Category: Dogs and Society

Cornwall Cool Dog Campaign

Posted on by

It seems sadly inevitable that on a baking hot bank holiday weekend a woman left three dogs in a hot van from 11.00 hrs – 15.30 hrs. Luckily, attendees at the Newlyn fish festival intervened and saved her dogs from certain death. It remains to be seen whether she will be prosecuted.

Meanwhile, Cornwall Live are running photographic competition to find the coolest dog in Cornwall.

Bear in mind that forcing your dog to wear clothing as shown in many of the images may make them even hotter than they are already.

Royal Mail Dog Awareness Week 2017

Posted on by

Royal Mail workers make deliveries to more than 29 million addresses across the UK. Not all of them come away unscathed.

An average of seven postal workers are attacked by dogs each day. Attacks increase during the school holidays and in the summer months especially when dogs are left unsupervised in gardens, allowed to roam or taken out off lead. Owners who do not keep their dogs under control could be in breach of the Road Traffic Act, The Control of Dogs Order and/or the Dangerous Dogs Act to name but three pieces of legislation. Since 2013, the DDA has covered attacks by dogs that occur on private property. The majority of the dogs reported as stolen have been left unsupervised in gardens, so, it is not just postal workers who are at risk.

2,471 postmen and women were attacked by dogs between April 2016 and April 2017. Some were left with permanent, disabling injuries. 71% of attacks happened in gardens or on the doorstep. No one should work in fear of their safety and no one should be traumatised or injured through preventable causes.

All dogs have the potential to be a danger to postal staff, regardless of their size. What you might perceive as being boisterous and friendly may seem frightening to your postman and even the tiniest of dogs can inflict nasty injuries. Even if your dog’s intentions are benign, your postman should not have to endure being jumped on, scratched or barked at every day. (Neither should anyone else for that matter). Every time that your dog barks at someone delivering letters and they go away, his confidence increases because he has defended his territory from an intruder. (A territorial dog is not protecting you, he is asserting his possession). The next time that you have to open the door to sign for something or receive a parcel, your dog may escalate his defensive aggression and bite.

  • Keep your dog away from the front door every time that visitors call – use a child gate or shut the door
  • Do not allow children to open the door and make sure that they do not allow the dog out if confined
  • Train your dog to lie quietly on a mat when visitors call and reward him for staying there
  • Control your dog’s greeting behaviour and do not allow jumping up, scratching or over-excited barking
  • Control territorial barking – get professional help if necessary
  • Do not leave a dog unattended in a garden and secure the garden so that your dog cannot get out
  • Always put your dog on a lead before you leave the house even if you are putting your dog in the car
  • Fit a secure mail box on the property boundary or a wire receptacle behind the door to contain the mail so that postman cannot get bitten when using the letterbox and to prevent your dog from damaging the mail.

Postal workers’ safety is YOUR responsiblity.

What’s In A Meme?

Posted on by

Meme is a neologism coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1989 classic The Selfish Gene that describes an idea, behaviour or style that spreads from person to person within a culture. A meme acts in a similar way to a gene that carries genetic information in plants and animals but instead acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or anything that can be mimicked. Like genes, memes can self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures.

So what has this got to do with dogs?

Anthrozoologist Hal Herzog has proposed that keeping dogs as pets and, in particular, preferences for specific dog breeds are memes. He proposes that he acted as a “vehicle through which the dog-as-pet meme” replicated… “inadvertently spreading the dog-as-pet meme by raising my children with dogs and by extolling the joys and tribulations of having companion dogs in my classes.” He thinks that this may well be a mechanism to explain the explosion in popularity of specific dog breeds as such cultural changes can replicate many times faster than genetic changes.

This monkey see, monkey do approach would explain why, against all rational, and I would argue ethical considerations, the expected registrations of the French bulldog, to name but one brachycephalic breed, is expected to exceed 28,000 this year with the UKKC alone. It would seem that the desire to fit in by conforming to popular behaviours and the reverence for supposed role models – indeed actual models – that have helped to make this breed fashionable is much stronger than the obvious fact that most cannot give birth naturally and cannot breathe without extreme difficulty. (In addition to the common occurence of cleft palate/hare lips, anasarca puppies, congenital abnormalities of the vertebrae, hip dysplasia
luxating patellas, straight stifles and loose ligaments, hindquarter paresis and spondalytis). One owner happily stated to me that he spends a fortune on air conditioning so that his dogs do not overheat and that he would prefer his dog to sleep with a ball in his mouth so that he does not die from sleep apnoea than contemplate surgery to correct BOAS.

Perhaps, as well as providing many enlightening insights into attitudes towards animals in his excellent book Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, Professor Herzog may have solved the mystery why otherwise kind and straight-thinking people can profess to love their dogs and perpetuate and ignore misery and deformity.

KC Plays Tail End Charlie

Posted on by

The KC has just published a report entitled What the Kennel Club does for Dog Health

Many dog owners may feel that the title is a bit rich given that canine health would probably not be in such dire straits were it not for the KC’s implementation of closed stud books and perpetuation of breeding for looks.

The Kennel Club has been playing tail end Charlie in the court of public opinion since at least 2008. Its brand is being seen as being increasingly toxic and any efforts that it makes to improve the situation are likely to be doomed to irrelevance in the face of the scale of the problem that is, after all, largely of their own making.

Is it too little too late?

Read more…

Man Bites Dog

Posted on by

Last year, an American bulldog dog killed a three year old. Although fatalities from dog attacks are still extremely rare, incidents such as this still crop up a few times a year and of course attract far more attention than the 1,700 people killed in traffic accidents or the 78,000 deaths directly attributable to smoking that occurred over the same period.

The owner of the American bulldog has just been given a 12 month custodial sentence, suspended for two years. She was also disqualified from owning a dog for 10 years and ordered to complete 100 hours of unpaid work.

The dog of course was euthanised.

So how will this punishment help? It certainly won’t bring the dog back. It won’t prevent other people and other dogs from ending up in the same position, not to mention the 7,000 or so people who will still be bitten by dogs and require hospital treatment in any given year.

In theory, this woman and others like her could just go out and get another dog in 2027 and nothing will have been done to educate her in responsible dog ownership. Her community service is likely to entail removing graffiti, clearing litter or decorating public buildings. How much more beneficial if she spent those 100 hours – equal only to two weeks work – learning about dogs.

The causes of such attacks are usually depressingly similar. Bad breeding, lack of socialisation, bad handling, lack of stimulation and exercise, lack of training, poor diet.

The owners often live in similar depravation. It is hardly surprising that most of the people who get bitten and even killed by dogs are relatively poor; the impoverishment being as much social as financial. Just as the status dogs of the relatively wealthy often comprise gun dogs that suggest the landed estate, the dogs of the poor are usually musclebound hulks providing the illusion of power that is lacking for people with minimal education, poor job prospects and limited opportunities. There’s also the chance that they will protect you from the loan shark or the drug dealer or the gang member.

Wealthy people just give their dogs away when they can no longer cope with their lack of training and socialisation or dump them on the dog minder for most of their lives. The poor compound their errors until, every so often, the dog, through no fault of its own, kills someone.

I Hope That Bad Owners Don’t Come In Threes

Posted on by

My poor dog hasn’t had too good a time of it in the last few days. First we encountered a dog running loose in the park, owner nowhere in sight. It wasn’t until after he had happily played with my dog that I realised that his eyes were oozing with a green discharge.

Yep, conjunctivitis. I eventually caught up with the owner who casually remarked that he had been “Meaning to do something about it”. Somehow refrained from adding “What? Infect as many other dogs as you can before you consider that your dog might not be very comfortable and his eyesight might even be compromised if you leave it any longer?”

So much for the Animal Welfare Act.

Half way through a week of chloramphenicol tid, he was attacked by a seriously aggressive boxer that actually pursued him when he had moved away. OK, that was annoying. What made me really mad was that the owner admitted that she knows that her dog is aggressive and had done nothing about it. Needless to say, the dog is uncastrated. She did proceed to hit it and shout at it. Miraculously, the dog didn’t turn on her – this time. She was a polite woman who was in total denial about her dog and, even though she knew that she had little control, still let it run loose in the park, unmuzzled.

Warning other owners on the way out of the park, I discovered that they all knew exactly which dog I meant as every one of them had either had a problem or witnessed the dog attacking other dogs. So had the park warden.

No serious damage done this time, but it remains to be seen if the dog wardens from the two boroughs that run the park will follow it up.

Call Me Cassandra…

Posted on by

I met a women in the park a few months ago. She was walking a Finnish Spitz and, as they are not common where I live, I asked her if she had always owned the breed. She replied that it was her first dog. I then asked if she had bought on looks alone and been surprised at the amount of barking and relative difficulty in training, especially recall, that her dog exhibited. Astonished she agreed that all were the case. I then cheerfully informed her about the way that the Finnish spitz was bred to hunt and told her about the annual King of the Barkers competition. Needless to say, she didn’t take up my offer of help with training.

I met her again last night, now accompanied also by her other dog, a nervous Staffie cross that I would guess is a rescue. She is pregnant with twins and was cheerfully talking to another (very sensible) dog owner about it.

I asked if she had a plan in place for accustoming her dogs to the major changes that they are about to undergo.

She laughed.

I explained that I was perfectly serious. She then informed the other dog owner that she intended to breast feed and would hug each dog to either side of her while she accomplished this feat so that they felt included because “they think that they are human”.

My sincere entreaties that this would lead to potential disaster were dismissed.

Sadly I suspect that it is only a matter of time before two dogs are looking for a new home, assuming of course that they have not been put down for biting “out of the blue”.

This is not a good week. A couple of days ago, I found out that my neighbour had re-homed his lovely Australian Shepherd. I first met him with his partner and the then tiny puppy outside a local pub. The dog had not had his second vaccinations but they had carried him round the corner so that he could experience the world going by. They were first time dog owners and I suggested that they might have their hands full with such a breed. Of course, they assured me that he was centre of their world and all would be well. He went through a very nervous adolescence and my doubts grew. Then she got pregnant.

Surprise, surprise, the dog was no longer centre of their world. Last month they sent him back to the breeder because they were too busy to deal with him and he had started stalking their offspring.

They are of course to blame but then so is the breeder for selling them this dog. I hope that he has a fulfilling and happy life with a new owner. I will miss him.

(Image courtesy of Wiki Commons)

Bad Hair Day

Posted on by

I was sent a link to a news article yesterday regarding a couple whose “beloved” Samoyed had been shaved by a dog groomer.

As with everything else in the canine world, grooming is unregulated. It should come as no surprise that these groomers had no idea of the importance of the double coat in protecting against heat and cold or the consequences of clipping it off. I was pursued by a judge at a companion show who was also a groomer. She kept insisting that my Sibe needed a trim. I withdrew him from the ring and complained to the organiser after she also handled him really roughly – another common factor in dog grooming. I met a couple at another show who had not only shaved the guard hairs off their Sibe but were parading her round in full sun. Her coat had hardened and become like sharp straw.

The blame ultimately lies with the owners for buying a double-coated dog that they are then too lazy to acclimatise to being groomed. How “beloved” is a dog if you cannot even be bothered to keep its coat groomed? The groomer should of course have assessed the dog on arrival and recommended that the dog be sedated by a vet who could then remove the tangles. The owners should then have been reported under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and placed under RSPCA supervision to ensure that they maintained their grooming regime under threat of losing their dog.

That’ll be the day.

Grooming a dog is an important part of care and of bonding between owner and dog. It should be done at least daily as well as checks for lumps, ticks, grass seeds and any other abnormality. Buying a dog with a complex coat that humans have bred to need a lot of attention, not bothering to care for it then dumping the dog on a groomer who is not likely to acclimatise it gradually to being handled and groomed is not acceptable. The time to obtain advice about how to handle and groom a dog is before buying.

As with puppy farming, we need to stop treating owners as victims and put the blame – and the resources for education- squarely where it lies.

How Much Do You Love Your Dog?

Posted on by

The emphasis here is on the “how much”, not the “love”. The Office for National Statistics published the weekly expenditure on pets and pet food across the UK by region as follows:

Pets and Pet food

SE £5.30
SW £5.10
East £5.10
W Mids £4.90
Scotland £4.70
E Mids £4.70
Wales £4.60
N Ireland £4.00
Yorks & Humber £3.80
NW £3.50
NE £3.40
London £2.40

Basic Food £11.70
Treats £0.09
Vaccs £1.00
Worming £1.50
Flea £1.50
———————–
£16.60

Are they mad or were they just counting food for stick insects?
Here’s mine:

Basic Food £20.00
Cod Liver Oil £0.39
Treats £1.00
Vaccs £1.00
Worming £1.53
Flea £2.30
Toothpaste £0.75
———————–
£26.97

The PDSA PAW Report 2016 estimates that the lifetime cost of owning a dog is between £21,000 and £33,000. Assuming an average of £22,000 and a lifetime of 12 years, that works out at £43.27 per week. That of course takes into account expenditure outside of the ONS survey scope such as collar and lead, neutering and non-prophylactic veterinary costs, grooming equipment etc. 97% of dog owners in the survey underestimated the cost of owning a dog, with 9% thinking that it would be up to £500 over a lifetime, 11% between £501 and £1,000, 47% between £1,001 and £5,000, 23% between £5,001 and £10,000 and 11% more than £10,000.

The ONS survey seems to show that either owners are underestimating actual costs or they are purchasing low-quality foods and non-prescription prophylactics. 31% have not neutered their dog of which 19% “don’t believe in it”, 17% “haven’t considered it” and 14% “haven’t got round to it”.
12% of owners have not vaccinated their dogs of which 19% say that it is too expensive (possibly the same 19% that “don’t believe” in neutering), 18% believe that it is not necessary and 11% “haven’t got round to it”. 22% of owners are not bothering with vaccination boosters.
10% of owners are not even registered at a vet of which 32% don’t think that it is necessary at all, 23% don’t think it is necessary because their pet is not ill and 17% “haven’t got round to it”.

Scary isn’t it?

RSPCA – How Is Your Generosity Treated?

Posted on by

rspca You don’t have to look far in the dog world and beyond to come across horrendous cases of cruelty, never mind the daily grind of neglect and abuse inflicted upon dogs and other animals. The RSPCA state that they receive calls to their cruelty line in England and Wales on average every 30 seconds, totalling 1,118,495 calls in 2015. They investigate more than 140,000 complaints of cruelty and neglect annually. So when you drop money into the collecting tin for the RSPCA, purchase something in one of their shops or attend a fundraising event on their behalf, where do you expect your money to go?

The RSPCA state that 82p in every £1 donated is spent on animal welfare, 1p on governance and 17p on fundraising and that £10 could provide a day’s boarding for a horse, £25 PPE for an inspector and £50 van equipment. Not surprisingly, they do not produce a breakdown for external barristers fees which have been recorded as being £800 – £1,200 per day in their prosecution against the Heythrop Hunt. In spite of having their own legal department, the RSPCA chose to engage Mr Carter-Manning QC who submitted costs of £73,310.80. His assistants added another £90,000 to the bill. This represents approximately 244 hours of the QC’s time which he spent watching amateur video footage. The four charges that were eventually brought against hunt staff are regarded as being so minor that they are classified as “non-recordable”. The remaining charges were dropped. In previous situations when the RSPCA has lost a case, defendants’ costs have been borne by the taxpayer. In addition, the RSPCA admiited to euthanasing 3,400 animals for non-clinical reasons in 2011 in spite of having an official no kill policy.

The RSPCA must already have marked 2016 down as being an annus horribilis following a submission to a Parliamentary committee by the National Police Chiefs Council which recommended that animal welfare prosecutions should be carried out by “a single agency, preferably a statutory body funded by Government”. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has also questioned whether it is appropriate for the RSPCA to bring forward private prosecutions when it is also involved in campaigning and fundraising. Owen Paterson, Secretary of State, warned the RSPCA to be “wary” of muddling charity and politics. The charity regulator further ordered the RSPCA to conduct an inquiry into their organisation and structure using independent auditors. RSPCA inspectors were banned from rehoming animals unless an indepdent vet attests to have personally seen evidence of suffering following over-zealous actions against pet owners. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, animal welfare groups have the power to investigate cases, but the decision to prosecute lies with the state.

Much of the impetus behind the recommendations follows aggressive persecution of hunts, including the Heythrop. Their case cost the RSPCA £325,000 as opposed to the average cost of £2,500 per case. Other cases such as that against Cattistock Hunt in March have collapsed and, in the Cattistock case, the RSPCA withdrew all its “evidence”. The cost to charity to take the case and similar cases that far has not been revealed. Persecuting hunt staff is therefore regarded as being 100 times more important than any of the cruelty cases that they use to tug at your heart – and purse- strings.

When new CEO Jeremy Cooper took over in spring this year, it seemed that the RSPCA might extricate themselves from the mire into which they have been wallowing since following an aggressive anti-field sport agenda in the mid 1970s. He apologised for the charity becoming “too political” and referenced both hunting and the government badger cull that aims to eradicate TB in cattle. He was forced to eat his words almost immediately by the RSPCA’s governing body.

Just when it seemed that it could not get any worse, shocking revelations have been made by the Information Commissioner, responsible for dealing with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 amongst other legislation.

The RSPCA has been fined £25,000 on the RSPCA (and the British Heart Foundation £18,000) for “wealth screening” donors. The RSPCA has paid “wealth management” companies since 2010 to trace and target new or lapsed donors illegally and pursue them for more donations by piecing together personal information obtained from other sources and trading personal details with other charities. Donors were not informed of the charity’s practices and so had not opportunity to consent or object to their use of personal data. The Information Commissioner stated “The millions of people who give their time and money to benefit good causes will be saddened to learn that their generosity wasn’t enough”. Indeed. They might also consider it a massive betrayal of trust. The RSPCA confirmed that the practice has now ended but disagreed with the Information Commissioner’s conclusions and may appeal against the decision – no doubt spending even more money on legal fees.

Whilst the RSPCA are not alone amongst charities of pursuing aggressive and even it seems illegal practices, they are one of the few that exist to help dogs and other animals. Surely the thousands of abused animals that they are supposed to protect deserve to benefit from their not-inconsiderable funds more than lawyers?