Tag Archives: dog

04/27/13

Companion Animal Taskforce in NSW – Feedback

Screenshot from Companion Animal TaskforceI actually think we have pretty good legislation in regard to companion animal welfare.  NSW is no exception – they have the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act that is simple, but effective. You can’t be cruel to animals, you have to give them food, water and shelter, you have to give them vet treatment if they need it, you can’t just abandon them, you can’t fight them, you can’t sell dying animals.

Then there’s the Companion Animal Act. It requires that pets are idenitified with a microchip and collar and tag, registered, and keep those details up to date. Your dog can’t escape. You can’t have your dog offlead (except for off lead areas), and you can’t have your dogs near food areas or kid areas. Some breeds have to be muzzled (boo). Your dog can’t attack people or animals. You have to pick up your dog’s poo in public. And then what happens if you’re bad and you let this stuff happen.

All pretty simple stuff, but all stuff that makes total sense and is very easily enforceable.

But recently, across Australia, there has been justifiable concerns about the number of animals that are killed in pounds.  In SA, we are still waiting for the report from the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare (Dogs and Cats).  In NSW, they created the NSW Companion Animals Task force (brief summary of the process and players) and they had recently released a report to the Minister for Local Government and and the Minister for Primary Industries. (Oh, sorry, they went off course and made two reports, in fact, another on dangerous dog legislation.)

Basically, this is a big breeder crackdown. Somehow, the Taskforce is under the impression that breeder regulation will improve shelter euthanasia rates. However, the regulation allows backyard breeders to keep breeding with no penalty. They want their breeder’s code (which I has previously criticised) to be enforced from standards through to guidelines. They want anyone breeding to have Certificate II in Animal Studies.

The also say that a pet owner license system would “be onerous for cat and dog owners”, but it seems like this is a logical group to target when considering the shelter impound and euthanasia problem. Generally, owners surrender pets to shelters – not breeders.

Indeed, the Taskforce puts blame on breeders for the killing that pounds do.  The report is dismissive of no kill and no kill legislation, but this is the only way to stop shelters from killing our pets. The Taskforce fails to acknowledge any obligation on pound facilities to ensure animals in their care aren’t euthanised.

There’s some good bits. They want breeders to be linked to animals they breed through their microchip – something I suggested way back in 2010.  Rescued and desexed animals would also have cheaper registration fees – an excellent incentive to spur people to adopt.  The Taskforce wants to make it easier for people to rent with pets. A few good bits in an otherwise disappointing report.

Unfortunately, you can’t do much about it but fill in a form on their website. But you may as well, it doesn’t take very long: Fill in their feedback form. NOTE: You must fill this form in quickly after you load the page, otherwise your session will ‘expire’ and you will lose all your selections. Unfun!

At the end of the form, there’s a section where you can submit less than 2000 characters. I chose to focus on the most prominent issues in this field, as obviously space was limited!

This report neglects to note that animal shelters are where animal euthanasia actually takes place. Considering this, implementing legislation that obligates shelters to undertake best practice may be beneficial in reducing euthanasia rates.  This could include mandated strategies to increase reclaims, “Oreo’s Law”, or mandating minimum times for animals to be available for adoption.

When animals are reclaimed, this means they are not at risk of being euthanised. Shelters should be required to post impounded animal photos online, and there be a required process in using microchip information. Furthermore, they should be open at convenient times (for example, 8am-8pm) so working people can reclaim their pets.

“Oreo’s Law” would prevent shelters euthanizing animals where they have rescue group alternatives. In other words, pounds would only be able to destroy animals when it is really ‘the last option’.

Additionally, companion animal welfare would benefit if facilities were obligated to have animals available for adoption for a minimum period.  This means that ever animal is given a minimal period to be removed from the facility by another party, and so escape euthanasia.

If we were to determine that breeder-licensing scheme was in the best interest of animal welfare, then the code of practice’s standards and guidelines are not.  The code practically obligates animals to be raised in sterile conditions that are not conducive to the psychological interests of animals.  This is particularly true of puppies, which have a critical socialisation window where they are required to interact with a range of new stimuli to be well-adjusted adult dogs.  Ironically, ‘dangerous dogs’ are often dogs with inadequate socialisation experiences, which is what the code of practice practically obligates breeders to abide by.  Any breeder code needs to focus on breeders’ producing pets that are physically and psychologically sound, which is clearly lacking in the current code.

Obviously, there is a lot more that could be set, but space is paramount, and so focussing on the critical issues is most important.

We can only hope that all recommendations, particularly regarding the breeder code, don’t get through. It’s up to us to provide sensible feedback to inform their decisions. Lets hope that logic wins out.

 

Further Reading:

DogzOnline’s call to action

SavingPets has written on the Companion Animals Taskforce:
Same, Same & Not at All Different – on the Taskforce’s willingness for pounds to continue their killing
RSPCA NSW Announces Support for Companion Animals Task Force – on the unsurprising reaction from RSPCA

And what I have written on companion animal welfare legislation in the past:
Clean and Kenneled: The Future of Dog Breeding – on how the breeder code in NSW puts puppies in kennel environments
What is the Answer? (To puppy farms) – on microchipping being linked to breeders
My submission to the Select Committee on Companion Animals

04/22/13

Clean and Kennelled: The Future of Dog Breeding

Many animal welfare groups call for legislation that defines what ‘best practice’ is for breeders.  They state that their goals are to eradicate any suffering of animals used for breeding. While I, too, am concerned about the wellbeing of animals, this concern extends to all dogs, and not only those used for breeding practices.  Because of this, I advocate for animal welfare legislation to be upheld nation-wide.  While I certainly want to discourage individuals motivated solely by profit and romantic ideals from breeding dogs, I do not want to see committed, knowledgable and ethical breeders removed from their hobby.

However, this is exactly what dog breeding legislation seems to be doing in Australia.

Puppies, on grass, with two adult dogs: Sin! According to Australian breeders legislation.

Puppies, on grass, with two adult dogs: Sin! According to Australian breeders legislation.

Nationally, here are two significant pieces of legislation regarding dog breeding, though both are only applicable to certain areas.  There is the Gold Coast’s “Breeder Code of Practice” which targets anyone with entire dogs, and, in NSW, there is the “Breeding Dogs and Cats – Code of Practice“, which targets anyone breeding animals.  These codes seem to have been developed in consultation with one another, because they are very similar in a lot of ways. Significantly, both codes have ‘standards’, which are enforceable, and ‘guidelines’, which are just recommendations on breeding animal husbandry.

 

Commercial Breeding Establishments Only

Both the Gold Coast and NSW document is written in a way that obligates people to keep their animals in kennels and concrete enclosures. They define breeding establishments as being purpose built (NSW), the floor as being ‘non-porous’ (GC), that needs to be disinfected weekly (NSW & GC), and run off into a sewage system (NSW).

I know what this is trying to do – it’s trying to stop people with a large number of dogs running in muddy and faeces-laden runs. However, this legislation targets anyone who breeds dogs (NSW) and anyone with an entire dog (GC). This means that people who keep and raise dogs and puppies in their home are effectively illegal.

For example, my puppies are raised in the dining room – an excellent place for puppies to socialise to general household ruckus. However, my dining room was not purpose built for puppy rearing, it is not disinfected weekly (though it is cleaned daily when housing puppies), and it doesn’t have a drain, let alone a drain to a sewage system. This means I wouldn’t, legally, be able to raise puppies in a home environment while in NSW or the Gold Coast. To follow legislation, my puppies would have to be raised in a purpose built enclosure outside or in a shed, something I think is hugely undesirable and indeed detrimental to the psychological development of puppies (it would produce what Ian Dunbar calls ‘Lemon Puppies‘).

Effectively, both these pieces of legislation have made-illegal the practice of raising puppies in a home environment. The alternative is raising puppies in a kennel environment, and that just doesn’t make sense considering what we know on the importance of puppy socialisation. However, considering the NSW legislation also says that puppies “must not be separated from their mother until 7 weeks”, it seems that the legislation has zero interest in producing amicable, sociable, independent, and well-rounded puppies.

 

Dogs Can No Longer Be Crated

Both schemes specify minimum sizes for animal enclosures.  The Gold Coast calls for the dog to be able to move away from its bed to urinate and defecate. This legislation pretty much means that crates cannot be used, as they are smaller than the minimum enclosure sizes specified. Considering the benefits of crate training, why would legislation be introduced to delegalise it?

The minimum enclosure sizes increase for the number of puppies, which makes sense, except it doesn’t define an age. This means they require a bitch with puppies to be housed in a minimum area of 3.5 metre square area (NSW). I often lock a bitch in a 1 metre square area with their puppies during the first week or two, because otherwise I find bitches neglectful of their puppies. It, of course, depends on the individual bitch, but with legislation such as this in force, I can’t make decisions based on these individuals. I am serious when I say that not locking Clover in with her puppies would almost undoubtly have resulted in puppy death – but this would be contravening the legislation in NSW that requires bitches to be able to escape their young. How is that in the best interest of animal welfare?

 

Co-Habitation of Animals is Foggy

Both pieces of legislation are a bit unclear, but seem to suggest that animals should be isolated from one another.  The Gold Coast Scheme asks for enclosures to be “disinfected between animals”, which implies that two animals may not share a run.  The NSW legislation requires bitches in season to be “isolated from other animals”, a truly bizarre request. I wonder if the writers of the legislation realise that bitches require an entire and fertile male dog to get pregnant, so can run with any dog that doesn’t fit that description and avoid pregnancy?

In kennel situations, having a dog companion is important to enriching the day-to-day life of that dog. Furthermore, for young puppies, having dog-dog play is important for developing bite inhibition. And, again, for the hobby breeder at home, running dogs together is a natural part of dog ownership. It doesn’t make sense that people with two or more pet dogs can run them together, but having two or more breeding animals means that this is no longer an option.

 

Elements of Mandatory Desexing

I have already discussed the implications of mandatory desexing schemes, and both these schemes stink of mandatory desexing.  The Gold Coast scheme even says “A permit condition may require the holder of the permit to desex an entire female animal which the holder of the animal has retired from breeding”. Yuck! This comes back to considering the well being of individual animals (is desexing really in their best interest?).

 

Arbitrary Limits for Animal Welfare

Both schemes have, with no real basis, decided that numbers determine bitch welfare. For example, in the Gold Coast, a bitch is clearly compromised if she has more than 4 litters, and if she is older than 6 years old.  In NSW, a bitch can’t be mated on their first cycle, regardless of their age.  Of course, I wouldn’t advocate breeding a bitch at 6 months, but many bitches don’t come in until they’re 18 months or older. What hazard does pregnancy in a bitch’s first cycle cause?  While these strange numerical scales are probably good guides in general, they are by no means indicative of animal welfare.

 

Double Standards

I find it ironic that the Gold Coast scheme says that “Euthanasia of cats and dogs is only acceptable for the relief of incurable illness, chronic pain, and suffering”, yet the RSPCA of QLD euthanises 30% of dogs and puppies that come into their care and 44% of cats and kittens (according to their 2011/2012 annual report).  Why are breeders, whose ‘job’ is to breed animals, held to a higher standard than shelters, who’s job it is to shelter and protect them?  Furthermore, the scheme calls for secure enclosures, yet the RSPCA QLD admits to having 15 dogs escape throughout the course of the year (again in the 2011/2012 annual report). Can you say “what the”?

 

Weird Inclusions

Some parts of the scheme are just plain weird. In the Gold Coast you are allowed to tether animals (known to increase aggression in dogs), but you can’t microchip them before 8 weeks of age…

In NSW, breeders need to record keep everything, have emergency procedures for evacuation documented, and have functioning fire righting equipment. All very excessive for a home, hobby breeder.

 

Puppy on grass! Legislation wants this banned!

Puppy on grass! Legislation wants this banned!

 

So what does this mean?

While animal welfare groups who push for breeder standards have good intentions, so far, no legislation has been produced that does anything other than legitimise the practice of kennelling dogs and raising puppies in kennel environments. While I would not argue that all kennel environments are ‘bad’ for dogs, they certainly fall short of socialisation that can be achieved in a home environment, and so fall short of producing the best puppies that they can.

Breeders have a responsibility to care for the wellbeing of their animals – but disinfectant, concrete floors, and isolated animals isn’t necessarily indicative of animal welfare.  Dog welfare is as much as the psychological aspects of keeping and raising good dogs: Selecting appropriate parents with good temperaments, providing enriching environments, socialisation and toilet training of puppies, and monitoring their dogs for life.

If socialisation was mandated, I would be all for it. If breeders were responsible for their animals for life, that would be awesome.

Making breeders keep their animals in kennels instead of houses is just backwards to everything we know about dog welfare.

 

Further Reading:

Can Breeders Breed Better?

The Sin of Breeding Dogs

The Fallacy of Mandatory Desexing

What is the answer (to puppy farms)?

 

 

03/26/13

Classical Conditioning in Dogs

‘Classical conditioning’ is a term originally coined by Ivan Pavlov.  This type of conditioning is highly relevant to dog training.

While using dogs to experiment on digestion, Pavlov noticed dogs had what he called “psychic secretion” of saliva, where the dogs seem to know when they were going to be fed and began to salivate.  On further investigation, he found that whenever his lab assistant entered the room, the dogs began to salivate.  Salivation is a reflex, that is, a behaviour outside of the dog’s control, but the dog learnt to exhibit this reflex when associated with an incoming lab assistant.  Pavlov modified his experiment to further examine this phenomena.

Poodle type dog jumping over an agility course jump.

From here, the specifics of classical conditioning (sometimes also called Pavlovian conditioning) became published and well known. Basically, classical conditioning is where a previously neutral thing becomes paired with the reflexes associated with something else.   Continue reading →

03/20/13

A Dog’s Purpose

My mum gave me a book: A Dog’s Purpose by W. Bruce Cameron.. This is not unusual – she often purchases books from op shops and, if she thinks they’re to my tastes, she hands them to me and says “I don’t want it back”.

But this book was different: My mum handed it to me with the instructions, “If you read it and you like it, you can keep it. If you don’t want it anymore, give it back!”

Book, A Dog's Purpose, W. Bruce Cameron

I can understand why. This book was very enjoyable to read, and I would recommend it to any dog lover (or even a mild dog liker).

I think this book would be easy to spoil if too much was said.  All I will say is that it’s about the soul of a dog who is reincarnated into many different dog bodies, each adding to his understanding of his purpose.

It’s simply written and could be enjoyed at all levels – but the older you are, the more this book will make you reconsider the relationship you have with your dogs. Are you allowing your dogs to fulfill their purpose?

And then, for yourself, you may begin to consider your own purpose, and how it compares to a dog.

A thought provoking book, with sprinklings of funny, and really charming (fictional) insights into ‘how a dog thinks’. If you have the chance to read this book, take it! You won’t regret it.

Further reading: A review by PupLove and another by Dog Spelled Forward.

03/11/13

Teaching Distance Drop (with the food placement method)

It’s a little-known fact that dogs will naturally migrate to where food or rewards occur.  Many trainers don’t take advantage of this tendency, which is unusual, especially considering it’s so simple and easy to achieve quick results with appropriate food placement.

Taking advantage of food placement is particularly relevant when teaching distance behaviours. If you want your dog to perform behaviours at a distance, then your rewards should also take place at a distance.

While I plan to blog in more detail about food placement in training at a later date, I have created a video which illustrates the process in teaching a distance drop with the food placement method alone, using my girl Myrtle.

This is a brief summary of the method: Continue reading →