Category: Dogs and Society

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.

Dover Council Imposes Criminal Sanctions on Dog Walkers

Posted on by

Dover District Council imposed a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) affective from July 27th, 2015 to be in place for three years requiring that dogs be kept on leads under threat of criminal prosecution. They state that it will “replace a number of out of date by-laws and create a more comprehensive and consistent approach when dealing with issues such as dog fouling, keeping dogs on leads and excluding dogs from specified areas.”

Having a dog off the lead on a designated highway is already illegal under the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 27, but it is certainly not enforced in London or many other places that I have visited. This however is far more Draconian and I believe contradicts the requirements of the Anuimal Welfare Act 2006 which imposes a duty of care on dog owners to enable their dogs to exhibit “normal” behaviours – surely including having adequate, off-lead exercise?

The order:

  • Excludes dogs from:
    • enclosed children’s play areas
    • specific beaches at certain times of year
    • specific sporting or recreational facilities
    • Requires dogs to be kept on leads:
    • within specific churchyards and cemeteries
    • specific seafront promenades and seafront gardens
    • specific memorial sites and nature reserves
    • Requires dog owners to remove dog faeces
    • This applies to any land to which is open to air and to which the public have access
    • Requires dog owners to put their dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer
    • This will apply to any public land where a dog is considered to be out of control or causing alarm and distress.

Breaches of the order are liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £1,000. Fixed penalty notices of £75.00 can also be applied.

PSPOs may be enforced by police officers, police community safety officers and any officers designated by Dover District Council.
Full details are available here .

This is insidious legislation that imposes huge restrictions on dog walkers, has the potential to criminalise responsible dog owners for making minor mistakes such as missing a doig defecating and does nothing to tackle irresponsible owners including the serious problem of untrained, out fo control dogs.

How much of it is about pandering to an anti-dog lobby, hysteria about protecting children from supposed disease and, of course, raising revue for cash-strapped councils?

Living with a Dog Is Good for Your Immune System

Posted on by

microbes Like many people, I half listen to Radio 4’s Today programme as I rush around changing from dog walking to office wear and eating on the run.

Every so often I am arrested by something that stops the frantic race against the clock and such was the case when Professor Dunn spoke about the effect of living with a dog on the human immune system.

I had read a brief paper about this but it was gratifying to hear it promoted on this flagship radio broadcast as a counter to the ban on dogs in so many public places.

Professor Dunn blogs on the Your Wild Life website and states there:

“Having a dog influences the microbes in our homes and in doing so potentially reduces our risk of having children with asthma and other autoimmune disorders.”

Phew, we can stop beating ourselves up about housework! Read more on the Your Wildlife site.

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.

Would Your Dog Survive A Fire?

Posted on by

V fire stn The latest government statistics for accidental fires states that there were 39,600 dwelling fires in Great Britain in 2013-14. The latest PDSA PAW Report cited that 24% of the population owns one or more dogs.

Thus if 24% of the households that suffered a fire in 2014 had one dog, 9,504 dogs would have been at risk. Furthermore, the government states that “41% of fire-related deaths in Great Britain were caused by the victim being overcome by gas, smoke or toxic fumes.”

Of course, we should all take precautions to avoid a fire starting in the first place, but in the event that it does, a new campaign Smokey Paws is raising funds to ensure that all fire applicances carry pet oxygen masks.

You can make a donation on their website or even raise funds for your local fire station to purchase masks.

You could make all the difference to a dog surviving the devastation of fire.

Dog Owners Are A Force To Be Reckoned With

Posted on by

dog ownership The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has just stated that 29% of households have dependent children. The latest PDSA PAW Report states that 51% of households has a pet with 24% owning dogs.

That should entitle dog owners to a significant voice in their communities and may be a useful statistic to cite when campaigning for better access, facilities and considerations such as flexible working and dog-friendly workplaces.