Welfare
Breeding, buying dogs, rescue dogs...
Going With A Bang
As we are about to come into the weekend that many dog owners and owners of other animals dread, is it time to reconsider our approach to fireworks? Personally, I have always hated fireworks and have no idea why some people get pleasure out of a few flashing lights and loud bangs and screeches. It was bad enough when it was restricted to November 5th and possibly the nearest weekend, but now, any gathering seems to be an excuse for fireworks from outdoor concerts to private parties.
This not only means that the duration of firework noise is extended, but that animal owners cannot predict when to take precautions to keep them safe or just less stressed. I have never encountered neighbours who had the courtesy to warn of their intention to let off fireworks and the law is regularly flouted with regard to restrictions on when they can be used.
Every year, although there are serious injuries caused by fireworks that put unnecessary pressure on already over stretched emergency services, recent attempts to restrict fireworks to public displays only have been rejected by parliament. The subject was last debated on June 6th, 2016. The short answer was “We are aware that fireworks can cause distress to animals. Restrictions on the general public’s use of fireworks and permitted noise levels already exist and we have no plans to extend them.”
This is no much consolation to those of us who have to deal with the serious effects that animals, including dogs, have to suffer as well as the distress to owners.
It seems unlikely that a call for a ban on public sale will have any success in the foreseeable future, so what if there was more publicity about better fireworks? The town of Collecchio near Parma, Italy has introduced local legislation requiring all citizens to use silent fireworks for the good of the community. In the UK, the UK Firework Review provides information about a variety of quieter and silent fireworks. There will probably always be people who get a thrill out of creating a great deal of noise who may not be persuaded, but it is possible that a substantial majority of people might.
Surely anything that reduces the noise will make life a little easier for stressed and frightened animals and their owners?
Get out there and spread the word! In the meantime, sign the petition for the mandatory use of silent fireworks in the UK.
Happy St Hubert’s Day
In Catholic iconography, November 3rd is dedicated to St Hubert, patron saint of, amongst other things, dogs and hunting. Hunting packs all over the country will be holding St Hubert’s Day celebratin tonight and over the weekend. (A slap up game lunch on the IoW for me on Sunday!)
Hubert was born around 656 CE and died in 727CE. The eldest son of a nobleman, he renounced his title and eventually became bishop of Liege having devoted himself to poverty and piety having previously lived for the chase. Legend has it that he had a vision of a crucifix between a stag’s antlers while about to take a shot, but this is thought to be conflated with the legend of Saint Eustace. The stag supposedly dictated the ethics of hunting to him – always take a mercy shot, observe a closed season and shoot to cull.
The use of the “St Hubert’s Key” continued until as late as the early 20th century as an attempted cure for rabies. A bar, nail or cross was carried or attached to a wall of a home as supposed protection against the disease. A priest would prick the forehead of a person that was assumed to have contracted rabies. A black bandage would be applied for nine days while the heated key was placed on the body where the bite had occurred. It is possible that the heated key, if applied immediately, could cauterise and sterilise a bite wound, effectively killing the rabies virus. Hubert was only one of many Christian saints attributed with the ability to cure rabies, the key having supposedly been given to him by St Peter. It is likely that the superstition died out once an effective anti-rabies serum was available from the 1880s onwards.
The 14th C Saint Roch is also credited as being the patron saint of dogs. He was purportedly saved by a dog who licked his wounds and brought him bread when he had retreated form his home when sick. This legend too may have been conflated with that of the much earlier Saint Racho of Autun who died at about the same time as St Hubert was born. His feast day, appropriately, follows the dog days of summer and is on August 16th.
Expert Veterinary Poisons Advice Now Available To Owners
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
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.
81,050 Stray Dogs Handled by Local Authorities in 2016
The 2016 Dogs Trust survey of local authority dog wardens and environmental health officers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has just been published. 370 local authorities with responsibility for environmental health in Great Britain. returned 338 questionnaires by the deadline and 3 after, giving a response rate of 92%.
Local authorities were responsible for seizing 78% of strays. 17% were handed in by the general public, figures that have remained stable over recent years. the remaining 5% were handed in by the police (1%), under the Dangerous Dogs Act (1%), picked up by other means (3%) or already in local authority kennels on 1st April 2015 (1%). Transfers from vets, the RSPCA, dog wardens, and other agencies each accounted for fewer than 1% of reported strays.
This represents 81,050 stray dogs handled by local authorities in the last year. Although this is a decrease of 21% on the previous year when 102,516 dogs were handled by local authorities, there is no cause for celebration.
Just 29% (16,447) dogs were microchipped. 64% of these dogs face being destroyed by local authorities because their owners have not updated their contact details which, as of April 2016, has been illegal. Just 478 microchipping enforcement notices had been served between April 6th 2016 and the survey deadline of July 31st, 2016. 51% were due to the stray dogs being unchipped and 49% were due to the chip having incorrect details stored. 43,767 of the 81,050 stray dogs were reunited with their owners, with more than 9,000 reunifications due to a correctly registered microchip. ID disks accounted for 1,161 reunions and a combination of the two for 768 reunions. 7,341 dogs were reunited due to the owner contacting the local authority or pound directly. 662 dogs were reunited due to already being known to the dog warden. The numbers of stray dogs chipped with a foreign microchip has remained globally stable, although numbers vary across authorities. 18% did not require kennelling.
170 of the 292 local authorities offered a microchipping service, with 41% of those making it free of charge to the owner using Dogs Trust chips, 6% offering it free at a cost to the council and 20% requiring the owner to pay. Many authorities used a mixture, such as allowing free chipping in some cases but requiring the owner to pay in others.
3,463 stray dogs were destroyed by local authorities leaving 37,283 dogs unclaimed in council kennels. The reported number of stray dogs that were re-homed by local authorities across the UK fell from 8,465 in 2015 to 6,143 this year. However, this accounts for the same proportion that were re-homed by local authorities as last year (9%) due to the decrease in the estimated total number of strays. Just under a quarter (22%) of the strays handled were passed on to welfare organisations or dog kennels after the statutory period of kennelling. This proportion remains the same as last year and is in line with estimates over the last 10 years. A small proportion of dogs were kept or retained by finders, were dead when found or died in kennels.
216 (70%) of local authorities employ a dog warden directly whereas 76 authorities (25%) contract the service out.
206 (72%) authorities house strays in private boarding kennels, 28 (9%) use a council-owned pound and 82 (27%) use charity kennels. The remaining 20 authorities said that they used an alternative option for handling their strays. 293 (95%) of authorities run dog warden services during working hours Monday to Friday and 101 during working hours on Saturdays and Sundays. 141 (46%) work on-call out of working hours Monday to Friday and 147 authorities operated an on-call service out of hours on weekends, with 50% of all LAs reporting offering an out-of-hours service at any time. This is broadly consistent with finding from previous years.
14,519 (19%) of all strays reported as being handled by local authorities were regarded as being so-called “status dogs” and tended to be bull breeds, Rottweilers, Akitas or crosses of these breeds, representing a reduction of 21% on 2015. of those, 738 (5%) were euthanised due to aggressive behaviour. This proportion has been declining gradually from a reported 8% in 2013-14 to 6% in 2014-15.
These figures are simply disgraceful. Any improvements do not disguise the fact that far too many dogs are straying or being dumped. So much for the “nation of dog lovers”.
Can You Rise To The Bulldog Challenge?
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?
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?
Model Dogs But What About the Owners?
The Guardian today has a section of pictures, all beautifully shot, showing dogs dressed up supposedly to attract new owners.
Dogs are wreathed in flowers, draped in silks and velvets and all dolled up for a hoe down. Somewhere underneath all of this, some of the dogs beam happily out, some look anxious and uncomfortable. Many dogs feel uncomfortable at the direct “gaze” of a camera lens because they interpet it as a threat. Others cheerfully mug for the camera – I had a dog that nearly knocked someone overboard when we were travelling on a ferry because he was sure that the man wanted to take his photograph and was “helpfully” positioning himself in front of the camera. This was a dog that had been abused for 11 years before coming to me and really did not like strange people, unless that is, they were taking photographs!
The harm done to a dog that is uncomfortable at having it’s photograph taken is minimal. What I question, is whether dogs should be placed on sale in this way. Make no mistake about it, rescue or no, these dogs are for sale. They are as much commodities as a pair of second hand shoes being sold in a charity shop. The raison d’être of any rescue is to process as many animals as possible so that they can make room for more.
We all know that owners think it acceptable to buy a dog then treat it like a doll; how much more likely are they to do that if the dog is packaged up that way in the first place. “Aww, look at it’s cute ‘ickle face, all framed in pwetty flowers”.
Why not go out on a limb – show the dog racing after a ball, retrieving a Kong, rolling over for a tickle – BEING A DOG ON ITS OWN TERMS. Sorry to shout, but really. It’s time that we allowed dogs dignity and made owners realise that they are taking on another species with its own particular needs and that we owe dogs a duy of care in their own right.
Idiot of the Month
This is probably one of the saddest “Idiot of the Month” posts that I have had occasion to write. Dogs loose on roads, forced to run alongside bicycles or following jogging owners, dogs largely ignored by owners who nevertheless profess to “love” them etc etc. are par for the course.
This instance that I witnessed in the park is, however, a classic, all too common case, of a totally unsuitable owner at the top of the slippery slope to ruining a beautiful, already damaged dog and possibly getting hurt in the process.
I have known the owner to speak to for some time. When I first met her, she owned a small, nervous collie cross. The dog was elderly and not in the best of health but the owner was hysterically over-protective. She all but brought the dog’s bed out into the park I case she needed a rest, wouldn’t allow any other dog to so much look at her dog’s water bowl and did her best to keep other dogs away altogether, even though one of the remaining things that enabled her increasingly sickly dog to have some quality of life was her obvious enjoyment of interacting with other dogs.
Eventually, her dog died and, shortly afterwards, the owner re-appeared in the park with a stunning medium-sized adolescent collie cross bitch. The dog had been a street dog and was imported from Romania by a couple who soon decided that they were more interested in having children instead.
The dog is friendly with people and other dogs but has no training. In spite of this, she was allowed off the lead with the owner screaming hysterically and haring after her in an attempt to get her back as she bounded over to explore her new environment. My suggestion that basic training on a long line would be safer and that chasing an excited dog whilst screeching loudly is not the best method of recall was greeted with a stern admonition that the owner knows exactly what she is doing, thank you.
Finally the dog was restrained by a couple as she greeted their dog, at which point, the owner snatched her away, forced her rear-end down roughly and, face thrust in the dog’s face, started shouting at her. She also did not have the courtesy to thank the couple who’d caught her.
I opened my mouth to protest at the rough handling and then my blood ran cold. It was only a split second but, as clear as day, the dog turned hard-eyed, gave the merest suggestion of teeth being bared and made it abundantly clear that next time something similar happened, she would bite. Her muzzle was about a quarter of an inch away from the owner’s face and she was effectively in a head lock.
I tried to explain what had happened, but the owner would have none of it. “I’m not having her behave like that” was all that she said.
So, this poor dog has no training, is passed around like an unwanted parcel and re-homed with someone who expects her to “behave” automatically and then punishes her for not knowing how to. This owner may well end up with a very stressed and dangerous dog indeed.
Tragically, whatever happens to the human, this is not a story that tends to end well for the dog.
Italian Earthquake Recovery
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.