Common Sense Councils

Stop councils from harrassing pet owners who have put up posters locally to find a lost pet.

Many councils will demand that these posters are taken down as they are vandalism.

This is absurd and the definition of vandalism should be changed, with local people being able to decide what is acceptable on their streets and what is not.

Why is this idea important?

Stop councils from harrassing pet owners who have put up posters locally to find a lost pet.

Many councils will demand that these posters are taken down as they are vandalism.

This is absurd and the definition of vandalism should be changed, with local people being able to decide what is acceptable on their streets and what is not.

Allow Pets to Travel Internationally

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Why is this idea important?

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Remove DEFRA travel route restrictions for pet dogs and cats with correct veterinary treatments

Remove DEFRA's entirely pointless restrictions on travel methods and points of entry when traveling with a EU-microchipped and correctly vaccinated/worm treated pet dog or cat into the UK. If the animal is 'safe' to enter on some official DEFRA-approved route, then there is no possible reason why it should become 'unsafe' if the same animal from the same foreign country with the same vacccinations and treatments appears at the same port of entry but on a non-DEFRA-approved flight number, or at any other port of entry by any travel method.

  
At present, accounding to the DEFRA website, 'Dogs, cats and ferrets entering the UK under PETS may only do so on certain sea, air and rail routes', an apparently arbitrary list of selected commercial flight numbers, a few ferry routes and several executive jet companies and Eurotunnel, and specifically 'You may not bring a pet into the UK from a private boat or plane'.


These travel-method restrictions are unique to UK – other Euopean countries, who are no doubt just as concerned about the possible import of rabies and other unpleasant microbes and parasites, do not have travel-route restrictions. Even, for example, Sweden, which similar to UK has extra veterinary  import requirements (e.g. de-worming) above the EU standard, allows you to import your dog or cat by any method into any port of entry.

Why is this idea important?

Remove DEFRA's entirely pointless restrictions on travel methods and points of entry when traveling with a EU-microchipped and correctly vaccinated/worm treated pet dog or cat into the UK. If the animal is 'safe' to enter on some official DEFRA-approved route, then there is no possible reason why it should become 'unsafe' if the same animal from the same foreign country with the same vacccinations and treatments appears at the same port of entry but on a non-DEFRA-approved flight number, or at any other port of entry by any travel method.

  
At present, accounding to the DEFRA website, 'Dogs, cats and ferrets entering the UK under PETS may only do so on certain sea, air and rail routes', an apparently arbitrary list of selected commercial flight numbers, a few ferry routes and several executive jet companies and Eurotunnel, and specifically 'You may not bring a pet into the UK from a private boat or plane'.


These travel-method restrictions are unique to UK – other Euopean countries, who are no doubt just as concerned about the possible import of rabies and other unpleasant microbes and parasites, do not have travel-route restrictions. Even, for example, Sweden, which similar to UK has extra veterinary  import requirements (e.g. de-worming) above the EU standard, allows you to import your dog or cat by any method into any port of entry.

Health and Safety at Vet’s practice.

Scrap the Health and Safety rule that says when you have one of your pets put down, you can not be with them in their final minutes in the same room as the vet is using a gas as part of the process.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the Health and Safety rule that says when you have one of your pets put down, you can not be with them in their final minutes in the same room as the vet is using a gas as part of the process.

TAIL DOCKING – COMPROMISE?

Tail docking is not cosmetic.  It origins go back many, many years and it was done for a purpose.     As with everything else in the U.K. it's ALL or NOTHING and the majority of people who voted for the tail docking legislation to go through obviously know little or nothing about the procedure and the reasons for doing it.

If a puppy at three or four days old feels pain when its tail is docked, I have yet to see evidence of this.   Cannot some compromise be reached whereby the dogs whose tails were traditionally docked to the root are left with a small tail of a few inches in length?   I am sure this suggestion was put forward at some stage in the lengthy negotiations – can it now be reconsidered?

wirefox

 

Why is this idea important?

Tail docking is not cosmetic.  It origins go back many, many years and it was done for a purpose.     As with everything else in the U.K. it's ALL or NOTHING and the majority of people who voted for the tail docking legislation to go through obviously know little or nothing about the procedure and the reasons for doing it.

If a puppy at three or four days old feels pain when its tail is docked, I have yet to see evidence of this.   Cannot some compromise be reached whereby the dogs whose tails were traditionally docked to the root are left with a small tail of a few inches in length?   I am sure this suggestion was put forward at some stage in the lengthy negotiations – can it now be reconsidered?

wirefox

 

repeal of ban on tail docking

having bred over thirty puppies that have been docked ,whith no problems at all,i think the ban should be lifted.

the arguments against docking were badly flawed but had the ear of bodies that did not want to listen to the voice of reason.

bodies such as the council of docked breeds,british association for shooting and conservation,and thousands of dog owners and handlers.

i love my dogs and certainly would not do anything to cause them any pain

the most idiotic part of the ban was to exclude legaly docked dogs from shows where the public had to pay an entry fee,but its ok to show them if the public dont pay.

this excludes dogs being enterd at crufts which i feel is very unfair

the argument that docked dogs cannot express themselves is also daft just look at the tail wag on a cocker spaniel

please support repeal of this unnecessary law,and leave dog wellfare to those that passionately care about dogs

Why is this idea important?

having bred over thirty puppies that have been docked ,whith no problems at all,i think the ban should be lifted.

the arguments against docking were badly flawed but had the ear of bodies that did not want to listen to the voice of reason.

bodies such as the council of docked breeds,british association for shooting and conservation,and thousands of dog owners and handlers.

i love my dogs and certainly would not do anything to cause them any pain

the most idiotic part of the ban was to exclude legaly docked dogs from shows where the public had to pay an entry fee,but its ok to show them if the public dont pay.

this excludes dogs being enterd at crufts which i feel is very unfair

the argument that docked dogs cannot express themselves is also daft just look at the tail wag on a cocker spaniel

please support repeal of this unnecessary law,and leave dog wellfare to those that passionately care about dogs

Scrap the “Cascade” legislation applied to Veterinary Medicines

Currently it is a criminal offence for veterinary surgeons to prescribe a drug which is not a POM-V (Prescription Only Medicine-Veterinary ) except in exceptional circumstances. This legislation prohibits the use of cheap, safe and effective generic products which prior to its introduction were prescribed millions of times by thousands of vets without mishap. Drug companies have cynically exploited this legislation by inexpensively obtaining licences for these same generic products via simple bureaucratic exercises and then charging premium prices for them*. Drugs which used to cost a few pence per tablet  for the generic version can now cost over one pound per tablet for the licenced product.

*For confirmation of the above please refer to the Annual Report of  Dechra Pharmaceuticals in 2006 or 2007.

Why is this idea important?

Currently it is a criminal offence for veterinary surgeons to prescribe a drug which is not a POM-V (Prescription Only Medicine-Veterinary ) except in exceptional circumstances. This legislation prohibits the use of cheap, safe and effective generic products which prior to its introduction were prescribed millions of times by thousands of vets without mishap. Drug companies have cynically exploited this legislation by inexpensively obtaining licences for these same generic products via simple bureaucratic exercises and then charging premium prices for them*. Drugs which used to cost a few pence per tablet  for the generic version can now cost over one pound per tablet for the licenced product.

*For confirmation of the above please refer to the Annual Report of  Dechra Pharmaceuticals in 2006 or 2007.