Freeze Branding Of Dogs

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

I want to legalise freeze branding of dogs in the UK. Please help by writing to your MP and signing my e-Petition.

 

Please sign my e-Petition at the following link;

 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18789

 

You can find your local MP here:

 

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

 

Copy and paste the below and send it to them as an email or letter.

 

Dear (insert MPs Title and Surname)

 

I am concerned about the nubmer of dogs being stolen in the UK. I believe it is rising rapidly. Mircochipping and ear tattooing are excellent means of identifying dogs which are lost or stray. However, a member on a public who sees a dog walking down the street will not be able to tell if it is microchipped or has an ear tattoo. I think that the freeze marking of dogs (as is done to cattle and horses) would be an excellent way of permenatly identifying dogs in a clearly visible manner. This would act as a theft deterrent and make it easier for stolen dogs to become 'too hot to handle'. As a member of your constituency I am asking you to work towards changing the Permitted Mutilations Regulations (2007) to allow freeze marking of dogs. Please send any correspondence to the following address;

 

(insert your name and address)

 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

(your name)

 

It is vital that you include your name and address or the MP will ignore the email as they will only respond to people in their constituency.

 

This is the background;

 

I have been a member of this forum for some years. I have seen a huge number of posts about dogs being stolen and sold on or stolen and disappearing. Several times the topic of freeze branding has come up. There have always been questions as to its legality. In an attempt to clear this up I have contacted the RSPCA as shown below.

 

Dear Sir/Madame,

 

As I have seen from your website there has been a national increase in the number of dogs being stolen. Recently, in my area there was a pair of terriers taken. Despite the old lady owner offering £1000 no questions asked reward there has been no news. I have personal experience of this. My spaniel x was stolen from my garden. She was microchipped and wearing a collar with an identity tag, but I have heard nothing of her in over 12 months. I am keen to avoid a repeat performance.

 

I was discussing this with my vet recently. We both agreed that a microchip is excellent for reuniting lost dogs with their owners. However, when a dog is stolen it is of less use as vets do not routinely scan all dogs coming into their surgeries. The same is true of ear tattooing, unless it is looked for you would not know it is there.

 

My enquire concerns the freeze marking of dogs. I know this to be very popular in the US, Australia and New Zealand. This would act as a visual deterrent to theft, as well as a readily identifying mark clearly visible. I believe that this would assist in making a stolen dog too 'hot to handle'.

 

My question concerns the legality of freeze marking a dog. I have researched this extensively, and can find no legislation which forbids it. I know that cattle and horses (also classed as companion animals) are routinely freeze marked. The only possible barrier I can see would be contravening animal welfare regulations which forbid unnecessary suffering. However, ear tattooing and microchipping are both permitted without pain relief. I also thought that the suffering could be mitigated by the theft deterrent (making it necessary)and alleviated with appropriate pain relief drugs (eg local anasthetic at the time of marking and a wide spectrum pain relief during the healing process). As your organisation is the prosecuting authority on such cases I would like to hear your views on the matter, as I do not wish to fall foul of any laws. Thank you for your assitance in this matter.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

unlacedgecko

 

After a few days I have received their response, shown below.

 

Thank you for your enquiry.

 

 

The freeze branding of dogs would be considered to be a mutilation under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. As such, freeze branding a dog would give rise to a Section 5 offence under the Animal Welfare Act.

 

The RSPCA would instead recommend microchipping as the preferred method of identifying dogs. More information on the benefits of microchipping your dog can be found here: http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/pets/general/microchipping

 

Kind regards

RSPCA HQ Advice Team

 

After I received this response I studied the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and it would appear that they are correct. However, the Act does allow mutilations to be permitted by an appropriate national authority through regulations. I have written back to them asking who the appropriate national authority is. I have also asked for further advice on the protection of dogs against theft. I will publish their response when I receive it.

 

I am not a member of the RSPCA, nor do I support their activites or their views. However, they are the main prosecutioners of animal cruelty cases. I thought it best to seek their view on this matter. I will be examining several other ways to legally freeze mark dogs to protect against theft. I will keep you all updated.

[dymented 2,220]

The freeze branding of dogs would be considered to be a mutilation under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 But its legal in the UK to do it to horses ?? with out prosecution i would inquire if its legal to do it to a horse it should be legal for a dog They would have to prosecute 1000 of horse owners then to bring a case agents you

[skycat 6,172]

This is what I couldn't understand when I looked into this a few years ago: to me it makes no sense that you can do it to horses and not to dogs. I even contacted a freeze branding company, and we talked about it. They couldn't see a problem: obviously the brand stays in contact with the skin for a much shorter time on a dog than on a horse as they have much thinner skin.

 

I really like the idea of giving a dog an instantly visible mark: it would surely stop a lot of dog thefts if our lurchers had a big white number on their haunch or shoulder, and its not something which can be cut off (like ears) or is invisible (like a chip)

 

The Americans often freeze brand their hunting dogs which are likely to roam great distances and often get lost whilst hunting. There's even a very good step by step guide to doing it yourself: I too would be interested in finding out if there would be any exceptional circumstances in which we would be allowed to do it.

[skycat 6,172]

Just thought of something else: if there is no actual law in place which states that freeze branding is illegal, surely a licensed company could do it, with as you suggest, the necessary local anaesthetic etc. And how on earth is ear tattooing any less painful? Doesn't make sense at all.

 

http://www.northernb...-livestock.html

 

Also, working dogs can be docked legally: why not make it legal to have them freeze marked as well: on the grounds that working dogs are running free whilst hunting, and therefore more likely to go missing, get lost etc than a pet dog in a park. Worth looking into. What about asking Clive Rees? Or would this be something which would have to go to government to be 'debated' endlessly: don't hold our breath for a quick outcome

[riohog 5,621]

tatooing freeze branding whatever will not prevent a bog from being stolen fact ,, it may help in the recovery of a stolen dog providing its ears havnt been cut off where tatood or chip removed .ultimatly, security of your dogs ie,, good strong housing is as good as anything hope the w,,,,kers that steal dogs or anything else have there ears cut off maybe a good deterant !!!!

[Malt 379]

Just read the act out of interest, this is from the section which deals with mutilation:

 

5 Mutilation

A person commits an offence if—

(a)

he carries out a prohibited procedure on a protected animal;

(

he causes such a procedure to be carried out on such an animal.

(2)

A person commits an offence if—

(a)

he is responsible for an animal,

(

another person carries out a prohibited procedure on the animal, and

©

he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening.

(3)

References in this section to the carrying out of a prohibited procedure on an animal are to the carrying out of a procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.

(4)

Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in such circumstances as the appropriate national authority may specify by regulations.

(5)

Before making regulations under subsection (4), the appropriate national authority shall consult such persons appearing to the authority to represent any interests concerned as the authority considers appropriate.

(6)

Nothing in this section applies to the removal of the whole or any part of a dog's tail.

 

To me, it appears it would only be an offence under the act if freeze branding was a 'prohibited procedure' Unless there's another piece of legislation out there stating that freeze branding of dogs is illegal, then I can't see how it's against the law.. My guess is that's the best response the RSPCA could find to stop you doing it. You could bet that if such legislation did exist, they'd have found it..

 

 

[Carraghs Gem 1,675]

This is what I couldn't understand when I looked into this a few years ago: to me it makes no sense that you can do it to horses and not to dogs. I even contacted a freeze branding company, and we talked about it. They couldn't see a problem: obviously the brand stays in contact with the skin for a much shorter time on a dog than on a horse as they have much thinner skin.

 

I really like the idea of giving a dog an instantly visible mark: it would surely stop a lot of dog thefts if our lurchers had a big white number on their haunch or shoulder, and its not something which can be cut off (like ears) or is invisible (like a chip)

 

The Americans often freeze brand their hunting dogs which are likely to roam great distances and often get lost whilst hunting. There's even a very good step by step guide to doing it yourself: I too would be interested in finding out if there would be any exceptional circumstances in which we would be allowed to do it.

 

sorry to correct you there skycat but from what i remember the freezebrand takes a good few weeks to show properly, also in white animals they have to leave the freezebrand on longer and then it shows as a bald area

another problem i found is that it reduces the resale value should you ever need to sell the animal as i discovered when i had to sell my stallion.

[skycat 6,172]

This is an extract from: http://www.cdb.org/vets/mutilations.htm

 

3. WHAT IS A MUTILATION?

The reconvened Working Party confirmed that, although the term ‘mutilation’ was an emotive one, carrying with it, in common usage, implications of maiming and disfigurement, there was no satisfactory alternative term which would suffice for its purposes. Accordingly it was agreed to continue to make reference to mutilations on the understanding that the term should be understood as covering all procedures, carried out with or without instruments which involve interference with the sensitive tissues or the bone structure of an animal, and are carried out for non - therapeutic reasons.

 

So I guess that branding wouldn't be considered therapeutic! But then, neither is ear tattooing. And that involves 'interference with sensitive tissues'' So there might be a case for it if properly addressed. Anyone got any ideas as to who we could contact to find out more?

[skycat 6,172]

This is what I couldn't understand when I looked into this a few years ago: to me it makes no sense that you can do it to horses and not to dogs. I even contacted a freeze branding company, and we talked about it. They couldn't see a problem: obviously the brand stays in contact with the skin for a much shorter time on a dog than on a horse as they have much thinner skin.

 

I really like the idea of giving a dog an instantly visible mark: it would surely stop a lot of dog thefts if our lurchers had a big white number on their haunch or shoulder, and its not something which can be cut off (like ears) or is invisible (like a chip)

 

The Americans often freeze brand their hunting dogs which are likely to roam great distances and often get lost whilst hunting. There's even a very good step by step guide to doing it yourself: I too would be interested in finding out if there would be any exceptional circumstances in which we would be allowed to do it.

 

sorry to correct you there skycat but from what i remember the freezebrand takes a good few weeks to show properly, also in white animals they have to leave the freezebrand on longer and then it shows as a bald area

another problem i found is that it reduces the resale value should you ever need to sell the animal as i discovered when i had to sell my stallion.

 

What are you correcting me on C? I know that it takes a while for the fur to grow back white. Sorry if my post was misleading: what I meant that anyone looking at a freeze branded dog would be able to see the mark instantly: once the fur had grown back.

[Born Hunter 17,639]

I dont see how freeze branding is legally any different to ear tattooing. Would the NGRC possibly be of help?

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

Just read the act out of interest, this is from the section which deals with mutilation:

 

5 Mutilation

A person commits an offence if—

(a)

he carries out a prohibited procedure on a protected animal;

(

he causes such a procedure to be carried out on such an animal.

(2)

A person commits an offence if—

(a)

he is responsible for an animal,

(

another person carries out a prohibited procedure on the animal, and

©

he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening.

(3)

References in this section to the carrying out of a prohibited procedure on an animal are to the carrying out of a procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.

(4)

Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in such circumstances as the appropriate national authority may specify by regulations.

(5)

Before making regulations under subsection (4), the appropriate national authority shall consult such persons appearing to the authority to represent any interests concerned as the authority considers appropriate.

(6)

Nothing in this section applies to the removal of the whole or any part of a dog's tail.

 

To me, it appears it would only be an offence under the act if freeze branding was a 'prohibited procedure' Unless there's another piece of legislation out there stating that freeze branding of dogs is illegal, then I can't see how it's against the law.. My guess is that's the best response the RSPCA could find to stop you doing it. You could bet that if such legislation did exist, they'd have found it..

 

 

 

 

I've highlighted the area which defines a prohibited procedure. Basically a probitited procedure is any procedure which interferes with the bone structure or sensitive tissues (this includes skin) of an animal, apart from vet treatment. The other exceptions are those which are detailed as permitted in other legislation. The legislation which allows freeze branding of horses is listed in

 

 

 

The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/legis/num_reg/2007/20071100.html&query="freeze+branding"&method=boolean

 

This legislation also deals with the removal of dew claws and ear tattooing in dogs. It also allows for ear clipping, ear notching (in all species) and ear tipping in feral cats, as well as freeze branding and chemical branding of fish!

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

More correspondence from the RSPCA. My response to their original email;

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

As I have said in my initial enquiry, microchipping is an excellent means of indentifying a dog to protect it against straying. However, it is not a protection against theft. My dogs are already mircochipped. But if they are stolen a member of the public seeing the dogs on the street would not be able to see that they are microchipped, nor that the microchip does not correspond to the person at the other end of the lead. What else can I do to protect my dogs against theft?

 

I have studied the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Who is the national authority that would need to specify the expemtion of freeze marking of dogs under the Animal Welfare Act 2006?

 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

 

unlacedgecko

 

And their response.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

If you are looking to create an exemption in the Animal Welfare Act to allow freeze marking then you need to raise the issue with your local MP.

 

We regret that we are not able to assist you with this matter as we are concerned about the welfare issue of freeze marking a dog and as stated in previous correspondence, microchipping is our recommended method of identification.

 

Kind regards

RSPCA HQ Advice Team

 

So freeze branding of dogs is illegal in the UK. If we want to get it changed then we would need to have Parliment to change the wording of the Permitted Mutilations Regulations 2007 to allow it. As the RSPCA have said this is best done through our local MPs. Alternatively we could set up an e-Petition. I think it would be best to do both. I am happy to take this on if people are prepared to support it. I will create an e-Petition and write a standard email for people to send to their MPs. Malt, please could you pin this topic?

[unlacedgecko 1,466]

You can find your local MP here:

 

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

 

Copy and paste the below and send it to them as an email or letter.

 

Dear (insert MPs Title and Surname)

 

I am concerned about the nubmer of dogs being stolen in the UK. I believe it is rising rapidly. Mircochipping and ear tattooing are excellent means of identifying dogs which are lost or stray. However, a member on a public who sees a dog walking down the street will not be able to tell if it is microchipped or has an ear tattoo. I think that the freeze marking of dogs (as is done to cattle and horses) would be an excellent way of permenatly identifying dogs in a clearly visible manner. This would act as a theft deterrent and make it easier for stolen dogs to become 'too hot to handle'. As a member of your constituency I am asking you to work towards changing the Permitted Mutilations Regulations (2007) to allow freeze marking of dogs. Please send any correspondence to the following address;

 

(insert your name and address)

 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

(your name)

 

It is vital that you include your name and address or the MP will ignore the email as they will only respond to people in their constituency. I will post a link to the e-Petition as soon as it is approved by the Home Office Site.

[skycat 6,172]

Well done that man! Please go for it: I'll contact my MP and would really urge people to do the same.

 

Do you think there would by any benefit it doing an article on this in the CMW? With a link to the E-petition? I'd be happy to do one if you think it would be useful. I know that some people would shrink at the idea of having dogs with big white numbers or letters on their bodies, but I for one would be only to happy to think that my dogs would be instantly recognisable: this might be of particular use in the types of dogs which seem to be regularly targeted by dog thieves: coursing dogs, terriers, or any working dog for that matter.

[Born Hunter 17,639]

One thing that occurs to me, if freeze branding becomes legal and we all start doing it, the brands are gonna have to be quite complex to be unique? Is this even possible? Even if just 1000 dogs are branded, that will require a 3 digit brand. Suppose 1% of those 1000 dogs are nicked, that means everyone will have to keep note of 10 brand numbers to check. Just not sure how effective it will be?.......

 

If only a small minority of people have their dogs branded I would think it would be VERY effective but if it becomes common place I could see it being a victim of its own success.....

 

JMO

 

On a similar note I personally think a detailed national servey of dog theft (particularly working dogs) would be of huge benefit to determine how to avoid and deter and where, if any, natonal 'hot spots' are.