Dog Health and Welfare in the UK, 2014: Three Compelling Reasons to Review and Regroup, Now
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Dog health and welfare in the UK, 2014: three compelling reasons to review and regroup, now. A discussion document in response to Bellumori et al (2013) and O’Neill et al (2014). Philippa Robinson MSc FRSA Assoc CIPD June 2014 Note on terminology: Within the context of the narrative the terms pedigree, purebred and cross breed have proved to be problematic because they are used inconsistently across the original source welfare reports of 2009 and 2010. In the main it is generally understood that the term purebred is used to describe a dog born of parents of the same breed, pedigree is used to describe a dog bred within the Kennel Club system and crossbreed to describe a dog born of parents from different or mixed breeds. However, in the welfare reports referenced the terms pedigree are often used to denote all dogs born of parents from the same breed. 1 “If we are going to make good decisions, we must think very carefully about the questions. Then, we must make decisions on the basis of really understanding the issues at a deep level rather than on a dogmatic precept or misunderstanding. We must apply scientific analysis to whether dogmatic constructs are actually true or false.” Professor Sir Harry Kroto 2013 “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.” ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow Questions asked of dog health and welfare Dog lovers of every hue can unite in the single aim of wanting to make good decisions about the health, welfare, care and fulfilment of their dogs. The best decisions in fact. It is five years since a flurry of reports on dog health and welfare (Rooney and Sargan 2009, APGAW 2009, Bateson, 2010), in which a great many questions were asked. They were asked because of growing concerns that people were making increasingly poor decisions about their dog’s health and welfare. They were asked in the hope that by answering them, better welfare decisions would be made by both dog breeders and buyers. Now, with the benefit of not just time and distance, but emergent research from projects such as VetCompass and institutions such as UC Davis, it would be prudent to reflect on how relevant and helpful the arguments made some five years ago, remain. It has been a decade for spotlighting the decisions our society makes about dogs. Whether it be media vets questioning pedigree dog breeding (Milne, BBC Real Story 2004), DEFRA including the breeding of dogs in the Animal Welfare legislation (2006), animal protection campaigners highlighting the suffering of pet dogs (One Kind, formerly Advocates for Animals 2006), harm caused by puppy farms (Marc Abraham, online petition 2013) or the Kennel Club asking its most probing questions, to date, on breed health (BSAVA Breed Health Survey 2004). The decade clearly kicked off with a scurry of activity looking at dog welfare and those lines of inquiry have rightly continued. However, for the purposes of the exercise here, the focus is on the three main reports that are arguably the most influential. Pedigree Dog Breeding in the UK: A major welfare concern? Nicola Rooney and David Sargan 2009 A healthier future for pedigree dogs, APGAW Independent Inquiry into Dog Breeding, Patrick Bateson This is a review of those three welfare reports, revisiting the questions they posed, the questions they did not ask and a dissection of the assumptions made. Consideration is also given to the potential value of wider thinking i.e. that taken from disciplines other than veterinary science, to see what implications that has for the ongoing lines of inquiry. The aim here is to reflect on whether access to a growing body of research data, together with an injection of new thinking might ensure the questions being asked about dog health and welfare are the most appropriate and will yield maximum leverage in securing better behaviours, attitudes and choices around dog ownership. Leverage that results in reduced animal suffering. 2 Purpose and scope of the three reports The explicit starting point for two of the reports, APGAW and Bateson, was the arguments set out in the BBC’s Pedigree Dogs Exposed (PDE, BBC 2008), which, obvious from its title chose to focus on the plight of pedigree dogs only (for a discussion on the assumptions made in that documentary see Robinson:2012). Rooney and Sargan did not directly refer to PDE as their starting point but their focus too was the pedigree dog population, as directed by the RSPCA who commissioned the report. See Table 1 for a summary. Report title Pedigree Dog Breeding A healthier future for Independent Inquiry into and authors in the UK: A major pedigree dogs APGAW Dog Breeding Patrick welfare concern? Nicola Bateson Rooney and David Sargan Date February 2009 November 2009 January 2010 Funding RSPCA APGAW Dogs Trust and Kennel Club Starting point Concerns over the welfare of Arguments set out by Pedigree Dogs Arguments set out by Pedigree Dogs dogs caused by selective Exposed Exposed breeding. Reason for report “It hopes that this report will be “The inquiry was set up to investigate Request from Defra for a fuller seen as a constructive the welfare issues surrounding inquiry into dog breeding. contribution to the current pedigree dogs in the UK, to identify debate on the welfare of factors which may improve standards pedigree dogs.” at all stages of dogs’ lives, and to advise on potential measures suitable for secondary legislation concerning the issue under the Animal Welfare Act.” P 12 Key questions Extent of the welfare issues What is the problem in pedigree Do welfare issues arise from dog asked attached to selective breeding for dogs? breeding, if so what and which extreme morphological traits What are the specific health and constituent of dogs i.e.: breeds, welfare concerns? cross-breeds or no-pedigree do they Extent of the welfare issues Are current health schemes affect? attached to the increase in adequate? What are the tests and systems inherited diseases linked to Are current Codes of Ethics available to address the issues? selective breeding adequate? How should future efforts be led and Structure of the dog breeding world? funded? (Their definition of this was in fact How adequate is the Animal Welfare just the KC pedigree dog breeding Act? world). If more safeguarding is required what Involvement of the veterinary should that look like? profession. Does breed purity outweigh all Legal infrastructure. welfare considerations? If so give Sale of goods and the consumer. examples. Table 1. Summary of purpose and scope in three key reports on dog breeding Statistics show that pedigree dogs make-up the large proportion of the UK dog population so perhaps on that basis alone the focus on their health and welfare could be justified (O’Neill et al 2014:11). Whilst the scope of the Bateson Inquiry was broader in its aims, there was a tendency for the questions to narrow down to the purebred dog population and the KC registered section in particular. 3 Assumptions in the three reports An examination of the key assumptions made in each of the reports reveals much about the thinking behind them at the time. See Table 2 for a summary. The standout assumptions made in all three reports are: Placing so much scrutiny on the Kennel Club is justified because that is where the problems have come from and it is through improvements in the KC system that all dogs’ health and welfare will improve. Breeding to a physical aesthetic began with and is mainly driven by the show community. Whilst the veterinary profession and the puppy buyer have roles to play, it is dog breeders that are most culpable for health and welfare issues. Additionally one or more of the reports assumed the following: That cross breed dogs do not share the same health and welfare issues and according to at least one of these reports, enjoy “significantly” longer and healthier lives. The show world is a major influence over dog health and welfare. Other welfare stakeholders have no case to answer. That despite strong consensus that there has been insufficient research and data collection on the issues, it is justifiable to a. Blame the KC and breed societies for not achieving more on dog health and welfare b. Proceed with recommendations as to what they should do from now on. It is impossible to carry out research without making assumptions so there is no surprise that they are found here. Good management research practice suggests that those assumptions should be acknowledged, exposed and subject themselves to evaluation (Gill and Johnson, 2010:7). To debate whether these were valid ones to make at the time is fruitless. What needs to be done is review their validity, from this point forward, in the light of emerging clinical data research and new thinking. 4 Report title Pedigree Dog Breeding A healthier future for Independent Inquiry into and authors in the UK: A major pedigree dogs APGAW Dog Breeding Patrick welfare concern? Nicola Bateson Rooney and David Sargan Date February 2009 November 2009 January 2010 Funding RSPCA APGAW Dogs Trust and Kennel Club Notable Selective breeding practices have Choice of pet can be legislated for Recommendations can be made on assumptions compromised the health and p43. the evidence submitted in 135 made in each welfare of dogs. P7 Codes of Practice will influence responses. P19 report. Selective breeding practices only choice of pet. P44 Breeding competitively to succeed in impact on pedigree dogs. P7 Views that the KC has not taken shows has become a major Society and sections of the vet responsibility for the health and preoccupation.