|
BA
tries to justify breed ban
BRITISH
AIRWAYS has attempted to justify the ban on three bracycephalic
(flat faced) breeds of dog from all flights that carry pets
under the Pets Passport Scheme. The ban was placed on Bulldogs,
Pekingese and Pugs just before Christmas 2002, although no formal
statement was made as to this change of policy.
As reported previously, OUR DOGS learned of the breed ban via
a Pekingese breeder who wished to fly some dogs to the UK under
the PETS scheme. The breeder was informed that BA would no longer
carry flat-faced breeds due to "health difficulties"
that these breeds faced whilst flying.
British Airways Press Officer Richard Goodfellow confirmed that
such a breed-specific ban had been initiated just before Christmas
and told OUR DOGS: "British Airways have taken veterinary
advice concerning three breeds of flat faced dog – Bulldogs,
Pugs and Pekinese and have decided that we will no longer carry
these breeds on BA flights, due to the respiratory problems
these breeds can face. These problems can be exacerbated by
stress and air travel can be stressful to dog, hence our decision."
When asked whether any kind of consultation had taken place
with either the Kennel Club or any of the Breed Clubs, Mr Goodfellow
added: "We work closely with vets and take their advice.
As the carriers operating under the pet passport Scheme, we
can decide which breeds of dog we carry on our flights, so,
to my knowledge, no further consultation took place other than
via our vets."
OUR DOGS compiled a list of questions for British Airways in
an attempt to get to the bottom of the ban and submitted these
to the company last week. BA’s responses are given verbatim
in bold type:
Q: The ban on Boxers, Pekingese and Pugs appears to have been
taken quickly and quite arbitrarily, with no prior warning.
Was there an incident or incidents relating to any dogs of these
breeds suffering stress/breathing difficulties whilst being
carried as cargo by BA that prompted this ban? If not, why were
these breeds singled out?
A: This ban was not taken lightly and was as a result of growing
concerns
regarding the welfare of these particular breeds of flat faced
dogs when
being carried in an aircraft. These types of dogs are prone
to breathing
difficulties and this condition can sometimes be exaggerated
by the stress
of air travel.
Q: You state that BA sought veterinary advice. How many vets
were consulted? Was this advice "in-house" or taken
from an outside source? Please identify the vet(s) concerned
in order that we may contact them direct.
A: We carry a large amount of animals around the world and believe
we
have a very good experience of knowing how best to care for
each individual animal during the whole air travel process.
We have an excellent working relationship with the Animal Reception
Centre at Heathrow, which is run by the Port of London Authority
and is a world leading centre when looking at the impact of
air travel on all types of
animals. We speak to them on a very regular basis and their
veterinary
staff are aware of the decision.
Q: All animals travelling under the PETS Scheme need to have
a veterinary certificate of health to be fit to travel. Does
the BA Breed Ban therefore override this official documentation
on the health of the individual animal?
A: Yes this ban does over-rule the normal vets' certificate
relating to
fitness to travel as we have real concerns about the welfare
of flat faced
dogs when travelling by air.
Q: You stated that BA did not seek advice from any dog bred
club relating to the breeds involved, or the Kennel Club. Do
you not consider that it would have been prudent to obtain the
advice and input of experts in these breeds rather than just
seeking veterinary advice?
A: We believe that we have taken the correct decision in relation
to the
these breeds' welfare whilst in an aircraft and consulted with
experts in
this particular specialist field of veterinary care.
Q: Why was notice of the ban on these breeds not communicated
to the Kennel Club or to the specialist dog press, as you must
be aware that breeders and exhibitors of these breeds would
be wanting to transport same and making plans accordingly.
A: This decision was communicated to our regular customers who
use our
dog transportation services and has been communicated to other
owners who have contacted us in recent weeks about our cargo
services.
Q: Has the ban been agreed with or notified to DEFRA?
A: We believe that DEFRA is aware of the decision but the ban
didn't need
to be agreed by a government department.
Q: Have other airlines that carry dogs under the Pet Passport
Scheme implemented similar breed bans?
A: Yes, we believe that a number of other airlines have their
own rules
regarding the carriage of flat faced dogs. Overall BA has less
restrictive
codes of carriage relating to animals than other airlines.
Q: Whilst it is true that BA, as the carrier, is entitled to
specify rules relating to the carriage of animals, are you aware
that such a ban 'across the board' could be subject to legal
challenge, including challenges under Human Rights legislation,
as well as under EU law, by obstructing the free passage of
goods (animals being classed as goods) across the EU? Would
BA be prepared to defend such action in the courts?
A: We believe that our decision is in the best interests of
animal
welfare. As the carrier, we reserve the right to amend our terms
of
carriage as we see fit, and in this case we believe that our
decision is
justified.
Q: Does BA have any intention of implementing similar bans on
other breeds of dog, or flat-faced breeds of cat?
A: We constantly review our policies in this area of our cargo
operation
and we reserve the right to amend our terms of carriage in light
of any
animal welfare issues that may arise in the future.
Feeling that BA had not fully answered the question relating
to the source of their veterinary consultation, OUR DOGS then
contacted the Corporation of London to enquire whether any members
of staff at Heathrow’s Animal Reception Centre had been
consulted or involved in the decision making process. Rory Taylor
of the Corporation’s Press Office emphatically stated that
no staff at the ARC nor within the Corporation were consulted,
and the first that they knew of the breed ban was when BA informed
them if its implementation.
OUR DOGS contacted Mr Goodfellow at BA’s press office again,
pointing out Mr Taylor’s remarks and asked a further question.
BA’s response again appears in italic type:
Q: Was the ban prompted by an incident involving any of the
breeds banned suffering during any flight, or has this ban been
enacted "just in case"? Obviously, if there are no
clear grounds for such a ban and these breeds have been unfairly
targeted because they "might" suffer from stress or
breathing difficulties, then the ban is both unfair and legally
questionable.
A: British Airways World Cargo is more than happy with its consultation
processes when coming to this decision which was based on the
ground of
animal welfare and as a result of its expertise in recognising
the
different affects which air travel has on a wide range of animals.
We wish to make clear that animal welfare was paramount behind
this
decision and believe that the ban is fully justified.
OUR DOGS contacted Rod Eddington, Chief Executive Officer of
BA. Mr Eddington replied via his PA Theresa Sabin as follows:
“As previously advised by Mr Goodfellow, who I see from
recent
correspondence has replied to your questions raised, I can only
reiterate
what he has advised you on the subject of our transporting these
particular breeds of dogs. May I request if you have any further
issues to raise, you
liaise direct with Mr Goodfellow.”
Earlier this week we received confirmation that a Bulldog had
died en route to Australia aboard a BA flight in early October
2002. The dog, a pet owned by a family in the north of England
who do not wish to be identified was sent as cargo on a BA flight
to Sydney. The dog was secured in an approved airline travelling
crate and sealed in the plane’s hold. The crate was removed
form the hold during the plan’s stopover in Singapore,
at which point the dog was seen to be alive and well, but in
a state of some excitement.
The crate was then placed in he hold again for the remainder
of the onward flight to Sydney. However, upon arrival the dog
was found to have died. It is believed that the dog, already
not used to such long distance travel had become excited upon
arrival at Singapore, thinking that it had reached its destination
and was due to be removed form the crate. After being placed
back in the hold, the dog, already in a highly excited state
may have become further stressed and succumbed to some kind
of seizure, most probably a heart attack.
The dog’s owners were, naturally, distraught at their pet’s
death, but refused a post mortem, opting instead to have their
dog cremated and its ashes buried at their home in the Sydney
suburbs. No blame was attached to BA for negligence and the
family have declined to launch any action against the airline
in this regard.
On Tuesday of this week, OUR DOGS conveyed this information
to BA and received the following response via Richard Goodfellow:
‘I have looked at your inquiry this morning and I have
found out that there
was unfortunately a death of a pet bulldog on a BA flight to
Sydney in
October 2002.
‘We have investigated our processes and procedures surrounding
this flight
and are satisfied that things were carried out in the correct
manner.
The owner refused to allow a post mortem examination and therefore
the
dog's death was put down to natural causes.
‘In the terms and conditions of our cargo carriage BA is
not responsible for
the death of animals due to natural causes.
‘As stated many times to you before the welfare of all
flat faced dogs is of
paramount concern to us regardless as to who owns them and that
is why we
introduced the ban.
‘Contrary to your view the ban was not introduced as a
result of this
particular case in October 2002 and was actually being discussed
and
reviewed before this regrettable incident in Sydney occurred.’
BA’s stated concern for the welfare of flat faced breeds,
whilst laudable, is perhaps somewhat misplaced, especially as
it affects dog owners, breeders and exhibitors of all three
listed breeds in this country and in many other countries abroad.
BA is the only authorised airline carrier under the PETS scheme
that flies long haul to Australia and the USA, as well as many
European countries, therefore denying owners the chance to take
advantage of the scheme. American exhibitors of Bulldogs, Pekinese
and Pugs that have qualified their dogs for Crufts 2003 will
now not be able to fly their dogs to the UK.
BA’s decision not to consult with the Kennel Club or any
breed clubs on this issue has led to yet another situation where
a form of Breed Specific legislation has been enacted on the
basis of one incident involving one dog, or, as BA themselves
have stated – because of "welfare concerns" that
an unidentified individual – allegedly a vet – has
expressed about bracycephalic breeds.
Top Pekingese breeder Liz Stannard who exhibits under the Shiarita
affix robustly condemned the breed ban, saying: "Well,
I’m very annoyed because it will inconvenience me. I can
understand if BA are reluctant to transport flat faced dogs
on the long haul Australian route, but this means that I now
can’t import dogs under the PETS scheme form Europe. How
is anyone going to get show dogs in now? What about the dogs
in the USA that have qualified for Crufts? BA is the only airline
approved by DEFRA to fly dogs under the scheme.
"BA has applied a blanket ban and have not sought the advice
of anyone concerned with dogs, certainly not the Kennel Club
and this is just not on for a big organisation to act in this
way.
"I have bought a property in Spain and want to take my
dogs there with me for a few months each year and then ring
them back to Spain. Obviously, the pet passport scheme is ideal
for this, but because of BA’s ban on Pekingese now, I can’t
do so. I am looking into the legality of their ban, as I feel
certain that it contravenes EU law on the free passage of goods
across Europe, as dogs are classed as goods. They are denying
me a choice for no apparent reason."
Phil Buckley of the Kennel Club commented: "The Kennel
Club learnt of this issue from concerned enquirers and also
the editor of OUR DOGS a few weeks ago and we have been monitoring
developments with interest ever since until the full facts were
made available by yourselves. This issue was also raised on
Monday at the Dog Legislation Advisory Group meeting and as
a next step the Kennel Club intends to write to British Airways
to seek the rationale for their decision as, like OUR DOGS,
we would be very interested to know exactly which veterinary
advisers had input into BA's decision and we are also aware
that there are numerous dog owners who will find this new initiative
restrictive to say the least."
OUR DOGS will continue to monitor the effects of the BA breed
ban on flat faced breeds and would welcome any comments from
owners of the affected breeds.
Please direct your comments to Nick Mays, Chief Reporter at
our usual editorial address… or via email to: ChiefReporter@aol.com
|
