PetStreet´s response to BBC´s film - use Sale of Goods act to sue callous breeders. There has been a torrent of reaction to the BBC´s PEDIGREE DOGS EXPOSED. But what next? There have already been some interesting suggestions such as Ryan O’Meara’s idea that the UK signs up to the European Convention for the rotection of Pet Animals and Beverley Cuddy suggesting a new breed of healthy Cavalier Spaniel is created. These ideas will take time, but do pet owners like Carol Fowler, who brought the sickening actions of some Cavalier King Charles breeders to light, have any action they can take right now? I´m currently looking into the idea that any breeder who knowingly creates and sells on puppies with a high risk of genetic abnormalities has contravened the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and can be sued. We want to investigate this idea further and even see if we might mount a test case that sets a precedent. The Sale of Goods Act is of course a piece of legislation brought into force to protect the public from being sold faulty goods, rather than animal welfare law. However, if we live in a society where animals are treated like designer commodities, then perhaps using property legislation is an effective way to ensure there are real consequences for bad breeders? At PetStreet we know many people at the Kennel Club are passionate dog lovers, but we fail to see how anyone can support breeders who use first generation inbreeding, or a breed standard for Rhodesian Ridgebacks where healthy puppies are put to sleep, or for the King Charles spaniel - breeders who not only seem indifferent to the fact their dogs will develop syringomyelia, but pass these dogs on to innocent buyers. At Petstreet we don´t want to see the Kennel Club targeted in place of the real villains: the breeders and breed societies whose actions have caused so much suffering to dogs and their unfortunate owners. We do recognise how much of the key research and development of genetic testing has been done by the Kennel Club. We would like to empower the Kennel Club to do what many members already know is right: put in place and enforce new rules about dog breeding and showing. I´m planning to approach any organisations and individuals who might be able to advise on the feasibility of using Sale of Goods Act legislation in this way, including owners whose pedigree pets have been affected by genetic disorders (this could include cats as well as dogs, although the speech given by Julia May of the Cat Fancy on Vets TV indicates the cat breeding world may be further along in dealing with these issues). In the meantime, I´d welcome comments from all PetStreet members. My hope is that if bad breeders knew there were likely to be legal consequences, they´d clean up their act. Meanwhile, good breeders, who scan animals for genetic problems before breeding from them, would be able to restore public trust. This proposal is not intended as an attack on the Kennel Club, or good and responsible breeders, or people who want to own pedigree animals - it is just an idea for bringing callous and irresponsible breeders to heel. PS Maybe the Kennel Club should prepare a contract that all their breeders have to sign and all the purchasers have to sign, when a dog is sold. It will provide a space where illness and disease are mentioned. Then if it is not correctly filled in by the breeder, then the customer will have a recourse.  Comments Write a comment to this story 02 Sep 2008 14:02  Description There are always solutions Paula..... The RSPCA staff who are on the ´front line´ of animal rescue do a darn good job but they are continually hampered and in the firing line because of what their ruling body dictates... I guess the PDSA is the closest we have at the moment to an NHS Animal Hospital.... It´s a great idea though and one which may happen in the future if things carry on as they are.. Yes it´s easy to criticise but I like to get both sides of a story before making any judgement. Usually, the media (for example) only gives the side of the story that makes headline news. But over the last 5 years or so, I have been involved in keeping up to date with Animal Welfare Laws & developments which has involved organisations such as the RSPCA, other rescue organisations, Government, Defra etc etc and have seen both sides. There is no easy answer but at the end of the day the animals are the most important things and their welfare is the most important thing to me. 31 Aug 2008 22:37 Member Removed thanks would it not be better to see the money donated going where you know it will be effective? there should be a animal NHS hospital avaiable nationwide as there are NHS hospitals avaiable for humans people´s pets are just as importatnt to them as any other member of their family and yet so many people wait till there is nothing they can do to take their pets to vets and the charity hospitals do struggle too to keep going and have to charge as well so again for an elderly person with a average pension the whole thing turns into a big drama really Ithink the RSPCA tried to be everything for everybody and fail they are not up to it as a organization just like individuals cannot raise to certain challenges... they it appears have lost the plot but not for lack of trying and I have an enormous amount of affection and respect for the RSPCA all the same its easy to critize when we don´t know the ins and outs of what is what but humans make mistakes and the RSPCA is run by humans... I am no judge and jury and there is a solution for these problems and just a matter of making them happen... 31 Aug 2008 20:41 Description Some good ideas here Paula... I´m not sure whether the PDSA will treat the pets of the elderly for free or is it only for people on benefits? Perhaps someone here will have the answer...... I wholeheartedly agree that there should be an organisation to protect animals and that comes down hard on people who abuse animals. However, the RSPCA over the last few years seem to have lost their way a bit and now the priority seems to be prosecution at all costs whether or not its the appropriate course of action. When the Animal Welfare Act became law in April 2006, it was a golden opportunity for them to be able to protect & remove an animal BEFORE it was suffering, in other words when it was ´at risk.´ But they seem to waste so much time & money pursuing prosecutions which should never have come to court.. Lately the Magistrates have agreed with this & thrown the cases out. Classic example is the policeman & the cat. The cat had been run over and its back end was virtually squashed flat but it was still alive. It was the middle of the night and neither the vet nor RSPCA were ´available´ to attend so the policeman despatched the cat with a swift blow with a shovel to end its misery. End of story??? Not on your life - the RSPCA brought a prosecution against the policeman for CRUELTY... HOw ridiculaous is that? The cat was half squashed, was suffering, no vet available so what was he supposed to do? I dont think for one moment it was an easy thing for him to do but did he have a choice?? Not surprisingly, the prosecution failed after months of stress for the policeman & thousands of pounds of the publics donated money WASTED. To find where things went wrong, you only have to look at the RSPCA ruling body in the ivory towers of their HQ at Horsham... 31 Aug 2008 16:14 Member Removed thank you all for letting me know all that stuff but I still need to verify it for myself I have met plenty who are against and resent the RSPCA obviously there must be a reason for it and there is no smoke without fire I still think its a good idea to have a police force that deal with animals only and their pals/onwers and would too sugest NHS hospitals for pets as there are many specially amongst the elderly to whom their pets mean everything to them but cannot afford to keep them and insurance too is out of the question for them and private vets too those are two areas that the RSPCA have been covering which really could been dealt with by the pet police and the NHS hospital thingie then leaving them to concentrate on rescue only maybe they went on to tackle more than they are able too and things went wrong and out of control... 30 Aug 2008 22:04 Description It´s sad Sarah because they USED to be exactly as Paula perceived them to be but somewhere along the line they changed into the organisation they are today... 30 Aug 2008 21:08  I think Paula´s comment highlights a one of the real problems here. The general publics perception of the RSPCA is that they are great, working hard on limited funds to help animals when this is definately not the case. If it was common knowledge how the RSCPA operate maybe there would be a bigger outcry to get things done but people generally believe that if it is so bad the RSPCA will step in and deal with it. I mean absolutely no offense here as until very recently I too believed all the good hype about them and I thank Petstreet and all the Petstreeters for enlightening me. 30 Aug 2008 20:23  Hi Paula, take a look at the ´´Pet Politics ect: forum, you might get more surprises. 30 Aug 2008 20:15 Member Removed wow I am surprised to hear that!! and if true disapointed with the RSPCA too.. :( 30 Aug 2008 19:46 Description You´re right Paula it doesnt but it does have £200 million, yes million, sitting in the bank doing nothing. Believe me, the RSPCA isnt short of a bob or two....... 30 Aug 2008 15:41 Member Removed is anyone aware that the RSPCA DOES NOT GET ANY GOVERNMENT FUNDING? to expect them to be like G... and be everywhere all the time is a bit OTT they do what they can under difficult cirscuntances to prosecute is not as easy as 123 it takes a lot of time and effort to gather all the relevant prove ect I heard that in the USA they have pet police ..... something to consider although in my personal view the less intervation and policing the better life is but unfortunately there are plenty of greedy irresponsible people who need to be dealt with in a strong manner.. or else to do not mend their ways... 28 Aug 2008 09:48  Thank you Rosie for answering my question below..about why the Animal Welfare Act hasn´t been implemented in the case of these dogs and their breeders...........your answer make´s perfect sense!. 28 Aug 2008 07:50 The rspca have also been aware for years of the going ons of Puppy Farms, yet have failed in there duty to do anything about these, lets not forget they churn out Pedigree Puppies who also suffer horrific health problems. 28 Aug 2008 07:40 Description Exactly Cassie. It´s not as if the RSPCA has to take on the whole of the KC but surely they could ´investigate´ the individual breeders who supplied puppies featured on the programme... If it was an individual selling dodgy puppies from a council flat, for example, they´d be on him like a ton of bricks.... As the KC ABS certificate means nothing more than the paper its written on, surely they can take action against these individual, unscrupulous breeders NOW..?? It´s so frustrating when this is going on even as we discuss this and the one organisation who is never slow to bring prosecutions is doing NOTHING except talk about ´possible action in the future.´.... 27 Aug 2008 22:27  OOOOPS - obviously I mean "And most crucially, it might give "bad" breeders something to fear, so that more puppies are NOTbrought into the world already destined to suffer"!! 27 Aug 2008 22:20 I agree with Rosie, that´s a very weak response from the RSPCA. Surely the only rationale that should be used in deciding which legislation should be used to sue an unscrupulous breeder, is which Act might be more effective? I think the main thing is to enforce consequences for breeders who fail to use available genetic scans or even worse knowingly breed from dogs which are already ill. The Sale of Goods Act looks really promising for such a purpose (have a good look at Section 14) and seems to have some history of being used in this way. I don´t feel that there´s any negative connotation in using the Sale of Goods Act if it it gives people who are seeking to buy a healthy puppy some protection and some rights. And most crucially, it might give "bad" breeders something to fear, so that more puppies are brought into the world already destined to suffer. 27 Aug 2008 21:18 Description I take it back - the RSPCA HAVE responded, see below 22.08.08 There has been a very strong public reaction to the BBC documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed and particularly in support of the RSPCA´s position on this issue. The documentary has sparked a huge amount of public debate, which has shown just how important the health and welfare of pedigree dogs is to everyone. However, it is a highly complex issue, with no quick-fix solution. The RSPCA´s position We believe that all those who benefit from pedigree dogs have a collective responsibility to put aside vested interests and to work together to ensure that the health and welfare of pedigree dogs is protected. We are very keen to do all we can to support pedigree dog breeders, clubs and societies that recognise the welfare problems faced by their breeds and who implement pro-active strategies to address them, based on good science as well as experience and common sense. Our very clear position on this issue is backed up by compelling scientific evidence as well as our own extensive experience. Earlier this year the RSPCA commissioned an independent review of the available science in this area. Future action It is intended that this review will identify recommendations for possible future action. We will then discuss and debate the initial recommendations with a group of highly respected and internationally recognised experts. We are also taking proactive steps to engage with other key players, including the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association, to discuss and debate possible ways forward. SO LOTS OF CHAT & NO ACTION THEN..... THERE WAS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE CKCS WAS SUFFERING & THE VET SAID HE WAS IN PAIN SO SURELY THAT´S GROUNDS FOR TAKING ACTION NOW????? AND THE PUPPIES THAT WERE PUT DOWN FOR NOT HAVING A RIDGEBACK. WHILST ALL THIS CHIT CHAT GOES ON, MORE DOGS ARE BEING BRED & SUFFERING 27 Aug 2008 20:54 Description Mary ElmsThis what I cannot get my head around..............WHY hasn´t the Animal Welfare Act already been implemented by those in the know ???????. Because Mary, it is a big thing for our main animal charity to take on not like the vulnerable, individual, members of society who are easier targets. To be honest, I am VERY surprised that they havent issued a statement about the programme, its content & what they intend to do about it - especially as Mark Evans their own senior vet was involved in the programme...... Strange isnt it how they go to great lengths to pursue a prosecution for a dog who the owner was mistakenly treating for fleas when this huge issue is seemingly being ignored........ They usually have plenty to say when the little guy is involved but take on KC members???......oooh, scary!! 27 Aug 2008 19:59 Not being familiar with the ´´´sale of goods act´´ what would happen to the puppy/dog ( IF ) it was proved that the breeder knowingly sold it as being default ??????????? 27 Aug 2008 19:36 This what I cannot get my head around..............WHY hasn´t the Animal Welfare Act already been implemented by those in the know ???????. 27 Aug 2008 19:33  Chris your intentions are in the right place,to me that is all that matters. I understand your concerns about dogs gaining "human" rights it would lead to complexed issues where equality was brought into question. Bottom line is i feel we as a country have turned into a real s*** excuse as doglovers. 27 Aug 2008 19:26  At the risk of sounding a callous, uncaring git - in law animals are ‘property’ and should remain as such, if ‘animals’ were granted ‘rights’ [as humans] it would become a nightmare! Notwithstanding the above, I firmly believe the AWA offers significant relief to the issue of improper breeding of animals, be it dogs or others. All we are actually lacking is the will! Should certain bodies choose to use the legislation provided by this new Act, then significant progress could be made…… 27 Aug 2008 18:55 As much as i´d like any "act" to help stop the sale of these poor dogs come to an end i dont like the "sale of goods act" being used. My dogs are not my stereo they are not my sofa and they are not my fridge freezer!! I do not understand how in 2008 that "us" being such a dogloving nation havnt put into place laws to protect against poorly bred puppys. I still cant get my head around dogs being talked about as "mere objects",mine are my best friends and anyone else who´s dog is thiers should voice an opinion as the UK was once the platform and example for wellbred dogs across the world. 27 Aug 2008 15:54 Scoop the press officer My concern is I am unsure if the Sales of goods Act could be applied to livestock - does livestock constitute goods? Not being familiar with the Act and only having a very quick scan I am uncertain this legislation could be applied to animals! I don’t accept the argument that nothing that can currently be done to prevent breeders producing ‘genetically compromised dogs’. I would suggest that deliberately breeding dogs known to have congenital defects, i.e. breeding a Cavailier King Charles Spaniel with Syringomyelia, contravenes Section 4 (1) (2) and (3) of the Animal Welfare Act! Moreover I think the punishments available are more appropriate. Not least of these could be the seizure of the animals, and a banning order preventing that person from keeping animals in the future. 27 Aug 2008 14:27  Also good on you Petstreet Vet for your comments, its good to know that most vets think the same as us and are disgusted, not like those OLDER VETS the ridgeback breeder mentioned on the bbc programme who CULL puppies with no ridge, good on you for speaking up for i hope most vets in this country. 27 Aug 2008 14:21 I was comepletly disgusted by the BBC programme so Im glad Petstreet and our Ed want to push for some definate action, I dont think it matters whether the Law is animal welfare or sale of goods if it makes these people stop in there tracks like the CKC breeder woman who knew her dog was sick but was breeding pups from him but went ahead anyway, surely if you breed from a dog you know is ill your responsible for the suffring of the unlucky pups and the poor owners who often must PTS there beloved dogs. So good on you Ed and lets all see what happens now!!!!! 27 Aug 2008 13:09 Good point there Ed,about the exchange of paperwork between breeder and purchaser when buying a pup. The breeder SHOULD have the Hip Scores and any other relevant health test result´s there in their originality for the potential purchaser to look over before any decisions are made......I have seen all my Rottie´s parentage Hip Scores before buying a pup and the BVA set´s scores that they deem as sensible to breed from or they should tell the owner that such dogs are not suitable for breeding from and these comments are noted alongside the overall hip scores on the paperwork. IF persons should choose to ignore their vet´s advice and breed anyway..they should still make available those papers to show to any potential pup buyer and then it´s down to that purchaser to decide wether or not they wish to go ahead with the purchase,so taking a risk that their pup is more likely to suffer from the same complaint later on in life or other joint related problems earlier on it´s years. It should be noted that unless it´s somebody knowledgeable about such health tests and the scoring system,viewing these papers may seem overwhelming to the unknowing eye and may not mean a thing to some.....BUT if ALL vet´s who scored and rated on the test´s did add their comments that in their professional opinion,such and such dog should not be bred from,then even of that person doesn´t understand the scoring system,they can read the vet´s comments instead. IF a breeder withholds or doesn´t offer to show any necessary health check paperwork (according to the breed) BEFORE a pup is bought..then people SHOULD avoid that breeder and just politely say no thank you and walk away. If a purchaser decide´s to proceed with a sale regardless...then that is their problem and they cannot expect to hold the breeders responsible for anything that goes wrong.....we need to educate both sides on this matter so as to hopefully avoid going round in a constant vicious cycle of events. 27 Aug 2008 12:30  Hi Vena - In the case you mention re hips, if the breeder was open and honest with the customer about the issue then it is up to the customer to seek advice, deliberate and then make a decision as to whether to buy the dog or not. In such an instant the breeder is not at fault. But if the breeder does not inform the customer, or even worse, lies about issues, then i think they are at fault. Dont forget that many people say that it is too easy to get hold of a dog and too many people buy dogs on a whim and then dump them in rescues or mistreat them. If there was a process where the seller and buyer had to exchange some paperwork to ensure both were aware of the issues. it might be part of a process of more responsible dog ownership. 27 Aug 2008 12:12 Hi ED, l understand what you are saying, and appreciate something needs to be done Now !! im not totally against using sale of goods act just feel its good to discuss the pros and cons, what worries me is that in the society we now live in, animals will be taken back willy nilly for the slightest of faults. (Compensation Culture) Also it is how the word ´´Knowingly´´ is interpreted) if! for example, BOTH PARENTS of puppies are X rayed, and have LOW scores, Puppy develops hip dysplasia has the breeder ´´Knowingly´´ sold a default puppy ?????? 27 Aug 2008 11:29 I am pretty sure (I´m NO law expert by any means BUT)....if somebody purchased a horse that was sold to them as ´100% bomb proof,no vices,good with the farrier,etc,etc,etc´ and then when they get it home and after a few days it begin´s to show another side to it,ie: crib bites,spook´s and nap´s when out riding in traffic......that owner has the right to sue the sellers of this animal,under the Sales of Good Act or Trade of Description,maybe even both...like I say,I´m not 100% sure which it is,but I have read many such stories in equine publications over the years and the lawyers have advised these new owners of what they are entitled to do by law..............therefore maybe such an Act should apply to canine breeders/exhibitors,etc..that knowingly breed from an unhealthy animal and sell these on as 100% healthy and conformationally sound pups. I don´t know if I would consider that the Sales of Goods Act would demoralise animals as it were..but obviously the Animal Welfare Act doesn´t work (for whatever reason) and what else is there to be used ?????. We ALL agree that something need´s to be done and we ALL agree that the these issue´s need to be addressed....we cannot expect miracles over night as these certain breeds have been bred and adapted over years..but by just sitting back on our laurels and doing nothing but moan about what other´s are doing,is not going to be an affective way of sorting out the problem and some more legislative control (Act) need´s to be brought in,to deal with this situation before other breeds become subject to being turned into something that they are naturally not and ALL inbreeding should be stopped.....that goes without saying,with immediate affect (the problem with that though...is how can that be enforced as nobody know´s what can occur behind closed door´s!!!!). There is no quick-fix solution to this shambles...BUT something has got to be done and on that we ARE ALL in agreement!. 27 Aug 2008 10:57 Vena - the BBC film was a wake up call to everyone - and I am sure that nobody can say that they were not aware of these issues. Everybody was. Even my own vet was shocked - and he was aware that my own dog has hip dispalcia. The suggestion to use the Sale of Goods act is a way of looking at this problem from a new angle - if people get behind this idea maybe we can mount an effective case that would mean all breeders had to take responsibility for their actions. 27 Aug 2008 10:48 Around 20yrs ago a friend of mine was taken to a small claims court over a puppy with hip dysplasia,it is a very complex subject and top genetic expert Malcolm Willis, had sent in his views,to cut a long story short the case was thrown out, as it couldn´t be proved. in the sale of goods act expert witnesses will have to be called upon, they are few of them about. The Kennel Club cannot shrug this matter off, if they haven´t the power to do anything then there is no need for them, im also surprised that the RSPCA has not taken action before now as they obviously new the extent of the problems. 27 Aug 2008 10:34  By the way, Cat the Vet´s comments about the BBC film are now posted on her profile page. 27 Aug 2008 10:32 Hi Chris and Vena and thanks for your comments. Here at PetStreet we of course want to avoid treating animals like goods or property. However, having run the idea past a couple of lawyers, using this piece of legislation emerged as a means of creating genuine consequences for the breeders whose practices are creating these genetically compromised dogs. We would love to see the Animal Welfare Act used, but one of the frustrating elements in the BBC film was the number of times various bodies said they were unable to act to control breeders. We are in favour of all long term solutions, but this is a short term solution which we´re proposing as a way to empower any dog owner who has suffered because of the reckless action of a breeder; also perhaps to empower the Kennel Club, by demonstrating that there is something which can be done immediately. We would also love to see the RSPCA consider instigating a prosecution using this Act - we believe a test case might make legal history. It is sometimes necessary to fight fire with fire - if breeders insist on treating animals like a commodity, it may that a piece of legislation about property is the most effective weapon. It doesn´t mean that we at PetStreet think of pets as inanimate goods, and the Editor hopes he´s made that clear! It´s just a sad fact of our society that when animals are harmed, the legal process seems to take the crime more seriously if a the pet owner has been seen to lose a piece of property... 27 Aug 2008 10:08 Ditto both the comment´s below....I can´t really add anything to any of them. We all know and understand that something has to be done and be done as soon as possible in a positive way forward....and if it mean´s getting tough on those breeders/exhibitors and those within the KC that see nothing wrong with what is happening in the canine world of some pedigree breed´s,then so be it!. 27 Aug 2008 08:59 Yes if breeders are ´´knowingly´´ selling puppies with genetic health problems they should be brought to task. But i agree with Chris, we should use the Animal Welfare Act, putting animals under the ´sale of goods act´ ie: faulty goods)may give out the wrong signals to the public,we are trying to get across to the general public that animals are not ´goods´´to be thrown away when no longer useful, but living beings with feelings. as we already have the ´Animal Welfare Act ´in place, i think the way forward is to put more amendments,and work on this. 27 Aug 2008 07:49 Ed Rather than use the Sale of Goods Act 1979 [as amended] I would suggest the Animal Welfare Act 2006 could provide some relief to this issue. Section 4 of the Act ‘Unnecessary Suffering’! (see below) This, in my view, provided for the prosecution of breeders ‘knowingly’ breeding animals with genetic deformities which ‘could’ course the animal to suffer! Perhaps the RSPCA would be interested in tacking a test case! 4 Unnecessary suffering (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer, (b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so, (c) the animal is a protected animal, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) he is responsible for an animal, (b) an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer, (c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary. (3) The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include— (a) whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced; (b) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment; (c) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as— (i) the purpose of benefiting the animal, or (ii) the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal; (d) whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned; (e) whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person. (4) Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner. |
Want to Join?
Enter your e-mail address below and press ´Register´. We´ll send you a password and you can Log-in.
email address:
email address:
Advertisement
Need Help?
Buy Now!
©Petstreet 2008 Website built and designed by Kinship Networking.