Category: Cruelty to dogs

Issues specifically causing harm to dogs.

Dog Licensing Could Aid Animal Welfare Law Enforcement.

The reintroduction of dog licensing in England & Wales could be an opportunity to aid animal welfare law enforcement and tackle many of the major issues surrounding irresponsible ownership. The old dog licence, which cost a ridiculous 37 pence (18.5p), was scrapped in 1987 on the pretext of being too difficult to administer and enforce. Over the last decade there has been debate and interest in some quarters of resurrecting a new licensing system. There has also been government funded research by academics at Middlesex University into ways of promoting responsible dog ownership which could include a tax on dog owners of £100 per dog.

Those against reintroducing a license scheme insist that it would still be impossible to implement successfully, but it must be remembered that the old system was operating during a time when computers and the internet did not exist. Technology has moved on and we haven’t given up on issuing TV licences, driving licences or fishing licences, so what makes dog licencing any different.

The Dogs Trust appear to be against the idea, preferring education instead, but there seems to be general public support for the move. The Kennel Club, the bastion of dog owning is of course against any form of dog owning restrictions and state that such a move would penalise responsible dog owners who are most likely to comply and states “Less caring and irresponsible owners would again get away with it“. But licensing should be focused on irresponsible owners.

Northern Ireland, the only part of UK with dog licensing, leads the way.

Northern Ireland enforces licensing and owners must have an annual license costing £12.50 for each dog aged over 6 months otherwise they commit an offence. The penalties include a warning, formal caution, fixed penalty or a fine up to £1000.

A licence has to be obtained prior to taking possession of a dog and puppies must be microchipped at eight weeks. Anyone giving, selling or taking possession without a licence commits an offence and is liable to a £1,000 fine. A licence is invalidated if the owner fails to keep their details updated or correct. Dogs must also wear a collar and name tag and non compliance is also a £1000 fine.

Although these regulations seem quite draconian it could be argued that they could have gone much further when formulating the legislation and have underestimated the potential to curb irresponsible ownership and aid animal welfare law enforcement.

There are so many problems in the U.K. of neglect and general welfare of dogs which licensing could play a great part in alleviating. These include hoarding, puppy farms, overrun pseudo sanctuaries, multi-dog households, dangerous dogs and removal of at risk dogs which is still a difficult procedure even under the present Animal Welfare Act 2006 which was supposed to make early intervention easier. But the measures must be uncompromising if the welfare of dogs is the paramount factor.

Vaccination, neutering & pet insurance should be part of licence conditions.

The cost of a licence needs to be set at a high price to deter people from taking on more dogs than they can afford to care for, which will in effect promote more responsibility. Each dog in a household or premises that cannot substantiate it is a genuine charity or business must have a licence with no exemptions for the owner’s age, financial status or living standards.

Apart from the mandatory microchipping, already required in the UK, there could be an opportunity to add vaccination, neutering and even valid basic pet insurance to the requirement for a licence. A register of animal cruelty offenders could also be allied to the dog licensing scheme. This would be a great step towards eradicating feckless ownership and alleviating the problem of owners whose intent is to be charity dependent and take away the burden or even need for veterinary charities.

Northern Ireland have gone some way towards these ideals, but allow exemptions for owners on certain benefits who can obtain a licence at a discounted price which arguably sends the wrong message about responsibility. The cost of basic insurance is not beyond the means of any ‘suitable’ or responsible owner.

Powers to seize unlicensed dogs

The power to seize unlicensed dogs must be included in legislation similar to car owners caught with no valid driving licence, insurance or MOT who have their cars seized. It is an accepted fact that the so called “less caring and irresponsible owners who would again get away with it” are generally (but not always) those owners that cause many of the problems, and are less likely to be in possession of a licence for all their dogs. Such a power would allow simple removal from harm by enforcement officers if urgent action is required, subject of course to other formalities such as warrants and veterinary advice.

Such draconian measures may sound extreme, but they are the only way to combat the incessant problems of irresponsible and neglectful ownership. Unfortunately, England has a track record of implementing ineffective animal laws borne out yet again by the recent criticism over microchipping, but we need to take the “bull by the horns”. Approaching the issues with half-hearted initiatives has not been successful over the last few decades and although many people advocate education, those that need it most, take little heed. Sadly for the sake of dog welfare we need more stick and less carrot.

Just When You Thought the Barbara Woodhouse Days Were Over

While enjoying a walk along my local seaside promenade the other day we spied an exasperated woman screaming at her dog and violently pulling its head back whenever it got more than a foot in front of her. After half a dozen of these actions she finally yanked the poor cowering dog so hard she almost took its head off and lifted it off the ground even though it was a big dog.

Deciding enough was enough we caught her up and admonished her, (not always a good plan), but she turned her frustration and anger on us saying she was doing nothing wrong and that her dog behaviourist had advised her to do it. She suggested I should have a word with him. I replied that I would be glad to do so, but I was sure he hadn’t quite told her to be so violent. My wife gave her a parting comment that the days of Barbara Woodhouse were long over, but are they?

For those too young to remember Barbara Woodhouse was a highly celebrated and regarded dog trainer across the world in the 1970’s and 1980’s with TV programmes, books and documentaries about her methods. This was mainly because of her perceived eccentricity which always makes good TV, but she was regarded by many dog owners with misbehaving dogs as a saviour. But others looked upon her as heavy handed and cruel with her domineering methods.

Dog training is big business and lucrative.

History often repeats itself and recently there has been controversy about an American dog trainer named Jeff Gellman visiting a seminar in Scotland. He is alleged to hit dogs with a rolled up towel and uses prong collars and remote control shock collars to keep dogs in line. The use of such instruments of torture are much used in North America and are readily available on the internet in the U.K. He has become another showman celebrity with tens of thousands watching his YouTube videos. Owners queue up willing to pay £750 for a session with him, but the Scottish SPCA were not happy about his visit or his methods and there is even a change.org petition against him. Dog training is big business and very lucrative but as always totally unregulated.

Genuine and sincere dog trainer or another showman – you to decide.

But his methods highlight the great division that still exists after decades of research and debate regarding the best and most humane way of training a dog to fit in with our modern lifestyles. Every self proclaimed dog behaviourist and trainer has their own ideas or choose the in fashion dogma of the day. But then everybody likes to think they are a dog expert.

The argument over negative and positive reinforcement.

The main division between the “experts” is whether “aversive” or “negative reinforcement” training i.e. using a bit of brute force like Mr Gellman and Barbara Woodhouse is cruel and counter productive and stress dogs out compared with “positive reinforcement” where dogs are bribed with treats and praised to toe the line.

A recent study published in the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour indicated that 65% of dogs trained with “aversive” or “negative reinforcement” (note we must have technical terms for all this) methods i.e. using punishment showed signs of stress such as mouth licking, shaking and whining compared with only 8% of those trained by “positive” or reward and praise methods. Whether this is scientifically sound or not, common sense dictates that hitting, yanking and electrocuting dogs is probably not the most humane course of action.

It seems to be human nature for us to always complicate issues and so we have established a new science: the science of animal behaviour in which we can become professionals, get diplomas and degrees, put letters behind our names, carry out research, argue, debate, write papers and come up with exactly nothing conclusive or tangible. We now live in a world of dog behaviourists, clinical animal behaviourists, psychiatrists, counsellors and a variety of trainers to make dogs compliant and contented with our modern lifestyles.

One side of the argument maintains that the positive approach leads to them being spoilt and entrenches bad behaviour whereas those against the punishment approach believe it causes mental trauma and impacts long-term welfare. Realistically the sheer act of training a dog to comply with our selfish demands is an act of dominance whatever method used to make it comply with our will. For many owners, like the exasperated lady on the promenade who was obviously at the end of her own tether, any method that solves the problem is OK with them, cruel or not.

Our lifestyles are the cause of their behavioural and mental health problems.

But ironically it is us who have inflicted our mental health and behavioural problems onto them through our lack of understanding of their needs. The world and our attitude to dog management and care has radically changed. They have to be under our control at all times and because of our hectic lives we have no option but to leave them home alone, fail to walk them as we should and generally do not give them the attention they desire. We have confused them to the point where they do not understand their role in our lives. We are barking up the wrong tree, if you’ll excuse the pun, by focusing on changing our dog’s behaviour. Perhaps we need a science of dog ownership to help guide us into being more thoughtful and responsible owners.

I do wonder if we read too much into dog training. I have little practical experience of dog training. I have always been willing to put up with the odd foibles a dog of mine might have and find ways of circumventing any problems that might arise because of them, rather than destroying their will and individual character, but this method doesn’t have all the answers either.