03/28/12

Incentives to breed more greyhounds?!

I was alarmed to read today, through Maggie’s Farm, that the Victorian Minister for Racing, Denis Napthine, has bumped the winning incentives for greyhound breeders to $30 million annually (through a new scheme). To say I was horrified is putting it mildly. Already, a colossal number of greyhounds (19 000) are destroyed each year as surplus to the industry, and a scheme such as this one is surely going to encourage the disposal of a huge number of greyhounds each year.

Fawn greyhound playing with a squeaky toy.

Finn, my current greyhound foster, playing with a squeaky toy. Greyhounds make great pets!

Imagine in the government removed all contributions to racing prize money (that is, less $30 million +) and instead putting that money into the greyhound adoption groups. Potentially, these groups could rehome all these dogs! If we say, on a generous sum, adoption groups spent $700 per grey to get them ready for adoption, that would only be $13 million (for all 19 000 greys currently killed a year). Perhaps the remaining sums could be used for enforcing welfare legislation regarding greyhound kennelling, and funding the wages of all individuals involved in improving welfare outcomes for greyhounds caught up in the racing industry.

Note: I do not find the lure coursing of greyhounds and other dogs all the abhorrent. Greyhounds and other dogs love to run, and lure coursing is a fun way for them to practice running. My issue stems from an industry that treats their companion animals as commodities, and disposes of them as such.

Please consider writing a letter to Mr Napthine regarding his support of a greyhound industry that kills 95% of the dogs bred. Below, his contact details and a letter that I wrote regarding this issue. (You’re welcome to use all or parts of my letter in yours.)

denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au (open email client)
Ministerial Office – Phone (03) 9095 4170
Electorial Office/ Warmambool – Phone (03) 5562 8230

94 Liebig Street,
Warrnambool VIC 3280

Or use the ‘ask’ form on Denis’s website. Continue reading →

01/14/12

The Sin of Breeding Dogs

I’m in the process of socialising my puppy. We’ve attended various places and am asked a number of questions. But the question I dread is, “When did you get her?”

My reply is, “I actually bred her litter.”

I’ve seen a number of faces go hard and critical when I make this declaration. You can see their brains turning… They think about RSPCA ads about puppy factories, they think about shelter ads telling them animals are dying in pounds, they think about how irresponsible I am to own entire dogs.

When did dog breeding become such a sin? Continue reading →

12/14/11

Questioning Working Dogs (McGreevy)

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

McGreevy posed some interesting and deep questions regarding working dogs, their welfare, and the morals of owning working dogs. Dogs have served us in a number of ways: Police dogs, pastoral dogs, customs, quarantine, racing, sledding, security and guarding, vermin control… These dogs are admired and placed on a pedestal, but there are ethical questions surrounding their work.

Herding and Pastoral Dogs

Dogs that herd find this itself, work itself, rewarding. These dogs can be punished from being removed from work (negative punishment). Why do dogs find work so innately rewarding?

Part of the reason may be the conditions that many working dogs live in. McGreevy showed a slide with dog kennels from a working farm. These dogs were on a chain, attached to metal (i.e. hot) kennels, confined to an area with their own faeces, and surrounded by flies and fleas. Of course these dogs want to work, if that means they get to leave these substandard conditions. Obviously, there are welfare issues associated with this treatment.

McGreevy called for more research into pastoral working dogs, particularly in regard to the financial contributions these animals make to farmers.

A smooth Collie goes through sheep herding practice.

Continue reading →

11/6/11

Breed Specific Legislation FAQ

RuthlessPhotos.com

What is Breed Specific Legislation?

Breed Specific Legislation, commonly known as “BSL”, is legislation that places restrictions upon certain breeds of dogs.

What breeds are affected by BSL in South Australia?

There are 5 prescribed breeds in South Australia, which mirrors legislation in the other States. These breeds are the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Fila Braziliero, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentina, and the Presa Canario. Additionally, Greyhounds are affected by BSL in South Australia, but are not considered a prescribed breed.

What restrictions are placed upon the prescribed breeds in South Australia?

Prescribed breeds must wear a muzzle or be physically restrained in public, and owners must desex their animal. Prescribed breeds must not be sold or given away.

What restrictions are placed upon greyhounds in South Australia?

Greyhounds must be muzzled or physically restrained in public, except when they are partaking in an organised activity and are under effective control.

What other Australian states have BSL?

All states except the ACT, NT, and Tasmania have some form of BSL. Nationally, restrictions on prescribed breeds often specify where the animal may be kept. For example, in New South Wales, restricted breeds must be kept in a child proof enclosure with warning signs.

What is the motivation behind introducing BSL?

Governments often believe that introducing BSL will decrease dog bites, or the severity of dog bites.

Why doesn’t BSL work?

This legislation incorrectly assumes that some dogs are more dangerous than others. In reality, owners are more responsible for their dog’s behaviour than the genetics of their animal. Furthermore, there are a myriad of enforcement issues with BSL as breeds cannot be confirmed by physically characteristics or DNA. Effectively, BSL is unenforceable and does not target the real cause of dog bites: inappropriate animal management.

How do we know BSL does not work?

BSL has been introduced in several countries globally, yet in no country has this legislation reduced the incidence of dog bites.

The Netherlands is a key example. A ban was implemented on the American Pitbull Terrier in 1993, and on the Rottweiler in 2000. The breed ban was repealed in 2008 after no decrease in dog bites was seen in the 15 year period. Similarly, the Dangerous Animals Act in Spain, 2000, was seen to have no significant difference in the number of dog bites.

In 1997, the United Kingdom banned the American Pit Bull Terrier and three other breeds, and their crossbreeds. However, dog bites incidents have increased by 50% in the period from 1997-2007. That is, 10 years after the ban, dog bites have actually increased. An increase in dog bites was also seen in Denmark in 2010 following the banning of 14 dog breeds. In the 12 months following the breed bans, there was a 60% increase in dog bites.

What welfare concerns are associated with South Australian BSL?

BSL means that animals that are prescribed breeds cannot be rehomed. This means that any prescribed breed entering shelters must be destroyed. Furthermore, individuals who wish to rehome their dog due to change of circumstances cannot legally do so if their dog is a prescribed breed.

What welfare concerns arise with changes to legislation in Victoria?

Recently, the Victorian government has made changes adding a standard that describes an American Pitbull Terrier. Effective from the 30th of September 2011, dogs that meet the description in the standard have to be registered as a restricted breed. As Amercian Pitbull Terriers cannot be effectively identified by appearance, it is likely that many dogs that are bull breed mixed breeds will be deemed as a prescribed breeds. Owners that fail to register their dog as a prescribed breed are at risk of having their dog seized and destroyed by councils.

What is the alternative to BSL in addressing dog bites?

Legislation needs to be introduced that recognises that any dog is capable of biting, and that it is up to owners to effectively manage their dog of choice to ensure dog bites do not occur. Any changes in legislation need to not cause further burden to those who responsibly own their dog, but seek to punish those who are irresponsible.

Existing legislation already requires dogs to be effectively contained in yards, on a lead or under verbal control when in public. All dogs must also be registered. Councils need further resources to ensure that individuals are responsibly housing their animals.

Education is also a vital part of the picture. Dog bites involve a dog owner, and the dog bite victim. With education, humans interact with dogs more responsibly and so bites are reduced. Education should also be targeted at to-be-dog-owners, to ensure that they are making appropriate and responsible decisions in choosing their pets and also in socialising their animal.

How do we know that these alternatives work?

Calgary, Alberta, Canada, is seen to be the key model of reducing dog bites. In Calgary, they have found that increased education and regulation has seen a decrease in dog bites. This education has targeted children specifically in grades 2 and 3, and seen an 80% reduction in dog attacks. Calgary has also focused on strengthening enforcement and regulation of current laws, and implementing tougher penalties for irresponsible dog ownership. Calgary has also provided low cost desexing options, as it is known that undesexed animals are more frequently represented in dog bite statistics.

10/27/11

McGreevy’s Thoughts on Dog Breeding

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

Throughout Paul McGreevy’s two day seminar, he expressed a number of opinions regarding dog breeding. Being a dog breeder myself, I anticipate I paid particular heed to his comments. I find that, in the current climate of dog rescue and puppy farms, dog breeders are constantly under scrutiny and, in general, I find myself a little defensive to conversations surrounding dog breeding.

However, McGreevy had some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas surrounding dog breeding, and he presented them in a very amenable way. That is: McGreevy didn’t breeder bash! He approached matters surround breeding dogs in a matter-of-fact way. Indeed, he spent more time blaming the system of dog breeding (i.e. breeding purebred dogs to a standard) for the problems in dogs today than critiquing breeders themselves. Fundamentally, McGreevy believes that the system for breeding dogs need to change in order to emphasise the health and temperament of dogs, and not their physical appearances.

Couldn’t resist including a photo of my current singleton litter. See here border terrier mum with her 2 day old puppy.

Domestication and dog breeds

Domestication and selective breeding have changed dogs from their wolf ancestors. For example, dog skulls have changed a great deal from the skull of a wolf, and there is also much variation between dog breeds. Not surprisingly, the brains of dogs have changed too, with a wolf brain weighing three times as much as a dog brain. Considering that the dog’s brain is part of its central nverous system, it is reasonable to assume that there may be implications for the dog’s entire nervous system. McGreevy said, “We are only just beginning to learn what we’ve done.”

One thing is for sure: We don’t have a wolf in our lounge room.

In times gone by, breeding dogs were selected on the ability to perform tasks, such as herding, retrieving, carting, or any other purpose. These days, selection is mostly based on conformation, and emphasis is being place on ‘beauty’ traits such as coat and colouration instead of structure. McGreevy believes that this current system ineffective, as 150 years of breeding dogs ‘to standard’ has resulted in a host of inherited disorders. Considering this, McGreevy believes that the dog breeding system needs to change.

Current dog breeding practices are cruel

McGreevy asserted that inherited disorders are a form of cruelty. He also put forward that, considering that the main reason dogs are euthanised in shelters is due to their temperament, breeding for good temperaments is imperative. Neither of these traits are overly considered in the current breeding system.

McGreevy believes that breed standards often are in contradiction to animal welfare. He used the British Bulldog as an example. He criticised the standard for asking for a head that is “the larger the better”, while at the same time calling for a narrow pelvis – an obvious problem for the whelping abilities of the breed. Furthermore some of the points in the standard are actually unhealthy (for example, loose skin in Shar Pei has been found to correlate with joint problems, and the skull shape of a dog influences its vision). In McGreevy’s opinion, dog breed standards have been written in a manner that is sometimes contradictory to dog well being.