Anne McBride
When professionals consider companion animals the subject of responsible ownership is often raised. This topic concerns issues of moral responsibility for the individual animal’s welfare and for that of people, and other animals with whom it may have contact. Less likely to be discussed are how these values have been enshrined in law and the professional’s need to be aware of the law and to ensure owners too are clear about these responsibilities. All too many owners fall foul of the law simply because they were not aware of it, which is no defence in court. In this case, ignorance is not bliss.
As Broom succinctly put it in his preface to Radford’s 2001 book on animal welfare law; the purpose of law “is to promote co-operation among individuals and to discourage actions which harm individuals or society at large”. Laws are mechanisms by which moral actions can be promoted, and as we change our view of what is moral, so this is reflected in the law. This has been particularly evident with respect to animal welfare legislation. In the UK there have been several notable changes to the law since the 1950s. These have been informed by our increasing knowledge of animal health, behaviour, emotion and cognition, and our need to discourage actions that harm individual animals.
Interestingly, most of the early legal developments were concerned with animals kept for commercial reasons; farm animals, laboratory animals, pet shops and dog breeders. Little changed with respect to the welfare of animals kept as companions until 2007. This may be partly due to the embedded, yet incorrect, cultural view that ‘pet owners love their animals’ and therefore will know what is best and will ‘do right by them’, and thereby accommodate their welfare needs. However, owners may compromise their animal’s welfare simply because they do not know what is needed, have misinterpreted information, or have been misinformed. In some cases, the human may have psychological problems which impact on how they look after themselves and their animal, and professional help is required in order to improve the welfare of both. Thus it is important that animal and human professionals recognise the need to work together.
The concept and study of welfare is essentially a scientific issue, whose core meaning was summarised by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1993 in the Five Freedoms. These are that animals should have
1. Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
2. Freedom from discomfort by providing a suitable environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to express normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind, as appropriate.
5. Freedom from fear and distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.
To be able to meet these freedoms the owner needs to know about the animal’s ethology (its natural behaviour), social, nutritional and exercise requirements. In addition, an understanding of the appropriate socialisation, social referencing (that is exposure to the environment) and training is needed to help prevent the animal suffering fear and distress in the future.
Were it that merely being an owner was sufficient to provide the knowledge to ‘know what is best’, then we would see far fewer animals with problem behaviours; physical issues due to inappropriate breeding, such as hip dysplasia; less need for Pet Health advice on obesity and less dental disease in rabbits due to inappropriate diet. These are just a few of the problems that beset companion animals. It is clear that merely the state of being a pet owner, or breeder, is insufficient to provide for an animal’s welfare. Simply loving your pet is not enough; having knowledge is essential.
In 1987, The Council of Europe developed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. This was ratified (made law) in several counties including Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Portugal, though interestingly not by the UK, the ‘nation of animal lovers’. The Convention lays down requirements relating to all aspects of the animal’s life, from selection of its parents (its breeding) to its death, including how it is kept and trained. For example, breeders would have a responsibility for the anatomical, physiological and behavioural characteristics that are likely to put at risk the health and welfare of either offspring or female parent. This would mean a responsibility for, amongst other things, adequate and appropriate experiences being provided to young animals during their early development. In addition, the Convention requires that there is the provision of information and education. It went far beyond the then current UK legislation.
However, 2007 was a significant year. It was the year of the introduction of the UK Animal Welfare Act (2006). Based on the Five Freedoms, this law applies to everyone who owns or cares for an animal. The development of this Act was a substantial task for the legislators as it involved the distillation and consolidation of 20 previous acts, some dating back over 150 years. The Act directly tackles the concept of responsible ownership by requiring the human to have a ‘duty of care’ to do all that is reasonable to ensure the animal’s needs are met. It also addresses the issue, previously discussed, of owners lacking knowledge or having been misinformed on how to care for their animal properly. Not knowing is no defence under this legislation. Government Codes of Practice have been, and more will be, written to provide information on the nutrition, environmental, social, physical and behavioural needs of different species. These codes can be revised as welfare science progresses.
The Animal Welfare Act is relevant to the owner or keeper of any animal of any species. There is specific legislation, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act (1976), relating to keeping non-domesticated species such as some of the snakes, spiders, birds, felids and canids. There is also legislation relevant those who keep ‘livestock’ species such as pigs, sheep and chickens and to those keeping or owning horses. Addressing these in any depth is outside the scope of this chapter, but it is important that professionals and owners/keepers alike keep up to date with their knowledge. For example, under the Horse Passport Regulations (2009) it is law that equines aged six month or older are microchipped and have a horse passport, including donkeys, zebra and ‘exotic’ species such as Przewalski. There are a few exceptions relating to wild or semi-wild horses living on Exmoor, Dartmoor and the New Forest.
Much of the current UK legislation relating to companion animals concerns the behaviour of dogs and how that impinges on society. This is because they are the species that is most commonly kept and taken out into human society. In general the laws address three characteristics of dogs, namely the noise they can make, the faeces they produce and the fact that they can cause injury.
The rest of the chapter will focus on the general legal responsibilities of the pet, and in particular dog, owner, in the course of normal ownership. The text below attempts to translate the law into its underlying principles and general requirements, rather than spell out all the details of each. The UK comprises four main legislative regions; England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Readers are advised to consult governmental websites for current information on the legal obligations of animal owners and keepers. These links are provided in the further reading and sources of information section.
The law relating to animals is sometimes ill-defined and there are many anomalies, even contradictions. This reflects the historical, almost organic nature of its development. Animal Law has grown rather than been planned. If one could compare it to the development of a city, it is more like London with its curved streets, blind alleys and almost impenetrable links and cross-streets, rather than the simple, logical block system of New York or Toronto. There is a recognised need for reform, but this is a mammoth task. However, the consolidation of much previous law into the Animal Welfare Act was a significant step in the right direction.
The Animal Welfare Act (2006), and its sister act the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act (2006), imposes an overarching Duty of Care on animal owners and keepers. This mean they have to take responsibility to do all that is reasonable to prevent the likelihood of an animal suffering. It is based on the Five Freedoms and the owner can be found guilty of causing suffering or being likely to cause suffering by what they do, or indeed what they omit to do. It is a criminal law and, if found guilty, the courts can impose fines of up to £20,000, imprisonment of up to 51 weeks, banning someone from keeping or owning animals either for a period or permanently and order the removal, rehoming or destruction of the animal, and the owner will have a criminal record.
The Act covers many aspects of human behaviour which may cause ‘unnecessary suffering’ to the animal. It might be an obvious offence to carry a rabbit by its ears, leave a dog in a hot car or too small a crate. But the new law goes further, and potential areas for prosecution include breeding animals are likely to develop inherited painful conditions or fearful dispositions; or keeping an animal in such a way that its physical or mental health is compromised, be that because it is overweight, underweight, under or over exercised, inappropriately socialised / socially referenced or trained in a manner likely to cause fear. It is also an offence to use a dog as a draught animal – that is to pull a cart, sled, barrow or anything else on a public highway. So for those who have huskies or other breeds originally used for such a purpose, such activities can only be done on private ground. It is an offence to abandon an animal, either temporarily or permanently, in circumstances which are likely to cause it unnecessary suffering – unless there is a reasonable excuse.
Fighting and baiting of any animal are also covered here, as is giving an animal any harmful drug or substance or operation. Operations on animals can only be carried out by qualified veterinary surgeons. Indeed, one major outcome of the Act is that it is now illegal to dock the tails of puppies, except under very specific circumstances, and docking has been banned outright in Scotland. Likewise, in 2010 Wales banned the use of electronic training aids, commonly known as shock collars, though this is not the case elsewhere in the UK.
The issue to be decided by the court is whether suffering has been caused or was likely to be caused by the way the animal was kept.
Anyone can bring a case to the notice of the Police under the Animal Welfare Act, be that a private individual or an organisation such as the RSPCA. The Codes of Practice are intended to help both owners/keepers to meet their legal obligations to their animals and enable the courts decide whether or not they actually did so! Currently available codes include those for dogs, cats, rabbits, equines and non-human primates, poultry, sheep and goats, pigs and cattle.
It is not always possible to own a pet. Some housing providers, be they private landlords, housing associations or local authority, have restrictions on what type of pet, if any, are allowed to be kept in their accommodation. Indeed, this also applies to leaseholders, and it is worth checking the lease of any property you are considering buying to ensure there is no clause restricting the keeping of animals.
If you are applying for rented accommodation, do ensure that you are aware of the landlord’s pet policy and be honest about whether you currently own or intend to own a pet. Ensure that you obtain written permission from your landlord if you want to keep a pet. Not doing so can lead to difficulties and acrimony and can even result in eviction.
Tenants should also be aware that they are usually liable for any damage caused to the property, its fittings and furniture. Be warned it is not just dogs that can cause damage. Cats, birds and rabbits can ruin furniture and wallpaper and rabbits and rodents are not averse to chewing their way through wiring, potentially causing a fire hazard. Snakes and other reptiles are not unknown to be escape artists, turning up in strange places such as the boiler room of the apartment block. A find that is unlikely to be appreciated by the caretaker or landlord.
Many landlords do have pet policies of some sort or another. Some are not clearly written and others may be very restrictive. Research conducted by my colleague, Ian Bryant, and I found that landlords were open to discussion on whether to allow pets and lacked a lot of information on how to proceed to have more ‘pet friendly’ policies. This led to the collaboration of PATHWAY (Pets and Housing) and PAC (Pets Advisory Committee) in producing guidelines for housing providers which are also of help to other professionals and animal owners (PATHWAY-PAC, 2007, PAC, 2010). For pet owners who are homeless, in housing crisis, or fleeing domestic violence the HOPE (Homeless Owners with Pets) and the Freedom Projects (see sources of information section at the end of this book) are excellent sources of advice and help.
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) is intended to make our daily lives somewhat more pleasant. It relates to all sorts of nuisance, be it noisy neighbours, street litter or nuisance caused by animals. It is an offence to keep any animal in such a place or manner as to cause a human health hazard, noise or other nuisance.
This obviously relates to keeping animals in appropriate accommodation and responsibly disposing of any waste and faeces, wherever it is deposited, so as to avoid any health hazard to humans and other animals, or nuisance relating to the smell. The Act also has implications for animals that are left alone and cause a noise nuisance, be that a screeching parrot or barking dog. Often owners are unaware that their animal is noisy while they are out, until they receive a visit from the local authority officer. This can cause a lot of distress that could be avoided.
As ever, it is worth taking preventative measures. Owners need to be advised on how to train their animal, dog or parrot, to be relaxed when it is left alone. Advice on how to do this can be obtained from the veterinary surgeon, from leaflets produced by national rescue organisations or from APBC members. It is important to ensure the animal has had sufficient mental and physical exercise and has appropriate things to occupy them whilst the owner is out. Finally, neighbours can be asked as to whether there are any problems. This is especially useful should the owner’s circumstances change, such as when the animal is left due to changes in their work pattern, as the neighbour can let them know if any noise problems develop.
There are several laws that relate to dogs when they are out and about and the owner’s responsibilities. First is that the dog should be with someone! A dog which is roaming unaccompanied is basically straying and the local authority has the right to seize it and detain it for seven days or until the owner collects it. After the seven days the animal can be rehomed, sold or humanely destroyed. If the owner is found, they are liable to pay for all expenses incurred because of the dog’s detention. Should the owner turn up after the seven days to find the dog has been rehomed, for example, they have no recourse to get the animal back. As far as the law is concerned they have lost the ownership of that animal. This can be extremely distressing.
Thus it is in the owner’s interest to ensure the dog cannot escape from the property and, should it do so, that it is easily identified and its owner traceable. This is why it is a legal requirement for all dogs to wear a collar with the owner’s name and address on it or on a tag attached to the collar. Any dog that does not have such a visible identification can be seized and treated as a stray. Having the dog microchipped is an additional measure to enable it to be reunited with its owner, and microchipping of all dogs will be mandatory across the UK in 2016. However, this does not negate the legal requirement for a visible collar and tag. Many dogs are reunited with their owner by other members of the public, simply because they were wearing a collar and tag. Dogs that wear a check chain should also wear a collar and tag. A check chain can slip off and the dog then is falling foul of the law and can be considered a stray, and, potentially, be permanently lost to the owner.
Dogs, horses, pet sheep etcetera, that stray onto the road and cause an accident resulting in damage to a person or to property can land their owners with a substantial bill of thousands of pounds. Owners of dogs, or any other animal, that cause injury or damage may find themselves in court under the Animals Act 1971. This civil law applies to an animal’s behaviour wherever it is, at home or out and about. It is frequently used as it enables people to seek compensation. It is the keeper, that is the person who had charge of the animal at the time of the incident, who is strictly liable for all costs associated with that damage and this may or may not be the owner. This therefore has implications for the friend who offers to take the dog for a walk, or the horse for a ride for example! This act also covers worrying of livestock, a term which includes deer, pheasant, partridge and grouse that are not in a wild state, such as park deer. The dog that worries livestock may pay with its life, as livestock owners are legally entitled to shoot a dog seen worrying livestock. Some people think worrying means attacking and injuring livestock, but chasing is also considered worrying. The animals may be injured as they flee from what is a predator, namely the dog or, if pregnant, may abort later due to the stress of the experience.
Other laws that relate to the predatory aspect of dogs are the Hunting (Wild Mammals) with Dogs Act (2005) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000). The latter has restrictions on where and when dogs can walk off lead on private land. They must be restrained on a fixed lead of no more than two metres when around livestock and between 1 March and 31 July, which is the breeding season for ground-nesting birds such as larks. The Hunting with Dogs Act is often believed to concern only fox hunting and packs of hounds. Actually, it is relevant to all dog owners and relates to more than two dogs pursuing animals such as deer, fox, or badger on land where the handler(s) of the dogs has no legal right to hunt.
The bottom line then is for owners to ensure that their dog cannot escape, that it is kept on a short lead (no more than 2 metre) along roads, lanes and around livestock and, when off lead, that it is under control and in sight at all times. Remember all dogs are predators at heart and we cannot predict their every move, no matter how well trained. The sight of a cat or the shock of a car backfiring may cause a dog to run into the road and cause an accident. The simple expediency of a metre or two of leash is well worth it! As a note, an extending lead is not appropriate in these circumstances.
Different areas will have different restrictions on when and where dogs can be walked. These are enacted in local byelaws; details will be available from the Local Council office. Some may prohibit dogs from particular areas, such as children’s playgrounds. Such prohibitions may be applicable throughout the year, others may be seasonal, for example those referring to beaches or fishing lakes. Others may state that in certain areas dogs must be kept on lead at all times. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) extended the land accessible to people to include some private land. Information on where one can walk and associated responsibilities can be found on county websites.
Dog mess is unpleasant! It is smelly, difficult to get off your shoes and can pose a serious health hazard to people and animals. Ingestion of contaminated soil can cause blindness in humans, with young children being particularly at risk as they fall over, sit down, play with the soil and pop their fingers in their mouth more often than adults. However, many people do not realise that grass contaminated by dog faeces can cause cattle to abort and neurological disease and death in sheep. There is also evidence that other mammal and bird species can be affected too. Some useful educational materials have been developed by the Scottish Office (see sources of further information). It estimated that the 9 million dogs in the UK produce over 1000 tonnes every day, 365,000 tonnes every year!!! Whilst it is not an offence to let a dog relieve itself out on a walk, it is an offence to fail to remove the faeces from designated land and / or to dispose of it inappropriately. Designated land is all land open to the air to which the public have access, and which has been labelled as such by the local authority. Failing to pick up responsibly can result in an on the spot fine or a fixed fine of up to £1,000. A hefty price! My advice is to make sure you always have a supply of plastic bags in your pocket and to dispose of them properly. If properly bagged, dog waste can go in any public litter bin. It is illegal to dispose of it in your green-waste (composting) bin or ordinary rubbish bin. Alternatives are to have a ‘dog loo’ in your garden, or a ‘dog poo wormery’, or simply flush it down the toilet where it will be broken down safely along with the human faeces. Many know that they should obey the law, but don’t see why they should bother. Others pick up the dog’s faeces only to leave the bag containing it under hedges or swinging from branches. These tear and leak over the following days and weeks. Not only will the contents then be potentially dangerous to grazing animals, or passing children, but the bags, like other litter, can be fatal to wildlife and are bad for the very environment which presumably the person came out to enjoy with their dog!! As with all legislation, people are much more likely to comply if they understand the reasons, and it is the role of all involved with dog owners to advise not only what they should do but also why.
Under the Pet Travel Scheme, owners can take their pet abroad, for example when going on holiday. They should consider if it is really appropriate to do so, especially if planning to go somewhere hot! Pets may not appreciate the heat of the sun as much as owners do. Likewise, owners need to be aware that travel in itself may be stressful, and that the pet will be exposed to a variety of new parasites and potential diseases, including rabies and heart-worm.
If owners do wish to take their pet abroad, they need to plan several months ahead. The animal will need to be microchipped and vaccinated against rabies. Blood tests will need to be taken to ensure that the vaccine has taken and the animal is protected. Depending on the destination, Import and/or Export certificates may be required. On return to the UK evidence will be needed to show that the animal has been treated for ticks and worms through the production of an appropriate veterinary certificate. There are several parasites that are common to other countries, but are rare or not found in the UK.
The Pet Travel Scheme is frequently updated with respect to the countries included and the species of animal to which it applies. Owners are advised to contact their veterinary surgeon for further advice, or look at the DEFRA website which will provide up-to-date information. Owners should also be aware that whilst in another country, they would be subject to that country’s animal legislation. For example, in some countries it is legal requirement to have certain breeds of dog, or even all dogs, muzzled when in a public place. Owners need to know what laws will apply and to have prepared accordingly, such as having brought an appropriate sized, basket type muzzle and having taught their dog to accept wearing it in a stress- free way. I also strongly advise that dogs, no matter how cute or friendly, are muzzled if they are left unattended in a public place in the UK, such as outside a shop. Accidents do happen. Accident or not, injury or threat of injury caused by an unattended dog would be grounds for prosecution under any of the UK acts relating to dangerous dogs.
There are three acts of law that relate to dangerous dogs. These are the Dogs Act 1871, which is a civil law, and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (amended in 1996 and 2014) and the Control of Dogs (Scotland) 2010 which are criminal laws. They are intended to ensure that the public is not at risk from dogs. Either can be used to prosecute a case, though the criminal Dangerous Dogs Act is the one that most members of the public have heard of. It is a common misperception that dangerous dog legislation only relates to certain breeds, such as the Pit Bull Terrier. Whilst there are specific provisions for some breeds in the Dangerous Dogs Act, in fact all the acts refer to all dogs, be they toys, giant breeds, crossbreeds or mongrels. The Yorkshire Terrier or Papillion come under this legislation just as much as the German Shepherd, Labrador or Rottweiler.
Under all three acts it is an offence to have a dog that is dangerously out of control, wherever that may be, including the dog’s own home and garden. Under both the Scottish Control of Dogs and the Dangerous Dogs Acts this is a criminal offence, and can lead to prison sentences of up to 14 years should a person die from dog-related injuries. Dangerously out of control means there is reasonable cause to believe that a dog might injure, or cause injury to somebody, or that person’s animal, whether or not it actually does so. So for example, if your dog runs up to a member of the public and bounces around them barking, possibly jumping up, that person may have reasonable apprehension or cause to believe that they may be injured and so bring a case against you. Amongst other scenarios, a dog being considered out of control include apprehension or actuality of a person being tripped up, bowled over, scratched or bitten, the dog causing a cyclist to swerve and fall off their bike, being involved in a dog fight or even causing injury by proxy, such as a dog that causes other animals to flee who in turn could cause injury, for example chasing wild ponies near a car park. Under the criminal laws there are further particular provisions should a dog attack an assistance dog, which can result in a three year prison sentence.
If found guilty and no injury has occurred, then the courts may invoke a control order. This could involve the dog being restricted to being on lead, muzzled or banned from being in certain areas. Should an injury occur, no matter how slight, the court may decide to order that the dog is destroyed. It is important to be aware that injury is not restricted to bites, nor that the dog had an aggressive intent. Whether there was injury or not, the owner/keeper found guilty under the Dangerous Dogs Act or Dog Control Act will have a criminal conviction and may incur a prison sentence. Having a criminal record can have implications for other aspects of a person’s life.
The recent Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) provides measures to try and reduce the number of people going to court. This is done by issuing Acceptable (Dog) Behaviour Contracts at the first incident. These impose specific requirements on the owner which must be adhered to. These can include making the garden escape proof, keeping the dog on an appropriate leash, wearing an appropriate (basket-type) muzzle when out, and/or undergoing appropriate training. The result of breaking the terms of this agreement can be devastating. If for example, it was agreed the dog would be muzzled and the owner took the muzzle off when out, even if the dog has behaved impeccably at that particular time, then the agreement has been contravened and the owner has shown themselves to be irresponsible. They are now open to prosecution under the relevant law, such as the Dangerous Dogs Act, with all the potential consequences should they be found guilty.
This may sound rather harsh and ‘anti-dog’. However, we should always consider the wider social context of all legislation. Dogs, like cars, unless controlled can cause damage. Again, prevention is better than cure.
Adequate and appropriate socialisation to people of all kinds; of different ages, mobility and colour, as well as to other dogs, means that a dog is unlikely to cause damage to a person through fear, or be considered to be dangerous by getting into dog fights. Appropriate training of basic manners on how to approach people is also important. Teach dogs to wait for permission to approach people and to sit when it does so. It is also essential that dogs have a strong recall. It is important to practice all of these when the dog is both calm and excited; practice through play and in a variety of situations. It is not uncommon for owners to say their dog is very obedient ‘unless s/he is distracted’! Well, if the distraction and consequent lack of obedience was the issue that led everyone to court, the fact that it is obedient at home is unlikely to be considered a defence! Training needs to be started in puppyhood, and continued throughout the animal’s life. A well trained, responsive dog will be an ambassador for dogdom, rather than an advert for the less desirable qualities of the canine race. But even the best trained dog can end up under the gaze of the law if the owners do not also use their common sense. For example, owners should move away from paths in the park when their dogs are playing, to reduce the chance of a pedestrian or cyclist being knocked into. Extending leads are not appropriate around pedestrians, cyclists, along roadways or when greeting other dogs (dogs can get hurt tripping or being tangled in the lead, and may end up starting a fight!). Owners are the guardians of their dogs, and must take on that role responsibly.
The Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act (1991) concerns those who breed five or more litters a year, requiring them to meet welfare standards to obtain a licence from the local Authority. The breeding premises are inspected by a veterinary surgeon before a licence is granted and regularly thereafter. The act also has specific restrictions on the breeding and/or sale of puppies. Anyone found to not have a licence will be fined and may face a prison sentence.
However, owners may wish to breed from their dog and do not come under the specifications of the licence. They should think carefully before doing so. Homes are not always easy to find and even then it is not guaranteed that a puppy, which is very cute when young, will still be wanted when it is older. The number of unwanted young dogs given to rescue societies or euthanased because of their behaviour is testimony to this.
Breeders should also remember they have legal obligations under the Animal Welfare Act regarding the physical and mental welfare of the animals they breed, whatever the species. This means breeding from physically and psychologically healthy animals, and appropriately educating the offspring with respect to people, other animals, the environment and good manners.
Unlike with car ownership, there is no legal requirement to have an animal covered by liability (third party) insurance. However, owners should be advised that such insurance can cover them against legal costs, legal representation and compensation for damage caused by their animal, even escaped hamsters can chew the electric cables. It may be included as part of a household insurance policy or be available from some pet health insurance companies.
Regarding pet health, there is no National Health Service for pets and veterinary fees can soon mount up. There are different policies for various species and it is worth shopping around to find the one most suitable.
For all insurance cover, it is important to read the small print and ensure that the policy covers all the relevant issues.
This chapter has only briefly introduced some of the legislation regarding pet ownership. There are other laws relevant to dogs, horses and exotics species that have not been discussed and owners need to be aware of them. The law is not a static institution, but evolves to reflect societal changes and our understanding of animals. The latter years of the 20th century and start of the 21st have seen several legal developments and more will happen in the future.
Animal owners have responsibilities, many enshrined in law, to their animal and to the wider community. The quality of life of the animals in our care is our responsibility and ours alone. They are totally dependent on us for their physical and mental well-being, and we should consider whether we can meet this responsibility before we acquire any pet. We also need to think to the future, our lives can change in unexpected ways and we are obliged to ensure the animal’s welfare continues to be provided for. There are sources of help available to assist owners in both the short and long term. The PAC/PATHWAY document and the SCAS book on Companion Animals and Older Adults (Dono, 2005) are just two places from which to get further information.
With respect to the wider community, both human and non-human, we need to ensure that our animals are not likely to cause harm or nuisance. Good breeding and early experience will set the animal on the right path. However, this needs to be followed up with appropriate experiences and training, and using common sense in all situations. In particular, dog owners need to teach their dog to respond quickly and reliably to basic commands such as come, stay, sit, down, heel and leave. Basic manners are not only courteous, after all not everyone likes dogs, but will also help prevent any misconceptions about the dog’s intentions! Owners also need to ensure that their dog interacts well with other dogs. If there are any problems, take appropriate measures. These may include keeping it on a lead or muzzled and seeking help. The earlier help is sought the better; problem behaviour often only worsens if left.
If an owner is not planning to breed from their pet, whatever species, then neutering may be the most welfare friendly way of preventing unwanted litters. For male dogs, neutering reduces the chances of them being involved in fights or roaming and possibly being picked up as a stray.
Responsible ownership is a part of our general social responsibilities. The law merely serves to underline this basic concept. We need to remember that, like us, our animal companions are part of a wider community. Taking appropriate action will allow us all to live in harmony and for our animals to be considered as valued members of society.