Registered Practitioners and Animals

Introduction

These guidelines are for the use of practitioners registered with the Dr Edward Bach Centre and relate to their work with the system of 38 flower remedies discovered by Dr Edward Bach. References to BFRPs (Bach Foundation Registered Practitioners) include BFRAPs (Bach Foundation Registered Animal Practitioners) unless otherwise indicated.

Animals, and simplicity

Simplicity is the heart of the remedies and the heart of everything BFRPs do. We are committed to the original simple methods of Dr Bach, and to presenting and using the 38 remedies as a safe, self-help system that anybody can learn to use.

When it comes to the care of animals, however, there is a paradox. On one level animals can be easy to deal with. Like children, they respond quickly to accurately-chosen remedies, and their feelings tend not to be buried in layers of denial and compromise. Often we can identify appropriate remedies for animals ‘casually’, as we might do for friends, by using simple empathy and a desire to understand, and those interventions can be useful and helpful. However, some aspects of helping animals with the remedies make 'animal practice' a difficult area for BFRPs.

The difficulties arise from several directions.

The aim of these guidelines is to help BFRPs respect the essential simplicity of the system and at the same time respond adequately to the unique challenges we face when we help animals in a professional context.

Communication: understanding animals

When we sit down with a human client we use language, and the client answers in kind. We can ask questions if we aren't sure we understand something. Even if we only speak Greek and our client only speaks Chinese, we can get some insight from behaviours and needs we have in common as a species. All humans use look, tone of voice and gesture to communicate feelings and distress. We share common physical and emotional needs and often react to situations in a similar way.

With animals this commonality applies much less, and sometimes hardly at all. Not only do we not share ‘languages’ of body posture, sound and scent, but our human view of the world might be utterly alien to that of the animal we want to help. Making assumptions could lead us badly astray. We might give Holly to dogs that destroy our property when they are locked in alone. We might choose Vine for rabbits that bite anyone who goes near the hutch. The behaviour of our own (predator) species may lead us to assume that a silent, still animal is likely to be calm and untroubled, when stillness in some prey species could be a sign of severe emotional stress.

Wrong choices won’t make things worse, because the remedies are safe – but the remedies we choose are unlikely to help. It’s difficult enough sometimes to make good choices for human clients, so we should be even more prepared to go carefully when it comes to selecting for animals.

We are though far from helpless. We can’t ask animals for an explanation of their behaviour. But we can ask questions of ourselves and of the owner, such as:

  1. Is the animal from a social or solitary species?
  2. Is it a predator or prey animal?
  3. Is it from a territorial, home ranging or nomadic species?
  4. Is the animal’s carer or owner managing it appropriately?
  5. Is the animal allowed to act out most of its normal and natural behaviours?

Answering these questions should help us understand better what an animal’s behaviour means. This will help us select more accurate and helpful remedies. For example:

Is the animal from a social or solitary species?

Tortoises, hamsters, snakes and a few fish species are solitary. But dogs, cats, horses, parrots, rabbits, guinea pigs and most fish and farm animals (cows, pigs, sheep, chickens) are all social species. The vast majority of the animal species on the planet are social – over 90%. Many of their negative emotions stem from not being allowed to interact with members of their own species and therefore remedies relating to isolation and friendlessness, for example, often need to be considered.

The commonest error here is the assumption that cats prefer to be solitary (and hence are Water Violet types). On the contrary, the domestic cat has been shown to have a rich social structure almost identical to that of the African lion.

Is it a predator or prey animal?

Generally, prey animals tend to be far more easily frightened than predators. Horses, rabbits, hamsters and many birds are prey animals. When their fear turns to fear-aggression, however, it is sometimes difficult to appreciate fear for what it is. Knowing that when a constrained horse or rabbit bites, it is doing so out of fear or terror leads one more readily to choose Mimulus or Rock Rose rather than assuming the bite betrays a domineering Vine tendency.

Is it from a territorial, home ranging or nomadic species?

Fish, tortoises and some birds need lots of space because they are nomads and never return to a specific place of their own. Cats and dogs are territorial – this is the opposite – they return daily to a home base. Horses, pigs and sheep are mainly home rangers – this means there is no core home base but there is a general area that they tend to roam around in.

Generally speaking, the more territorial the animal, the more defensive it is. This is because territorial animals have something to lose. Chicory-type behaviours are therefore rarely seen in tortoises and only occasionally in horses. Territorial and possessive responses (like dogs holding onto bones or balls) are driven by their not wanting to lose hold of something that is valuable to them.

Is the animal’s carer or owner managing it appropriately?

Is the animal allowed to act out most of its normal and natural behaviours?

Once you have answered the first three questions you should be able to answer these last two more easily. They are related, because the way people control animals is often the direct cause of behavioural deprivation – and consequently the direct cause of negative emotions. A horse being managed in a solitary way in a stable will be unable to display social behaviours and unable to home range. A fish that is a prey animal, housed in the same tank as a predator fish, may display hardly any behaviour at all – it may hide under a rock all day. Here the negative emotion and the lack of a way out might be so extreme that Sweet Chestnut could be indicated.

Communication: behaviour and illness

Some pathological conditions may look very like behavioural or emotional issues. Animals can’t talk, and owners may not realise their pet is ill or injured or in pain. This is one reason why BFRPs should only take on animal cases when they know the animal has been examined by a vet. If we try to help with remedies straight away owners might decide to put off a potentially life-saving trip to the surgery.

See the sections below on veterinary referral.

Personal safety

It’s probably true that BFRPs in general are cautious around horses and farm animals, and around larger animals in general, simply because they are less familiar with them and because of their size. Familiarity and smallness, though, don’t mean that household pets should automatically be considered safe. Pets can be dangerous, especially to strangers, and especially when they are territorial animals on their home ground. You share a home and an understanding with your own animals – but to the dog in your neighbour’s house you might be an unwelcome intruder who has no business being there. Thinking that cats like you, or that you know how to handle dogs, or that it will be easier or more convenient to deal with animals will in their own homes – all these assumptions are potentially dangerous to your welfare.

Here are some scenarios that you can easily find yourself in:

  • You agree to a home visit only to find that the dog is more aggressive than you are used to, and you feel frightened and not sure how to deal with the situation.
  • You arrive at a house expecting to deal with a dog that is scared of having its collar put on – but the dog turns out to be territorially aggressive as well. (The owner doesn’t mention this on the phone as the dog is a guard dog and he doesn’t think its aggression is a problem.)
  • You go to visit a geriatric hamster unaware of the aggressive dog that also lives in the home.
  • While you are observing a client’s rabbit – the only animal in the house – the neighbour barges in with his territorially aggressive dog.

The Bach Centre’s advice to BFRPs seeing human clients is to be aware of the potential pitfalls involved in home visits. This especially applies when seeing clients for the first time. First consultations should generally take place at the BFRP’s premises so that the practitioner can decide after meeting the client if this is somebody they are happy to visit at home. Visiting a client at home means stepping outside any normal arrangements that guarantee our personal safely, such as the presence of a colleague or family member, access to a phone and backup.

These concerns are multiplied in the case of practice with animals. Even BFRAPs, with their specialist training on working with animals, do not usually have extensive experience handling aggressive animals. Serious injuries are all too common among professionals who make home visits, and that includes professional animal behaviourists and vets. Studies by Southampton University and the Pennsylvania Veterinary School have shown that statistically-speaking you are far more likely to be injured if the animal is on its home turf than if you conduct your consultation elsewhere.

Because of this concern over safety, the Natural Animal Centre level 3 course teaches that practitioners should only make home visits in very rare circumstances, i.e. where we are entirely satisfied that the animal we are seeing is safe; where no other animal will be present during our visit; and where there are no concerns about the owner.

Legal issues

Laws on the health care of animals vary widely from country to country, but the one thing they have in common is that they were not written with the Bach remedies in mind. In most countries the law allows us to give treatments of most kinds to our own animals. We can also help wild animals, and usually (but not in every jurisdiction) we can help any animal in a genuine emergency.

However, in the UK, diagnosis and treatment of other people's animals in a wide range of situations is considered to be 'an act of veterinary surgery' and can only be carried out by a vet. Similar laws apply in many U.S. states, and in other parts of the world. For example, the equinology.com and Hands-On Trade Association web sites in the U.S. both have state-by-state guides to the attitudes of state lawgivers and veterinary authorities towards massage therapists wanting to work with animals. Many of them take a restrictive view.

It isn't certain whether selecting Mimulus for a neighbour’s frightened cat would fall foul of this kind of legislation. Legal advice sought on this – both by the Centre and by individual practitioners – confirms the view that this is a grey area where there is much opinion but little hard information. The law is unclear and likely to remain so until Bach remedies are mentioned specifically, or until a judge decides in court whether it is correct or not to define what we do as ‘veterinary surgery’.

The Bach Centre’s view is that selecting and giving a Bach remedy should not be considered an act of veterinary surgery or veterinary diagnosis. The remedies are not selected for specific veterinary or medical conditions, and do not claim to treat those conditions. The Code of Practice (clause 4.4) bars BFRPs from the treatment and diagnosis of physical and mental illness. Selection of Bach remedies is based entirely on the personality and emotional state of the animal.

Other organisations do not necessarily share this view. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the UK has issued contradictory advice on occasions, but its most recent communications indicate that it currently considers the use of Bach remedies illegal unless carried out in person by a vet.

Our concern in this confused situation is to find a sensible way forward that protects BFRPs and at the same time allows us to use Dr Bach’s simple, safe system to contribute to the welfare of animals. We make a distinction therefore between giving informal ad hoc advice to meet immediate need, and the more formal role that involves veterinary referral, seeing an animal for a consultation, taking individual notes, and making specific recommendations based on individual observation.

Giving informal advice

Owners who want help selecting remedies for their animals often approach BFRPs direct. Sometimes requests come by email or telephone. In these circumstances we often don’t have an opportunity to see the animal for ourselves. The owner might assume the problem is emotional, but doesn’t know for sure. We don’t know if the animal has an undiagnosed condition and will not have been able to make a proper remedy assessment or obtain veterinary referral.

Where possible we want to help. The way to this - and at the same time protect the animal from harm and ourselves from possible legal problems - is to avoid discussing the actual case and focus on teaching the owner about Dr Bach's system. When we are working in informal contexts we need to see ourselves as teachers and avoid any suggestion that we are making selections or suggesting a treatment. The golden rule when oferring informal help is therefore:

Advice should be general and educational, not specific

By asking the owner pertinent questions, we can explore in general terms the likely triggers for behaviour. When we respond, however, we should make our advice general, and emphasise that we are only describing what some of the remedies do rather than making a definite choice for the individual animal. For instance, we might say: ‘There are a number of remedies that can be helpful in fear, such as Aspen and Mimulus. Here are the indications for each…’ This leaves the final choice of remedies to the owner.

In the same way, dosage instructions should be general (‘people give the remedies on a treat’) rather than direct instructions (‘give the remedies on a treat’).

It’s a good idea right at the start of the conversation to explain that you can’t give specific advice because you haven’t seen the animal or obtained veterinary referral. This makes it easier to draw lines later on if the animal’s behaviour seems to warrant a more formal approach.

Make sure the level of intervention is appropriate

In general, informal advice is most appropriate when discussing simple, everyday situations. Don't attempt to address complex issues or those that involve chronic problems. Instead, deal with more complex issues by explaining that you need to arrange veterinary referral and a proper consultation so you can see the animal for yourself.

In some countries there is an obligation on us to inform an animal's owner if it sounds as if an animal might require medical treatment. Whether or not the owners says that the animal is ill, however, it’s good practice to suggest that it be taken to the vet for a precautionary check-up.

Avoid making up mixes yourself

Once the owner has made a selection you may be asked to supply a treatment bottle. If you do have treatment bottles and remedies to hand, and the owners are on your premises, you might give them permission to make a mix from your stock bottles free of charge if they want to. You could also point clients to a shop that sells the remedies and leave them to buy and give the remedies themselves.

If you do decide to mix a treatment bottle for an owner, it needs to be clear in any supporting documentation that the choice of remedies is the owner’s, and that the remedies do not replace veterinary care or treat veterinary conditions.

Avoid medical terminology

This is actually good practice throughout your work with the remedies, but certainly when offering informal advice on animals words like ‘treatment’, ‘depression’, ‘dose’ etc. are best avoided.

Veterinary referral

For anything beyond simple general advice BFRPs should obtain veterinary referral before the first proper consultation takes place. This is not as difficult a task as you might assume - and we explain how to go about it in the next section. But first let's look at the rationale behind vet referral.

On the face of it, insisting on veterinary referral might seem to be contrary to Dr Bach’s philosophy of self-help, given that he was a qualified doctor who chose to turn away from the scientific limitations of the medical profession. But there are good reasons for thinking that vet referral is in the best interests of BFRPs, the best interest of animals, and ultimately in the best interest of Dr Bach’s system. It represents a way of carrying on this simple work in a way that reaches as many animals as possible.

We have already noted (see the section on legal issues) that there is real uncertainty about the legality of caring for other people’s animals with Bach remedies. There is also a risk that animal owners will blame BFRPs if remedies are selected for something that later turns out to be a medical problem. One advantage of vet referral is that it protects BFRPs from potential legal problems like this. Responsibility for the animal’s veterinary care is left where it belongs, in the hands of the vet, which makes it less likely that an authority will decide to test local laws by bringing a case against a BFRP. We believe too that in some countries such as Japan, vet referral is sufficient to make it entirely legal to work with animals.

Vet referral has animal welfare implications as well. Because assessing animals is hampered by their not being able to ‘talk to us’, it’s useful to get as much information as possible before trying to select remedies. Vets often have information to add about an animal even if it is only to confirm that there is no major underlying medical condition of which we need to be aware. We benefit from the free, advance input they provide, and we gain confidence that our intervention is appropriate. Many diseases can cause aggression, so it’s good to know that the organic causes have been ruled out before we start deciding on remedies.

Some practitioners find the idea of working alongside a vet an intimidating prospect. But there are enormous positive gains to be had from conforming to vet referral – it is not meant to limit us. Over the years that the Natural Animal Centre level 3 course has been taught, experience has shown that a good relationship with a few veterinary practices in the local area can ensure an on-going throughput of cases and a thriving animal practice.

Many BFRPs are initially surprised to find that many vets not only formally welcome them and have a positive attitude about working together under a referral system, but even offer to support them in the set-up of their practice. This is because there are many complementary practices where ethical and professional guidelines regarding treatment of animals are either absent or not applied and the welfare of animals is thus ignored. This leaves vets in an impossibly difficult professional position, where they are legally responsible for the health of animals, yet have complementary therapists issuing medicines through the back door. Working under referral gains the trust of vets and speeds up acceptance of the Bach remedies across the world.

For the sake of a minor administrative task the benefit for us, for the remedies and animals is huge. Acceptance by veterinarians has been a major accelerator in spreading the use of the remedies. The Natural Animal Centre and the Bach Centre have taken a lead on this, with the support of BFRPs and particular BFRAPs, and we believe that it is the best way forward.

What does veterinary referral involve?

By 'referral' we mean informing and obtaining consent from the vet before taking on a case. This can be a very simple matter. When the owner first approaches you, ask for the name and number of the veterinary surgeon who treats that animal. Phone in and explain to the receptionist or nurse who you are, and ask that a note be made on the animal’s file to say that the owner has asked you to select Bach remedies for it. You could also offer to send more information on the remedies to the surgery.

To help you contact vets we have prepared a letter that gives basic reassurance on the system, as well as outlining our stance on veterinary referral. You can also use this to make initial contact with vets without having a particular case in mind. Contact the Bach Centre for a copy.

It may be that you will be put through to speak to the vet in person, which could lead (as has happened in the past) to an invitation to go to the surgery and talk about the remedies with the staff and the vets. In many cases, though, the receptionist or nurse will make a note and you are free to arrange the consultation.

Once you have obtained a referral, it’s good practice to work within any limits that the veterinary surgeon sets and in particular keep him or her fully informed of the animal’s progress, especially if asked to do so. If at any point you are concerned about the animal’s health or safety, or about any danger you feel its behaviour might pose to the public or the owner, inform the vet and the owner of this in writing.

What if I can’t get veterinary referral?

If a veterinary surgery refuses referral, you should not take on the case. Instead go back to the owner and explain the situation. The owner might be able to register the animal with another vet who is more open to working with BFRPs.

If that isn’t possible for any reason, remember that without referral you are restricted to offering informal help. This means teaching the system to owners so they can make their own selections of remedies.

Subject to local laws, practitioners are usually able to render emergency first aid to any animal if this is done to save life or relieve distress.

Is a waiver an alternative to vet referral?

A waiver in this context would be a signed statement from the animal's owners. It might say that the owners agree to have you select remedies for the animal and that they understood that you were only selecting on the basis of the animal's emotions and not for any disorder that should be treated by a vet. It would also say that the owners acknowledge your advice to make sure the animal is checked over by a vet in order to ensure that any illness or injury is properly treated.

We recommend using waivers and disclaimers in some situations – see for example the practitioner Bulletin for Spring 2001. You could certainly introduce a waiver in addition to veterinary referral as a good way of setting boundaries for the animal's owner and for any authority that might question your right to select remedies for animals.

However, we don't believe that a signed waiver is a replacement for veterinary referral. In human-to-human interactions our clients are able to talk to us. Even in cases that involve extremely young children we share a common language of pain and distress. The problem with animals is that we - and the owner, signing the disclaimer – can't be sure that the animal is not in pain or suffering an undiagnosed illness. Taking on a case in these circumstances is not in the best interest of the client – i.e. the animal.

We also miss out on useful potential information that the vet might be able to provide.

Once again, veterinary referral allows us to offer the best possible care to animals in the context of a professional practice.

The personal consultation

Best practice is that BFRPs should physically observe animals before attempting to select remedies for them.

Many owners may not see the need for the animal to be seen in person by the BFRP and are looking for speedier answers on the telephone or by email. However, without seeing the animal in person, we only get the owner’s version of the animal’s problems. Sometimes the owners perception is innocently confused and shrouded by anxiety and worry for the animal. This is analogous to the situation where doctors (all over the world) may not operate on their own family members because it is well-recognised that close attachments often bring emotional distortions. It’s also similar to what we find in human-focused Bach practice, when husbands ask BFRPs to select for wives and wives for husbands. Here too best practice is to refuse such invitations or only offer more general advice.

As an example of why we need to see animals in person, consider what happens when an owner emails a BFRP for advice: ‘My cat is forever scratching me. She is always trying to take over and dominate things – she hates it if I win’. Based on this information, the BFFP is likely to respond with an explanation of Vine, or perhaps Beech – and some other remedies might come in as well.

Now consider the alternative scenario, where the BFRP obtains vet referral and has the owner bring the cat in for a consultation so that she can see them together. During the consultation, she learns that ‘forever scratching’ actually is a distortion on the owner’s part: the cat only tries to scratch whilst she is being groomed. The scratching is a last-ditch response because the cat is fearful of being held down whilst being groomed. Most of the time, the cat is very quiet and timid and rarely interacts with the owner – during the consultation, the cat is not seen to approach the owner and hides in her basket for the entire duration. Based on this information, the remedies indicated are quite different, and more appropriate.

Vets are unlikely to refer to you unless they know you will see the animal in person.

Animals and dosage

Basically the dosage for animals is the same as for people – i.e. four drops from a treatment bottle, at least four times a day. This is fine for everything from a mouse to an elephant.

Sometimes, however, there are difficulties giving remedies in four standard treatment bottle doses. Your horses might live in a field miles away from your house and place of work, so giving four doses a day is difficult. And there are legitimate worries over trying to give some animals drops straight from a glass dropper – not least the worry that they might swallow the whole thing. This is why a number of different methods have been recommended over the years, for example:

  • Adding stock bottle drops to water or food. (The normal recommendation is two drops of stock remedy in a bowl for small animals, five or six drops in a bucket for larger animals. The larger amount is just a rule of thumb designed to make sure that any size drink the animal takes from a large volume of water will contain at least a minimum dose.)
  • Using plastic droppers to give remedies.
  • Giving remedies externally by dripping them on the paws of cats or rabbits so that the animal will lick them off.

... and this list is not exhaustive. From a remedy point of view whatever method you use will work as long as the animal gets at least the minimum dose of remedy each time – i.e. the equivalent of four drops from a treatment bottle.

From an animal welfare point of view, however, there are other considerations. For example, an animal might be afraid of you or of being touched, or afraid of liquid being dropped onto it. Other animals might refuse all food and water if there is a smell of alcohol in it.

For this reason the Natural Animal Centre, which runs Bach Centre-approved level 3 courses on animals, teaches that best practice is to give treatment bottle doses on a treat so that the process of taking remedies is stress-free and straightforward. This method offers animals more choice: putting drops into food means that the animal would have to refuse its whole food source if it didn’t like the smell of alcohol, for example.

A note on sprays and pastilles

Dr Bach’s crisis formula is commonly sold in spray and pastille form. The spray can be useful, but the spray mechanism itself can be frightening to cats and some other animals, so spray the room before your nervous cat enters, rather than spraying once it is in the room.

The crisis pastilles sold under the brand name Rescue® Pastilles are inappropriate for animal use. They can cause a small animal to choke, and the sweetener used (xylitol) is potentially life-threatening to dogs and cats and definitely lethal to rabbits, hamsters and guinea pigs. Its effects on horses and other farm animals are currently unknown.

BFRPs and BFRAPs

The letters 'BFRP' (Bach Foundation Registered Practitioner) and 'BFRAP' (Bach Foundation Registered Animal Practitioner) are trade marks or registered trade marks belonging to the Bach Centre. They may only be used by registered practitioners who are listed in the relevant part of the Bach Foundation International Register.

The usual route to becoming a BFRP is to complete a ‘human-facing’ Bach Centre-approved level 3 course. If you qualify via this route you will automatically go onto the BFRP part of the Register and can use the letters ‘BFRP’ after your name.

The usual route to becoming a BFRAP is to complete the Bach Centre-approved level 3 course run by the Natural Animal Centre, which specialises in the treatment of animals. Once on this part of the register you may use the letters ‘BFRAP’ after your name.

BFRAP status may also be granted to existing BFRPs who demonstrate to the Bach Centre that they have additional high-level qualifications in animal medicine or behaviour. Similarly, existing BFRAPs who want to be listed on the BFRP part of the register need to demonstrate to the Centre that they have specialist training in counselling and consultation skills. One way to obtain the additional qualifications needed is to complete the appropriate level 3 course. For example, a BFRP with no specialist training in animal care could complete the NAC Bach level 3 and in this way qualify for the BFRAP list.

Because the Bach system is simple and can do no harm, and because our primary role is to teach a self-help system, BFRPs may help animals in a professional context, and BFRAPs may help people. However, under clause 2.7 of the Code of Practice the Bach Centre will give preferential consideration to BFRAPs when referring animal cases. In the same way, Bach Centre referrals for human clients will go to BFRPs.

Under clause 4.5 of the Code of Practice, human-focused BFRPs should decline animal cases that exceed their competence. Similarly, BFRAPs should be aware of the limits to their competence when it comes to helping people with the remedies. This may mean declining to treat owners and referring on as appropriate.

The Code of Practice and Bach Centre practitioner guidelines apply equally to BFRPs and BFRAPs.

Guidelines summary

Here is a list of the main points to consider when working with animals. Some are self-evident and don’t need further explanation; others are treated more fully in the main text.

  • Keep the welfare of the animal uppermost in your mind at all times.
  • Restrict informal advice on remedies and animals to general points designed to teach owners about the remedies.
  • Only take on cases professionally under vet referral.
  • Refer cases that exceed your competence to more competent people (BFRAPs, professional behaviourists, vets etc.)
  • Physically observe your animal clients before attempting to select remedies.
  • Confine your professional Bach work with animals to commenting on and selecting remedies for the animal's perceived emotional state and personality.
  • Ask basic questions about the animal’s species and natural behaviour in order to form a view of its emotional state.
  • Be considerate of owners’ feelings towards their animals and recognise that problems experienced by animals can be equally distressing for the humans involved.
  • Seek to work within any limits set by a referring veterinary surgeon and fully inform him or her of the animal's progress if asked so to do.
  • Be aware of and responsible for your own safety at all times and take steps to ensure your personal safety is not compromised.
  • Be aware too of the safety needs of animals, owners and members of the public.
  • Inform clients and referring veterinary surgeons in writing if you feel the safety of the animal or its owner or of the public is at risk.
  • Under no circumstances recommend euthanasia or re-homing without referring the case back to the referring veterinary surgeon.
  • Make reasonable efforts to be aware of changes in the law and current best practice regarding the treatment and behaviour of animals and advise owners accordingly.
  • Don’t give remedy pastilles to animals; be cautious with remedy sprays.
  • The best way to give remedies to animals is on a treat, and the amount to give is the same as with people.

Bach Centre-approved courses on working with animals

If you want to work with animals we strongly recommend that you attend the Bach Centre-approved courses on this subject. Courses are provided by the Natural Animal Centre in the UK, and NAC courses are hosted from time to time in other countries. Details appear regularly in copies of the practitioner bulletin; or contact the NAC direct.

Disclaimer

These guidelines are solely for the use of BFRPs and BFRAPs. While they are provided in good faith, they do not constitute legal advice, and the Bach Centre makes no claim or guarantee regarding the accuracy of this information.

No responsibility is taken by the authors or by the Bach Centre, or any of its agents, partners, associates or officers for any act or omission that results from following these guidelines. In line with clauses 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 of the Code of Practice, BFRPs are responsible for their own actions at all times.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks to the BFRPs, BFRAPs and students whose questions, objections and comments have helped us refine this document. Parts of the text were written by the Natural Animal Centre and parts by the Bach Centre. Copyright remains with the originating organisation.