Category: Dogs and Society

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.

Adding Insult to Injury

Posted on by

floods I was listening to an item on radio 4 last night about the aftermath of the devastating floods in York. The reporter was visiting roads that had been flooded and speaking to the remaining residents.

It must always be difficult finding alternative accommodation at short notice in such circumstances; many people had found rented premises. However, one man was remaining in unsuitable conditions after his house had been flooded up the skirting boards because he could not find a landlord that would accept his dogs.

This is a disgraceful situation. No doubt there would be an outcry if landlords en masse refused to accept children because they are noisy, may draw on the walls or play ball games and annoy the neighbours. More than a quarter of the popoulation of the UK own dogs: now we might not be the most houseproud of people but our dogs are by and large perfectly capable of living civilised lives alongside humans when trained well.

We must continue to campaign for fair access for dog owners to all appropriate areas of society, including housing. Owners must take responsiblity for their dog’s behaviour and take the consequences if their dog does cause damage. However, the default position should not be one of prejudice against dogs because of the behaviour of a minority.

Details of dog friendly housing and dog friendly letting, along with other campaigns, can be accessed via the DogsNet Campaigns for Access page.

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.

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.

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.