Born to suffer

I'd like to share a few calls to our branch helpline this week which illustrate exactly why the RSPCA's "Born to Suffer" campaign is so important. 

The first, and most disturbing, came on Sunday evening just after 10 pm. The caller had a Rough Collie puppy with acute liver disease. The pup had been given first aid and initial diagnosis by a Blue Cross animal hospital while she was away from home, and she'd been advised to go to our clinic as soon as possible. Sadly the puppy got much worse over the weekend and was in great distress by the time she called us. 

I very much doubt if he would have survived even if he'd been registered and therefore eligible to be seen by the University Vet School right away, but if our own finances hadn't been so dire I would have authorised the cost of having him put to sleep that night rather than by Wood Green the following morning.

There are a whole load of issues here: inbreeding and line breeding of pedigree dogs which increases the likelihood that they will suffer genetic disease; the ethics of commercial veterinary surgeries with no provision for emergency euthanasia to relieve suffering where an owner has no money; the responsibility of pet owners to set aside enough funds for at least minimal treatment and the responsibility of breeders once a puppy has left their ownership.

This is why we so urgently need to raise enough funds to be able to relieve suffering when no-one else will take responsibility.

The second call came today and is less awful because the puppy concerned is receiving treatment and should end up with reasonable quality of life. He's a Shar Pei and the purchaser was horrified to discover that the "weepy" eye which caused her to take him to a vet was in fact ulcerated and will need surgery to treat the deformed eyelids which are causing his eyelashes to rub and damage the eyeball itself. The surgery's likely to cost her £300-£500 and the breeder is flatly refusing to return any of the pup's purchase price to cover part of it.

Why should he have to suffer this discomfort for something that at the end of the day is simply a fad for wrinkled skin?

The Purebred Paradox Conference

The RSPCA's scientific expert on the welfare of dogs has been live-tweeting from a conference in the US. She tweets as GetPuppySmart. I've saved the conference tweets and some related materials as a Storify record.

If anyone had doubts that there are problems with some pedigree dogs

Take a look at this news article about a Shar Pei who needed surgery to cut back the folds of skin which meant she couldn't see. This dog appears to be a very extreme case as the more common problem is that puppies have eyelids which "don't fit properly" and cause the lashes to turn in and rub against the cornea of the eye. The writer seems a little confused about the distinction between problems like this, where the fault lies in the breed requirement for excessively folded skin, and those caused directly by the process of inbreeding between dogs who are too closely related.

There's more information about the procedure known as "tacking": stitching the eyelid so that it rolls away from the eye, and, as always, sensible comment from vet Pete Wedderburn.

What is the sense of paying £500 for a puppy who is going to need nearly £1,000 of surgery in less than a year to correct the genetic defects for which you paid your £500 in the first place?

I knew it!

More black propaganda from people who will not have to pick up the pieces if we go under.

When we got the original circular from HQ asking us not to include "beauty" classes in any official RSPCA fun dog shows I must admit I was apprehensive that it could be used against us. Of course if we did run classes where "cute" appearance was the main criterion, that could be used against us too. 

I'm not entirely convinced that the real problem with show dogs is judging by appearance so much as judging by distorted ideas of what is desirable appearance.

This picture is a modern Basset hound. 

This is one from 1915.

The older dog is much less exaggerated and has more normal back legs and less folded facial skin. That's no guarantee that he didn't have ectropion or any of the other ills that plague some  pedigree breeds, but I can't help thinking that selecting for dogs that looked more similar to him would be likely to improve the general fitness of Bassets.

I'm afraid we are seeing a pattern here.

The RSPCA is fundamentally a charity which provides services for animals (welfare law enforcement, veterinary treatment, rehoming etc.) and also campaigns on issues which affect animal welfare.

It's the services which make the campaigns credible: people with frontline experience of animal welfare work are likely to know what they're talking about and people who are putting unpaid effort into practical ways of improving animals' lives must genuinely care about animal welfare. The size and unified nature of the RSPCA probably impresses politicians with the likelihood that we're backed by substantial numbers of citizens with votes, but to some extent that's a secondary consideration.

Because of this credibility, virtually any person or organisation which wants to affect animal issues (whether to achieve change or prevent it) sees the RSPCA as a gatekeeper: government is likely to believe us if we say there really is a welfare problem, but it will also believe us if we say things are more complicated than other animal campaigners think. Many people who genuinely care about animals but have an overwhelming concern for one area, such as animal experiments, or factory farming, see us as the only thing which is stopping them from succeeding, because we're not giving unqualified support to whatever it is they want.

Add on those, like the kennel club, or foxhunters who see us as the organisation with enough clout to stop them going on doing what they like, and the result is that threats to our ability to provide the welfare services are used as blackmail to change the welfare policy. This is the, "I'll never give the RSPCA another penny and I'll tell all my friends unless you .... (abolish fox-hunting, bring back fox-hunting, say pedigree dogs are healthy, say pedigree dogs should be abolished—fill in the blank to taste)" route.

On top of this, we're never going to be able to provide the service level many of the public expect, so we have a constant background of genuine complaints plus spurious ones from people who are aware that the most effective way to strike at the RSPCA is to hit our ability as a service provider. None of this is helpful when we need to recruit volunteers to work at the fairly mundane jobs that are essential to keeping the services going.

More genetics and animals

Studies of the damaging effects of small populations and loss of genetic variety in threatened wild animals illustrate why the loss of genetic variation in dogs is potentially such a serious welfare problem:



"Conservation genetics focuses on understanding the role and requirement of genetic variation for population persistence. Can extinction be explained by habitat destruction alone or is lack of genetic variation a part of the explanation? It is now more important than ever that we ask relevant questions about the evolutionary fate of endangered populations throughout the globe and incorporate our knowledge of evolutionary processes and the distribution of genetic diversity into effective conservation planning and action." (From the back cover).









And a cute and very readable history of genetics with special reference to tortoiseshell cats:

Pedigree dogs again

The Independent has a long Crufts article, in places a little odd:

When it comes to the health of breeding dogs, Carol is a little ambivalent. Clumber spaniels tend to be affected by a genetic deficiency called PDP1, which can retard the body's metabolism and make the dogs too exhausted to exercise. Many dogs carry the PDP1 gene and lead long happy lives without being affected. But should they be used for breeding? It's a question at the heart of the Kennel Club controversy. "If they were affected with the disease, you wouldn't breed with them," said Carol. "But you can use a carrier for mating purposes, provided it's mated with a clear dog, so you can breed it out."

She is a fan of the Kennel Club, who gave her a £4,500 grant in 2004 to test 100 dogs for the virus. [my italics]

A genetic defect isn't a virus and, if the comments to the article are anything to go by, a large part of the fury over the whole pedigree dog question stems from people not understanding the basic science. 

Every one of us has some deleterious genes, but most of the time nothing catastrophic results because of genetic diversity —  bad genes are rare, so it is unlikely that two parents have the same problem genes and hence their children won't often inherit two bad copies and suffer the actual disease. Cystic fibrosis is an example: the gene is recessive and 1 in 25 members of the population carry it. However the chance that a baby's parents will both be carriers is only 1 in 625 (1 in 25 x 25) so it is uncommon for children to be born with the disease.

1 in five clumber spaniels is a carrier for PDP1, so there is a 1 in 25 chance of both parents being carriers if breeding pairs are chosen randomly, and this is why health checks are so essential — and are rightly encouraged by the Kennel Club.

However: 1 in five is an astoundingly high frequency for a gene that will make you very ill if you inherit two copies. That kind of frequency would only happen under natural conditions in two possible scenarios.

1. The population size was reduced to a very few individuals at some point and, by chance, some of those individuals happened to be carriers (for example if a few animals were carried to an island on a floating log).
2. Animals with one "bad" and one "good" copy of the gene had some survival advantage; as in the case of human Sickle Cell Anaemia

In Clumbers, the most likely cause is that humans inadvertently caused an artificial analogue of the first option; either because a very small number of dogs were used to create the breed originally, or because at some point a very popular sire happened to be a carrier. 

Independent of the danger that harmful recessive genes may become abnormally frequent if some dogs sire huge numbers of puppies, inbreeding means that both a puppy's parents are likely to carry the same copies of any harmful genes. It doesn't cause bad genes, but it dramatically increases a puppy's chances of inheriting two copies and suffering the actual disease rather than being a carrier.

So - some of the furious argument about cross-bred dogs is actually a red herring, because the need for sophisticated health checks before breeding is, at least partially, an artifact of the abnormal population structure of pedigree dogs.  

The Dogs Trust/Kennel Club Independent enquiry into dog breeding now has a website.

Report on pedigree dogs published

The independent RSPCA-commissioned report on pedigree dog breeding and the need for change is now available.

Pet Food Politics - just out

Just finished reading Pet Food Politics: the Chihuahua in the Coal Mine - rather horribly topical in view of the current tragedy in China over babies dying of kidney failure due to adulteration of milk formula with the chemical melamine.

Pet Food Politics is a serious documentary which really does read like a thriller and explains how a combination of greed, dishonesty, incompetence and sheer inability to trace the complexity of global markets in food products led to the death of pets in Canada and the US. The villains of the piece used the same adulterating chemicals that caused the deaths of babies in 2008.

Fortunately pet food companies in the UK were either more careful, or just luckier.

Evidently it was "luckier" (update 5th Oct. 2008).

One very interesting observation which Marion Nestle makes is the potential value of the animal health data which pet insurance companies collect as a side effect of their business. One of the first pieces of real evidence that there was a problem with US pet food was the observation of one insurance company that claims for treatment of kidney disease in cats had soared in March 2007. Clearly there are all kinds of other posible ways similar information collecting could benefit pets - for example we could get unbiased evidence of the real extent of the problem with pedigree dogs.

Marion Nestle has her own blog at whattoeatbook.com.

Dog breeding

Bleary-eyed after being woken at 2.30 am by a caller needing emergency help because her little yorkie bitch was suffering whelping complications I am reflecting on the question of charity help for owners who are intentionally breeding animals. More specifically, I am very unhappy that this little creature was not spayed after experiencing exactly the same problems in her previous pregnancy. 

Widespread availability of options for low-cost neutering has thankfully made routine euthanasia of unwanted puppies and kittens almost entirely a thing of the past. Less cheerfully, it's meant that puppies and kittens have a monetary value, which is good for the individual pup or kit, but has implications for anyone running a charity clinic providing veterinary services. 

We do refuse to vaccinate litters of kittens or puppies if it's obvious that the owner is intending to sell them for financial gain, but we can't refuse treatment for an animal in distress. Pedigree dogs are in the news at the moment, so here's my two-penn'orth: I would like the Kennel Club to refuse registration to any puppies of a subsequent litter born to a mother who required veterinary treatment in order to survive her previous pregnancy. That wouldn't harm the puppies in any way, but would reduce their financial value and so decrease the incentive to continue breeding from unfit bitches. 

Pedigree dogs?

Controversy this evening on the BBC with a documentary on the health problems of pedigree dogs. I can certainly go along with the comment about the problems some Westie's have with allergies and how awful it can be to have an otherwise perfect dog but be considering euthanasia because he's in permanent misery with itching skin that won't heal whatever the vets try.

Ironically, the despised Staffie must come out pretty well in the health stakes. I don't think I've ever seen one with health problems which had an underlying genetic basis. They're a normal "doggy shape" with no exaggerations and they're probably reasonably out-bred because most of them seem to be the result of ordinary pet owners deciding to let their dog have a litter. Most of the ones we see at our clinic have infections, accidents and so on, but are basically normal dogs.

The dog in the picture is poor old Ghost, still looking for a home. If you would like to visit him to see if he would suit you, please email rehoming@rspca-cambridge.org.uk

Insurance musings

Guardian Money has an article on breed-specific insurance premiums:

Axa, the insurance company that provides the policy (and which underwrites well over half a million pet policies sold by a wide range of partners, including the RSPCA, the Post Office and John Lewis's Greenbee) has this month introduced a "selected breeds" category: they are bulldogs, estrela mountain dogs, German shepherds (alsatian), great danes, greyhounds, Irish wolfhounds, leonbergers, Newfoundlands, old English sheepdogs, rottweilers, Pyrenean mountain dogs and St Bernards.

Thinking about it, I'm not surprised that most of these breeds are bad insurance risks, but a bit surprised by the inclusion of greyhounds; I can only think they've got a higher than normal risk of expensive, but survivable, "athletes" injuries, such as damaged cruciate ligaments (which can set you back £1k for a repair operation). Breeds like the cavaliers' heart problems or setters' retinal atrophy are a problem for the dog and owner, but not so much for the insurer, because there isn't a ruinously-expensive treatment option.

I'd second their advice to shop around - not only for better deals if you own one of the high-risk breeds, but, crucially, to make sure you get a policy which suits your financial circumstances. If you don't have savings or a credit card, it is absolutely essential to check that your insurer will either pay the vet direct or be prepared to pay you on the basis of an invoice from the vet which you have not yet paid. If you don't have a credit card, some policies are virtually useless if you are on a very low income, because they assume you will pay the vet and then claim the money back.

Pet insurance isn't the answer to all veterinary cost problems, but without it a lot more animals would have to be put to sleep, or have amputations rather than effective treatment.

Our own webshop offers some links to insurers who pay us commission, as does the national site. We are encouraging insurance in general, and no individual insurer will be right for everyone.