DOCSLIB.ORG

Dog Control and Welfare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dog Control and Welfare House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Dog Control and Welfare Seventh Report of Session 2012–13 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/efracom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 February 2013 HC 575 Published on 15 February 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.00 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies. Current membership Miss Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) (Chair) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Richard Drax, (Conservative, South Dorset) George Eustice (Conservative, Camborne and Redruth) Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North) Mrs Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside) Iain McKenzie (Labour, Inverclyde) Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Ms Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down) Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) was also a member of the Committee during this inquiry. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/efracom Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Richard Cooke (Clerk), Anna Dickson (Second Clerk), Sarah Coe (Committee Specialist—Environment), Phil Jones (Committee Specialist —Agriculture), Clare Genis (Senior Committee Assistant), Owen James (Committee Assistant), Yago Zayed (Committee Support Assistant), and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5774; the Committee’s e-mail address is: [email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Hannah Pearce on 020 7219 8430. Dog Control and Welfare 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Background to the Inquiry 5 2 Dog Control 6 Overview of Defra proposals 6 Defra’s consultation proposals 10 Dog attacks which take place on private property 10 Microchipping of dogs 12 Missing elements from Defra proposals 17 Stray dogs 17 Review of Dangerous Dogs Act Section 1 provisions 19 Compulsory insurance 21 Attacks on livestock and other animals 22 Home Office proposals on antisocial behaviour and crime 23 Training 28 Community and educational work 28 3 Dog Welfare 31 Breeding of dogs 31 Sale of dogs 33 Pedigree dogs 34 Response from the breeding community 35 Regulation of pedigree dog breeding 43 4 Conclusion 46 Conclusions and recommendations 47 Formal Minutes 51 Witnesses 52 List of printed written evidence 53 List of additional written evidence 53 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 55 Dog Control and Welfare 3 Summary The UK is said to be a nation of dog lovers, with some 8 million canine pets—yet over 100,000 strays are found each year, incidences of cruelty and neglect are rising and many dogs are out of control due to the irresponsible or deliberate actions of a minority of owners. Seven people, including five children, have been killed by dogs in homes since 2007 and the cost to the NHS of treating severe dog attack injuries is over £3 million annually. Additionally, many animals, including livestock and some eight assistance dogs a month, are attacked by dogs. Current dangerous dogs laws have comprehensively failed to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and Defra’s current, belated proposals are woefully inadequate. Ministers’ inability to provide us with detailed answers on a range of dog control and welfare questions has done little to reassure us about the priority the Government gives to these issues. Defra should urgently introduce a comprehensive Bill consolidating the fragmented legislation relating to dog control and welfare. This should include tailored Dog Control Notices which would allow enforcement officers more effectively to prevent dog attacks by enabling action on any dog-related antisocial behaviour. Failing this, Defra must be given a much firmer locus in policy-making so that dog-related issues can be fully taken into account in the Home Office current proposals for a ‘one size fits all’ set of antisocial behaviour prevention measures. The Government’s simplistic approach ignores the real cause of antisocial behaviour related to dogs. Irresponsible dog breeding and the failure to socialise puppies in the first few months of life can lead to persistent problems which are hard to tackle later on. The current Home Office approach appears to focus solely on the current owner of a dog rather than the initial breeder and this cannot begin to tackle the scale of the problem. Local authorities must ensure that dog warden services are fully resourced so as to more effectively manage stray dogs: failing this the Government should consider returning statutory responsibility for stray dogs to the police. There is a gap in the current law on dog attacks which means that those attacked on private property have no recourse to the criminal law provisions which apply to attacks on public land. We fully endorse the Government’s proposed amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to encompass attacks on private land but it will be crucial, in enforcing this, that the police and prosecutors distinguish between those lawfully on a person’s property and intruders. The Government’s assurances on this are too vague and clear guidance is needed to avoid unintended consequences. Dog attacks on animals are not given sufficient attention in the current legal framework. Attacks on assistance dogs such as guide dogs can have severe impacts on a disabled person’s mobility and daily life. Legislation should be amended so that an attack by a dog on an assistance dog is treated as an aggravated attack in the same manner as an attack on a person. The police must be more consistent in prosecuting those whose dogs attack livestock and existing legislation must be updated to include livestock such as llamas and other camelids. 4 Dog Control and Welfare The Government’s proposal to require the microchipping of all dogs from April 2016 will have positive benefits since microchipping provides a means of identifying a stray dog to allow it to be reunited with its owner. However, it will do little to prevent irresponsible dog owners from allowing or encouraging their dogs to be aggressive and rigorous enforcement will be needed to ensure that all owners comply. The current law banning ownership of specific types of dogs was introduced with the laudable intention of banning fighting dogs, but the criteria for inclusion of a dog type in the banned list is flawed and has led to the exclusion of some dangerous dog types. The Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended to enable the Secretary of State to add other types of dog with particularly aggressive characteristics to the list of banned dogs as required. We believe that Government policy should be consistent with targeting ‘deed not breed’. Welfare issues related to dog breeding remain an issue of high public concern, particularly the practices of so-called ‘puppy farmers’ and some pedigree breeders. A breeder can currently produce up to five litters per year without being licensed or facing checks on welfare standards. The threshold should be reduced to no more than two litters a year per breeder. Online advertising is making it easy for disreputable breeders to find a market for puppies and dogs with little redress available to buyers of pets that turn out to be unhealthy. A voluntary Code of Practice should be established for websites offering dogs and puppies for sale and such sites should do more to educate potential buyers and to check up on the credentials of sellers. The dog breeding community, including the Kennel Club and some breed clubs, has taken steps to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs in recent years. However, too many dogs continue to suffer ill-health due to inbreeding and breeding for exaggerated characteristics. The Kennel Club must also do far more to use its influence with the pedigree dog community, including refusing to register puppies from breeders not compliant with the Club’s Assured Breeder Scheme. The Kennel Club should also commission an independent annual review of Breed Standards led by vets. Defra has been insufficiently proactive in tackling dog welfare issues related to breeding practices. Reliance on voluntary action has led to limited and slow reform. The Minister’s evidence to us did little to reassure us as to the priority the Department places on these issues. Defra should give the Advisory Council on Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding a regulatory role in enforcing standards. Given the complexity of genetic health issues, breed-specific strategies are needed to improve the health of breeds but further data is required on the incidences of heritable diseases. Dog Control and Welfare 5 1 Introduction Background to the Inquiry 1. The UK is a nation of dog lovers with around eight million dogs kept as pets.1 Yet in 2011–12 there were some 118,000 stray dogs found, 7% of which were destroyed, and increasing numbers of cases of cruelty are reported by animal welfare charities.2 Recent reports have highlighted the poor conditions in which some dogs are bred and sold (often at so-called ‘puppy farms’) as well as concerns about some practices linked to pedigree dog breeding.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fox Domestication and Pet Ownership
    FAUX FOXES: FOX DOMESTICATION AND PET OWNERSHIP HONORS THESIS Presented to the Honors Committee of Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation in the Honors College by Noelle Marie Brooks San Marcos, Texas May 2015 FAUX FOXES: FOX DOMESTICATION AND PET OWNERSHIP Thesis Supervisor: ________________________________ Harvey Ginsburg, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Second Reader: __________________________________ Bob Fischer, Ph.D. Department of Philosophy Approved: ____________________________________ Heather C. Galloway, Ph.D. Dean, Honors College COPYRIGHT by Noelle M. Brooks 2015 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief questions from this material are allowed with prior acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Noelle Marie Brooks, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. DEDICATION This study is dedicated to the memory of the companion foxes that have lost their lives due to the fear, misunderstanding, negligence, and restrictions of humans and the owners whom loved and cared for them. To Anya, Vader, Valo, and Miko, and their owners Kay, Tara and Eric, Chloe, and Anda, may this honor the bonds you shared and the lives you created together. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dr. Harvey Ginsburg, this project would not exist without your guidance. I thank you for agreeing to mentor me as my Thesis Supervisor and for allowing me your time and thoughts.
    [Show full text]
  • This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. ‘For the Good of the Breed’ Care, Ethics, and Responsibility in Pedigree Dog Breeding Chrissie Wanner PhD in Social Anthropology University of Edinburgh 2017 1 Declaration I declare that this thesis has been composed solely by myself and that it has not been submitted, in whole or in part, in any previous application for a degree. Except where states otherwise by reference or acknowledgment, the work presented is entirely my own. Signed: Date: 2 3 Abstract This thesis examines how the ethics of caring for pedigree dogs differ in the contexts of dog showing and veterinary practice. By highlighting conflicts around the shared use of ‘ordinary language’, I show how tensions between show‐world and veterinary perspectives relate to divergent understandings of ‘health’. Canine bodies speak to vets and breeders in conceptually different ways, so much so that breed‐specific features can be considered ‘perfect’ in the show‐ring yet ‘pathological’ in the veterinary clinic.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcast Bulletin Issue Number
    O fcom Broadcast Bulletin Issue number 148 21 December 2009 1 Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 148 21 December 2009 Contents Introduction 4 Standards cases In Breach Appeal for Manchester Muslim Centre and Mosque NTV, 27 August 2009, 19:20 5 Appeal for Somers Town Islamic Cultural & Education Centre Bangla TV, 27 August 2009, 17:15 7 Formula 1 Brazilian Grand Prix Competition ITV1, 2 November 2008, 16:00 9 News Today Radio Faza, 25 September 2009, 09:15 11 People from Space The Unexplained, 30 October 2009, 15:00 13 Flashing images in programme content DM Digital, 22 September 2009, 12:06 and 12:17 15 Advertising minutage cases In Breach Advertising minutage Q, 30 October 2009, 22:00 17 Note to Broadcasters Guidance on Rule 9.13 19 Fairness & Privacy cases Partly Upheld Complaint by the Kennel Club made on its behalf by Schillings Pedigree Dogs Exposed, BBC1, 19 August 2008 20 Complaint by the Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain made on its behalf by Mrs Kirsteen Maidment Pedigree Dogs Exposed, BBC1, 19 August 2008 58 2 Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 148 21 December 2009 Complaint by Mrs Virginia Barwell Pedigree Dogs Exposed, BBC1, 19 August 2008 75 Complaint by Mr Andrew Flynn Mischief – Your Identity For Sale, BBC3, 11 September 2008 85 Complaint by Miss Autumn Bryan Mischief – Your Identity For Sale, BBC3, 11 September 2008 93 Not Upheld Complaint by the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club made on its behalf by Mrs Lesley Jupp Pedigree Dogs Exposed, BBC1, 19 August 2008 101 Complaint by Mr Michael Randall Pedigree Dogs Exposed, BBC1, 19 August 2008 131 Complaint by Ms Penny Mellor Panorama: A Very Dangerous Doctor, BBC1, 1 June 2009 138 Complaint by Miss Sandeep Bhardwaj London Tonight, ITV1, 3 June 2009 156 Other programmes not in breach 160 3 Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 148 21 December 2009 Introduction The Broadcast Bulletin reports on the outcome of investigations into alleged breaches of those Ofcom codes which broadcasting licensees are required to comply.
    [Show full text]
  • Maintaining Momentum Through a “Systems Thinking” Approach
    Canine health and welfare: Maintaining momentum through a “systems thinking” approach. Philippa Robinson October 2012 Abstract: Dog breeding, acquiring and owning has become contested ground in terms of ethics, health and welfare. The Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding is working on a programme of projects aimed at reforming many welfare problems. This article reviews some of the assumptions on which the Council is formed and suggests a fruitful way forward for debate and exchange might be found in the managerial discipline of systems thinking. Philippa Robinson has owned a purebred German wirehaired pointer which she campaigned in the show ring for a short while and now lives with a GWP/Weimaraner cross. Having lost the purebred to familial idiopathic epilepsy in 2006, she began finding out more about inherited diseases and what to do about them. Her philosophical position on dogs is that of humanitarian anthropocentric welfarism. Her approach to these debates is from a pluralist perspective. In 2011 she set-up The Karlton Index which attempts to look at the progress being made in breed health on a systematic basis. She is completing her Masters in Human Resource Management at Sheffield Business School which prompted her interest in systems thinking and learning. I am very grateful to several canine experts who have made comments on my first draft which I have now incorporated in this final version. © P Robinson The Karlton Index ltd 2012 1 Canine health and welfare: Maintaining momentum through a “systems thinking” approach. “We begin by eschewing the role of specialists who deal only in parts.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Kennel Club : No Longer “T He Dog ’S Champion ?”
    THE AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB : NO LONGER “T HE DOG ’S CHAMPION ?” AKC SHOULD STAND UP FOR DOGS , NOT PUPPY MILLS The AKC has historically billed itself as “The Dog’s Champion,” the gold standard registry for purebred puppies. The AKC's mission includes advocating for advances in “canine health and well- being” and working “to promote responsible dog ownership.”* 1 Yet with all its emphasis on proper dog and puppy care, in recent years the AKC has opposed the majority of initiatives designed to prevent cruelty at large-scale breeding facilities known as puppy mills. In contrast to its vague public statements condemning substandard kennels, over the past 5 years the AKC has opposed more than 80 different bills and ordinances designed to require large-scale puppy producers to adhere to stronger care standards or oversight, and has even supported bills that would weaken current puppy mill regulations. While the majority of breeders who register dogs with the AKC uphold high standards and are in compliance with the law, the AKC seems to spend an inordinate amount of time and resources covering up for the bad apples among them – resources that could be better spent focusing on promoting healthy well-raised dogs and high- quality breeders. In 2012, The AKC’s Government Relations Department rallied its supporters to oppose bills like the following: • Bills in West Virginia, Iowa, Ohio and several other states that would have required puppy producers to comply with basic care This breeding operation was closed by North Carolina authorities in May standards, such as regular feeding, cleaning, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Brief
    Research Brief New reports, bills and updates of latest research Parliamentary Library Research Service Department of Parliamentary Services ISSN 1836-7828 (Print) 1836-8050 (Online) Number 6 May 2010 Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 This Research Brief includes the following sections: Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 1. Second Reading Speech............................................................................................ 2 2. Background................................................................................................................. 2 3. The Act ....................................................................................................................... 5 4. The Bill........................................................................................................................ 7 5. Views of Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 11 6. Other Jurisdictions.................................................................................................... 14 References ................................................................................................................... 19 NB: Readers should note that this Research Brief was current at the time of its preparation prior to the conclusion of debate on the Bill by the Victorian Parliament. For further information please visit the Victorian Legislation
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Dogs by Youth Groups and Youth Gangs
    Crime Law Soc Change (2011) 55:405–420 DOI 10.1007/s10611-011-9294-5 Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs Jennifer Maher & Harriet Pierpoint Published online: 21 April 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract Recent UK media reports and government responses evidence a rising concern over irresponsible dog ownership, particularly the use of so-called status or weapon dogs. Youth criminal and antisocial behaviour using these dogs has been widely reported in urban areas and associated with street-based youth groups, in particular, the growing phenomenon of UK youth gangs. This article reports on the findings and implications of a small-scale study, comprising interviews with 25 youths and seven animal welfare and youth practitioners, which aimed to identify the nature of animal use and abuse in youth groups and gangs. It found that over half of the youths belonged to a youth gang and the remainder a youth group, with the majority owning an animal which was most often a ‘status’ dog (e.g., bull breed/type). Analysis revealed that dogs were used mainly for socialising and companionship, protection and enhancing status. More than 20 types of animal abuse were described by youths and practitioners. Introduction Concern over youth ownership of so-called status, weapon or bling dogs has entered both the public and political domain in the United Kingdom [UK]. This is evident in: a) increased negative media attention on youth dog owners and ‘dangerous dogs’ [13, 40], b) increased reporting of youth’s dog fighting by the public to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA] [35], and c) current governmental discourse and policy which has led to—the development of the Metropolitan Police Status Dog Unit [SDU], a provision of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (s.35) prohibiting gangs using ‘status’ dogs in public, and proposals to J.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    BIBLIOGRAPHY A-Z Animals (2014) ‘About US’, A-Z Animals, http://www.a-zanimals.co.uk/ animals-for-hire/about-us, accessed 29 March 2017. Abbots, Emma-Jayne and Anna Lavis (eds, 2013) Why We Eat, How We Eat: Contemporary Encounters Between Foods and Bodies, Farnham: Ashgate. Acampora, Ralph (2005) ‘Extinction by Exhibition: Looking At and In the Zoo’, Human Ecology Review, 5 (1): 1–4. Acampora, Ralph (2005) ‘Zoos and Eyes: Contesting Captivity and Seeking Successor Practices’, Society and Animals, 13 (1): 69–88. ACTA (2017) ‘Animal Welfare’, Animal Consultants and Trainers Association, http://acta4animals.info/animal-welfare/, accessed 29 March 2017. Adams, Carol J. (1994) Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defence of Animals, New York: Continuum. Adams, Carol J. (1995) ‘Comment on George’s “Should Feminists be Vegetarians?”’, Signs, 21 (1): 221–5. Adams, Carol J. (2010/1990) The Sexual Politics of Meat: a Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, 20th anniversary edition, New York: Continuum. Adams, Carol J. and Josephine Donovan (1995) ‘Introduction’, in Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan (eds) Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1–8. Adams, Carol J. and Lori Gruen (2014) ‘Introduction’, in Carol J. Adams and Lori Gruen (eds) Ecofeminism: Feminist Interactions with Other Animals and the Earth, London: Bloomsbury, 1–5. Aguilera, Leanne (2013) ‘Family Guy’s Shocking Death: Boss Decides Why They Decided to Kill Off [Spoiler]!’, E! Online, http://www.eonline.com/ news/484172/family-guy-s-shocking-death-boss-reveals-why-they-decided- to-kill-off-spoiler, accessed 4 April 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • When Good People Think Strange Things About Dogs
    When Good People Think Strange Things About Dogs Patrick Burns I am thrilled to be here today among all you canine professionals. You see the folks in this room are more than dog trainers. You talk dogs, sleep dogs, write dogs, and debate dogs. You’re not just dog trainers.... You are also dog debaters, dog listeners, dog commentators, dog bloggers, dog list-serv managers, dog authors, dog newsletter editors…. and yes … even dog conference presenters. You are the people who shape – or could shape – a great deal of dog culture in this country. Dog culture. How many of you have thought about culture in the world of dogs? Perhaps we should think of that more because, I will argue, it is culture that is responsible for the fact that so many good people think strange things about dogs. 1 Strange Things To start, look around. How many people in this room are non-white? A strange question, eh? You thought this session was about dogs, didn’t you? The point is that for most of the world, this discussion is strange. In much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, dogs are not allowed indoors. Who lets an animal indoors that may have fleas and ticks, and that may eat its own feces? Who allows such an animal on the bed? Who lets it lick a child in the face? No one! So, to put a point on it, this obsession with dogs that we have is, for the most part, a European cultural affliction. Most of the world, believe it or not, does not have this affliction.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Dogs, Young People and Criminalisation: Towards a Preventative Strateg Y
    Dangerous Dogs_AW2:Layout 1 20/4/11 16:23 Page 1 Research Project Report: Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: towards a preventative strateg y Authors: Professor Gordon Hughes, Dr Jenny Maher and Claire Lawson April 2011 Submitted to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals by the Cardiff Centre for Crime, Law and Justice, Cardiff University Dangerous Dogs_AW2:Layout 1 20/4/11 16:23 Page 2 2 Research Project Report: Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: towards a preventative strategy Biographies Professor Gordon Hughes is Chair in Criminology at the Centre for Crime, Law and Justice at Cardiff University. He was previously Professor of Criminology at the Open University. His research interests lie in problem-solving and expertise in crime control; community safety and crime prevention; young people, communities and justice; and criminal and social justice and devolution in the UK. His publications include the following books, The Politics of Crime and Community (2007), Youth Justice (2003), Restorative Justice (2003), Crime Prevention and Community Safety: New Directions (2002), Community and Crime Control: The New Politics of Public Safety (2002) and Understanding Crime Prevention (1998 and 2010 Chinese translation edition). Jenny Maher is a lecturer and researcher in Criminology at the University of Glamorgan, Cardiff. Her research interests relate to 1) animal abuse, 2) youth violence and 3) youth gangs. She organised the 2010 Cardiff symposium ‘Situating Animal Abuse in Criminology’ and has co-edited the special journal issue on animal (in Crime, Law and Social Change) abuse that emerged from the symposium. Her previous research projects include: the use and abuse of animals among youth groups and gangs, knife crime among young people, a comparative European study on ‘peer violence among young people in public space’ and ‘youth gangs’ - the focus of her PhD thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Challenges of Pedigree Dog Health: Approaches to Combating Inherited Disease
    Edinburgh Research Explorer The challenges of pedigree dog health: approaches to combating inherited disease Citation for published version: Farrell, L, Schoenebeck, J, Wiener, P, Clements, D & Summers, K 2015, 'The challenges of pedigree dog health: approaches to combating inherited disease', Canine Genetics and Epidemiology, vol. 2, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40575-015-0014-9 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1186/s40575-015-0014-9 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Canine Genetics and Epidemiology Publisher Rights Statement: © 2015 Farrell et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends, Status Symbols and Weapons: the Use of Dogs by Youth Groups and Youth Gangs Maher, Jennifer; Pierpoint, Harriet
    www.ssoar.info Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs Maher, Jennifer; Pierpoint, Harriet Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Maher, J., & Pierpoint, H. (2011). Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(5), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9294-5 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use.
    [Show full text]