Category: Dog Welfare

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.

Firework Season is Already Upon Us

Posted on by

fireworks It is not even October and last night I heard fireworks. I am one of the lucky owners with a bomb-proof dog – I jump more than he does – but I have lived with a gun-shy dog and it is miserable for all concerned.

A petition to the government resulted in the banning of fireworks for sale to the public being debated by the 2010–2015 Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, the conclusion being that a ban was not justified because of current legislative measures. It is obvious that current legislation is not enforced as to location and timing of fireworks let off by members of the public. It is probably not even possible to provide sufficient resources to police displays at expected times, let alone random events such as that which I witnessed last night. In any case, this was within current legislation – no help if I had had a terrified dog at my side.

Is it time to campaign again for a ban?

Post Scriptum: I have just heard from the Sounds Scary team that, sadly, they are no longer in business. However, they have teamed up with the Dogs Trust to offer free downloads of their sound effects. Sound effects should be played at gradually increasing volumes until the toleration level of the actual noise is achieved. An information booklet is also available as a download.

Idiots of the Month No 3

Posted on by

dog and bike A bit early, I know, but the latest Idiot of the Month award is another joint award that goes to two cyclists that I saw in the park this morning, who both represent their kind perfectly.

Quite apart from the nuisance of dodging the cyclists in the park as well as on the pavement on the way to the park, it is distressing to see so many stressed dogs and potential dangers when dogs and cycling are combined. Specially designed cycles for exercising sled dogs (specially designed dogs!) are of course fine.

The first cyclist was belting along followed by a small terrier, straining its lungs whilst running flat out with the cyclist looking over his shoulder and shouting at the dog to keep up.

The second cyclist had the opposite problem: he released a young Weimeraner who promptly disappeared over the horizon followed by a gasping man, pedalling for all he was worth whilst yelling in vain at the dog to come back.

Apart from the fact that neither presented a very edifying spectacle, how on earth did either cyclist think that what they were doing benefitted their dog? Neither had any control as one dog was obviously not trained for a reliable recall and the other was clearly not physically capable of keeping up with a bicycle. Neither could hope to have full control over their dog even with training or be able to react fast enough in the event of an incident.

Dogs that are forced to run are often stressed and cause other dogs to panic because they have no choice but to belt past, appearing aggressive.

No doubt both owners think that they are exercising their dog and themselves. This may well be more of a case of killing the dog or even the cyclist than two birds with one stone. It certainly doesn’t enable any positive interaction with the dog, causes problems for other people and doesn’t enable the dog to take its own time to enjoy its walk.

Chinese City Threatens To Club Pet Dogs to Death

Posted on by

Chinese flag Dayang New District in the city of Jinan has imposed draconion laws in an attempt to rid the area of dogs following alleged complaints. Notices have appeared stating:

“No person is permitted to keep a dog of any kind. Deal with it on your own or else the committee will organise people to enter your home and club the dog to death right there.”

The order cites further the maintenance of environmental hygiene and “everyone’s normal lives” as reasons.

Where does one begin? Cultural differences in eating dogs is one thing; at least there it is possible to campaign for the dogs to be kept in reasonable conditions and slaughtered humanely. This order interferes with something much more fundamental.

Some argue that one of the areas of origin of the domestic dog was China. Proto-dog/human burials have been discovered that are 12,000 years old so what could be more ‘normal’ than living with a dog? It may not be everyones’ choice and, of course irresponsible dog owners mar the environment for dogs and people. Culls may be necessary during rabies outbreaks, something that dog smugglers and puppy farmers are risking here in the UK. However culling pet dogs just for being pet dogs and that in a brutal, inhumane fashion beggars belief and is likely a legacy of Mao’s horrendous Cultural Revoltion.

It certainly puts recent council restrictions on access and attempts to criminalise dog owners for minor misdemeanours in the shade and it should make the World Dog Show have a re-think about locating in China in 2019.

It’s a Boy – Well 5 Actually

Posted on by

Heaven's whelps After 22 hours in labour (!) Heaven, our adopted Labrador bitch, has produced five black pups in a dramatic, in-transit birth. Breeder and bitch were on their way to the vet, but all five were delivered in the car.

Breeder Aidens Labradors report that mother and whelps are doing fine.

We will be reporting on their progress from now on – watch this space for updates.

Idiot of the Month Award No2

Posted on by

punishing dog Alas, people doing idiotic things with dogs are a daily sight in our streets, parks and countryside. Dogs off lead on main roads, coastal paths and a host of other dangerous places are a common sight.

Sometimes, though, it is insidious things that are upsetting, the sort where dogs suffer and their owners are oblivious.

It was just such an incident that inspired me to highlight this month’s “Idiot”.

I was walking along the high street with my dog (on a lead of course). It is a wide street and was not very busy that particular morning. We passed a woman with a small, young terrier. As she saw us, she jerked the dog’s lead, pulling it up by it’s throat. Startled, the dog barked, whereupon she shouted at it for barking.

In her mind, she needed to be worried because a bigger dog was passing. It didn’t matter that the bigger dog is well socialised, actually paid no attention to her dog whatsoever and she was far too far away for the dogs to make contact in any case.

She of course was teaching her dog to be afraid and then punishing it for reacting in the way that she had prompted.

Poor little, confused dog. Just the sort to be kept in for being unable to cope with other dogs, medicated for being neurotic or re-homed.