Licensing of activities involving animals: consultation

Part 5 Licensing canine fertility businesses

Background

In Scotland currently, there is no overarching regulatory framework covering the operation of canine fertility businesses. Additionally, no recognised qualifications are required to undertake certain non-invasive fertility treatments. In effect, this means that anyone can open a canine fertility business and offer a range of services without any training, qualifications or regulatory oversight.

Canine fertility businesses vary in terms of their scale and complexity. They can be mobile, home-based, or operate from fixed business premises. What they have in common however is the assisted breeding procedures and services offered, which may include:

• artificial insemination,
• ovulation testing (progesterone blood testing and/or vaginal cytology),
• ultrasound pregnancy scanning,
• semen collection, analysis, storage and/or shipping.

Some businesses offer additional services, such as whelping support, puppy rearing, microchipping, DNA testing, vaccinations, amongst others.

The canine fertility sector is relatively new and has grown rapidly since 2020 when a Veterinary Record investigation reported that there were in the region of 37 such businesses. Today, there are around 339 canine fertility businesses across much of the United Kingdom.^[1] While the majority are in England, they are spread across the UK, with the Scottish SPCA reporting a steady growth in such businesses in Scotland in recent years.

Some canine fertility businesses are operated by veterinary surgeons or employ registered veterinary surgeons and registered veterinary nurses. However, many do not have any veterinary involvement. There is evidence to show that some unscrupulous businesses that do recruit the services of veterinary surgeons employ vets that are not normally resident in the UK but their association is used to describe the business as a 'veterinary clinic' offering 'veterinary services'.

The surge in pandemic puppy buying and lack of clear, regulatory oversight appears to have driven the growth in canine fertility businesses. Increased enforcement action around puppy imports has also likely contributed. Whilst it is recognised that some businesses operate ethically and responsibly and within the law to provide a specialist service, much of the sector gives cause for concern. This, along with the fact that many of these businesses focus their services on particularly sought after breeds, is believed to have led to the growing involvement of organised crime groups who have links to the unlicensed breeding and sale of high-value breeds of dogs.

Below we present some of the key issues and concerns with canine fertility businesses and why we believe there is an urgent need for the sector to be regulated through statutory licensing.

Unethical breeding

The canine fertility sector has a strong association with facilitating the breeding of breeds and types of dogs that typically suffer from poor health and welfare, particularly brachycephalic breeds, i.e. breeds with a compressed skull formation that results in a flat-faced appearance. A key concern of the Scottish Government and animal welfare organisations is that a large portion of the sector exists to help people breed from dogs that would naturally struggle to mate or whelp due to their anatomy, physiology and/or pre-existing health conditions, which raises significant welfare concerns. This unethical approach to breeding continues to be driven by the desire of many buyers to own specific breeds with extreme physical conformations, without any understanding of the impact on the dog's welfare and quality of life.

In addition, there is evidence to show that some operators are using assisted breeding procedures to not only overcome dogs' inability to reproduce, but to help clients produce increasingly extreme 'versions' of dog breeds. In doing so they drive demand among uninformed prospective buyers who have no understanding of the welfare impacts. Recent extreme trends include 'fluffy' French bulldogs (Frenchies), 'fluffy' pugs, 'big rope' Frenchies, 'big rope' English bulldogs, 'pocket' bullies, and 'micro' bullies, amongst others. In these cases, breeding procedures are being used irresponsibly to facilitate the most extreme examples of selective breeding for aesthetics. The Scottish Government considers such practices unethical and unacceptable. Further, new licensing laws applicable to dog breeders introduced in 2021 prohibit the keeping of a dog for breeding by licence holders if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype, conformation, behaviour or state of health, that breeding from it could have a detrimental effect on its health or welfare or the health or welfare of its offspring.

Dogs with conformation and physical features that are highly exaggerated suffer significant health and welfare challenges, often throughout their lives. Perhaps most concerning of all is that some of these dogs are being kept or sold on as future breeding animals, which compounds the issues and raises concerns about how far some people are prepared to go for financial gain, to the detriment of animal welfare.

Lack of veterinary involvement

A number of services being offered by canine fertility businesses are considered acts of veterinary surgery. Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, only a registered veterinary surgeon may practice veterinary surgery. There are some exceptions to this to enable other trained/qualified professionals to perform certain acts.

Taking a blood sample, making a diagnosis, and performing artificial insemination on a dog are considered acts of veterinary surgery by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). Registered veterinary nurses may in certain circumstances draw blood from an animal, but only under the direction of a registered vet.

The taking of intravenous blood samples is considered an act of veterinary surgery for good reason. Incorrect technique and procedure when taking blood samples can have serious consequences for the animal concerned, including introducing infection, which can in turn lead to sepsis (blood poisoning), thrombosis at the site of sampling, which in some situations can later dislodge and lead to stroke or cardiac arrest or necrosis of tissue; permanent obstruction of the vein making future sampling or intravenous injection at that site impossible; or unnecessary pain and distress caused by poor technique. It should be noted that any layperson taking blood samples is failing to ensure the welfare of the dog from which blood is drawn, as those taking the samples are untrained and unqualified to do so. This may constitute an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

Evidence shows that there is a growing number of canine fertility businesses offering services that are in fact being done illegally as they are not being performed by a veterinary surgeon. These services include taking frequently repeated blood samples and testing (to determine when a bitch is most fertile) and cherry eye treatment (cherry eye is essentially a prolapsed gland in a dog's third eyelid and which often requires surgery to fix it). There is evidence to suggest that some canine fertility businessess are employing vets who may not be resident in the UK in order to offer certain procedures, but these procedures are in fact being undertaken by laypersons, not the vet.

Canine fertility businesses and personnel that are not registered with the RCVS are not accountable to a particular regulator as the RCVS only oversees the activities and conduct of registered veterinary surgeons. This said, these businesses and their staff are subject to some existing laws pertaining to the protection of animal welfare, the prescribing and use of medicines, dog breeding and sales and consumer protection. The current framework of enforcement however is complex and administered by multiple bodies.

Illegal or irresponsible use of medicines

There is evidence that some canine fertility businesses are involved in the illegal supply and use of categories of veterinary and unlicensed medicines. Of particular concern is the use of prescription-only medicines-veterinary (POM-V), such as oxytocin, to interfere with or accelerate canine reproduction, and the misuse of antibiotics. Veterinary medicines classified as POM-V are heavily controlled and may only be prescribed by a registered veterinary surgeon. Misuse poses serious risks to animal and human health and raises worrying questions about where unqualified persons are getting their illegal supplies.

Previous enforcement action taken by the Scottish SPCA related to canine fertility businesses has uncovered evidence of the use of medicinal products that are either illegal for use in dogs or that were being administered illegally. Medicinal products found included PG600 — a hormone fertility treatment authorised for use in pigs, and which is suspected of being administered to breeding dogs to maximise litter production. Often these products are found with foreign labelling. Other veterinary products that have been found include Receptal, a product authorised for use in the UK as a fertility treatment for cattle, rabbits and fish. PG600 and Receptal are not authorised for use in dogs, so their safety and side-effects are unknown.

It is particularly concerning that these veterinary products are likely being administered to some of the high-value breeds of dog that naturally struggle to conceive and give birth, and which more often than not require a caesarean section. Such use of veterinary products is unethical and demonstrates complete disregard for animal welfare.

It should be noted that the existing statutory licensing framework for dog breeding activities prohibits the mating of, or administration of any breeding procedure to, any bitch if she has had two litters previously delivered by caesarean section, or one litter by caesarean section if the need for that procedure was due to the conformation of the bitch or her offspring. This provision, however, only applies to holders of a dog breeding licence, which is required by any person breeding 3 or more litters of puppies in any 12-month period. That said, any person continuing to breed from a bitch that clearly struggles to conceive and give birth naturally and that requires a caesarean section each time she has a litter of pups may be committing an offence under section 19 (unnecessary suffering) of the Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

Criminality

The Scottish SPCA's Special Investigations Unit has expressed concern about the growth in unregulated canine fertility businesses and, in particular, the involvement of organised crime groups. As alluded to in the background section, such facilities can act as a front for organised crime in that those involved establish what appears to be a legitimate business and use it to essentially launder money made from criminal activity. Evidence also points to individuals or groups in this sector having links to other forms of animal welfare related criminality such as performing illegal cosmetic mutilations including ear cropping and tail docking. Some canine fertility businesses also have links to, or are directly involved in, the hugely exploitative illegal puppy trade. Unlicensed, low-welfare breeders tend to maximize productivity of breeding bitches and produce high numbers of litters in the shortest amount of time, with no regard for animal welfare.

Consumer protection concerns

The Scottish Government and key animal welfare organisations are concerned that members of the public may be misled into using canine fertility services that are in fact non-accredited and unqualified. There is concern that some businesses currently employ a vet in name only (even living in another country) to offer 'veterinary' services, when the procedures are in fact often undertaken by unqualified laypersons. This level of ambiguity creates significant risk in terms of consumer protection and animal welfare.

Naturewatch Foundation – Veterinary Professionals Survey

Between June and August 2022, the Naturewatch Foundation surveyed and interviewed veterinary professionals in the UK to seek their views on canine fertility businesses. The findings were published in October 2022. You can access the Naturewatch report at Naturewatch Foundation Report.

Some key findings from this survey include the following:

• 98% of veterinary professionals are concerned about canine fertility businesses,
• most veterinary professionals think that commonly advertised canine fertility procedures should only be performed by veterinary surgeons and, in some cases, veterinary nurses,
• 94% of veterinary professionals think that dogs used for breeding should have an annual 'fitness to breed' assessment with a vet,
• veterinary professionals are concerned about canine fertility businesses promoting and facilitating unethical breeding practices, particularly in respect to brachycephalic breeds and the use of assisted breeding procedures and reliance on caesarean sections,
• less than a quarter of veterinary professionals support the introduction of exemption orders (under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966) as a method of regulating the procedures lay persons can undertake,
• veterinary surgeons are seeing in their own practices the negative impact of laypersons at canine fertility businesses undertaking procedures, mis-diagnosing certain conditions or providing inappropriate or wrong advice.

In October 2022, the British Veterinary Association published an article highlighting the concerns of the veterinary profession about the growth in unregulated canine fertility businesses. You can access this article at BVA Article. The BVA's article accords with and supports the findings of Naturewatch.

Requirements of a future licensing scheme

Whilst not an exhaustive list, it is proposed that a future statutory licensing scheme would—

• Require any person wishing to operate or already operating a canine fertility business to be licensed by the licensing authority (this would be the relevant local authority). All premises associated with a licence application would require to be inspected by the licensing authority before any licence was issued. The inspection would be undertaken to assist in the preparation of a report regarding the applicant, relevant premises , relevant records, the condition of any animals observed and any other relevant matters..
• Make it an offence to operate a canine fertility business without a licence.
• Require the licence holder to comply with the conditions of a licence granted by the licensing authority. As is already the case for animal related activities subject to licensing in Scotland, the conditions that would need to be complied with would be set out in legislation. In the case of canine fertility businesses it could be, for example, that licences stipulate—
  • that certain services or procedures are prohibited,
  • the minimum professional qualifications required depending on the services being offered by the business,
  • that only veterinary surgeons eligible to practice in the UK are employed in cases where a business wishes to offer veterinary services (as defined under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966), Where a vet is employed the relevant details would need to be provided to the licensing authority,
  • record keeping and reporting requirements.
• Licences could be revoked in the event that the licence holder fails to comply with veterinary medicines legislation.
• Licence conditions could specify that semen should only be collected from and used on animals that would be capable of mating naturally and giving birth without assistance and without being likely to produce offspring with harmful conformations or genetic defects. Screening for known genetic defects of the breed concerned could also be required. Veterinary certification of health and genetic suitability of dogs used for semen collection and bitches used for breeding could be required.
• Give the licensing authority powers to add additional conditions of licence, but only where it considers it necessary to safeguard the welfare of animals.
• Requiring the licensing authority to be satisfied that the licence conditions are likely to be met and that grant of a licence is otherwise appropriate before issuing a licence. This would involve considering the applicant's conduct, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person and other relevant circumstances.
• Allow the licensing authority to charge a fee for the consideration of a licence application and grant of licence.
• Allow the licensing authority to inspect licensed businesses periodically to ensure compliance with the conditions of a licence. The legislative framework under which canine fertility businesses could be licensed allows for the licensing authority to appoint a registered veterinarian to undertake inspections either with or without an appointed licensing authority officer.
• Allow the licensing authority to vary, suspend or revoke a licence as appropriate due to the actions or conduct of a licence holder.
• Require the licensing authority to publish online a register of licensed canine fertility businesses. This is to allow the public to quickly check whether a particular business is officially licensed.
• Provide an appeals mechanism for applicants or licence holders aggrieved by a decision by the licensing authority.

Consultation questions

Q1. Do you agree that businesses offering canine fertility services should be made subject to a statutory licensing scheme?

Yes / No / Not sure.

Please provide the reasons for your answer.

Q2. If you do not support the introduction of statutory licensing, what controls, if any, would you otherwise recommend?

Q3. If you do support the introduction of statutory licensing, which services should be regarded as "canine fertility services" and therefore require a licence?

Q4. Do you support the proposal that any veterinary surgeon named as being associated with a canine fertility business needs to be present during any inspection undertaken, or arranged by, the licensing authority when the authority so requests?

Q5. Do you support the proposal that as part of the licence application process, canine fertility businesses would be required to submit evidence of the health screen testing undertaken for all dogs used by the business, including testing to assess a dog's temperament?

Q6. Should screening also include veterinary certification of health and genetic suitability of all dogs/semen and bitches used for breeding whether or not owned by the business?

Q7. Do you support the proposal that as part of the licence application process, canine fertility businesses would be required to provide information on any stud dogs owned by or intended for use by the business (for example ownership details, microchip number, where kept)?

Q8. The current licensing framework to which we propose to add canine fertility businesses, allows for licences to be granted for a period of 1 to 3 years, depending on assessed risk. Do you agree with the proposal that canine fertility businesses are instead required to renew their licence annually, due to the higher animal welfare risks associated with such businesses?

Q9. Are there any further controls or measures that you would like to see introduced as part of a licensing scheme for canine fertility business?

Q10. Are you aware of any examples of how any of the proposals above may impact, either positively or negatively, on those with protected characteristics?

These are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Yes / No / Don't know

If yes, please explain your answer.