FINAL VERSION
RECOMMENDATIONS OF WORKING
GROUP TO REVIEW THE MANAGEMENT
OF DOG BREEDING ESTABLISHMENTS
August 2005
Introduction
1. A Working Group to review the management of dog breeding establishments
nationally was appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government on 24th September, 2004. The Group was established in
response to a number of cases of mistreatment of dogs on so called ‘puppy
farms’.
Composition of Working Group
2. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government appointed
Mr. Finbarr Heslin, a veterinary surgeon, as Chairman of the Working Group.
In order to obtain a broad range of views on the issue, the Working Group
comprised representatives from the following bodies; The Veterinary Council
of Ireland, Veterinary Ireland, The Irish Greyhound Board, An Garda
Siochana, local authorities, The Irish Kennel Club, The Dog Breeders
Association of Ireland, The National German Shepherd Working Dog
Association, The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the
Departments of Agriculture and Food and Environment, Heritage and Local
Government. A list of the individual Working Group members is attached in
Appendix 1.
Terms of Reference
3. The terms of reference of the group were “to examine the current position
regarding management of kennels and to make recommendations for such
improvements, including better regulation, as it considers necessary in this
area”. The Minister should note that the Working Group discussions also
extended to issues outside the Group’s terms of reference. The Group
recognised this and confined their recommendations to the terms of reference.
The Minister may wish to note the other issues raised by the Working Group,
which are summarised in Appendix 4.
Meetings of the Working Group
4. The Working Group has met four times between October 2004 and March
2005. The meeting dates were 22nd October 2004, 26th November 2004, 21st
January 2005 and 4th March 2005.
Consultation Process
5. Interested members of the public were invited to make submissions, within the
terms of reference, to the Group by 15th October 2004, by way of a notice in
the national press on 4th October 2004. Submissions were received from 27
groups and individuals (see Appendix 2) and these submissions were
considered by the members of the Working Group.
6. Oral submissions in relation to the UK experience of ‘puppy farming’ were
provided to the Group by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (RSPCA) and The Dogs’ Trust on 26th November 2004. The RSPCA
representative also attended the Working Group meeting on 4th March in an
advisory role.
1
Summary of Recommendations
While the discussions of the Group were wide ranging, we have confined our
recommendations to matters falling within the terms of reference of the Working
Group, as requested by the Minister. The Working Group makes the following
recommendations to the Minister. The basis of these recommendations are detailed in
the main body of the report.
1. Basis for Regulation of Dog Breeding Establishments
The Group recommends that a State regulated registration system for dog
breeding establishments be put in place. The Group recommends that the Minister
for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should make regulations
under Section 19 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 (as inserted by Section 8 of the
Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act, 1992) to regulate dog breeding
establishments. These regulations should be enforced through the existing local
authority dog control structures. The regulations should include a comprehensive
set of statutorily enforceable standards for the operation of dog breeding
establishments and provision for inspections by local authority officers.
2. Basis for defining Dog Breeding Establishments
The Group recommends that dog breeding establishments be defined based on the
number of female dogs with breeding potential present on the premises.
Therefore, a dog breeding establishment would be defined as “a premises
containing more than 5 female dogs, aged over 4 months, with breeding
potential”.
3. Funding of Regulatory System
The Group recommends that the new regulatory regime be self-financing and be
funded by varying the existing General Dog Licence Fee, for the keeping of an
unspecified number of dogs, into two categories on the basis of different classes of
dogs i.e. dogs kept in breeding establishments and all other dogs. The General
Licence Fee for the first class of dog i.e. dogs kept in breeding establishments
should be increased to fund the new regulatory regime.
4. Permanent Identification
The Group recommends that all dogs kept in breeding establishments, including
their offspring, be electronically micro-chipped to ensure traceability and assist
the enforcement of the registration system. The Group also recommended that
greyhounds be exempted, where they have already met the Irish Greyhound
Board’s identification requirements.
5. Transportation /Export of dogs
The Group recommends the implementation by the Department of Agriculture and
Food of regulations for the transportation of consignments of dogs within the
State. The Group also recommends the implementation of regulations for the
export of consignments of dogs to other jurisdictions including the UK. In
implementing these regulations, transportation standards should be specified
including minimum space requirements, ventilation, route plans, journey
durations, feeding and watering intervals. The individual transportation of
domestic family pets should continue to be exempted in the implementation of
2
these regulations. These measures are particularly necessary to regulate dealers,
who purchase dogs in bulk and transport them for sale elsewhere. As matters
relating to the transportation and export of dogs lie within the statutory remit of
the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage
and Local Government may wish to consult with the Minister for Agriculture and
Food in formulating a response to this Recommendation.
6. Agreement on Duty of Care
The Group recommends that every dog owner and every dog breeder has a “Duty
of Care” in respect of animals kept by them and that this should be enshrined in all
animal welfare legislation.
7. Lead In Time
The Group recommends that the new Dog Breeding Registration system be
introduced on a phased basis using an improvement notice model to avoid the
creation of a surplus of dogs caused by the closure of substandard dog breeding
establishments. This lead in time would allow dog breeding establishments to
meet the necessary standards and avoid the problem of having to dispose of a
number of unwanted dogs. Any premises, where Inspectors encounter serious
animal welfare issues or have no reasonable prospect of meeting the registration
standards should, however, be closed immediately. There should also be ongoing
co-operation between all interested group to try and avoid a welfare issue caused
by surplus dogs.
Conclusion
The Working Group do not claim that the above recommendations provide a perfect
solution to the regulation of dog breeding in Ireland. However, we believe that the
implementation and enforcement of these practical measures can quickly and
effectively address ‘puppy farm’ abuses in Ireland. Our Recommendations are
submitted to the Minister for his consideration.
3
Basis for Regulation of the Dog Breeding Industry in Ireland
Introduction
The Working Group agreed that there is clearly a need for enforceable standards in
the dog breeding industry in Ireland. Although there are no figures currently available
for the number of dog breeding establishments in Ireland, the Working Group agreed
that there is clear evidence that a number of these enterprises are operating in a substandard manner with serious consequences for the welfare of dogs kept in these
establishments.
Industry Self Regulation / Statutory Regulation
The Working Group considered the option of proposing self-regulation for the dog
breeding industry. It concluded that while many reputable dog breeders would
voluntarily observe such industry self-regulation, there would be a minority of
operators, who would ignore such structures. It was agreed that State regulated
registration system would be more appropriate for regulating dog breeding
establishments.
UK Experience
The Working Group received oral submissions from the Dogs’ Trust and the Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) including briefing in
relation to the UK experience of regulating dog breeding establishments. Legislation
in the UK has evolved over a thirty year period and has been relatively successful in
addressing abuses within the system. There are still, however, outstanding legislative
issues that need to be addressed in an upcoming Animal Welfare Bill. The Working
Group were advised that any new Irish regulations would need to be specific,
enforceable and not open to interpretation as there is currently a significant difference
in the enforcement regimes in different UK local authority areas depending on the
individual licensing officer.
Primary Legislation / Regulation
There was a general consensus amongst the Working Group of the need for urgent
statutory changes to deal with the problem of substandard dog breeding
establishments. There was a preference amongst the Group for taking a ‘clean sheet’
approach by recommending the introduction of new primary legislation. It was,
however, recognised that the time period between the drafting of new legislation and
eventual enactment would be too long to address an immediate problem.
It was, alternatively, agreed that, in the interim, use be made of existing provisions
under Section 19 of the Control of Dogs Acts 1986 (as inserted by Section 8 of the
Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act, 1992) to make regulations for Dog Breeding
Establishments. A copy of relevant sections is attached in Appendix 3. These
regulations would be enforced through the existing local authority dog control
structures. While the Group agreed that this solution is not ideal i.e. as the regulations
can only be applied to premises containing more than 5 dogs over 4 months, it was
accepted that such regulations could be introduced relatively quickly to address the
worst ‘puppy farm’ abuses.
4
Standards for operation of Dog Breeding Establishments
It was agreed that the registration system for Dog Breeding Establishments should
require licensed operators to observe the following standards, which will be legally
enforceable;
(i) that dogs will at all times be kept in accommodation suitable as regards
construction, size of quarters, number of occupants, exercising facilities, temperature,
lighting, ventilation and cleanliness;
(ii) that dogs will be adequately supplied with suitable food, drink and bedding
material, adequately exercised, and visited at suitable intervals;
(iii)that all reasonable precautions will be taken to prevent and control the spread
among the dogs of infectious or contagious diseases;
(iv) that appropriate steps will be taken for the protection of the dogs in case of fire or
other emergency;
(v) that all appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that the dogs will be provided
with suitable food, drink, and bedding material and adequately exercised when being
transported to or from the breeding establishment;
(vi) that female dogs are not mated if they are less than one year old;
(vii) that female dogs do not give birth to more than six litters of puppies each;
(viii) that female dogs do not give birth to puppies before the end of the period of 12
months beginning on the day on which they last gave birth to puppies;
(ix) that accurate records in a form prescribed by regulations are kept at the premises
and made available for inspection there by any officer of the authority, or any
authorised veterinary surgeon/practitioner authorised to inspect the premises; and
(x) that numerical limits may be placed on the number of dogs kept in a premises
consistent with the facilities available.
Procedure for licensing Dog Breeding Establishments
On receipt of an application for the registration of a dog breeding establishment, the
relevant local authority should arrange for the inspection of the premises by an
authorised veterinary surgeon or by an authorized officer of the authority before
determining whether or not to grant a licence.
Guidance Documentation for Local Authority Inspectors
The Working Group believes that it is important that a consistent standard is applied
across all local authorities when enforcing the registration requirements. It is also vital
that the above standards are clearly defined in the regulations. The above standards
should be incorporated into a comprehensive guidance booklet to assist authorised
officers when inspecting premises. This guidance booklet should be reviewed at least
5
every ten years. Standard licensing templates should be provided to all local
authorities in compliance with the regulations.
Recommendation
The Group recommends that a State regulated registration system for dog breeding
establishments be put in place. The Group recommends that the Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government should make regulations under Section
19 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 (as inserted by Section 8 of the Control of Dogs
(Amendment) Act, 1992) to regulate dog breeding establishments. These regulations
should be enforced through the existing local authority dog control structures. The
regulations should include a comprehensive set of statutorily enforceable standards
for the operation of dog breeding establishments and provision for inspections by
local authority officers.
6
Basis for defining Dog Breeding Establishments
Having regard to the UK experience, the Working Group agreed that the legal
definition of Dog Breeding Establishments must be clear and unambiguous to ensure
that regulations were enforceable. It was agreed that the number of litters produced on
a premises would not provide a suitable basis for defining breeding establishments as
constant supervision would be required to ensure compliance. It was felt that a
definition based on the number of female dogs with breeding potential i.e. unneutered female dogs, aged over 4 months, present on a premises would be a more
practically enforceable approach.
It was recognised that such a definition could bring certain non-commercial breeding
establishments and some non-breeding establishments containing a certain number of
female dogs with breeding potential within the terms of the proposed regulatory
system. The possibility of making a distinction between commercial and noncommercial breeding establishments was discussed but the Working Group felt that
such a distinction would be too difficult to enforce.
The Minister may, at his discretion, wish to exempt certain establishments such as
charity and welfare based dog shelters, boarding and hunt kennels from the terms of
the proposed regulatory system. However, the Working Group decided to make no
recommendation in this regard in view of the enforceability issues that could be
raised.
Recommendation
The Group recommends that dog breeding establishments be defined based on the
number of female dogs with breeding potential present on the premises. Therefore, a
dog-breeding establishment would be defined as “a premises containing more than 5
female dogs, aged over 4 months, with breeding potential”.
7
Funding of Registration System
The Working Group recognised that local authorities will require additional
resources in order to fund the operation of the proposed regulatory regime and that
the proposed registration system will need to be self-financing. It was proposed
that the existing general dog licence fee, for the keeping of an unspecified number
of dogs on a premises, be increased under Section 8(2) of the Control of Dogs Act
(as inserted by Section 4 of the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act, 1992) for that
purpose.
It was recognised, however, that such an increase in the general dog license fee
would also impact on premises falling outside the definition of dog breeding
establishments e.g. premises only containing dogs with no breeding potential i.e.
male dogs and neutered female dogs. It was proposed, therefore, that such
premises be exempted from paying a higher general dog licence fee.
There is provision under Section 8(2) of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 (as inserted
by Section 4 of the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act, 1992) for the specification
of different rates of general licence fee for different classes of dogs. It was
proposed, therefore, that regulations be made under Section 8(2) of the Act for
dogs to be classified into dogs kept in breeding establishments and all other
dogs and that different general dog licence fee rates be set for each classification.
A higher general dog licence fee will be required for dogs kept in breeding
establishments.
It was recognised that some dog breeders may legally seek to avoid having to
purchase the general dog licence for ‘dogs kept in breeding establishments’ by
alternatively buying individual dog licences for each dog on their premises.
Therefore, the purchase of a general dog licence for dogs kept in breeding
establishments should be a mandatory registration requirement for dog breeding
establishments under Section 19(2)(b)(ii) of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 (as
inserted by Section 8 of the Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act, 1992).
Recommendation
The Group recommends that the new regulatory regime be self-financing and be
funded by varying the existing General Dog Licence Fee, for the keeping of an
unspecified number of dogs, into two categories on the basis of different classes of
dogs i.e. dogs kept in breeding establishments and all other dogs. The General
Licence Fee for the first class of dog i.e. dogs kept in breeding establishments
should be increased to fund the new regulatory regime.
8
Issue of Permanent Identification
It was generally agreed by the Working Group that it was necessary to introduce some
form of permanent identification for dogs kept in dog breeding establishments. This
would be a vital component for the enforcement of any registration system for dog
breeding establishments. It would also provide a means of traceability for any puppies
produced in these establishments.
Declaration of Personal Interest
The Minister should note that the Chairman of the Working Group, Mr. Finbarr
Heslin made a declaration of personal interest in relation to the permanent
identification of dogs at the third meeting of the Group on 21 January 2005. The
Chairman informed the Working Group that he had a beneficial interest in a private
venture involving data recording systems for the micro-chipping of dogs, which long
preceded the decision to establish the Working Group. He said that he had accepted
the Chairmanship of the Working Group in good faith as neither the issue of the
permanent identification of dogs nor micro-chipping specifically were contained
within the terms of reference for the Group. However, as it had become clear that
there was a consensus within the Group that some system of permanent identification
of dogs should be recommended to the Minister, the Chairman felt that it was
necessary to declare his personal interest.
The Chairman offered to resign from the Working Group to ensure that there was no
perceived conflict of interest. The Group expressed full confidence in the Chairman
and it was alternatively agreed that the Chairman would leave the room during all
further discussions in relation to the permanent identification of dogs. The Chairman,
therefore, had no involvement in the recommendation in relation to the permanent
identification of dogs.
Micro-chipping requirement
The Working Group agreed that the most effective means of permanent identification
of dogs was the implantation of an electronic microchip into the animal. The dog’s
individual details could then be recorded on a database and its identity subsequently
confirmed by scanning its microchip and verifying its details against the database.
The Working Group agreed that there should be a requirement that all dogs, including
pups, kept in breeding establishments be electronically micro-chipped to facilitate
identification and traceability. It was agreed that the type of microchip to be used, the
procedures for implantation and the operation of a database were a matter for the
Minister to determine. The Group were generally in favour of introducing universal
micro-chipping for all dogs but recognised that this was outside their terms of
reference. The decision of the Irish Kennel Club to require compulsory microchipping of all dogs, registered with them, from January 1st 2006 was welcomed.
Exemption for Greyhounds
It was agreed that whilst the system of tattooing used for racing greyhounds was not
suitable for general use, it had been effectively employed by the Irish Greyhound
Board to keep control of greyhound breeding and that, given the concerns expressed
by those involved in the sport that electronic implanting may affect the racing
performance, a derogation from implanting should be granted for racing greyhounds,
9
registered with the Irish Greyhound Board, until such times as the Irish Greyhound
Board are satisfied that implanting does not impair performance.
Recommendation
The Group recommends that all dogs kept in breeding establishments, including their
offspring, be electronically micro-chipped to ensure traceability and assist the
enforcement of the registration system. The Group also recommended that
greyhounds be exempted, where they have already met the Irish Greyhound Board’s
identification requirements.
10
Transportation and Export of Dogs
Introduction
The Working Group agreed that a vital component of any regulation of the dog
breeding industry in Ireland is the implementation of regulations for the transportation
of consignments of dogs. Such regulations would apply to both transportation within
the State and the export of dogs to other jurisdictions, including the UK.
Issue of Dealers
Measures are particularly necessary to regulate dealers, who purchase dogs in bulk
and transport them for sale elsewhere. There are no reliable figures available but the
RSPCA and the Dogs Trust have advised the Working Group that there is now a
lucrative trade in Irish pups being imported into the UK for sale. Successful spaying
and neutering policies in the UK have reduced its dog population and increased the
market price for pups. Both cross breed and pedigree pups bred in Irish ‘puppy farms’
are being profitably sold through small ads in pet shops in the UK at prices that
undercut reputable dog breeders in both Ireland and the UK. These pups frequently
have serious health defects, following export to the UK, at times due to their
inappropriate transport. There have also been several reports of Irish cross breed pups
being sold as pedigree dogs in the UK, using false papers.
Transportation Regulation
The Working Group has been advised that a new EU transportation regulation
01/2005 will take legal effect in January 2007 and will cover the transportation of
dogs. The Group understand that the Department of Agriculture and Food intend to
carry out an internal review on how they will regulate for the provisions of the new
EU Regulation generally. The Group agreed that the existing thresholds in the new
EU regulation in relation to transportation distance and journey times would not
adequately regulate the transportation of dogs within the State or across the border
into Northern Ireland or the UK generally.
The Group agreed to recommend that the Department of Agriculture and Food
implement regulations for the transportation of consignments of dogs within the State.
These regulations should specify standards for the transportation of consignments of
dogs. The Group also agreed to recommend that the Department of Agriculture and
Food implement regulations for the export of consignments of dogs to other
jurisdictions including the UK. These regulations should also require details of the
end destination of consignments of dogs and provide for the feeding and watering of
dogs, registration and training of transporters, authorisation of vehicles and a journey
log. The individual transportation of domestic family pets would continue to be
exempted under these regulations.
Recommendation
The Group recommends the implementation by the Department of Agriculture and
Food of regulations for the transportation of consignments of dogs within the State.
The Group also recommends the implementation of regulations for the export of
consignments of dogs to other jurisdictions including the UK. In implementing these
regulations, transportation standards should be specified including minimum space
requirements, ventilation, route plans, journey durations, feeding and watering
intervals. The individual transportation of domestic family pets should continue to be
11
exempted in the implementation of these regulations. These measures are particularly
necessary to regulate dealers, who purchase dogs in bulk and transport them for sale
elsewhere. As matters relating to the transportation and export of dogs lie within the
statutory remit of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government may wish to consult with the Minister
for Agriculture and Food in formulating a response to this Recommendation.
12
Recommendation on Duty of Care
The Group agreed to recommend that every dog owner has a “Duty of Care” in
respect of animals kept by them and that this should be enshrined in all animal
welfare legislation.
13
Issue of Surplus Dogs / Lead in Time
The Working Group recognised that the implementation of a registration system for
dog breeding establishments will inevitably cause certain substandard operators to
leave the industry. While this would be a welcome development, it is likely that this
could lead, in the short term, to a certain number of dogs, both pedigree and cross
breed, being abandoned. As some of these dogs may not be suitable for re-homing, it
could result in an increase in the number of dogs being put to sleep in the short term.
It is not possible to provide an estimate of the potential number of surplus dogs due to
the current lack of hard data in relation to the number of Dog Breeding
Establishments in Ireland.
In addition, a significant number of pedigree animals currently maintained in
premises, exclusively due to their breeding potential, will no longer be legally allowed
to breed (e.g. un-neutered female dogs of an age greater than the upper limit allowed
for breeding). These animals are not considered to be pets by their keepers, and would
likely become redundant breeding animals with no future.
A significant number of non-pedigree animals who have been kept in their entire state
with breeding potential intact, will be considered surplus to requirements as they may
draw the attention of the regulatory authorities to a premises. This sector of the canine
population has long been considered by the experts as a major contributor to the stray
dog population, and could have a very uncertain future. The Group feel that measures
to safeguard the health and welfare of these dogs must be considered and
implemented in conjunction with a significant lead in time for the enforcement of any
legal changes. Co-operation between the various interested parties is essential if a
welfare problem of significant size is to be avoided.
The Working Group would, therefore, advise that any new registration system be
implemented on a phased basis to avoid the immediate closure of all dog breeding
establishments, which initially fail to meet the standards already outlined. The Group
believe that a system of improvement notices, similar to that operated by the Food
Safety Authority of Ireland, could be put in place for such establishments. In this way,
Dog Breeding Establishments would be given a limited time period to meet the
necessary standards thereby avoiding the problem of disposing of dogs caused by an
immediate closure order. Any premises, where Inspectors encounter serious animal
welfare issues or have no reasonable prospect of meeting the registration standards
should, however, be closed immediately.
Recommendation
The Group recommends that the new Dog Breeding Registration system be
introduced on a phased basis using an improvement notice model to avoid the creation
of a surplus of dogs caused by the closure of substandard dog breeding
establishments. This lead in time would allow dog breeding establishments to meet
the necessary standards and avoid the problem of having to dispose of a number of
unwanted dogs. Any premises, where Inspectors encounter serious animal welfare
issues or have no reasonable prospect of meeting the registration standards should,
however, be closed immediately. There should also be ongoing co-operation between
all interested groups to try and avoid a welfare issue caused by surplus dogs.
14
Appendix 1
Working Group to review the management of Dog Breeding Establishments
Name
Mr. Finbarr Heslin
Organisation
Independent Chairman of Working Group
Beaufield Veterinary Centre, Celbridge, Co. Kildare
Mr. Frank McRory
C/o Veterinary Council of Ireland, 53 Lansdowne
Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.
Mr. Aidan Reid
Garda Superintendent, Operational Support Unit,
Garda Headquarters, Phoenix Park, Dublin 8.
Mr. Bobby Behan
National German Shepherd Working Dog Association,
160 Thomond Road, Ballyfermot, Dublin 10.
Mr. Pat Brangan
Senior Superintending Veterinary Inspector,
Department of Agriculture and Food,
Agriculture House, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.
Mr. DJ Histon
Irish Greyhound Board, 104 Henry Street, Limerick.
Mr. Garret Shine
Veterinary Inspector, Louth County Council,
County Hall, Millenium Centre, Dundalk, Co. Louth
(Nominee of City and County Managers’ Association)
C/o The Irish Kennel Club,
Fottrell House, Harolds Cross Bridge, Dublin 6W.
Mr. Fred Cuthbert
Mr. Paul Flood
The Dog Breeders Association of Ireland, 938
Ballysax, The Curragh, Co. Kildare
Mr. Conor Dowling
ISPCA Inspectorate Supervisor,
ISPCA National Animal Centre,
Derrygloger Lodge, Keenagh, Co. Longford.
Mr. Kevin Ring
Principal Officer, Roads and Local Services Section,
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government,
Block 6, Floor 2, Irish Life Centre,
Lower Abbey Street,
Dublin 1.
Mr. Sean O Laoide
C/o Veterinary Ireland,
13 The Courtyard,
Kilcarbery Park,
Nangor Road, Dublin 22
Mr. Frank Gallagher
Working Group Secretary
Roads and Local Services Section
15
Appendix 2
Submissions to the Working Group
1. Animal Rescue Ireland
2. Animal Welfare Foundation
3. Claire-Ann Ahern
4. Connemara Kennels
5. Dog Training Ireland Ltd.
6. Dog Breeders Association of Ireland Ltd.
7. DSPCA
8. Elizabeth Walsh
9. Gabriele. G. Pollmeier
10. GSA Ireland - The National German Shepherd Working Dog Association
11. Irish Guide Dogs for the Blind
12. Irish Kennel Club
13. Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
14. Joint Animal Aid Committee
15. Karlin Lillington
16. Local Authority Veterinary Service
17. Louth County Council
18. Marie Hogarty
19. Maura Brannock
20. Nita McGuinness
21. PAWS
22. The Pet Behaviour Centre
16
23. Veterinary Council of Ireland
24. Veterinary Ireland
25. Mary Walsh
26. Westmeath Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
27. Wexford Pet Helpers
17
Appendix 3
Control of Dogs (Amendment) Act 1992
Definition of General Dog License
2.—(1) Section 1 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the
following definition for the definition of "general dog licence":
"'general dog licence' means a licence entitling a person to keep an unspecified
number of dogs at a premises specified in the licence, one premises only being so
specified;".
Power to vary license fee rate
4.—Section 8 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by—
( a ) the substitution in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of "£10 for each year of
the period of validity of the licence" for "£5",
( b ) the substitution in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of "£200 for each year
of the period of validity of the licence" for "£100 and
( c ) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):
"(2) The Minister may, by regulations, vary the rates specified in
subsection (1) of this section and such a variation may include a
specification of different rates in respect of different classes of dogs,
the classifications being determined in such manner or by reference to
such matters as may be specified in the regulations."
Regulation of Premises
8.—(1) The Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following
section for section 19:
"19.—(1) The Minister may, by regulations, specify standards for premises at
which a guard dog is, or more than 5 dogs aged over 4 months are, kept, and make
provision for the use and control of dogs.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, regulations
under this section may—
( a ) prohibit the keeping of a guard dog or more than 5 dogs aged over
4 months at any premises unless the premises are registered under
regulations under paragraph (b) of this subsection;
( b ) make provision, in relation to premises at which a guard dog is, or
more than 5 dogs aged over 4 months are, kept for—
(i) the registration of the premises by the local authority in
whose functional area the premises are situated and for the
form of the register to be established and maintained by the
local authority for that purpose;
(ii) the requirements to be complied with to enable any such
premises to be registered;
(iii) the circumstances in which registration of any such
premises may be refused or cancelled;
(iv) the construction and operation of kennels in any such
premises;
18
(v) the keeping of records by the owner or occupier of such
premises and the inspection of such records;
( c ) make provision for the regulation of the use of guard dogs at or in
the immediate vicinity of premises used wholly or mainly for the
purposes of any business, profession or occupation;
( d ) make provision for the muzzling of dogs or of specified classes of
dogs either generally or in specified circumstances;
( e ) make provision for the control of dogs or of specified classes of
dogs, including different provision for different classes of dogs;
( f ) make provision for the prohibition of the presence of specified
classes of dogs in public places or specified public places;
( g ) make provision for the prohibition of the ownership, keeping,
purchase, disposal (whether by sale or otherwise), abandonment,
allowing to stray, breeding or importation of specified classes of dogs,
being dogs that, in the opinion of the Minister, have such
characteristics as to cause them to be a danger to the public;
( h ) require the destruction or sterilisation in a humane manner of dogs
to which regulations under paragraph (g) of this subsection relate and
which are in the State;
(i) make provision for the effecting by owners of dogs or of specified
classes of dogs of contracts of insurance against injury or damage
caused by the dogs to persons or property;
( j ) make provision for the identification of dogs or of specified
classes of dogs and of their ownership by the wearing by the dogs
concerned of collars or harnesses having the name and address of their
owners inscribed thereon or on a plate, badge or disc attached thereto;
( k ) make provision for other means of identification of dogs or of
specified classes of dogs and of their ownership;
( l ) require that a dog shall carry a means of licence identification
whether by means of a disc, badge or plate attached to its collar or
harness or by other means;
( m ) make provision for the exemption from all or any of the
provisions of the regulations of an inspector (within the meaning of the
Diseases of Animals Act, 1966) or other officer of the Minister for
Agriculture and Food, or an officer of a local authority in relation to
the possession of a dog for the purposes of that Act and of a dog when
in such possession;
( n ) make provision for the exemption from all or any of the
provisions of the regulations of specified classes of persons in relation
to the possession or use of dogs or of specified classes of dogs either
generally or in specified circumstances and of dogs or of specified
classes of dogs when in such possession or being so used;
( o ) provide for the classification of persons or dogs for the purpose of
the regulations in such manner and by reference to such matters as may
be specified in the regulations.".
(2) Regulations under section 19 of the Control of Dogs Act, 1986, in force
immediately before the commencement of this section, shall continue in force after
such commencement as if made under the said section 19, as inserted by this section,
and may be amended or revoked accordingly.
19
Appendix 4
Areas outside the Terms of Reference
The discussions of the Working Group were wide ranging and included areas outside
the Group’s terms of reference. The Group recognised this and confined their
recommendations to the terms of reference. The Working Group, however, ask the
Minister to note the following proposals, which were discussed during the course of
their deliberations.
1. The introduction of universal micro-chipping for all dogs to assist Gardai and
Dog Wardens in identifying dogs.
2. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should
carry out a review of the Control of Dogs Acts and strengthen the powers of
dog wardens.
3. The Department of Agriculture and Food should carry out a review of the
Protection of Animals Acts, in relation to the welfare of dogs.
4. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should,
along with the local authorities, play a greater role in educating people in
relation to responsible dog ownership.
5. Spaying and neutering of pets should particularly be encouraged to reduce the
number of stray dogs annually put to sleep in Ireland. A discount in the price
of dog licences for spayed or neutered pets should be considered.
20