We are here for all animals, including fish and insects. For example we have RSPCA Assured Standards for salmon and trout to try to drive up standards on farms, and we are working to secure legal protections for farmed fish.
We also work to end the use of animals in research (that causes them harm) and these animals are often fish. Whilst we work to end their use, we also work on improving their lives and have improved industry practices around environment and slaughter which has reduced the suffering of many fish in laboratories.
We take a precautionary principle approach to sentience i.e. unless there is evidence an animal isn’t sentient, we treat them as though they are. Our work on insects is less developed than other areas from an advocacy point of view, but it is something we focus on extensively in our work around human behaviour and education. As an aside, I also founded the Wasp Appreciation Society some years ago.
Thanks for your question. I think it is fair to say that the majority of RSPCA’s efforts to date have gone into your first option. We have skills, expertise, reach and resources to enable us to make a real difference to the lives of animals in this way through both our RSPCA Assured scheme, and through campaigning for changes to legislation and corporate behaviour. This work has resulted in real and significant (and evidenced) better lives for millions of animals than they would otherwise have lived.
However, we recognise that to get to a world without intensive farming, we also need to significantly reduce the number of animals farmed. We are developing our strategy here, but have already begun looking at the role of alternative protein in improving welfare (i.e. how could it have the most welfare benefit). For example we sponsored this report: https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/alt-proteins-animal-suffering/ which concludes: “If alternative proteins reach the 30% market share predicted by respondents by 2040, it would result in over 300 million fewer animals being raised in factory farms and slaughtered every year.”
As our strategy work develops in this area we will be considering how we best play our role in contributing to all three of these approaches.
The XLB has been referred to recently as a 'fighting breed derived from the pit bull', however, other sources of information dispute the origins of this dog. Multiple sources refer to this breed of dog as one who was selected as a companion and family dog. For example, the United Kennel Club refers to this dog as ‘first and foremost, a companion, exhibiting confidence with a zest and exuberance for life. Although there are breeds and types of dogs originally bred and selected for fighting, this does not mean that individuals within a particular breed or type are inherently aggressive or pose any greater risk of aggressive behaviour towards people or other animals. The selection for specific physical and temperamental attributes can result in serious injuries. However, the extent to which these characteristics are expressed or displayed will vary within individuals and are influenced by the way in which the dogs are bred and their lifetime experiences therefore, not all individuals of the same type will behave in the same way.
There is a distinct lack of verifiable evidence of the types of dogs involved in bite incidents, with data not regularly and uniformly recorded by police. The XL Bully has largely come to attention by social and traditional media sources where the breed or type of dog involved in an incident often can not be substantiated. There is no conclusive evidence that shows any breed as being more aggressive than another or inherently aggressive, although we acknowledge that the larger the breed the greater the capacity for harm if they display aggressive behaviour. Focusing on specific breeds potentially provides a false assumption that all other dogs are safe, where in reality any dog has the capacity to be dangerous if irresponsibly bred, reared and socialised. This is why our focus has always been on tackling the causal factors of aggressive behaviour which includes the way in which dogs are bred, reared and their lifetime experiences.
Some of the stats you have included in your answer are not ones I would recognise, however I have tried to answer the spirit of your question.
Scientific evidence has shown that breed/type is not a robust indicator of bite risk. The causal factors of aggressive behaviour are a complex interaction between genetics and lifetime experiences. Research has also shown that legislation like the the Dangerous Dogs Act which bans types of dog based on how they look is ineffective in protecting the public. This policy position is consistent across Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, Hope Rescue, the Scottish SPCA, USPCA, Woodgreen, PDSA and The Kennel Club. There are more effective models for tackling dog-bite risk and keeping people and dogs safe. These are in operation in other parts of the world. Tackling irresponsible breeding, irresponsible ownership, the need for training, public education, licensing etc is all required to address this issue in a meaningful way.
From 1999-2019, the number of hospital admissions for the treatment of dog bites has increased by 154%, despite the prohibition of certain types of dogs. The UK Government must tackle the root issue by dealing with the unscrupulous breeders, who are putting profit before welfare, and the irresponsible owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control.
As well as being ineffective in protecting the public, these laws based on the appearance of the dog mean that many dogs whose behaviour has never been a concern are targeted.
I think I have covered the standards setting process above (JBentham's question), but please do ask if you would like any more information. In terms of the laying hen standard, we have retained the requirement to provide natural daylight, but permitted an additional 12 months for this to be achieved. We have committed to doing an in-depth review of installing verandas on free-range systems. We still require verandas to be installed for all barn systems by 2030. The original standards concerning free range producers required them to install verandas new builds and building undergoing major refurbishments. It’s only these two requirements, which would have affected a minority, that have been redacted (pending the review).
We agree with you about the welfare benefits verandas can provide and it is still our intention to progress with these, but we have committed to doing a review with the industry to see what the potential challenges and barriers may be (so we understand these better and can consider solutions to these) and then progress depending on the outcome of that review
Alongside other organisations like Cats Protection and the British Veterinary Association we would not recommend a vegan diet for cats. However we are aware that research and evidence in this space is growing and keep it under review. We do ask people to consider higher welfare brands of pet food like McAdams which uses RSPCA Assured ingredients.
I think we have seen a prioritisation of ‘the deal’ over ‘the content’. I agree with the tone of your question - there is widespread agreement on the need for this, and an agreed approach around core standards.
This is one of the issues we are prioritising for the election and I am very hopeful whichever party forms the new government it will go up the agenda rapidly.
I would hope in the first period following the election any government would face into the urgent need for reforming farming standards and phasing out the use of animals in research. I think the biggest political barrier to these kinds of changes, and the others that we would like to see, is breaking out of the practice of siloed policy making, and instead understanding the interactions between e.g. human health, the environment and animal welfare.
What a great question. This is probably one for a discussion over a coffee but as a general approach we would use the kind of process I have set out above (Nathan Young's question) which considers scale, severity and duration of suffering against the 5 domains model, and then considers other internal and external factors. However, from that list I would particularly identify the Better Chicken Commitment (particularly addressing fast growing breeds) and legal protections for fish as high priorities.
We are here for all animals, including fish and insects. For example we have RSPCA Assured Standards for salmon and trout to try to drive up standards on farms, and we are working to secure legal protections for farmed fish.
We also work to end the use of animals in research (that causes them harm) and these animals are often fish. Whilst we work to end their use, we also work on improving their lives and have improved industry practices around environment and slaughter which has reduced the suffering of many fish in laboratories.
We take a precautionary principle approach to sentience i.e. unless there is evidence an animal isn’t sentient, we treat them as though they are. Our work on insects is less developed than other areas from an advocacy point of view, but it is something we focus on extensively in our work around human behaviour and education. As an aside, I also founded the Wasp Appreciation Society some years ago.
Thanks for your question. I think it is fair to say that the majority of RSPCA’s efforts to date have gone into your first option. We have skills, expertise, reach and resources to enable us to make a real difference to the lives of animals in this way through both our RSPCA Assured scheme, and through campaigning for changes to legislation and corporate behaviour. This work has resulted in real and significant (and evidenced) better lives for millions of animals than they would otherwise have lived.
However, we recognise that to get to a world without intensive farming, we also need to significantly reduce the number of animals farmed. We are developing our strategy here, but have already begun looking at the role of alternative protein in improving welfare (i.e. how could it have the most welfare benefit). For example we sponsored this report: https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/alt-proteins-animal-suffering/ which concludes: “If alternative proteins reach the 30% market share predicted by respondents by 2040, it would result in over 300 million fewer animals being raised in factory farms and slaughtered every year.”
As our strategy work develops in this area we will be considering how we best play our role in contributing to all three of these approaches.
The XLB has been referred to recently as a 'fighting breed derived from the pit bull', however, other sources of information dispute the origins of this dog. Multiple sources refer to this breed of dog as one who was selected as a companion and family dog. For example, the United Kennel Club refers to this dog as ‘first and foremost, a companion, exhibiting confidence with a zest and exuberance for life. Although there are breeds and types of dogs originally bred and selected for fighting, this does not mean that individuals within a particular breed or type are inherently aggressive or pose any greater risk of aggressive behaviour towards people or other animals. The selection for specific physical and temperamental attributes can result in serious injuries. However, the extent to which these characteristics are expressed or displayed will vary within individuals and are influenced by the way in which the dogs are bred and their lifetime experiences therefore, not all individuals of the same type will behave in the same way.
There is a distinct lack of verifiable evidence of the types of dogs involved in bite incidents, with data not regularly and uniformly recorded by police. The XL Bully has largely come to attention by social and traditional media sources where the breed or type of dog involved in an incident often can not be substantiated. There is no conclusive evidence that shows any breed as being more aggressive than another or inherently aggressive, although we acknowledge that the larger the breed the greater the capacity for harm if they display aggressive behaviour. Focusing on specific breeds potentially provides a false assumption that all other dogs are safe, where in reality any dog has the capacity to be dangerous if irresponsibly bred, reared and socialised. This is why our focus has always been on tackling the causal factors of aggressive behaviour which includes the way in which dogs are bred, reared and their lifetime experiences.
Some of the stats you have included in your answer are not ones I would recognise, however I have tried to answer the spirit of your question.
Scientific evidence has shown that breed/type is not a robust indicator of bite risk. The causal factors of aggressive behaviour are a complex interaction between genetics and lifetime experiences. Research has also shown that legislation like the the Dangerous Dogs Act which bans types of dog based on how they look is ineffective in protecting the public. This policy position is consistent across Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the British Veterinary Association, Hope Rescue, the Scottish SPCA, USPCA, Woodgreen, PDSA and The Kennel Club. There are more effective models for tackling dog-bite risk and keeping people and dogs safe. These are in operation in other parts of the world. Tackling irresponsible breeding, irresponsible ownership, the need for training, public education, licensing etc is all required to address this issue in a meaningful way.
From 1999-2019, the number of hospital admissions for the treatment of dog bites has increased by 154%, despite the prohibition of certain types of dogs. The UK Government must tackle the root issue by dealing with the unscrupulous breeders, who are putting profit before welfare, and the irresponsible owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control.
As well as being ineffective in protecting the public, these laws based on the appearance of the dog mean that many dogs whose behaviour has never been a concern are targeted.
I think I have covered the standards setting process above (JBentham's question), but please do ask if you would like any more information. In terms of the laying hen standard, we have retained the requirement to provide natural daylight, but permitted an additional 12 months for this to be achieved. We have committed to doing an in-depth review of installing verandas on free-range systems. We still require verandas to be installed for all barn systems by 2030. The original standards concerning free range producers required them to install verandas new builds and building undergoing major refurbishments. It’s only these two requirements, which would have affected a minority, that have been redacted (pending the review).
We agree with you about the welfare benefits verandas can provide and it is still our intention to progress with these, but we have committed to doing a review with the industry to see what the potential challenges and barriers may be (so we understand these better and can consider solutions to these) and then progress depending on the outcome of that review
Alongside other organisations like Cats Protection and the British Veterinary Association we would not recommend a vegan diet for cats. However we are aware that research and evidence in this space is growing and keep it under review. We do ask people to consider higher welfare brands of pet food like McAdams which uses RSPCA Assured ingredients.
I think we have seen a prioritisation of ‘the deal’ over ‘the content’. I agree with the tone of your question - there is widespread agreement on the need for this, and an agreed approach around core standards.
This is one of the issues we are prioritising for the election and I am very hopeful whichever party forms the new government it will go up the agenda rapidly.
I would hope in the first period following the election any government would face into the urgent need for reforming farming standards and phasing out the use of animals in research. I think the biggest political barrier to these kinds of changes, and the others that we would like to see, is breaking out of the practice of siloed policy making, and instead understanding the interactions between e.g. human health, the environment and animal welfare.
Our current policy is that all catering must be plant based or RSPCA Assured. This is being reviewed by our Trustees in light of the AGM resolution.
What a great question. This is probably one for a discussion over a coffee but as a general approach we would use the kind of process I have set out above (Nathan Young's question) which considers scale, severity and duration of suffering against the 5 domains model, and then considers other internal and external factors. However, from that list I would particularly identify the Better Chicken Commitment (particularly addressing fast growing breeds) and legal protections for fish as high priorities.