Soundness in Pedigree Dogs

The key components of soundness which I have stated on many occasions goes back to the Judging Diploma Course which I wrote (with a great deal of advice from Les Crawley, Pamela Cross Stern, Peter Larkin and Wendy Boorer) back in 1980.  Not that the concept was new: I wrote about the book Conformation and Soundness in Animals published in the 1960s by the Veterinary Surgeon RH Smythe recently but I think my phraseology summarising those ideas, was concise and has stood the test of time.  It is that in any species subject to selective breeding, any departure in conformation or characteristics from the ‘norm’ is acceptable so long as the animal can eat, move, breathe, mate (and whelp and suckle so far as females are concerned) naturally and effectively.   Once you have to restrict exercise, mash food, have generalised and persistent back or joint problems to give just three examples, then the exaggeration selectively bred for has exceeded what is tolerable.  

Wendy Boorer used to use the example of a breed of pigeon which had such a distorted beak that it could no longer release its chicks from the egg and I know a few years ago a food company produced a specially shaped kibble which allowed very short-faced cats to pick it up easily.  This is not a criticism of the food company (they were only responding to customer demand) but is a criticism of the breeders who felt that such short-faced cats were acceptable.  

Now apply the same arguments to dogs and you can see where I am coming from.

I think none of these criteria need any further explanation but in recent years I have come to the conclusion that we should add a further requirement: that a healthy dog will have a length of life within the longevity spread of the ‘bell’ curve for the species as a whole.  Let me explain for those, like me, who have forgotten all that stuff about graphs and statistics they learned at school.  A bell curve is a graph which looks just as it says – roughly the shape of the sort of bell used in church steeples or in a hand bell.  The graph expresses two factors being measured.  They can be anything but in this instance it is ‘age’ with the length of the curve (the X axis) showing the length of life in years and the height (the Y axis) showing the number that die at any given time.  In statistics it is usual for the very first and the very last readings to be omitted so this would eliminate still born puppies and those dying within a few days of birth and the exceptionally old.  What is left in this instance is an indication of the population longevity of a given species. At the beginning of the curve few die young and at the end, few become very old so the height of the curve is low at the beginning and tails right off at the end when all are dead.  The high point is when the maximum number of animals die.  There are what are called ‘normal’ curves for, say, intelligence and these look very much the correct ‘bell’ shape but those showing longevity are distorted, for the highest point will be well over half way along the X axis.  In humans that highest point is gradually moving further along as, in most populations at least, stay healthier so more of us die at an older age.  In dogs, the same applies, the curve rises until between nine and twelve it is at its highest and then drops away again as by, say, fourteen, most dogs have died and fewer and fewer live longer lives.   If we draw a graph showing the longevity of breeds we have a very different story.  Those closest to the ‘norm’ would fit neatly on the curve for dogs as whole but for some the rise and fall of the line would start earlier and fall away sooner. What we would see is the curve for breeds much larger than the ‘norm’, although approximately the same shape, is ‘shifted’ markedly towards shorter life spans.  I have not carried out any research into the specific breeds listed in the Kennels Club’s ‘fourteen highlighted breeds’ about which they have expressed particular concerns, but I suspect that they would all, whatever their size, show that ‘shift to the left’ described above.  (If breeders in those breeds can show that this is not the case, please contact me direct at mail@davidcavill.co.uk so that I can bring it the attention of readers).

However, extremes of type which affect general health and welfare (which are the result of breeders choosing certain characteristics) are dissimilar to genetic health and many people make the mistake of confusing one with the other although there are some generalised genetic conditions which are the result of extreme characteristics.  Entropion is one example and the breathing difficulties which some breeds’ exhibit is another.  However, these are not the same as, say, Progressive Retinal Atrophy, Mitral Valve Diseas or Syringomyelia which develop unseen.  These and many other conditions may certainly be the result of selective breeding but they are involuntary on the part of the breeder and for a wide variety of reasons difficult to eradicate.  However with understanding, knowledge and commitment they can be reduced and eventually eliminated.  This may require considerable investment in research, expense on the part of the breeder to run the various tests required and the involvement of other, allied breeds (cf Dalmatians) but it can be done.  

Conditions directly and voluntarily caused by selective breeding such as entropion are much easier to deal with and this is why the KC is forcing changes in the Standards.  Chows have successfully greatly reduced entropion simply by focusing on breeding dogs with larger, less deeply set and therefore healthier eyes.  Breeding for a longer muzzle can eliminate breathing difficulties: if the dog’s mouth cavity has enough room for its tongue and its nasal cavity enough room for air flow then there is no need for it to ‘snuffel’.  The difference does not need to be great – Shih Tzu have relatively short muzzles but I have come across few with breathing problems.   As far as longevity is concerned, breeders can increase it simply by breeding smaller (or less extreme) dogs – none of this is rocket science once one’s head has been raised from the sand.

David Cavill

Canine behaviour modification – progress towards practitioner accrediation and registration

Through the Animal Care College I have, inevitably, become deeply involved in the politics of canine training, behaviour and modification. I should make it clear that I do not consider myself a dog trainer or a behaviourist other than in the sense that our own dogs are reasonably well behaved in that they are properly socialised and domestically obedient. However, in the research and development that has been necessary over the years for the programmes delivered by the College I have come to understand the basic mechanisms by which dogs and animals behave and learn.

Several things become clear very quickly: the ways in which animals can be effectively trained covers a very wide spectrum, those who do the training are usually totally convinced that they have the only solutions and that dogs are quite different to other wild and domestic animals.

I would like to examine each of these elements in some detail but I must first emphasise that I am giving an overview here. My historical summary does not mean that all trainers were cruel for many will have been, instinctively, just very good at what they were doing. For instance, shepherds, huntsmen and obedience enthusiasts training their puppies by running them with experienced trained dogs so that the responses were learned by example rather than by force is an excellent example of sensible and effective conditioning which never required force. But the general perception of the development of training techniques is at variance with these techniques.

Effective training ranges from fear to what is currently termed ‘positive reinforcement’. If an animal is frightened it will do what its trainer demands because it does not want to be hurt. At the extreme, the animal is cowed and this is a technique has been used for centuries, especially with wild animals and as far as dogs are concerned, with service dogs. I remember early in my teaching career I worked with a very good teacher who had been a dog handler in the air force during his National Service. We had just got our first Finnish Spitz so, to me, he was an expert. Fortunately, I did not put his advice into practice for we moved soon afterwards but the techniques used were those of the circus and based on ensuring the dog was too scared to do anything other than follow the handler’s instructions. The dogs were trained by regular dog training air men using a strict regime that was absolutely meticulous and structured so that every dog was trained in the same way and to the same commands. They were then handed to the national servicemen who, from what I was told, were trained in much the same way using much the same techniques. When the servicemen had competed their two year stint, the dogs were dumped in a compound with no human company for six weeks. They were so pleased to be let out that they immediately identified with their new handler and automatically took up where they left off, obeying the commands and behaving precisely in the way that they had been trained.

Real change began when Konrad Lorenz developed a number of theories and processes within the natural world and began to study imprinting and animal behaviour patterns. This gradually led to more modern approaches to dog training based on pack hierarchy. This rejects ‘fear’ (and therefore pain and misuse) as the prime trigger to force dogs to behave in specific ways for what can best be described as ‘force of personality’ typified by the Barbara Woodhouse approach. This at least stopped dogs being beaten if they did not obey the trainers’ commands and of course, it worked perfectly well (as did the ‘fear’ method, of course).

Then came Karen Prior (among others, certainly, but I believe she was the first to put the idea of ‘positive reinforcement’ into words) who discovered – in her work training killer whales and dolphins – that if you waited until the animal exhibited a behaviour you approved or wanted, you just had to reward it at the right time with a unique signal for that behaviour.. to be quickly learned and repeated It works with any species – and this includes animals and birds as well as fish! Karen Priors ideas were developed for dogs by her, John Rogerson, John Fisher and others and the approach was taken up by experienced trainers and obedience enthusiasts such as Mary Ray and enables the advanced training now used in Heelwork to Music and the other canine training disciplines for support dogs in a dozen areas of disability.

So far, so effective but other layers were being added to what had become the incredibly complex and competitive world of what was once, simply ‘dog training’.

This has been largely due to the fact that dogs are quite unlike other animals. Over the centuries they have become integrated into human society in a unique way that has psychologically changed their nature for most never have to fend for themselves in the natural world. The result has been an animal which although incredibly intelligent, sensitive and responsive to human society has a mentality which is in effect, stunted and juvenile compared to its wolf forebears. What is more, the increasingly complexity of modern life in the West has brought with it extra external demands which have resulted in a range of problems from separation anxiety to unstable temperaments. Suddenly there was not just a demand for dog trainers but for canine psychologists and those who could effectively modify canine behaviours so that pet dogs would ‘fit in’ to their family and environment without causing their owners any trouble.

At the same time, it became clear that some dogs had behavioural problems which stemmed from their physiology so a veterinary input was needed to ensure that the dog was not suffering from a dietary problem or a disease.

in just a few years an immense specialisation has been created and the techniques used for behaviour modification in dogs have been sliced and diced to the extent that the current landscape resembles that of the competing and often vitriolic schools of human psychology beginning with John Locke at the end of the 17th Century through Freud and the emergence of psychoanalysis at the turn of the last Century to the detailed research into the working of the human brain today.

For all these reasons, the study of canine psychology and the modification of canine behaviour cannot be compared to other domestic animals, including the cat and, most certainly, to the behaviour of animals in the wild. This is not to denigrate the study of animal behaviour: it is an important area of science and whether the research involves animals in their natural surroundings of plain, jungle, sea or air or in zoos and wildlife parks the conclusions will have significant effects on the sustainability of the natural living world.

At the same time, the world of canine psychologists and trainers will have a significant effect on the well being of humanity in the Western world, especially if you believe, as I do, that pets in general and dogs in particular, are an important element in both the physical and mental health of our society. However, therein lies a vital feature of any work with dogs – people are an essential factor in this equation. This quite different to the study of animal behaviour in the natural world where, generally, the impact of humanity other than in an environmental sense, is insignificant.

It is therefore surprising that the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) is developing such a strong (and for some, unwelcome, voice) in the discussions generated by the Council for Companion Animal Welfare (CAWC). This series of meetings has been held as a result of their report published last year into the Regulation of Companion Animal Services in Relation to Training and Behaviour Modification of Dogs. They have been fascinating in that for the first time so many differing facets of the world of dog training and behaviour have been gathered round the same table.

I have no quarrel with ASAB. They are a highly esteemed academic organisation and their magazine, newsletter and conferences are hugely influential. However, a survey of their publications, articles and conference presentations reveals that none are about dogs. This is not surprising for only a tiny proportion of their 2000 or so members are involved in the world of dogs. For instance, sixteen people are listed as being certified as ‘Clinical Animal Behaviourists’ in cat and/or dog behaviours (you can see the academic requirements for accreditation at

http://asab.nottingham.ac.uk/accred/academic.php)

and there is no doubt that the accreditation process is very thorough – as you would expect of an academic organisation. What is interesting though, is that although I understand some members of ASAB are veterinary surgeons, none are actually listed as Clinical Animal Behaviourists nor are any veterinary surgeons members of the various committees.

A further complication which worries many trainers and behaviourists is that there appears to have been a tendency that as more veterinary surgeons have become involved in this area, some conditions which would respond to normal behaviour modification techniques are being treated with ‘prozac’ type drugs, many of which have not been tested on dogs. I have discussed these difficulties (and those regarding the arrested development of the canine mind) in more detail in the past and I have republished those articles here – just scroll down.

There is no doubt that the world of animal trainers and behaviourists is a tangled mass of conflicting views and ideologies and it needs a structure if it is to be respected and effective. But the academic route, however important it is within its own narrow focus, is not about training dogs – and the vast majority of problems the ordinary pet owner faces is about dog training and there are thousands of effective, worthy and sensible dog trainers and behaviourists in the community who are more than capable of solving 95% of canine problems and training dogs without any academic qualifications (this is not to knock academia – just to put things in perspective).

What is more, the Kennel Club has, without doubt, got the most extensive and comprehensive accreditation scheme already in place. What is required is for all groups and practitioners to sign up to it. I hope that this is achievable. An agreed code of practice, an effective complaints procedure and the KC accreditation scheme is all that is required to get the whole sector working together for the benefit fo dogs and their owners – and in the long term, our society as a whole.

Yes we can!

Alternative views on the modification of canine behaviour

As many of you will know, the Kennel Club has been developing an accreditation scheme for dog trainers and behaviourists for over two years. The scheme is excellent and comprehensive although it would be fair to say that is progress has not always been smooth and some feel it is much more complicated than it need be. I am not one of them – the accreditation of standards in any field is complex almost by definition – and I feel that those tasked with creating this award have done an excellent job and the first half dozen candidates have just been awarded their certification.

However, there are two issues that have to be addressed. The first appears to be almost solving itself in an entirely unexpected way. It is the question of how dogs are best trained or their behaviour modified. The problems have really arisen because I believe a false dichotomy that been created by the learning processes suggested by some (I emphasise ’some’) research questioning pack theory.  I am not disputing the findings per se because it shows an evolution in the way in which dogs behave that sounds reasonable and has been successfully demonstrated by many trainers. However, I am saying that other research does not back it up – sometimes partially and sometime completely.  If you go to http://www.anglianwolf.com and click on ‘what is applied canine behaviour’, you will find what I think is a reasonable summary of the ‘old’ perception.

At the same time, I have no problem with the views of Donaldson (both Jean and Ian), Prior, Kerkhove and others, except that their published material is scattered with statements such as ‘if true’, ‘may’, ’suggests’ and ’seems’.  You could probably put all those same qualifications into the work done by Lorenz, Trummler and their followers so there is no doubt that the understanding of canine behaviour is not an exact science.

My own view is pragmatic and does not depend on a ‘vision’, ‘research’ or opinion’.  Given that any successful methods employed to train dogs are ‘reasonable’ by any humanitarian standards it does not matter what the theoretical foundation is.  The philosophy and ideas are important, interesting – even fascinating (and should certainly be understood by those involved in any behavioural work) – but they may give rise to a number of approaches to problems of behaviour. But one approach does not necessarily wipe another from the face of the earth and so you would think there is little reason to get upset if there is any disagreement. Not so: most of the proponents of each view are evangelical in their condemnation of the others’ ideas

It seems to me that we have been confused into thinking that there is an enormous gulf between the “old” (harsh and brutal) method, which embraces pack hierarchy and dominance, and the “new” (modern, progressive and gentle) method, which rejects these ideas altogether. Why should we have to choose between one and the other if (and I emphasise ‘if’) both work within those humanitarian parameters on which we all agree?

There appears to be a feeling that if you do not embrace the ‘new’ you are automatically of the ’old’ and therefore are ‘harsh and brutal’. My experience reinforces my belief that this is simply not the case. You may argue that the ‘pack’ approach may give credibility to those who might be harsh and I would take the point if overall attitudes to training had not changed. No one (well, virtually no one) would return to the Barbara Woodhouse ‘school’ despite her methods being very successful.

The reason for all this detail is that as things stand we are not yet in a position to condemn anyone would feels that pack hierarchies provide a reasonable sensible basis for CBM and in our own advanced Canine Psychology course at the Animal Care College we state that serious problems my require ‘rank reduction techniques’ i.e. those based on pack theory.

I took up the dichotomy with Sue Evans who is responsible for the Kennel Club’s accreditation programme. A slow, secretive smile and satisfied smile surfaced. She told me that one of the most interesting aspects of the assessment process was that as assessors had not been ‘screened’ for their views on dog training, many had been assessing candidates from the ‘other’ approach. She said that their faces ‘were a picture’ as they realised that an approach they themselves would not have used and in fact, rejected, worked perfectly well.

This is excellent news. Clearly, the argument is not, as some have suggested, Creationists against Darwinists. In the case of training and behaviour modification there is genuine and palpable evidence on both sides of the argument: much more like two people looking out of the window and one concluding it might rain later and the other concluding that it might clear up and be sunny.

The second may be more difficult.

A recent survey carried out by Pet Plan has revealed that one in four Vets have treated animals, generally dogs, for conditions caused by the ingestion of drugs. Regular readers will remember that I expressed my concern on this issue a month or so back.

Part of the report reads:

‘Whilst mood-enhancing drugs such as cannabis rarely prove fatal for a pet, unpleasant side effects can include dizziness, vomiting and temporary loss of movement. The effects can last up to three or four days and throughout that time; veterinary monitoring is essential to ensure major organs don’t fail. As a result vets bills can run into many hundreds of pounds.’

There was no specific indication as to whether these drugs were introduced by their owners by accident or deliberately by other vets or behaviourists and the assumption in the report surmised accidental ingestion but the possibility that these drugs may have been introduced deliberately highlights once again what is becoming an increasing problem within the world of Canine Behaviour Modification (CBM).

As Studies Co-ordinator of the Animal Care College I have naturally taken an interest in what is going on in the world of CBM and my concern is that those who use psychotropic drugs to calm down unruly dogs either while they treat them for behaviour problems more conventionally or on a permanent basis, are not prepared to listen to the concerns of many experienced trainers, vets and, indeed, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. They have dug themselves into a trench to extent that they cannot see above the parapet (do trenches have parapets or is does it only apply to battlements?).

The Kennel Club must take a view on this matter in relation to their Accreditation Scheme because the recent culture of demanding stress free training (for some) often requires the administration of prescription drugs.

The panels set up under the Animal Welfare Bill, with its provision of a ‘duty of care’ responsibility to animals are now working on defining that duty as part of secondary legislation. I hope that this will give added impetus to the view that stress levels while dog are being trained should be kept as low as possible and that the used of prescription drugs will be seen only as a last resort rather than a catch all ‘quick fix’ solution. In the meantime, I understand that Royal College will be addressing all aspects of the psychotropic dug issue separately.

(January 2006)

The use of psychotropic drugs to modifiy canine behaviour

This is a very difficult subject and one on which very little research has been done and, as a result, it subject to even more controversy.

The facts are these: in the mater of behaviour modification there has been an increasingly reliance on what are called psychotropic drugs. The word means ‘having an altering effect on perception, emotion, or behaviour’ and they have been developed to help in the treatment of people who have a range of physiological and psychological problems that place their general behaviour outside what society normally expects. These behaviours range from serious mental disorders to generalised depressions and anxieties. There is a great deal of controversy about the use of these drugs. They can be helpful, certainly but most have significant side effects and because they act on the delicate chemistry of the brain their effect can be unpredictable. Many psychologists and psychiatrists believe that for most minor conditions it is better to ‘work through the pain’ than take tablets, which merely suppress the condition for, when you stop taking the medication, the condition remains.

There are drugs for fear related behaviours (agoraphobia for instance), the control of anxiety and aggression and for mood stabilisation. They include buspirone, diazepam, acepromozine (ACP), lithium, carbamazepine, clomipramine and fluoxetine. They all have their place in the doctors and psychiatrists armoury but the time has long gone when doctors would dole out Vallium on demand for it was soon clear that their patients became psychologically addicted to them and their behaviour, although more stable, was still unpredictable. Nowadays, such drugs come with major health and welfare warnings for they affect the workings of the heart, the liver and the kidneys as well as the brain. There is not space to go into the detail here but a Google search will quickly reveal the long list of adverse effects of any of these drugs.

Over the past few years some canine behaviourists with the support of some veterinary surgeons have been recommending these drugs. This includes the Association of Pet behaviour Counsellors and you can see their independent report on cases where psychotropic drugs were used at http://www.apbc.org.uk/review_2003/report_03.htm. (This was compiled in 2003 and I can find no data on psychotropic drugs in the 2004 [latest] report.)

I am concerned that well educated and qualified though many of them are, most canine behaviourists only have the sketchiest understanding of mammalian metabolism and few are qualified to make a judgment any more complex than you make when you make a decision between Beecham’s Powders and Bisodol when you have a headache – either might work but the former is probably more appropriate than the latter.

I should make it clear I am not against the use of drugs. My point is that (like booster vaccines which have finally been recognised as causing some problems for otherwise healthy dogs) they need to be used with care even by qualified professionals. If a doctor puts a patient on insulin (not a psychotropic drug I know but a medication that will be continued throughout the patient’s life) the patient is properly examined, tests are made and a great deal of time is spent ensuring that they thoroughly understand what it does, how it is used and the other nutritional and lifestyle changes that need to be made in order for it to work effectively. Much the same applies to the use of psychotropic drugs. Their doctor should see the patient regularly and they should have physical tests and blood tests to ensure that the medication will not cause more harm than good – it is almost always a long, complicated process.

It seems to me that few of these safeguards are in place when psychotropic drugs are used on our dogs – and on cats too. Firstly, although they have been licensed for human use (and tested on animals) the research on whether they are actually suitable for use in the treatment of animals is minimal. Furthermore, no research has been done into the effects of any given dose. Most humans are roughly the same size – this is not true of canines and as there is no ‘standard’, who is to say at which point a dog is overdosed?

A veterinary surgeon should always do a series of tests before dogs are given any drugs and these must include psychotropic drugs. The problem I have with all this is that vets are prescribing drugs for canine behaviourists on the advice of the behaviourist. Apart from any ethical or professional considerations this is illegal for both parties. And I would ask whether it is helpful? If a dog is exhibiting an unnatural behaviour it takes the time of a professional, preferably within the dog’s home, to seek out the clues to its relationship with its owner and members of the family, and its environment: this is the work for which an experienced canine behaviourist is supposed to do. There are dozens of factors to take into consideration but it appears that sometimes both consultant and owner are tempted to go for a quick, relatively cheap ‘fix’. But if we have the welfare of the dog at the heart of the matter this can seldom be the best way.

I have incontrovertible evidence that one well known behaviourist suggested to a client on the telephone and without having seen the dog, that they see their vet and ask that a specific drug be prescribed for their dog.

I am suggesting readers should take care. Dugs have their place and there may sometimes be a good reason why a veterinary surgeon after fully appraising the situation will want to prescribe a psychotropic drug. On the other hand, the canine behaviourists knowledge of the overall effects of a drug is likely to be limited. You should also know that there are behaviourists who have no need of any sort of psychotropic drug to achieve their objective – a mentally healthy pet giving pleasure to its owner throughout its life.

If anyone suggests that drugs are the answer to a behavioural problem, my advice would be to start with your veterinary surgeon who you should expect to carry out a full physical check-up and a blood test for liver and kidney functions before being prepared to give a prescription for a psychotropic drug. If they propose that a drug may be suitable (and this should be their decision and not the decision of a behaviourist even if that person is their recommendation), your expectation should be that it is for short-term use only.

Drugs are very useful to us and to our pets too. But I believe we should always be cautious in their use and remember the problems they have caused from Thalidomide in the 60s to Vioxx* in 2004.

You might like to go to http://www.nutramed.com/brain/mind_drugs.htm for further information.

*Just as an example, I was prescribed Vioxx for a damaged joint in my toe and took it for several years. When I ricked my back last year, my physiotherapist suggested that it would help me if the dose were doubled while my discs recovered. I was understandably upset when my doctor refused for I might have been on that double dose for six months – but I am not complaining now for a friend recently had two strokes that look as if they were the result of taking that drug.

(September 2005)

How puppies learn

In the last thirty-five years my wife and I have owned many dogs. The whole idea was hers so I take no responsibility for what has happened since. Our first was a Finnish Spitz puppy we called Kirri. Her ‘proper name was Cullabine Greta and she became a champion. As an aside I would emphasise that we were absolute novices so it just goes to show that if you have a good dog you can win – although I accept this is much more difficult in breeds such as Golden Retrievers.

Soon after, another bitch joined Kirri and since then our household always had several dogs (ten was the maximum, I think) until we downsized and only one remained. She was already five and well behaved but, sadly, died of cancer eighteen months ago when she was only eight years old. It was a great shock to both of us and we have not been able to face having another dog until now when a puppy from one of her daughters became available.

The reason for the preamble is to explain why for the first time for many years we find ourselves in the position of having to train a puppy! This is not easy – for several generations we have been able to let the older bitches take that responsibility and I can confirm that they did an excellent job. Woe betide the puppy that stepped out of line – which brings me to the subject of the month’s column – the minefield of claim and counter claim by canine trainers and behaviourists as to which approach to canine behavioural modification is ‘the best’.

Regular readers will have noticed in our Canine Behaviour Modification Supplement that we have a range of authors who use a variety of methods to achieve successful results. None, I emphasise, use the old ‘yank and yell’ technique mentioned by Debbie Berriman in her interesting contribution last month. Barbara Woodhouse who I should also emphasise, was also an incredibly successful trainer of dogs brought this approach to millions through her television series’. But we have moved on and John Fisher, John Rogerson, Mary Ray among many others have demonstrated that it is possible to make astonishing progress by working with and re-enforcing the dog’s natural behaviours. However, there are many theories out there and those who advocate them are sometimes quite abusive about any ideas that do not conform to their idea of what is ‘right’ and anyone who reads my musings will know that I am against all forms of offensive discussion.

We have to look at what we know of the facts – some of which may appear to be contradictory because the researcher is anxious to prove a point and so are based on flawed research – and try to come to conclusions and solutions that are successful while placing the welfare of our dogs at the very core of what we do.

I would not pretend to have a deep insight into canine behaviour modification but as Studies Co-ordinator of the Animal Care College an enormous amount of material passes over my desk and therefore, although I may not know the countryside in detail I might have a better appreciation of the landscape.

I think (based on my own experience and my readings of research from Konrad Lorenz, Trummler and those following their foorstps) is that few young mammals are fully equipped to survive entirely by instinct – although instinct is the most powerful survival motivator.  To be successful within their environment they need to be trained/educated about what is acceptable, not acceptable and/or dangerous.  This initial training is usually carried out by the mother until the most respected member of the family/pack is deferred to because experience has shown that he or she is the most likely to take the decisions which will ensure survival.  This seems to be the case in all mammalian communities – even in the world of domestic cats, which are generally thought to be loners but which, in a feral environment, form colonies, as do big cats in the wild.

We also now know that in any given situation the ‘leader’ is not always the same individual and that the ‘evolution’ of the domestic dog provides a much more complex psychological framework within which we must work. This has led a reconsideration of our ideas about the mechanism of the ‘pack’. This does not necessarily ‘disprove’ or undermine the original premises of the structure of wolf behaviour – but it does give us new ways of understanding canine learning processes.

There is no doubt that canines are different in that their development has been arrested by our intervention.  For this reason there are many ways in which canine behaviours can be modified that are not applicable to other pets or domestic animals.  Naturally, good, positive re-enforcement training from the nest is the ideal but many breeders and new owners are not even aware of the processes much less skilled in their use. The result is often dogs that have never been trained to be ‘good citizens’. In these cases where established behaviours are damaging to the relations between the individual dog, other dogs, its owners and other people, then we sometimes have to resort to more basic tactics and it is occasionally necessary to use what have been termed formal rank reduction techniques and negative re-enforcement – an anathema to some.

We must always ensure the welfare of the animal being trained or whose behaviour is being modified.  It should never be necessary to cow it or hurt it – but that is not to say that it cannot be put under some mental pressure or physical restraint (we put dogs on various forms of collars and leads for their own safety – this is no different in principle) to ensure a change of behaviour which it in everyone’s best interests – including the interest of the dog!

Finally, except in extreme cases we should be trying to modify the behaviour of both dog and its owner/family in such a way that improvement it behaviour is permanent. I do not believe that this is likely to be achieved by the use of drugs

(October 2006)

A talk for Savages (members of The savage Club, that is)

Notes for a talk to fellow Savages (who delight in literary oddities)

The wonderful world of Willard Espy.

Willard Espy is an American who has written many books.  Two I own are so well thumbed that they are falling to pieces.  There are hundreds of fascinating linguistic peculiarities, word games, and curiosities of language within their pages and these notes were put together for a talk given to those present at one of the regular members lunches in April 2009.

 

Acrostics:

As a little tease, this clever example of a complex acrostic was written into the menu for the lunch but leaving out the lower case letters after the line for March

JANET WAS QUITE ILL ONE DAY

JANet was quite ill one day.

FEBrile troubles came her way.

MARtyr-like, she lay in bed;

APRoned nurses softly sped.

MAYbe, said the leech judicial,

JUNket would be beneficial.

JULeps, too, though freely tried,

AUGured ill, for Janet died.

SEPulchre was sadly made;

OCTaves pealed and prayers were said.

NOVices with many a tear

DECorated Janet’s bier.

 

Acrostics are wonderful.  Willard himself has composed one which is firstly a sonnet – difficult enough to create anyway – which has its hidden message down the lines three times using the first letter of each line, the the first letter of the third word of each line and the first letter of the last word of each line

Synonyms:

Incidentally – why are there no synonyms for Thesaurus?

Which are the words which have the greatest number of synonyms?  I have not counted but ‘boat’ and ‘container’ are contenders.  If you want a good word game for Christmas see how many alternatives your guests can think of in ten minutes.

 

Punctuation:

Private. No swimming allowed

Private? No. Swimming allowed

Eats shoots and leaves

A vegetation of greengrocer’s 

 

Which leads delightfully onto collectives – some are well established such a ‘swarms of… variopus creatures.,’ but why ‘a school of whales’?  On the other hand there are some wonderful inventions such as a ‘squirm of snakes’, ‘a stinking of skunks’ and for ladies of the night, a ‘peal of Jezebels’, ‘a flourish of strumpets’, a jam of tarts and ‘a pride of loins’.

 

Which leads us to

Palindromes

Palindromes come in several guises:  pure, word, numerical – even musical and visual 

Our last palindromic year was 2002

Dates turn up regularly in shorted form

                3/1/3 (3^rd March 2003) or 30/3/03

                But 20/02/2002 is more satisfactory but these are few and far between

‘Reviver’ is the longest word in English that is a palindrome.  The longest word in the Roman alphabet is ‘Saippurakaruppias’ which is Finnish for ‘soap salesman’

There are lots of word palindromes as you will know.  But an unusual one I like is

Girl bathing on Bikini, eying boy, find boy eying bikini on bathing girl and my favourite.

In its pure form there are few common ones : Able was I ere I saw Elba etc   and

Now, Ned, I am a maiden nun; Ned, I am a maiden won

Rise to vote, Sir

but a particularly complex and delightful example is

T. Eliot, top bard, notes putrid tang emanating, is sad. I’d assign it a name: gnat dirt upset on drab pot toilet  (created by Alistair Reid)

There are even palindromic poems

Returning Exquisite desire

Burning, then ashes and smoke

Glowing ember or flaming –oak

Unknowing, unknown secret fire!

 

Fire, secret unknown, unknowing

Oak flaming or ember glowing.

Smoke and ashes; then burning

Desire, exquisite returning.

 

English as she is pronounced

‘Telling hearth from earth is tough stuff Suzy’  is a poem created by British officers working with many different nationalities  during the Second World War to help them understand the way in which English is spoken.  It begins

 

Dearest creature in creation

Spelling’s not pronunciation

 

And goes on for several fantastic and intricate pages

Hear is another on similar lines (the spelling is deliberate as you will see if you actually read out the poem)

 

I take it you already know

Of tough and bough and cough and dough?

Others may stumble, but not you

On hiccough, thorough, laugh, and through?

I write in case you wish perhaps

To learn of less familiar traps:

Beware of heard, a dreadful word

That looks like beard, and sounds like bird.

And dead: it’s said like bed, not bead;

For goodness’ sake, don’t call it `deed’!

Watch out for meat and great and threat

For goodness’ sake, don’t call it `deed’!

Watch out for meat and great and threat

(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt).

A moth is not a moth in mother

Nor both in bother, broth in brother

And here is not a match for there

Nor dear for bear, or fear for pear.

There’s dose and rose, there’s also lose

(just look them up) and goose and choose

And cork and work, and card and ward

And font and front, and word and sword

And do and go and thwart and cart

Come, come, I’ve bearly made a start

A dreadful language? Man alive,

eI’d mastered it when I was five!

 

Double entendres:

Some are unintentional.  Browning read a 17^th Century poem which included the lines:

They talk’d of his having a Cardinall’s Hat 
They’d send him as soon an Old Nun’s Twat 

and assumed that ‘twat’ was an article of clothing and, in ‘Pippa Passes’, wrote:

Then owls and bats 
Cowls and twats 
Monks and nuns in a cloister’s moods 
Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry 

I’ve tried to find out whether the following passage was, in fact, deliberate and inspired by Charles Dickens’ extra marital relationship but I do not think so.  It was published in 1843 and he did not meet Ellen Ternan until 1857.  What we do know is that Dickens’s affair with her, which lasted until his death, had several influences on his later fiction which explores sexual passion with an intensity and perceptiveness not previously apparent in the meek, goody-two-shoes heroines of most of his work.’

So in Martin Chuzzlewit, when Dickens describes the infatuation of Tom, the church organist, with a member of the choir I think this was inadvertent:

‘When she spoke, Tom held his breath, so eagerly he listened; when she sang, he sat like one entranced.  She touched his organ and from that bright epoch, even it, the old companion of his happiest hours, incapable as he had thought of elevation, began a new and deified existence.’

 

And on that note….

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Buying a puppy

Buying a puppy

There are hundreds of books and articles, leaflets and pamphlets giving excellent advice about buying a puppy.  What can I add which will be helpful to you?  Well, if you  picked up a copy of Our Dogs at your local newsagent or went to Crufts and are looking for a puppy there may be aspects of puppy breeding or purchase you may not have considered.  So rather than adding to the mass of easily available information and telling you what to do, this article poses some questions which you might like to consider and provides some guidance as to the answers.  Think of it as a Short Course in Puppy Buying for you and your family (puppies are usually bought by families) and do make sure the whole family is involved in trying to answer them.
What I am not going to do is to repeat the information and advice which is readily available from books, magazines and the Internet but we will begin with an easy question to which I will provide the answer to give you a good start.

I begin by making the assumption that you are prepared to take time in deciding on the breed you want. Many people are not even prepared to spend any time to assess what would be the best for them but buy ‘on the spot’.  It is therefore not surprising that they stumble at the first hurdle.  A puppy is not like a washing machine with which you do not have an emotional relationship.  The washing machine can go back if there is anything wrong with it while the puppy has already wormed its way into your heart.

So – to the questions.

Where will you quickly find the most comprehensive information about buying a puppy?   There is no doubt that for information, the Kennel Club’s web site (www.thekennelclub.org.uk) is the best and looking through the pages under buying a dog you will find all the guidance you need on selecting and choosing a suitable puppy.  All the options are carefully laid out and the alternatives discussed bearing in mind your circumstances.   However, the site is designed to steer you towards an Accredited Breeder (a good thing) and there are alternatives.  Some breeders have good reasons for not being accredited and I hope the following will help you sort out the good from the others
Where should you begin?  Think carefully about which breed will be suitable for you and do not be tempted to make an emotional choice.  You may always have had a desire for an Alaskan Malamute but lovely though they are, they eat like horses (not for nothing are they called ‘the carthorse of the Arctic’) and have a mind of their own about everything.   The great advantage in choosing a pedigree dog is that you know what its characteristics are, its size, its looks and its temperament are all reasonable predictable so you are able to make a choice which suits you.

The Kennel Club site and others such a Breedadog (who work closely in association with OUR DOGS) and Petplan provide access to responsible breeders and my advice is to confine yourself to these sites if you intend to find a puppy through the Internet.  Of course, breeders still use the traditional routes such as notices in veterinary surgeries and pet shops, local papers, the canine press and national sales magazines such as Exchange and Mart.  You can also buy a puppy at some pet shops although only about 2% of pet shops sell puppies these days or through the larger ‘trading kennels’ which sell many puppies a day.

The range of ways in which you can buy a puppy might appear to make it complicated but it need not be so – and the remedy is in the hands of you, the buyer.  My experience is that most potential owners, once they have made the decision (often under pressure, quite rightly and understandably, from the younger members of the family) is that they ‘want it now’.  Giving in to this natural though reasonable instinct increases the chances of you taking home an unsuitable puppy by one thousand percent.  The reason is that good quality in dogs is not usually available ‘off the shelf’.  You might be lucky but the alternative is much more likely.

So: If I have decided to by a puppy of a particular breed, what are the chances of a really good, responsible breeder in my area having one at precisely the time I want to buy?  Not very likely is the answer.  This is one of the main reasons that puppy buyers go to a trading kennel – impatience.  Look at the litters available on the Kennel Club, Breedadog or Petplan websites to see that this is the case.

This leads to a more fundamental (and probably more important) question:
Why are puppies bred?  Now this is a very important consideration and you can learn a great deal by thinking about the answer.  If you go to a trading kennel or a pet shop it is likely that they have been bred as part of a commercial venture.  To ensure a profit the breeder has to breed as many puppies of as many (popular) breeds as possible so that when you decide you want a puppy there is one immediately available.  There is nothing wrong with this.  If the business is carried out within the law then selling puppies in bulk to trading kennels or importing them from Ireland is not unacceptable although there are laws and regulations which impose a duty care on the person responsible.  Unfortunately the law is too often not enforced, so there is very little control over the conditions in which both breeding dogs and their puppies are kept and transported so quality suffers – as well as the dogs.

Remember, some established breeders breed an awful lot of puppies.  They may confine themselves to one or two breeds but puppy sales are the foundation of their income.  Again, there is nothing wrong with that but you have to ask yourself whether there comes a point when quantity may take precedence over quality.

Some owners of pedigree bitches may think breeding a litter is a jolly good way to earn a few pounds ‘pin money’ so they are happy to let their pet bitch have a litter or two to pay for a holiday or the new car.  A Golden Retriever, a Dalmatian or a Labrador can have an average litter of anything between five and ten and at £6/800 a puppy this may be very tempting – especially in times of economic stress.  Again, this is not illegal but how much does a pet owner know about breeding quality stock.  As far as they are concerned a Golden Retriever is a Golden Retriever so putting their bitch to stud to dog up the road or in the next town or village is perfectly acceptable.

So a good series of questions is:

• How many litters has this breeders had from this bitch?
• Can I see the mother?
• Can I see the pedigree?
• Where does the stud dog reside?

The answers will give you an insight into the background of the breeder which is an essential element of their motivation of breeding.
At the other end of the small scale scale is the enthusiast – the dedicated breeder who is anxious to win in the show ring and breeds a litter to enhance or continue his or her success.  Some will select the stud dog on the basis of its wins even though this may not be the best dog for the genetic, structural or conformational health of the puppies.  So more questions:

• Does the breed as a whole have any structural or genetic defects?
• What steps has the breeder taken to ensure that if there are any, they have not been passed on?
• Is the breed subject to any recommended test or screening?
• Have these been done?  Can I see the results or the KC listings showing the results?

It is important to ask the questions – and equally important to be comfortable with the answers.

Finally, the breeder of your puppy cannot give you a guarantee that it will be perfect.  It is, after all a sentient being with all the possible problems any living thing might have.  The person from whom you bought your rose may not be responsible for black spot (assuming roses get black spot – this is an area beyond my expertise) but you would expect good advice and concern from the grower: so with a puppy.  Your breeder should be there for you and your dog, should have a continuing and life long interest in their puppies and be prepared to help you if things go wrong.  Ask the questions and ensure you are happy with the answers.

Good, dedicated and responsible breeders are plentiful and they have nothing to hide – take your time to find one in who you feel confident.  It is not rocket science.  Good luck

My response to the All Party Group on the Welfare of Animals

The APGWA have called for evidence re their enquiry into pedigree dog breeding. It requires a covering letter explaining ones qualifications for comment, an summary and up to 2,000 of evidence.

This is my response:

7^th January 2008

The All Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare

Dear Sirs,

I have been involved with pedigree dogs for almost forty years as an exhibitor, breeder and judge. In 1973 I was responsible for publishing the Dog Directory, a reference book listing responsible breeders, the intention of which was to make good breeders names and contact details easily available to the general public. It ran to many editions but was eventually overtaken by the Internet. I wrote the book ‘All About Mating Whelping and Weaning’ in 1981. It went to three editions and is considered by some to be the standard work on the subject.

I am the principal of the Animal Care College, a non-profit making distance learning organisation set up in 1980 to deliver accredited home study courses to both enthusiasts and professionals in the animal care sector. In 1984 was asked by the Manpower Services Commission to assist in the creation of the Animal Care Lead Industry Body for Animal Care (ACLIB) for the then government’s training schemes which developed National Vocational Qualifications for the sector. The ACLIB has since been incorporated in to Lantra, the Learning Skills Council for the industry. I am the publisher of the oldest established weekly newspaper devoted to specialist canine interests (Our Dogs) and for fifteen year published the specialist monthly magazine Dogs Monthly. For eleven years I was as a senior manager of the Dogs Home Battersea so have an interest in and knowledge of, rescue and rehoming both dogs and cats.

I have also served as a District Counsellor and was Chairman of the Environmental Services Committee of Bracknell Forest Council which had dogs and dog control as part of its remit.

I am he longest serving trustee of the charity, the Pet Care Trust (and for a few months was Chief Executive while the organisation developed a new and more relevant strategy) and was a member of the committee which developed the Model Licence Conditions for Boarding Kennels and Catteries. I made contributions to the modification of the Dangerous Dogs Act, had some input into the Animal Welfare Act and its continuing establishment of secondary legislation through discussions with Defra. I have worked closely with other charities and non-governmental organisations. I have therefore been deeply involved in the political, educational, economic and social background of the animal care sector at many levels.

I clearly have an interest. I am a member of the Kennel Club and judge extensively both in Britain and abroad. However, as a teacher with twenty-five years experience and an in depth knowledge of dogs and pets in society, I believe that I have a clear-sighted and balanced view of the issues involved in this enquiry.

My full CV is available at www.davidcavill.co.uk

No part of my submission is confidential.

Yours faithfully

David Cavill

Summary

• The proportion of pedigree dogs who suffer as a result of genetic disease or selective breeding is small

• There is a great deal of confusion in the media between the terms, ‘genetic defect’, ‘genetic disease’, and ‘selective breeding’ which has led to many misunderstandings in the public mind

• Much research is being carried out to improve the quality of life of affected dogs has already had a considerable degree of success

• The programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed was distorted and misleading which encouraged organisations to ‘catch the publicity wave’ which exacerbated the misunderstandings

• The charge that these problems are the direct responsibility of the Kennel Club and/or hobby breeder, show exhibitors or judges is inaccurate

• It is important to ensure that all breeding stock is DNA tagged to ensure meaningful pedigrees

• Breed standards should include a mandatory requirement for breeders and judges to give the health and welfare of the breed the highest priority

• Adequate enforcement of current law and regulations through the Animal Welfare Act (2006) is more than sufficient to address the issues raised

Evidence

Dogs, including pedigree dogs, are an integral element of the cultural fabric of society in Britain and their importance socially and economically is immense.

Some 5% of pedigree dog breeds in the UK (10from a total of 200) have significant genetic defects or disease, many of which have been caused by the thoughtless application of selective breeding. However, of those breeds only a proportion are affected and many live perfectly normal, long-lived, healthy lives. It should be noted that the study carried out by Imperial College to which there is likely to be constant reference in some submissions to your committee, was on just ten breeds and the overall genetic health of pedigree dogs was not studied. Just because animals are closely bred does not in itself, mean that they will be subject to genetic defects. Selective breeding (as in cows for milk, sheep for wool or chickens for eggs) can have positive outcomes in terms of usefulness or health.

It is essential that these problems are addressed but it is important to keep the proportion of dogs affected in proportion

A further (approximately) 30% of breeds have some genetic defect or minor distortion of the normal canine conformation which is an inconvenience rather than a serious disadvantage. Again, only a proportion are affected and the vast majority are fit and healthy

The majority of breeds are affected by genetic defects to the same extent as the human population and are minor. DNA research is throwing up an increasing number of genetic shortcomings in humans and we learn to live with them as we have with serious defects such as diabetes, cataracts and Alzheimer’s as well as more minor problems such as short-sightedness and baldness.

Much research has been and is being carried out both here and abroad into every aspect of genetic defect and disease and much progress has been made over the last few years. This research is being led and funded by Kennel Clubs in many countries which are fully aware of their responsibilities for canine health and welfare. In the UK the Kennel Club/Animal Health Trust is the coordinating body.

The programme which triggered this enquiry, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, was extraordinarily biased and misleading. The programme was made by a producer who has written ‘there is no obligation on my part to promote a balanced view’. Calls to ban particular breeds are a similarly subjective over reaction.

Although it is true that in the past, breeders have used selective breeding to distort the conformation of some breeds to the point where they were uncomfortable and in pain, there have been powerful forces (of which I hope I have been one) against these practices over the past thirty years and there is no doubt that the worst excesses have been amended in the UK (This is not true of some other countries, incidentally but is certainly the case as far as Britain is concerned). Although selective breeding will increase the chances of genetic defects and genetic disease this is not necessarily the case. Selective breeding can be used to improve stock and to eliminate genetic defects if use knowledgably and intelligently.

The gradual establishment of a pedigree base which is tied to a DNA tag is one way in which this process could be advanced more quickly. The Kennel Club through its registry, although it is not legally binding, is by far the most highly regarded and would be best placed to institute this reform

Minor adjustments to breed standards are unnecessary. I have long advocated that every standard should include the introductory phrase ‘any characteristic that militates against the best interests of the health and welfare of the breed should be severely penalised’. The Kennel Club have not yet gone quite that far but they are close and a phrase with that intention was included in all standards some years ago. It is not strong enough in my view but I believe that it will be made more forceful shortly

The UK has adequate laws regarding the commercial breeding of puppies for the pet market but these are not applied by those responsible for their enforcement. There is no doubt that puppies bred by those termed ‘puppy farmers’ are the source of many of the genetic defects we see. Providing stock for the market is not, in itself, wrong but if the selection and care of breeding stock and the socialisation and upbringing of the puppies is inadequate then quality suffers across the board. We do not need more laws – we just need those we have to be applied effectively.

Like democracy, the Kennel Club is inadequate in many respects but also like democracy, any alternative would be less satisfactory. What is clear is that the Kennel Club is totally aware of its responsibilities and dedicated to the improvement of the health and welfare of dogs. I believe it can be trusted to carry out those responsibilities.

My recommendation is that no parliamentary action needs to be taken although the APGAW may rightly conclude that the situation might be reviewed in a few years time.

David Cavill

The RSPCA should be ashamed

I have just finished reading Bleak House. My favourite author is Jane Austen (favourite book, Emma – not Pride and Prejudice) and I am afraid I do not enjoy reading Dickens very much. I know his plots are wonderful and his characterisation incredible and appreciate the sections when the story moves forward but there are just too many unnecessary words. I know the reason for the dense, impenetrable and opaque verbiage (you can tell it is having an effect on my own style)but why did he not have the common sense to edit the novels after their publication in the weekly magazines and before they were published as books. Who has ever actually read the opening chapter of A Tale of Two Cities? It is a mountain of language, piled up into an impassable wall of words which quickly becomes not just futile but meaningless and empty. On the other hand, properly and sensitively edited, his work can be fantastic as can be appreciated in the current radio version of A Christmas Carol being read by David Jason on Radio 4.

However, to return to Bleak House, Angela has always said I should not comment on things I know nothing about and while I have usually replied that there is no point at my age of changing the habits of a lifetime, I did agree that I would stop criticising Charles D until I had actually read a complete book. So now I have and I am pleased to have done so although I found much of it very heavy going. But it was particularly interesting because it is his book that focuses most sharply on the workings of the legal system. It seems to me that there is a great deal in the truism that the more things change the more they stay the same. Both Dickens in Little Dorrit and Trollope in The Way We Live Now, write in considerable detail about the irresponsible activities of banks and bankers and it seems to me that great chunks of their plots and characters are still relevant today as evidenced by the current hedge fund scandal in the Untied States.

The law is no exception to these observations and these thoughts passed through my mind as I sat in a Crown Court this week, the activities of which, other than their length, would have done credit to Jarndyce v Jarndyce, the core of the plot of Beak House, in which a case in Chancery goes on for so long that every last penny of a valuable estate being challenged by competing claimants is absorbed by the lawyers so when it is finally resolved there is nothing left.

The case being heard is one in which I have been involved as an expert witness and was an appeal against a very questionable judgement by a Magistrates Court earlier this year in a case brought by the RSPCA.

I should explain at this point that the RSPCA is not one charity but many and while the small locally based organisations do excellent work in caring for and rescuing animals in their region everyone should be aware although they have ‘the name’ they are independent, separate organisations who have to fund themselves and receive nothing (yes – nothing!) from ‘head office’. If you leave money in your will to ‘the RSPCA’ (and most of its income comes from this source) it automatically goes to headquarters at Horsham when you pop your clogs: your local charity (other than the very few shelters which are directly controlled) will not receive a penny. So when I talk about the RSPCA, I am referring to ‘headquarters’ and their income of around £100m a year. Its main preoccupation seems to me just to generate publicity which will keep the charity in the forefront of the minds of people who love animals so that when their solicitor suggests bequests, they are the organisation which comes to mind.

In this case, a man had collected his two ten year old bitches from a kennel – which I have visited and can confirm is one of the best in the UK. One, it is suggested, may have been lethargic and had been off a food for a day or two. Having actually managed kennels I know that most dogs are healthy and behave normally and consequently you remember very little about them and their stay. If a dog is not behaving normally and/or shows signs of sickness you spot them quickly and do something about it. The kennel’s veterinary surgeon gave clear evidence that the kennel tended, if anything, to be over cautious and that if there was ever a problem dogs were taken in straight away and having been established for twenty years the kennel has an unblemished record. The bitches were brought out of the kennel when their owner came to collect them and one was quieter than usual but not showing any symptoms of illness. It’s hind quarters were wet but it was explained that she had apparently and inadvertently fouled herself and been bathed – entirely reasonably.

On his way home, the owner become concerned and told the Court that he had smelled urine. The dog had not urinated in the car (and I personally wonder whether he smelled the remains of disinfectant) and did not urinate at the veterinary surgery when he took the dog to his own vet two hours later. The young veterinary surgeon examined the bitch and diagnosed a likely pyometra for, by the time it arrived on his table there was some puss seeping from the vulva. The bitch was put on a drip and was successfully operated on the following day.

As you will know, a closed pyometra is extremely difficult to diagnose. It develops slowly, usually a few weeks after a season but shows no symptoms until the final few hours when it advances rapidly and can lead to sudden death. Owners have put their pet to bed last thing at night and come down in the morning to find the dog dead or dying having had no indication that anything was wrong other than, perhaps, she was a bit below par on the preceding day.

Given the quality of care at this establishment I am certain that had the bitch remained in the kennels for a few more hours the discharge would have been noticed and she would have been taken to their vet but the owner reported the matter to the RSPCA saying that the kennels had not properly cared for his dog. An inspector interviewed the owner and then turned up at the kennels, unannounced, and took witness statements from the owners and the manager. The kennels owners wanted to co-operate. They did not realise that the RSPCA inspector had no rights to take statements and, in fact, the procedure was so poorly prepared that they were not acceptable to the Court. However, despite the facts set out above – an unfortunate coincidence in effect – the RSPCA decided to prosecute.

They got their headlines ‘ XXX kennels to be prosecuted by RSPCA’. On both occasions, had the whole process not been so distressing for those involved in the farce, I could almost feel sorry for the Barrister acting for the society. He had no evidence of any substance and spent hours (and I mean hours) repeating questions over and over again trying to get an admission on which he could hang some sort of case. In my evidence I was asked a number of questions about the 1963 Act, about the Model License Condition (which I helped to write) and the Animal Welfare Act. His point was that kennels had a responsibility to take a dog to a vet if it was ill. I agreed – of course they do. Unfortunately they was no evidence that the dog showed any symptoms of illness.

At the Magistrates Court hearing the kennel owners were exonerated but the kennel manager was found guilty by a magistrate sitting alone who during the two day hearing complained of a headache and insisted that she need to go home early. Even in my layman’s view there was no case to answer and the evidence presented was both insubstantial and unsatisfactory: how she came to her conclusions is a mystery. Fortunately at the appeal, there was a ‘proper’ judge who was patient and fair, had a grasp of relevant evidence (none), was understanding and sympathetic to the distress of the kennel manager, was unbelievably reasonable in allowing what arguments there were to be put across, sensible in his assessment (although, I felt, was clearly frustrated by the determination of the RSPCA’s barrister to drag inconsequential arguments out until they were stretched beyond reason) and came to the conclusion that was blindingly obvious from the start, ruling that there was, in effect, no evidence of any value. He and his colleagues brought in a verdict of not guilty and awarded costs against the society.

In my view, the RSPCA should be ashamed of themselves, not just because of the misery caused by this action against hard working and innocent people but for the inevitable damage the media inflicted on the business by responding to the Society’s publicity machine as well as the waste of the enormous sum of money expended – which had been collected from ordinary people who believed they were contributing to an organisation which would use it to help animals in real distress.

Be assured this is one of many such actions.

Happy New Year!

Crufts will not be televised by the BBC – a response

This is the text of a letter to the editor of The Guardian in response to their report about the BBC not broadcasting Crufts.  It could well have been submitted to all the nationals. of course but I thought The Guardian was the most likely to publish it.

‘

Dear Sir,

‘

As the publisher of the UK’s oldest specialist canine publication, Our Dogs, and Studies Coordinator of the leading pet welfare educational organisation, the Animal Care College, I hope I can make a contribution to the debate concerning your article reporting on the decision of the Kennel Club not to cooperate with the BBC following the broadcasters request that some breeds should be withdrawn from competition at Crufts on the grounds that they are ‘at risk’.

The BBC appear to be taking this stance on ‘evidence’ provided in the misleading and distorted programme they broadcast last August, Pedigree Dogs Exposed.  A small cabal of vets and charities colluded with the programme maker, Jemima Harrison, to make outrageous claims about the Kennel Club, pedigree dogs and dog breeders using techniques of which Goebbles himself would have been proud.   The rest of the media, understandably but erroneously, did not see fit to question the selective statistics, slanted video clips and carefully edited interviews – why let the facts get in the way of a good story – and the result has been an entirely unnecessary furore leading to the present impasse.

When this programme was aired I made a series of short talks for You Tube and placed the tests on my web log (http://uk.youtube.com/user/davidcavill and http://davidcavill.wordpress.com), to try and lay out sensible and realistic approaches to the fundamental questions the programme posed – for there were important kernels of truth among the dross.  The original talk has had almost 8,000 viewings and, overwhelmingly, the comments made support and reflect the views I expressed.

However, we have to start from here.  The fuss has brought the world of dogs and dog ownership (and the Kennel Club too) to a Rubicon which, if crossed, could lead to a complete and damaging reassessment of the role of dogs in society.  It could effect not only the lives of the many millions of families and enthusiasts who enjoy the peerless companionship that dogs offer, but those who are actively involved in working with dogs professionally,from veterinary surgeons to groomers, those who are disabled who rely on dogs as working partners as well as the thousands of service military, police and security dogs and their handlers.

I accept that a small proportion of breeds suffer from genetic defects and that these are often the result of selective breeding, but your readers should be reassured that the vast majority of pedigree dogs in the UK are fit and healthy.  What is more, despite the programme’s assertions, the Kennel Club in Britain in association with the Animal Health Trust and others, is aware of those problems, has been working towards solving them for many years and has made more progress in eliminating a wider range of hereditary defects in dogs than any other country.  As an International judge of dogs dedicated to soundness both in my judging and in my educational role, I can confirm that the quality of pedigree dogs in the UK is, overall, higher than anywhere else the world.

What should the Kennel Club do?

Crufts, which is not just about pedigree dogs or show dogs, is a reflection of the relationship millions of people have with their pets and, like Ascot, Henley and Wimbledon, is part of the cultural fabric of this country and recognised world wide.  It must therefore absolutely deserves a place on the airwaves as a featured event rather than just another news story.  It would be tragic if Sky or another broadcaster was influenced by the controversy surrounding this particular issue and was therefore not prepared to consider featuring the event.  The Kennel Club must make every effort to ensure this coverage is maintained – not in its own interest but in the interests of dog owners both here and around the world, all of whom may be prevented from enjoying this spectacular and exciting occasion as a result of the BBC’s unfortunate and misguided attempt (supported by well meaning but short sighted lobby groups) to take what it probably believes is the moral high ground.