Dogs

[SimonD]

Regular viewers will recall a thread on the subject of returning dogs to the UK (here: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?388269-Dogs) in which I promised to send an information request to Defra. This I did, and I have just had a reply. The request was sent to Defra who passed it onto its executive agency the AHVLA (Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency). My questions were:

1. Since 1 January 2012, how many individuals have been found to land a pet dog in the UK from a non-commercial UK registered vessel (that is, not an authorised carrier) returning to the UK from another EU member state?

2. Of that number, how many were found to comply with the relevant provisions of the Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals Order 2011 excepting that they had not used an authorised carrier and an approved route?

3. Of that number, how many successful prosecutions have been brought under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974?

The answer I have received is:

"The information that you have requested for questions 1 and 2 are [sic] not held by the AHVLA. We only record the number of failures to land not the reason for that failure, so we have no way of determining how many of the failed checks where [sic] related to a non-approved route or carriers.

Since January 2012 there have been 2 prosecutions made under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974."

This is somewhat astonishing (and not just because of the grammatical errors). The inescapable conclusion is that Defra does not place a great deal of importance on this issue. If it did, it would surely collect data on the extent to which people were complying with the various requirements of the scheme.

Before finalising my letter to the Secretary of State, I will follow up on the answer. I assume that "failure to land" is a bit of jargon (it is not a legal term) meaning the number of pets that failed the pre-importation check (and was therefore turned away, put into quarantine or destroyed). However, I will ask for clarification. I will also ask for what offences the two prosecutions were brought, just in case they were against boat owners! Is there anything else anyone would like to know?

Simon

 

[chinita]

Well done.

It would be interesting to know more about the two prosecutions. My bet is that they concerned something more exotic that the common or garden pet pooch.

 

[Stork_III]

Well done.

It would be interesting to know more about the two prosecutions. My bet is that they concerned something more exotic that the common or garden pet pooch.

One was a cat from Mexico, imported by KLM.

http://www.barryanddistrictnews.co.uk/news/10498005.Airline_fined_for_carrying_Mexican_cat/

 

[Sandy]

This is somewhat astonishing (and not just because of the grammatical errors). The inescapable conclusion is that Defra does not place a great deal of importance on this issue. If it did, it would surely collect data on the extent to which people were complying with the various requirements of the scheme.

Why are you surprised? HMG has slashed the Civil Service and outsourced most of its work overseas. I wonder how many Freedom of Information requests are made like yours or how many MPs ask such questions, so why spend millions of tax pounds collecting the data?

 

[SimonD]

Why are you surprised? HMG has slashed the Civil Service and outsourced most of its work overseas. I wonder how many Freedom of Information requests are made like yours or how many MPs ask such questions, so why spend millions of tax pounds collecting the data?

I don't want to be drawn off topic (and would take issue with claiming that the Civil Service has been slashed and outsourced). However, the point of collecting data is to have evidence on which to base future policy decisions. What we are discussing here is a real example: because Defra does not know how many people attempt to bring a dog into the country by private boat, it doesn't know whether enforcement is effective. Hence, it doesn't know whether to spend more or less money on it for example. Moreover, in this case, it wouldn't cost millions to simply record the nature of the failure to comply with the rules.

This lack of data has clearly frustrated the RSPCA. In its recent report "Pushing at an open door – how the present UK controls on rabies are failing" very little evidence comes from Defra. The report (http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232734650750&mode=prd) makes interesting reading if you have the time. The RSPCA claims the the main problem with the pet passport scheme is its abuse to facilitate illegal trade in dogs. It also contains some interesting data and this passage on the process:

"Under the Rabies Order 1974 an inspector from the local authority can declare that a dog has been illegally imported and is a rabies risk if they have “reason to believe it has been landed ...in contravention of this order”. However uncertainty exists amongst local authorities over the test needed to satisfy this condition and the RSPCA has found that local authorities are reluctant to declare a dog as illegally imported when they are not clear what proof is required."

I would have thought that the uncertainty would be compounded if the dog had a valid pet passport and had been wormed before the voyage...

Simon

 

[longjohnsilver]

Good work Simon. The law over this is an ass and it seems that none of the authorities are particularly interested in enforcing it.

 

[Grumpybear]

Good work Simon. The law over this is an ass and it seems that none of the authorities are particularly interested in enforcing it.

Until a rabid dog is somehow proved to have entered the Uk aboard a boat, when the owner will have the book thrown at him or her.

 

[aluijten]

Why are the UK so tight on this rabies thing? I can understand for pets brought in from exotic places, but none of the surrounding countries has seen rabies in a long time. I do remember an incident a few years back in the UK with rabies but that turned out to be caused by a bat. You can't prevent those from flying in, can you.

Why make so many people their life complicated for a non-issue. With that I mean the transport of pets withing Europe. I would think a proof of valid vaccination should be sufficient.
If this problem would be really so big then why did all the surrounding countries manage to purge the disease from their territory?

 

[SimonD]

Why are the UK so tight on this rabies thing?

I think it's because we play cricket. It's not so much a fear of rabies, more a compulsion to play by the rules (I could be wrong of course ;-))

Simon

 

[Frankie-H]

Why are the UK so tight on this rabies thing? I can understand for pets brought in from exotic places, but none of the surrounding countries has seen rabies in a long time. I do remember an incident a few years back in the UK with rabies but that turned out to be caused by a bat. You can't prevent those from flying in, can you.

Why make so many people their life complicated for a non-issue. With that I mean the transport of pets withing Europe. I would think a proof of valid vaccination should be sufficient.
If this problem would be really so big then why did all the surrounding countries manage to purge the disease from their territory?

http://www.ansespro.fr/eurl-rabies/index.htm

Not quite a non issue IMHO. I would prefer it to be kept out of the UK. Bats do not suffer from lupine rabies.

 

[longjohnsilver]

http://www.ansespro.fr/eurl-rabies/index.htm

Not quite a non issue IMHO. I would prefer it to be kept out of the UK. Bats do not suffer from lupine rabies.

I think any sane person would wholly agree with you.

However for us the real point of the discussion are the logistics involved in bringing dogs back from the continent when you are on your own boat. For most people it's virtually impossible, even if all the veterinary requirements are met in full, vaccinations, worming etc etc.

 

[chinita]

Until a rabid dog is somehow proved to have entered the Uk aboard a boat, when the owner will have the book thrown at him or her.

I think we are primarily concerned with uk yachtsmen taking their dog sailing across the channel and wishing to return to their home with them.

Your 'rabid dog' analogy is fatuous.

 

[Grumpybear]

I think we are primarily concerned with uk yachtsmen taking their dog sailing across the channel and wishing to return to their home with them.

Your 'rabid dog' analogy is fatuous.

It was not an analogy. You clearly didn't bother to read the post to which I replied, which referred to the apparent bureaucratic indifference to boat owners bringing their dogs back in defiance of the regulations. Keep your bile for digestive purposes.

 

[chinita]

It was not an analogy. You clearly didn't bother to read the post to which I replied, which referred to the apparent bureaucratic indifference to boat owners bringing their dogs back in defiance of the regulations. Keep your bile for digestive purposes.

OK. Explain please:

This is the post to which you referred:

'Good work Simon. The law over this is an ass and it seems that none of the authorities are particularly interested in enforcing it.'

This is your reply:

'Until a rabid dog is somehow proved to have entered the Uk aboard a boat, when the owner will have the book thrown at him or her.'

I see no evidence of 'bureaucratic indifference to boat owners bringing their dogs back in defiance of the regulations'. Furthermore, I believe that the overwhelming majority of boat owners respect the law - no matter how much of an ass it may be.

Give me an example of how, and why, a 'rabid dog' would be brought into the UK by a leisure yachtsman who is simply interested in taking his dog BACK to the UK from whence he brought it.

'Rabid dog' is an emotive, scaremongering term and utterly inappropriate in the context of this well meaning thread.

 

[longjohnsilver]

It was not an analogy. You clearly didn't bother to read the post to which I replied, which referred to the apparent bureaucratic indifference to boat owners bringing their dogs back in defiance of the regulations. Keep your bile for digestive purposes.

Yes that was my post and to be absolutely clear I was not condoning any law breaking. I suspect you knew that but chose to be unnecessarily provocative in your response.

 

[aluijten]

http://www.ansespro.fr/eurl-rabies/index.htm

Not quite a non issue IMHO. I would prefer it to be kept out of the UK. Bats do not suffer from lupine rabies.

If you look at this site you will see the following:

"Rabies, which causes over 55,000 deaths a year worldwide, is found all over the world, except in certain areas such as Australia and the British Isles due to their geographical particularities. Several European countries have become rabies-free thanks to oral vaccination programmes."

Which is exactly in line with my argument

A.

 

[Monique]

Another silly idea fuelled by bureaucrats with a mind to waste all taxpayers monies.

Millions squandered. Bah!!!

 

[Grumpybear]

Yes that was my post and to be absolutely clear I was not condoning any law breaking. I suspect you knew that but chose to be unnecessarily provocative in your response.

I obviously failed to make myself clear, for which I apologise. The current system relies on somebody with authority checking that animals have been vaccinated, a function outsourced to the ferry companies etc. I have met a number of sailors who have aditted, with varying degrees of embarrassment, to bypassing the check by bringing their (vaccinated) animals back in their boats, so I know it does happen. The authorities do not seem to be concerned to audit the effectiveness of their system, which in effect relies on sailors not bypassing the ferry company checks. One day, alas, I fear that somebody will be tempted to bring back an animal which has not been vaccinated but which is, unknown to them, carrying rabies. At that point the bureaucrats will awake from their torpor and be seen to do something vigorous, both to the culprit and to the rest of the boating community.

I sought neither to provoke nor to offend, merely to comment on the reality of a system which is badly flawed and driven by economy and by an underlying belief that there really isn't a problem any more.

 

[longjohnsilver]

I obviously failed to make myself clear, for which I apologise. The current system relies on somebody with authority checking that animals have been vaccinated, a function outsourced to the ferry companies etc. I have met a number of sailors who have aditted, with varying degrees of embarrassment, to bypassing the check by bringing their (vaccinated) animals back in their boats, so I know it does happen. The authorities do not seem to be concerned to audit the effectiveness of their system, which in effect relies on sailors not bypassing the ferry company checks. One day, alas, I fear that somebody will be tempted to bring back an animal which has not been vaccinated but which is, unknown to them, carrying rabies. At that point the bureaucrats will awake from their torpor and be seen to do something vigorous, both to the culprit and to the rest of the boating community.

I sought neither to provoke nor to offend, merely to comment on the reality of a system which is badly flawed and driven by economy and by an underlying belief that there really isn't a problem any more.

We appear to be both singing off the same hymn sheet. I'm also sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post.