Mr. Conor Dowling:

On behalf of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, I welcome this opportunity to address the committee on the issues of canine welfare, including artificial canine insemination, canine fertility clinics, ear cropping and microchipping. I am the chief inspector with the ISPCA and have been working with the society for almost 24 years. The ISPCA operates a team of animal welfare inspectors who, since 2014, have been authorised under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. This is a privilege which we value deeply.

In that time our inspectors have responded to over 27,000 allegations of animal cruelty and removed in excess of 8,000 animals from substandard conditions or care. While the vast majority of these reports are dealt with by means of advice or instruction, ISPCA inspectors have also contributed to over 100 prosecutions for offences under the Animal Health and Welfare Act. The ISPCA also operates three animal centres located in Longford, Cork and Donegal dedicated to the rehabilitation and re-homing of animals that are admitted by our inspectors.

The Animal Health and Welfare Act is a progressive piece of legislation that revolutionised the enforcement of animal welfare standards in Ireland. However, as with most legislation, there is room for improvement. The law, and those who enforce it, must also react and adapt to trends in society and it is some of these trends we will be speaking about today.

The microchipping of dogs regulations were introduced in 2015 and represent progressive legislation. The regulations require that all dogs be microchipped and registered to their current owner with the details recorded on an approved database. When it works, microchipping and registration is extremely effective. It has been proven to be the most reliable method of reuniting lost dogs with their owners. It allows for the identification of owners of dogs that are not kept under control and it can be used to hold those responsible for cruelty and neglect to dogs accountable.

Statistics might suggest that there has been widespread compliance with the regulations with most dog owners having their dogs microchipped but the reality on the ground is not so straightforward. Registrations are all too often not kept up to date or the initial data recorded are not accurate or sufficient. While a dog may be microchipped, that may not identify its current owner. As in all areas of life, the compliant majority do the right thing but many others do not. The fact is that in the world where I spend the majority of my working life there is little compliance with the microchipping regulations. That is unlikely to change as there is currently virtually no enforcement of the law. There are neither the required mechanisms nor the people dedicated to the task.

I am aware that the committee has previously heard from other witnesses as to the level of cruelty and suffering associated with the unnecessary and barbaric practice of ear cropping. It is not just the pain that is inflicted during the procedure and its immediate aftermath. Dogs can experience lifelong pain as a result of having their ears cut off. The dogs are also impacted in other, less obvious ways, including their ability to communicate. Dogs use visual cues to communicate and express emotion, and removing part or all of their ears severely limits their ability to do so.

Section 16 of the Animal Health and Welfare Act prohibits operations and procedures that involve interference with, or the removal of, the sensitive tissue or the bone structure of an animal. Despite this, during the years that the Act has been in effect, dogs with cropped ears have become more and more prevalent, particularly the American Bully breed. It is currently an offence to perform the cropping procedure, to cause another person to carry it out or to show a dog with cropped ears. It is not an offence to import such a dog, to possess such a dog or to buy or sell such a dog.

While the ISPCA has submitted some files on this issue to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that have resulted in convictions, and there are more such cases in the system, they are very small in number compared with the amount of dogs that are being subjected to this mutilation on a weekly basis. As the law presently stands, it is very difficult to prove offences in court. The Minister has committed to a review of this aspect of the legislation. The ISPCA very much welcomes this review and has submitted proposals with options including banning the importation, sale or supply, or even possession of cropped dogs.

The issue of public awareness is important. There is no doubt that sections of the population not familiar with these breeds might not recognise that the dogs have been maimed but it would be a mistake to think that those involved in breeding, selling, showing and even buying these dogs are unaware of what has been done to the dogs and its illegality. The truth is that the appearance of the dog after they are cropped is more important than the suffering they endure to achieve the desired look.

Canine fertility clinics and artificial canine insemination is an area with which the ISPCA has had little direct involvement yet. We are aware that sperm is being bought and sold for thousands of euro. We also know that canine fertility clinics are being established, sometimes by individuals with no veterinary training or expertise. We have theories and suspicions about what procedures are being offered in such establishments but the fact is we really do not know what is going on behind their doors. From what I have heard, and from what I believe the committee has heard, we do not believe that anybody knows. That is the problem. This is a new area in Ireland and the UK with which everyone is struggling to grapple and deal. Our view is that it is an area that needs oversight and regulation. I am happy to address any questions that committee members may have.