Category: Irresponsible pet owning

Pet obesity is no laughing matter.

We should view obesity in pets as an act of causing unnecessary suffering in the same way as starving an animal.

Obese dog Animal rights and Wrongs

It is a sad reflection of our attitude to animals that we are happy to upload videos concerning pet obesity onto social media sites like YouTube which ridicule fat animals that are struggling to walk, stand or perform natural behaviours. Many seem to find this entertaining, which is clear by the fact the “Likes” on these videos always out-number the thumbs down.

The video below, which rightly disgusted one of my friends who shared it with me, is as she inferred in her post, a good advert for viewing the act of overfeeding an animal a prosecutable offence. It is just as much causing unnecessary suffering as starving an animal to near death.

“Canine obesity classed as a disease”

Obesity in pets has been in the news recently and countless surveys have shown that just like humans over-feeding and obesity in our pets is on the increase. According to a British Veterinary Association (BVA) survey which polled 1,600 vets, 60% said obesity is the biggest health and welfare concern for UK pets. A recent World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) One Health meeting officially classed canine obesity as a disease.

Pet obesity is a potential killer.

Prof. Susan Dawson, President of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) stated: “All companion animals deserve a nutritionally balanced diet; in fact it is a requirement of the Animal Welfare Acts”. 

“A case of killing with kindness”

Gudrun Ravetz, President of the BVA has said: “Obesity is a potential killer for pets and many owners show love for their pet through food, but often this is a case of killing with kindness – most animals would instead enjoy playing or interacting with their owner just as much as getting a treat”. Source

In the USA 60% of cats and 56% of dogs are judged as obese. A 2017 study of over 1600 dogs in the UK showed that 65% of dogs over 2 years old were overweight and 9% clinically obese. Source

Dogs under 2 years old fared little better with 37% overweight and 3% obese. Obesity is a life threatening ailment and can lead to a variety of conditions such as shortened lifespan, heart disease, kidney and respiratory problems, strain on joints, arthritis and diabetes.

If the situation is so serious why do we not treat pet obesity more seriously?

None of the publicity asks the vital question of whether we should consider the act of over-feeding a pet as an act of causing unnecessary suffering or cruelty particularly when it reaches the point of preventing the animal from enjoying its natural behaviours and functioning as a normal dog or cat.

Despite all the evidence that it causes an animal harm and is avoidable we  just view the owners as misinformed and ignorant souls who need educating. We do not take the animal from their care or prosecute them when in many cases it is obvious that the animal is suffering both mentally and physically. We have a similar situation when it involves children.

Obesity in cats, overweight cat,
Cats are just as susceptible to obesity as dogs.

There is a lot of ringing of hands in the veterinary profession of not taking the subject seriously enough and not doing enough to combat obesity in pets particularly dogs, but blaming vets for not weighing dogs and recording notes during consultations is not really the answer.

Pet obesity the fault lies with the irresponsible owners.

Vets are busy enough as it is without having to take on what is the responsibility of the owners who must be aware of when their pet is getting overweight and capable of doing something about it. Surveys suggest that 33% of owners only take their dog for a short walk once a day if they are lucky, 68% do not check they are feeding the right amount for the size of animal, 26% feed leftovers and 30% never check their pets’ weight. Are these the actions of a responsible owner?

I firmly believe that overfeeding a dog or cat and allowing it to become morbidly overweight equates to causing it unnecessary suffering and is an act of cruelty and must dealt with in the same way as an animal that has been almost starved to death. Removal of a pet should also be considered as owners often lack the will-power and ability to diet their pets, which is clear by them allowing it to happen in the first place.

It is no laughing matter for any animal that has been allowed to get in this state.

Veterinary charities promote irresponsible pet ownership.

Charities are paying for people to own animals.

In the UK there is one main charity dedicated to providing assisted or free veterinary treatment to the pets of ‘impoverished’ owners and several other charities such as the Blue Cross and RSPCA who also offer similar services among their other endeavours.

The number of animals receiving treatment and the amount of money expended is huge and all because owners are unable or unwilling to fulfill one of their basic moral responsibilities to the animals in their care: the ability to protect them from pain and suffering. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it a legal obligation for owners to have this capability under their duty of care.

In 2017 the Peoples Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA) provided over 2,000,000 treatments to 500,000 pets at a colossal cost of over £70 million although the total cost of providing the service is £100,000,000 each year. At the time of writing they run 48 treatment centres and have an agreement to pay for assisted treatment with nearly 400 private vet surgeries.

PDSA veterinary charity, logo

The Blue Cross which has a third of the income of the PDSA and only 4 hospitals provided treatment to another 28,000 animals at a cost of over £10 million. The RSPCA treated a further 130,000 and Wood Green Animal Shelters (WGAS) 11,000 pets.

It’s almost as though they are trying to set up a NHS for animals.

Donations to the PDSA and Blue Cross are constantly increasing, and they are continually expanding their facilities to provide for more patients in different areas of the country. All the charities are rightly proud of their achievements and the public obviously agree as we bombard them with legacies and donations. But the more money donated bizarrely has the knock-on effect of needing to find a use for it under the terms of their aims and policies and they have to build more facilities and offer more services which in turn encourages more irresponsible ownership. It is almost as though the veterinary charities are trying to set up a NHS for animals and put the private veterinary practice out of a job.

Many owners may feel that this would be a very good idea, but the problem is that such a service takes away an owners’ responsibility for the care of their pets and encourages more people to acquire pets which they can little afford.

Blue Cross charity, veterinary treatment, free treatment for pets

Both charities are predicting large increases in numbers and excitedly forecast great expansion for the future  as though they are a corporate industry dependent on increased business and profits.

The Blue Cross expects their treatment numbers to increase from 28,000 in 2017 to 36,000 in 2019 and in 2018 have “expanded” into Wales by building a clinic there and new clinics in Ashford, Luton, Torbay and York because “more people are relying on the Blue Cross to help their sick and injured pets”. The PDSA are building a £2.4 million “wellbeing” centre in Manchester “with dedicated wellbeing facilities to help local people provide everything their pet needs to be happy and healthy”

Providing free services only encourages reckless ownership.

Not only do these charities provide essential veterinary treatment, but they go out of their way and spend huge sums on providing the basic health requirements such as neutering, vaccinating, worming, flea control and micro-chipping animals in the mistaken belief that in some way this will solve the problems of reckless and uninformed ownership. It has reached the stage where veterinary charities are paying for people to own pets. Is this really a sensible way of spending all this money?

Cat, buster collar, neutering,
Charities are providing neutering, micro-chipping, vaccinations and other preventative treatments which any responsible owner should be able to provide without help.

At the very least all owners should be able to pay for these basic requirements. Charities have been doing this for at least four decades and it is clear by the rising numbers that it has had little if any effect on reducing the numbers of unwanted and stray companion animals or making pet owners more The problem with providing subsidised services.responsible.

Whether we like the inference or not all owned animals are captive animals, just like zoo animals, and if a person cannot provide adequately for them during their captivity they should not be allowed to own or keep them.

The problem with providing subsidised services.

In the same way that some critics view re-homing charities as counter-productive it is the same with veterinary charities whose emphasis should be on reducing numbers they treat and targeting the prevention of animals going into them in the first place. The PDSA do appear to be seeing the error of their past ways as they are reducing the number of animals per person that they will treat from three to only one. They have also recently changed their policy on providing assisted treatment through local private vets.

While once working at a large charity hospital in London I can remember a time when there was no restriction and human nature being what it is some owners amassed a dozen animals that they regularly brought in. Not only that but owners falsified their ‘poverty’ status by using ‘proof of benefit’ of other people.

The sheer presence of the PDSA, Blue Cross and RSPCA  discourages owners in certain sections of society from obtaining pet insurance or putting money aside for emergencies, as they see no need to when they can get free or subsidised treatment at one of these local clinics.

Most clinics are congregated in cities and large urban areas where the perceived poverty and greatest pet ownership is concentrated, and their arbitrary coverage causes problems when owners, who having become reliant, decide to move to an area that has no such service. They are shocked and indignant that there is no free or assisted treatment available, which often results in their pets suffering through lack of treatment or in some cases being put to sleep.

Owning a pet is not a civil right.

The benefit system is embedded in the psyche in the UK and owners believe they are ‘entitled’ in some way to get help for the care of their pets mainly because veterinary charities give them this false impression. For many people it is a deliberate act to take on pets knowing they do not have the finances or circumstances to look after them, as they are well aware charities will never turn them away in the same way as private vets do, but the crux of the matter is that they shouldn’t own them in the first place.

In this context operating charity veterinary clinics and hospitals is a short-sighted activity with no long-term benefits to animals in general as it does little to tackle the problem at source and costs millions in financing which could be spent on more vital animal welfare issues. The emphasis should be on phasing out such services and concentrating on restricting people from keeping animals if we are ever to tackle irresponsible ownership. The message that owning an animal is some kind of a civil right, regardless of circumstances, needs countering.