Category: News

Cows Can Kill

Posted on by

A farmer based near Bradford on Avon has been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive after two elderly brothers were attacked and injured while walking their dogs on lead on a public foot path. The man who survived suffered multiple rib fractures, a punctured lung and contusions. The incident was the fourth in five years involving injuries to members of the public caused by this farmer’s cattle; he was given a 12 month prison sentence, suspended for 2 years, and ordered to pay costs of £30,000.

18 members of the public were killed by cattle between April 2000 and March 2015. Most of the incidents involved cows with calves and people with dogs. Cattle can attack the walkers because they perceive a risk to their calves from the dogs. Farmers and landowners have a legal duty to assess the risks from livestock to people using any rights of way on their land and they must take all reasonable precautions to prevent injury.

Wherever possible, farmers are advised to avoid keeping cows with calves in fields with public footpaths or to erect temporary fencing to keep cattle, walkers and dogs apart.

Dog owners also have a responsibility to act safely around livestock. Even if there is a right of way, it is much safer to avoid walking past cattle and calves. Backtracking and suggesting to the farmer that the situation is unsafe is a much better option than adding to the statistics of fatalities, human or dog. Dogs should always be on lead near livestock, however reliable they may seem. If you are charged by cattle DROP THE LEAD and seek safety. Your dog will look after himself and you are unlikely to be able to protect him or avoid injury to yourself when faced by an angry cow. It does not matter if you are in area that is designated as being on-lead only by a PSPO; your safety and even your life may be at stake.

Please also remember to worm your dog with a comprehensive, prescription-only (VPOM) wormer. Speak to your vet about the best option. Unwormed dogs can risk spreading diseases such as neosporosis which can cause cattle to abort calves and sarcocystosis which has a similar effect in sheep. Dogs can pick up both infections by eating raw meat (including from carcasses) and placental or foetal material from infected stock. Not all infected animals show signs of illness so it is another reason not to feed a raw diet as it is not possible to be certain that uncooked meat fed to dogs will not be contaminated.

All dog waste should be removed from grazing land and disposed of responsibly so that cross-infection cannot occur between dogs, sheep and cattle.

Walking through farm land is a privilege, and both landowners, farmers and dog walkers have a responsibility to ensure that it is a safe activity for all concerned.

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?

AMR – Dog Owners Need To Take Responsibility

Posted on by

salmonella Two extremely worrying bulletins have been published by the Food Standards Agency this week. One concerns the recall of Nature’s Menu “Country Hunter” frozen pet food because of the presence of salmonella and the other the dangers of anti-microbial resistance to pathogens found in food.

Nature’s Menu Country Hunter food is described by the vendor as being “A tasty complete and nutritionally balanced Country Hunter raw meal of Farm Reared Turkey”… that “contains raw minced bone for added nutrition”. If the meal is already “nutritionally balanced”, why the need for raw, minced bone “for added nutrition”? This is a complete nonsense (never mind the poor punctuation) that tells the purchaser nothing. Of course, Nature’s Menu are not alone in being deliberately obscure about the marketing and labelling of pet food.

At the risk of dragging semiotics into the debate, the name “Country Hunter” strikes me also as being bizarre. Two suggestive words thrown together actually make no sense whatsoever in context. Is this meant to suggest that the turkey has been hunted in the country by a chap with a nicely oiled Purdey? Maybe not, because we are also informed by the label that the turkey is “farm-reared”. Well, it is hardly likely to be roadkill or reared round the back of the producer’s cousin’s council flat. Perhaps they are trying to suggest that it is “free-range” in the same manner as those “polite notices” are meant to fool people into thinking that they are “police notices”. Legally, to be labelled as “free range”, turkeys must have continuous access to an outdoor range that is largely covered in vegetation during the daytime. However, even if products are labelled as being derived from “free-range” livestock, which this product is not, it is entirely possible that the poultry will still spend the bulk of the day indoors and be reared in high densities because it is not economically viable to do anything else at the price you are being charged for the food and the scale on which it is produced. Possibly it is trying to suggest that you have a gun dog that lives a wonderful life doing what it was bred to do. Were that the case, you are highly unlikely to be feeding it this food.

They go on to say “We only use quality, human grade meats in our raw meals, and absolutely no meat meals or meat derivatives. All of our complete and balanced meals are veterinary approved and made to FEDIAF guidelines.” Well, here are the FEDIAF guidelines should you choose to read them. They are well-written and it is good practice to abide by them.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with meat meal. Meat meal is simply a highly concentrated protein powder that is produced when meat and water are cooked to remove most of the moisture and the resulting residue is baked. For instance, chicken comprises about 70% water and 18% protein. After rendering, the resulting chicken meal contains just 10% water but 65% protein. The important factor to consider when assessing meat meal is the quality of the meat that went into it in the first place.

Similarly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with meat derivatives. Legally, they are defined as being “All the fleshy parts of slaughtered warm-blooded land animals, fresh or preserved by appropriate treatment and all products and derivatives of the processing of the carcass or parts of the carcass of warm-blooded land animals”. As with meat meal, the quality of the products that went into it producing the derivatives are the most important factor to consider. Feral dogs and the domestic dog’s wild cousins eat all parts of the animals that they kill or scavenge (but bear in mind that wild dogs have different digestive systems and processes in order to cope). This includes hair, hide, offal and bones – the products encompassed in the term meat derivatives. They get a nutritionally balanced diet because different parts of the animal yield different nutritional requirements. Canids, including domestic dogs, are omnivores and will eat the stomach contents of grazing animals (which cats as obligate carnivores do not) and will eat vegetation in addition to meat. Muscle meat of the type that many humans think is best for their dog is only one component of a dog’s nutritional needs and, if fed to excess without balancing nutrition, can lead to serious problems in growing dogs, especially medium and large breeds, and may overload kidneys and liver in old or sick dogs.

Adding raw, minced bone to food could also be problematic. Apart from the potential for pathogens in uncooked bones, feeding too much calcium can make your dog very ill indeed. It is not uncommon for dogs fed raw bones to accumulate large amounts in their stomachs which can cause constipation and may obstruct the gut. They can also cause tearing as they pass through the dog’s digestive system. Farm animals are bred to grow quickly which can result in their bones being less dense and thus more brittle than slower reared animals of older breeds. This can be exacerbated by the fact that, free-range or not, many farm animals sinply do not get sufficient weight-bearing exercise to assist with creating bone density. Bones can and do result in broken teeth. Balancing calcium and phosphorous levels is essential and this can be difficult as, even if they are present in the right amounts in a raw diet, they may not be nutritionally available and could be difficult to digest.

The pathogens that are indisputably present in raw food can and do harm humans as well as the dogs that are fed raw diets. Illness caused by salmonella, e. coli, listeria, giardia, campylobacter, to name but a few, can range from the unpleasant to the fatal. This is becoming a more serious problem, not just because of the popularity of feeding raw diets and the likelihood that more people are thus exposed to pathogens via pets, but because of the increasing difficulty in treating bacterial illness with antibiotics.

Anti-microbial resistance builds up because of overuse and/or misuse of antibiotics; this is now a major risk to public health worldwide. Humans are exposed to resistant bacteria through human-to-human spread, animals, the environment and the food chain. There is currently uncertainty regarding the types of anti-microbial resistant bacteria found in foods on sale in the UK and of the contribution food makes to the problem.

One of the points that Nature’s Menu make is that they are veterinary-approved. Well, there is a massive range of opinion amongst vets on all sorts of matters. Some recommend and practice homeopathy as well as endorsing raw diets, for instance. However, the vast majority of vets neither support homeopathy nor raw feeding. A growing amount of peer-reviewed research and evidence backs this up.

So, don’t rely on the opinion of someone in the park or the “evidence” of one dog that has supposedly had a miracle turnaround on a raw diet. Read the research, give weight to the experience of canine professionals who have fed and worked generations of dogs and, above all, bear in mind that, if you feed raw, it is not only your dog’s health and well-being that you may be compromising, but any human with whom he comes into contact.

Expert Veterinary Poisons Advice Now Available To Owners

Posted on by

vpis The Veterinary Poisons Information Service (VPIS) is a 24-hour telephone emergency service providing information on the management of actual and suspected poisoning in animals. It provides direct support to veterinary professionals and now to the general public. The VPIS is a division of Medical Toxicology and Information Services (MTIS) which was established in 1963 as part of Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust. The service was launched in 1992 and has since assisted with more than 200,000 cases.

Each poisoning case is handled by a veterinary information scientist and includes a risk assessment for the toxin and species, the anticipated clinical effects and the ideal treatment protocol with prognostic advice. Information is amassed on a case database of more than 200,000 cases and extensive resources obtained by researching published data. The VPIS provides also CPD training for vets, vet nurses and undergraduates in addition to online CPD training. Collaboration with many other veterinary associations, animal welfare groups and veterinary industry partners provides research insight, leaflets and other publications on poisoning themes with the aim of increasing animal welfare and awareness of potential poisons.

The pilot for the VPIS pet owner service was launched on September 5th, 2016 to handle enquiries on all poisonings including drugs, household products, plants, agro-chemicals and venomous bites and stings. Initially, it will be available from Monday to Friday from 9.00 hrs to 17.00 hrs. The emergency number is 020 7305 5055, Option 2. This connects to an automated payment system; the cost per enquiry is £30. There is only be one charge per case, even where there are multiple calls from the owner or a vet. If in the opinion of the VPIS, the pet requires treatment, a vet is welcome to call for further advice at no charge.

When calling the VPIS, please have as many of the following details as possible ready:

  • Breed, age, weight, sex and name
  • The drug or product name or brand name
  • Location of the incident
  • Method of exposure (ingested, inhaled, walked through)
  • The amount taken
  • When it happened
  • Whether it is a one-off event or has happened
  • Whether the pet is unwell.

Prevention is always better than cure. Owners should ensure that they know what common household items, foods and plants etc are toxic and keep them out of reach. However, accidents do happen and it is not possible to control the outside environment. It is reassurting to know that the expertise of the VPIS is now available to owners as well.

An Eye Doesn’t Lie And A Tooth Tells The Truth

Posted on by

neolithic-dog-tooth Announcements have been made across the media today that a canine tooth has been found at an archaeological dig in Wiltshire. It is approximately 7,000 years old; 2,000 years older than nearby Stonehenge. What’s more, analysis has revealed that the dog had drunk water in the Vale of York, meaning that it had travelled 250 miles.

The tooth is a major piece in the jigsaw that enables us to conjure a picture of the life of Mesolithic man but also a reminder of just how long dogs have been companion animals.

The size of the tooth is a clue to the fact that this dog would have been quite large and probably similar to a northern breed. We can only speculate on the relationship between man and dog, how they perhaps hunted together, kept each other safe, kept each other warm.

One thing is certain: we should pause to consider the life of this dog and compare it with an obese, pop-eyed, brachycephalic “handbag” dog born by Caesarean and consider long and hard what we have done in the intervening centuries.

Can You Rise To The Bulldog Challenge?

Posted on by

bulldog-illness UC Davies has recently published a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Canine Genetics and Epidemiology examining the genetic diversity among 102 registered English Bulldogs, all used for breeding. The authors’ objective was to assess whether the breed retains enough genetic diversity to correct the abnormalities associated with poor health which have a genetic basis and which can be seen in the outward appearance of many dogs.

Predictably, some in the bulldog fraternity have attempted to discredit the paper while other continue to stick their fingers in their ears and their heads in the sand. The health problems of this breed, as the authors note, are well documented and include:

Severe conformational changes necessitating a high rate of artificial insemination and Caesarean sections
Small litter sizes (inbreeding depression)
Extremely high levels of congenital disease and associated puppy mortality including flat chests with splayed legs, anasarca and cleft palate
Poor lifespan ranging from 3.2 to 11.3 years with a median of 8.4 years as dogs requiring extensive veterinary care at a young age rarely live beyond 5–6 years of age.

The bulldog suffers its own particular problems due to brachycephaly combined with a tongue that is excessively large at the base, a large palate that is easily obstructed by the base of the tongue, a lower jaw that is pushed forward, frequently stenotic nares and a hypoplastic trachea. Consequently, they suffer from loud panting during exercise, stridor and slobbering during rest, sleep apnoea, hypercapnia and hypochloremia/hypomagnesemia, exercise intolerance, cyanosis and collapse and choking fits manifested by gagging, retching, vomiting, aerophagia, flatulence and aspiration pneumonia. The breathing difficulties of English bulldogs also make them very sensitive to overheating and heat stroke.

Chondrodysplasia, a heritable skeletal disorder, predisposes English bulldogs to hip and elbow dysplasia, luxating patella and shoulders, intervertebral disk disease, cruciate ligament rupture, hemivertebra, torsional pelvic deformity and, as mentioned, difficulty in achieving normal copulation and parturition. Prognathism predisposes to dental disease, while excessive folding of the skin, especially on the face, is associated with skin fold dermatitis, muzzle acne, folliculitis, furunculosis and eye conditions such as entropion, ectropion and eversion of the third eyelid. The cork-screw tail can result in tail fold dermatitis. Inbreeding has also produced cataracts, heart valve defects including pulmonic stenosis, hydrocephalus, cysteine urolithiasis and hiatal hernias, immunologic disorders including a propensity for severe demodectic mange due to immunodeficiency, allergies associated with atopic dermatitis and ear infections and autoimmune diseases such as hypothyroidism. The common range of cancers include glioblastoma, mast cell sarcoma and lymphoma.

Doesn’t sound like a very healthy breed does it?

Many owners who accept these defects as “normal” pay huge amounts for treatments as their dogs stagger through their shortened lives but many dogs also end up in rescue or are euthanised due to the prohibitive cost of treatment.

All may not be lost as there are a few bulldogs out there that can breathe and move freely, reproduce naturally and that are free from skin and eye problems, allergies and other immunologic disorders.

The papers authors are therefore calling the bluff of bulldog owners outraged by their paper. They have issued a global challenge to bulldog breeders and owners to provide proof that their dog is a purebred (registered), healthy English bulldog. Owners are requested to e-mail the authors with supporting evidence. If the dog is deemed to meet the criteria as defined by the authors, the Veterinary Genetics Laboratory at UC Davies will provide a free DNA collection kit from which a genetic profile of the dog can be compared with the information provided in the genetic assessment paper and added to the genetic profile database for the English bulldog. The aim is to identify a genetic profile that is conducive to greater health and it may yet save the breed from imploding.

Pedersen NC et al (2016) A genetic assessment of the English bulldog, Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, V3(6) DOI: 10.1186/s40575-016-0036-y [accessed online at https://www.vgl.ucdavis.edu/services/dog/GeneticDiversityInEnglishBulldogs.php]

Thanks to Pedigree Dogs Exposed for this information.

Still Feeding Raw?

Posted on by

contaminateed chicken The Guardian reported today that a quarter of 189 samples of chicken bought from seven major supermarket chains were contaminated with antibiotic-resistant E coli bacteria. Whole roasting chickens, diced breast meat and packets of legs, thighs and drumsticks produced ESBL E coli on 22 of 92 samples. In addition, 51% of E coli from pork and poultry samples were resistant to the antibiotic trimethoprim, which is used to treat more than half of lower urinary tract infections in humans. So, in addition to getting food poisoning, you might find that handling raw chicken and pork means that you pick up other drug-resistant infections too.

Even if you do not become ill, you risk infecting other vulnerable people such as those recovering from illness and the immuno-supressed. Oh, and your dog too. Your dog can also spread the bacteria far and wide.

There is ample evidence to suggest that feeding raw provides a poor diet for dogs and can cause significant harm to dogs and humans.

Why risk it?

Italian Earthquake Recovery

Posted on by

sniffer dog Italy As the death toll rises and people begin to count the human and financial consequences of the devastating earthquake in Amatrice, Italy this week, sniffer dogs like the one pictured here go about their work with their handlers. Teams from all over Italy have gathered, as in all similar disasters to sift through the rubble and ruins systematically for signs of life.

Far fewer dogs are bred for working with livestock, pulling sleds, assisting fishermen or any of the other myriad of tasks that man has set them over the centuries. Their new jobs however mean that their unique ability to live closely with man, combined with mightly scenting ablities is being channelled to save lives, sometimes at the risk of their own.

Four Days Two Deaths

Posted on by

dog licence Just four days apart and two more fatalities caused by dogs – or rather caused by owners – hit the headlines.

The details of the particular circumstances hardly matter as they will have the same root causes:

  • It is too easy to breed, buy and sell dogs
  • There is no compulsion to attend any form of educational or training course before owning a dog
  • Reams of legislation are continually being passed but none is routinely enforced
  • There are far too few resources to instil and police responsible ownership.

The end result – people get injured and die. Dogs get injured and die.

Labour MP Barry Sheerman in whose constituency of Huddersfield a fatal dog attack occurred on Monday has called for the dog licence to be revived. Why on earth does he think that a piece of paper will begin to address the serious problems we have with dog ownership and society? A dog licence would record little more than the, now compulsory, microchip database. It needs no surveys to be certain that neither 100% of dog owners comply with this law nor that it is not being monitored or policed effectively.

If insufficient resources exist for the police to even be educated about the problems of dog ownership, let alone do anything about it; if insufficient resources exist for owners to be compelled to learn about their dogs before and during ownership, why will they be provided to administer a dog licence? Local authorities are far more concerned about bringing in additional revenue by fining owners for leaving a trace of faces behind when picking up than they are addressing serious concerns such as poor welfare, ignorance of owners and systematic abuse of dogs.

Tribute to Heath Robinson

Posted on by

Heath Robinson The late cartoonist William Heath Robinson (d 1944) is probably not a name that trips off the tongue as often as it once did. Although initially taking his name in vain related to his drawings of ridiculously complex, implausible machines for achieving otherwise simple tasks, it eventually referenced temporary fixes made using ingenuity and whatever was to hand such as string and tape.

I found myself taking a leaf from the great man’s book when, in an attempt to travel light, I threw too much out of my metaphorical travel balloon basket and left the dog’s show lead at home. Hardware and bead shop to the rescue – I found a piece of thin sash (red fleck 8mm in case you’re wondering) and a few beads just wide enough to make it look a bit less make do and mend. I stitched a loop at each end and threaded the beads on but then found myself stuck for how to secure it round the dog’s neck, having failed to find a suitable finding in the bead shop. Friend’s toolbox rifled, I popped washer on!

I probably wouldn’t recommend taking a fizzy, medium sized dog very far on a bit of twine and a small washer, but it got us a handful of rosettes!