Category: Dog Welfare

45% Of Dogs Are Not Microchipped

Posted on by

A survey of 3,000 UK-based dog owners carried out by OnePoll on behalf of the Dogs Trust reveals that one in five dog owners are not prepared for the changes to the microchipping law that will come into force in England, Wales and Scotland in April 2016. 45% of existing owners have not chipped their dogs.
microchip45

Approximately half of dogs that currently find their way into rescue shelters cannot be rehomed either because they are not chipped or because the chip details have not been kept up to date. From April 6th, 2016 all dogs must be microchipped and registered to an approved database by the time they are 8 weeks old.

Microchips are not proof of ownership but the person to whom the chip is registered is regarded for legal purposes as the keeper of the animal. The keeper can be served with a notice requiring microchipping within 21 days. Details, including changes of telephone number must be kept up to date on the register.

Failure to chip or to keep details updated can be subject to a £500 fine.

Only trained implanters can microchip animals. Vets will microchip your dog for a fee but there are several local authority-run free microchipping events and it is often offered at dog shows and similar events. The Dogs Trust runs free sessions around the country as do local authorities and rescue orgnisations.

Don’t be one of the 45% – get your dog microchipped now!

Clueless Cloning

Posted on by

boxers The news that Laura Jacques and Richard Remde have paid the Sooam Biotech Research Foundation in Korea £67,000 per dog for two clones of their deceased boxer must cause disquiet in the dog world and beyond.

It displays a glaring ignorance, or worse disregard, on the part of the owners for the welfare considerations of adult clones who have been shown to suffer serious ill health and consequential premature death not to mention the lab in question (previously known to have made false claims about human cloning). It also disregards epigenetics: no two dogs will ever be alike because of the effects of the environment in utero and after birth. Are the owners then just concerned about the superficial appearance of their dogs?

What a monumental waste of money that could have gone a very long way to helping dogs in many spheres rather than boosting the vanity of the owners. We should make moves to legislate against this practice as soon as possible.

Idiot of the Month

Posted on by

gdyork Walking in the park this morning, I was approached by a woman with two yorkies. My dog extended a nose in passing and one of the yorkies reciprocated. Everything was fine as far as I and the dogs were concerned.
However, the woman immediately went into a panic and began screeching at her dogs to come away. She scooped up the dog that had voluntarily greeted my dog and muttered at me “Your dog’s too big for them” as she scurried past.
Well done, lady. You have now stopped your dog from socialising and begun to train it to be afraid everytime that it sees a bigger dog. Let’s face it, that will be quite often considering the size down to which we have bred yorkies.

Jack Split

Posted on by

petrie dish The news that the Kennel Club are “recognising” the Jack Russell terrier has created dismay in terrier circles. The absurdity that this type somehow didn’t really exist until the KC said so aside, fears that the breed may now decline into poor genetic diversity and exaggerated phenotypes are not unprecedented. All the more important then that terriers continue to be used in the field and bred for purpose.

Similarly, the news that IVF techniques have been used to create a litter is a mixed blessing. Let us hope that it does not give a green light to continue in-breeding using genetic manipulations as a quick fix for the problems created. Instead it could provide a solution to those breeds that come from such a small gene pool that the breed is unlikely to ever exist without health problems.

Swedish Vets and SKK Lead The Way

Posted on by

stenotic nares pug This summer, 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. He also participated in a televised debate where he stated that he had never seen a dog with breathing problems in the show ring. Following the posting of the video on social media and subsequent complaints, some Swedish owners of show pugs have attempted to claim that the dog was making “anxiety sounds” – as if that would be a good thing! They also list “pug-friendly” judges on their web site – one assumes that will be judges who are prepared to accept a gasping, snorting (and often overweight) dog as normal and award the owners an “Excellent” accolade.

Our own KC is keen to remind potential judges that they are not vets and consistently talks about lameness as if it were the only health problem that was patently evident. They seem also prepared to ignore the fact that surgery for stenotic nares in barchycephalic dogs is not uncommon and does not prevent them being shown and bred from. The UKKC lists the pug in its highest category for concern (Category 3 Breed Watch) and makes veterinary checks and reporting of concerns by judges compulsory. This does not seem to have resulted in a significant move away from distressed dogs.

To its immense credit, the Swedish Kennel Club (SKK) has made breathing problems a specific focus for concern and is currently investigating Åke Cronander’s decision, having also published a statement expressing their concern. They are also revising breeding guidelines and health advice for all bracycephalic breeds, including revising the puppy health certificates which must accompany all dogs sold by SKK members to put more emphasis on dogs’ constitution. The SKK are working in conjunction with vets and considering whether to make their breeding prototcol and veterinary certificate mandatory. In addition, they are embarking on a training programme for their judges and on an education programme for the public.

Free Microchipping West London

Posted on by

Hounslow Dog Warden services and the DogsTrust are offering free microchipping, health checks and vouchers for neutering, vaccinations, fleas and worming at Edensor Gardens in Chiswick, London W4 2RF on November 18th, 2015 between 11.00 hrs and 15.00 hrs.

Remember, all dogs will be required to be microchipped by April 2016 and it is owner’s responsiblity to keep their details up to date on the database.

Routine health care helps all dogs in the community stay well by providing ‘herd immunity’ and preventing the build up of worms such as toxicara canis.

Eighth Day Dogs

Posted on by

wanted-poster
The Dogs Trust has just released the results of its latest Stray Dogs Survey. The figures make disheartening reading.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to look after stray dogs for seven days (five days in Ireland). “Eighth Day Dogs” can be rehomed, passed to a welfare organisation or euthanased. Some local authorities have their own kennels, others tender kennelling to private companies or charities.

102,363 stray and abandoned dogs were handled by Local Authorities between 2014 – 2015 (an 8% decrease from last year). That represents an average of 1 stray for every 617 people (actual numbers vary by region).
47,000 owners abandoned their dogs

75% were seized – 1% under the Dangerous Dogs Act
1% were brought in by police
Fewer than 1% were transferred from vets, the RSPCA and dog wardens etc
16% were brought in by members of the public

Between April 1st 2014 and March 31st 2015:
An estimated 50% of stray dogs were reunited with their owners by being reclaimed during the statutory local authority kennelling period (36%) or returned directly to their owner without entering a kennel (18%)
9% were re-homed by local authorities
22% were passed on to welfare organisations or dog kennels after the statutory period
5% were euthanased (4,880 dogs)
Approximately 5,142 dogs were euthanased across the UK between April 1st 2014 and March 31st 2015
1,367 dogs were euthanased due to behavioural problems or aggression (390 under the Dangerous Dogs Act) and 717 due to ill health

1% were still in the local authority kennels after March 31st 2015
134 strays were retained by the finders
21 dogs were either dead when found or died in kennels

17,789 (20%) of the dogs taken in were already microchipped – a 4% global increase on the previous year, although it varies by region
8,833 of these dogs were reunited when the owner contacted the local authority or pound directly
Microchips alone accounted for 9,430 reunions; ID disks for 1,018 reunions and a combination of the two for 1,066 reunions
817 dogs were reunited due to already being known to the dog warden
Facebook was used to reunite 173 dogs and owners
Local/council registration schemes to reunite 98 dogs and owners
1,380 (3%) dogs taken in had no identification

306 authorities responded to the questions about dog warden services.
283 had services that were operational during working hours on Monday to Friday and 85 during working hours on Saturdays and Sundays
127 authorities had a dog warden service which worked on-call out of working hours on Monday to Friday and 119 authorities operated an on-call service out of hours on weekends

345 authorities in Great Britain reported 18,535 ‘status dogs’ (bull breeds including Staffies and Mastiffs, Rottweilers, Akitas or crosses of these) representing 21% of all strays handled.
1,023 of these (6%) were euthanased due to aggressive behaviour.

If we do not find solutions to irresponsible breeding, purchasing, selling and ownership, the year on year figures will continue to spell misery for the vast numbers of unfortunate dogs that they represent.

From the Sublime to the Horrific

Posted on by

CariadJust back from Clicker Expo – wow! The opportunity to learn from people at the top of their game was invaluable – and fun.

Then back from the sublime learning environment to the real world reading last night’s London Evening Standard. They did an excellent job in a quite a long feature explaining in detail why people shouldn’t purchase dogs online and how to purchase responsibly.

Unfortunately they then featured a woman, suggesting that she was a “victim” of the puppy farming trade, who had done exactly that and who then went on TO BREED FROM THE DOG. Both dam and singleton pup died subsequently.

It is highly unlikely that it will be possible or effective in banning online sales of dogs or regulating purchasing. There is likely to be some redress under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (replaced the Sale of Goods Act 1979) in that a puppy that is sickly and/or that dies shortly after purchase or that is sold as coming from a local breeder or that is not the dog as represented in the online advertising etc is being sold in breach of the law. However, this is both a potential solution in the immediate term and the problem.

Just because dogs are regarded in law as being commodities, they should not be regarded by potential owners as such, to be bought and sold like the latest online fashion. We can’t ban online sales or, in practice, purchases, and we can campaign until we are blue in the face to educate people on responsible puppy purchasing.

We need the additional stick of regulating and, if necessary, prosecuting all breeders, regardless of whether they breed one dog or dozens of litters. The regulations should impose educational conditions on all people seeking to breed who should, at the very least, have a basic knowledge of genetics, undergo compulsory testing of dam and sire under guidance from the latest information, undertake puppy socialisation training and have legal and other guidance with regard to selling.

People who buy from puppy farmers are not victims. They are perpetrators. The real victims are the dogs. Lets us never forget that.

Insurance – Safeguard or Gamble?

Posted on by

gambling Do you know exactly what you are getting when you take out insurance? In a sense, all insurance is a gamble and many people probably do not bother to read the small print, so get caught out by promises of wonderful deals only to find that conditions are not covered for life or a dog with an accidental injury will not be covered should a clinical condition affect the same part of the body.

Since Petplan was launched in 1976 creating the first opportunity in the UK for owners to insure pets, pet insurance has been a double edged sword. While on the one hand it enables pets who otherwise would be euthanised to go on to live full lives by making complex veterinary interventions possible, it also means that premiums remain unaffordable in practice for many in order to support the cost of bigger claims and still ensure returns for shareholders. Some owners put money into an interest account instead, but it is often not enough to cover a really large vet bill and may not be easy to release in the event of an emergency.

Anyone considering purchasing pet insurance needs to negotiate a minefield of exclusions, pre-existing condition definitions, variations in types of cover and the postcode lottery of excess charges. Now there is news that pet insurance companies under the RSA Group umbrella are piloting the placing of restrictions on which referral practices owners and vets can use. The pilot is being undertaken in the Midlands and North West and affects pets insured by More Than, John Lewis, Tesco, Argos, Homebase and Marks and Spencer. Owners will be required, with the exception of emergency referrals, to contact their insurance company before a referral is made to confirm which practice can be used. Owners that do not comply with the insurer’s choice of practice are likely to find their claim disallowed.

It seems a pointless restriction given that policies are usually limited to a fixed amount per annum or per condition. If the owner chooses to spend the whole allowance on one referral because the vet considers it the best option, then that surely is their perogative?

Furthermore, owners who have made provision for fixed cages when travelling may find that their vehicle insurance is invalid if they did not make the insurance company aware of what is considered to be a modification. I wonder how many owners are aware that, by complying with the law and considering the welfare of their dogs, they may be breaking another law by invalidating their insurance cover. Presumably, insurance companies may feel entitled to raise premiums in such “modified” vehicles. This, in conjunction with the Kennel Club’s bizarre ban on leaving show dogs in suitably fitted out, ventilated vehicles, can only further reduce the number of people participating in the pedigree show ring.

Breakdown cover can be a nightmare when travelling with dogs as most companies do not always send a vehicle out that is suitable for transporting dog cages or may make owners wait a considerable amount of time or leave it to the “discretion” (ie personal predilicitions) of the driver when choosing whether to transport dogs or not.

Whatever the personal decisions made about insurance, it always pays to consider all options and go into it with eyes wide open.