DEFRA RESEARCH CONTRACT: CR0246 June 2001 Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 A.G. Greenwood MA, VetMB, FIBiol, MRCVS P.A. Cusdin BSc.(Hons), GIBiol, VN M. Radford LLB* International Zoo Veterinary Group, Keighley Business Centre, South Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire BD21 1AG *University of Aberdeen, School of Law, Taylor Building, Old Aberdeen AB24 3UB Executive Summary The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 was intended to regulate the keeping of certain kinds of dangerous wild animals in order to protect the public. This review was commissioned to determine the effectiveness of the Act, as currently administered, in achieving its aims. A major component of this review involved a questionnaire based survey of all 410 local authorities in England and Wales. Wide consultation with individuals and organisations with an interest in the Act was also carried out. Control of the Act was transferred in February 1980 from the Home Office to the Department of the Environment (now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)). The Schedule to the Act has been modified on a number of occasions; most notably, in 1984, when the Department appeared to change its listing policy to include animals with the potential to be dangerous, without requiring their actual danger to be established. The 1984 Schedule is now considered by many respondents to be out of date; some of the animals included are not perceived to be dangerous by many animal keepers. There have been some changes to the taxonomy of listed animals, and these must be corrected in the Schedule to avoid legal dispute. The addition of hybrid mammals to the 1984 Schedule caused significant confusion and prompted a high number of enquiries to DEFRA from local authorities. We propose a re- wording of the hybrid entry, in an attempt to clarify the meaning, based on our consultation with DEFRA and local authorities, and on the deliberations of the courts. The Act is administered by local authorities, and licensing procedures and fees charged were found to vary widely between areas. This has caused widespread frustration to licensees and those applying for licences. Some local authorities have failed to apply mandatory conditions to licences, others have granted unlawful retrospective licences. Local authorities received a guidance circular from the Home Office shortly before the Act came into force, but there has been no official guidance from a government department since then. Certain provisions of the Act have been widely misunderstood and are not considered adequate by many respondents. A particular problem recognised is the issue of power of entry to a premises where an offence is suspected, but no licence has been granted or applied for. We present our legal opinion on this subject. Other shortcomings identified include the "72 hour rule", which allows the movement of dangerous wild animals for up to 72 hours without the need to inform the local authority, and the omission of a clause to make it an offence to transfer ownership of a dangerous wild animal to an unlicensed keeper. We offer recommendations to improve these deficiencies. As no central record of Dangerous Wild Animal licences has been kept, figures of the numbers and types of animals held have been obtained through various surveys. Since the last survey in 1989, the numbers of animals held has greatly increased from 851 to 11,878 animals. However, almost 89% of the animals licensed in 2000 are farmed species (ostrich, emu, wild boar, bison and guanaco). It is our opinion that many of the farmed animals should be excepted from the provisions of the Act, in line with Parliament's original intention to exclude professional animal keepers, and because subsequent legislation now provides sufficient control. The source of animals has also altered since 1976. In the 1970s, large carnivores were widely available from zoos and safari parks and this prompted the drafting of the Dangerous Wild Animals Bill. Today, the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice prevent animals being transferred to private owners except in special circumstances. Much more important in 2000 is the 2 sale of animals by private breeders and the uncontrolled importation into the UK from the European Community. Pet shop sales seem to be minimal. It is considered that the Act has been largely successful in protecting the public from extremely dangerous wild animals. However, one group of animals that have not been successfully controlled are venomous snakes. The ownership of these animals is very easy to conceal, they are easily imported from Europe and they adapt and reproduce well in captivity. Other species likely to be widely kept without a licence are those animals not considered to be dangerous by many keepers, such as procyonidae and small primates. The Act is viewed with disdain by many animal keeping organisations, and penalties awarded by magistrates for non-compliance have not been seen as an effective deterrent. We propose that the 1984 Schedule should be updated, to remove some kinds of animals that have not been shown to pose a serious danger to the public. This will improve the credibility of the Act, and should go some way to encouraging compliance. Additionally, we propose that local authorities should be provided with updated guidance on the provisions and implementation of the Act. Also included in this report is a review of the way in which the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 might be affected by the Human Rights Act 1998. We have identified a possible conflict between the two pieces of legislation concerning the powers of the local authority to retain, destroy or dispose of a seized animal, without a provision for appeal by the keeper. The possibility of incorporating circus winter quarters into the provisions of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act has been considered and rejected. 3 Contents CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................8 2. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................8 3. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ACT 1976.............8 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................................8 PROGRESS OF THE DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS BILL ..............................................................................................9 EVOLUTION OF THE ACT AND THE INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT ............................................................................10 Aim of the Bill ...........................................................................................................................................................10 Structure of the Bill..................................................................................................................................................10 Provisions of the Bill ...............................................................................................................................................11 Schedule of Dangerous Animals............................................................................................................................12 Parliamentary Questions........................................................................................................................................13 ALTERATIONS TO THE 1976 ACT .................................................................................................................................15 EVOLUTION OF THE SCHEDULE AND LISTING POLICY ..............................................................................................15 1981 MODIFICATION ORDER (SI 1981/1173)............................................................................................................16 1984 MODIFICATION ORDER (SI 1984/1111)............................................................................................................17 FURTHER MODIFICATION PROPOSALS.........................................................................................................................18 GUIDANCE PROVIDED ON THE DWAA.......................................................................................................................18 4. PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF LICENSED DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ....................................... 19 1976 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................19 1980 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................20 1983 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................20 1989 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................21 5. LICENSED DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS IN ENGLAND AND WALES, 2000........................ 21