Please note, we do not in any way whatsoever seek to instigate or support a social media ‘witch hunt-type campaign’ against the individual named in the letter. We know and appreciate that neither restraints nor ‘reward – based training’ are sufficient approaches in themselves to stop millions of determined dogs from following their instincts and chasing prey animals. This is exactly why we support the responsible inclusion of e-collars in such circumstances. E-collars have a wealth of scientific and real world (video recorded) evidence to show that they do stop dogs from wanting to chase sheep or other animals. Yet this is something that the RSPCA firmly oppose and consider cruel and unnecessary.
We strongly recommend that you send your MP a link to this letter so that they can see that when it comes to training dogs not to attack livestock or other animals, even their principal advisors cannot practise what they preach.
There is a very good reason for this. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to show that such wishful thinking effectively deters determined dogs in reality.
We understand that you exist to protect the welfare and to prevent the unnecessary suffering towards all sentient and protected animals, including domestic, farm and wild animals. That duty can fall under several laws including the Animal Welfare Act (2006) and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. We understand that you are required to investigate instances where animals are subjected to unnecessary harm of suffering owing to a person’s actions or failure to act.
THE LAW
It is without doubt, that the protection of sheep and other livestock animals from the predatory behaviour of untrained dogs sits firmly within this remit. As you are aware:
If a dog worries livestock on any agricultural land, the owner of the dog, and, if it is in the charge of a person other than its owner, that person also, shall be guilty of an offence. worrying livestock means—
attacking livestock, or
chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or, in the case of females, abortion, or loss of or diminution in their produce.
[or
being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep] [1]
YOUR POSITION
We note that you strongly recommend keeping dogs on leads when it is believed that livestock animals might be present as the most effective way of keeping dogs and livestock animals safe. We also note that you are committed to the message that reward-based training is the most effective way to deal with dog training problems such as ‘coming when called’. We also note however that you place restraining the dog with a lead above your own faith in such reward-based where the dog might be in a position to chase another animal:
“Sam Gaines, Dog Welfare Specialist at the RSPCA, says: “Sadly our inspectors have seen the tragic consequences of livestock worrying and know all too well the devastating impact this has on farmers and their animals. “It’s always been a focus for us, especially at this time of year, to hit home the message to dog owners that no matter their dog’s breed, how obedient they are or how strong they think their recall is, the only safe option is to keep their pets on the lead whenever they’re around livestock. Even the act of a dog simply chasing a sheep for a few moments can have a devastating impact”. [2]
We are very aware of the RSPCA’s strong support for the ‘Kept Animals Bill’[3] to be progressed through parliament and enshrined in law. You state:
“The RSPCA is urging its supporters to #ActNowForAnimals to stop the UK Government from breaking its promises.” [4]
Equally, we note that:
“RSPCA believes the [Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953] law is in urgent need of updating. In particular .. Allowing for offences to be triable either way [magistrates court or crown court] and set out a list of actions a Court may take to deal with instances of livestock worrying, from control orders, disqualification orders, through to deprivation orders, destruction orders and a greatly increased fine as well as imprisonment”. [4]
THE PROBLEM
We are aware that (up until 2022) you had published on your official RSPCA website information for dog owners in respect of livestock worrying (sheep chasing/attacking/killing) by dogs.
That page has since been removed from your website. That official RSPCA page of information was written by your own Dr Samantha Gaines, your head of companion animal welfare [5]. The title of the page was:
“Dog owners: why sheep worrying should be a real worry” [6]
The Request
We have the following 5 questions to which we would like clear answers:
Why have you chosen to remove Dr Gaines’ account of her (since deceased) dog ‘Sid’ worrying livestock from your website?
Can you provide the police crime reference number or log number for the incident where Dr Gaines or her husband acted in accordance with the law and informed the relevant police force of her former dog (Sid) worrying sheep?
Can you provide the details of both the farmer who owned the sheep and/or the attending veterinarian who assessed the welfare of the sheep concerned following the incident whereby Dr Gaines’ dog ‘Sid’ chased and worried sheep?
Why did your own advice fail for your existing head of companion animal welfare, Dr Samantha Gaines when it came to her dog, Sid?
What efforts were made to recall ‘Sid’ prior to him worrying livestock and why did these efforts fail, resulting in Sid (a Labrador) having to be chased and grabbed by the harness he was wearing in order to bring the offence of livestock worrying to a conclusion?
We seek and would appreciate a prompt and appropriate response to the five questions asked in this letter.
The Association of Responsible Dog Owners (joinardo.com). 17th May 2023.
References
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/28
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0002/220002.pdf
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/dr-samantha-gaines-102