DEFRA - KeepingWolfdogs
| Parts of the 1976 DWA Act were revoked and changes came
into effect with the introduction of the new Animal Welfare Act - details of
these changes are shown below courtesy of DEFRA. These changes mean
that Saarloos and Czechoslovakian wolfdogs (not being F1 or F2 hybrids) are now accepted as
canis familiaris - domestic dogs |
|
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
What is
the Dangerous Wild Animals Act?
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act (DWAA) of
1976 was originally introduced as a private members bill in response to
public concern about the keeping of dangerous pets, especially big cats.
It aims to ensure that where private individuals keep dangerous wild
animals they do so in circumstances which create no risk to the public
and, to a lesser extent, safeguard the welfare of the animals.
Licences are required for any animal
which appears on a Schedule to the Act. These are issued by the relevant
local authority, and will only be granted when the authority is
satisfied that it would not be contrary to public interest on the
grounds of safety or nuisance; that the applicant is a suitable person;
and the animal's accommodation is adequate and secure.
· a requirement that the animal be kept
only by a person or persons named on the licence;
· restrictions on the movement of the
animal from the premises as specified on the licence; and
· a requirement that the licence holder
has a current insurance policy which ensures both licence holders and
others against any liability caused by the animal.
The Act does not apply to any dangerous
wild animal kept in a zoo; circus; pet shop; or registered scientific
establishment. Zoos are regulated under the
Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (as
amended)and scientific establishments are regulated under
the
Animals (scientific procedures)
Act 1986. Pet shops (currently regulated under the Pet
Animals Act 1951) and
the sale of animals as pets
will become regulated under secondary legislation timetabled for 2008
under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (a code of practice
is also planned). It is also proposed to produce secondary legislation
to regulate
wild animals in circuses.
A
review was undertaken on behalf of the
Government to examine the effectiveness of the Dangerous Wild Animals
Act 1976 (Effectiveness Study of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976).
Following a consultation exercise on this report, a panel of experts was
set up to advise on the animals that should be subject to control. Their
advice, on which species should be removed or added to the Schedule, was
taken into account and in June 2004 the Government published a
consultation paper on proposals for revisions to the Act. Some of the
public consultation responses recommended amendments (both additions and
deletions) to the Schedule, but few suggestions were backed up with new
evidence in support of them.
Changes to the Schedule had been planned
to be taken forward in 2006. However there were other legislative
changes planned which also related to the keeping of wild animals, such
as the Animal Welfare Bill (now Act) and new proposals under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which
addressed welfare and conservation objectives respectively. Taking
forward changes to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act's Schedule of species
in isolation could have had implications for these other objectives, and
so the changes were held back, with the agreement of Ministers, pending
the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act (which has now come into
force). This was important owing to the need to ensure that no de-listed
species was left without any welfare protection. The
revised Schedule
Following the introduction of the Animal
Welfare Act, Ministers agreed to the revision of the Schedule by
secondary legislation, to limit it to those species which the expert
panel thought presented a genuine threat to the public. A full list of
species which are now controlled can be found in:
· Schedule of Species (49
KB)
A copy of the full Order can be found
at:http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20072465_en.pdf The main
body of the Act
Mindful of the current failings of the
Act, there is compelling circumstantial evidence to support claims of
levels of non-compliance, we have been developing new options for
Ministers which aim to deliver the public safety benefits of the
legislation and also look to reduce the level of regulatory burden on
local authorities and animal keepers. This involved taking a wider view,
looking at the range of other relevant legislation, particularly that
relating to public safety, and also taking into account other
initiatives such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Department is now undertaking a
further public consultation, which can be found at the link below,
asking for comments on proposals intended to reform the Act so as to
better focus its controls on the primary aim of public safety and to
apply the controls more proportionately to the level of risk. Also, we
consider it is desirable to introduce more flexibility to the
requirement for inspections to allow effort to be better focussed on the
level of risk. New guidance for local authorities will also be made
available that will help in ensuring more consistent implementation of
the legislation. These measures should assist with increasing support
and compliance amongst animal keepers and, ultimately, in more effective
operation of the Act and protection of the public from the potential
threat of escaped dangerous wild animals. These changes would also have
the benefit of reducing regulatory burdens both for local authorities
and keepers.
· Link to consultation:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/wildanimalsact/
The closing date for responses is 22
August 2008.
Hybrids
of domestic animals and the Dangerous Wild Animals
Act
Click here for
further information on keeping of hybrids of dangerous wild animals with domestic cats and
dogs.
If you have any queries, Dave Wootton of
the Department's Wildlife Species Conservation Division on 0117 372 8686 or at:
Defra
Page last modified: 2 June 2008 |
|
Hybrids of domestic animals
Bengal cats and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
The Act regulates
the keeping of certain kinds of dangerous animals as pets. Licences are
required for any animal which appears on a schedule to the Act.
The 'Bengal cat' is
not a true species but rather a hybrid of the domestic cat crossed with
the Asian leopard cat, several generations removed from the wild
ancestor, and currently kept in their thousands in this country without
serious problems arising. It was not specifically named on earlier
versions of the Schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act but it
technically fell within the catch-all listing of all species of
Felidae (i.e. the cat family) except Felis catus, the
domestic cat. Its effective inclusion in the list of affected species
partly arose as the Schedule pre-dated the breeding of these animals in
this country. Other hybrids of Dangerous Wild Animal cat species
with domestic cats also fell within the catch-all listing for Felidae.
Defra has been
reviewing the Dangerous Wild Animals Act. In 2004 we published proposals
to revise the legislation, including a proposal that the Act's Schedule
be amended to make it explicit that Bengal cats do not require
licensing. This was on the grounds that they are not considered to be
sufficiently dangerous to warrant such regulation. We have refined the
proposal slightly for Bengal cats, and similar cat hybrids descended
from licensable cat species, as this required improved drafting to
improve the clarity and enforceability of the proposal.
We have sought to
clarify the position for domestic cat x wild cat hybrids
generally within the revised Schedule (which came into force on 1
October 2007). Cat hybrids descended exclusively from excepted
species (as shown on the Schedule), cat hybrids having a domestic cat as
one parent and a first generation hybrid of a domestic cat and a
non-excepted cat as the other parent, and cats which are descended
exclusively from such excepted hybrids or from such excepted hybrids and
a domestic cat, no longer require a licence.
Local authorities
are responsible for licensing and enforcement under the Act. Many
exercise their discretion in respect of Bengal cats (for example if the
animals are many generations removed from the wild ancestor and are
essentially indistinguishable from domestic animals) and regard them as
domestic cats and therefore not in requirement of a licence under the
Act. The revised Schedule now makes it much clearer as to what
exceptions can now be made in respect of such hybrids.
If owners are still
in doubt as to whether animals require licensing, then Defra advises
them to contact their local authority for advice.
Wolf-dog hybrids and the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
The Act regulates
the keeping of certain kinds of dangerous animals, except animals kept
in zoos, circuses or pet shops. Under the Act, licences are required for
the keeping of any animal which appears in the schedule to the Act.
Wolf-dog hybrids
are not a true species but rather a hybrid of the domestic dog crossed
with the wolf. Such animals are required to be licensed under the Act.
This is because the Schedule to the Act states that any hybrid of a kind
of mammal specified in the Schedule must be licensed; a wolf is a mammal
specified in the Schedule as it is included in the listing of all
species of Canidae (i.e. the dog family) and does not fall within the
specified exemptions to this listing, unlike the Canis familiaris,
the domestic dog (but not the Dingo, Canis familiaris dingo),
raccoon dogs and foxes.
In addition, under
the Act any animal with at least one parent as such a hybrid requires a
licence. However, the second generation following a wolf/domestic
dog hybrid does not require a licence if neither of its parents are such
a hybrid, as illustrated below.
* Licence required
Therefore, taking
the example of Czechoslovakian Wolf Dogs, Sarloos or similar “wolf-dog
hybrids”, where an animal is third generation, or further removed from
the original wolf content, a licence is not required under the Act.
If owners are in
doubt as to whether animals require licensing, then Defra advises them
to contact their local authority for advice.
The Department and
the RSPCA jointly funded research into the keeping of wolf-dog hybrids
and this was published in 2001.
The contractors
found that very few wolf-hybrids were kept and that advertisements for
wolf-dogs were generally misleading and had been embellished to attract
public interest and justify high prices. The report also outlines some
physical characteristics to help identify true wolf-dog hybrids, which
local authorities may find useful. The full research report is available
at
The Keeping of Wolf-Hybrids in Great Britain
[PDF] (556 KB)
The reference in
the study to licences being required for breeds claiming any amount of
wolf content, however diluted, should now be viewed in light of the
information regarding hybrid generations detailed above.
Dangerous dogs are
regulated under their own legislation. Further information on dangerous
dogs can be found on the
animal welfare pages.
Page last modified: 01 December 2008 |
|
THE DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS ACT 1976
(MODIFICATION) (NO.2) ORDER 2007
2007 NO.2465
The following is a list of animals for
which, when kept privately, a licence is required under the Act.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The highlighted section makes it clear that all Carnivores Family
Canidae need licence except
Alopex, Cerdocyon, Dusicyon,
Otocyon, Pseudolopex, Urocyon, Vulpes and Nyctereutes. The species
Canis familiaris, other then the subspecies Canis familiaris dingo, is
also excepted. So, in laymans terms, Wild dogs, wolves, jackals, the maned wolf, the bush dog and the dhole need licences. Foxes, raccoon dogs and the domestic dog (but not the dingo) are excepted. Since Saarloos and Czech wolfdogs are not hybrids and are accepted as breeds of domestic dog in their own right, they are included as Canis familiaris - domestic dogs.
|
||||||||||||
|
This email from DEFRA was sent to a friend to confirm the situation regarding
these dogs, reproduced here with the kind permission of the author and
recipient. Wednesday, October 8, 2008 10:35 AM From: "Wootton, Dave (WSC)" <Dave.Wootton@defra.gsi.gov.uk> Add sender to Contacts To: email address removed Dear Avril There has been a recent flurry of phonecalls on this subject so some people are clearly confused about whether such wolf-dog hybrids require a licence under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Wolf-dog hybrids, such as those you have mentioned, are not a true species but rather a hybrid of the domestic dog crossed with the wolf. Such animals technically fall within the Act's catch-all listing of all species of Canidae (they are not specifically named in the Schedule) (i.e. the dog family) with certain exceptions such as Canis familiaris, the domestic dog (but not the dingo, Canis familiaris dingo), raccoon dogs and foxes , and therefore require a licence in order to be kept privately. It is not illegal to keep such animals providing a licence is in place. Local authorities are responsible for licensing and enforcement under the Act. If an animal is many generations removed from the wolf ancestor and is essentially indistinguishable from a domestic dog in appearance and behaviour then a local authority might conceivably choose to exercise discretion and regard it as a domestic dog (which would not be licensable). In any case the Act specifically exempts the requirement for a licence for F3 generation hybrids and beyond. If owners are in doubt as to whether animals require licensing, then Defra advises them to contact their local authority for advice. The Department and the RSPCA have jointly funded research into the keeping of wolf-dog hybrids (published in 2000). The contractors found that very few wolf-hybrids were kept and that advertisements for wolf-dogs were generally misleading and had been embellished to attract public interest and justify high prices. The report also outlines some physical characteristics to help identify true wolf-dog hybrids, which local authorities may find useful. The full research report is available at The Keeping of Wolf-Hybrids in Great Britain (556 KB) http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countrysi...gs/wolfdogs.pdf I hope this helps. Regards Dave Wootton Policy Advisor Wildlife Species Conservation Division Defra Zone 1/10, Temple Quay House 2 The Square, Temple Quay Bristol, BS1 6EB dave.wootton@defra.gsi.gov.uk So, other than the keeping of wolves or first and second cross hybrids (F1 and F2) everything else is considered to be a domestic dog (canis familiaris) and does not require a license. There is no 'grey' area of doubt. |
| This excerpt from the Statutory Instruments
confirms the revocation of the original 1976 Act.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
2007 No. 2465
ANIMALS
DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS The
Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) (No.2)
Order 2007
Made ----20th August 2007
Laid before Parliament 24th August 2007
Coming into force in accordance with article 1 The
Secretary of State makes the following Order in exercise of the powers
conferred by section
8(1) of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976(a). In
accordance with that section, he is satisfied that the scope of that Act
should be both extended so
as to include animals of a kind not for the time being specified in the
Schedule to that Act and
diminished so as to exclude animals of a kind for the time being
specified in that Schedule.
Citation, extent and commencement
1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
(Modification)
(No.2) Order 2007. (2)
Articles 2 and 3(2) extend to England and Wales only. (3)
This article and article 3(1) come into force on 30th September 2007. (4)
Articles 2 and 3(2), and the Schedule, come into force on 1st October
2007.
Modification to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 2.
For the Schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976(b) substitute
the Schedule set out in
the Schedule to this Order.
Revocations
3.—(1) The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) Order 2007(c)
is revoked. (2)
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (Modification) Order 1984(d) is
revoked. (a)
1976 c.38. (b)
As substituted by S.I. 1984/1111. (c)
S.I. 2007/1437. (d) S.I. 1984/1111. |
| The Dangerous Dogs Act below details the prohibited types of
dog - which does not include Saarloos Wolfdogs, Czech Wolfdogs, Northern Inuit
dogs or any such cross. Animal welfare: The Control of Dogs
3 June 2008 – News release:
Getting tough on irresponsible dog owners. A leaflet on
'Control of dogs, the law and
you' is available.
It is an offence to own or keep any of
the types of dog listed below, unless it is on the Index of Exempted
Dogs and is in compliance with the requirements. In any event it is an
offence to breed from, sell or exchange (even as a gift) such a dog,
irrespective of whether it has been placed on the Index of Exempted
Dogs. Page 3 of Annex A provides further details about the Index.
Section 1 of the
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog:
·
the Pit Bull Terrier
·
the Japanese tosa
·
the Dogo Argentino
·
the Fila Brasileiro
·
The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment)
Act 1997
It is important to note that, in the UK,
dangerous dogs are classified by “type”, not by breed label. This means
that whether a dog is considered dangerous, and therefore prohibited,
will depend on a judgment about its physical characteristics, and
whether they match the description of a prohibited 'type'. This
assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court. A leaflet
providing guidance on the physical characteristics that a court would
consider in reaching its judgement can be found below.
The 1991 Act was amended by the
Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997. The 1997 Act removed the mandatory
destruction order provisions of the 1991 Act by giving the courts
discretion on sentencing, and re-opened the Index of Exempted Dogs for
those prohibited dogs which the courts consider would not pose a risk to
the public. Only courts can direct that a dog can be placed on the list
of exempted dogs.
Section 3 of the 1991 Act created a new
offence of being an owner of a dog of any type or breed which is
dangerously out of control in a public place or a non-public place in
which it is not permitted to be.
·
Information on
Wolf-dog hybrids can be found on the Wildlife and Countryside pages of the Defra website. Prohibited
Types of Dog
Leaflet:
Types of dog prohibited in Great Britain (PDF 239 KB) - Contains guidance on the types of dogs prohibited in
Great Britain. It also explains the impact of the legislation on dogs
being brought into Great Britain.
The leaflet is aimed at both enforcement
agencies and members of the public who would like to bring their dog
into Great Britain via the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS) but are unsure
whether their animal is banned from Great Britain.
Hard copies can be obtained from
animal.welfareact@defra.gsi.gov.uk quoting product code PB8311.
Detailed guidance on the legislation was
issued to police forces and the courts between 1991 and 1998 by the Home
Office. The guidance issued can be found below (in PDF format):
·
Home Office Notice (69 KB)
·
Home Office Circular 67/1991 (245 KB)
·
Home Office Circular 80/1992 (113 KB)
·
Home Office Circular 9/1994 (86 KB)
·
Home Office Circular 17/1997 (71 KB)
·
Home Office Circular 29/1997 (111 KB)
·
Home Office Circular 29/1998 (77 KB) Overseas
legislation on prohibited types of dog
If you need to know the law on
prohibited types of dogs in other countries, please contact the Embassy
of the relevant country. Please note that you should contact the Embassy
of the country concerned within the UK, rather than a British Embassy
abroad.
Contact details of embassies in
the UK are available. Dogs out
of control in a public place
If a dog is dangerously out of control
in a public place - then the owner or the person in charge of the dog is
guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any
person, an aggravated offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. In
proceedings against a person who is the owner of a dog but at the
material time was not in charge of it, it should be a defence for the
accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of
a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be
in charge of it.
Section 10(2) of the 1991 Act defines a
public place as meaning any street, road or other place to which the
public have, or are permitted to have access. This is a wide definition
of a public place and one which specifically includes the common parts
of a building containing two or more dwellings. It is intended to cover,
for instance, those parts of a block of flats where, although there may
be a secure front entry door so that the interior of the flat is not a
place to which the public has unrestricted access, nevertheless the
common parts are, in all other respects, a public place.
A person found guilty of an offence may
face imprisonment or a fine, and the courts may disqualify the offender
from having custody of a dog for any period. Other
legislation
Under the Town Police Clauses Act of
1847 it is an offence for any person in any street: to let an
unmuzzled ferocious dog be at large so that it obstructs or annoys the
residents or passengers in the street or puts them in danger; or to set
on or to urge any dog to attack, worry or put in fear any person or
animal. A dog will not be at large while it is held on a lead. The word
'street' here is given an extended meaning to include any road, square,
court, alley, thoroughfare or public passage.
In the Metropolitan Police District a
similar offence has been created by the Metropolitan Police Act of
1839. This differs only from the first part of the 1847 Act offence
in that it is sufficient that an unmuzzled dog be at large (no
obstruction, annoyance or danger need be shown), and that the place of
the offence is described as any thoroughfare or public place.
Under the Dogs Act 1871, any
person may make a complaint to a magistrates court that a dog is
dangerous, or report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied
that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it may make
an order for it to be controlled or destroyed.
The Animals Act 1971 provides
that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, if he
knows it was likely to cause such damage or injury unrestrained.
Dog Control Orders
Dog Control Orders replaced Dog Byelaws
in April 2006. Existing byelaws remain in effect until such time as a
dog control order for the same issue is made on the same land.
Further information on these
Orders is available here.
Section 3(5) of the 1991 Act clarifies
the application of the Dogs Act 1871. The strength of the 1871 Act is
that as it is not part of the criminal law, it operates on a lower
standard of proof and proceedings can be taken even when a criminal
offence has not been committed. It provides a remedy in a wide range of
circumstances for the destruction, or imposition of controls, on
dangerous dogs. A particular advantage of the 1871 Act is the fact that
it applies everywhere, even in and around a private house which is why
it is particularly appropriate for action on behalf of people such as
postmen and women who are regularly at risk from dogs in front gardens.
Section 3(5)(b) of the 1991 Act enables
a court to make an order under the 1871 Act that a dog is in future
muzzled, kept on a lead, tethered or is excluded from specified places.
This is a flexible provision which can be used to deal with a number of
nuisance complaints about dogs including circumstances where dogs in one
back garden cause fear of risk or injury to neighbours in another.
Section 3(6) enables the neutering of male dogs in addition to, or
instead of, other measures or controls.
These laws, when applied individually or
in combination, serve as a positive encouragement to the owners of all
dogs to exercise safe control over their dogs.
Leaflet:
Control of Dogs, The Law and You (PDF 600 KB)
To help people understand dangerous dogs
law, Defra has produced a clear and concise leaflet - ‘Control of
Dogs, The Law and You’ (PB13073). The leaflet gives an outline of the
law governing the control of dogs. Dogs and
trespass
In civil law a dog owner is liable if he
or she deliberately sends a dog on to another person's land in pursuit
of game. A civil offence is also committed if a dog owner allows a dog
to roam at large in the knowledge that it is likely to kill game. No
entry on the land by the owner of the dog is necessary in order for the
proceedings to succeed.
If a dog of its own accord enters land
without permission but does no more, its owner is not liable under civil
law for trespass; nor is it a criminal offence unless there is a
contravention of regulations made under the Control of Dogs Order. Under
civil law it is likely that the dog's owner would be liable for any
damage which it is in the nature of a dog to commit.
It is an offence for a dog to be at
large, i.e. not on a lead or otherwise under close control, in a field of
sheep. Sheep dogs and police dogs are exempted from this provision.
Dogs worrying livestock
The Dogs
(Protection of Livestock) Act 1953
Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock)
Act 1953 the owner and anyone else under whose control the dog is at the
time will be guilty of an offence if it worries livestock on
agricultural land. The dog must have been attacking or chasing livestock
in such a way that it could reasonably be expected to cause injury or
suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or the loss or diminution
of their produce. An offence is not committed if at the time of the
worrying the livestock were trespassing, the dog belonged to the owner
of the land on which the trespassing livestock were and the person in
charge of the dog did not cause the dog to attack the livestock. The
definition of 'livestock' includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses
and poultry. Game birds are not included. The
Animals Act 1971
Civil liability arises from the Animals
Act 1971. Anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes damage by
killing or injuring livestock is liable for the damage caused. For the
purposes of the Act the keeper is the owner or the person in possession
of the dog. The head of the household is liable where the owner is under
the age of 16.
The keeper of the dog is not liable
where the damage is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering it
or if the livestock were killed or injured on land onto which they had
strayed and either the dog belonged to the occupier or its presence was
authorised by the occupier.
Under the Act there is a defence
available to someone who is the subject of civil proceedings for killing
or injuring a dog that was worrying or about to worry livestock. The
defence can be used where there were no other means of ending or
preventing the worrying or where the dog that had done the worrying was
still in the vicinity and not under control and there were no
practicable means of establishing ownership.
The definition of livestock in the 1971
Act is wider than in the 1953Act. Here it includes pheasants, partridges
and grouse whilst in captivity. Guard Dogs
Only section 1 of the Guard Dogs Act
1975 has ever entered into force. This means that all the other sections
relating to a licensing scheme are not in force and neither are there
any plans to do so. Section 1, which is in force, relates to the control
of guard dogs.
Section 1 states:
(1) A person shall not use or permit the
use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ('the handler') who
is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog
is under the control of the handler at all times while it is secured so
that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(2) The handler of a guard dog shall
keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a
guard dog at any premises except:
(3) A person shall not use or permit the
use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning
that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the
premises.
Page last modified: 18 August, 2008
|
| All the above information can be found on
DEFRA's website following the various links http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/gwd/wildact.htm |
"We herd sheep, we drive cattle, we lead people. Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way"
Sansorrella 2019 All rights reserved