Category: Dogs In The Media

Hooray For Crowdfunding

Posted on by

quill box The Guardian today reported that generous donors have helped to fund a Canadian man’s vet bills totalling $11,000 via crowdfunding.

The poor dogs encountered a porcupine with predictable results. Porcupine’s quills are barbed and usually need to be removed under sedation. They can also migrate inwards in a similar manner to grass seeds.

Luckily, they are not a problem for those of us living in Europe.

It’s good to know that our fellow human beings are capable of such altruism and there is one ray of sunshine for the downer – he has enough quills to make a lovely box!

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.

Farewell to Brian Sewell

Posted on by

fine art dogs The sad news that Evening Standard fine art critic Brian Sewell died on Saturday is not only a blow to the art world but to the those who champion dogs. Considered by some to be elitist and reactionary in his taste in art, he certainly could not be accused of either when it came to his approach to his beloved dogs.

He housed a variety of rescue dogs including a stressed Jack Russell rescued from euthanasia at the request of his vet after being inappropriately homed with a baby. When he moved house, his deceased dogs’ remains went with him and were re-buried. After a life devoted to writing and educating people about art, he published Sleeping with Dogs in 2013 where he revealed that he was an adherant to the philosophy that one should control the temperature of the bed by adding another dog.

Love him or loathe him, the world was a more vibrant place for his being and one can at kleast be assured that he will have left plenty of resources for the welfare of the dogs that survived him.

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.

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.

Scottish Government Review of Shock Collars

Posted on by

ban shock collarsScottish Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead has stated that a consultation will be published “within the next few months” regarding the use of electric shock and vibration collars. Options will include imposing tighter regulation and an outright ban.

The Welsh Assembly Government banned the use of shock collars by passing the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010. They are also banned in Sweden, Denmark and Germany. New Zealand has issued guidance on their use and the State of Victoria, Australia imposes legal requirements on the technical specification and use which is permitted only under the supervision and written instructions of a veterinary practitioner or a qualified dog trainer.

DEFRA funded research into the collars in 2011 and concluded that they “do not cause long-term or significant harm to dogs when used as per manufacturer’s instructions”.

As far as DEFRA’s statement is concerned, the same could be said of all aversives including spike collars, citrus sprays and and choke chains. However, the fact is that owners abuse dogs every day, unwittingly and deliberately. There is an owner that I see regularly who thinks that the shock collar that is weighing down his Saluki’s neck is a good way of training recall. I presume that no non-Masochistic human would willingly return to a person who administered an electric shock to their body so I don’t see why a dog would either.

The thinking behind administering an electric shock to “train” recall is that the dog realises that it is being punished for not coming when called and will only oblige when shocked. Nonsense of course. The dog is far more likely to associate being recalled with unexplained pain and fear. Some argue that it works as an aversive for livestock training; so did tying a dog to a ram for a day, but I doubt it did much for the welfare of either.

There can never be any control over the way that owners use such devices and so in permitting use “according to manufacturer’s instructions”, the government is absolving itself of all responsibility. In any case, the manufacturer’s instructions are to administer an electric shock to the dog in some shape or form, with increasing frequency for maximum “efficacy”.

This is neither an ethical not an effective method of training and the entire United Kingdom should ban their sale and use.

One Law for All – Defending International Biosecurity

Posted on by

illegal The news that Amber Heard has been charged with bringing dogs to Australia illegally should be greeted with approval. The comparative ease with which dogs can now be transported across international boundaries was always likely to bring problems with bio-security and increased ease of smuggling. Although the potential for dogs being smuggled in private aircraft is minimal, there can be no question that the law should apply to all, irrespective of wealth or status.

Ms Heard was recorded on Australian television as saying “I guess everyone tries to go for their 15 minutes, including some government officials”. Perhaps she is incapable of seeing anything outside of the bubble of her supposed celebrity. This is not a matter of being a ‘jobsworth’ but of protecting animals, including her own pets, against disease. Australia’s native fauna have been under threat since the early 19thC when ships’ cats devasated some wildlife.

Rabies remains a serious threat. A major outbreak could result in a widespread cull of vast numbers of animals, including pets. Not taking prophylactic precautions and proving it via the requisite paperwork is vital for all our sakes.

It will be interesting to see whether court action will rely on hitting Ms Heard in her pocket by imposing a fine or by setting an example and choosing a custodial sentence.

26% of Crufts Exhibits Obese

Posted on by

26 pc obese The publication of another study looking at obesity in dogs (Such and German, Best in show but not best shape: a photographic assessment of show dog body condition, Veterinary Record, 2015 DOI: 10.1136/vr.103093) concludes that 26% of the dogs surveyed were overweight. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who walks in the park or on the high street and observes the number of overfed dogs, but some may be surprised to learn that this was a study of dogs shown at Crufts.

It makes a mockery of the Kennel Club’s injunctions to judges to report excessive weight and that is assuming that the judges actually notice. The KC are very keen to tell judges that they are not vets, which, although true, seems that it is more a reason for perpertuating poor health and welfare than any real attempt to root out fundamental problems in breeding and showing. When examining a dog, it is perfectly obvious if the body score is excessive and all owners should know how to tell that, never mind judges. With breeds such as the Pug, Labrador, Beagle and Basset that have a genetic tendency to weight gain, if the top show dogs are overweight, then it is likely that the dogs that the breeders sell on as pets are even more likely to become obese.

Such and German don’t even wait until their conclusion to state that “breed standards should be re-defined to be consistent with a dog in optimal body condition” – they put it in the abstract.

How shocking that something so obvious should need to be pointed out to breeders.

Grazia Magazine – No Thanks

Posted on by

petitionThe news that Grazia Magazine has published an article advising its readers how to make money from back street breeding will not surprise many people. In a society that can even entertain the expression “handbag dog” and where a web site offers to put people in touch so that they can “borrow” a dog, it is just another consequence of the commodification of pretty much everything, living creatures included.

It is gratifying to know that a petition quickly garnered thousands of signatures in protest, but has not elicited a meaningful apology or retraction from Grazia magazine.

Although a weasel-worded statement from Grazia offered a sop for causing “offence”, it of course misses the point. Any “offence” that I may feel as a consequence of Grazia’s actions pales into insignificance at the societal offence of incompetent breeding, unwanted dogs and irresponsible, ignorant owners who form the chain of the backstreet dog trade, fuelled by this type of publicity.