Throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Last month, I commented on the potential unintended consequences of breeders endorsing their puppies because “that’s what responsible breeders do”. There aren’t enough well-bred, KC registered puppies to meet demand and an estimated 70% of pedigree puppies are not KC registered. If someone has bought an endorsed puppy (dog or bitch) and is determined to breed from it, they are more likely to look for an unregistered mate and produce a litter of yet more unregistered puppies. They are unlikely to go back to their puppy’s breeder for advice or to understand what health tests may be required. It is debatable how much knowledge they will have about canine husbandry, how to care for a pregnant bitch or how to rear and socialise puppies.

Not only might this result in more pedigree dogs being bred outside the KC registration system but it probably also increases the chances of the puppies growing up with temperament and developmental issues.

A quick trawl through any of the online puppy sales sites shows just how many unregistered dogs are being bred and advertised. Many of the puppies (certainly in my breed) look rather untypical specimens and seem to command virtually the same prices as KC registered ones.

More “responsible owner” fallacies?

In this country, many new owners are encouraged by their vet to neuter their dogs. The BVA’s policy on neutering states:

“Neutering helps to reduce the number of unwanted litters. BVA strongly supports the practice of neutering cats (castration of tom cats and spaying of queens) and dogs (castration of dogs and spaying of bitches) for preventing the birth of unwanted kittens and puppies and the perpetuation of genetic defects. Such surgical intervention removes the problems associated with finding homes or increasing the stray population.”

The 2018 Dogs Trust survey said there were 56,000 stray dogs across the UK, which is the lowest level reported by councils for 21 years. That’s about half a percent of the UK dog population and hardly seems the best evidence for neutering. About 10,000 of those strays ended up in welfare organisations. The Dogs Trust report also estimated that 130,000 dogs come into rehoming charities every year.

A recent paper (Throwing the Baby Out With the Bath Water: Could Widespread Neutering of Companion Dogs Cause Problems at a Population Level? – Dawson et al) starts by saying “In many countries, ‘responsible dog ownership’ also involves spaying and castration”. In the USA, Australia and New Zealand, neutering is normal practice now and, in some cases, puppies are neutered at a very young age, before they go to their new homes. In contrast, in several European and Scandinavian countries, routine neutering is not the norm and is considered to be mutilation, similar to ear-cropping or tail-docking. In those countries, it is illegal. Here, just over half of all dogs are neutered as part of so-called responsible dog ownership.

More than health impacts

There have been numerous studies on the association between neutering and dog health. These cover large breeds where there are links with musculoskeletal conditions such as hip dysplasia and cranial cruciate ligament disease, and also with osteosarcoma and diabetes. In my own breed, our 2015 and 2018 breed surveys identified an association between neutering and an increased risk of back disease. A VetCompass study published this year showed that spaying of bitches increased the risk of urinary incontinence.

The information on the effects of neutering on behaviour is more mixed, with some studies suggesting it increases the risk of nervous aggression and others saying it reduces dog-dog aggression.

The Dawson paper considers the possible effects of widespread neutering on the breeding of dogs and their success as human companions. The authors describe 3 types of breeder:

  • Hobby breeders – who are often very experienced in a breed and often also participate in canine activities such as showing, obedience or agility. These people breed for their hobby/sport primarily, rather than to supply the pet market.
  • Commercial breeders – who breed primarily to make a living (profit) and specifically target the pet market, with higher volumes of puppies.
  • The general public – who have a dog and decide to breed from it, possibly without much experience of husbandry, whelping or puppy-rearing. They may be described as “backyard breeders” and probably know very little about health testing or genetics. They possibly breed because “it would be nice for Daisy to have puppies” or “to make a bit of money”.

No doubt breeders in all 3 groups would describe themselves as “responsible” but, Dawson et al go on to explain the changes they feel are needed if dogs and owners are not to be exploited.

Firstly, breeding choices and puppy-rearing processes should be based on knowledge of good practices. Clearly, schemes such as the Assured Breeder Scheme and the Dog Breeding Standard can help here. The free resources for breeders on the KC Academy is another useful starting point.

Secondly, they advocate that all dogs should be independently tested for suitability before being bred from. In addition to suitability from a health point of view, they believe behavioural testing is important to check their suitability to be good companion animals. There are several canine mentality/behaviour tests available, but programmes such as the KC’s Good Citizen Dog Scheme is another option. Dogs that are themselves good companions, are more likely to produce puppies that will be as well.

Thirdly, experienced breeders should be helping their puppy buyers who may be interested in having a litter so that these people don’t become “backyard breeders”. It would be relatively easy to include advice on breeding in the puppy pack that is given to new owners. Advising them not to neuter could also be beneficial from a genetic diversity perspective by keeping breeding options open. Widespread neutering excludes thousands of ideal companions from the gene pool. This includes dogs neutered by their breeder before sale or those who are sold with a contract stipulating they should be neutered or not bred from.

The paper concludes by saying: “Over the long term, a more considered approach to the breeding of companion dogs would help lessen the gap between owner expectations and the dogs available to them. However, this is only possible if attitudes toward neutering are addressed and “responsible ownership” is broadened to include a dynamic partnership between owners and breeders to produce dogs most suited for life as companions.

If we don’t change our thinking on what is meant by “responsible breeding” and take a population-wide view, we risk continuing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. More and more unregistered puppies will be bred by inexperienced people and the gene pools of our closed stud books will get even smaller.

Advertisements

The Dog Owners’ Handbook – a great (free) resource from the Kennel Club

The Kennel Club has recently published (online) a Dog Owners’ Handbook. It’s free and you can download it as a 74-page pdf file, as well.

It contains lots of good advice for novice owners and there’s information that more experienced owners will also benefit from.

KC Dog Owner Guide 2019

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The Great British Puppy Survey

GB Puppy SurveyI’ve recently finished reading The Great British Puppy Survey 2016 which was organised by a group of independent dog and animal welfare campaigners. They are Canine Action UK, CARIAD, Hidden-in-sight, The Karlton Index, Naturewatch Foundation and Pup Aid.

This group wanted to examine the behaviours and attitudes of UK puppy buyers to provide data that might inform future campaigns and policy-making, with the overall aim of improving welfare outcomes for dogs.

The online survey ran for a year (January 2015 – January 2016) and received 4303 responses, of which 3670 were described as “complete”. The responses comprise both quantitative and qualitative data, from a mixture of multiple choice/ranking questions and free text questions.

The first question you have to ask is to what extent that sample size is statistically significant. If it’s not, then any conclusions and, more importantly, any recommendations may be flawed.

Virtually all the puppies (97%) were purchased by survey respondents between 2010 and 2015 (6 years), a period when a reasonable estimate of total UK puppies bought would be 750,000 per year. Given that population, a quick test shows that a sample of 4000 responses would lead to a Confidence Interval of +/- 1.55 at the 95% Confidence Level. In other words, we can consider this to be a big enough sample upon which to draw statistically significant conclusions. We do, however, also have to consider the potential biases in the sample and their responses.

70% of people had bought a pedigree dog and many of those who had bought a crossbred had chosen a so-called Designer Breed, such as a Cockapoo or Cavachon. Interestingly, 80% of people had previous experience of owning a dog, so this does introduce a particular bias to the results. You would assume that the buying attitudes and behaviours of people with previous dog-owning experience would be somewhat different to those who had never owned a dog.

Unfortunately, the data presented in the report has not been analysed in this way, but it would be very easy to do this. I would be really interested to see if new owners were less rigorous in their research and decision-making process than experienced owners, or if they ended up with puppies that had more health and welfare problems. This could be important to help determine whether communications to the two groups should be different. There has been some interesting evidence published, based on Government (HMRC) “nudge” communications. Using language that is tailored to the audience has improved compliance rates in letters about tax returns. For example, “9 out of 10 small business owners like you have already submitted their Tax Return” gets a better response than “your Tax Return is overdue”. A similar approach could perhaps be used with puppy buyers to help them in their decision-making.

Pre-purchase Research

Half the respondents researched both “responsible dog ownership” and ”different breeds” via books, magazines and the Internet before buying their dog and 1 in 8 consulted the KC for advice. 15% asked their vet for advice, which I suspect is a reflection of the number of existing/previous owners in the sample. I’d be surprised if a first-time buyer would consult a vet. Perhaps surprisingly, 15% also visited dog shows to find out about their preferred breed. This is obviously encouraging and a good reason to make shows welcoming to visitors. Only 2% of these respondents did no research, which again suggests to me that many of the responses are slightly skewed by the 80% who had previously owned dogs.

Online classified websites were the main source of adverts, with Pets4Homes being used by about a third of buyers. Having found a breeder (or seller), nearly one-third did an online search for that person’s name. That, I think is interesting and positive as it is more likely to throw up articles on puppy farmers and welfare issues that have made it into the public domain.

Puppy sellers

There appears to be significant confusion among the puppy-buying public about licensing, KC Registration and accreditation (e.g. ABS membership). Half the respondents did not know the difference between people who were selling KC Registered puppies and those who were ABS members. In another question, buyers ranked “the seller was licensed” at number 7 in importance to their buying decision, compared with “able to see mum” and “right breed, sex, temperament” which were ranked first and second. It would appear that “licensing” or accreditation are not high in the priorities of buyers and, given the numerous puppy farm TV programmes where premises are licensed, there is probably still a big credibility gap to bridge. I wonder if the tarnished reputation of Local Authority licensing is carried over into scepticism over the value of the ABS. Surely, UKAS accreditation is the factor that differentiates the two.

In this survey, 80% of buyers saw the puppy’s mother when they bought their puppy. That leaves a shocking one-fifth who didn’t and suggests the “See Mum” message has much more work to do. Add to that the evidence that dealers and other less reputable sellers are setting up “fake Mum” situations to hoodwink buyers and it’s clear that “see Mum” might be overly simplistic as a single message to buyers.

Post-purchase experiences

One in five buyers reported problems with their puppy that required veterinary treatment. Of those, just over a third developed symptoms within the first week of ownership, with 1 in 20 facing vet bills of over £3000.

It’s probably not surprising that so many issues emerged in the first week of ownership as it can be a stressful transition for any puppy, however well-reared, as it moves to its new home. However, there is plenty of research evidence that the temperaments of poorly-reared puppies are worse than those from a good welfare background and you would assume that well-reared puppies will have a less traumatic transition. This also raises a strong argument for puppies to have only one transition; that is from their breeder to their new home. Transport between commercial breeders and retailers, via dealers, and time spent in pet shops cannot be good for the welfare of any puppy.

Puppy owners in this survey also appear to have been either unaware or unclear where they could complain if their puppy had problems. 72% took no action, while others typically complained to the KC, Local Authority, Trading Standards or the RSPCA. With this range of reporting, it would probably be very difficult to identify recurring issues from particular sellers. More than half the owners who had problems found their seller to be “very helpful” and only 6% said they were “completely unhelpful”.

Did these buyers learn any lessons?

More than half the buyers claimed they would do nothing differently and it would be really useful to know how this differed, if at all, between new owners and those who had previously owned a dog.

Surprisingly, nearly one third said that, next time, they would rehome from a rescue centre. This perhaps suggests they are looking for some degree of certainty about who the seller is, but they may not have considered why a dog might be in rescue in the first place. It’s certainly debatable whether there are sufficient dogs in rescue to meet this potential level of demand.

The other main lessons learnt were: visit the puppy at least twice before purchase, see the puppy interact with its mother, request health test results, ask more questions and do an online search for the seller’s name. It strikes me that if we could achieve this combination of buying behaviours it could make a significant difference to the puppy-buying process and would make it significantly more difficult for high-volume, poor-welfare breeders to continue their trade.

Next steps: See Mum Twice!

The report suggests that further analysis of the responses will be carried out and acknowledges that more data is needed on the behaviours and experiences of first-time puppy buyers. Both of these will, I’m sure, be helpful.

The current licensing and inspection system is clearly flawed and failing, but the chances of politicians addressing this anytime soon seem remote.

I’ve said before “if you wait for the perfect set of data, you’ll wait a very long time” and there are certainly some actions that can be taken quickly to help nudge buyers in the right direction and to make it more difficult for low-welfare sellers to get away with it. “See Mum twice” could be a key message that has the potential to make a big difference.

Download The Great British Puppy Survey 2016

 

[Originally published in Our Dogs: Author Ian J Seath]

Grappling for political attention: the case of dog welfare

This article, by Philippa Robinson, was first published on the Centre for Animals and Social Justice blog in October 2014.  With an upcoming election, the message is particularly relevant today…

Lewis… people don’t drink the sand because they are thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference
An American President (Aaron Sorkin 1995)

Campaigners for improved health and welfare in dogs (in England at least) will not be at all disappointed with DEFRA’s initial dismissal of CASJ’s call for an Animal Protection Commission. Not disappointed sadly, because it is what we have come to expect. We have lever-arch files and inboxes full of similar correspondence, all making the same spurious claims.

We are all too familiar with ministerial insistence that: the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 2006 is sufficient protection for dog welfare; there is no need to consolidate the piecemeal legislation, nor update longstanding laws; local authorities have all the power they need to enforce better breeding and ownership of dogs; DEFRA and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health have issued more than adequate guidance; and, political channels for effective consultation and implementation are in place through such structures as the Animal Health and Welfare Board of England (AHWBE).

That government stands by this, in the case of dogs, is disconcerting because a not-insignificant amount of parliamentary time has been invested in exploring dog welfare and bringing the key issues to their attention. But to what effect?

Running up to and following the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the plight of companion animals received increased scrutiny, with dogs in particular benefiting from that:

  • In 2003 the Companion Animal Welfare Council set up its inquiry into the welfare issues attached to selective breeding with a published report in May 2006.
  • The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) led an inquiry into dog health in 2009 and published a full report.
  • The Bateson Inquiry funded by Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club reported in January 2010.
  • As recommended by Bateson an Advisory Council for the Welfare Issues in Dog Breeding (DAC) was established in 2010 whose remit was to provide independent, expert advice and make recommendations including advising on appropriate regulation.
  • That was followed up by the House of Commons Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee inquiry into Dog Control and Welfare resulting in a debate in the main chamber in June 2013.

Therein, ample opportunity was provided to explore the welfare issues attached to dogs, work up actions to address them and elicit political buy-in. Both the EFRA committee and DAC concluded that consolidation of dog law, together with secondary legislation under the AWA 2006 was needed to secure better welfare goals for companion dogs.

In 2013, running alongside these traditional yet frustrating (there still has been no consolidation nor secondary legislation) parliamentary routes to policy improvement a campaigning vet, Marc Abraham, decided that another tactic might prove more fruitful in tackling one pressing welfare issue in dogs. That of unscrupulous intensive production of puppies for the pet market, commonly but unhelpfully referred to as puppy-farming.

In May 2013 Abraham launched an e-petition calling for a ban on the sale of youngpuppies and kittens without their mothers being present, and within six months had received over 111,000 signatures, enough to trigger further action. Now, Angela Roberts points out that e-petitions are proving to be no more than a sop to public opinion as their outcomes are not legally binding and government appears deaf to them. That may well be the case. The life of this e-petition and its resultant debate in the main chamber, however has been revelatory. For as well as amplifying the message that animal welfare is an issue taken very seriously by the public and reiterating the need for more explicit protection and increased resource for effective enforcement, it did something else.

I accept e-petitions may just be sops but the speed with which Abraham’s petition reached the requisite 100k signatories, the profile it achieved within the dog campaigning community, and its highly successful #wheresmum social media campaign meant it gathered some disruptive power, which though limited, may well be extremely valuable to dogs. That power is located not in its ability to rattle government, (as suggested by Angela e-petitions tend not to rattle Government) but in the fact that its momentum rattled the existing stakeholders such as welfare charities and the pet trade. Stakeholders that perhaps, and I am just surmising here, perhaps, had become inured by those prevaricating ministerial mantras.

Initially Marc Abraham’s petition did not enjoy public support from the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, or DAC. It was driven by Marc himself, and a growing body of entrepreneurial campaigning micro-organisations such as CARIAD, ones that are not shackled to corporate interests nor limited by outdated charitable objects. As the petition gained momentum the welfare charities began to express their support and in the final debate were recorded as backing the motion. This expression of support, made late in the day, in turn rattled the pet trade, not least because some of the very same stakeholders such as the Dogs Trust, that now support a ban on selling puppies in pet shops, were only very recently engaging in collaborative drafts of CIEH guidance on pet vending licencing conditions. Guidance that allows for the sale of puppies in pet shops. The Dog Advisory Council has never called for a ban on pet shop sales either but thanks to Marc, now they do. So if nothing else, his petition did at least secure a change in heart amongst key stakeholders.

This petition began to shape the agenda, and it is an agenda that really does need shaping. I have long argued that what dogs need is strong leadership and a coherent strategy if their welfare is to be protected adequately and I have argued that we should be concerned that despite long, illustrious stakeholder histories (dates they were established respectively are RSPCA 1824, Kennel Club 1873, Dogs Trust 1891) dogs are still yet to benefit from coherent legislation and effective enforcement. In his review (published September 2014) of the RSPCA’s prosecutions work Wooler concluded similarly, in stating that the role of the RSPCA now “owes more to history than strategy”. The exact same thing can be said about all mainstream dog welfare organisations. There has never been a “dog strategy”. There is no overall leadership on this matter even with the “independent” DAC. In the absence of both a welfare strategy and strong leadership it is no surprise that the puppy and kitten e-petition, as singular as it was in its focus, grabbed the attention of the pet loving community.

There is one final observation to make about these recent dog-related political activities. In both the EFRA inquiry debate and the e-petition one, backbenchers let slip a very worrying characteristic of our democratic process. That even if calls for consolidation of legislation are heeded by ministers, the civil servants will advise and counsel against it. The civil servants? That revelation felt quite sinister to me and in its light the CASJ’s proposal for “a joined-up” approach to animal welfare involving “deeper, structural changes” no longer seems desirable, but absolutely essential.

Government may have relied on the complex machinations of Westminster to create a mirage of meaningful political activity and they may hope e-petitions remain a sop. I would argue those are dangerous assumptions on which to proceed towards a general election. E-petitions are a great deal easier to understand by the public and failure to listen to them will be very obvious to those of us that have taken part. Petitioners and campaigners like me remain thirsty for political change but are beginning to wonder, given that it is proving so very difficult to secure, that may be all this time we have just been drinking the sand. Parliamentary candidates be aware: an electorate that draws that conclusion is a very different beast from one that does not.

Find out more about Philippa Robinson and The Karlton Index – measuring progress in the health and welfare of dogs

Modelling the UK Dog Population – summary report

The breeding, ownership and welfare of dogs in the UK is a complex social area. Although there has been research into the size of the dog population, nobody has pulled all this together into a single model that everyone can use to help focus priority issues.  As a consequence, different stakeholders have varying, and sometimes conflicting, views of how many dogs there are and their needs.  Without a consensus understanding of the population and how it is stratified, it is difficult to propose meaningful welfare improvement policies.

Earlier this year the RSPCA and Dog-ED worked with a group of Operational Research analysts from the Department for Environment and Climate Change (DECC) to review the literature and establish a baseline of data on the UK dog population.  The DECC team did this for us as a pro bono project coordinated by the Operational Research Society, of which Ian Seath is a member.
The project case study (download pdf) summarises the results of the literature survey and the challenges the DECC team faced when trying to build a population stocks and flows model (example below).  The DECC team will be presenting a paper at this year’s OR Conference, based on this work.
Stocks and Flows

Conclusions:

  1. Top-down and bottom-up calculations of the UK dog population do not agree, resulting in a significant range (8.5 – 11+ million)
  2. There is insufficient data from publicly available sources to quantify the origins and populations of non-KC registered pure-bred dogs (e.g. “hobby breeder”, “commercial” or “puppy farm”)
  3. There is insufficient data to understand the reasons why dogs are relinquished and go into welfare, or to identify the extent to which dogs in welfare may be moving in and out of “revolving doors”
  4. The lack of data makes it too difficult to identify additional areas (over currently known points) where interventions could occur to improve the welfare of dogs
  5. Forecasts of the potential impacts of different interventions are dependent on external factors (economic and societal) which are themselves difficult to predict
  6. The DECC OR team has brought a rigorous and disciplined approach to this project and highlighted the data and evidence challenges that exist in this complex social policy area

 

Download: Understanding the UK Dog Population

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.