NEWS RELEASE
Monday 5 March 2007 – For Immediate Use
MSPS URGED TO CALL FOR REVIEW OF ALL ANIMAL MUTILATIONS
DOG TAIL-DOCKING BAN WELCOMED BUT ALL ANIMALS CAN SUFFER
Advocates for Animals is calling on Members of the Scottish Parliament to seek a review by the Scottish Executive of all animal mutilations. The call comes as the Environment and Rural Development Committee tomorrow (Tuesday 6 March) discusses Regulations arising from the general ban on mutilations under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.
Advocates welcomed the Executive’s announcement on 7 February that the tail-docking of all dogs was to be banned from 30 April 2007. Advocates campaigned for an end to tail-docking on the grounds that it is an unnecessary mutilation that causes pain and distress. However, the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 will exempt a vast number of other procedures from the general ban.
Mutilations the Executive proposes to allow to continue include castration, tail-docking, dis-budding, de-horning, branding, tattooing, ear-notching, ear-tagging, de-beaking, de-snooding, toe-cutting, dubbing, de-spurring, de-clawing, nose-ringing, removal of teats, teeth-clipping and teeth-grinding. Some of these procedures, such as the castration of piglets, calves and lambs, are carried out on animals under a week old without any pain relief, while others, such as the nose-ringing of breeding sows or the de-beaking of laying hens can be sufficiently painful and disabling to prevent the animals from engaging in their full repertoire of natural behaviour for the rest of their lives.
Advocates has commissioned a scientific report, Painful Reality
, revealing the wide range of painful mutilations [ii] that are currently performed on animals in Scotland, and assessing the suffering caused by each procedure. Such mutilations are often proposed as acceptable solutions to perceived or real problems in managing animals and are claimed to be in the animals’ best interests. However, Advocates would like to see such problems addressed, wherever possible, by changing management practices and/or the application of new technology.
A Scottish opinion poll [iii] commissioned by Advocates found that nine out of ten people in Scotland believed all or some mutilations of animals should be banned and less than one in ten people thought that all mutilations should be allowed to continue as at present. In addition, the survey found that the majority of people were unaware of the scale of mutilations and would prefer to buy meat from un-mutilated animals.
Advocates’ Political Director, Libby Anderson, said: “We welcome the Scottish Executive’s approach to the tail-docking of dogs, which recognises that animals should not routinely have body parts removed without there being over-riding welfare reasons to do so. However, we believe that this approach should be extended to all mutilations of animals – it is illogical not to do so as all animals have the capacity to suffer pain and distress. We have asked Members of the Committee to ask the Minister to commit to review the current use of each of these procedures, the welfare cost of the procedure, whether it is necessary for it to continue, and on what grounds, and what alternatives are available.”
- ENDS -
Notes to Editors
For interviews, further information or photographs, please contact Advocates’ Political Director, Libby Anderson, on 0131 225 6039 (07967 839137).
Advocates’ response to the consultation can be found at: www.advocatesforanimals.org/political/mutilationsconsultation2007.html
Painful Reality - Why painful mutilations of animals must be reviewed can be found at:
www.advocatesforanimals.org/pdf/painfulreality.pdf
[ii] The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons defines ‘mutilations’ as “all procedures, carried out with or without instruments, which involve interference with sensitive tissues or the bone structure of an animal, and are carried out for non-therapeutic reasons.”
[iii] 3 TNS System Three was commissioned by Advocates for Animals to interview 1036 respondents across 43 sampling points over the period 28th September – 7th October 2006. To ensure that the sample was representative of the adult population in terms of age, sex and class, it was weighted to match population estimates from the National Readership Survey of January – December 2004.
If you buy lamb, pork, beef or eggs it is likely that the animals from which they are derived will have been subjected to a variety of mutilations in their first days of life. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons defines ‘mutilations’ as “all procedures, carried out with or without instruments, which involve interference with sensitive tissues or the bone structure of an animal, and are carried out for non-therapeutic reasons.” These happen in Scotland as well as many other countries. For example, the majority of lambs and piglets have their tails docked and male lambs are castrated, generally without anaesthetic. Egg-laying hens usually have the ends of their beaks cut off. Farmers claim these practices are carried out for animal welfare reasons as they make the animals behaviour easier to manage, although animal welfare organisations claim that improving farming systems can remove the need for mutilations. It is currently legal to carry out these and many other mutilations on farmed animals without providing any pain relief.
1. Before today, were you aware that millions of young farmed animals are subjected to these mutilations in Scotland each year without giving them any pain relief?
Yes 37% (380)
No 63% (655)
Don’t know 0% (1)
2. Would you prefer to purchase meat and other products derived from animals that have not been subjected to mutilations, or does it make no difference to what you buy?
Prefer to buy from unmutilated 62% (645)
Makes no difference 33% (347)
Don’t buy anyway 3% (31)
Don’t know 1% (13)
3. The Scottish Executive is reviewing the law regarding mutilation of animals. Which of these options would you support as the outcome for this review?
Allow all mutilations to continue as at present 9% (88)
Examine each mutilation separately to assess whether they have an overall animal welfare benefit and ban those that do not 45% (485)
Ban all mutilations 44% (463)
Don’t know 3% (30)
