm animal holdings to ensure that legislationrelating to livestock welfare is being implementedacross the country.

BackgroundAnimal Health is an executive agency of the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and it also works onbehalf of the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government andthe Food Standards Agency. Animal Health succeeded the StateVeterinary Service in 20071. It is described on the government’swebsite2 as: “...the government’s executive agency primarilyresponsible for ensuring that farmed animals in Great Britainare healthy, disease-free and well looked after.”

The agency is the official inspection body acting on behalfof Defra, the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural AffairsDepartment (SEERAD) and the Welsh Assembly Government.A significant part of its work involves undertaking visits tolivestock premises to ascertain the level of compliance with, andundertake enforcement of, UK legislation relating to farm animalwelfare on farms (primarily the Welfare of Farmed Animals[England] Regulations 2000 and amendments) and at livestockmarkets (primarily the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990).Compliance with government Codes of Recommendation for theWelfare of Livestock, is also checked. Failure to achieve the ‘codes’ isnot in itself a legal offence, but can be used as evidence of fallingbelow ‘best practice’ in the event of an animal welfare-relatedprosecution. 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 thelevel of subsidy payments that may be received by a producer.Failures in cross-compliance can result in some of the paymentbeing withheld.

Although in several areas, the RSPCA believes that current EU(and hence, for the most part, UK) farm animal welfare-relatedlegislation fails to afford adequate protection to livestock, compliancewith the law does at least help to ensure minimum standards ofcare. Government Codes of Recommendation, which set generallyhigher standards, help to offer more protection. The work of theagency is, therefore, very significant on several counts. The datait generates can be extremely valuable in terms of providinginformation on the status quo regarding the level of compliancewith welfare law and codes, and also of assisting in decisionson where best to focus efforts to bring about necessaryimprovements. The number of visits and hence the proportionof livestock holdings visited is obviously also significant if a trulyrepresentational picture of the welfare state of the UK’s livestockis to be ascertained. Visits are undertaken on both a targetedand random basis, resulting not only from complaints but alsofrom an elective process.

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number, nature and outcomes ofAnimal Health1 inspections of farms and livestock markets



Indicator figuresThe total number of farms (premises holding farm animalsused for commercial production of food) in the UK is estimatedas being about 170,0003. Table 4 shows that there has been asmall but steady year-on-year increase in the number of visitsto farms undertaken by SVS/Animal Health between 2003and 2007. However, the figures also show that the maximumnumber of visits to farms by SVS/Animal Health in any oneof the years 2003–2007 was 3,978, representing slightly overtwo per cent of the total number of farms. This contrasts withthe coverage achieved by farm assurance schemes, a numberof which visit every scheme member every year, and a few ofwhich undertake additional visits. It is, however, the case thatthe number of farms involved in a single scheme is significantlylower than the total in the country so higher ‘coverage’ is clearlyeasier to achieve.

The total number of livestock markets in the UK is around1554. On average, therefore, each market received 16 AnimalHealth visits during 2007.

The outcome of the visits made by Animal Health is alsoreported 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 withlegislation 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 toreport exact information here. However, the following conclusionsregarding the situation in 2007 can be drawn from the graphspresented in the 2007 report:

� Non-compliance with Codes of Recommendation is seen mostfrequently on pig, beef, and broiler farms. Overall:

� around 40 per cent of assessments undertaken on pig farmsduring complaint or targeted visits identified a failure tocomply with the relevant codes, though this figure wasfound to be only around 10 per cent on programme,elective and cross-compliance visits

� the non-compliance figures for broilers were around 38 and16 per cent (complaint/targeted and elective respectively)

� for beef, the figures were 38 per cent (complaint/targeted)and 11 per cent (programme/elective).



Table 4: Number of visits and inspections undertaken by Animal Health on farms and at livestock markets,2003–2007

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Farms 2,817 (4,964) 3,149 (5,431) 3,349 (6,123) 3,834 (6,407) 3,978a

Markets 3,647 (8,735) 3,658 (8,719) 2,943 (7,293) 2,569 (6,706) 2,425 (6,113)

Data source: Defra: The report of the Chief Veterinary Officer – Animal Health 2003–2007.

Note: The 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 Comparable 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 numberof assessments made for each criteria are now reported.

� Combining data relating to all species visited, non-compliance withcodes found on complaint or target farm visits was most commonin the areas of:

� disease treatment (around 50 per cent non-compliance – animprovement on the 2006 figure of 60 per cent)

� housing (around 45 per cent per cent – 2006 figure was55 per cent)

� environment (about 45 per cent, compared with around 53 percent the previous year)

� records (45 per cent – 2006 was about 51 per cent)

� staffing issues (about 42 per cent compared with more than50 per cent in 2006)

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

� With regard to legislation:

� an approximate 18 per cent failure rate in complying withrequirements on keeping farm records was noted on complaintor target farm visits representing a considerable improvementon the 2006 failure rate of 30 per cent. The figure was foundto be less than 10 per cent on programme and elective visits(2006 figure for this was nearly 20 per cent)

� around a 16 per cent failure rate to comply with the lawrelating to disease treatment was noted on complaintand target visits (only about one per cent failure seenon programme/elective visits)

� failure to adhere to legislation relating to animals’ environmentswas noted in just over 10 per cent of cases on programme/target farms (nearer two per cent on programme/elective visits)

� about 10 per cent non-compliance with legislation on feed andwater was seen on complaint and target visits (but only aboutone per cent failure on programme/elective visits).

� Overall, nearly 40 per cent of all assessments made on complaintor target farm visits identified a failure to comply with Codes ofRecommendation for the welfare of livestock, an improvement onthe 50 per cent figure the previous year. Around 10 per cent onprogramme and elective visits noted codes non-compliance(similar to 2006). Just under 10 per cent of assessments (complaintand target visits) noted non-compliance with legislation, a slightimprovement on the 2006 figure of almost 12 per cent.

� At livestock markets, the most common areas of non-compliancewith codes were those relating to:

� feed and water (just under 30 per cent of assessmentsidentifying failures – similar to 2006)

� bedding (approximately 25 per cent – slightly up on the 2006figure of 20 per cent)

� care of unfit animals (just over 20 per cent, a smallimprovement on the 25 per cent noted the previous year)

� loading onto/unloading from vehicles (around 13 per cent,considerably lower than the previous year’s figure of justover 30 per cent failure).

Generally, the incidence of non-compliance with legislation atlivestock markets was reported as being very low, full compliancebeing recorded during 99 per cent of market inspections.


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.

These data indicate some encouraging improvements in 2007compared with the previous year in a number of areas relating toSVS/Animal Health findings on farms and at markets regardingcompliance with law and codes. There are, however, a number ofareas where little if any progress has been made. Similarly, thenumber of visits undertaken by the agency has increased onlyslightly, with coverage still being little more than two per cent oflivestock farms. This makes it difficult to accept the outcome ofAnimal Health visits as truly representative of the situation acrossthe whole livestock farming industry.

However, other developments during 2007 relating to thequalitative side of the Animal Health’s work have been encouraging.In its Business Plan for 2007–2008, the agency stated that it intendsto: “Establish an Inspections Programme, to analyse critical inspectionpoints and on-farm activities and develop consistent risk-basedinspections”. From 1 January 2007, its work included inspections tocheck cross-compliance with animal welfare Statutory ManagementRequirements as part of EU Cross-Compliance Regulations. The riskmodel has been specifically developed and implemented for thepurpose of allocating these inspections. In addition, the agency haspreviously stated that it is working with government to help develop

government policies that are: “both deliverable and focused onoutcomes”, an important development if the welfare of livestock is tobe effectively assessed and, where necessary, improved. The RSPCAwould like to see a more outcomes-based approach to farm andmarket inspections, in which a formal assessment is made not onlyof the resources (in terms of environment, feed and water etc.) provided,but also the end result in terms of the animals’ health and welfare.

On 1 April 2007, the SVS joined with the Dairy HygieneInspectorate, Egg Marketing Inspectorate and the Wildlife Licensingand Registration Service to become a single body, Animal Health.This transformation, coupled with its involvement in cross-compliancechecking and progression of the aforementioned policies have atleast the potential to improve the effectiveness of the agency and,consequently, the welfare of farm animals in the areas that fall withinits remit. As outlined, the outcome of SVS/Animal Health visits doindicate some improvements during 2007 in compliance rates withlivestock welfare law and codes in some areas. The RSPCA wouldlike to see tangible evidence of further progress in these andother areas over the next few years, as well as continuing positivedevelopments in the nature and number of Animal Healthvisits to farms and markets.




1 In April 2007, the State Veterinary Service (SVS) merged with various other bodies involved inoverseeing aspects of the livestock farming sector and wildlife, and the resulting agency wasnamed Animal Health.

2 www.defra.gov.uk/animalhealth3 Defra Farming Statistics; Welsh Assembly Agricultural Statistics; SEERAD Agricultural Statistics.4 Source: Livestock Auctioneers Association: www.laa.co.uk and the Institute of Auctioneers

and Appraisers in Scotland: www.auctioneersscotland.co.uk July 2008.


PIC CREDITS: RSPCA, DAMION DIPLOCK, TIM SAMBROOK/RSPCA PHOTOLIBRARY. HELEN BALL, MINDA BHOGAL.


In 2007, there were over 15 million pet animals in the UKwith more than 40 per cent of the population owning a pet1.Bearing these numbers in mind it is not surprising that thewelfare of pet animals can be compromised by irresponsiblepet ownership, which is due to ignorance or lack ofunderstanding of animals’ welfare needs, or by intentionallycausing animals pain, suffering and cruelty. For the purposesof this report, the majority of data and statistical informationconcerning pets has been obtained from the RSPCA’s owninternal data-collecting sources. Unfortunately, statisticsconcerning pet animals is not collected at a national levelor by a central source in the UK. Therefore the informationthe RSPCA collates and publishes must be regarded as anobjective reflection of pet issues, as little else exists, andwill hopefully be considered representative of England andWales, if not the whole of the UK.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) is one of the mostsignificant pieces of legislation to affect pet animals inthe UK. Coming into effect in 2007 the Act introducedthe welfare offence, placing a ‘duty of care’ on all thoseresponsible for animals to provide for their animals’needs, which is one of the most significant componentsof the new law2. Apart from the AWA, there were anumber of other events that occurred in 2007, whichimpacted on the welfare of pet animals.

� The law banning the docking of dogs’ tails for cosmeticpurposes came into force in England3 and Wales4.In Scotland, all tail docking of dogs (unless for medicalreasons) became illegal5. The first RSPCA prosecutionfor the offence was taken under the AWA in Walesin June 2007.

� The welfare of about 60,000 racehorses will beimproved due to a new ruling that was introduced bythe Horseracing Regulatory Authority (HRA) in April20076. It is now mandatory for all jockeys competingin flat races to carry cushioned whips.

� The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfareshowed that 13,500 greyhounds bred for racing areconsidered ‘surplus’ to the greyhound racing industryin England and Wales every year7. The organisationalso said that almost 5,000 greyhounds areunaccounted for, presumed killed by the age ofthree or four when their racing days are over.

� Cruelty investigations by the RSPCA rose by 10.5per cent in 2007 on the previous year8. Neglect wasonce again the most common form of cruelty. Animalrescues and collections, with the majority being petanimals, increased by eight per cent.

INTRODUCTION PET ANIMAL INDICATORS


1 Pet Food Manufacturer Association’s data: www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-ownership.htm2 Section 9, Animal Welfare Act 2006.3 www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/docking.htm4 http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/ahw/animalwelfare/

Companiondomesticanimalwelfare/taildocking/?lang=en5 www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2007/02/071025006 The Horseracing Regulatory Authority. Modification of ‘The orders and rules of racing’ H8

whips – specifications (rule 149(ii)).7 www.apgaw.org/reports.asp8 www.rspca.org.uk

RSPCA concernIn the UK, about 43 per cent of the population own apet with the majority owning cats and dogs 1. There arejust over 14 million pet cats and dogs and a further1.7 million small animals including rabbits, hamsters,gerbils and rats. Increasingly, more ‘exotic’ animals arebeing kept as pets; these non-domestic animals includesnakes, lizards, turtles, frogs and chinchillas.

With so many pet animals in the UK, it is notsurprising that there is also an abundance of unwantedpets needing new homes. Unfortunately, not all petowners are aware of the long-term commitment they aretaking on when initially getting an animal, and some areunable to continue to provide the suitable environmentor care for their chosen animal. In extreme cases theseanimals can suffer either physical or emotional crueltyor are simply abandoned. When an animal is no longerwanted or the owners’ circumstances change, the RSPCAand other animal welfare organisations are often turnedto for help. It is a concern that some animals sufferunnecessarily due to the irresponsibility of the verypeople who should ultimately be responsible for them.

The RSPCA would like to see the number of unwantedanimals in the UK significantly reduced until the problemno longer exists.

BackgroundThere are many reasons why the UK has a problem with unwantedpets and why many of these animals will end up being cared forby animal charities until new homes can be found for them. It is atleast partly the result of impulse buying, lack of research carried outbefore an animal is acquired, irresponsible breeding and changesto owners’ circumstances. Pets are sometimes purchased when theyare small and cute looking, with little thought given to what owningan animal actually means. Impulse buying can result in rabbitsspending the majority of their time in a small hutch, dogs not givenany or enough exercise and hamsters ignored when a child becomesbored of them. Appropriate behavioural training is often neglectedand a significant proportion of unwanted animals pass throughrehoming and rescue centres for this reason alone. Other reasonswhy a pet may need to be found a new home include changesin family, health or financial circumstances.

In the UK, there are more than 100 rehoming centres 2 run bythe most well-known and largest animal charities. These include theRSPCA , Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, the Blue Cross, Battersea Dogsand Cats Home, Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty toAnimals (USPCA), and the Scottish Society for the Prevention ofCruelty to Animals (SSPCA). Many more rehoming centres are runby smaller organisations. Pet animals are taken into the RSPCA’s carein a number of ways: by RSPCA inspectors, animal collection officers,and by owners who are directed towards their local RSPCA branch oranimal establishment. In 2007, the RSPCA nationally operated 17regional animal centres, four hospitals and five clinics. The RSPCA’sbranches operated a further 39 centres and 40 clinics. Collectivelythese establishments have a capacity to care for more than 6,300 catsand dogs at any given time. A network of about 700 volunteer animalfosterers and 150 private boarding establishments are utilised foranimal rehoming and accommodation. This national network ofspecialists not only provides a safe haven for the huge variety ofanimals that are rescued, abandoned or voluntarily signed over tothe Society, but also offers them a second chance of a new home.The RSPCA , like many other organisations, aims to find new lovinghomes for every animal that enters into its care.

The number of healthy animals entering the care of the RSPCAeach year is used to indicate the scale of the unwanted pet problemin England and Wales.

The indicator figuresTo gauge the scale of the problem of unwanted healthy animals, thisindicator focuses on the animals that are taken into RSPCA care inEngland and Wales. A true figure would incorporate the number of


WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of unwanted healthyanimals taken into the care of the RSPCA


animals euthanased by vets at the owners’ request and the numberof animals that enter non-RSPCA establishments. Currently, there isno nationally established format to identify the total number ofunwanted pets that are dealt with each year. Figure 1 demonstratesthe number of animals rehomed by organisations that providedetails on their websites or in their annual reports/reviews. In 2007,five of the biggest animal welfare organisations in the UK rehomednearly 150,000 animals. It is to be expected that thousands moreanimals will be rehomed by other organisations, vets, local authoritiesor individuals.

For the purpose of this indicator, RSPCA data is used. In futureit is hoped that year-on-year figures can be obtained from manyother organisations in the UK so as to give a more accurate andrepresentative picture of the problem regarding unwanted animals.The number of unwanted animals is calculated by combining thenumber of animals rehomed by the RSPCA and the number ofhealthy animals euthanased. This figure includes cats, dogs, equines,birds, small mammals such as rabbits and non-domestic or exoticanimals such as snakes, lizards and terrapins. Figure 2 shows thatover the past five years the number of healthy animals entering thecare of the RSPCA has decreased by around 3.5 per cent, with just2,5 16 fewer animals coming into the RSPCA in 2007 than in 2003.The amount of healthy animals euthanased was at its lowest in fiveyears, with more animals finding new homes than the year before. Itis disappointing that in 2007, thousands of unwanted animals wereplaced into the care of animal welfare organisations, many of whichare charities and rely solely on the generosity of the general publicand other donators. The majority of animal organisations in the UKalso promote neutering, microchipping and responsible petownership, in attempt to help avoid the problem of unwanted pets.However, with at least 150,000 animals in the UK needing newhomes in 2007, much more needs to be done to reduce the numberof unwanted animals and prevent the suffering that can be causedto them. There still remains a huge problem with breeding, impulsebuying of pets and general irresponsible behaviour that leaves manyanimals needing new homes and animal welfare organisations andothers left to pick up the pieces.

PET ANIMAL INDICATORS


1 Pet Food Manufacturer Association’s data: www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-ownership.htm2 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 andCats Home, the Mayhew Animal Home, Dogs Trust, the Blue Cross, Cats Protection and theUlster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

3 www.cats.org.uk/workwedo/howwework.asp4 www.dogstrust.org.uk5 www.uspca.co.uk6 www.scottishspca.org

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Figure 1: Number of animals rehomed in the UKby animal welfare organisations, 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

20072006200520042003

Animals rehomed

Healthy animals euthanased

Total number of animals entering RSPCA care

RSPCA

Cats Protection3

Dogs Trust4

USPCA5

SSPCA6


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

Figure 2: Number of unwanted animals takeninto the care of the RSPCA, 2003–2007


RSPCA concernMicrochipping is an inexpensive way of ensuringpermanent identification of pet animals and being ableto link animals to their owners. Although a dog ownerhas a legal requirement to ensure that their dog while ona highway or in a public place wears a collar with thename and address of the owner inscribed on it1, there isno legal requirement for a dog to be microchipped andthere is no equivalent legislation for cats. Collars and tagsare an important but unreliable method of identification– collars can break and ID tags can fall off or be taken offthe dog. It is much harder to reunite a dog with itsowner by just relying on a collar and ID tag. When fittedwith a microchip, dogs, especially, are more likely to bereunited with their owner if they become lost.

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

BackgroundMicrochipping is a simple procedure where a small ‘chip’, the size ofa grain of rice, is inserted under the skin between animal’s shoulderblades. The microchip bears a unique code number that is enteredonto a national database alongside the owner’s details. A hand-heldscanner, carried by RSPCA inspectors, vets, animal centres and localauthority dog wardens, can then read the details of the microchip ifa 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 thatare reported as strays, are sick or injured, have become trapped orhave wandered from their owners. They also deal with reports ofdogs and other animals that are lost or may have been stolen.Many animals are never reunited with their owners, often becausethe owner or pet cannot be identified. In 2007, only half of all dogsidentified as strays in the UK by local authorities were returned totheir owners (see page 29). If all of these dogs had beenmicrochipped, many more are likely to have been returned to theirowners, 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 andbirds. This method of identification is a requirement of the Horse andPet Passport schemes2, however there is no legal obligation for petsto be microchipped if they are not going to be taken out of the UK.Microchipping can help with proving ownership of an animal andcan be very useful when dealing with incidents of pet theft, strayinganimals and cruelty, and is one of the most reliable methods oftracing pets or their owners. In 2007, the Petlog3 reunification serviceassisted with more than 89,000 lost and found telephone calls frompeople who had either lost their animal or had found animals thatwere microchipped. Of course this is very much reliant on pet ownerskeeping their details up to date on the relevant databases.

Sweden is a good example of where responsible dog ownershipand microchipping has resulted in the country having limitedproblems with unwanted dogs and straying animals. Unlike the UKand most other European countries, in Sweden it is a legalrequirement for all dogs to be registered and permanently identifiedfrom four months of age4, with microchipping being the preferredmethod of identification. This has resulted in more than 90 per centof dogs that have strayed, and/or are not accompanied by theirowners, being reunited with their owners within 24 hours.

Although microchipping is not compulsory in the UK, manyorganisations are making concerted efforts to encourage pet ownersto microchip their animals. Every June, the Kennel Club coordinatesNational Microchipping Month5 throughout the UK in an endeavour to


WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of non-microchipped catsand dogs taken into RSPCA care


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 atdiscounted rates or even free of charge. The RSPCA promotesmicrochipping as the preferred method of animal identification,specifically through its rehoming efforts, as every animal leaving thecare of the RSPCA is fitted with a microchip unless it already has one.The RSPCA also offers a welfare microchipping service that is carriedout at the request of pet owners at RSPCA animal centres, hospitals,clinics and individual RSPCA branches.

The indicator figuresThis indicator aims to establish if the microchipping message is beingeffectively communicated and understood by owners and keepers ofpet animals. It will help to assess whether more needs to be done bylocal authorities, vets, breeders and welfare organisations in promotingthe benefits of microchipping as a part of responsible pet ownership.

Although the majority of animal welfare organisations andrehoming centres microchip animals before they leave their care andpromote microchipping via publications and websites, it is still difficultto establish the extent of the microchipping work that eachorganisation is carrying out as there is no central method of collatingthis data. Therefore, the information used for this indicator primarilyfocuses on the cats and dogs the RSPCA microchips as they leave itscare and enter new homes. Figure 3 shows that the majority of catsand dogs that came into the care of the RSPCA over a four-yearperiod, were without a microchip. In 2006 just 16 per cent of cats anddogs were already microchipped, however this figure has increased to21 per cent in 2007. These statistics suggest that the microchippingmessage is slowly, but surely, being taken on board by animal ownerswith more people understanding the benefits of microchipping.

Although the figures are positive the vast majority of cats anddogs (around 80 per cent) are still not microchipped when they comeinto the care of the RSPCA for rehoming. It can perhaps be assumedthat someone who gives up their cat or dog is perhaps less likely tohave had their pet microchipped because they have not consideredthe long-term impact of pet ownership, did not know about

microchipping or perhaps thought it was not important.However, to try and put these figures into context, Figure 4demonstrates the amount of welfare microchipping that iscarried out by the RSPCA on the request of cat and dog ownersand by RSPCA microchipping initiatives. Since 2004 the numberof owned animals being microchipped by the RSPCA hasdramatically increased. In 2004, 6,669 owned cats and dogswere microchipped and this rose to 27,985 in 2007. This equatesto a rise of more than 400 per cent.



IN 2007, ONLY 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, MANY MORE ARE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THEIR

OWNERS, OR AT LEAST THEIR OWNERS COULD HAVE BEEN LOCATED.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2007200620052004

Dogs Cats Dogs CatsDogs CatsDogs Cats


Figure 3: Number of microchipped and non-microchipped cats and dogs entering theRSPCA, 2004–2007

Microchipped Non-microchipped

In attempt to try and find out how pet owners in the UK areresponding to microchipping messages, the four UK microchippingdatabases were approached to find out how many cats and dogs arebeing registered, and therefore microchipped each year. Thedatabases contacted are Identichip6, Petlog7, Petrac8 and Virbac9.For the second year running, three out of four responded andprovided microchipping figures for cats and dogs over the last fiveyears. Figure 5 shows the total number of cats and dogs that havebeen microchipped and registered by the three schemes between2003 and 2007. Over the past five years the total numberof cats and dogs registered on the databases has increased by23 per cent. In 2007, 35,000 more cats and dogs were microchippedthan the previous year. This is likely to be due to increased publicawareness and education about microchipping during nationalmicrochipping month and other events. Nationally, the number of

cats and dogs that are microchipped each year is rising, yet thenumber of microchipped cats and dogs entering RSPCA centres isremaining fairly low, indicating that while the microchipping messageis getting through to some people, the overall responsible petownership message needs to be generally improved.

There are about 7.2 and 7.3 million cats and dogs respectively inthe UK, yet far more dogs were microchipped in 2007 than cats.This suggests that more targeted public awareness is needed toencourage owners to microchip their cats10. It also indicates that thestatus of cats within the UK is seen as lower than dogs, which maybe because dogs are seen more as part of the family than cats andtherefore owners have a more responsible attitude towards them.

Ideally every cat and dog in the UK will be microchipped.Although more animals are being microchipped each year, themessage is still not getting through to many animal owners.


Data source: Virbac, Identichip and Petlog.

Figure 5: Total number of cats and dogsregistered each year on the Virbac, Identichipand Petlog databases, 2003–2007


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.htm3 www.thekennelclub.org.uk/caring/petlog4 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/5786 ww1.identichip.co.uk7 www.thekennelclub.org.uk/meet/petlog.html8 www.avidplc.com/pettrac.asp9 www.virbac-backhome.co.uk/pages/what.htm10 In 2007, 492,107 dogs were registered on the three UK databases. Just 287,129 cats were

registered during this period.

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

20072006200520042003


Figure 4: Dog and cat welfare microchippingperformed by the RSPCA, 2004–2007

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2007200620052004

RSPCA concernEvery year the RSPCA, vets, local authorities and otheranimal welfare organisations reluctantly carry out thehumane destruction of healthy dogs that are no longerwanted and cannot be rehomed. Quite simply, there arenot enough people available to rehome all the dogswaiting for new owners and some dogs cannot berehomed for a variety of reasons including aggressionand ill health. Irresponsible pet ownership can result inthe humane destruction or euthanasia of healthy dogs(and many other pet animals).

The RSPCA would like to see a future where nohealthy pet animal is euthanased. This can only beachieved through animal owners and keepers adoptingmore responsible attitudes towards their pets.

BackgroundDogs are euthanased if they are sick, injured or a danger to thepublic, and this is carried out by trained operators such as vets usingapproved methods. Some healthy animals are also euthanased fornon-medical reasons, such as when they cannot be found newhomes or at the owners’ insistence because the animals are nolonger wanted.

In certain areas of the UK, the number of unwanted and straydogs is so large there are not enough people able to offer themhomes. The RSPCA uses different methods to aid rehoming of theseunwanted animals including putting adverts in the local press and onwebsites, and transferring long-stay animals to different parts of thecountry. The transfer system relocates animals to centres around thecountry after three months, giving different members of the publican opportunity to view the dogs.

When all possible methods of rehoming have been exhausted,a dog may be euthanased, however this always happens with greatreluctance and only after everything has been done to find the doga new owner. The RSPCA is opposed to the long-term confinementof animals, but it is sometimes inevitable, despite the devoted caregiven by staff, that distress and mental suffering can be caused tothe animals concerned.

Many unwanted dogs are purchased as puppies and are signedover to the RSPCA when they are between two and four years old.This can happen for a number of reasons including ownersbecoming bored of the dog once it’s an adult, owners being unableto cope with behavioural problems caused by inadequate training,and owners failing to make long-term plans for the care of the dog.The number of healthy dogs put to sleep could be reduced with acombination of simple, practical actions. Microchipping would assistwith locating pet owners and could reduce the number of strays.Neutering of dogs could prevent unwanted pregnancies and helpcontrol the size of the dog population. The provision of suitableinformation and guidance from pet sellers could also improve thewelfare of the animal concerned. These activities would potentiallyreduce the number of unwanted animals and therefore reduce theneed to euthanase healthy animals.



WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of healthy dogs beingeuthanased by the RSPCA due to irresponsiblepet ownership

THE NUMBER OF HEALTHY DOGS BEINGEUTHANASED HAS INCREASED.

The indicator figuresThis indicator measures the number of healthy dogs the RSPCA hasto euthanase each year. The total number of healthy dogseuthanased each year in the UK is likely to be a lot higher, howeverthere is no easy way to find out what this figure is. Local authorities,vets (at the owners’ request), and some animal welfare organisationswill euthanase unwanted healthy dogs, but these statistics are notwidely available or collected nationally.

A search of other animal welfare organisations’ websites andannual reviews could not find any figures on the euthanasia of thedogs that are taken into their care.

At the beginning of 2006 and 2007, the RSPCA wrote to each localauthority in England and Wales in an attempt to determine howmany stray animals end up in their care and how many of theseanimals are euthanased. In 2008, the survey was extended to coverNorthern Ireland and Scotland. In an attempt not to duplicate figurescollected by the Dogs Trust1, which commissions a local authoritysurvey throughout the UK about the number of stray animals iteuthanases each year, the RSPCA utilised the Freedom of InformationAct 2000. A number of questions were asked about dogs that wereeuthanased for medical and non-medical reasons, as previous studieshave never separated this data. Between April 2006 and March 2007,a RSPCA local authority survey revealed that 6,328 dogs wereeuthanased by local authorities in the UK2. Of these, 2,526 wereeuthanased on medical grounds, 1,101 were euthanased aftera seven-day period on non-medical grounds, and there was noexplanation for the remaining 2,701 dogs. Further data was obtainedfrom the Welsh Assembly Members Research Service in 20063,which contacted each local authority in Wales and requestedinformation about the number of dogs ‘put down’ between April2005 and March 2006. A total of 281 dogs were euthanased duringthis 12-month period. There is no distinction between healthy andnon-healthy dogs.

Figure 6 shows the number of healthy dogs the RSPCA hashad to euthanase over the past five years. In 2003, 1,095 healthydogs were euthanased by the RSPCA compared to 2007 when1,230 dogs were euthanased. Between 2006 and 2007, the numberof healthy dogs euthanased has increased by 167 dogs or 15.7per cent. The percentage increase seems fairly large, however inreal terms the number of dogs being euthanased by the RSPCAis still relatively low when compared to the number of dogs theRSPCA rehomes – 15,787 dogs were rehomed in England andWales during 2007.

This euthanasia figure is still unacceptable, as ideally nohealthy dog will be euthanased by the RSPCA, local authorities or

any other organisation. It is hoped that with more public awarenessresponsible pet ownership campaigns promoting the benefits ofneutering and microchipping, the number of animals euthanased willdecrease until ultimately there is a home available for every healthyanimal in the UK.



1 The Dogs Trust survey doesn’t distinguish between dogs that have been euthanased formedical reasons and healthy animals:www.dogstrust.org.uk/press_office/stray-dog-survey-2007

2 See page 29 for more information.3 Members Research Service enquiry. Dogs put down in Wales 2005–2006.

15 November 2006. National Assembly for Wales.

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

20072006200520042003


Figure 6: Number of healthy dogs beingeuthanased by the RSPCA, 2003–2007

RSPCA concernAnimal fighting, that is pitting one animal againstanother, is viewed by the RSPCA as one of the mostbarbaric areas of animal cruelty. Although UK animalbaiting and animal fighting legislation was firstintroduced in 18351, and subsequently up-to-date lawsthat protect animals such as badgers2 have followed,there is still grave concern about such activitiescontinuing. Organised animal fighting activitiesare deliberate, calculated, and by their very naturecause a great deal of unnecessary suffering to theanimals involved.

The RSPCA and other agencies are working to combatthese barbaric activities in an attempt to see theeradication of all forms of organised animal fightingwithin the UK.

BackgroundTraditionally, animal fighting has been clandestine and covert andtherefore extremely difficult to combat. The RSPCA’s SpecialOperations Unit investigates three main areas of animal fightinginvolving dogs, cockerels and badgers3.

� Dog fighting

Dog fighting usually involves a large number of people comingtogether to ‘pit’ one fighting dog against another, with large amountsof money being placed as bets on the outcome of the fight.However, other more impromptu, less organised fights take place,for example in public parks. The dogs used in organised fights arealmost exclusively American pit bull terriers, a breed that is bannedin the UK by the Dangerous Dogs Act 19914. The fights take place ina pit, constructed to a size and standard recognised by the dogfighting fraternity, with the dogs being fought according to strict rulesenforced by a referee. The fights can vary in length from a matterof minutes to a couple of hours and dogs may suffer from a largenumber of bite wounds. The owner of the dog will probably treatthese injuries and any subsequent infection. Treatments will includesuturing wounds and administrating steroids and antibiotics. It isunlikely the dogs will be taken for veterinary treatment becauseof the breed of dog involved and the nature of the injuries inflictedon the dogs.

� Cock-fighting

Cock-fighting usually involves a large number of people watching andbetting on fighting cockerels in a pit area with a referee enforcingstrict rules. The birds are conditioned to fight and may have thenatural spurs on their feet sharpened so as to inflict the maximumdamage to their opponents, other cockerels. Alternatively the naturalspurs may have been removed and replaced with sharpened 5cmsteel spikes, which are fitted and bound to the birds’ legs. Bouts maylast anything from a few seconds to one hour. Often one of the birdsis killed and many others receive severe injuries.

� Badger digging/baiting

Badger digging is carried out by small groups of people and involvesterrier dogs entering badger setts to locate and corner badgers deepin the tunnels of the sett. The dogs usually wear electronictransmitter collars that provide a signal, which the diggers can detecton the surface of the sett. When a dog has cornered a badger thesignal will become stationary and the diggers can then dig down towhere the dog and badger are located, irreparably damaging thebadger sett in the process.



WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of organised animal fightsin the UK

THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN REPORTSAND CONVICTIONS FOR ANIMAL FIGHTING.

At this time both the dog and the badger are likely to receivesevere bite injuries because a badger will fight fiercely when cornered.Once the diggers reach the dog and badger, both will be removedfrom 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 andseveral dogs set upon it to kill it, with the badger often suffering aslow and painful death.

More organised baiting of badgers also takes place with badgerstaken away from the sett and baited in a pit with several dogsattacking it at once. The badger is not the only animal that suffers,as the dogs involved will receive serious bite injuries, which maybe treated by the owners rather than receiving proper treatmentfrom vets.

The participants and organisers of animal fighting and animal baitingare often involved in other areas of serious criminality, especiallythose involved in dog fighting. Due to their criminal background andknowledge of investigative techniques, the perpetrators are difficultto trace and track, requiring investigators to employ specialist skillsand techniques to bring them to justice.

There are a number of factors that make investigating animalfighting extremely difficult.

� National and international boundaries

Those involved are prepared to travel long distances to participatein their chosen area of animal fighting. Different enforcementagencies are required to coordinate investigations as police, countyand international boundaries are crossed. Suspects crossing policeforce boundaries who are stopped/arrested are unlikely to be linkedto any previous offences in other police force areas.

� Animal injuries

Animals that have been used in fighting will often have distinctiveinjuries. Therefore owners will not take them for veterinarytreatment as this could raise suspicion about the source of theinjuries. Consequently animals are treated by their owners soit is rare for vets to see animals that have been used in fighting.

� Communication

With advanced communication networks such as mobile phonetechnology and the internet, it is now easier for information to betransferred undetected. New factions of animal fighters are constantlyemerging, as access to information becomes more available andinternational travel becomes easier.

� Prosecution

It appears that animal fighting participants are willing to risk beingprosecuted. The current penalties/sentences do not seem to be adeterrent, as there are many repeat offenders.

� Profile

It is extremely difficult to identify or profile the type of person who isinvolved in animal fighting because a ‘typical’ animal fighter cannot beidentified by a particular socio-economic group, race, nationality or age.

Due to the difficult nature of getting information on the perpetratorsof animal fighting, investigations are extremely costly and the costof bringing cases before the courts is also very high. In terms ofRSPCA manpower, the time, specialised training and equipmentrequired, makes the cost per conviction higher than any other areaof the RSPCA inspectorate’s investigative work. Typical operationcosts 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, stilloccurs in the UK. This is an important welfare indicator becauseof the intentional cruelty and the suffering it causes, and dueto the fact that long-established laws are still being broken.Dog fighting in particular has cross-border implications whereinformation, techniques and even dogs work at an internationallevel. Many countries with their own animal fighting problemslook to the UK, with its long legislative history and status as acountry of animal lovers, to help solve the problem, yet theproblem still exists 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.

The indicator figuresEstablishing the scale of the animal fighting problem in the UK isextremely difficult due to the criminal and covert element of theactivities. Unlike many other areas of animal cruelty that are openlyreported to the RSPCA’s cruelty and advice line5, relatively fewcomplaints are received from the general public about animalfighting. With other types of animal cruelty, reporting issues to theRSPCA can be seen as a good indication of how big a problem is,but unfortunately with animal fighting this is not the case. Figure 7identifies the number of reports of animal fighting the Societyreceived between 2004 and 2007. In 2007, the RSPCA received morethan one million telephone calls to its cruelty and advice line andinvestigated 137,245 cruelty complaints, yet received just 531complaints about animal fighting.

Since 2004, reports of dog fighting have increased from 24 to 358in 2007, and have nearly trebled since 2006. There are a number ofreasons why more calls were received in 2007 than in the previousfour years including the widely publicised tragic death of five-year-oldEllie Lawrenson in Liverpool who was killed by an illegally owned pitbull-type dog. In addition the UK’s first pit bull amnesty took place inNorthern Ireland during January 2007 and two high-profile dogfighting cases in the West Midlands area may have prompted morereports as the public became more aware of dog fighting anddangerous dog offences.

Of the 137 reports of dog fighting in 2006, and 358 in 2007,82 and 132 of these respectively were related to instances whereyouths or ‘hoodies’6 were reported fighting dogs in public areas suchas on streets or in parks. Often the dogs involved are so-called‘status’ dogs. The term status dog is often used by the media to referto dogs associated with young people and used in aggressive orintimidating ways towards the public and other animals. The dogsinvolved tend to be tough looking dogs such as pit bull-type dogs,Staffordshire bull terriers and mastiffs. The RSPCA’s figures are backedup by Metropolitan Police figures, which show a massive increase inthe number of dogs seized in London under the Dangerous Dogs Act1991. Between 2003 and 2006, the numbers averaged out to about38 dogs a year. This increased to 173 between May 2006 and April2007 and leapt to 480 in the 12 months up to April 2008. Of the totalfigures, about 80 per cent of the dogs are pit bull-types, with theremainder being dogs that are dangerously out of control7. TheRSPCA produced a leaflet and poster in 2006 encouraging owners ofstatus dogs to provide adequate care for their dogs and highlightingthe legislation that protects dogs such as the Animal Welfare Act2006 and the Control of Dogs Order 1992. The RSPCA is extremely



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2007200620052004

Dog fighting Cockfighting

Badger digging/baiting Badger sett interference


Figure 7: Reports of animal fighting given to theRSPCA, 2004–2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

2007200620052004

Protection of Animals Act 1911 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Cockfighting Act 1952 Protection of BadgersAct 1992

Animal Welfare Act 2006


Figure 8: Successful convictions for animalfighting obtained by the RSPCA, 2004–2007

concerned that more reported incidents of dog fighting seem toinvolve young people in public places. In February 2008, the Societybecame involved with a new education initiative the People WithDogs Project8, which is aimed at reducing intimidating and anti-socialbehaviour on London’s streets.

In an attempt to try and identify the scale of animal fighting,Figure 8 shows the number of successful animal fighting convictionsbetween 2004 and 20079. It is useful to look at the number ofconvictions, as this demonstrates that animal fighting acts are stilltaking place and perpetrators are being caught, however it does notclearly represent the true scale of the problem. More convictions ina given year does not necessarily mean the problem is worsening,it could just mean more people were caught or many people wereinvolved at one event and subsequently convicted. Conversely, if the

number of convictions dropped, this isn’t necessarily a sign thatfighting is occurring less, as it could simply mean those involved arenot being caught. With regard to dog fighting convictions, there canbe a big difference between the number of cases reported and thenumber of convictions because of the delays in bringing the cases tocourt. It is possible for a large number of convictions to take place ina year although the relevant arrests occurred the previous year.

Organised animal fighting is a continuing problem and it isextremely challenging to measure how big the issue is, which makesit difficult to statistically gauge whether animal fighting is increasingor decreasing. However, with new types of dog fighting factionsappearing, more reports of incidents and a higher number ofconvictions, it must be concluded that animal fighting, especiallydog fighting, is increasing.



1 An Act to consolidate and amend the several laws relating to the cruel and impropertreatment of animals and the mischiefs arising from the driving of cattle (Pease’s Act) 1835.

2 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992. (Consolidating the Badgers Act 1973, the Badgers Act1991 and the Badgers [Further Protection] Act 1991).

3 Although badgers and cockerels are not pet animals, it is important to include them whendiscussing animal fighting.

4 Section 1, Dangerous Dog Act 1991.5 The RSPCA’s 24-hour cruelty and advice line number is: 0300 1234 999.6 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 reportingpossible incidents of animal cruelty involving young people.

7 Metropolitan Police figures refer specifically to the year this number of dogs left thepolice system.

8 The project brings together three well-known animal charities (Battersea Dogs Home, TheBlue Cross and the RSPCA) with the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police andWandsworth Council.

9 The Animal Welfare Act 2006 came into force in April 2007 and therefore just one convictionoccurred under the Act. In subsequent years, it is expected that this figure will rise.

THE RSPCA’S FIGURES ARE BACKED UP BY METROPOLITAN POLICE FIGURES, WHICH

SHOW A MASSIVE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DOGS SEIZED IN LONDON

UNDER THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991.

RSPCA concernIn 2007, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England andWales and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act2006 came into force. The new legislation updates the95-year-old Protection of Animals Act 1911 andconsolidates more than 20 pieces of animal welfarelegislation. One of the most important aspects of thenew laws is the introduction of the welfare offence1.This imposes a duty on any person who is responsiblefor an animal to take such steps that are reasonable inall circumstances to ensure the needs of that animal aremet to the extent of good practice1. Under the previouslegislation people were only prosecuted for crueltyto animals once there was sufficient evidence thatunnecessary suffering had already occurred. This couldmean that animals endured long-lasting suffering or, inextreme cases, died. With the changes in law, action cannow be considered and where necessary taken, beyondjust giving advice, before suffering or cruelty has occurredto the animal. For the first time, the RSPCA and otheragencies are able to help prevent an animal enduringunnecessary suffering.

It is hoped that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA)and Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006together with animal owners taking a more responsibleattitude towards their animals will prevent manyanimals from suffering unnecessarily.

BackgroundThe specific needs of an animal can vary both between and withinspecies. Until March and April 2007 (prior to the new law coming intoeffect into Wales and England respectively), the RSPCA used astandardised measurement system to assess the welfare needs ofthe animals the Society was investigating. This was implementedunder its welfare assessment form that was first used in 2005.RSPCA inspectors used the form every time they visited a home,farm or other establishment, to identify any animal welfare concerns.The form consisted of a checklist that expanded on a set ofprinciples known as the Five Freedoms.

The Five Freedoms are:

� Freedom from hunger and thirst.

� Freedom from discomfort.

� Freedom from pain, injury and disease.

� Freedom to express normal behaviour.

� Freedom from fear and distress.

Once a welfare assessment of an animal was made and if problemswere identified, such as a dog did not have access to clean drinkingwater or was thin but not malnourished (that is, was not sufferingunnecessarily), the RSPCA inspector would offer advice about how torectify the situation. This would hopefully prevent the problem fromworsening and developing into a more serious cruelty case. Forexample, advice would be given about how to provide a dog witha nutritionally adequate diet and allow access to clean water. Underthe Protection of Animals Act 1911, animal owners were under nolegal obligation to follow the advice given and could choose to ignoreit. The inspector would revisit the animal to see if improvementshad been made and whether or not the advice had been followed –in the majority of cases improvements would have been made.However there were incidents where the situation had worsened andthe animal(s) would be found to be suffering unnecessarily. In suchinstances, more serious legal action may have been appropriate.


WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of animal welfarecomplaints investigated by RSPCA inspectors


FURTHER ANNUAL DATA ARE REQUIRED.

With the introduction of the AWA in England and Wales, RSPCAinspectors still give advice if welfare problems are identified.However, the welfare offence means they are now able to considertaking legal action before unnecessary suffering (or cruelty) hasoccurred. The RSPCA’s welfare assessment form has been modifiedto reflect the new offence and set out new provisions such as theneed for a suitable environment. Since April 2007, once aninspector has seen an animal that has given cause for concern, anRSPCA improvement notice is issued with a set timescale orcompliance period for positive changes to take place. This notice iseffectively a warning (although it has no statutory weight) to theperson responsible for the animal that they need to take action toaddress the welfare needs of their animal. If they fail to take heedof the notice and make no attempts to improve the welfare of theanimal in question, then a prosecution (welfare offence) under theAWA may follow. Ideally, if a welfare concern is raised then withadvice and guidance, improvements will be made without the needfor legal action.

The indicator figuresIn 2007, the RSPCA investigated about 137,000 complaints of allegedcruelty to animals, the majority of which were pet animals. Figure 9demonstrates an increase of about 10.5 per cent in the number ofcomplaints that were investigated from the previous year, similar tothe 11 per cent growth between 2005 and 2006.

Although the number of cruelty complaints investigated hasincreased by around 15,000 the level of telephone calls from thepublic to the RSPCA cruelty and advice line has remained fairly staticwith about 1.2 million calls being received each year over the pasttwo years.

With more complaints being followed up, it is not surprisingthat about six per cent more RSPCA welfare improvement noticeswere issued in 2007 than the previous year. This could indicatea number of things: that inspectors were seeing more animalsliving in conditions where their welfare needs were not beingadequately met, but the animals were not legally suffering; thatinspectors are naturally issuing more welfare improvement notices


WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2006 IN ENGLAND AND WALES,

RSPCA INSPECTORS STILL GIVE ADVICE IF WELFARE PROBLEMS ARE IDENTIFIED.

HOWEVER, THE WELFARE OFFENCE MEANS THEY ARE NOW ABLE TO CONSIDER TAKING

LEGAL ACTION BEFORE UNNECESSARY SUFFERING (OR CRUELTY) HAS OCCURRED.

as they become accustomed to using them following the introductionof the AWA; or it could suggest that RSPCA inspectors have becomemore efficient. The conclusion that cannot be made is that moreanimals are not having their welfare needs adequately met. Any risein complaints could suggest there is more awareness about who tocontact if it is believed an animal is suffering, especially consideringthe high levels of publicity surrounding the introduction of the AWA.From 2007, the change in law means that in cases where theimprovement notice and advice is not adhered to then a prosecutioncan be brought. Ideally, nobody would be prosecuted under thewelfare offence of the AWA.

It is hoped that over the coming years the number of animalwelfare complaints will reduce as owners become more aware oftheir animals’ needs due to improved education and awareness.




1 Animal Welfare Act 2006, section 9.

IT IS HOPED THAT OVER THE COMING YEARS THE NUMBER OF ANIMAL WELFARE

COMPLAINTS WILL REDUCE AS OWNERS BECOME MORE AWARE OF THEIR ANIMALS’

NEEDS DUE TO IMPROVED EDUCATION AND AWARENESS.

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

200720062005


Figure 9: Animal welfare complaints received bythe RSPCA and number of RSPCA improvementnotices issued, 2005–2007

Complaints investigated

RSPCA improvement notices



1 Home Office (2007). Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2006.London: HMSO.

2 European Commission (2007). Fifth report on the statistics on the number of animals usedfor experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union(data for 2005). Brussels.

3 The 3Rs are Replacement (the use of methods that avoid or replace the use of animalswherever possible); Reduction (minimising the numbers of animals used – for example,through improving the experimental design and statistical analysis used in a study); andRefinement (improving experimental procedures, and other factors affecting animals suchas their housing and care, in order to reduce suffering and improve welfare throughouttheir lives).

4 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/home_en.htm5 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 onbehalf 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 tosuffer and a clearly defined and effective system of licensing, control and inspection for allEU member states. This must incorporate an ethical evaluation of animal use including aharm/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 alicensing process as must the requirement for greater focus on the 3Rs of reduction,refinement and replacement.

6 See: http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/better-regulation/7 RSPCA scientific staff had substantial input into developing the standards within Appendix A

of ETS123. See: www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety,_use_of_animals/laboratory_animals/Revision%20of%20Appendix%20A.asp#TopOfPage

8 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/declaration_nhp_en.pdf9 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm10 The RSPCA and Eurogroup for Animals, along with other organisations, achieved significant

amendments to the EC proposals, which will see many animal tests now replaced withoutcompromising safety, by making better use of existing information, wider development anduse of non-animal methods and compulsory sharing of data between companies.

11 See: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=1197012 Assessment of chemicals would be based on the use of in vitro tests to detect effects on

specific biochemical pathways known to be involved in toxicity, and the testing would beassisted by robotics and computer methods.

13 See: www.nc3rs.org.uk/news.asp?id=829

PIC CREDITS: BIDDA JONES/RSPCA PHOTOLIBRARY, PENNY HAWKINS,

NOVO NORDISK, JANE COOPER, ANDREW FORSYTH/THE WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHER

Estimates of the number of animals used across theworld each year in research and testing usually rangebetween 50 and 100 million. Official statistics releasedduring 2007 show that this includes close to three millionanimals used in the UK1, with more than 12 million usedacross the 25 European Union (EU) member states2.

If progress is to be achieved in safeguarding thewelfare of animals in laboratories, reducing their use, andreplacing animal experiments with humane alternatives,action is needed not only at national, but also atinternational level. Given the increasingly global nature ofscience and industry, the use of animals in one country,(such as the UK) can be profoundly influenced by thelegal requirements, guidelines and scientific developmentsin other countries. For example, a pharmaceutical companybased in the UK will have to carry out animal testsaccording to the legal requirements of all the countries inwhich it wishes to market a new medicine. As a memberof the EU, the UK must take particular account of Europeanlaws and standards, and work to improve them.

The international dimension offers both challenges andopportunities for improving the welfare of animals usedin science. Legislation regulating the use of animals inexperiments can vary widely between different countries,and reaching agreement on harmonised controls onexperimentation is difficult, even within the EU. On theother hand, organisations such as the InternationalConference on Harmonisation, and the World Congresseson Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences,provide platforms for introducing improvements to animalwelfare and test methods worldwide.

The importance of the international dimension isreflected in the following list of important events of 2007relating to the use of animals in experiments.

� The 6th World Congress on Alternatives and AnimalUse in the Life Sciences, held in Tokyo, provided aplatform for more than 900 delegates from countriesacross the globe to exchange ideas and knowledgerelating to implementation of the 3Rs3.

� The revision of European Directive 86/609 that regulateslaboratory animal care and use across the EUcontinued4 5. A draft version of the Directive is, atthe time of writing, under discussion between theCouncil of Ministers and European Parliament.

� The UK government has been undertaking a general

review of how European legislation is transposed inthe UK, with a view to reducing unnecessaryadministrative burden6. In relation to the regulation ofanimal experiments, the Home Office has establisheda steering group of the major stakeholders that hasbeen considering possible changes to current practices.The RSPCA is represented, and argues that anychanges made must not have a detrimental effect onanimal welfare, weaken the legislation or reducepublic accountability.

� The revised and improved Council of Europe ConventionETS123 guidelines for the housing and care of laboratoryanimals entered into force7. It is important that thesestandards are now incorporated into the Directive.

� Members of the European Parliament backed adeclaration8 calling for an end to the use of great apesand wild-caught primates in research in Europe, and aclear strategy for replacing all primate experimentswith humane alternatives.

� New EU laws regulating the way in which the safetyof chemicals is assessed came into force. UnderREACH9 (Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation,Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) companieshave to provide the authorities with information onthe health and environmental effects of about 30,000chemicals. In spite of the introduction into REACH ofa number of measures to reduce animal testing, putforward by the RSPCA and Eurogroup for Animals,this legislation could result in the use of millions ofanimals in safety tests10.

� The US National Research Council published alandmark report11 on the future of toxicity testing.Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and aStrategy states its vision of toxicity testing carried outlargely (but not entirely) without the use of animals12.

� It was announced13 that annual government fundingfor the UK’s National Centre for the Replacement,Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research(NC3Rs) will be increased to just over £5 million by2010/11. Meanwhile, the European Commissionapproved €23m (currently £18m) funding under its7th Framework Research Programme for two majorresearch projects aimed at developing non-animalmethods for the testing of new medicines.


INTRODUCTION RESEARCH ANIMAL INDICATORS

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of non-human primatesused in scientific procedures in the UK

RSPCA concernThe use of primates in research and testing is a matterof particular concern to the RSPCA and public generally.This concern has been recognised at a governmental1

and regulatory level, with some countries making specialprovisions for primates in their legislation – for example,either implementing specific bans 2 or emphasising theneed to replace and reduce primate experiments 3.

The RSPCA believes that the special nature ofprimates means that ending their use is a legitimate andessential goal, which governments, regulators, industry,scientists and research funders worldwide should acceptand make a high priority. The Society would like to seethe indicator figures showing significant reductions oversuccessive years.

BackgroundIn the UK about 3,000 non-human primates (mostly marmosets andmacaques) are used in research and testing every year 4. Across theEuropean Union (EU) this figure is around 10,000 5. Much of this useis for developing or testing the safety and effectiveness of medicinesand vaccines, but primates are also used in biological research, forexample in studies into brain function and behaviour.

Non-human primates are highly intelligent sentient animals.They form intricate social relationships, interact with their environmentin a dynamic and complex way and engage in imaginative problemsolving. It is also widely accepted that primates can experience arange of negative emotions (e.g. anxiety, apprehension, fear,frustration, boredom and mental stress) as well as a range of positiveemotions (e.g. interest, pleasure, happiness and excitement). In short,they are very close to humans in their biology and capabilities, and itis often argued that this makes them ideal ‘models’ for research.However, this also means that primates have the capacity to suffer insimilar ways to humans – there can be no question that primatesexperience pain and distress.

Confining primates in the laboratory when they would normallylive in a large and complex home range has a significant adverseeffect on their welfare. At its best, laboratory primate housingrepresents only a small fraction of their home range. The worst, stillcommonly used in many countries, is a small, barren metal box inwhich the animals can only take a few steps in any direction. Otheraspects of the lifetime experience of laboratory primates also causestress and suffering, particularly where they cannot control theirenvironment, social grouping or what is done to them 6. Any painor distress associated with experimental procedures is thereforecompounded by additional adverse effects resulting from the captureof wild primates, breeding practices, transport, housing, husbandry,identification, restraint, and finally, euthanasia.



CONFINING PRIMATES IN THE

LABORATORY WHEN THEY WOULD

NORMALLY LIVE IN A LARGE AND

COMPLEX HOME RANGE HAS A

SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON

THEIR WELFARE.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Great apesOld worldmonkeys

New worldmonkeys

Prosimians

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 2005 and then reused in 2006, will only appear in the total for 2005).(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 10 new ascension states, thus nowcovering 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 10 new EU member states,it should be noted that they were responsible for the use of just 57 of the total 10,4 43 primates used in 2005.

Figure 1: The number of primates used inscientific procedures in the UK, 2003–2007

2003 2004 2005

2006 2007

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Great apesOld worldmonkeys

New worldmonkeys

Prosimians

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

Data source: Home Office. Data source: European Commission.

1999 2002 2005


RESEARCH ANIMAL INDICATORS

In September 2007, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs)categorically backed a declaration 7 that called for an end to the useof great apes and wild-caught primates in research in Europe, anda clear strategy for replacing all primate experiments with humanealternatives. This is an important statement, given that the EuropeanDirective regulating the use of animals in experiments across theEuropean Union is currently under revision 8. It also reflects theprinciples set out in a resolution 9 initiated by the RSPCA in 2005,and backed by animal protection organisations worldwide.

The indicator figuresThe number of primates used in the UK and Europe are reported inHome Office and EU official publications respectively. The UK figuresare published annually, but in the EU they are only made availableevery three years. Accurate figures for most other countries are not

available. Data for Figure 1 have been taken from Table 1a of theHome Office annual statistics publications, 2003–2007 (published2004–2008). Data for Figure 2 have been taken from Table 1 . 1 of thethird 1 0, fourth 1 1 and fifth 1 2 reports on the statistics on the number ofanimals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in themember states of the EU (published by the European Commission in2003, 2005 and 2007 respectively).

The need for annual statistics to be published for the EU can beillustrated by looking at the data relating to the use of great apes.The official EU figures for 2002 and 2005 show no apes were usedin scientific procedures in these years, perhaps leading some peopleto infer that none were used between these times either. However sixchimpanzees were used in the Netherlands during 2004 13. This, andother important information, may go unreported where figures areonly produced every three years.

The available data show that the number of primates used in theUK has fluctuated over the past five years. The latest figures for the EUshow that no significant downward trend is being achieved.

The RSPCA believes there should be an immediate, internationallycoordinated effort, involving governments, regulators, industry, scientistsand research funders, to define a strategy to bring all non-humanprimate experiments to an end. This needs to incorporate theestablishment of an effective European-wide mechanism for challenging

and assessing the justification for primate use, including full assessmentand recognition of all of the harms to the primates involved, i.e. fromacquisition and transport, confinement in the laboratory, and fromscientific procedures and their after-effects. Since primate use is of suchserious concern, there has to be a radical shift in thinking away from“how can we ensure we can continue to use them” to a moreenlightened and humane approach of “what do we need to do toavoid their use”.


1 For example: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/petitions_dir86_609.pdf2 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 UKor Austria. Northern Ireland goes further and does not licence the use of any primate ininvasive 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 experimentaland other scientific purposes [Official Journal of the European Communities].

4 Home Office (2008) Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2007.London: The Stationery Office.


6 For example: The welfare of non-human primates used in research (2002) – Report of theScientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare, European Commission, Health andConsumer Protection Directorate-General. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out83_en.pdf

7 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/declaration_nhp_en.pdf8 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/revision_en.htm9 ‘Call to end the use of non-human primates in biomedical research and testing from animal

protection organisations worldwide’ Berlin, August 2005. See: www.rspca.org.uk/primates10 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.

11 European Commission (2005). Fourth report on the statistics on the number of animals usedfor experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union(data for 2002). Brussels.


13 See page 189 (‘Comment of the Dutch authorities’): European Commission (2007). Fifthreport on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientificpurposes in the member states of the European Union (data for 2005). Brussels.

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.


WELFARE INDICATOR: The amount of laboratory animal suffering

RSPCA concernThe suffering of laboratory animals – its nature, leveland duration – is a serious concern for animal welfareorganisations, the public and everyone concerned withanimal welfare. The RSPCA believes that, for as longas animals continue to be used in research and testing,the reduction of suffering is an important goal, withthe aim being to avoid discomfort, pain, or distressaltogether. An initial step should be to at least endsubstantial suffering.

Progress in reducing animal suffering should alreadybe being made, given that the concept of the 3Rs(replacement, reduction and refinement) has beenwidely accepted within the research and regulatorycommunity. However, it is not currently possible to gaugeto what extent this is happening, because comprehensiveinformation on the nature and level of sufferingexperienced by each animal is not available. Provisionof such information would enable progress to bemonitored and would help focus attention on areasof particular concern.

Better reporting will also help to reduce suffering byassisting and encouraging those involved with animal useto improve animal welfare by becoming more effective inrecognising, alleviating and preventing pain and distress.In addition, it will lead to greater openness andtransparency regarding animal use.

BackgroundThe only centrally gathered and consistent sources of informationon animal research and testing in the UK are the annual reportsof the statistics on animal use published by the Home Office forEngland, Scotland and Wales1 (and the Department of Health, SocialServices and Public Safety for Northern Ireland 2). These provide basicinformation on the species and numbers of animals used, but donot convey what the animals actually experienced in terms of thenature and level of suffering.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the statistics list the totalnumber of research projects that fall under each of four severity ‘bands’(mild, moderate, substantial or unclassified)3. These bands are averageassessments, which means that they usually cover a range of scientificprocedures, with different levels of severity, involving different numbersof animals. Secondly, the severity bands are assigned before theresearch is conducted and are therefore only predictions of what mighthappen. Information on the animals’ actual levels of suffering is notgathered and reported at the end of each study. Until this informationis collected and made available, there will be no way of knowing howmuch pain or distress is caused by animal experiments or whether thesituation is improving 4.

Recognising this problem, the Animal Procedures Committee(APC), which is the independent body that advises the governmenton the implementation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act1986, began reviewing the current system for determining severitylimits in 2004 5. It set up a working group, together with theLaboratory Animal Science Association (LASA), to explore new waysof collecting and reporting data on animal use. The group produceda report 6 in December 2005 that proposed a ‘double code’ system ofreporting. This would provide retrospective information, relating toindividual animals, about the level and duration of (i) the maximumseverity of a procedure and (ii) remaining severity over the rest of theprocedure. In 2006, the APC and LASA jointly commissioned a morewidely scoped pilot study to trial the new system and explore howsuch a scheme could be implemented in practice.

Following the pilot study, the APC/LASA working group reportedto the APC in December 2007. Five possible options for reportingseverity were suggested, with the advantages and disadvantagesdefined for each. The group also recommended linking the severitydata to the project licence abstracts currently published on the HomeOffice website 7, by ‘tagging’ the abstracts with severity categorylabels, to increase the information available to the public. The HomeOffice and working group agreed to work together to address somepractical issues arising from the report and the APC is expecting thefinal report in the first half of 2009 8.

INSUFFICIENT DATA ARE AVAILABLE.



The indicator figuresThe RSPCA wants to see a reporting system that will accuratelyconvey the level of pain and distress experienced by each individualanimal. The Society therefore supports the concept of retrospectivereporting and believes that the official government statistics onanimal use should record the number of animals who actuallyexperienced suffering at the level of each of the mild, moderate,substantial or unclassified categories. Annual publication of suchfigures would provide a very basic indicator of whether laboratoryanimal suffering is increasing, decreasing or staying the same.Supplementary information would still be necessary to provide afuller picture and so the Society also supports the APCrecommendation that publicly available project licence abstracts

should be linked to retrospective severity data. However, data onanimal numbers as outlined previously would represent a significantimprovement over the current situation. It would also require adifferent approach to the gathering and publishing of the statistics 9.

As part of the process of revising the European Directive thatregulates the use of animals in experiments across the EuropeanUnion (EU) 1 0, the European Commission is currently reviewing howstatistics on animal use should be reported. The RSPCA believesthat the current EU statistics are woefully inadequate and is askingthat the new Directive includes a much more comprehensive andmeaningful system of reporting animal use including the pain anddistress they experience1 1.


1 Home Office (2008). Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals: Great Britain 2007.London: The Stationery Office.

2 Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (2008). Statistics of ScientificProcedures on Living Animals: Northern Ireland 2007. Belfast: The Stationery Office.

3 Unclassified: The animal is used under anaesthesia, is not allowed to regain consciousnessand is euthanased immediately after the experiment.

4 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 fromthree round-table discussions. RSPCA Research Animals Department, Science Group:www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk/severity_report.pdf

5 Animal Procedures Committee (2005). Home Office: Animal Procedures Committee – Reportof Statistics Working Group: www.apc.gov.uk/reference/stats-report270505.pdf

6 Smith J A (rapporteur). (2005). Reporting the severity of animal procedures retrospectively:Report of a LASA/APC pilot study to assess the feasibility of collecting and reporting dataon the severity of adverse effects caused to animals used in procedures regulated underthe Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 : www.apc.gov.uk/reference/lasa-report.pdf

7 For abstracts, see: www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/publications-and-reference/001-abstracts/

8 See: www.apc.gov.uk/reference/December-10-2007-minutes.pdf9 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 ResearchAnimals Department, Science Group.

10 See: www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/revision_en.htm11 For further information, see: www.rspca.org.uk/directive86609

THE RSPCA BELIEVES THAT THE CURRENT EU STATISTICS ARE WOEFULLY INADEQUATE

AND IS ASKING THAT THE NEW DIRECTIVE INCLUDES A MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE

AND MEANINGFUL SYSTEM OF REPORTING ANIMAL USE INCLUDING THE PAIN AND

DISTRESS THEY EXPERIENCE.


RSPCA concernIn 2005, more than one million animals were usedacross the European Union (EU) in tests intended toevaluate the safety of products such as new medicines,pesticides and industrial chemicals1. Many more animalsare used for this purpose worldwide. The amount ofsuffering caused by these tests is highly variable andoften unpredictable since new products may beharmless, or highly poisonous. Nevertheless, largenumbers of animals, including primates and dogs, arekept in laboratory conditions, subjected to distressfuldosing procedures, suffer some adverse effects from thetest substances and, ultimately, are killed.

The RSPCA believes that safety tests using animalsmust be replaced with humane alternative methods.To achieve this end, much more effort is needed todevelop non-animal test methods and to acceleratetheir worldwide acceptance as alternatives to theexisting methods using animals.

BackgroundThe vast majority of safety testing is done in such a way that theresults will satisfy legal requirements for ensuring the safety ofproducts for people and the environment. For some types of product,testing on animals is required by law, whereas in other cases thetesting is done according to guidelines issued by regulatoryauthorities2. Overall, it is the willingness of regulators to acceptresults from particular tests that determines whether animalor non-animal tests are used.

A large number of different safety tests are used to detect ormeasure effects ranging from eye irritation to cancer. Tests vary in thespecies of animal used, the way in which animals are exposed to theproduct and the length of treatment. In an attempt to standardisethe methods, various international bodies have produced sets of testguidelines. The most influential of these is the test guidelines (TGs)programme of the OECD3 – the OECD TGs. If tests are done inaccordance with OECD guidelines the results are ensured acceptanceby regulators in the 30 member countries, and probably beyond.The methods apply to all chemical products, including pesticidesand medicines.

A great deal of effort continues to be put into the developmentof alternative, non-animal, methods of safety testing. However,progress in gaining regulatory acceptance of the new methods hasbeen painfully slow. A complex and time-consuming system ofvalidation has been developed by which new methods are shownto be reliable and relevant for their intended purpose. Even whensuccessfully validated, alternative methods may not be acceptedor only conditionally accepted by regulators, and then only aftera number of years of discussion.

The RSPCA promotes all stages of the development and acceptanceof non-animal alternative methods. Acceptance into the OECD TGs canbe regarded as the final step in this process for chemical products. Othersets of guidelines such as the European Pharmacopoeia 4 monographswould be more appropriate for biological products.

The indicator figuresIn the interests of simplicity, the proportion of ‘non-animal’ to ‘animal’tests in the OECD guidelines is used as a guide to progress with thereplacement of animals in toxicity testing. The indicator is expressedas the percentage of OECD TGs describing exclusively non-animaltests (Figure 3). The actual numbers of non-animal and animal testmethods is shown in Figure 4.

� The ultimate objective would be to see all the animal testsremoved and replaced with non-animal tests, i.e. 1 00 per cent ofTGs based on non-animal methods.

WELFARE INDICATOR: The proportion of non-animal methodsin OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment) test guidelines




� An increase in the proportion of non-animal tests would be positiveprogress towards this objective.

In the two years since these data were first used as an indicator,only one new non-animal test has been accepted – an in vitro methodfor measuring the absorption of chemicals by the skin – and noanimal tests have been deleted.

In fact, in 2007 two new animal tests, one measuring effects onthe developing nervous system and another for detecting the abilityof chemicals to mimic female hormones, were introduced.

This means that in comparison to data for the 1980s, theproportion of non-animal test methods has only increased overallvery slightly, and has in fact decreased since last year. This is verydisappointing for the RSPCA , particularly in view of the fact that since2002 close to € 100M has been invested by the EU in research onalternatives to animal tests.



2 For example, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) and the Scientific Committee onConsumer Products (SCCP).

3 www.oecd.org4 www.edqm.eu/site/News_and_General_Information-43.html

0

5

10

15

20

25

20072006200520042003

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

20072006200520042003

Data source for Figures 3 and 4: OECD.

Figure 3: Percentage of non-animal tests in OECDTGs, 2003–2007

Figure 4: Number of OECD TGs using non-animalor animal methods, 2003–2007

Animal

Non-animal


RSPCA concernAnimals kept as companions, and those on farms or inzoos, are routinely vaccinated against common, oftenlife-threatening, diseases1. Some wildlife populationsare also vaccinated. In addition to routine use, veterinaryvaccines are also manufactured as an emergency stand-byin case they are needed to help control disease outbreakssuch as Foot-and-Mouth Disease.

European regulations require that batches ofveterinary vaccines are subjected to a variety of tests,some of which involve animals, before they can bereleased onto the market. Some of the animals usedin these tests experience considerable suffering and,overall, large numbers of animals are used. Thus, whilstvaccines help safeguard the health and welfare of manyanimals, this is only achieved at a considerable cost toother animals used in vaccine testing. This presents adifficult ethical dilemma. The RSPCA believes more canand should be done to resolve this dilemma, by meansof a concerted effort to develop tests that will replace oravoid the use of animals, substantially reduce the levelof suffering and reduce the numbers of animals used.The adoption of more humane test methods byregulators and manufacturers internationally alsoneeds to be accelerated.

Although some work is already going on in this area,it is difficult to assess its effect because information onthe numbers of animals used and levels of suffering inthe different types of test is not published regularly.Publication of these data is an essential first step inmonitoring progress on this issue.

BackgroundThere are two main types of test that are performed on batchesof veterinary vaccines – for potency (strength and effectiveness) andfor safety. Some potency tests require animals to be infected withharmful bacteria or viruses, which can result in substantial suffering.For example, the potency test for Clostridium chauvoei vaccine (givenroutinely to sheep to protect against gas gangrene) involves injectingguinea pigs with bacteria, resulting in painful infections. The guineapigs are usually euthanased to end their suffering. Such tests areof greatest concern, and it is important that efforts are concentratedon developing alternative methods to replace them that either do notinvolve animals or cause less suffering and use smaller numbers.For example, for many vaccines it is now possible to replacetraditional, infection-based potency tests with less harmful methods,where the strength of the vaccine is assessed by measuring antibodylevels in vaccinated animals. This reduces the level of suffering to testanimals and fewer are needed.

Until recently, regulations required that tests on animals had tobe used to check the safety, as well as potency, of every batch ofveterinary vaccine. Tests to assess safety can involve injecting animalswith relatively large volumes of vaccine, which may cause discomfortor pain. Even when tests involve relatively mild procedures, thesemay involve housing animals in a laboratory environment that can,in itself, be a source of distress. However, the situation has changedand under certain conditions veterinary vaccine manufacturers canapply for permission to discontinue such tests 2. Manufacturers nowhave a clear opportunity to significantly reduce the numbers ofanimals used, and it is important that they seize this chance.

In 2008 the RSPCA produced a scientific report 3, which takes acritical look at testing requirements for veterinary vaccines andexplores the scope for application of the 3Rs. It is aimed atregulators, policy makers and vaccine manufacturers and if theseparties take forward the report’s recommendations it will have asignificant impact on the numbers and suffering of animals used.For example, the report recommends that particular tests should bediscontinued; that the process of incorporating more humane testsinto the regulations is speeded up; and that research efforts shouldfocus on replacing or modifying tests that involve lethal infectiousdisease agents, to reduce the suffering of those animals involved.

The RSPCA believes that there is considerable scope for areduction in the number of animals used to test each batch ofvaccine, for refinement of the tests to reduce suffering, and for thedevelopment of alternative test methods that do not require animals.This will require serious commitment from both regulatory authoritiesand manufacturers.

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of animals used inquality-control tests for release of veterinary vaccinesin the UK




The indicator figuresThere is already some work being done to implement the 3Rs inveterinary vaccine testing, but it is difficult to assess the impact of thisbecause the numbers of animals used and levels of suffering in thedifferent types of test are not published regularly. Publication of thesefigures is essential to monitor future progress.

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

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

� number of animals used in different types of batch potency tests

� number of animals used to test the safety of each batch

� number of animals used in other batch tests 4.

In the UK, manufacturers must submit details of the methods andresults of tests performed on each batch of vaccine to the VeterinaryMedicines Directorate (VMD) before the batch can be released. In2005, the VMD released statistics relating to the number of animalsused in tests for batch release in the UK during 2003. The dataincluded the total numbers of animals used and batches releasedwith a breakdown of how many animals had been used for eachtype of test. During 2003, quality control tests for release of batchesinto the UK involved the use of more than 3 1,000 animals 5.

No data for subsequent years have been published. However, in2007, Defra acknowledged 6 that making information available on thenumber of laboratory animals used in the production and regulatorytesting of vaccines “…is necessary if government is to focus attentionon priority areas for the development of alternatives to animaltesting and to encourage a reduction in the use of laboratory animaland severity of testing for regulatory purposes”. Defra has sincecommissioned work to this end and the RSPCA is hopeful that moreup-to-date data will be available for inclusion in next year’s report.


1 For example, dogs are routinely vaccinated against canine distemper, cattle against cattleblackleg and pigs against swine pneumonia.

2 Manufacturers can apply for permission to discontinue the batch safety test for a particularvaccine if 10 consecutive batches have previously passed the test and providing there havebeen no major changes to the manufacturing process.

3 RSPCA (2008). Advancing animal welfare and the 3Rs in the batch testing of veterinaryvaccines. RSPCA, Horsham. Available at: www.rspca.org.uk/vaccines

4 Other batch tests may include tests for extraneous agents, toxoid contents and inactivation.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. Proceedingsof 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

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

Data source: Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

0

3

6

9

12

15

2003

Potency tests Safety tests Other tests

Aver

age

num

bero

fani

mal

spe

rbat

ch

Figure 5: The average number of animals usedper batch in quality control tests for veterinaryvaccines across a range of products released inthe UK, 2003


RSPCA concernEffective ethical review of animal studies is an integral partof the scientific process. It encompasses the identification,evaluation and weighing of the harms and benefits – andthus the justification of the research – and provides anopportunity to ensure that the 3Rs (reduction, refinementand replacement) are fully implemented.

Ethical review should be a continuous processthroughout the life of every project, but there are a numberof defined stages when a more formal consideration of theissues it encompasses should be addressed. These includewhen the research is considered for funding, during theauthorisation process by the relevant legislative body(for example the Home Office in the UK), and when it isconsidered for publication in a scientific journal. Thusfunding organisations, regulatory bodies and scientificjournals all have an important role in ensuring that theobjectives of ethical review are fully met, but each willhave a different focus and extend its influence in adifferent way.

Scientific journals, for example, have a significantopportunity to influence both the ethical acceptability ofresearch and the way it is conducted. Since publicationis important in any scientific field (contributing to thesuccess of research teams and future research funding),journals can act as a driving force to improve standardsworldwide, by refusing to publish papers describingresearch in which the benefits do not justify the harmsor where the 3Rs were not implemented. Journals arealso in an ideal position to publish, and therefore morewidely disseminate, information relating to the 3Rs andanimal welfare. However, there are long-standingconcerns that journals do not do this, which have beenhighlighted by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics1, theFund for the Replacement of Animals in MedicalExperiments (FRAME) and the RSPCA. The issue hasalso been raised at several workshops during meetingsof the World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Usein the Life Sciences.

BackgroundThe RSPCA believes that every journal publishing research involvinganimals should have a publication policy that (i) recognises theimportance of ethical review and animal welfare, and (ii) describes thefactors relating to these that will be taken into account when consideringmanuscripts for publication. Each journal should also require authorsto include information on issues relating to animal welfare, and howthe 3Rs were applied, in the papers they submit for publication.This information is essential for a proper description of the scientificprotocol, as well as for assessing and improving animal welfare.

In 2007 (using data for 2005/6), the RSPCA began an annualsurvey of journal publication policies to assess whether, and how well,these issues were addressed. The results of the 2008 (using data for2006/7) survey are described here.

The indicator figuresCurrently there are nearly 1 2,000 scientific journals in circulation.Between July 2006 and June 2007, 1 ,444 of these journals publishedfour or more primary research articles, in English, that involved theuse of animals2. A statistically representative sample of 304 journalswas randomly selected 3 from this pool, and the publication policiesof these were collated directly from each journal’s website. Where apolicy relating to animal use was not given on the journal’s website,the presence or absence of such a policy was confirmed by e-mailor a letter to the editor.

The journal policies were then each scored out of a maximumof 1 2 using the criteria shown in Table 1. This year’s survey achieved ahigh response rate of 97.7 per cent (297 journals), in comparison withlast year’s 80 per cent, and was met with much openness, interestand encouragement on the part of the journals and their publishers.

It was not possible to confirm the presence of a publication policyrelating to the use of animals in scientific research for seven (2.3 percent) of the journals sampled, so these were excluded from the study.Five journals (1 .6 per cent) were found to be unsuitable for inclusionbecause they published so few relevant papers directly involving theuse of animals in research and therefore these too were excluded.

Out of the remaining 292 journals surveyed, 48 per cent(1 40 journals) did not have a publication policy relating to ethicsand animal welfare. This is of great concern to the RSPCA , giventhat these 1 40 journals collectively published a total of 5, 185 articlesinvolving animal use in the year surveyed.

The remaining 50 per cent (152 journals) did have a relevant policy.However, the highest score achieved by any journal was nine out of1 2 and the average score was just 2.23. The majority of sampledjournals did no more than refer the authors to unspecified, general

WELFARE INDICATOR: The percentage of scientific journalswith ethical policies and guidelines relating to the useof animals in research and testing




guidelines on animal care, or stated that research should “complywith relevant national legislation”. Although this is important, it isinsufficient on its own. Legislation and guidelines can be variable inscope, level of detail and standards required, and complying with thelaw is a necessity, not an option. It does little to ensure that a robustethical review has taken place, or that the 3Rs have been implemented.The 152 journals referred to, collectively published a total of 1 3,384articles involving the use of animals, covering a substantial numberof animals, of a variety of species, with a range of severity limits.There was clearly a missed opportunity for the journals to influencethe way such research is conducted.

The RSPCA believes that editorial policies should containmore specific requirements (than just ‘complying with the law’),as illustrated in the table below, if they are to realise their

potential in contributing to more robust ethical review and betterimplementation of the 3Rs. The Society was pleased thereforethat a number of journals went further with their publicationpolicies by:

� making adherence to the publication policy a requirementfor publication (27. 2 per cent)

� requiring that the research submitted used appropriateanaesthesia and analgesia to minimise discomfort,distress and pain (1 9 per cent)

� requiring that humane endpoints were defined andimplemented (1 7 per cent)

� having an overall considered, positive statement regardinganimal welfare or the ethics of animal use (1 2.6 per cent).

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 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:

� undergone ethical review 1

� implemented the 3Rs 1

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

legislation) for animal housing and care 1

� used appropriate anaesthesia and analgesia to minimise discomfort, distress and pain 1

� defined and implemented humane endpoints 1

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

and use animals 1

� carried out euthanasia according to best contemporary practice 1

� 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 1

Total 12



The results for the two surveys undertaken to date are shown inFigure 6. The response rate was greater this year, but it is difficult todraw conclusions on the basis of just two years’ data. However thereis little difference between the average scores awarded to journals in2005/6 (2.04) and 2006/7 (2.23).

The RSPCA calls upon every scientific journal publishing researchinvolving the use of animals to:

� have a publication policy that recognises the importance of ethicalreview and animal welfare, and, in its instructions to authors,describes the factors relating to these that will be taken intoaccount when considering manuscripts for publication

� fulfil their responsibility to ensure that ethical and welfare issuesrelating to the use of animals have been addressed in the researchthey publish

� play a greater role in disseminating information on animal welfareand the 3Rs by requiring authors to include information on suchissues in the manuscripts they submit for publication.

In the coming year the RSPCA hopes to work with selected journalsto develop an ‘ideal’ policy, which the Society can thenuse to promote best practice more widely.


1 Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2005). The Ethics of Research Involving Animals.Nuffield Council on Bioethics: London.

2 This information was obtained using Michael Newman’s (Stanford University, USA) protocolto undertake a targeted interrogation of the Entrez Pubmed records database(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed), searching for English language journals which havepublished original research articles between July 2005 and June 2006 tagged as involvinganimal use.

3 18 per cent (53 journals) of those surveyed had also been randomly selected last year andthere was no change in their policy.

0

10

20

30

Perc

enta

geof

jour

nals

40

50

Noresponse

121 110987654321Nopolicy


Figure 6: The percentage of journals with nopublication policy relating to the use of animalsin research, those awarded the range of possiblescores (1–12), and those for which we were unableto confirm the absence or existence of anypublication policy

2005/6

2006/7





1 Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence. Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group onCattle TB. 18 June 2007.www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/pdf/final_report.pdf?bcsi_scan_F94125A2E068478B=0&bcsi_scan_filename=final_report.pdf

2 Scientific staff from the RSPCA’s wildlife department used evidence from the ISGresearch in submissions to parliamentary committees and government.

3 The RSPCA made representations during the consultation and parliamentaryscrutiny process.

4 6th International Conference on Fertility Control for Wildlife, 3–5 September 2007,Central Science Laboratory, York.

5 See: www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml6 The RSPCA is opposed to trade in wild-caught animals because it causes distress, suffering

and death to large numbers of animals. Scientific staff represented the Society at CoP14 andworked alongside like-minded organisations to lobby decision-makers in order to protectanimals from the negative impact of international trade.

7 The Dangerous Wild Animals Act of 1976 was originally introduced as a Private Members’Bill in response to public concern about the keeping of dangerous pets, especially big cats.It aims to ensure that where private individuals keep dangerous wild animals they do so incircumstances which create no risk to the public and, to a lesser extent, safeguard thewelfare of the animals. Licences, issued by the relevant local authority, are required for anyanimal that appears on the Schedule.

8 Defra Information Bulletin ‘Changes to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 – revision toSchedule of Controlled Species’. 1 October 2007.www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/071001c.htm

9 See: www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/pdf/awdelivery-strategy.pdf10 Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2007.

PIC CREDITS: ANGELA HAMPTON, DAMION DIPLOCK, ANDREW FORSYTH (X2),

E A JANES/RSPCA PHOTOLIBRARY

INTRODUCTION WILDLIFE INDICATORS

2007 saw many occurrences with actual or potentialrepercussions for the UK’s wildlife, including diseaseoutbreaks and oil spillage, high profile conferences,important reports from and to government, and changesto legislation. Although most of these events were likelyto have negative consequences, there were a reasonablenumber of constructive influences as well.

� After nearly a decade’s work, the final report of theIndependent Scientific Group on cattle TB waspublished1, providing a sound science base for thedevelopment of control policies. Overseeing therandomised badger cull trial was a major part of thegroup’s work but the parallel research programme ondisease development in cattle was also veryinformative. Rightly, the group’s key conclusionsregarding badger culling and cattle-based controlmeasures were to prove influential2.

� Following lengthy consultation, the Regulatory Reform(Deer) Order 2007 (England and Wales) came intoeffect. This is intended to help to improvemanagement of the UK’s wild deer populations butalso provide safeguards regarding the welfare of deer3.

� An opportunity to review progress and take stock ofthe potential of fertility control tools in managingsome wildlife populations was provided by aninternational conference held at York4. Whilst notproviding a ‘silver bullet’ solution to problems, projectswere being undertaken with a number of speciesaround the world and some methods were movingfrom the development phase to field application with,for example, registration in the US being granted orapplied for regarding some of the products developed.

� The fourteenth Conference of the Parties (CoP14) tothe Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) took place inThe Hague, the Netherlands5. The meeting considered70 agenda items and 37 proposals to amend theCITES appendices. CoP14 adopted resolutions anddecisions on a wide range of topics including theCITES Strategic Vision 2008–2013 and species tradeand conservation issues including those on Asian bigcats, sharks and sturgeons. Delegates agreed that nocetacean species should be subject to periodic review

while the International Whaling Commissionmoratorium is in place. CoP14 decided to listslender-horned and Cuvier’s gazelles and slowloris on Appendix I; Brazil wood, sawfish and eelon Appendix II; and to amend the annotationon African elephants to allow a one-off sale of ivoryfrom Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwewith a nine-year resting period for further ivory trade6.

� Government conducted a review of the Schedule ofthe Dangerous Wild Animals Act 19767. With effectfrom 1 October, many animals were removed fromthe Schedule, including raccoons, sloths, emus andsquirrel monkeys8. At the time of writing the Act wasthe subject of a full government consultation.

� In January the tanker MSC Napoli ran aground nearBranscombe, South Devon. About 1,020 seabirds,mostly guillemots, were picked up by RSPCA animalcollection officers, inspectors and members of thepublic, and treated at RSPCA centres, with 485 beingsuccessfully released back into the wild.

� In March, the RSPCA responded to the Defra publicconsultation Delivering Good Animal Welfare – A draftstrategy under the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy,and in October Defra published its Animal WelfareDelivery Strategy9, calling on NGOs, industry andgovernment to ensure that all those who care for or areresponsible for animals understand, accept and meettheir duty to ensure good standards of welfare for them.It also seeks to ensure they have the necessary skillsand knowledge to manage and minimise risks of harm(including the prevention of foreseeable problems),and to recognise and deal promptly with otherproblems as they arise. Those who interact with,or benefit from, animals are also expected to paydue regard to their welfare.

� A ban on the import of wild birds into the EuropeanUnion was enacted on 1 July 2007, as a measureto counter the threat of avian influenza10. There islittle evidence to date of a significant increase insmuggling, contrary to some predictions.


RSPCA concernBy-catch (when non-target animals are entangled,trapped or injured in fishing nets) poses a significantthreat to the welfare and conservation of cetaceans inwaters around the UK and globally. The RSPCA isextremely concerned about the levels of sufferingby-caught cetaceans endure. Cetaceans caught in thenets can become injured as they struggle to get free andwill eventually die if unable to return to the surface tobreathe. As a result, some animals may later be foundstranded, dead or alive. Entanglement injuries can beused as an indicator that animals were previously caughtin nets. The number of porpoises and dolphins dying inUK fisheries over the last 10 years has remained high,yet no consistent effort of mitigation has beenundertaken, even though enforcement of UK cetaceanby-catch legislation1 would bring a reduction in thefrequency of harbour porpoise by-catch.

The RSPCA believes the government must take actionto enforce such legislation, and must be proactive insupporting research into alternative fishing technologyand by-catch mitigation methods, with the aim ofeliminating all cetacean by-catch.

BackgroundSmall cetacean (dolphin and porpoise) entanglement caused by UKfisheries was first highlighted in 1992, when large numbers of deaddolphins washed up on the beaches of Cornwall and Devon. Withinthe first three months of 1992, 118 dead dolphins were stranded, andpost-mortem investigations revealed for the first time that the deathsof many of these animals could be attributed to by-catch2. Post-mortemevidence pointed clearly at a prolonged and traumatic death for theentangled animals – blood-filled froth had started to form in thelungs, skin was lacerated from net meshes and teeth were broken,all indicative of a sustained struggle by these air-breathing mammalstrapped underwater. Cetaceans are conscious breathers and death wasfound to be a result of asphyxia when their oxygen supplies ran out2.

Observers were placed on fishing vessels in south-west Englandbetween summer 1992 and spring 19943 in an attempt to identify thesource of dolphin mortality. The findings revealed that, rather thandolphins, there were many porpoises dying in nets set on the seafloor (bottom-set gillnets). Estimates put the mortality of porpoiseby-catch at more than 2,000 animals each year in that fishery alone3

– a level considered to be a threat to the survival of the populationas well as a huge welfare concern. Subsequent studies in otherEuropean fisheries revealed dolphin deaths in trawl nets occurred ata rate ranging from one to two dolphins every 100 hours of fishing4.Clearly, numerous fisheries were to blame for the cetacean mortality.

Efforts have been made to mitigate cetacean by-catch. Acousticalarms (called ‘pingers’) have been developed to deter porpoises fromgillnets and have proved effective in trials in North America andsouth-west England5 at reducing porpoise by-catch by up to 90 percent. This is not seen as the definitive solution to the problem6 andfurther fishing gear development is required.

Ongoing work in the UK7 and in Europe is aiming to address thedeaths of common dolphins in trawl nets. Mortality rates in the seabass fishery in the English Channel and south-west approaches areextremely high and indicate that more than 900 common dolphinsdied in the UK bass fishery between 2000 and 20058 9. Many moreFrench than UK boats use this fishery, so overall mortality will besignificantly greater. Research projects are underway to design escapehatches from trawl nets, or to deter dolphins from entering trawl netsusing acoustic harassment devices. Under the EU Common FisheriesPolicy, a Regulation has been introduced to monitor and reducecetacean by-catch in certain fisheries. The UK has adopted thisRegulation into domestic law10, thus placing an obligation on certainfisheries either to carry observers or to fix acoustic deterrent pingersonto their nets. Though the observer work is underway, fishermenare failing to comply with pinger requirements, as they believe that

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of stranded cetaceansby-caught around the UK




pingers are unreliable (and costly). Additionally, the large number ofsmall boats using bottom-set gillnets, which are known to causeporpoise deaths, are exempt from the regulations (which only applyto vessels 12m or over).

The indicator figuresThe actual death toll of cetaceans in fisheries is unknown, butestimates can be made from observer programmes that sample asmall proportion of fishing fleets, and from the analysis of carcassesfound on beaches. The total number of cetaceans stranding on UKshores doubled over the 13 years between 1994 to 2006, from 360to 71911 12. This is possibly due to the growth in a method of fishingknown as pair trawling, used largely to catch sea bass. Between 2006and 2007 however, the total number of cetacean strandingsdecreased by more than 25 per cent13.

To reveal the cause of death, post-mortem examinations wereconducted11 12 on stranded cetaceans that were not badly decomposed.Figure 1 shows the numbers of stranded cetaceans examined, andthe numbers of those deaths known to have been a result ofby-catch. Figure 2 illustrates these figures as percentages. It canbe seen that the proportion of deaths attributed to by-catch hasremained relatively consistent at around 20 per cent. However thisfigure would be higher if analysis was restricted to porpoises anddolphins. These figures do not provide information on the scale ofthe problem, as most discarded carcasses never reach the beach14.

There is no doubt that enforcement of UK cetacean by-catchlegislation could bring a reduction in the frequency of harbour porpoiseentanglement in nets. The government must take action to enforcethe legislation, and must be proactive in supporting research intoalternative fishing technology and by-catch mitigation methods. Whilethe fall in the number of cetacean strandings overall could be seen asencouraging, it is important to appreciate that this decrease may bedue to normal inter-annual variation in UK waters13. The number ofcetaceans by-caught, meanwhile, has remained consistently high overthe last 10 years and shows no sign of significant decline10.

WILDLIFE INDICATORS


1 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.2 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, 81–89.3 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 Journal of Marine Science 54, 896–904.4 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.182.5 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.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56, 113–123.

6 Cox T M, Read A J, Solow A and Tregenza N. 2001. Will harbour porpoises (Phocoenaphocoena) habituate to pingers? Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 3, 81–86.

7 Sea Mammal Research Unit, St Andrews, UK.8 Northridge S N, Sanderson D, Mackay A and Hammond P S. 2003. Analysis and mitigation

of cetacean by-catch in UK fisheries: final report to Defra Proj. MF0726, SMRU. p25.9 ICES. 2005. Interaction of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) and fisheries in the north-

east Atlantic. www.ices.dk/advice/cetaceans/dolphinbycatchadvice.pdf Technical annex.10 E.g. Sea Fisheries, England, Conservation S. I. 2005 No 17. The incidental catches of

cetaceans in fisheries (England) Order 2005.11 Out of the Blue – The UK Whale & Dolphin Stranding Scheme.

The Natural History Museum. 2005.12 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).13 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).14 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.

0

50

100

150

200

250

20072006200520042003200220012000199919981997199619951994

Figure 1: The number of stranded cetaceansexamined and number of deaths caused byby-catch, 1994–2007

Stranded cetaceans examined at post-mortem

By-catch

200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971996199519940

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Data source for Figures 1 and 2: Institute of Zoology.

Figure 2: Proportion of total deaths (%) knownto be caused by by-catch and other causes,1994–2007

By-catch Not established Other causes

RSPCA concernA diverse range of live birds and reptiles continues to beseen on sale to hobbyists and the pet-keeping publicthrough many avenues of sale including pet shops,commercial breeders and the internet. Despiteimprovements in experienced keepers’ knowledge of theneeds of many species now kept in captivity in the UK,and the ability of commercial breeders to supply somespecies completely from captive-bred animals, hundredsof thousands of wild reptiles continue to be removedfrom the wild each year to supply the demands of thepet trade in the European Union (EU), including the UK.However, since the introduction of EU legislation inOctober 2005, which stopped the importation of livebirds taken from the wild into all EU member states,unsurprisingly UK and EU bird imports have decreasedsignificantly. While the RSPCA will continue to monitorthe trade in birds, the ban appears to have all but haltedtrade in these animals.

The RSPCA is concerned that where animals continueto be taken from the wild, many animals suffer or diebefore being exported, during transportation and onceheld in captivity for the pet trade1 2. To prevent thesuffering of wild animals that are still taken for thispurpose, the Society advocates far stricter regulations toprevent the importation of vulnerable animals into theEU, which until recently was the largest market for thewild bird trade and remains so for reptiles. Stopping thetrade for the most vulnerable animals will reduce theimpact this trade has on wild populations and encouragetraders to focus on species already obtainable fromcaptive-bred sources.

BackgroundMany pet keepers in the UK assume that any animal on sale iscaptive-bred and that all wild animals are protected by internationalregulations to limit their capture and use for the pet trade. Both ofthese assumptions are untrue.

International trade in wild animals is only regulated for speciesthat are endangered or threatened by trade, and which are thereforelisted on the Convention on the International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) appendices. This Conventionis implemented through EU CITES trade regulations3 and enforcedthrough the UK Control of Trade in Endangered Species (COTES)legislation4. As these controls do not monitor the trade in non-CITESlisted species, and the majority of wild animals are not protected byCITES, it is therefore difficult to determine how many species andindividual animals in total are imported into the EU or UK from thewild. For example, of the approximate 10,000 species of birds5 and7,700 species of reptiles6 recorded in the wild, less than 15 per centof bird species and eight per cent of reptile species are protectedthrough CITES to control their commercial international trade.

Figures on CITES-listed animals entering the EU are therefore onlypart of the total live animal trade. Figures on animals imported intothe UK also provide just a partial picture, as they only record animalsentering the UK as the first destination after export and not thoseimported from other EU countries.

Figures on the movements of both CITES-listed and non-CITES-listed animals between EU member states and into the EU arecollated into the central EU database called TRACES (the TradeControl and Expert System) and the European Community Eurostatdatabase. However, neither database qualifies important informationon the source of the animals being traded – no distinction is madebetween an animal caught in the wild and an animal bred incaptivity. So at present, CITES data is also needed to monitor thesource of animals, to investigate any shifts in the number of animalstaken from the wild compared to animals bred in captivity. An addedcomplication now exists because, since 2007, bird movements into

WELFARE INDICATOR: The number of imported wild-takenreptiles and birds as a proportion of the total trade intothe UK and the EU

TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVE, WILD-CAUGHT CITES-LISTED REPTILES IMPORTED INTO THE EU –THERE HAS BEEN A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THENUMBER OF REPTILES IMPORTED INTO THE EU.

NUMBER OF WILD-CAUGHT REPTILES AS APROPORTION OF THE TOTAL TRADE IN LIVECITES-LISTED REPTILES IMPORTED INTO THE EU– LITTLE CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVE, WILD-CAUGHT CITES-LISTED REPTILES IMPORTED INTO THE UK –THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN THENUMBER OF REPTILES IMPORTED INTO THE UK.

NUMBER OF WILD-CAUGHT REPTILES AS APROPORTION OF THE TOTAL TRADE IN LIVECITES-LISTED REPTILES IMPORTED INTO THE UK– LITTLE CHANGE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.


the UK from the EU no longer seem to be recorded7, making it almostimpossible to monitor trends in total bird trade.

Figures for CITES-listed reptiles and birds imported into the UKand EU between 2000 and 2007 have been sub-divided according tothe source assigned to each animal: wild-caught, captive-bred orranched/captive-reared. Ranching involves the rearing in a controlledenvironment of specimens, such as eggs or hatchlings, which havebeen taken into captivity from the wild. The same sub-division couldnot be achieved for data extracted from the TRACES and Eurostatdatabases, as the source of animal is not recorded. Instead, thesedata represent combined totals for CITES-listed and non-CITES-listedspecies for each year.

For more information about the CITES source codes used in thisreport and detailed results, please refer to the Animal WelfareFootprint website: www.animalwelfarefootprint.com

The indicator figures – live reptilesThe number of live reptiles imported into the UK from outside theEU under CITES, as well as the proportion of these that were wild-caught, for 2000–20078 9, are shown in Figure 3. Since 2000, it is clearthat trade of live reptiles into the UK has increased, particularly in

2006 and 2007 when 24,872 and 29,871, respectively, live CITES-listedreptiles were imported from outside the EU. These numbersrepresent an increase on 2005 figures of 84 and 121 per centrespectively. More importantly, the number of wild-caught individualsincreased almost five-fold between 2000 and 2007 to 29,871 animalsand represented as much as 84 per cent of all live reptiles importedin 2003. This high level is consistent with the origin of importedreptiles, as the most common countries exporting them intoHeathrow are Guyana, Chile and Ghana where the species live inthe wild10.

With regard to CITES trade into the EU, data for 2000–20068 9 areshown in Figure 4. Figures suggest a slight increase in total numbersimported in 2006 compared to previous years. Meanwhile, the totalproportion taken from the wild fell slightly from 41 per cent in 2005to almost 38 per cent in 2006, indicating a greater dependence onranched and captive-reared reptiles. At the time of writing, 2007 datafor reptile trade into the EU were not available.

In terms of trade in all live reptiles (including non-CITES listedspecies for which trade is therefore unregulated), 178,24411 entered theUK from outside the EU in 2006, but only 1,47011 from other EUmember states. Thus, more than 99 per cent of all live reptiles that


WILDLIFE INDICATORS

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

200720062005200420032002200120000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Figure 3: 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, 2000–2007

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

Total number of CITES-listed reptiles imported into UK Proportion of CITES-listed reptiles that were wild-caught (%)

were imported into the UK originated from outside the EU. Inprevious years, this has been from South American or Africancountries where CITES-listed reptile species are found in the wild10.Unfortunately, comparable data on the total number of individualreptiles imported into the EU in 200612, and into the UK in 2007 7,were not provided by the government to reveal the latest trends.However, based on 2005 data indicating that 1,613,842 reptiles wereimported into the EU11, it is estimated that between 3.6 and 5.9 millionlive reptiles were imported into the EU in 200613.

Probably the greatest impact on wild animal trade since October2005 is the introduction of EU-wide legislation that stopped theimportation of wild birds into all EU member states on healthgrounds in an effort to reduce the risk of the transmission and spreadof avian influenza14. There is always a risk that the suspension of onetrade may contribute to a shift in the effort of trappers and exporters,as demands change, towards different animals in order to maintainbusiness. The overall growth in reptile trade into the UK over the lasttwo years (Figure 3) could therefore have occurred following a shiftfrom exporting wild birds towards wild reptiles. To support such ashift however, a wild-bird keeper in the EU would have to be willingto shift their interest to wild-caught reptiles, in preference to acquiringcaptive-bred birds that are already kept and sold in the EU to supply

the trade. It is possible that heightened public concern aboutpotential disease – namely avian influenza – may have led to petkeepers preferring reptiles over birds. Commercial pet retailers mayalso be intentionally shifting their efforts towards buying and sellingreptiles to the public, in response to the stop on imports of wild-caught birds; now even some hobbyists and traders promote reptilesas a less challenging pet for modern society.

Following the implementation of the US import ban of wild CITES-listed birds in 199215, there was a temporary peak in the number of livereptiles imported the following year (totaling 3.29 million reptiles; 15 percent more than the previous year). However, numbers then decreasedeach subsequent year until reaching a low in 1996 of 0.72 millionanimals16. It is currently unclear whether the growth seen in reptile tradeinto the UK and EU will follow a similar trend in the long term.

Hundreds of thousands of reptiles are imported into the EU fromthe wild without any monitoring or controls on the numbers exportedto supply the pet market, which clearly raises concerns about howfew reptile species are protected from international trade. Althoughthe RSPCA fully supports the end of the wild-bird trade into the EUon welfare grounds, the Society would not welcome any subsequentshift within the pet trade to another group of sentient animals, suchas to reptiles, or an increase in the pet trade targeting non-CITES-


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

20062005200420032002200120000

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 4: Total number of CITES-listed reptiles imported into the EU, and proportion (%) of these reptilesthat were obtained from the wild, 2000–2006


Total number of CITES-listed reptiles imported into EU Proportion of these CITES-listed reptiles that were wild-caught (%)

listed animals. Whatever the reason(s) for the increase in reptileimports into the UK, and possibly the EU as a whole, trade into theEU of over one million live reptiles demonstrates an even greaterneed for the regulation of the reptile trade into, and within, the EU torestrict the importation of species most vulnerable to suffering andmortality once captured and removed from the wild. Reptile tradersand keepers also have a responsibility to carefully consider the sourceof the animal they are acquiring; to choose species that can besupplied from captive-bred animals; and to provide the facilities andcare necessary for the animals’ welfare when kept in captivity.

The indicator figures – wild birdsFigures on CITES-listed birds imported into the UK from outside the EUand into the EU as a whole, in addition to the proportion of these birdsthat were wild-caught, for 2000–2007 are given in Figures 5 and 6.

These figures show that thousands of wild-caught CITES-listed birdswere imported annually into the UK between 2002 and 20059, butfollowing the EU-wide ban on imports of wild birds14, the trade in CITES-listed species has all but ceased (Figure 5). Looking at CITES-listed birdimports into the EU as a whole9, there was a similar crash (Figure 6).

Looking at the trade of all bird species into the UK, not just those

listed under CITES, shows that only 54 birds were imported in 2006for conservation purposes, compared to more than 50,000 inprevious years11. Unfortunately, comparable figures for 2007 were notprovided by the government7 12, although it is highly likely that thistrend has continued given the current import ban. Furthermore,historical figures for the number of all birds imported into the EUappear to be unreliable, as numbers provided are lower than CITES-listed species alone (e.g. 521,90617 in 2005 compared to. 524,850CITES-listed birds)13.

From UK and EU bird import figures, it is clear that the import banon wild birds has all but ended trade in wild-caught CITES-listed birds.The RSPCA supports the European Commission’s decision to amendEU legislation and introduce a permanent ban on the importation ofwild-caught birds into the EU. However, the Society also welcomesthe continued monitoring of trade in all species of birds and reptiles,particularly as there are some early indications that trade may beshifting from birds to reptiles, including those not listed under CITES.It is important to remember that no matter whether a bird is currentlyof conservation concern and protected by CITES, a close watch on thetotal trade is needed to monitor whether trade in particular speciesshould be controlled or stopped on welfare grounds.

WILDLIFE INDICATORS


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

200720062005200420032002200120000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 5: 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, 2000–2007


Total number of CITES-listed birds imported into UK Proportion of CITES-listed birds that were wild-caught (%)


1 Altherr S and Freyer D. 2001. Mortality and morbidity in private husbandry of reptiles. RSPCA.2 Maas B. 2000. Prepared and shipped – A multidisciplinary review of the effects of capture,

handling, housing and transport on morbidity and mortality. RSPCA.3 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (and subsequent amendments).4 The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997.5 Birdlife International website: www.birdlife.org6 CITES website: www.CITES.org7 Joan Ruddock, MP, Hansard, 17 December 2007.8 Hansard. 9 May 2006.9 CITES trade statistics derived from the CITES Trade Database, UNEP World Conservation

Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.10 CAWC. 2003. The report on the welfare of non-domesticated animals kept for

companionship.11 Lord Rooker, House of Lords written answers, 26 January 2007.12 Jonathan Shaw, Defra minister, Hansard, 30 April 2008.13 The Welfare State: Measuring animal welfare in the UK 2006. RSPCA animal welfare

indicator report, 2006.14 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 318/2007.15 Wild Bird Conservation Act in 1992.16 Franke J and Telecky T. 2001. Reptiles as pets – An examination of the trade in olive reptiles

in the United States. HSUS.17 Lord Rooker, Minister of State (Lords), Hansard, 18 December 2006.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

20062005200420032002200120000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6: Total number of CITES-listed birds imported into the EU, and proportion (%) of these birds thatwere obtained from the wild, 2000–2006


Total number of CITES-listed birds imported into EU Proportion of these CITES-listed birds that were wild-caught (%)

TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVE, WILD-CAUGHT CITES-LISTEDBIRDS IMPORTED INTO THE EU – A VERY LARGEDECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF BIRDS IMPORTEDINTO THE EU; THE TRADE HAS VIRTUALLY CEASED.

TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVE, WILD-CAUGHTCITES-LISTED BIRDS IMPORTED INTO THE UK– THE TRADE HAS VIRTUALLY CEASED.


RSPCA concernBefore acquiring any animal, whether it be a cat, dog ora less common pet such as a reptile, it is essential forthe animal’s welfare that the person responsible for itscare fully understands its long-term needs and is fullyprepared to meet those needs throughout the animal’slifetime. If people are not fully prepared, animal welfaremay be compromised as a result and potentially theanimals involved may be given up or abandoned.

The RSPCA believes that to help inform the personthinking about keeping an animal as a pet, anyoneselling or rehoming the animal has a responsibility tohelp provide good-quality husbandry advice appropriatefor the species.

BackgroundThe Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England and Wales clearlyrecognises the responsibility of any pet keeper to take reasonablesteps to meet their animal’s welfare needs in captivity. The AnimalWelfare Bill’s Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) also recognisedthe responsibility of pet vendors to help educate prospective buyersin the husbandry and care of animals on sale. It was thereforeadvocated in the RIA that all commercial vendors of pet animalsshould issue information leaflets; a requirement that may beincorporated into new pet vending regulations1.

Nowadays the diverse range of animals available to keep as petscan be acquired from many different sources, including breeders,specialist pet shops that sell non-domestic animals, generalist petshops, pet fairs, animal auctions, animal centres, small-ad papers,hobbyist groups, distance sellers (such as the internet), and fromfriends and family. The animals may have been bred in the UK,bred overseas or caught in the wild before being exported for sale.

To investigate the ownership of non-domestic pets, includingwhere pet animals were acquired, the RSPCA commissioned researchthat was completed by Dr Deborah Wells from Queen’s University,Belfast in 20022. The 1,024 surveys completed by keepers fromaround the UK (who kept reptiles, amphibians or insects) revealedthat pets were acquired from four main sources: 51.2 per cent from anon-domestic (specialist) pet shop; 16.6 per cent from a general petshop; 22.5 per cent from a private breeder; and 9.8 per cent from afriend or relative.

The same respondents were also asked what husbandry advicethey were given. Almost half were given only verbal advice by theseller, 31.2 per cent were given written information and 20.5 per centwere given no husbandry advice at all. The pet keepers then went onto state, when asked, that the most common problem theyexperienced with their pet was the lack of information provided bythe supplier. As two-thirds of suppliers in the study were identified asbeing either specialist or generalist pet shops, that sector of the pettrade clearly provides an important source for passing on advice tothose considering or already keeping a companion animal.

In recognition of the role pet shops play in helping inform thepet-buying public about the needs of animals in captivity and whatequipment and long-term care is required once the animal is takenhome, the RSPCA has selected the provision of good-qualitywritten information, appropriate for the animals on sale, as awelfare indicator.

WILDLIFE INDICATORS


WELFARE INDICATOR: The provision of quality writteninformation for the sale of non-domestic pets (reptiles,birds, amphibians and mammals) in a sample of outlets


The indicator figuresA sample of pet shops in England and Wales is surveyed annually.Data was collected between January and May 2008. Information isgathered on the type of non-domestic animals on sale from fourbroad animal groups: mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Theavailability of good quality, appropriate information on the welfareneeds of animals on display is also monitored, both on displaynear enclosures (‘signs’) and in a form that can be taken away forreference (‘care sheets’) by those considering buying or intendingto buy an animal.

� Information scoring

The type of information recorded and scored is based on the fivewelfare 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); opportunitiesto exhibit normal behaviour patterns (e.g. branches for climbing orperching); any need to be housed with, or apart, from other animals(grouping and issues of breeding); and its need to be protected frompain, suffering, injury and disease (e.g. health issues, the need for theowner to seek veterinary advice).

Other issues considered desirable for pet shops to cover include:animal’s size at adulthood, lifespan, source (e.g. captive-bred or wild-caught), price and sources of further information (e.g. pet shop staff,websites, free care sheets). Surveyors were also asked to note if staffapproached them and volunteered any care information.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

ReptilesAmphibiansBirdsMammals

%Pe

tsho

ps

FishInvertebrates

Figure 7: Availability of different animal groupsin surveyed pet shops

Data source: RSPCA.

THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2006 IN ENGLAND AND WALES CLEARLY RECOGNISES THE

RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY PET KEEPER TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO MEET THEIR

ANIMAL’S WELFARE NEEDS IN CAPTIVITY.

WILDLIFE INDICATORS


Table 1: Estimated number of non-domesticated animals on sale in surveyed pet shops

Estimated number of animals on sale Extrapolation topet shops across all

Average per shop (range) Total of England and Wales

Mammals 26 (2–97) 3,918 9,857

Birds 25 (1–147) 3,136 6,882

Reptiles 50 (2–410) 6,306 11,883

Amphibians 8 (1–70) 846 1,394

Fish 640 (7–3,000) 90,826 220,962

Invertebrates 23 (1–300) 2,776 5,061

Total 107,808 256,040

Data source: RSPCA.

THE TYPE OF INFORMATION RECORDED AND SCORED IS BASED ON THE FIVE WELFARE

NEEDS OF ANIMALS AS OUTLINED IN THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2006.

� Animals on sale

Out of 310 shops spread across England and Wales that wereinvestigated in 2008, 222 sold animals belonging to at least one ofthe four target groups, the remainder either did not sell any targetanimals or no longer appeared to be in business. Mammals weresold in the largest proportion of shops, followed by fish, birds,reptiles, invertebrates, then amphibians (see Figure 7). An estimated14,206 animals belonging to the four target groups (mammals, birds,reptiles and amphibians) were on sale. On top of this, 90,826 fish3

and 2,776 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 canbe used to get some idea of the total number of animals on sale.Assuming a similar proportion of non-surveyed pet shops held targetanimals (72 per cent), and in similar proportions (see Figure 7 and‘Average per shop’ column in Table 1), it is estimated that more than

30,000 mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians were on saleacross England and Wales, and a further 221,000 fish and 5,000invertebrates (see Table 1).

The most common species on sale, across the four groups, areshown in Table 2. Hamsters, mice and rats were the most commonlysold mammals, followed by gerbils and chinchillas. Rarer speciesincluded chipmunks and sugargliders.

Budgies were the most popular bird, followed by canaries andfinches. Cockatiels, macaws, large parrots and parakeets were foundin 13 to 19 per cent of surveyed shops.

Most shops that sold reptiles stocked various species of lizards andsnakes, although tortoises were also popular. Fewer shops sold terrapins,and crocodilians (e.g. caimans) were found in only three shops.

Amphibians were the least common group on sale, mainlyconsisting of various species of frogs and toads.


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 162 73 Birds 104 46.8 Reptiles 80 35.8

Hamster 132 59.5 Budgie 88 39.6 Lizard 77 34.5

Mouse/rat 132 59.5 Canary 64 28.8 Snake 68 30.4

Gerbil/jird 106 47.7 Finch 56 25.2 Tortoise/turtle 63 28.4

Chinchilla 64 28.8 Cockatiel 42 18.9 Terrapin 27 12.2

Degu 24 10.8 Macaw/large parrot 33 14.9 Crocodilian 3 1.4

Chipmunk 5 2.3 Parakeet 28 12.6 Amphibians 50 22.3

Sugar glider 2 0.9 Lovebird 18 8.1 Frog 33 14.9

Primate 0 0.0 Conure 8 3.6 Toad 23 10.1

Other 58 26.1 Other 26 11.7 Salamander 15 6.8

Fish 144 64.9 Invertebrates 71 31.8 Newt 12 5.4

Data source: RSPCA.

IT IS ESTIMATED THAT MORE THAN 30,000 MAMMALS, BIRDS, REPTILES AND

AMPHIBIANS WERE ON SALE ACROSS ENGLAND AND WALES, AND A FURTHER

221,000 FISH AND 5,000 INVERTEBRATES.

WILDLIFE INDICATORS


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Sources offurther information

Source ofanimal

LifespanAdult sizeAll five'welfare needs'

One or more'welfare needs'

Info other than price

Price

%Pe

tsho

ps

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

Data source: RSPCA.

� Care information provided to potential buyers– on signs

Most pet shops (82 per cent) displayed some sort of writteninformation about at least one of the four species surveyed. The costof the animal was most commonly on display, and only about half(55 per cent) of shops displayed information in addition to price,which is about the same proportion as last year’s survey (seeFigure 8). Availability of information specific to animals’ welfare needs(environment, diet, behaviour, social grouping and health) showedlittle change compared to last year (see Figure 8). Almost half (45.9per cent) of pet shops displayed this information on signs for at leastone of the surveyed species, but less than one in 10 (nine per cent)provided information on all five aspects of welfare (see Figure 8).

Compared to last year, a similar proportion of shops providedsome welfare-related information for at least one surveyed species(see Figure 8). Information relating to the provision of a suitableenvironment, substrates to allow the performance of naturalbehaviours and diet were displayed on signage by between 30 and32 per cent of shops. This is slightly less than the 37 to 42 per centrecorded last year. Health-related information, such as signs of illhealth to look for and the need to take the animal to a vet if itbecame ill, was the least often provided (16.2 per cent of shops,compared to 20.9 per cent recorded last year). No change was seen inthe proportion of shops that displayed information about the lifespan

of the species, and therefore the degree of commitment required ofbuyers, which was reported on signage in about a quarter of shops(see Figure 8).

As reported last year, potential buyers of mammals receive themost information via signage. More than one-third (35.1 per cent) ofsigns for mammals contained information about the animals’ welfareneeds in captivity, compared to 26.9 per cent for reptiles, 15.6 per centfor amphibians and 8.3 per cent for birds.

An important aspect that people should consider before buying apet is how large the animal can grow, particularly when buying areptile. Similar to last year’s results, reptiles most often had this sortof information on display, albeit for only 17.3 per cent of reptilessurveyed. Some shops sold boa constrictors, which can grow to morethan three metres in length, yet this information was not displayed tothe public. Information regarding the source of the animal (e.g. bredin captivity or taken from the wild) was rarely displayed for any animalbut reptiles most commonly had this information on display (13.5 percent of shops). In addition, a few shops displayed a simple ratingscale on signage to convey how difficult the species is to keep(e.g. level 2 – for experienced keepers), and some shops displayedsigns about pet owners’ duty of care to meet their animal’s needs.

2008

2007


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Source ofanimal

LifespanAdult size

%Pe

tsho

ps

All five'welfare needs'


Figure 9: Availability of written information to be taken away from pet shops for at least one of the fourgroups surveyed

Data source: RSPCA.

� Care information provided to potential buyers– free written information

Results relating to the availability of free care sheets are presentedin Figure 9. Care sheets were available in one-third of shopssurveyed (34.2 per cent), which is higher than last year (20.9 per cent).An additional nine per cent apparently did hold care sheets butthey were unavailable at the time of the survey (e.g. due to theprinter not working) and another 8.1 per cent held care sheets onspecies not selected for the survey. Therefore, about half of shopsusually held care sheets of some description. However, as withlast year, most care sheets were collected in a single chain ofpet stores – Pets at Home – and discounting these brought theproportion or shops with free care sheets down to just seven percent (compared to five per cent last year). Of this seven per cent,most appeared to produce their own information, althoughsome provided sheets produced by the Pet Care Trust or petfood manufacturers.

When care sheets were provided, at least one of the five welfareneeds of the animal in question was always covered, and 81.6 percent contained information on all five aspects, which is similar to lastyear. A high proportion of sheets also provided valuable informationabout the expected lifespan of the animal (84.2 per cent of sheets).There is thus far more information provided in care sheets, when theyare available, than on signage.

Again, those considering buying a mammal were provided withmost information, with care sheets available in 27 per cent of shopsthat sold this group. Care sheets were far scarcer for birds (12.5 percent of shops) and reptiles (11.5 per cent), which is very similar to thesituation seen last year. However, potential amphibian buyers hadaccess to more care sheets this year (18.8 per cent of shops thatsold amphibians compared to 6.1 per cent last year).

As with signage, information about the size to which theanimal could grow was most often provided for reptiles (83.3 percent of shops that provided reptile care sheets). Information onthe source of the animal was only every provided for birds dueto leaflets provided by Pets at Home which stated that all birdswere captive-bred.

Overall, free information in some form (either on signs in store orin care sheets) was available in 82 per cent of shops surveyed,compared to 83.3 per cent last year. Excluding information aboutthe price of animals on sale brings this down to just half of shopssurveyed, which is about the same as last year (see Figure 10).Welfare-related information, covering at least one of the five ‘welfareneeds’ as described in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, was provided foraround half of animals surveyed, but only about one-third coveredall five ‘needs’. The majority of shops did not provide specifics onthe size to which the animal could grow or the number of years itcould live (see Figure 10).

2008

2007

WILDLIFE INDICATORS


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Source ofanimal

LifespanAdult sizeAll five'welfare needs'


Info other than price

Price

%Pe

tsho

ps

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

Data source: RSPCA.

2008

2007

� Information provided by staff

An additional avenue of information delivery is via staff in store.Surveyors reported that they were approached by a member of staffin over half of the shops surveyed (59.5 per cent of shops), which isfar higher than last year (39.4 per cent), but they were no more likelyto receive unsolicited advice about the care and welfare needs of theanimals on display (14.4 per cent of shops compared to 15 percent last year).

Surveyors noted that in several stores staff were very helpfuland knowledgeable, and in some cases staff made it clear that theywould not sell an animal without being certain the buyer had afull understanding of the needs of the animal and the level ofcommitment required. Furthermore, a couple of shops formallyadvised buyers of their duty of care by asking them to complete andsign forms to this effect which were then retained by the shop.

Overall, the availability of free written information has changed littlecompared to last year. Still only about half of surveyed shops provideany information other than the price of the animal on sale and onlyone-third provide free care sheets, which drops to just seven per centwhen sheets provided by a major pet chain are discounted. This isdisappointing, given that pet shops are best placed to informpotential buyers of their duty of care under the Animal Welfare Act2006, and to furnish them with some basic information to aid theirdecision as to whether or not they are able to meet this obligation.

More encouragingly, when written care information was provided,the scope of the information was wider compared to the sheetssampled last year. There are also hints of some shops taking theirresponsibility very seriously by starting initiatives such as askingbuyers to sign a ‘declaration’ that they agree to meet the needs ofthe animal they buy.

Nevertheless, great improvements could still be made in bothsignage and the availability of free care sheets. Staff obviouslyrepresent an important avenue for delivering such information andmaking sure that people know what they are taking on before theybuy a new pet. However, good quality, written information remainsa vital means of informing potential pet owners, allowing them tomull over the options and make the correct choice, both for themand the animal.

Further details on the survey methods and more detailed resultsare available on the Animal Welfare Footprint website4.


1 www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/petsales_fairs.htm2 Wells D. 2002. The ownership and welfare of exotic pets. RSPCA.3 Although all numbers are estimates, figures for fish should be treated with some caution

given the sheer numbers involved and the difficulty in counting individuals, especially ofsmaller species.

4 www.animalwelfarefootprint.com


RSPCA concernLitter is responsible for the injury and death of thousandsof animals each year. Lost and discarded fishing tackle ispart of this problem, and poses a significant threat to arange of wildlife, but particularly swans.

Discarded fishing line, hooks and weights used byanglers are responsible for thousands of calls made tothe RSPCA about swans each year. Fishing tackle canalso present a hazard to swans while it is being used.

While it is inevitable that casualties will occur as longas humans live alongside wildlife, the RSPCA believesthat education and public awareness is the key toensuring that as few swans (and other wild animals)as possible suffer unnecessarily due to the carelessnessof humans.

BackgroundLost and discarded fishing tackle presents a real hazard to wildlife:hooks are swallowed and pierce through skin; weights and floatsare ingested; and line is swallowed and becomes wrapped aroundbodies and limbs. As a result, fishing litter can cause painful injuries,internal blockages, poisoning and sometimes death.

Swans are particularly badly affected. Fishing tackle has beenidentified as the single most important cause of mute swan rescues1

and admissions to an RSPCA wildlife centre2. It has been estimatedthat 8,000 swan rescues take place each year in Britain, with 3,000caused by fishing tackle1. This could of course underestimate thetrue scale of the problem, as many swans may go unnoticedand unreported.

Lead poisoning resulting from the ingestion of fishing weightshas also caused significant mortality in swans, although in recentyears, as lead weights have been replaced, this appears to be a lesssignificant, albeit lingering problem2.

In addition to discarded and lost tackle, observations suggest thata significant proportion of incidents are caused by swans eatingbaited hooks or swimming through lines while they are in use;unattended rods thus pose a particular threat1.

Education and awareness-raising initiatives obviously play a keyrole in fostering greater care and vigilance and teaching good anglingpractice. Codes of practice and coaching courses initiated by someangling organisations go some way towards achieving this, butgiven that most problems appear to involve anglers that areinexperienced or of average skill 1, further outreach may be requiredin order to engage more casual anglers who are not members ofany organisation.

WELFARE INDICATOR: The proportion of fishing tackle-relatedswan incidents recorded by the RSPCA


WILDLIFE INDICATORS


The indicator figuresThe proportion of swan incidents recorded by the RSPCA thatinvolve fishing tackle has been monitored. Data indicate that thevast majority of incidents involve mute swans, but data on all speciesof swan are included. An increase in incidents could indicate morecarelessness and less public concern, but, equally, it could indicatea higher rate of reporting by a more vigilant and compassionatepublic. Figures could also be affected by other factors, such asswan numbers and the activity of rescue groups. Regardless ofthe underlying causes, the RSPCA takes the view that any human-induced harm to wildlife is a potential cause for concern and istherefore worthy of monitoring.

Two sources of RSPCA data were used covering the period 2000to 2007. Firstly, telephone calls made to the RSPCA’s cruelty andadvice line by members of the public are considered (these willinclude unconfirmed accounts but this should not affect any trends

over time) and secondly admission records of swans from three ofthe RSPCA’s four wildlife centres3.

Between 2000 and 2007, there was a 40 per cent drop in thenumber of calls about swans and fishing tackle, from 3,590 to 2,169,most notably between 2003 and 2004. However all calls made to theRSPCA show a similar decline. These patterns may be due to changesin the way calls were handled over this period, including theestablishment of the RSPCA’s National Control Centre. This is one ofseveral factors that could influence the absolute number of calls, andso from a trend point of view the proportion of calls about swans thatinvolved fishing tackle should yield a more revealing picture. Figure 11shows that there has been a slight drop in the proportion of tackle-related calls, from 26–27 per cent (of 2,700–3,600 calls about swans)between 2000 and 2005, to 22–23 per cent (of 2,200–2,400 callsabout swans) over the last two years. This could simply represent ashort-term dip or perhaps the start of a significant decline in incidents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

20072006200520042003200220012000

Prop

ortio

nof

phon

ecal

ls(%

)

Figure 11: Proportion of swan incidents reported to the RSPCA that involved fishing tackle, 2000–2007

Data source: RSPCA.

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.


Looking at admissions to RSPCA wildlife centres, recent yearshave seen fewer swans admitted, both in total (from 941 in 2000to 799 in 2007) and suffering from tackle-related injuries (from 121in 2000 to 73 in 2007). More importantly, Figure 12 shows thatproportionately there have been slightly fewer fishing tackle-relatedadmissions in 2006 and 2007 (nine per cent of swan admissions)compared to previous years (11–14 per cent). However, further datais needed to determine whether incidents are really in decline.

The results to date are therefore inconclusive with regards towhether there has been a significant decline in fishing tackle-relatedinjuries in swans. Only time and more data will tell if the pattern seenin the last couple of years is sustained and that perhaps attitudesand behaviour are improving.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

20072006200520042003200220012000

Prop

ortio

nof

swan

adm

issi

ons

(%)

Figure 12: Proportion of swans admitted to three RSPCA centres affected by fishing tackle, 2000–2007

Data source: RSPCA.


1 Perrins C, Martin P and Broughton B. 2002. The impact of lost and discarded fishing lineand 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.Waterbirds 27(1): 60–68.

3 Data from the RSPCA’s fourth wildlife centre was not included due to incompatiblerecording methods.

THE RESULTS TO DATE ARE INCONCLUSIVE

WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER THERE HAS

BEEN A SIGNIFICANT DECLINE IN

FISHING TACKLE-RELATED INJURIES

IN SWANS. ONLY TIME AND MORE DATA

WILL TELL IF THE PATTERN SEEN

IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS

SUSTAINED AND THAT PERHAPS ATTITUDES

AND BEHAVIOUR ARE IMPROVING.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT,OR TO REQUEST FURTHER COPIES,

PLEASE E-MAIL:

[email protected]:

0300 123 0212WRITE TO:

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

VISIT:


Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 9RSTelephone: 0300 1234 555 www.rspca.org.ukA charity registered in England and Wales no: 219099 ISSN: 1758-9770 040608 10.08FRONT AND BACK COVER PAPER: 55 PER CENT RECYCLED EFC (ELEMENTAL CHLORINE FREE) FIBRE.104-PAGE REPORT PAPER: 100 PER CENT RECYCLED TFC (TOTALLY CHLORINE FREE) FIBRE.

PIC CREDITS: ANDREW FORSYTH (X3), RSPCA (X2), TIM SAMBROOK, E A JANES, DAMION DIPLOCK/RSPCA PHOTOLIBRARY. HELEN BALL, JANE COOPER.


rspca: animal welfare in the uk

Documents