Dr Bill Wilson, SNP MSP for the West of Scotland, this morning asked for consideration to be given to legislation to govern the operation of companies renting out dogs.  He was speaking in the course of the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s evidence-taking session on the subject of subordinate legislation relating to the Licensing of Animal Dealers (Young Cats and Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations Act  2008.  

Dr Wilson said that he was aware of a company that was renting out dogs in London that was “proposing to open an office in Glasgow”.  He asked whether the draft bill, which explicitly dealt with the sale and re-sale of dogs, might cover the renting of dogs too, or whether this was “a loophole”.

Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, answered that his understanding was that the legislation would not cover the renting of dogs.  Ian Strachan, Head of the Animal Welfare Branch in the Scottish Government, confirmed Mr Lochhead’s opinion, saying that the company in question was renting out adult dogs and that the act would have no bearing on this.  In fact, he said, “there were no regulations that covered that particular activity”.  He said that the general provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act would, however, apply to the renting of dogs, in particular with regard to the “duty of care”.

Dr Wilson responded, “In that case can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to look at legislation in regard to the renting of dogs.”

Richard Lochhead said that if that were the view of the committee they should bring it to his attention.

Explaining his concerns later, Dr Wilson said that he thought there were good grounds for considering legislation relating to the renting of dogs:  “Dogs are social animals.  They form close bonds with individuals.  What would the consequences be for a dog that was constantly shunted from pillar to post?  In contrast to the commendable approach of the Pets as Therapy organisation, where a person familiar to a dog accompanies it to visit various people, a dog’s social bonds would be constantly disrupted.  It’s hard to see how this could not be considered cruel.

“Furthermore, companies that rent out dogs would presumably do so primarily for profit.  What would happen to elderly dogs, or those that required possibly expensive veterinary treatment?”

Dr Wilson concluded by saying, “The time to consider these issues is now, before renting dogs becomes commonplace.  To abuse a metaphor, let’s not be in the position of trying to close the kennel door after the rent-a-dog phenomenon has bolted!”

His comments were echoed by the Kennel Club.  Caroline Kisko, the Kennel Club Secretary, said:

“The concept of renting out dogs as a ‘timeshare’ equivalent is detrimental to the dog, leading to all kinds of confusion for the animal. It also raises many questions about the kind of person who is making money at the dog’s expense, what happens when the dog gets older and no one wants it, and what happens in the situation where people who are renting the dog don’t want to give it back?

“It is also of concern that different people will have different ideas about house rules, leading to even further confusion for the dog when it is not given any consistency with which rules to follow. There are already plenty of opportunities in the UK for people who don’t feel they have enough time to own a dog to be able to take part in dog related activities. These include volunteering to walk dogs from a local rescue centre, or helping dog related charities which run schemes to send their dogs ‘out’ for the weekend to socialise while they are in training, such as Hearing Dogs for Deaf People.  These dogs need our support first - and there’s no charge to people for the privilege!”

Date:

Last updated on:

Categories:

KC Dog and Dog Law 

This article has been read 1854 times.