Category: Campaigns

RSPCA To Prioritise Animal Welfare At Last

Posted on by

RSPCA
STOP PRESS
It seems that the hope that the RSPCA would reform for the better was premature: a later statement seems to censure Cooper and return to the old, tired, adversarial rhetoric:
Update from the RSPCA council

Watch this space.

CReDO welcomes the statement from the new chief executive of the RSPCA Jeremy Cooper which acknowledges that the charity had become “too adversarial” and will now be “a lot less political”. The spending of £330,000 bringing a private prosecution against the Heythrop pack brought criticism from the presiding judge and from parliament. Further criticisms from the Charity Commision over intereference with a legal badger cull pushed the RSPCA into the realms of having a “toxic” brand, although its reputation has long been tarnished in the eyes of many members of the public.

As the Countryside Alliance have noted, the dual role of the RSPCA in investigating and prosecuting cases is problematic, so Cooper’s announcement that future cases will be passed over to the CPS is to be welcomed. Cooper has promised that the charity will now focus on the illegal puppy trade, something which concerns the public far more than hunting or even the problems of TB in cattle.

There are many areas where the public need to be educated to improve pet welfare and to understand their duty of care under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and other legislation. It is to be hoped that the RSPCA will now play a major role in promoting those campaigns rather than pursuing the agenda of the so-called “animal rights” movement.

CReDO Welcomes CRUFFA

Posted on by

pug Tireless campaigner for canine welfare Jemima Harrison is launching a new campaign to promote the use of healthier dogs in advertising. Dogs seem to be everywhere in adverts at the moment and, as with people, advertisers tend to plump for the quirky-looking image.

CRUFFA – the Campaign for the Responsible Use of Flat-Faced Animals in media, marketing and advertising is contacting companies that have used poor examples of brachycephalic dogs and making them aware of the problems that these dog suffer. As the campaign notes, such advertising helps to fuel demand for such pets and makes dogs that cannot regulate their temperature, breed naturally and breathe properly seem acceptable.

You can buy Jemima’s groundbreaking 2008 documentary Pedigree Dogs Exposed and the sequel Pedigree Dogs Exposed Three Years On from her website as well as reading about her other work to improve the lives of dogs.

Whilst it is heartening to think that so many people are toiling to improve the lot of dogs, it is also sad to think that the once- repsected organisation the RSPCA has fallen so far into disrepute for what many see as its politically-motivated prorities and its abysmal handling of some welfare cases. Many people who live and work with animals have a story to tell about how disppointed they are in the organisation and now MPs have launched an enquiry into the RSPCA’s role as judge and jury (and fundraiser) in prosecuting alleged abuse of animals. The situation in England and Wales is different to that in the six counties of Northern Ireland and in Scotland where animal welfare groups have the power to investigate cases, but the decision whether to prosecute lies with the state. The RSPCA investigated 159,831 complaints of cruelty in England and Wales in 2014 and prosecuted 1,132 people, claiming a “success” rate of 98.9%. MPs are investigating whether that would be a more appropriate model for the whole of the UK.

Cases of horrendous cruelty to animals are tragically almost a daily occurence and there is certainly need for an accountable body to pursue them through the legislature. However, it would be far better to prevent cases from getting that far and in this, the RSPCA has been weak. An infrastructure needs to be established including making the employment of dog wardens a statutory obligation for local authorities and serious discussions need to be had with the BVA and similar organisations as to the role that veterinary surgeons play in monitoring and acting upon poor welfare. Resources need to be made available so that potential and existing owners can access the best advice available on the requirements of keeping a dog, including their legal and moral obligations.

Crufts Catastrophe – Yet Again

Posted on by

private video I haven’t had a television for more than a decade and have been too busy to watch Crufts online. Well, that’s my excuse. In reality, I don’t thing that I can bear to look at the travesties of dogs that competitors, judges and the public not only regard as acceptable but reward and perpetuate. I have passed the Kennel Club Judge’s Examinations but have no desire to participate in perpetuating the horrors of the pedigree show ring. Dogs are stunted, neotanised, gasping for breath, weighed down by skin folds, bug eyed or, as in the case of the German Shepherd Cruaghaire Catoria, actually ataxic and terrified to boot… and that’s just the conditions that are visible. Just about the only problem that my examiner would admit to when asked by another candidate about disqualifying dogs on health grounds was lameness. We we were told also that temperament should be taken into account. Well Cruaghaire Catoria was both lame and extremely nervous.

The Kennel Club has now stated that “…we made the decision not to further highlight the unsound movement of the dog whilst we discuss ways forward to improve the health of the breed.” They have blocked the video on You Tube, and instructed Channel 4, which has been airing Crufts since the BBC pulled out on welfare grounds, to edit the footage so that Cruaghaire Catoria was not seen moving.

Thanks to Jemima Harrison and Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the footage is available along with additional information such as these comments from previous judges:

“This bitch is so correct throughout, lovely feminine head & good expression, neck well set on to body. Very good front angulation, lovely topline & good croup, very balanced hind angles. Correct height to length ratio, super underline. In movement she is outstanding so clean coming & going & her profile movement was really excellent.. Very pleased to award her the CC & BOB.”

“…black and gold female of ideal middle size and strength, excellent general proportions, feminine expressive female with well shaped head dark eye and excellent ear carriage, normal wither into straight strong firm back, well laid croup which could be a touch longer, very good forehand with very good underline, excellent hindquarters with strong broad thighs, in top show condition, this female shows a willingness to perform in all phases, demonstrating excellent reach and drive, this was a super class of females, in my opinion this is a female who deserves the highest of accolades, a pleasure to judge. BEST BITCH AND BOB.”

Now I know what I was taught in the KC Judge’s exam and it bore no resemblance to what I saw in this bitch. I could not recognise her from the previous judges’ comments. I would like to think that no one in their right mind could fail to see that this dog was petrified, couldn’t wait to get out of the ring and was actually ataxic. Her topline was so distorted that she seemed to be crouching permanently. When she moved, the whole of her lower hind leg was placed on the ground and she scraped the top of her foot as she struggled to lift her leg high enough to take another step. This is the sort of gait that is commonly seen in dogs suffering from canine degenerative myelopathy. It is an auto-immune disease that is prevalent in German Shepherds and that causes progressive degeneration of the spinal cord resulting in weakness and eventual loss of communication between the brain and the hind legs. This bitch was passed as sound by vets.

Those breeding, judging and showing are supposed to represent the epitome in their chosen breeds so why would any of them think that it what was exhibited at Crufts this year was, in any way, shape or form, normal or acceptable? Not to mention the vet. Now I think it unlikely that this dog has degenerated since she was last judged so that, at every step of the way, a series of supposed experts have concluded that she represents some form of perfection.

Owner Susan Cuthbert has stated “Words cannot express the heart-wrenching experience that I have suffered.” Of course no acknowledgment that it is her dog who is truly suffering. Cuthbert then asks “How can you judge a dog on such a brief observation?”

Well, Ms Cuthbert, I was repeatedly told by my KC examiner that as a judge I would have fewer than two minutes to go over a dog and approximately 30 seconds to see it moving.

Personally, it took me no more than a second or so to see that this dog has an appalling topline, a severely abnormal gait and was clearly very unhappy in the ring.

The handler has further stated that the dog was overwhelmed by the noise, lights, heat and “forced photo [sic]shoots” and that this is “a situation that no owner, trainer or handler can prepare for.” One might forgive him the preposition at the end of the sentence but not that he does not realise that breeders, owners, trainers and handlers can do exactly that. If the dog was that distressed, why was she exhibited? This is supposed to be a top show dog; if her temperament is not suited to the ring, then she should not be shown and should not be bred from. If this was a one-off, she should have been withdrawn.

I took my rescue dog to Crufts a couple of years ago. He coped with the crowds, noise, heat, lights, flashing cameras (often in his face), noisy spectators and 8 hours of being patted, not always in an ideal manner. He also exhibited in the ring with Pets As Therapy. He wasn’t the slightest bit ruffled by any of it, in fact lapped it all up. So did the other PAT dogs – pets, many of them rescue dogs, who had with a minimal amount of good handling and training adapted very well to the demands of Crufts. Had my dog been at all discomfitted, I would have taken him home.

It should be remembered that Crufts was originally established with the aim of selling dog food. It now seem to be a club for the few initiates. In spite of the fact that 47,000 entries were received this year, some finalists were related or obviously known to the judges and the oft-heard complaint that the awards go to “the person on the end of the lead” may not be entirely a case of sour grapes. Even if judges are completely unbaised, awards are obviously not going only to fit, healthy and happy dogs.

The only good thing to come out of this is the outcry that it has engendered. The next good thing that should come of it is effective and immediate action by the Kennel Club to prevent all “recognised” breeds with blatent distortions and heritable problems from being bred from or shown and those that are not “recognised” to remain so. I won’t hold my breath.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Posted on by

deed not breedPolice have made another appalling canine welfare blunder as it has been revealed that the Devon and Cornwall section ordered a bull breed bitch detained under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to be left in a 3ft x 9ft kennel for two years without exercise. Kennel assistants were told not to enter the kennel of or handle any dogs held under the Act in blatant contradiction of DEFRA’s welfare guidelines which state “The welfare of any dog seized is also a factor the police need to consider and they should note their duty to ensure the welfare of animals under their control (s9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006)”.

The dog’s owner has made 11 court appearances in an attempt to reprieve his dog but a court has now ordered that she be destroyed. Her owner stated that she had not shown any signs of aggression before being seized because of her breed. Video evidence of her behaviour was shown in court but this was of behaviour exhibited following her long confinement. She was kept in private facilities and no explanation was given as to why she could not have had free access to a secure run without the need for staff to place themselves in danger.

The BBC obtained data via a Freedom of Information request revealing that over a five year period, police seized 7,000 dogs and spent £650 on average per dog. Each police authority is recommended to employ a Dog Legislation Officer. The Metropolitan Police have 25 DLOs, mostly employed as dog handers rather than to handle dangerous dogs.
Their spending on seized dogs has risen from £405,000 in 2006 to £2.72M in 2011.

We must review the knee-jerk legislation such as that which has resulted in the Dangerous Dogs Act and make it a statutory obligation for local authorities to emply a 24 hour, 7 day a week dog warden service. We should continue to press for the compulsory education of all dog owners and take action against anyone who breaches animal welfare legislation, including the police.

Stop Press: There has been an update to the case of Stella the “pit bull”. Her owner has launched a late appeal against the destruction order and she will remain in kennels until the outcome of the appeal is known. A charity in Connecticut, USA has offered to pay all costs of relocation if she cannot be returned to her owner.

There is a now ray of hope for this dog after two years of suffering but how many more will have to suffer similar and worse fates until we control breeding, insist on compulsory education for dog owners and punish the deed not the breed.

Coming Up For Air

Posted on by

stenotic nares Following on from the furore in Sweden and worldwide when Swedish judge Åke Cronander awarded a pug an Excellent rating at a show in Sweden in spite of the fact that it was evidently in respiratory distress (see Swedish Vets and SKK Lead The Way), Swedish vets have continued to take a lead in preventing further suffering in brachycephalic dogs.

Two Swedish veterinary ophthalmologists have make a public statement asking for a ban on breeding severely brachycephalic breeds (see Pedigree Dogs Exposed Blog for full details). This will no doubt provoke a storm of protest from owners and breeders who seem blind to the suffering of these dogs but it is an urgent consideration that has to be made because of the appalling breeding practices that have led to this situation. Of course, brachycephalic dogs are not the only breeds that are severely affected by heritable diseases – Cavalier King Charles spaniels with MVD and syringomyelia spring to mind for instance.

Should we seriously consider that some of the breeds with which we have become familiar over the last hundred years or so should be allowed to become extinct? Is it possible to outcross to eliminate most of the problems or will that just prolong the suffering of the resulting dogs? More and more genetic tests are being developed but they are not always a solution to a problem and only a tiny percentage of the dogs bred will have been tested anyway.

More urgently, we need to work to eliminate the mind set in some humans that sees bulging eyes, miniaturisation, obesity and gasping for breath as “cute” and “normal”.

All eyes will be on Sweden to see how this develops.

End BackStreet Breeding Campaign

Posted on by

licensed Battersea Dogs & Cats Home established an End Backstreet Breeding campaign in 2015 aimed at lowering the licensing threshold to two litters in stead of five as at present and closing loopholes to stop the sale of dogs below eight weeks of age to pet shops and dealers.

There are currently 895 licensed dog breeders using an estimated 13,425 breeding bitches (assuming that each bitch has one litter per year) in 379 Local Authorities areas in England, Wales and Scotland; an increase of 32% since 2010. 40% are located in 6% of the local authorities, clustering in mid and west Wales, Lincolnshire, East Anglia and some rural areas of Scotland. The law in Wales changed in April 2015, licensing all breeders at the third litter and bringing a further 500 breeders into the scope of licensing. The costs of inspection can be reclaimed through the application fee. One third of Local Authorities do not license any breeders and fewer than 12% of puppies born in Great Britain are bred by licensed breeders in any given year. Effective enforcement of regulations varies markedly from one area to another. Licensed dog breeders produce an estimated 67,125 puppies annually, some using 10 or fewer breeding bitches but five with more than 100 breeding bitches and the largest with 200. Just 5 licences were refused in 2014 for failing to provide adequate accommodation or levels of supervision. 88% of puppies are bred outside of the licensing regulations.

Although the average number of bitches used for breeding in any one establishment is 10, large establishments are responsible for 75% of breeding. Staff in councils where few licences are issued may not have much expertise or training in dealing with dogs. The C.A.R.I.A.D campaign for instance, is well aware of puppy farms that are repeatedly given licences in spite of appalling breeding practices and conditions. This was also highlighted in the recent BBC TV documentary The Dog Factory. In addition to large variations in the fee structure between local authorities, new applications may be required to pay additional vet fees costing between £100 and £300. Basic fees vary between £23 in Glasgow to £741 in the London Borough of Lambeth, in spite of the fact that local authorities are prohibited from making a profit from the licence fee, setting a high fee as a deterrent or setting a fee low to attract businesses to their area.

Reducing the legal requirement to obtain a licence to two litters a year is not likely to improve the situation. Although this campaign should be supported, it does not go far enough. Anyone breeding a dog should be licensed and resources need to be put into enforcement as fees are collected to pay for it. There should be a massive public information campaign and breeders should be traced through online advertisements and the remaining pet shops that still sell dogs.