What is wrong (or right) with the "European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals"?

Question

http://www.animallaw.info/treaties/itceceets125.htm

I've noticed that some people are opposed to the UK signing up to this. Why?

Whilst I recognise that docking is a controversial issue, it's already controlled in a very similar way by the Animal Welfare Act:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/docking.htm

Would there be any adverse effects on animal welfare if the UK signed this? If so, what are they?

(Please point out where in the treaty the problems are caused).

Answer 1

There is no reason for the UK to sign on to this set of rules.  The UK already has a better set of rules than this.  Docking is one example.  The UK's exemptions to the ban on docking will do more to protect hunting dogs from injury than a total ban.  Not only that but the UK is its own country.  It does not need the rest of europe to tell people how to raise animals.

Answer 2

There is nothing wrong with the european convention, the only fault I'd suggest is it doesn't go far enough to protect the health of our dogs. Unfortunately the ECPPA only bans inbreeding but not linebreeding, that's why we still see dogs like Zamp the GSD that won Best of Breed in crufts.

Unfortunately I can't see the UK agreeing to join up, not only do we have breeders that don't want to be told how to make improvements but sadly the emphasises here is more on health testing rather than science, believing/pretending we can improve the health of our dogs through health testing alone - we have got it so wrong.

Answer 3

This has been around for 20 yrs and the significant parts of it have already been addressed by the Kennel Club in their updating of breed standards.

EG, my own and a number of other numerically small breeds are mentioned by name as being (basically) too lacking in hind angulation. This is simply not true - it was 50 yrs ago but not nowadays and in some countries the breed is in danger of becoming so overangulated as to appear to be mini GSDs (there's a thought ... Teacup German Shepherds ... )

The convention would outlaw breeding any dog carrying the merle gene - not only would this further restrict the gene pool in many small breeds like the Cardi Corgi but is totally unnecessary if breeding is done responsibly.

To take one signatory - Sweden.

Here is a Bulldog from Sweden:

http://www.laybacks.just.nu/

Here's a british one

http://www.mystylebulldogs.com/

See much difference?

Here's a Swedish Pekingese:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl...

And a UK one:

http://www.btinternet.com/~ventura.pekin...

Two breeds mentioned both in THAT programme & in the European Convention.

Not much difference is there?

So what would be the point of signing up to this outdated convention, which covers far more than dogs of course.

By the way, here are 3 breeds which the ECPPA consider are suffering because of their conformation:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl...

http://staticblog.hi-pi.com/gisblogMnt-s...

http://www.agraria.org/cani/norskbuhund....

Sorry, I can't see any benefit of signing up for a meaningless convention when the UK has already taken steps (mostly in the recent Animal Welfare Act) to cover all these points.

Sheesh, Terrier, that took some finding again!

http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/leg...

It's in the appendix.

Haven't seen anything about in breeding in it though - can't follow Jupe's reasoning about Zamp either!

Answer 4

I concur with Winterrules. Trust me, joining anything that is EEC controlled will evolve into zero tolerance of a kind and no country is more compassionate and loving towards their animals than the UK.

Granted, we still have many things to improve and learn, but the DEFRA Duty of Care Act 6th July 2007, is a major step forward.

The only advantage in Western Europe is a further advanced know how and usage of the holistic care package.