• Forum/Server Upgrade If you are reading this you have made it to the upgraded forum. Posts made on the old forum after 26th October 2023 have not been transfered. Everything else should be here. If you find any issues please let us know.

Legality to provide veterinary care and other items from the 'Five Freedoms'

GrahamL

Wise Old Thumper
I've been investigating this recently, and it's actually quite difficult to find a 'blunt' answer.

We know Rabbits (and not just rabbits, all vertebrates) have the right of the 'Five Freedoms';

(a)its need for a suitable environment,.
(b)its need for a suitable diet,.
(c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,.
(d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and.
(e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease..

(Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/9)

But how many people who aren't members of a forum, or are involved in animal welfare know this?

I've been really struggling with finding the 'legal' side of it. We all say "its the law / a legal requirement to take a suffering rabbit to a vet".

BUT

How do your regular 'Joe Bloggs' type people know that? It's not publicised in the public eye. It's not pushed home when you 'buy a pet' (dont turn this into a rescue/breeder conversation), so HOW would people know?

I'm more interested in people passing me information on this subject - eg, if you know of somewhere that you have seen/can see that puts forward the legality of the situation and any consequences, on legal grounds, of not offering the veterinary attention side of things perhaps, please could you post it on this thread?
 
I give out info about the AWA and 5 Freedoms in every info pack. I also have a display on it too, for open days.
 
We have laws here about animal welfare (taking sick animals to the vet, providing shelter, water, food etc) but they aren't called the 5 freedoms.

I think theres a lot of laws, especially animal laws, that aren't really publicized or (thankfully in some cases) enforced. Therefore people go around the law, whether they are aware of that or not. And in some cases its good because some laws are stupid.
 
No I didn't.

But any decent animal owner and lover would provide that. Well I hope they would.

I wonder if this has ever been used in a court of law. I wonder if it was, would those that commit animal abuse, back street breeders etc would get a tougher sentence.
 
It's an interesting one, and I don't have an answer to the question you asked, but I got my first rabbit (As an adult) 3 years ago, and the first time I had ever come across this concept was through this forum this week by reading some other threads where the issue came up.

I would never neglect to give any animal in my care the appropriate access to treatment whether or not I knew about the legalities, but it is interesting that in the years I have had pets I never knew about this at all. I am quite informed, and I've done a lot of research into my pets over the years, but NEVER once come across this before. Am I looking in the wrong places, or is it badly publicised?

ETA just seen your post Sky-O, so it seems the information is available :oops:.
 
Last edited:
I had never heard of it until mentioned on here.

But I personally think all 5 are common sense so it doesn't make a difference to me.
 
I think this is the point, the five freedoms are not law, the RSPCA is not a government funded, government regulated organisation they are a charity.

They have no legal powers where rabbits are concerned and in most cases they are reliant on the public to be their eyes and ears - aswell as vets etc - they can advise, they can inspect (with consent) or they can apply for police assistance, they cannot do this on a regular basis or they will be 'frowned' upon as police funding is also limited and time precious.

You need to remember this is an area that is very much work in progress in this country - the RSPCA are doing their very best to raise the profile with other organisations about all animals but they are limited by resources and the fact they are not 'officials' with legal powers of entry etc - you need to keep perspective when you consider for example the horrors they see, they have to prioritise - people still eat rabbits Graham, people are stacking them up in breeding hutches in sheds up and down the country and necking them - anyone coming on this forum for advice regarding a pet is likely to be maybe a bit misguided, misinformed but not cruel, not wilfully neglecting or being cruel believe me.:wave:

Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfareE+WThis section has no associated Explanatory Notes
(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include—
(a)its need for a suitable environment,
(b)its need for a suitable diet,
(c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,
(d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
(e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular—
(a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and
(b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.

^^^^ This being the 'legislation' your referring to - it's so ambiguous and open to misinterpretation that in any court unless it's direct abuse, cruelty, neglect it's 'guidance' which thankfully most pet owners do as a matter of course anyway which is why they wanted their pet in the first place. The RSPCA have to concentrate on the awful scenarios' that exist and sadly as I've said there is little to no protection from 'humane destruction' anyway - there was a case where a farmer was taken to court to be prosecuted for despatching his cat with a shovel - he was not prosecuted because it was deemed by a vet acceptable as it was 'humane' and the animal did not suffer - 'suffering' is subjective - everyone has different levels of what they feel is 'suffering'.
 
Last edited:
To me I think the last point in the 5 freedoms is clear enough, and it's directly from the legislation. It has to be open enough to cover all sorts of situations, not just 'you must take a sick animal to the vet'.

I do agree that not many people are aware, but I'd have thought it obvious in terms of general animal cruelty anyway. :?
 
The AWA 2006 brought in a 'duty of care' clause, which covers things like a suitable living environment, suitable diet, ability to display normal behaviours, and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

So, in effect...animals aren't only protected from deliberate acts of cruelty by the law, they also must have their welfare needs met, i.e. vet treatment if suffering from a disease.

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/act/index.htm

Unfortunately the law is very vague on what constitutes proper care, so legal action against somebody providing inadequate housing or lack of vet treatment is unlikely to be successful at this moment in time :(
 
The AWA 2006 brought in a 'duty of care' clause, which covers things like a suitable living environment, suitable diet, ability to display normal behaviours, and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

So, in effect...animals aren't only protected from deliberate acts of cruelty by the law, they also must have their welfare needs met, i.e. vet treatment if suffering from a disease.

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/act/index.htm

Unfortunately the law is very vague on what constitutes proper care, so legal action against somebody providing inadequate housing or lack of vet treatment is unlikely to be successful at this moment in time :(

:thumb: Yep very sad but unless the RSPCA are given more powers and funding it's not likely to change, I think the public should be taxed an extra two pence which would be a start and get some concrete legislation in place for breeding at the very least.
 
I'd never heard of the 5 freedoms before until the thread about Riley, and I comply with them anyway but you are right, they are not publicised at all, i think alot of people would be shocked to know they are legal requirements!
 
I didn't know about any of this before RU to be honest, although it is common sense (to an animal lover) and I wouldn't want them to receive any less. But to those who go in to pet stores to purchase 2 bunnies for their kids and a 3ft hutch with a giant bag of museli, this is sense as this is what they are being told is good in the pet shop, they may not have experience of animals or particularly like them... how are they to know any different? I think it should be down to the pet shop (or breeder, or rescue) to give them this information, as I am sure a lot of people would be shocked to find that they don't always fulfill these.
 
I believe that tackling the source of the problem is the only way of improving the situation for animals long term and on a permanent basis. This can only be done (IMO) through education and legislation and the two have to work together.

For those who want to do the right thing, more information & guidance has to be given (i.e. people able to "sell" animals need educating so that they can pass on the advice to the animals owner). In my experience, many people are just ignorant and once given good advice most are happy to make some if not all of the improvements or changes suggested. I believe that at least 50% of the phone calls made to Honeybunnies are from people wanting advice. We are VERY happy to help of course but if they had been given this in the first place a lot of the problems they are facing could have been avoided and in some cases, rabbits lives saved :(

There will always be those who are not interested in doing the right thing or who don't listen to advice on good husbandry and this is where the law needs to be enforced.
 
I have to say the 5 freedoms and a bit about animal legislation and owner responsibility were the first things to go up on my hammy website. I think every animal and reptile owner should be made completely aware of their position as owner and carer of animals.

Gray, where does it say rabbits are included, just I was looking into this a lot http://forums.rabbitrehome.org.uk/showthread.php?t=223183&highlight=legislation last yearand as rabbits are considered exotics, I got that they weren't specifically subject to legisations. However, I don't make mention to this on the website, as I feel all living breathing animals in human care should be subject to it, not just the ones the law wants to name specifically.

Rabbits ( and chickens, as that is something I looked in to too) seem to be a huge grey area in legistaion and recommendations, as they can be considered livestock and therefore 'could ' be kept in conditions akin to that, which 'could' lead to further problems in prosecution of people who abuse animals, away from direct abuse and lack of basics, clean bedding, food and water, vet care.

I do think that for animals that can be kept as livestock and pets there should be clear, specific guidelines made into legislation.

This posted by Tamsin on my original thread is good http://wales.gov.uk/docs/drah/publications/091109rabbitsumen.pdf

I do like the
It is your responsibility to read the complete Code of Practice
to fully understand your rabbit’s welfare needs and what the
law requires you to do.
 
Back
Top