Arguments Against Animal Welfare

Non-governmental organisations including Blue Cross have suggested that animal welfare should be incorporated within the National Curriculum as statistics have illustrated that only 31% of the public are familiar with the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (House of Commons, 2016). PDSA annual animal wellbeing report suggest that most owners could not distinguish their reasonability (House of Commons, 2016). In 2016 RSPCA statistics illustrated that 84,725 people received advice and improvements notices because they were not complying with the welfare standards stipulated in section 9 (RSPCA, 2017).
The British Veterinary Association (2016) stated that there are inconsistencies within the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in relation to the countries for instance tail docking is prohibited in Scotland, although the other regions have exceptions for
Employees from other non-governmental organisations support the claim for instance, Paula Boyden suggested the prison sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence committed (Dogs Trust, 2017). However, Defra (2016) stated that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 has strengthened the penalties regarding cruelty. The government should consider more realistic prosecutions as individuals are currently receiving the same prosecution for different levels of cruelty.
In the legalisation section 18 stipulates the level of power in relation to possession of an animal (Animal welfare Act 2006 s18). Section 18 (1) states that an inspector or constable has the ability to seize an animal to alleviate suffering (Derbyshire Constabulary, 2017). However, RSPCA are demanding more power to enable seizers to be conducted without the presence of police. The organisation is currently communicating with the UK Government because a police warrant is currently required to enter private properties (BBC,