02/21/19

Socialisation: More is Better

You do not have to read my blog for long to know that I’m a big fan of puppy socialisation. If you read my Puppies 2012 series, you can see the kind of effort I put into puppy raising five years ago (though my methods are different – better – today!).

One of the problems we have with puppy socialisation is that it’s difficult to test the kind of socialisation that works outside of controlled conditions. A recent study used a standardised socialisation program in assistance dogs, and measured the effects. This is a rare opportunity to have a control group for puppy socialisation (as they were all raised in the same conditions in the breeding facility). And the results were fairly impressive!

Study Basis

Undesirable dog behaviours are problematic. Dogs with problem behaviours may be surrendered to rescue. If they occur in specialised breeding programs (like assistance animals, working animals, or sport animals), then dogs that have unsuitable behaviours are the financial burden of wastage. In the worst case scenario, a dog that is aggressive to people or other animals can cause physical and psychological harms.

In many animals, including dogs, we know that juvenile experiences affect development. Puppyhood may be the time to save adult dogs. For dogs, we know that the crucial social development period is 2-13 weeks of age.

Studies on puppies have suggested that early socialisation causes puppies to:

Mature faster
Explore more
Be more resilient
Perform better on problem-solving task
Be more successful in training

But there is a paucity in dog research. Many studies only look on the short-term impact on puppy development, and do not look at particular socialisation programs. This study wanted to address this paucity.

Study Design

In this study, an assistance dog puppy-raising facility was used. This meant the puppies could be raised in a controlled way. This study used puppies that were golden retrievers, labrador retrievers, or mixes of.

The control group had fourteen puppies who received the centre’s ‘standard’ socialsiation program.

The study group included nineteen puppies who received the standard socialisation program plus ‘extra’ socialisation 5-7 days a week. This extra program took 5 min per puppy in weeks 1-2, 10 minutes per puppy in weeks 3-4, and 15 minutes per puppy in weeks 5-6.

This socialisation program was tailored to the development of the puppies. For example, there’s no point opening and closing an umbrella around a 10 day old puppy. Basically, the socialisation was specific to that age group’s comprehension, and also layered in a way that meant that it wasn’t overwhelming – just appropriate.

It was also important that the program was effective, quick and easy, and low cost.

Below is the programs that the ‘standard socialisation’ and ‘extra socialisation’ puppies were exposed to. It’s actually a little more complicated than this, as there is specific ages that this stimuli should be experienced by the pups, but I went for this simplified version. You can pursue the full text if you really want to know!

Tactile:
-Puppy picked up
-Puppy stroked gently with fingers
-Handle each puppy in the kennel with bitch
-Groom in kennel
The above is standard. Extra in ES is:
-Wearing velcro collar
-Body touched specifically: head, body, tail, legs, paws
-Holding puppy against: woolen jumper, nylon t-shirt, fleece material
-Stroking puppy with soft towel, rubber glove, soft child’s toothbrush
-Puppy encouraged to move over: carpet, rubber matting, reusable shopping bag

Auditory:
-Radio on in the kennel block
-Washing machine sounds
-Plastic bottle with dried pasta inside in kennel with litter
The above is standard. Extra in ES is:
-Sounding near the puppy: a paper bag, a plastic bag, jangling keys, ringing mobile phone, clapping
-Rolling noisy items (e.g. filled toy) in the pen and outside of the pen

Visual:
-Television on in the kennel block
-Push chair in visual range of kennel
-Charity collection box in visual range of the kennel
The above is standard. Extra in ES is:
-Puppy put in front of TV
-Rolling items in and out of the pen
-Hanging items above the stimulation area
-Opening and closing an umbrella
-A mirror (and encouraging exploration of)

Interaction with People:
-Puppy weighed
-Puppy nails clipped
-Puppy carried around block
-Contact with people wearing dress up clothes
-“At least two sessions in a socialisation kennel as a litter”
-Time away from litter
-Grooming on grooming table
The above is standard. Extra ES is:
-Puppy carried around kennel or to socialisation kennel
-Puppy stroked by hand
-Puppy’s teeth and ears examined
-One on one play session for 3 minutes
-Puppy gently restrained for 5-20 seconds
-People wears hat, sun glasses, back pack

Interaction with Environment:
-Empty plastic bottle in kennel with litter
-Toys in kennel to include: soft, plastic, squeaky, rubber, big soft toy
-At least two session on rubber and grass outside areas (that is at least four sessions outside
-Cardboard box in kennel
-Tunnel in kennel
The above is standard. Extra ES is:
-Experience concrete, grass, and rubber surfaces outside
-Puppy encouraged to climb over an obstacle
-Puppy encouraged to move in and out of door ways
-Gently place a towel over puppy and let it find its way out

Then, at six weeks of age and at eight months of age, the puppies were assessed.

At six weeks, the puppies were exposed to six stimuli, and puppy responses were scored on a seven-point scale. It is most desirable for them to get a score of four – but low scores are least desirable. The same trained staff member assessed all puppies, and did so blind (i.e. did not know which puppy was from which program).

Then, at eight weeks, the puppy’s handler was asked to complete a questionnaire of 40 questions, using a bar scale of 0-100. In this tool, low scores were most desirable, except for the trait of trainability. The puppy handler was also blind (i.e. did not know what program their puppy was from).

Study results

We could simply say: it worked. This small amount of extra socialisation resulted in better dogs, at least until 8 months of age.

“This is the first socialisation program tailored to the developmental stage of puppies from birth to six weeks of age to demonstrate measurable, long-term effects on individual dog behavioural traits.”

At all stages of testing (6 weeks, 8 weeks, and 8 months), the puppies who were on the extra socialisation program did better.

Puppies on the extra socialisation program scored better on:

Separation related behaviours,
General anxiety scores,
Body sensitivity scores, and
Distraction.

Additionally, extra socialisation puppies showed more desirable attachment, excitability, and animal chase scores (but this was not statistically significant). There was no affect on trainability or energy scores.

On the Puppy Profiling Assessment (where the perfect score is 4), puppies in the standard socialisation program had a mean score of 3.1, while the ones on the extra socialisation program had a mean score of 3.8.

A puppy exposed to things at a young age is likely, as an adult dog, to treat those things as benign. This reduction in novelty logically affects how dogs behave – they are less anxious and distracted by stuff they’ve seen before.

So what should we do?

To quote the article, “The program is recommended for working dog [including assistant dogs], pet dog breeders and shelters.” This really says what we always knew - everyone breeding dogs should be socialising their puppies. This studied showed that what happens before 8 weeks of age affects the puppy throughout at least the first 8 months of life but, presumably, even longer than that.

Ultimately, people are responsible for shaping the experiences of puppies in their care. Arguing that someone ‘doesn’t have time’ to raise puppies well is illogical, according to this study. The puppies on the extra socialisation program did not receive a great deal more time with people, it’s just the way that time was utilised that varied.

For working dogs, early experiences are particularly relevant due to expense and wastage that results from failure in socialisation – and those working dogs raised in kennel environments are at greater risk again.

This study suggests the extra socialisation puppies spent more time away from their littermates which may also result in these bettered scores. Perhaps this time away from their family for small bouts meant they developed better ways of coping with the stress of permanent separation at 8 weeks.

Regardless, we know that socialisation matters, and more is better!

“Mildly stressful early life experience and challenging situations make animals more resilient to stress, less susceptible to emotional disturbances, and promote motor and cognitive skills in adulthood.”

My Thoughts

This study has a relatively small sample – there are only 33 puppies across the two groups. We need to see this study replicated with larger groups in order to make definitive conclusions.

This study has also put a lot of emphasis on appropriate age of exposure. In a clinical or kennel environment, then this formulaic approach to puppy socialisation is understandable. In more naturalistic settings (i.e. home puppy raisers), I don’t think it’s too important to get fussy about what exactly the puppy is getting exposed to at what age, as long as the puppy is not scared and not oblivious to the stimuli.

The big take home point are: socialisation matters, and it can just take 5-15 minutes a day with a puppy to make a difference to the future adult dog.

Further Reading

This study has also been reviewed by:

Giving Puppies Extra Socialization is Beneficial to Them from Psychology Today

Extra Early Socialization for Puppies Makes a Big Difference from Companion Animal Psychology

Source

Vaterlaws-Whiteside, H & Hartmann, A 2017, ‘Improving puppy behaviour using a new standardised socialisation program’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol 197.

Other Blog Posts

Puppy Socialisation Checklist

Television is Good for Puppies

Puppy Socialisation by Dunbar

Socialisation – Not Everything

08/17/17

Which people get bitten by which dogs?

Dog bites are one of my niche areas of interest, so I when I came across this 2008 bite study, I was keen to read. The overall objective of this study was to work out the similarities between biting dogs and people injured by them, to be able to understand dog bites in such a way that public health could be influenced.

And dog bites are a bit public health problem. In 1986, dog bites were among the top 12 causes of nonfatal injury in the US. in 2005, an estimated 800 000 dog bites needed medical attention in the US. On average, 18 people die per year in the US as a result of dog bites. The number of reported dog bites is going up each year, suggesting this is a growing problem. (Though, personally, I think the number is probably going up to growing intolerance of dog bites in the community.)

So this study was a retrospective cohort study, looking at data for incidents that occurred in the 2002/2003 financial year in Multonomah County, Oregon. In this study period, 636 dog bites were reported to Animal Control Services, while there were 47, 526 dogs licensed in the county.

What followed was a whole lot of number crunching that I don’t entirely understand. From where I’m sitting, it looks like a fair bit of extrapolation went into the figures seen below, but without sampling every single household for dogs and other aspects, I’m not sure if there’s a much better way to go about it.

But regardless, onto the results…

The Biters

From this study, dogs were more likely to bite if:

They were of particular types (terrier, working, herding, and nonsporting),
They were sexually intact and male, and
They were purebred.

Instead of using dog breed, they used dog type, to try to avoid problems in identification. (For example, the general public has a hard time determining between a border collie and coolie, but they do know it’s some kind of herding dog.) The breeds listed above were more likely to bite than dogs that were sporting breeds, hounds, non-AKC breeds, and toy breeds. This study suggested that the dogs in the ‘problematic’ groups have instincts they’re likely to revert to if left untrained (which doesn’t ring true to me for the nonsporting group), and threat they are a ‘size and strength’ to cause damage (which doesn’t seem right considering the size of most terriers).

More intact male dogs bit than any other neuter/sex ratio. This is different to other studies I’ve reviewed.

It’s really perplexing that purebred dogs were more likely to bite in this study. I guess this goes to the breeding practices, but it’s curious to think that crossbreed dogs, presumably bred by people who are ‘accidental’ breeders, end up with less-bitey temperaments. Something for breeders to think about. While these dog factors existed, there was also a range of other elements to a dog bite.

“Factors that determine whether a dog-human interaction will result in a bite are complex and involve characteristics of the dog, the injured person, the owner, and the dog’s environment.”

The Owners of the Biters

Biting dogs were more likely than nonbiting dogs to live in neighbourhoods where the residents’ median incomes were less than the county median income value. If controlling for breed category and controlling for sex, “dogs living in census block groups that had incomes less than the county median were 1.5 times as likely to be reported as a biting dog than reported as a nonbiting dog”. When dog owner data was compared to population density, percentage sex by age, percentage nonwhite race, and percentage without high school diploma, there was still not an association with biting. It was correlated just with income!

So what’s going on here? What’s different in areas were less income? Less money spent on training? On fences? Different attitudes towards child raising? This study suggests that people in these areas may be inclined to select particular breeds (i.e. especially those with reputations for aggressive behaviours). (Though this study didn’t look at whether some breeds were more likely to be owned by different groups.) They also suggest that low income areas may socialise their dogs in a different way, and therefore change the bite potential of the dog, or perhaps they’re not trained or supervised in a way that minimises dog bite risk.

“In another study examining dog bite injuries in St Louis, Mo, bite injuries occurring in low income areas were attributed to large numbers of children playing outdoors, few homes with adequate fencing, poor dog control, and a high proportion of large-breed dogs owned for protective purposes.”

As a personal comment, in my experience, crossbreed large dogs are cheaper than small dogs or purebred dogs. This means low income areas are likely to own bigger dogs, and we know bigger dogs are more likely to have their bites reported. While studies of the past have looked at breed and sex-neuter status, this study reveals a new area for further research: block group income levels.

But there’s more: It’s not just about the dog and who owns it, but also where the bite took place.

The Place of the Bites

Dog bites occurred:

35.1% of bites happened in the dog’s home or yard.
23.4% of bites happened in ‘neutral territory’
17% of bites happened in dog/victim household (i.e. the parties lived together)
10.1% of bites happened in household of victim (not dog’s place)
7.1% bites unknown place
3.8% at “place of employment” – e.g. vet clinic, rooming facility, MCAC
3.6% “Neighbour’s Property” (which could be grouped with the 35.1%)

This reinstates the idea that parents need to be extra vigilant when they are visiting houses with dogs.

Other Statistics

Other tid bits of interest:

Boys and girls aged 5-9 years had highest rate of injury, boys a bit higher (but not significantly so).
Of the 636 biting dogs, 49% had a license number. There are some estimates that less than half of all dogs are registered. (I really wonder what this kind of statistic would look like in Australia.)
36% of dog bite victims didn’t know the dog that bit them. (The largest portion.)
But: Among children, 46% were bitten by the family dog.
More dog bites in summer months.
No significant difference between male and females being bitten.

Limitations

Like all studies, there are a number of problems. In this study, the results are limited by.

Not all dog bites will be reported. Dog bites are a reportable incident in Oregon, but the records are incomplete. There’s a problem with recording of dog bites. A previous study, referenced in this one, suggested that only 17% of bites are reported to any authority. (And while this may be the case, how else should we be analysing dog bites except through dog bite records? This model is probably the best we have.)
We know members of the public are not very good at reporting dog bites by breeds.
Dog license data can only be used as an estimate of breed-populations – especially because we know perhaps only half of all dogs are registered. Further, if owners of some breeds are less likely to license their dogs, the breed specific bite rates are further skewed.
When a large-breed bites, that bite is more likely to be reported and more likely to need medical care, meaning that there is a reporting bias that can increase the number of these dogs seemingly involved in incidents.

Conclusion

This study made recommendations for reducing dog bites:

Combined approaches from human medical communities, veterinary communities, and animal control to help foster healthy relationships between people and pets.
Focus on low income neighbourhoods.
Paediatricians to counsel parents (dog owning and not) on dog safety during routine medical visits.
Low cost spay neuter.
Education programs (perhaps through animal control).

“Innate tendencies dictated by breed, sex-neuter status, and size play a role in the potential of a dog to bite, but owners are ultimately responsible for their dogs’ action[,]… and need to make every effort to minimisze their dogs’ bite potential through obedience training; neutering; and supervision, especially around children.”

Source:

Shuler, CM, DeBess, EE, Lapidus, JA, and Hedberg, K 2008, “Canine and human factors related to dog bite injuries”, JAVMA, vol 232, no 4.

07/16/17

Litter Size – What the research says

There is an ongoing paucity in the literature surrounding most dog matters, and that means dog knowledge is often based on anecdotes and experience instead of facts and figures. Dog breeding is no exception. Breeders will tell you that they get bigger litters if x, smaller litters if y, that they’ll never mate a bitch if z. While personal experiences can provide case studies, I am interested in much bigger data.

Enter a Norwegian study looking at 10,810 litters.

This study used data held by the Norwegian Kennel Club to look at every litter registered in 2006 and 2007, across 224 breeds. Statistical analysis was then done to determine all the wonderful figures summarised below.

The aim of this study was to determine what actually makes a difference in litter size. (Litter size being the number of puppies born, alive or dead.)

Firstly, an overall average had to be determined. For this data set, the average litter size, considering all breeds, was 5.4 puppies.

For those interested in average litter size by breed: The largest average litter size was in the Rhodesian Ridgeback with an average of 8.9 pups per litter. The Toy Poodle and Pomeranian had the smallest average litter size – 2.4 pups per litter. And the Border Terrier (because I’m biased) had an average litter size of 5.1 pups per litter.

This study found that litter size was influenced by the size of the breed, the method of mating, and the age of the bitch. Litter size was not affected by season of birth, or the number of litters a bitch had had.

Size of the breed

This study examined dogs based on average breed size. They were classed as miniature breeds (<5kgs), small breeds (5-10kgs), medium breeds (10-25kgs), large breeds (25-45kgs), and giant breeds (>45kgs). Bitches were recorded against the average size of a dog for their breed and not specifically on the size of that given bitch.

“When looking at all the … litters…, mean litter size increased with the size of the breed. The mean litter size was 3.5 in miniature breeds, 4.2 in small breeds, 5.7 in medium breeds, 6.9 in large breeds, and 7.1 in giant breeds.”

The feature of larger dog breeds having larger litters is not a new thing – this phenomena is consistent across other studies. But this study is different as it found that it wasn’t just size of the breed that mattered…

Age of the bitch

The first analysis of this data showed no significance with the age of the bitch, however, once breed size was taken into account, there were two trends apparent:

In small and miniature dogs, young and old bitches had smaller litters than the ages in between.
In larger breeds, increasing age corresponded with decreasing litter size. (Young bitches of larger breeds produced the largest litters – unlike small and miniature breeds.)

These results are a little different to other studies, which have shown smaller litter sizes as bitches get older. (As in, the results this study got for larger breeds was seen in all breeds in previous studies.) It could be that smaller sample sizes in other studies may have missed this, or that other studies used larger breeds as their data set instead of small or miniature breeds. One suggestion is that small breeds may not mature as quickly as previously believed, and so they’re not able to reproduce until they reach that mark. (To me, this kind of makes sense – considering small breeds often live longer, then it’s likely that they mature more slowly, too.)

Method of mating

Like the age of the bitch, the first analysis on the data didn’t show a significance change in litter size based on mating method. However, when the data set was adjusted for breed, breed size, and age, naturally mated bitches had significantly larger litters than those who had been AIed (either fresh or frozen).

A decrease in mean litter size of 0.4 puppies would be expected for litters conceived with AI with fresh semen and 1.3 for AI with frozen semen, both compared to natural mating.

Things that didn’t matter

The number of litters a bitch had previously didn’t influence the size of her litter. (However, older bitches normally had had more litters – and their age did influence litter size.)

The season the litter was born in did not influence litter size.

Conclusion

Size of the breed, age of the bitch, and the method of mating are three factors that work together in determining litter size. It’s not one thing – it’s all three.

“… the size of the breed, the age of the bitch and the method of mating were found to influence litter size in purebred dogs when controlling for breed, with the size of the breed as the strongest determinant.”

This study is better than past studies in this area for its huge sample size, its variety of breeds, and the fact that it considers all puppies in a litter (not just those registered, as some past studies have done). In this way this study is unique. It is probably a pretty reliable data pool for purebred dogs, too, as 90% of purebred dogs in Norway are registered with their kennel club.

Things to consider regarding the vigour of the results:

It’s a retrospective study.
It does not include data from litters where all pups were born dead.
Calculating mean litter size is hard, because of the percentage made up of small or large breeds. Small breeds are currently popular, so could perhaps pull down the mean litter size seen in this study. Studies done in different countries, with different breeds being popular, are likely to result in different results.
There is a relatively small sample of bitches who were mated not-naturally in this study, so the results of assisted breedings should be interpreted cautiously, however the results are consistent with previous findings.
This study only groups dogs by weight – not by body shape. This might yield differences. (A neapolitan mastiff is really different to a greyhound.) And they group them by weight average of breed, not the weight of the individual bitch
This study looked at only two years and the researchers wonder if there might have been more variation in season of birth if there was more time taken into consideration.

In conclusion: Based on this study, breed size is the strongest determinant for litter size in a dog. The age of the bitch and the method of mating were also significant predictors of litter size. These three things interact, making litter size predictions difficult!

Acknowledgements:

Borge, KS, Tonnessen, R, Nodtvedt, A, & Indrebo, A 2011, “Litter size at birth in purebred dogs – A retrospective study of 224 Breeds”, Theriogenology, 75, 911-919.

Thank-you to Waldwiese Kennels for the cover image – a litter of longhair weimaraner puppies.

09/6/14

The SA Story (Again)

selectcommitteesa

After hearing the ‘results’ of the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare in SA, I was hugely disappointed in the process and the recommendations. However, I was pleased to hear nothing further about it (it came out July last year!).

Until now.

A few articles (one | two | three) have come out quoting Ian Hunter (politician), Tammy Franks (politician), Tim Vasuedeva (RSPCA CEO), Steven Marshall (politician), and Jay Weatherill (politician).

The hot ideas are compulsory desexing (or just desexing puppies in pet shops), a code of practice, and a breeder licensing scheme, with some extra legislation thrown in for good measure. It’s not a surprise that this is mostly bad news, considering the spurious nature of the original Select Committee report.

Compulsory Desexing

The articles seem to be looking at both compulsory desexing, and compulsory desexing of all dogs sold in pet shops. The narrator in the first article describes the community as ‘divided’.

Compulsory Desexing of Petshop Puppies

Tammy Franks, in particular, supports the suggestion that all puppies from pet shops should be desexed.

Tim Vasudeva, from the RSPCA, says, “We’ve been desexing puppies between 3-4 months for years and years and we haven’t had any problems.”

The first article claims that the government will look at compulsory desexing of dogs sold in pet shop in light of a Select Committee’s report. While the report made many poor recommendations, desexing of dogs in pet shops before sale was not one of them! False reporting!

The problem with this is: We are desexing very young puppies and there is evidence that there are harms associated with desexing when it is done at a young age. These harms go beyond anaesthetic risks and immediate recovery (which is what Tim is referring to) and is more about long term acquisition of health problems including cancer. (You can read a recent study on golden retrievers, or a recent study on vizslas to learn more about this.)

Further, what is the point of this suggested legislation? Why should all puppies be desexed before sale? Especially because of the long term health risks?

If you wanted to get me on side with this suggestion, I would be more inclined to support the sterilisation of puppies before sale (including tubal ligation and vasectomies, that aren’t known to have these long-term health outcomes). However, I’d still be asking what the point of this was – surely there’s bigger issues for us to be dealing with.

Compulsory Desexing of Everything

Tim Vasudeva, from the RSPCA, says that the AVA’s research shows that desexed dogs are 2.6 times less likely to bite. This is not true: the AVA refers to others’ research, using 23 year old data, which suggests desexed dogs are 2.6 times less likely to bite.

Tim Vasudeva spoke about how desexing could be beneficial – in reducing wandering and hormone-driven behaviours and said “At the very least I don’t think can hurt”. While there is actually a study that indicates that this is the case, it is one old study. Anecdotally, I know of plenty of people who have non-humpy non-pissing non-wandering dogs that are entire.

Ian Hunter says that “In the ACT, desexing is compulsory and has led to a 47% decrease in dog attacks. It’s also reduced the number of unwanted dogs being euthanised.” Despite a lot of research on my part, I couldn’t find any evidence that this is the case. Any clues on this appreciated! While there might be a correlation (I stress might), this doesn’t indicate a causation.

Code of Practice

All three articles talk about the government introducing a Code of Practice to target puppy farms and makes sure dogs are kept and born into healthy and humane conditions.

But a Code of Practice will affect everyone, not just puppy farms! Such codes produced around Australia have pretty much banned dogs from being kept inside or on grass. Are puppy farms defined as those with lots of dogs? Those breeding many litters? Those producing many puppies? Anyone that breeds full stop? A ‘puppy farm’ is hard to define, and so Codes of Practice affect everyone instead.

Further, dogs already have to be kept in a humane way! The Animal Welfare Acts and similar legislation across Australia requires it. Anyone who is allowing their dogs to get matted, or not have water, or have medical treatments denied, is guilty of an offence. We can get puppy farmers for that! Code of Practice not required!

Licensing Scheme

I was excited in article two where there was the suggestion that there would be no licensing scheme… Then article three suggested there would be. I’ve repeatedly made arguments against breeder licensing (the most elaborate being here), but basically:

1) Breeder licensing hasn’t been shown to do much (like the Gold Coast scheme) – it doesn’t reduce pound intakes for sure. And puppy farmers don’t make a habit of signing up.

2) Why would we introduce a new license scheme, when the Animal Welfare Acts are not currently enforced?

3) How do we ensure that responsible and ethical home ‘hobby breeders’ are not discouraged from breeding wonderful pets?

4) Often, breeder licensing excludes ‘backyard breeders’, ‘working dog breeders’, and greyhound breeders. These breeders produce a lot of dogs and dogs that are, seemingly, more likely to end up in the pound system.

Other Matters

Tammy Franks wants shelters to reveal euthanasia rates publicly. I think this is great if shelters were to have such transparency.

Article two and three suggest that mandatory microchipping will come in, and be compulsory (presumably, hopefully, compulsory before sale). While I have no qualms with microchipping being mandatory, I look forward to the phone line that allows me to report in those selling animals without microchips illegally. I don’t look forward to my expensive phone bills from making such reports. What I’m saying is: I have no confidence that this legislation will be adequately enforced.

Interestingly, one article says that there will be a “requirement for pets to only be bought from registered breeders”. That would be interesting! No more RSPCA, AWL, rescue group sales. No more guide dog and assistant dog groups selling unsuitable animals. Does that mean private rehomings are no longer legal? Surely this must be some kind of error in reporting.

And still there’s continued bleating about a cooling off period, under the guise that it would “reduce impulse buying and cut the number of pets being abandoned or surrendered”. There is no evidence that this is the case! Firstly, it does not seem that pets acquired impulsively are at any greater risk of being surrendered than pets acquired with a lot of thought. Secondly, there is no evidence that a cooling off period would reduce abandonment of pets. I don’t know how this even gets attention!

How unfortunate that the Select Committee’s recommendations are now gaining media attention and potentially some momentum in SA.

I spent a great many hours researching and writing my 20 page submission to the Committee. When the Committee published its findings and suggestions, I was so angry that the recommendations made were based on an emotive community rather than evidence and science.

I had been peacefully thinking that the Select Committee was just a little media stunt, and that it was going to disappear. These recent media reports and troubling and upsetting.

It’s concerning that the Government is prepared to invest resources into plans with no evidence that they will have any impact on animal welfare.

It is just as concerning that the community is lapping it up.

Further reading:

Public Misconceptions

Is desexing a cult?

Companion Animal Taskforce in NSW – Feedback

09/3/14

A Link Between Desexing and Reactivity

While desexing bitches is a common surgery, I was pleased to see Kim et al. take note that “the side effects of the operation, particularly any changes in behaviour, have been quantified in only few studies”.

That is to say, despite us commissioning vets to take the ovaries and uterus out of a great many bitches, we don’t really have much research about it. It’s a pretty scary state of play.

This particular study took 14 healthy German Shepherd bitches, between 5 and 10 months old. Half of these dogs were spayed, and the other half left entire. (The bitches were assigned to each group randomly, except for litter sisters, which were assigned opposite groups.)

After the spay, and having been given 4-5 months to recover from the surgery, the bitches were filmed in their kennel as a stranger and a dog approached. This footage was then scored based on how reactive the bitch was. A score of ’3′ indicated severe reactivity, and a score of ’0′ indicated no reactivity. The scorer was unaware of whether the bitch was spayed or not.

Photo courtesy of Rachel Willis.

The reactivity of each bitch was recorded several times, and the reactivity of each bitch declined over the study. It’s likely that the bitches habituated to the novel stimuli. However, despite this affect, bitches in the ovary-hysterectomy group scored higher throughout the study.

Before generalising these results, there are some matters to consider:

Reactivity was only measured in a kennel setting, and how these dogs react in the ‘real world’ may be different. We can’t suppose that our pet dogs are going to respond in the same way as kennel dogs.
The reactivity of these dogs was not measured at the start of the study. While it is unlikely, perhaps more reactive dogs happened to fall into the treatment group by chance. Without a ‘before desexing’ score, we cannot be sure of this.
The authors make note that these results are for German Shepherd bitches aged 5-10 months old. We can’t assume dogs of all breeds and ages would respond this way to spays.
Further, the bitches in this study are working lined German Shepherds, which may be more reactive than the typical pet dog.

However, this study notes that other studies on bitch spays have shown that as a group spayed bitches are:

More likely to gain weight
More aggressive than prior to spay (if they were aggressive prior to spay)
More active
More likely to have urinary incontinence
More likely to be reactive after surgery

The authors recommend:

[V]eterinary practitioners should inform owners that a bitch may become more reactive after spaying either because they have lost the calming effects of progesterone or because elevated gonadotropins stimulate release of adrenal androgens.

Source:
Kim HH, Yeon SC, Houpt KA, Lee HC, Chang HH, & Lee HJ (2006). Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity in German Shepherd dogs. Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997), 172 (1), 154-9 PMID: 16772140

Further reading:
Desexing: It’s bad for Vizslas too
Is desexing a cult?
Desexed dogs – 2.6 times less likely to bite!
Why would you NOT desex your dog??
Golden Retrievers: Cancer if you do, cancer if you don’t

Blogging on all things dogs, particularly dog science and dog politics.

Tag Archives: study

Socialisation: More is Better

Which people get bitten by which dogs?

Litter Size – What the research says

The SA Story (Again)

A Link Between Desexing and Reactivity