Animal Health & Welfare Act Amendment Consultation 2019

The public have differing levels of attachment and empathy to animals. Upping the potential sentence to 5 years would mean a jury comprised of people with different levels will judge the accused, rather than a single Sheriff whose own opinion my result in unconscious bias.

Despite the potential for longer imprisonment, it would make it an overall fairer process to those involved.

Increasing the limit on fines should act as a stronger deterrent to those who view the current limit of £20,000 a paltry sum and one worth the risk.

Those involved in high value sporting and betting industries such as horse or greyhound racing should hopefully recognise the tougher stance is a message that welfare abuses historically prevalent in these industries will be tolerated no further

I believe that it would be prudent to amend legislation regarding attacks on service animals to bring it in line with those for attacks on humans. These animals are carrying out a public duty and should be recognised for their service, rather than 'property'.

Furthermore, consideration should be taken for the potential damage done to those immediately involved with the animal, such as their handler/trainer. It is not uncommon for these people to have built a significant bond with their animals and consideration should be given surrounding the potential for psychological distress on these handlers following an attack.

I disagree with this proposal. In a world where resources were infinite, then I would support removing the time limit but as various police forces have highlighted; investigating non-wildlife related older 'legacy' cases such as historic child abuses has resulted in less resources available to tackle current issues.

I do however believe there is scope for the current time limit of 6 months to be increased.

By allowing inspectors or Police Scotland to issue fixed penalties, it should hopefully put pressure on the offender to resolve the issue immediately.

Not only would this benefit the animal, but it would also remove the need for it to go to court, freeing up resources and allow the authorities to focus on larger or more complex issues.

If despite the warnings and court disposal order the animal's welfare is still in question then it stands to reason that the animal should be seized immediately as there should be no expectation standards will improve.

I don't believe so due to the nature of the charities. Being largely funded by public donation, there is the possibility that speeding up the seizure process and public expectation of a tougher stance on animal welfare abuse may result in a sudden increase in seizures and a strain on the resources of the charities. In the short term specifically, this may result in the charities providing less of a service due to an influx.

It doesn't matter if the animal is viewed as a product or a pet, if an animal is suffering unnecessarily, we as a country have a moral duty to intervene.

I believe that similar to criminal justice, the right to appeal is important. However I would add caveats;

- The animal remains in the custody of the state until the appeal is concluded
- There is a time limit on deciding to appeal
- Repeat offenders have reduced rights to appeal (such as a 3-strike rule)

I believe that there should be a difference between commercially kept animals and those kept as pets.

While 3 weeks may be necessary for a farmer to make required changes, a pet owner should really be able to adopt any changes required within a shorter period of time, subject to financial constraints.

There will be occasions where the suffering of an animal may indeed be outwith an owner's control. However, there should be a presumption against compensation and a board should determine whether this is really necessary.

Funding should come from the proceeds of fixed penalties ensuring now additional cost on the taxpayer.

N/A

Commercially kept - These should be easier to rehome due to their financial value, however if there is a burden of cost, then assisted financial relief to support the new owner may be suitable. Free publicity as well to support the owner's business such as publishing a list of 'good' owners that support abused animals may result in ethically minded consumers becoming interested in supporting that business.

Domestic - As there is already a system in place (rehoming centres etc.), perhaps financial support to owners willing to rehome animals. For example, if the neglect has resulted in health problems, financial support with vet fees etc. may be offered to encourage uptake.

Another option would be to offer a flat rate 'bursary' to encourage people to rehome. However this should be conditional such as awarded a year after rehoming and subject to inspection to confirm the new owner isn't just adopting animals for profit.