Welfare
Breeding, buying dogs, rescue dogs...
Sentience and Sensibility
It is probably fair to say that those who voted to leave Europe had absolutely no idea of the implications of their actions and, let’s face it, those who voted to remain probably didn’t in any detail either. Well, the pigeons are coming home to roost thick and fast now.
As far as the EU Withdrawal Bill is concerned, those pigeons are designated as not being sentient. An amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill to transfer the EU protocol on animal sentience into UK law was defeated by 313 votes to 295 in a Parliamentary vote and MPs have argued that both farm and domestic animals are covered by existing legislation, some of which goes beyond EU protocols. There has been widespread outcry from various quarters to this decision, but it easy to have a knee-jerk reaction as we well know, otherwise we would not be in this position in the first place.
The existence and degree of sentience across the animal kingdom is a long way from being fully understood, let alone agreed upon, but few would dispute its existence in the major species that could be affected by the UK’s decision to drop the designation from its legislation. Michael Gove has hinted that specific UK legislation may be tigtened, including a promise to crack down on puppy farming.
At the end of the day, all the legislation in the world cannot protect animals from harm unless it is policed and prosecuted where breaches occur. Many of the more than 50 statutes that supposedly protect dogs alone are routinely breached and that includes statutes that could prevent puppy farming. Let’s face it, the Kennel Club did nothing when one of its members, a prominent breeder and show competitor was exposed as a puppy farmer and it continues to register puppy farmned dogs. If the organisation that purports to care about the welfare of all dogs does nothing, there is little hope in a climate of austerity and maximising profits for the few that much will be done. Whatever government is in office in the near future will have its hands full coping wityh the effects of leaving the EU; puppy farming will only become a priority if it is seen as being politically expedient or as a smokescreen for “burying bad news”.
Out of Office – Not Out of Order
The Guardian reported today that a university admininstrator in La Sapienza University, Rome has set a legal precedent in Italy by successfuly obtaining paid leave to look after a dog that was due to undergo surgery. She was initially refused permission by her HR department in spite of explaining that she lived on her own and could not delegate the care of her dog. The Italian Anti-vivisection League took up her case and discovered that there is legal precedent that could have made the owner criminally liable for lack of care of her dog had she been unable to facilitate the surgery and post-operative recovery. Her employer finally accepted proof from the owner’s veterinary surgeon and granted the paid leave.
The Italian Anti-vivisection League has hailed it as a victory for recognition that companion animals “are in all respects family components” and hope that it might result in an amendement to the Civil Code.
In the UK, enlightened employers and medical staff are recognising the value of companion animals and, given that 25% of the population own at least one dog and 26% at least one cat, similar recognition could affect a sizeable proportion of the population. Parents have an enormous amount of legislation supporting paid leave, numerous other benefits and financial incentives, yet just 18.9% of the population is under 15 years old. It could also be argued that the same principles apply here and that the AWA 2006 would be breached were an employee unable to care for a companion animal sufficiently.
Italy has a long way to go in respect of other aspects of canine welfare, not least their no-kill shelter policy that condemns many dogs to a life of misery and facilitates the dumping of unwanted animals. However, in terms of human rights, today’s news should be hailed as a victory.
Oriental Eye Worm – A New Threat
The PETS Passports scheme in combination with the illegal import of thousands of puppies to fuel the online trade in dogs, has led to a huge rise in diseases and infections that were not previously seen in dogs the UK. One recent problem is the spread of the thelazia parasitic worm. A survey in 1978 found that 40% of examined in a Surrey abattoir two year previously were infected by the thelazia parasite. It has now started to affect dogs. usually found in the Far East, Russia and other parts of Europe and also known as Oriental Eye Worm, the species found here is Thelazia callipaeda. If only a few worms are present, dogs can be asymptomatic but, as they multiply, signs include conjunctivitis and excessive watering, keratitis and light sensitivity, spreading to visual impairment and ulcers or scarring of the cornea. if not treated, an infected dog can go blind. Thelazia callipaeda affects cats and humans as well.
The parasite is not transmitted directly on contact but requires an intermediate vector, usually the common housefly (Musca domestica) or blow flies (Calliphora vomitoria) and crane flies (Tipulidae). Adult females release larvae into the tears of the infected animal and are ingested by flies. Infected flies transmit the next stage of the larvae via the eyes or surrounding tissues where they complete development to adult worms in 3 – 9 weeks. Adult worms can live for up to a year in their final host.
Aural ivermectin, milbemycin oxime, moxidectin, injectable moxidectin and spot-on selamectin have been found to be effective in dogs. However, some treatments (not just ivermectin) can be toxic to genetically-prone dogs, particularly collies, so veterinary advice is essential. There is no vaccine available currently.
Although house flies are beginning to die off, it is still very mild for the time of year and peak season for crane flies.
My dog has been infected twice recently by irresponsible owners who have not treated conjunctivitis and let their dogs run freely in the park. Luckily, on both occasions it was just a mild case of conjunctivitis, although the effect on my budget was not so light. It is vital that any eye problem that do not clear up with saline flushing within a few hours are treated by a vet and that the dog is isolated from other dogs until the eyes are clear and/or a course of medication is completed.
A String of (Avoidable) Misery
I have spent a rotten weekend trying to find a suitable home for an unwanted dog. Usual story. Family decide that they want to add a dog to their home in spite of having no previous experience, heavy committments to their childrens’ activities and working full time away from the home. They choose a small terrier because of his size and because he looks cute. They don’t do any other research or bother to train him but then start having difficulties because he is barking and jumping up.
They find a “trainer” who instructs them to buy a citronella collar. He does not assess the dog’s temperament or suggest any other form of training. Their already nervous dog is totally freaked out by the collar. They contact the trainer who shouts at them to “Just get on and use it”. Their son damages his skin trying it out on himself so they, thankfully, throw it away. They try a group class but the pup is now too frightened to cope.
I take over the training and advise that their by now very nervous and withdrawn adolescent dog needs a behavioural consultation. Despite being wealthy, they are unwilling to pay. Non-aversive training gradually helps the dog but they cherry pick the advice and don’t undertake frequent sessions. They work during the day and leave the dog in charge of their ex-nanny because “she has had dogs all her life”. They have been instructed not to take the dog into situations where they know he will be frightened. The nanny ignores this and an incident occurs. The dog is seized by the police under the DDA with no warning and kennelled for a week before being released. The owners do not pay for any rehabilitation or training following the incident. The nanny is given a clicker which she uses as a recall toy. The dog becomes more and more frightened, is still being taken out by the nanny, has lost his understanding of the clicker and becomes reactive to people and other dogs when on lead. The owners admit that they cannot be bothered to do any more with him and so decide to get rid of him.
Feeling very low, I take my dog for a walk with friends. One of them asks to hand on my details because his cleaner has a relative who bought a sled dog puppy at the same time that she was having a baby. Weeks into ownership, they decide that they cannot cope. They want £600 for their puppy. I offer to help to rehome it but only on the understanding that they will not be paid. In fact, I will propbably ask them to pay me for my time and trouble.
Weekend continues on a downer as I am refused the bus because the driver is scared of dogs. I have to miss an event and have wasted money on a bus pass. Hey ho, yet another complaint to TfL.
Monday morning, I get a telephone call as I am preparing to leave for work. An owner, a senior clergyman no less, has dropped his dog off to board with my friend who bred the dog. The owner says that the dog has an occular discharge. He doesn’t. His entire eye is so badly affected that his sight may be compromised. The eye was closed and the poor dog had rubbed the hair away from the surrounding area. The owner did nothing about it, obviously preferring to prioritise his holiday.
On my way through the park I meet another owner, this time without her dog. Her dog was about an inch shorter than mine but nearly two and a half times heavier. When I first saw him a year or so ago, he could still at least waddle. Recently he has only been able to walk a few steps before collapsing. She gave him a huge piece of food to get him up again. Eventually they would make it to the café where she stuffed him full of more food. I’d noticed that he had stopped taking notice of anything other than his food bowl and even that with only a flicker of interest. I last saw her on Wednesday when she asked me what it meant as he was peeing blood. I said “It means you need to go to the vet today”. She ranted on about having seen the vet three days earlier and him not knowing what he was talking about so I cut her short and told her to go to a different vet because it was serious.
It took her two more days before she bothered to go to the vet by which time her dog could no longer urinate. The dog was put down.
He was 5.
Fighting Dogs – Cruelty or Art?
The Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan is about to run an exhibition called Art and China after 1989: Theatre of the World. It is a multi-media exhibition that was to include a seven minute video of a “performance” entitled “Dogs That Cannot Touch Each Other” by Huang Yong Ping that had been staged in a museum in Beijing in 2003. A (distressing) five and a half minute version is available here.
Following multiple protests, the museum has removed this and two other works featuring live animals, not because they acknowledge the abuse inflicted on the dogs, but because they felt threatened. They stated: “Although these works have been exhibited in museums in Asia, Europe, and the United States, the Guggenheim regrets that explicit and repeated threats of violence have made our decision necessary.” They add “Contrary to some reports, no fighting occurred in the original performance and the presentation at the Guggenheim is in video format only; it is not a live event”.
That’s OK then, according to the Guggenheim.
Morally, if this is acceptable then so are snuff movies, images of paedophilia and any other kind of abuse that people inflict on others.
The Guggenheim statement continues “Reflecting the artistic and political context of its time and place, Dogs That Cannot Touch Each Other is an intentionally challenging and provocative artwork that seeks to examine and critique systems of power and control…We recognise that the work may be upsetting. The curators of the exhibition hope that viewers will consider why the artists produced it and what they may be saying about the social conditions of globalisation and the complex nature of the world we share”.
Fortunately, many people recognise the sentiments for the offensive drivel that they are: the video was withdrawn from a show in Vancouver in 2007 after local protesters requested modifications.
There is nothing artistic about encouraging voyeurism, sadism and cruelty. Power and control is being exercised by the people who force the dogs into this position. They are clearly distressed and are being pushed to the limits of their endurance. It is unlikely that an ethics committee would permit this in the pursuit of research. There do not appear to be any vets in attendance.
It is not that abuse like this and far worse does not occur elsewhere, but that right-minded people sanction its public display in the name of art. What is sickening is that the people who acceded to this cannot recognise the abuse that they are perpetrating. I am not a congenital idiot, so I can work out that there are problems with the social conditions created by globalisation and the complex world that “we share” without abusing animals.
I suggest that those who have the choice protest directly to the Guggenheim and boycott the exhibition.
Of course the abused dogs had no choice.
FSA Warn Against Raw Chicken – Again
Yet again the FSA has been obliged to issue a warning against eating raw and undercooked chicken. The latest warning was prompted by a chef who was promoting chicken sashimi and who stated that “…if birds have been free range, kept in quality conditions and processed in a clean environment, there’s not so much to worry about”.
Not much other than campylobacter, salmonella and e coli that is. The FSA state yet again that “All raw chicken is unsafe to eat” regardless of the conditions in which the birds have been kept. They add that, in humans, eating raw or undercooked chicken can result in “Symptoms [that] include abdominal pain, diarrhoea, vomiting and fever. In some cases, these bugs can lead to serious conditions”.
In an update on October 19th, 2017, the FSA published their annual results, and, although levels of campylobacter have continued to fall in tested chickens, between 46.7% and 67.3% of chickens tested positive. the high-level campylobacter prevalence among the top nine most popular retailers surveyed was 5.6%. That means for every 100 chickens purchased, at least five are likely to have very high levels of contamination. Smaller retailers and butchers had a significantly higher prevalence at 17.1%. This is especially significant as people who feed raw diets are more likely to shop at independent retailers, presuming that the food will be “healthier”.
Dogs have different digestive systems to humans; they have a shorter digestive tract and a higher stomach acidity. This means that, if otherwise healthy, they are less susceptible to the pathogens present in raw chicken as bacteria do not stay in the dog’s body for as long as they do in a human. The bacteria have less time to multiply to dangerous levels and dogs are generally better able to cope with the toxins that the bacteria produce which is the cause of illness in humans and dogs. Whilst healthy dogs might be able to cope with the pathogens that they shed when fed a raw diet, young, old or sick dogs will be less resilient and all of the humans with which they come in contact will also be exposed.
A peer-reviewed paper published in April 2017 noted that the cats in the study shed pathogens as a result of eating a raw diet “for months” and concluded “The practice of feeding raw meat to dogs and cats may increase the potential transmission risk of meat-borne pathogens to people. Pet owners, especially individuals at increased risk for infectious diseases (small children, old people and immunocompromised individuals), should be aware of the safety risks of feeding RMBDs”[raw, meat-based diets]. Of course the transmission of pathogens from handling the food and the dog or cat will not only affect people in the household. Dogs and outdoor cats have the potential to come into contact with vulnerable people every day as well as other animals.
Charity Burns By Your Side is the most recent organisation to exclude dogs from their volunteer scheme if they are fed a raw diet.
There is a lot of anecdotal support that can be found online from supporters of raw diets but, not only is there no peer-reviewed evidence to back it up, a growing body of a veterinary organisations and scientists are finding that such diets are harmful because they lack essential nutrients and can cause damage when digested and excreted.
There is another worrying factor that is not immediately obvious for some owners who feed raw. There is evidence to suggest that such owners are also less likely to use prophylactic health care such as vaccination and treatments that prevent parasitic infestation because they do not trust veterinary advice.
The serious contamination of pet food with illegally imported melamine in 2007 still has repercussions, although food in the UK was not affected. Marion Nestle’s Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine provides the only independent account of this scandal. Anyone contemplating feeding raw because they do not trust commercial dog food should read it. Similarly, scares about the dangers of human vaccines abound, even though disproven and have spread to companion animals.
The wide availability of NHS services means that most people in the UK are not used to paying for healthcare at point of use. Many are therefore shocked at the cost of veterinary treatment and accuse vets of profiteering, having no idea of the actual cost to the vet, and ignoring the fact that, if vets do not make a profit, they will go out of business. They are similarly inclined to accuse pharmaceutical companies of advising over-vaccination. Again, this is illogical: no vet would ethically or professionally administer a drug that was not necessary. In fact they could be prosecuted if they did.
Not vaccinating puts your dog and every other dog at risk from dying of parvo-virus, leptospirosis, canine parainfluenza, distemper and hepatitis. Not worming your dog puts other dogs and humans at risk of picking up tapeworms, lungworm and toxocariasis amongst others.
Some of these diseases such as parvo virus and distemper were rare due to mass immunisation in the 1970s and later, but are now on the increase fuelled in part by the number of illegally imported dogs. This, combined with irresponsible owners not vaccinating their dogs reduces the herd immunity conveyed when the majority of dogs are protected, so the danger of catching a potentially fatal disease is increased for each unvaccinated dog.
The evidence is plain. Don’t feed raw , vaccinate your dog and treat it for fleas and ticks. It is your responsibility to your dog, every other dog and your community.
Devil Dog or Poetic Justice?
Most sensible people would dismiss the notion that bull breeds, Rotties and whatever the fashionable bad dog of the moment is are “devil dogs”, but would many realise that it is more than bad handling and breeding that might cause a dog to be a killer?
Last March a Staffie killed its owner by crushing his larynx in front of a BBC documentary crew. The incident wasn’t filmed. An inquest has just been held into the owner’s death where it emerged that the dog had probably ingested crack cocaine.
Drug addicts will stop at nothing to get their fix – just look at the number of smokers desperate to light up as soon as they get off the tube or sucking down as much of their carcinogens as possible before they get to work (whilst forcing anyone passing to partake). A quick internet search will reveal that dogs have been deliberately maimed so that people addicted to Tramadol can get a veterinary prescription. Some feed drugs to their dogs so that they are not discovered if they think that they will be raided. Some think it funny to watch the suffering of their dog as the drugs take hold – this includes people who give their dogs alcohol. Some people discard drugs in public places so that dogs die when they inhale or ingest them. I have personally known of two dogs die horrible deaths in this way.
Behaviourist Patricia McConnell describes in her excellent book The Other End of the Leash how one of the most frightening dogs that she has ever come across behaves when given toys. Yes, that’s not a typo: when given toys. The dog’s terrifying, out of control aggression provoked by objects that should evoke joy was caused by his previous owner force feeding him drugs. His new owner had done everything that she could to rehabilitate him but he was beyond help and had to be euthanised.
Major, the poor dog that killed his owner, will suffer the same fate as his neurological damage is probably far too great to make him safe.
Some may say that his owner received poetic justice, but I can find no poetry in this horrific tale and the hundreds like it. Humans take drugs of their own free will. Dogs never do.
Accessible and Safe – Not Much To Ask
The ability to exercise dogs in open spaces has come under increasing threat from restrictive by-laws in recent years and several campaigns have sought to protect long-used access. However, in addition, a new threat was brought home to me this weekend when a dog was killed by an event organiser in a local park.
Many parks and open spaces that were run by councils for the general benefit of the public have been privatised and are now run by large companies such as Mitie, Carillion and Amey that have fingers in several pies. There are approximately 27,000 public parks in the UK, although it is difficult to arrive at an exact figure as many councils do not have accurate records and planning guidelines no longer define public parks. Most are owned by local authorities, although there are “royal” parks in London such as Hyde park, Bushey park and Richmond Park that are owned by the crown and run by a government agency. Some parks were deliberately created in the early 19thC in an attempt to prevent Chartists from holding “monster” rallies and some, including the “royal” parks, were hunting grounds. Many parks were created when philanthropists bequeathed them in perpetuity for the benefit of local people. The latter is true of the park where the dog was killed and should be protected by a set of covenants that attempted to restrict building and other uses to ensure that the public would always have free access.
Parks had traditionally been funded by local authorities with support from community groups that volunteer and raise funds. There are approximately 5,000 such organisations across the UK generating about £30M annually. A Heritage Lottery Fund report found that 86% of parks had revenues cut in the three years prior to the study. Almost half of councils are planning to dispose of some of their green spaces with 19% considering outright disposal of parks. Many more are selling off sections of parks for development and/or running multiple, intrusive events, claiming that the revenue generated will fund upkeep.
The park where the dog was killed occupies 186 acres of land and includes Grade II listed buildings and many extraordinary plant and tree specimens. It is a much valued resource for local dog walkers and is one of the few parks in the area not to impose on-lead restrictions. Since it was gifted to the public in 1926, it was run jointly by two local authorities who spent much of the last 35 years or so passing the buck in a perpetual rally that resulted in the buildings going to wrack and ruin, the planting being overgrown and the tress neglected – sometimes dangerously so. Recent lottery funding has seen huge improvements being made to some of the buildings, but staffing levels remain low and some planting has been ripped up to save on maintenance costs. Management of the park will be handed over to a so called “Community Interest” Company (CIC) which, in the council’s own words “provides freedom for the park to operate in a commercial manner”. This has included winning a successful licence to run multiple commercial events including sound systems, alcohol and vehicles all year round and increased the finishing time from 21.00 hrs to 23.00 hrs. Up to 10,000 people would be licensed to attend for the larger events and in total, events are allowed to be held for 28 days every year. This of course does not include the setting up and striking of events which typically occupies several days either side of public access. In spite of 109 written objections and opposition at the hearing, which ran for four hours until nearly midnight, permission was granted in full.
Opposition to the event at the weekend had run for many years as it was clearly seen by many to be breaking the covenants on the use of the park. The original owners had sold off adjacent land after World War I resulting in the park being fringed by housing and local residents were (rightly) worried about the levels of disruption. Permission was however granted and the organisers began to set up for the 2017 last week. The event occupies the old polo grounds and was not segregated from the public during set up. Fencing was erected on the day of the event to prevent revellers from accessing the existing café and the staff member there was in turn prevented from accessing the lavatory which was subsequently damaged. It could be deduced from these actions that the fencing was there primarily to protect revenues rather than people.
Complaints had been made by several park users about the speed at which vehicles were traversing the park. Great care has been taken during the building works to ensure that plant and other vehicles travel within the 5mph limit and plant is accompanied by a supervising pedestrian. No such care was taken by the event organisers and, in spite of being warned by park staff, one of their member ran into a dog. The dog subsequently died of its injuries.
The increasing use of parks for commercial events not only deprives the users for whom it was intended of facilities, it further restricts the ability for dog owners to exercise their dogs in a relaxed environment. Parks, towpaths and pavements are already major hazards for pedestrians and dogs due to illegal and reckless cycling. Even if dogs are safe and segregated, few will want to access parks whilst amplified sound is being blasted out and hordes of people are crowding the spaces.
This should be a spur to all to redouble their efforts to save and preserve open spaces as havens of peace and quiet in an increasingly tumultuous world. A dog should never again been sacrificed to commercial gain just by engaging in natural and essential behaviour.
Cornwall Cool Dog Campaign
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.
A Dressing Down
The current spell of much-needed rainy weather has brought out the usual plethora of people who value their domesticity more than their dogs. So many owners negate the fact that their dogs come ready-equipped with weather-proof coats that it has now become the norm to swathe dogs in raincoats and padded jackets in spite of the temperature. Some of the dogs are also forced to run. The parks always empty when it rains because so many dogs will not be taken out if the sun is not shining, but of the few that did venture out this morning, more than half had raincoats on their (panting) dogs. Some thin-skinned dogs will need protection before and after exercising in really cold weather. Puppies and old dogs are not so good at regulating their temperature and again may need protection as will dogs that are suffering from an illness that has the same effect such as kidney disease. Most do not.
Of course, it isn’t just wet weather that promotes irresponsibility.
It is getting hard to recognise what type of dog is in the park as owners instruct groomers to clip down to the skin so that they do not have to bother grooming their dog or clearing up hairs. The groomers obviously don’t care that they have removed every shred of protection against the sun – why would they – it’s a nice little earner. I looked at the prices of a handful of groomers across the country and they ranged from £25-£70 per dog. I have encountered groomers who have been asked to judge at companion dog shows. If the way that the majority handle dogs in the ring is anything to go by, it must be a miserable experience for the dogs that they groom.
The outer layer of a dog’s skin, the epidermis, is between 3 and 5 cells thick. Human skin, by contrast, it is at least 10 to 15 cells thick. So, when the dog’s skin is exposed by removing the protection of the coat, it is much more prone to mechanical damage and damage from the sun. Humans produce one hair per follicle but dogs produce between 5 and 22 primary and secondary hairs per follicle. Their coat rotates between three growth stages – anagen (new growth), catagen (shedding) and telogen (stasis) – all from one follicle. Cutting dog hair removes the stable coat (telogen) and prevents shedding (catagen), but also prevents new growth (anagen).
Humans have genetically engineered dogs and added a variety of coat types to those that have occurred naturally: smooth, long, flat, curly, wire, corded and hairless. Some dogs have a combination of types including short, medium and long double coats. Some coats come in undetermined length (UDL) and some in predetermined length (PDL). The former just continues to grow until it is cut whereas the latter will growth to a set length and stop. Each type of coat needs to be managed differently.
Cutting long and curly hair may remove protection temporarily but does not cause long-term damage. However, clipping any double coated breed can cause serious permanent damage. Shaving off a double coat can cause alopecia if performed during the “wrong” phase of the natural hair cycle. Hair loss can be permanent or the texture of the coat can change. If coat does grow back it has a harsh texture and cannot return to the correct, protecting double coat. Shaving a double coated dog does not stop shedding. If hair does grow back, it will shed in spikes that are much harder to clean up than natural undercoat or guard hairs.
Clipping a smooth or flat coat results in new growth that is of poorer quality and that does not lie correctly. Clipping a wire coat softens the hair and can cause it to fade. Wire-coated dogs should be hand stripped.
Clean, dry, mat-free hair is a dog’s best protection from the elements. This has to be managed every day, sometimes several times a day. If you do not want to do this, do not get a dog.