The UK's long history of animal protection and animal harm

Soon after arriving in Birmingham, England's second largest city, I headed out for lunch. The closest eating area was the local shopping centre called 'The Bull Ring'.

Arriving at the Bull Ring, and seeing the magnificent statue of an angry bull, I was immediately reminded of the UK's long history of animal harm and animal protection.

The world's first modern animal protection statute, 'Martin's Act' was an act of the UK Parliament. Martin's Act became law in 1822, following many attempts to create legal protection for urban animals, particularly beasts of burden and animals used in sports and entertainment. Two years later, in 1824, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded. It would later become the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSCPA).

More radical aspects of the contemporary animal protection movement also have their origins in the UK, most notably the Oxford Group which meet in the 1960s and 70s. That group gave us terms such as 'speciesism' and was also where Peter Singer began thinking about the issues he would later articulate in his book Animals Liberation (1975). 

But while the UK has a proud history of animal protection, it also has a dark past.

The Bull Ring is most likely where bull baiting was conducted in Birmingham in the 17th and 18th centuries. 

Here is a definition of bull baiting by Mike Radford who wrote a history of animal welfare laws in the UK:

Bull-baiting involved tying a bull to a stake and setting one or more dogs upon it, the object being for the dogs to get hold of, and hang on to, the bull’s nose. Other animals used for baiting included bears and badgers. Bull-running was a variation on this, during which a bull was chased through the town until it became exhausted, whereupon dogs were set upon it (Radford 2001:18).

Here is a description of the practice, that appeared in the magazine 'Rural Sports', probably in the late 18th century:

The animal is fastened to a stake driven into the ground for the purpose, and about seven or eight yards of rope left loose, so as to allow him sufficient liberty for the fight. In this situation a bulldog is slipped at him, and endeavours to seize him by the nose; if the bull be well practised at the business, he will receive the dog on the horns, throw him off, and sometimes kill him; but, on the contrary, if the bull is not very dexterous, the dog will not only seize him by the nose, but will cling to his hold till the bull stands still; and this is termed pinning the bull. What are called good game bulls are very difficult to be pinned, being constantly on their guard, and placing their noses closer to the ground, they receive their antagonist on their horne; and it is astonishing to what distance they will sometimes throw him (cited in Fairholm and Pain 1924:75-76). 

I wonder how many people who shop at the modern day Bull Ring are aware of the shopping centre’s dark past. I also wonder how many spare a thought for all the bulls that must have suffered over many hundreds of years, right in the centre of Birmingham. 

Should the RSPCA be involved in farm animal welfare?

An important political decision will be made in South Australia (SA) in the newt few weeks: should the RSPCA have power in relation to farm animal welfare?


Family First MLC the Hon Robert Brokenshire thinks not. He would like to see the RSPCA's power in relation to horses and livestock transferred to the SA  Department of Primary Industries and Resources (PIRSA).


The RSPCA does not want to relinquish its power and argues that locating farm animal welfare within the Department of Primary Industries represents a conflict of interests. The RSPCA argues that: 

The Department’s primary responsibility is to protect, promote and expand the profitability of the livestock industry.

The RSPCA has no difficulty with these aims but there must be a clear separation of powers so that no organisation is asked to both promote and police the same industry.

The RSPCA is asking members of the community to lobby the SA parliament on its behalf. 

The most appropriate location for animal welfare powers has been an important issue among animal protection theorists, especially lawyers, and animal advocates. 

The RSPCA has no power in relation to animals used in research and education. However, if the South Australian branch of the RSPCA loses its power in relation to farm animals, I think it will be an Australian first. 

There have been calls by animal activists, especially some years ago, to take investigation and enforcement powers away from the RSPCA (which is a private charity) and  hand them to the state. However, advocates of that position do not typically ask that animal welfare powers be transferred to Departments of Primary Industries. Indeed, I would assume that most animal advocates would consider that a conflict of interest. 

I know very little about political realities in South Australia. I have no idea why Family First is pursuing this agenda. However, I will be watching very closely to see whether SA is about to establish a highly significant precedent.