Category Archives: Dog Welfare

02/2/14

Preventing Snake Bites

Losing dogs through snake bite is a common problem in Australia. There are a number of strategies that can be used to minimise the risk, of varying types of efficiency. I thought it’d be useful to put these ideas into one post, so that those trying to protect their dogs have some ideas to implement.

 

Illustration of snake prevention courtsey of Amstafomine Kennels.

Illustration of snake prevention courtesy of Amstafomine Kennels.

Keep Areas Tidy

Snakes like to hide in piles of rubbish or mess, so keeping your property tidy is the first step in mess prevention. This includes keeping weeds and grass low. Additionally, doing this keeps prey animals down – anywhere where mice and rats can hide will attract snakes to eat them.

 

Consider Snake Repellers

Some people swear that snake repellers work – some swear they do not. Without there being any clinical or scientific studies available (from my searching), it is up to your discretion in determining whether they are a worthwhile investment.  Rumour has it that they are only effective in firm soil (not sandy soil) and that for maximum effect they should be moved on a regular basis (every few weeks).

 

Consider Guinea Fowl

Some types of Guinea Fowl are known to, in groups, attack and kill snakes. Having a flock of guinea fowl around your property (presuming space, time, and finances permit) may be a means to reduce or deter snakes on the property – or, at the very least, alert you to the presence of snakes in the vicinity.

 

54787_4779044396732_1759565144_o

Amstafomine kennels – showing snake fencing, rubber edging, and netting, all with the aim of preventing snake access.

 

Physical Barriers

Physically keeping snakes out of areas where dogs run is also a possibility. The photo above is the best example I’ve seen.  Here, shade cloth has been used as snake fencing (as it is so narrow snakes cannot go through it). Where the shade cloth can’t cover (e.g. around the doors), rubber has been used to prevent snakes squeezing through.  On top of all this, loose netting has been draped along the grounds, so snakes will get twisted and caught up before even reaching the kennels.

 

Have you found any other methods effective for keeping snakes at bay?

Wishing you an incident free snake season!

01/26/14

Advocate for Safety-Testing of Car Harnesses

Golden retriever puppy in car

In my last post, I described the two studies that I could find that illustrate the effectiveness of car safety harnesses for dogs.

What has become clear is that there is very little testing of pet safety restraints, and no safety standard.

As pet lovers, obviously, this is something we’d like changed. This is an advocacy post, encouraging you to write to your relevant body. The suggestions made here are Australian based, but you’re welcome to modify the following letters for appropriacy to your own bodies.

When writing your letter, you should go for human-safety approach, because, as a selfish species, humans normally like to protect other humans. Say, we want pet restraints tested because:

  • We need pets to be effectively restrained so they do not interfere with drivers, but also
  • Pets need to be prevented from becoming projectiles in an accident, and, as a niceity,
  • It is in the best interest of animal welfare to protect them in accidents, and save owners and bystanders the distress of an injured pet.

 

MAC / TAC

Both the Motor Accident Commission and the Traffic Accident Commission don’t mention pet restraints on their websites! You can contact the MAC through their online form.

To the Motor Accident Commission,

Re: Restraint of Pets in Motor Vehicles

Recently I was disturbed to be informed that dog car safety harnesses manufacturing and design is unregulated. As a result, many harnesses designed for dogs are inadequate in restraint, and so pose a risk to motorists.

Dog safety harnesses are important in restraining a pet from interfering with the driver and from becoming a projectile in an accident. Testing in Australia (by NRMA Insurance) and in the United States (by Centre for Pet Safety) showed that many pet harnesses designed for vehicle transport did not withstand the force of a car accident.  This means that motorists may restrain their pets with a car harness falsely believing that doing so would prevent their pet becoming a projectile in an accident.  Obviously, such an incident could cause harm to human occupants of a vehicle.

Further, there pet owners carry a level of emotional attachment to pets, and their injury or death in car accidents would be a cause of distress to passengers and onlookers.

Considering the substantial risk to human well being through unregulated car safety harnesses, I ask that you consider introducing requirements on dog car safety harnesses, including a scheme to certify harness safety through legitimate and standardised tests.

Yours sincerely,

 

RAA/RACV

The RAA have a page selling unbranded (almost certainly untested restraints) harnesses. You can email the RAA through info@raa.com.au (link).

To the RAA,

Re: Restraint of Pets in Motor Vehicles

Recently I was disturbed to be informed that dog car safety harnesses manufacturing and design is unregulated. As a result, many harnesses designed for dogs are inadequate in restraint, and so pose a risk to motorists.

Dog safety harnesses are important in restraining a pet from interfering with the driver and from becoming a projectile in an accident. Testing in Australia (by NRMA Insurance) and in the United States (by Centre for Pet Safety) showed that many pet harnesses designed for vehicle transport did not withstand the force of a car accident.  This means that motorists may restrain their pets with a car harness falsely believing that doing so would prevent their pet becoming a projectile in an accident.

While two brands of harness have been well reviewed by both tests conducted, neither of these are available through your online store, and the one type that is available online is unbranded and presumably untested in regards to its resilience to force in an accident.  Clearly, without testing, harnesses may pose a risk and cause harm to human occupants of a vehicle.

Further, there pet owners carry a level of emotional attachment to pets, and their injury or death in car accidents would be a cause of distress to passengers and onlookers.

Considering the substantial risk to human well being through unregulated car safety harnesses, I ask that you consider introducing requirements on dog car safety harnesses, including a scheme to certify harness safety through legitimate and standardised tests, and consider stocking only products that meet these standards.

Yours sincerely,

 

Choice

Choice have a page reporting on the NRMA Insurance testing.  Choice is known for providing a neutral panel to review products. You can email Choice at ausconsumer@choice.com.au (link).

To Choice,

Re: Restraint of Pets in Motor Vehicles

Upon reading your online article on car safety restraints for dogs (“Dog car harness test”, dated 18th December 2013), I was disturbed to read that many car harnesses received a ‘fail’ score, indicating that they are inadequate in restraining pets. It is unsettling to think of many pets are being transported in car safety harnesses that have been manufactured and designed with no safety checks, as these ineffectively restrained pets pose a risk to motorists.

Dog safety harnesses are important in restraining a pet from interfering with the driver and from becoming a projectile in an accident. Like the NRMA testing in Australia, safety testing in the United States (by Centre for Pet Safety) showed that many pet harnesses designed for vehicle transport did not withstand the force of a car accident.  This means that motorists may restrain their pets with a car harness falsely believing that doing so would prevent their pet becoming a projectile in an accident.  Obviously, such an incident could cause harm to human occupants of a vehicle.

Further, there pet owners carry a level of emotional attachment to pets, and their injury or death in car accidents would be a cause of distress to passengers and onlookers.

Considering the substantial risk to human well being through unregulated car safety harnesses, I hope that Choice can consider providing its own testing of car safety harnesses for pets and provide pressure to government to produce a formal standard to ensure consumer confidence in car safety harnesses designed for dogs.

Yours sincerely,

Is there any other peak bodies that deserve to receive a letter, too? Let me know in the comments.

Be an animal advocate and post one or more of these letters to the relevant parties with the aim of bettering animal welfare.

01/24/14

How safe are dog car travel harnesses?

Last year, we heard that 100% of dog car harnesses were failing safety tests.  The Center for Pet Safety is quoted as saying,”We tested them to the child safety restraint standard and we experienced a 100-percent failure rate to protect either the consumer or the dog”.

It’s a concerning claim. Many pet owners put their dogs on a harness because they want them to be safe during an accident, and yet it seems that harnesses won’t achieve these aims. So what’s a pet owner to do?

Golden retriever puppy in back seat of car.

 

Center of Pet Safety Study

Firstly, have a look at the CPS’s study.  A complete summary of CPS’s investigation can be read on this PDF, but the research methods are best summarised by this flowchart:

Click to see PDF source.

Click to see PDF source.

So, firstly, they only tested harnesses that claimed to be tested, or claimed to offer crash protection.

Then, they did ‘quasi static testing’, which is basically they pulled on the harness attachment really hard for a sustained period to see if the harness survived or not. (Watch a video of the quasi static test.)

The following products did not pass the quasi static testing:

  • USA K-9 Outfitters; Champion.
  • In the Company of Animals; Clix.
  • Coastal; EZ-Rider.
  • Snoozer; Pet Safety Harness and Adapter.

It is only if the product passed both of those initial stages that they proceeded to crash testing.

In the same PDF, a nifty little flow chart is displayed – and ultimately it lists the harness, from left to right, as best to worst (of those tested).

Crash test harness results.

So, basically, the testing concluded that the ‘best’ harness (of those tested) was the Sleepypod Clickit Utility.

A complete analysis is available on page 10 of the results.

You can find out more about the Sleepypod Clickit harness from the Sleepypod website.

 

NRMA Insurance Test

From my research, the only other test I can find was performed by NRMA Insurance, and yielded not dissimilar results: The Sleepypod Clickit Harness was rated on the top, and the Purina Roadie Harness was second.  NRMA Insurance tested 25 harnesses, and only the above two passed. That is, 92% of harnesses failed. You can read NRMA’s brief press release: Paws and Secure Your Puppy

 

But harnesses are still better than nothing…

I would like to warn against ‘giving up’ on harnesses, because most of the harnesses do stop dogs become a projectile, and injuring people in the car. Little comfort, but please do restrain your pets.

Screen shot 2014-01-15 at 8.46.34 AM

 

My choice

Personally, I have had trouble with harnesses in the car. Any of my dogs that I have tried them on walk around and around in circles, twisting up their limbs in their harness, and looking miserable and uncomfortable.

After reading the two studies above, I am glad I made the choice to crate my dogs in the car. The crates are secured in my car with tie downs to anchor points. I am very happy with my choice, and feel that it is probably the safest option for car travel, especially in light of this study.

Our next blog post will look into ways you can advocate for better harnesses.

 

Further reading: Pet Auto Safety Blog

01/17/14

Pets as Gifts – Evidence not Anecdotes

ResearchBlogging.orgPets aren’t gifts. We all know that.

If a pet is given as a gift, the recipient might not be prepared for the financial commitment. The pet might be unsuitable to their lifestyle, or the recipieint may be uncommitted. And this means the pet is more likely to be relinquished.

But are you willing to be wrong about that?

This pretty shar pei has found her home through Adelaide All Breed Dog Rescue Inc.

This pretty shar pei has found her home through Adelaide All Breed Dog Rescue Inc.

“Studies of dog and cat relinquishment to shelters, however, show that the relinquishment of dogs and cats received as gifts is lower than from other sources,” says Weiss et al. in their 2013 paper. While this blog post will concentrate on this article, it’s important to note that this study builds on the research of others. For example (as summarised by Weiss et al.),

  • This article looked at 2600 dogs and 2300 cats, and found “Relinquished dogs infrequently came from pet shops, as gifts and from veterinarians. The study found the odds of dog relinquishment were higher when acquiring an animal from a shelter, friend, as a stray, and from a pet shop compared to receiving an animal as a gift”. Cats had similar trends.
  • This article “identified 71 reasons for pet relinquishment” and unwanted gift made up only 0.3% of dog surrenders and 0.4% of cat surrenders.
  • And this one found that being received as a gift was a protective factor, with dogs and cats received as gifts being “at [a] significantly decreased risk of being relinquished”.

Simply, there is no evidence that pets being given as gifts leads to relinquishment. It is an unfounded myth.

This study even says, “the myth that dogs and cats should not be given as gifts still persists“.

 

How was this study conducted?

A large telephone survey of 1006 adults was conducted, with 222 people saying they received a dog or cat as a pet in the last 10 years.

If an individual identified them self as a pet-gift-receipient, they were asked further questions. Were they involved in selecting the pet? How attached are they to their pet? Do they still own the pet?

 

And what did they find?

Some of the gifted-pets were rehomed – 21 out of the 215 pets. That is, 9.7%.

It didn’t seem to matter if the gift was a surprise or not – it wasn’t associated with people rehoming their pet, or being more or less attached to it.

“These results suggest that there is no increased risk of relinquishment for dogs and cats received as a gift.”

On a side note, this study is different, because it looked at owner retention, instead of shelter relinquishment data. This means that the statistic of 9.7% rehomed is probably higher than shelter surrender intake (as many pets would be rehomed privately instead of through shelter facilities).

 

How does this relate to shelters?

Weiss et al. express their concern about shelters who prohibit adoptions when they know that the animal is going to be given as a gift.  Weiss et al. says, not allowing pets to go as gifts may “impede the overarching goal of increasing adoptions of pets from our nations’ shelter system”.

Significantly, they say (emphasis my own):

“These findings may help animal welfare organisations open options for those interested in obtaining dogs and cats for their family and friends. It is important to note that animals obtained from a shelter are more at risk than those obtained as gifts. Allowing adoptions of dogs and cats to those obtaining the pet as a gift may decrease the risk of return or relinquishment for that dog or cat. Furthermore, it would allow for more animals from shelters to find homes.”

 

The next thing

Briefly, the article suggests that the next area for study is research and planning, and how that relates to pet retention. Current evidence suggests that ‘spur of the moment’ type acquisitions made with little or no research or planning are not associated with higher rates of relinquishment.

 

So have you ever received a pet as a gift? And did you keep that pet for its life?

Reference:

Weiss, E, Dolan, ED, Garrison, L, Hong, J & Slater, M (2013). Should dogs and cats be given as gifts? Animals, 3 (4) DOI: 10.3390/ani3040995

01/13/14

Clever Marketing Ideas for Shelters

Often, we hear about ‘the overpopulation problem‘ – the myth that there are too many animals in the shelter system to find homes for.  Of those that argue that an overpopulation problem exists, they often point to shelter-euthanasia rates. The argument goes that if there was no overpopulation problem, then there would be no pets killed in shelters.

I call bullshit.

There are plenty of pounds in Australia that impound animals, hold them for the mandatory holding period, and then kill them with not a scrap of community engagement. They didn’t try to find the owner. They didn’t try to find a new owner. For whatever reason, there are many facilities in Australia that just do what they have to do (legally), and not what they should do (morally).

So what should impounding facilities be doing?

I argue that impounding facilities need to do each of these marketing and promotional steps for every animal in care, in order to get animals out alive.

 

"That's absolutely my dog!" said no one ever. This is a genuine impound photo from an Australian pound - not very useful.

“That’s absolutely my dog!” said no one ever. This is a genuine impound photo from an Australian pound – not very useful.

On Impound

Take a good photo and use it

When an animal comes into the facility, they should take a clear and appealing photo. The animal should not be obstructed by cages, people, or other animals.

Once a good photo is obtained, it needs to be distributed everywhere – Facebook, Gumtree, council offices, the local paper. While we would love for our good photo to find the original owner, it also, potentially, will find the pet a new owner once that holding period is over.

 

Correctly record details on the animal

Make sure that the impounded animal is recorded in a way that can maximise reclaim. In short: Record details correctly!

Try to minimise the emphasis on breed. Breed cannot be identified by looks alone, and owners may believe their pet is a different breed than the pound, making reclaims less likely. Bad!

So instead, details about the pet needs to be accurately recorded: colour and coat type, any obvious medical issues, its sex (please get it right!), and make a note of any tattoos.

 

Minimise disease risk

Administer relevant vaccinations immediately, upon intake, to minimise the chance of disease risk across the shelter. (And, obviously, protect that individual pet from contracting a disease, too.)

 

For more details, read the KC Dog Blog on “The First 60 Minutes“.

 

During Holding Period (i.e. Find the past owner!)

Check for identification

Obviously, facilities need to check the animal for details on the collar (e.g. stitched into the fabric) or the tag.

Animals need to be scanned for a microchip – but this needs to be done thoroughly and properly. This involves:

  • The scanner needs to be fully charged,
  • The scanner needs to be waved, slowly, all over the animal, but remain close to the animal at all times,
  • If no chip is found, a second fully charged scanner should be used, by a second person.

Basically, facilities should assume that every animal is microchipped, and work hard to find that chip.

Some animals have tattoos on their ears or groin, so these can also be used for identification.

 

Use all available information on past owners to full capacity

If you find any skerrick of information regarding the animal and the past owners, find out more!  If the number on the microchip is no longer active, use their names to look them up on Facebook or the electoral roll. If you can find the phone number on their tag, Google it, and see if you can find a name associated. If there’s a number or word in the ear of a dog, find out what it pertains to. Do everything possible to make contact with the owners. Get that pet back home!

 

Know who’s lost

Shelters and pounds should use staff or volunteers to maintain a catalogue of lost pets.  These individuals would check lost pet notices, online and in print, and record the details on a centralised system.  If this resource was to be kept up to date, then it could mean that impounded animals could quickly be reunited with their people.

 

Be accessible for reclaims

Many people work 9am to 5pm, and find it difficult to access the shelter to reclaim their pet.  Having opening times of 8am-8pm would allow working people to access the facility and reclaim their pets, or simply just come to the shelter to make sure their pet has not been impounded over the course of the day.

 

During Adoption Period (i.e. Find new owners!)

So now the animal has been in the shelter for the mandatory holding period – what now?

This is the kind of photo that gets pets adopted. Taken by Kimberley Gifford Photography, this photo of 'Benjamin' led my now-husband and I to adopt.

This is the kind of photo that gets pets adopted. Taken by Kimberley Gifford Photography, this photo of ‘Benjamin’ led my now-husband and I to adopt. (And we didn’t even want a cat at the time.)

 

Photos and advertising

Facilities need to seek the services of a professional photographer to take awesome photos of pets for adoption. The photos should be well lit, with an appealing background, with the pet looking happy. Once you have an awesome photo or two, share the bejesus out of it. Put it on your website, on Facebook, on PetRescue, on Gumtree, share with the press, whatever! Get it out there!

 

Use deals and events to lure in adopters

It’s no secret that people like a bargain, so facilities can offer financial incentives to potential adopters: Your pets are cheap, especially considering all the vet work that has been done. If you buy a cat, you get a bag of cat food free. If you adopt a kitten, get the mother free. Adult cats are free. Whatever needs to be done to get an adopter in, needs to be done!

The other option is to run big events. Invite the media to mega adoption days, where you hope ’100 pets in new homes before the end of the day’, or whatever it may be. Make a spectacle.

Also, make sure at least some of your adoptions can occur off of the shelter. Many people find a shelter environment depressing, and so may not be inclined to visit the shelter to find their new pets. Using pleasant, external environments is likely to encourage adopters to take pets home.

 

Be accessible

This flows from off site adoption days – facilities need to make sure their adoption events are off site and are in different geographic locations, so people from many areas can get their hands on a rescue pet.

Just like I advocate shelters being open 8am-8pm for reclaims, adoptions can also happen in these extended hours too. This means that the average-worker can adopt a pet without having to take the day off work.

Having an online site, listing pets available for adoption, also means that people can access potential-new-pets in the comfort of their home – online shopping, for pets!

 

Make the pets you have better

Clearly, not every pet that enters a pound or shelter is going to be ‘the perfect pet’ on intake. Facilities need to run programs that make them more adoptable. Does that cat have a skin problem? Put her on medication and fix her up. Is that bunny a bit scared of people? Get him onto a regular handling program. Does that dog jump up? Engage in some behavioural modification.

Sometimes, some pets need a lot of work to improve their adoptability, and these pets may be better suited to entering foster care or a different rescue…

 

Use rescue groups

Rescue groups are valuable to shelters and pounds.  They can help relieve the pressure of bigger facilities by taking in pets and rehoming them.  As they are often smaller, they can often more intensely treat medical and behavioural issues.  As they normally hold pets in foster homes, for animals requiring long term treatment (for example, mange), then a foster home may be more humane than a shelter environment.

In short, rescues and pounds need to use rescue groups to their advantage.

 

Use compatible animals to maximise kennel space

Many pounds claim that they need to kill pets for space. An alternative to this is doubling up compatible pets in the same run.

 

But, but, but…

People keep saying to me that pounds can’t afford to do this. I argue that if they stopped killing animals, they probably would gather community support. It’s not a secret that people don’t like volunteering at places that kill pets. If you stop killing pets, you’ll attract volunteers, who will be able to take sexy pictures of animals, will be able to put them online for you, and will be able to staff your front counter during your opening hours. The possibilities are endless.

Further, successful shelters don’t shame the public. They don’t call people irresponsible for surrendering pets.  They don’t criticise people when their pets get lost. They don’t black mail the public, telling them that if they don’t adopt, pets will die. All these things get the public off side – and the public is a very important friend.

Also, the public is more likely to donate to pounds that don’t criticse them, and don’t kill the pets in care. So fundraising will be easier.

In summary, shelters kill pets because they don’t bother finding their owner or don’t bother finding a new owner. And if they just stopped killing pets and blaming the ‘irresponsible’ public, perhaps the public would like them more and volunteer and donate, and then there will be less dead pets.

Pound’s nonchalance to getting pets out alive is the real bullshit here.

 

Further reading:

10 Ways to Get Pit Bulls Adopted from ThatMutt.com

The First 60 Minutes from the KC Dog Blog

What a Good Pound Does from Dog Rescue Association of Victoria Inc.

The Seven Deadly Sins of ‘Overpopulation’ from SavingPets