Pet Theft

Dogs are classified as property under the Theft Act 1968 - meaning that a stolen dog currently is legally the same as a stolen bike.

Following the recommendation of the Pet Theft Taskforce, the Government stated that Pet Theft would be classed as a new criminal offence and added to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill - the Bill has not been yet passed as law and disappeared from Parliament.

Please Contact you own Member of Parliament (MP) and ask them to support the Kept Animals Bill and bring it back into session so that it can proceed to become law.

Government Petition for held dogs:

 

Create new requirements for dogs held under dangerous dogs legislation

Please Sign and Share the petition - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/635704

Government will respond when 10,000 signatures are reached.

We want new legal requirements in relation to dogs that are being held under dangerous dogs law. 

Authorities should immediately notify owners if their dog is unwell, needs a vet, is dying or died. 

And no dog's body to be cremated or frozen without an owner’s consent, so they can seek a post mortem.

Currently there is no guidance from Government or specific legal requirements for owners to be informed when a dog - that is being held under dangerous dogs legislation - is sick, needs vet treatment or died. 

Owners can also struggle to get copies of vet and kennel records.

EFRA Committee-Pet Welfare Inquiry

 The deadline for the EFRA Committee call for evidence on Pet Welfare and Abuse in England has been extended to 14 April 2023

You can submit your views on pets and companion animals and read the full terms of reference online here:  https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/3043/

While there are many responsible pet breeders and loving owners, there are, unfortunately, some serious exceptions to the rule.

In particular, unscrupulous breeders, including criminals, sought to exploit the increased demand for pets during the pandemic. 

Other issues include the rise of “designer pets”, that result in dogs having genetic deformities. These are often due to unregulated canine fertility clinics. There continue to be concerns about illegal mutilation practices, such as the ear cropping of dogs and the de-clawing of cats.

Separately, some who acquired a pet during the pandemic are finding that they are unfortunately no longer able to fully care for their pets as home working opportunities decrease, and the cost of pet care and living more generally increase.

All this is raising serious concerns about animal welfare, and leading to increased pressure on vets and pet charities.

Terms of reference

The Committee invites submissions on the following:

Unscrupulous breeding and importation:

1. What risks to biosecurity and public health are posed by abhorrent practices such as unscrupulous breeding, including “puppy mills” – which are characterised by poor conditions and rapid breeding – both here and those overseas from which dogs are then imported, often in large numbers in a single vehicle,

the importation of dogs, including heavily pregnant bitches, and cats, and “rescue dogs” (some of whom are misrepresented as such);

as well as similar practices for other species of companion animals? Is the occurrence of such activities changing?

2. What risks do unregulated and illegal Canine Fertility Clinics present to dog welfare, including the breeding of so-called “designer” dogs? What is the appropriate role and regulation of assisted breeding techniques in dog breeding?

Abuse and mutilation:

3. Is the ban on mutilation – such as ear cropping (or docking) of dogs, and de-clawing in cats – under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 effective? How prevalent are practices such as illegal ear cropping, and the importation of dogs whose ears have been cropped overseas or cats that have been de-clawed (which remains legal)?

Ownership and animal welfare:

4. There was a marked increase in pet ownership during the pandemic. What is the situation for companion animals’ welfare post-pandemic, especially given recent factors such as

a. adverse changes in the cost of living?

b. a decrease in home working?

5. What are the pressures currently facing those dealing with companion animal welfare including

a. the veterinary sector?

b. the charitable animal welfare sector?

Current preventative measures:

6. Is the current regulatory and legal framework to both support the welfare and prevent the abuse of companion animals fit for purpose? Do the available penalties – and the probability of prosecution – act as a sufficient deterrent?

7. Will the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill (as currently drafted) take a significant step to tackling poor pet welfare and abuse, including those issues stated above?

8. What additional measures should the Government take to stop bad practices, improve overall domestic pet welfare, and assist those involved in supporting domestic pet welfare?

A “companion animal” is usually defined as a domestic pet, including cats, dogs and horses, for example. This inquiry is focused on pet welfare in England, although horses may be included as they have been impacted in the pandemic, in terms of homing/caring issues, as well as other companion animals.

Kept Animals Bill - Lost in Parliament!

 

Write to your MP today and ask them where is the Bill?

The Kept Animals Bill Update:

It is now 15 months since the #KeptAnimalsBill last moved in Parliament.

The Bill is currently waiting for its final stages through the House of Commons and this is expected to need approx. just five hours of parliamentary time.

The government must proceed so practices like primates as pets and the puppy trade cease in the UK.

@CommonsLeader

@theresecoffey

don't let these animals down! Bring back the bill because #AnimalsMatter.

Contact your own MP and highlight the Bill to them - www.writetothem.com

There is also a template letter you can use on the BVA website here

• 
  

Further Calls for Urgent Action - Dog Law UK:

 

Wayne David calls for immediate UK Government action on dangerous dogs legislation:

Wayne David, Labour MP for Caerphilly, has today called for the UK Government to take “immediate action” on dangerous dogs.

Mr David was speaking at a webinar organised by the London based Public Policy Exchange. The event was attended by experts from local government, academia, the civil service and animal welfare organisations.

Mr David said, “Given the fatalities and the number of serious attacks by dangerous dogs, it is now imperative that the UK Government take meaningful action. I have raised the issue with the Prime Minister on the floor of the House of Commons, and he has stated that the Government will be considering recommendations from an expert working group “later in the year”. This is not good enough. There have been many debates and discussions, there have been academic papers commissioned and published, and there has been extensive consultation. Now is the time for action.

“There is, I believe, an emerging consensus among politicians of all parties, that there needs to be a new approach to the issue of dangerous dogs. There is now a need to go beyond breed specific legislation and, instead, adopt a far reaching and comprehensive approach that places responsibilities on dog owners and which recognises that ‘all’ dogs should be included in future legislation.”

DEFRA reply to Petitions Committee - dog law update:

 

DEFRA have responded to the petitions committee this month; the online Petition is still open for signatures and can be signed and shared here - https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/624876

DEFRA: We currently have no plans to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. We are considering improvements to the existing legal framework through the Responsible Dog Ownership working group.

We recognise that dog attacks can have horrific consequences, and we take this issue very seriously.

We recognise that some people are opposed to the prohibitions placed on the four types of dog under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. However, the Government must balance the views of those who want to repeal or amend breed specific legislation with our responsibility to ensure that the public is properly protected from dog attacks. We currently have no plans to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and replace it with a new legal framework.

Simply repealing the breed specific provisions contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 with no other changes may increase the risks to public safety, which the Government is unwilling to do. Any changes to current legislation would require careful consideration to ensure that public safety remains at the heart of the regime.

The existing legal framework equips the police and local authorities with appropriate powers to tackle dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog.

Under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”), it is an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. For the purposes of the 1991 Act, this includes any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog in question will injure someone, whether or not it actually does so. The maximum penalty for such an offence is fourteen years’ imprisonment if it results in the death of a person; five years in the case of injury; three years if it is an attack on an assistance dog and six months where no injury is caused to a person.

Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 allows a complaint to be made to a Magistrates’ court where a dog is “dangerous and not kept under proper control”. The court may make any Order it considers appropriate, to require the owner to keep the dog under proper control, or if necessary, that it be destroyed.

Additionally, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 includes specific powers to enable the police and local authorities to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. These powers can help prevent situations involving irresponsible owners of dogs becoming more serious by facilitating intervention earlier on.

The main tool to tackle this form of irresponsible dog ownership is the Community Protection Notice (CPN). These notices can be issued by local authority officers or the police to dog owners, or anyone temporarily in charge of the dog at the time. Failure to comply with a CPN is a criminal offence.

Under the 2014 Act, local authorities can also use Public Space Protection Orders to deal with a particular nuisance or problem arising in an area by imposing conditions on the use of that area. For example, a Public Space Protection Order may be used to exclude dogs from designated spaces (e.g., a children's play area in a park), require dogs to be kept on leads, or restrict the number of dogs that can be walked by one person at any one time.

The Government is determined to crack down on irresponsible dog ownership and to that end we are encouraging police forces and local authorities across the country to use these powers.

We recognise that improvements could be made to the existing legal framework. In December 2021, Defra published research in collaboration with Middlesex University investigating measures to reduce dog attacks and promote responsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog. The Middlesex University Report made several recommendations with regard to improvements that could be made, specifically relating to consistency in enforcement practice and greater use of preventative enforcement models, improved knowledge and awareness of appropriate behaviour around dogs, strengthened accreditation of dog trainers, improved data recording and collection, as well as the introduction of new legal requirements of dog ownership.

We have established the Responsible Dog Ownership working group to consider these recommendations and identify potential reforms that could be taken forward in a holistic way. We will also be considering the effectiveness of dog control regimes internationally and what learnings we could take from these approaches. We expect the working group to make its recommendations later this year.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Above is the revised response as the Petitions Committee requested a response which more directly addressed the request of the petition and you can read the original response on the petition page.