Lively debate at the Animal Welfare Foundation annual Discussion Forum

Centre Director, Cathy Dwyer, has recently participated in the British Veterinary Association’s Animal Welfare Foundation (AWF) Discussion Forum, held in the beautiful surroundings of One Great George Street, London. Cathy presented the research the Centre has done for AWF to derive a prioritisation of welfare issues for farm and companion animals in the research section. One of the main purposes of AWF, as well as to fund research, is to stimulate discussion and debate around veterinary involvement in animal welfare, and this was very evident in the lively discussions that took place in the packed hall. The discussions opened with consideration of where the distinction might lie between clinical excellence and over treatment. As animals cannot give consent there is a risk that treatment may not be in animals’ best interest but to satisfy client expectations or clinicians desire to do some ‘cool surgery’ suggested Dr Polly Taylor, in urging the profession to consider implementing an ethical review process for new surgical techniques. We also heard from human medicine how these processes are managed with human consent.

The day then moved onto the debate section with a motion that farm animals in the UK have the highest standards of animal welfare (assumed compared to the rest of the world). The floor marginally rejected this (51% against) but following arguments for the motion made by Prof David Main of Royal Agricultural University this changed to a small majority in favour. Prof Jim Reynolds of Western University, USA also provided some counter arguments and there was considerable agreement that standards and systems are not sufficient to improve animal welfare – the people in charge of animal care are the most important factor in improving animal welfare. Jim concluded that ‘animal welfare is the best medicine’ which received general assent.

The second debate of the day considered the contentious issue of whether we can provide good welfare for exotic animals in captivity – covering both exotic animals as pets and in captivity in zoos. Here the floor more readily rejected the motion before the debate with a healthy 3:1 against the motion. Dr Romain Pizzi provided thought-provoking and thoughtful arguments why good animal welfare could be achieved in captivity, even though it often is not, whereas Dr Chris Draper of Born Free Foundation provided startling statistics for the numbers of exotic animals currently in captivity. Speakers for the motion managed to persuade some of the audience that good welfare could be provided in captivity, as the motion was still defeated after the debate but by a smaller margin.

The day concluded with a reception at the House of Commons.