What IS "responsible breeding", anyhow?

If you've been following the dog licence debate on Twitter, you may have noticed some acrimonious exchanges between @rspcalondonse and a few dog bloggers. (I think I rather resent the comments questioning whether someone who is "only" a volunteer spokesman for a branch should be allowed to express an opinion).

Anyone who thinks companion animals should simply be eliminated by neutering them all can stop reading now. If you think we should be aiming to reduce over-production so that no animals have to be killed because they can't be placed in homes, carry on.

First of all, we need to get over our hang-ups from the days when massive numbers of puppies were put down every year as a result of unwanted litters. In the UK this simply is not happening any longer; unless there is something seriously wrong with a particular puppy it will be relatively easy to find a suitable home.

Unfortunately the downside of this is that puppies have a commercial value and it is possible for unscrupulous people to make money by keeping bitches in dreadful conditions. The primary reason why this needs to be stamped out is the cruelty suffered by the mother dogs who may be producing litter after litter in situations that are literally similar to battery farming. Keeping dogs like this would be wrong even if it had no effect at all on the number of animals ending up in rescue. Dogs are our companions—would you want your friend's mother to spend her life in a dark shed and worn out after half her normal lifespan?

In fact, of  course, this kind of breeding produces puppies who are more likely to end up in rescue (because they may be ill, have behaviour problems, or simply have been purchased by someone who would not have been sold a puppy by someone who cared about dogs). The discarded bitches will either be killed, passed on to rescue organisations, or sometimes sold to unwary purchasers who think they are getting a cheap pedigree.

Pretty well everyone involved with dogs agrees that this kind of breeder is not "responsible" (although they may still get licences from the local authority if the LA is more interested in supporting local businesses than in animal welfare).

We then move on to all the others who breed dogs and it's here that the disagreement starts, because there's not much agreement about what a "responsible" breeder would be aiming to do.

On the one hand there are the fairly large scale pedigree breeders, who are primarily aiming for success in the show ring and produce puppies for sale to the pet market as a by-product. To be successful they will be keeping their breeding dogs in good, hygienic conditions, well-fed and the dogs who compete in the show ring will necessarily receive training, which is important for their mental wellbeing. They are likely to be reasonably knowledgeable about avoiding inherited problems by suitable genetic testing (although they may be fairly pig-headed about accepting the deleterious effects of inbreeding and a small gene pool). They may also be blinkered about defects which are inherent in the standard for their particular breed. Their dogs will be valuable and are likely to be sold with clauses requiring "pet-quality" puppies to be neutered.

For me, the faintly derogatory "pet-quality" phrase is the key; these breeders may genuinely be trying to do the best for their dogs, but suitable family companions are not their primary goal. Some pedigree dogs are selected for traits which are positively deleterious to them; for example who on EARTH in their right mind would think this is normal?

Pedigree breeders aren't necessarily only interested in how the dog looks: there are Papillons and Shelties who can compete successfully against Border Collies in Obedience classes.

Finally there are "hobby breeders" which may include owners hoping to make a quick profit who neither know nor care about health checks necessary for their breed; those who simply want to be able to keep a puppy from a well-loved pet and highly knowledgeable people whose dogs are primarily companions, but also want to compete. Some breeders do so as a sideline to running boarding kennels.

Clearly some breeders are more of a problem for rescues than others. I doubt whether there are many potential Staffordshire BT adopters who buy Chihuahuas instead, but SBT breeders certainly are competing for homes with rescue dogs. Anyone breeding dogs which will almost routinely need surgery (Sharpei, British Bulldog etc.) really should be questioning what they are doing.

Finally—what kind of dogs should a responsible breeder be aiming for?

Take a look at the fascinating Family Dog Project website (thanks to Cambridge dogs for the link).

Dogs evolved as animals who specialise in understanding human behaviour!

By reducing them to quasi factory farm "products" we risk throwing away thousands of years of evolutionary development which has produced creatures who are our companions and willing assistants, not only in traditional work, but dealing with completely new challenges, such as finding the nests of bumble bees and humanely relocating hedgehogs.

Status dogs?

There's a fascinating video on the Teacher's TV website about the partnership between the Cheltenham Animal Shelter and Gloucester education department helping excluded children back into full-time education through working with rescue dogs. By participating in training the dogs, the children learn to control their own behaviour, and incidentally must be learning to be safer and more effective dog owners when they acquire their own pets.

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. 

Low cost pet neutering

If you are on state benefits (including working tax credit and pension credit, but not child tax credit on its own) and live within our branch area, you are eligible to have your pets neutered via our animal clinic in Cambridge. This is not free, but is significantly cheaper than the cost a private vet would have to charge.

The Wednesday morning session (9 am - 10.30 am) is reserved for pre-neutering checks and vaccinations, so is the best time to bring your animal along to be booked onto the waiting list. Charges are £55 for a bitch, £40 for a dog, £35 for a female cat, £20 for a male cat. We can also neuter rabbits and ferrets at the same charge as for a cat. Payment must be made in advance, and your pet will be given a health check to see that they are fit enough to have the operation. Once this has been done, your pet will be added to the waiting list and called in when they reach the top of the list (currently this is a few weeks).

Dogs and cats should be at least 4 months old before they can be checked to go on the waiting list for neutering. If a bitch is in season or just finishing a season she can not be put on the waiting list, but should  come back for a vet check to be put on the list in about 2 months. 

Ideally bitches should be neutered 3 months after their last season.

Neutering will prevent the birth of unwanted offspring who may not find good homes and it also has important health benefits for your pet - particularly in the case of bitches and female ferrets and male cats. Another great benefit in the case of rabbits is that it enables a male and female to be kept together as a pair which will make them much happier and more contented.

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

And again

Swayne & Partners phoned again this morning to say the last dog owned by the family with the original parvovirus infected puppy has started vomiting, and the one they saw yesterday has died.

Arguably the family have committed some kind of offence under the Animal Welfare Act by failing to provide adequate care for those five dogs, but frankly nothing we could do to them would punish them more than the consequences of their failure to get any of them vaccinated.

More Parvo

Vet phones in to say another dog belonging to the family with two parvo-infected puppies is vomiting. They've got no money, so I've agreed to cover basic supportive treatment - given in their surgery car park as they daren't have something that infectious brought into their building to put the paying clients' animals at risk.

Parvovirus again

Another phone call last night: 9 week old puppy, vomiting, lethargic. Owner never been to a vet, and, presumably, puppy never vaccinated by the breeder. Owner has no money and didn't realise that charges escalate after 6.30 pm when normal surgery hours end and all the local vets go over to emergency rates. It's worth stressing this - in normal surgery hours £50 will cover a private vet's consultation fee and some first aid treatment. After 6.30, you're talking about £75 just for the consultation fee.

Being vaccinated at 8 weeks old via our clinic might not have protected that puppy altogether, as she would only have had her first jab and there wouldn't have been enough time for much immunity to develop. BUT it would have meant she was registered and therefore eligible to be seen by the out of hours emergency service for a £30 charge.

Yet another this morning, via the Haverhill vet. Sadly, put to sleep on the vet's advice.

Parvovirus

Just to reiterate the warning on our main website:

Any dog whose vaccinations are not current could be at risk of contracting canine distemper or canine parvovirus. The disease is particularly dangerous to younger dogs who have never been vaccinated and is very often fatal. If your dog or puppy is not vaccinated please consult your vet - IT IS NOT WORTH risking a £500 vet bill and a dead dog at the end of it for the sake of saving the comparatively small cost of vaccination. If you are on benefits or state pension and really cannot afford the full cost, you may be eligible to have the vaccination given at our clinic at a lower rate than a private vet would need to charge.

If your dog is not vaccinated and starts vomiting or has diarrhoea DO NOT let them mix with other dogs and phone your vet for advice. If you have more than one dog, keep the sick one away from the ones who are still healthy. Contact your vet by phone for advice before getting the healthy dogs vaccinated - they may be carrying the disease and it is important that they are not brought into contact with other dogs.

Many people assume that being vaccinated as a puppy means their dog has life-long protection. This is not the case, although your vet may advise some variation from a schedule of yearly vaccinations for elderly dogs or dogs with certain health problems. In case of doubt always consult your own vet for advice which is personalised for your particular dog's state of health.

Users of the Cambridge RSPCA animal clinic must bring proof of benefits or paperwork such as a bank-statement which shows that they have a very low income each time they visit the clinic. If you are unable to bring your pet yourself it's fine for a helper to bring them for you, but the helper must show proof that you are in receipt of benefit and needs to have a signed note from you confirming that they are bringing the animal on your behalf.

Animal Hoarders and others

This is Bearface, who came in from the same original place as Alphina. If you might be interested in adopting them (or any of our other animals), please email rehoming@rspca-cambridge.org.uk

Which leads into the subject of today's post, sparked off by an article on the Disability Now website. Bearface, Alphina and their eight other friends were brought in by our inspector after being signed over to the RSPCA because their previous owner couldn't cope with so many cats any longer. They were all evidently loved and cared for and there was absolutely no question of anyone being prosecuted.

The vast majority of the animals, other than injured strays, that we take in for rehoming fall into variations on the "can no longer cope" category, for a variety of legitimate reasons. Sometimes because people's circumstances have changed; often because a landlord has finally taken exception to the large number of animals being kept, and fairly frequently because the owner has mental or physical problems severe enough to cause them to be placed in some kind of institution for reasons that are not necessarily related to the fact that they have pets.

The most horrific example of this last category that's ever happened in our own area is one where a very elderly couple owned a number of dogs. The husband was suffering from severe dementia and his wife sadly had a heart attack and died with the result that he lived with his wife's remains for several weeks, unable to comprehend the situation enough to call the emergency services or feed the dogs. That clearly wasn't his fault, and the only reason our poor inspector was called in by the police was because they needed someone to deal with the surviving dogs.

When someone is suddenly taken into hospital or prison it is the responsibility of the emergency services to protect their possessions and, in the case of inanimate objects, this is simple to do by making their home secure. It clearly isn't an option to do this with living animals, which is why the police and social services will generally try to get the RSPCA to take them if it seems likely that the owner isn't going to return within a reasonable timespan. It's fairly clear from some of the Internet discussions about the RSPCA that this is sometimes interpreted as us "seizing" the animals, although from our perspective we've done nothing except respond to a request to care for animals who have been (involuntarily) abandoned by their owner.

Which leads on to the comparatively rare situations where animals are seized and their owners prosecuted. First of all, it should be said firmly that the RSPCA doesn't (and is not allowed to) simply take animals away without authorisation from the police and a veterinary surgeon's opinion. Once the animals have been removed they remain the property of the original owner until the owner signs them over to the RSPCA voluntarily or until a court makes an order about their future. This is as is should be - as a voluntary body we ought not to be in a position of being judge, jury and executioner.

The problem in the case of people who have a mental abnormality of some kind and are not willing to give up animals voluntarily is that it means there is no middle way to avoid putting them through the whole process of prosecution, including the inevitable publicity, without simply abandoning the animals to their fate. Rosalind Gregson is an absolutely classic example of someone who had to be stopped from collecting more and more animals and keeping them in abysmal conditions, but who wasn't fully responsible for her actions. Prison clearly wasn't an appropriate punishment for her, but sentencing is the decision of the court, not the RSPCA. Margaret O'Leary is a similar case.

In the States animal hoarding is beginning to be recognised as a specific form of mental illness and convicted people may be given treatment orders rather than punishment. This is clearly better, but I can't see any realistic alternative to the prosecution process unless society decides to go down the road of authorising confiscation of animals and enforced treatment of their owners without a legal oversight (or with something like a judge in chambers instead of open court). Have to say I find the idea a bit chilling - what happens to the "mad cat ladies" of this world who are eccentric but do look after their animals and keep numbers within fairly reasonable limits.

Thank-you!

To Cambridge City Council's Environmental Services dept. for offering to install and empty a nice new dog waste bin next to our animal clinic if we could pay the one-off cost of the bin.

The bin is now in place, so there is no excuse for the antisocial types who don't clear up after their dogs.

Frustration

Frustration today after a series of incidents that needn't have happened.

Yet another owner with a pet in labour and not enough funds to cope when things go wrong. This time a cat. We charge £20 to spay a cat if the owner is on benefits, and the most expensive private vet doesn't charge much over £60. A caesarian via our clinic will set you back at least £200; up to £600 at a private vet. Registering your cat by getting her vaccinated at our clinic will at least entitle her to out of hours emergency treatment at our discounted rates.

Two phone calls from people with multiple cats wanting them taken in for rehoming; which we can't do, because our funds just won't stretch to cover the cost of boarding them all. 

One call about an un-neutered tom cat who is beating up other local cats, whose owners want him taken away.

Another un-vaccinated pup with diarrhoea and vomiting. Owners not willing to pay for anything.

Dog who's probably eaten rat, or mouse poison.

Dogs who bite people

Wondered why: "Saved: knife man who set himself alight" was coming up in my newsfeed of RSPCA items, and found: 

Neighbours said the man had been upset after his bulldog had to be put down the day before.

One, who did not wish to be named, said: "The RSPCA came round and they said that it was attacking people and would have to be destroyed. I think the man was really cross with his mum for having the dog put down."

I doubt whether it happened exactly like that. It may not actually have been the RSPCA at all who called round: usually dog bite incidents are dealt with by the police or local authority dog warden. Certainly, if someone phoned our control centre and complained they'd been bitten, they'd be told to phone the police. 

The true story may well be something similar to a call I took late on Friday evening. The caller's rottweiler dog had just attacked her (adult) son for no apparent reason. He wasn't badly injured, but wanted the  dog out of the house, and was expecting that we'd be able to collect it that evening. Realistically, there's no way we could responsibly take on a large, potentially dangerous dog for rehoming to the public. It had to be their decision either to get professional advice on training or to have the dog put to sleep, and I told them so. 

Further down the line, if one of the other family members had reacted like the man in the knife incident, that could easily have been reported to the Press as: "the RSPCA told them they had to have the dog put down".

On Payment Plans and Responsibility

Hardly any vets will allow arrangements where pet owners pay back the cost of treatment over a period of time, for the simple reason that too many people never pay back the full amount.

Our animal clinic is run in association with Cambridge University Vet School, and they charge pet owners for most operations direct, at prices which reflect the learning value to students of the opportunity to watch the process. This usually works out at roughly a third of what a private vet would charge (and is subsidised by us and by the University). Unfortunately, a third of £600 is still a lot of money for someone who is on benefit, and the Vet School used to offer payment plans so that owners could pay back a small amount each week. Like the private vets, they found that there were too many bad debts for the scheme to continue - money is tight and Universities are being pressed to pay their way like everyone else.

We're now left with the conundrum of what to do about the existing debtors. The School have a list and theoretically can refuse their animals any further treatment until the debt is paid. If we don't make some attempt to get everyone to pay it isn't fair on those who do make an effort and live on bread and jam until their animals' treatment is paid for. The non-payers have already cost the rest the payment plan option. It's also pretty unfair on the volunteer helpers and clinic staff when one of the people on the list turns up and makes a scene because they're not allowed to register more animals until they've paid. Further knock-on effects are less money for the School to employ enough nurses, so fewer in-patients can be admitted, and so on.

I've asked for a breakdown of the total amount owed by RSPCA clients and left unpaid. In the interest of maintaining a high standard of service, we may have to offer to make a one-off payment to reduce the debt. We'll also be looking to write to all the outstanding debtors to explain that their actions have caused the withdrawal of the payment plan option for operations.

£200 is a lot of money. Probably the single most effective thing the individual owner of a female dog can do to reduce her risk of needing such an operation is to have her spayed during the first few years of life. Spaying costs £35 at our clinic and up to £150 at a private vet. It eliminates the risk that she will need an emergency pyometria operation (£200-£700) later in life and greatly reduces the risk of breast tumours.

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.

Puppy Trafficking

Every year our branch gets requests for help with the cost of treating puppies who have not been given the essential early healthcare they need. I am constantly amazed that people may pay out £200-£500 for a pup which is not wormed, vaccinated or treated for fleas and has been taken away from mum far too young. Once they have fallen in love with a puppy the new owners naturally want to do the best they can to help it survive, but often they have exhausted all their spare cash on the initial purchase price.

There can be genuine reasons for wanting a puppy, rather than an adult dog, but, if anything, that means you should take more care to find out about the background of a pup. No responsible breeder will suggest meeting you anywhere other than the place where the puppies were born. A good breeder cares what happens to their animals and will be only too happy to show you vaccination certificates and provide details of when the puppies were last wormed and when the next dose is due.