Written evidence submissions for the Welsh Government task & finish group on Responsible Dog Ownership

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Written evidence submissions for the Welsh Government task & finish group on Responsible Dog Ownership"

Transcription

1 Written evidence submissions for the Welsh Government task & finish group on Responsible Dog Ownership All Wales Dog Warden Expert Panel Animal Behaviour Training Council BASC British Association for Shooting & Conservation Battersea Blue Cross British Horse Society BVA Welsh Branch C.A.R.I.A.D Cats Protection Countryside Alliance CWU & Associates Dr Carri Westgarth & Dr Fiona Cooke Farmers Union of Wales Kendal Shepherd Great Dane Care Greyhound Rescue Wales Guide Dogs Cymru Hope Rescue IPS Dog Services and The Good Dog Partnership Kennel Club League Against Cruel Sports National Sheep Association PDSA Public Health Wales Welsh Local Government Association

2 All Wales Dog Warden Expert Panel Review into Responsible Dog Ownership in Wales Submission on behalf of the Dog Warden Expert Panel The Dog Warden Expert Panel represents Local Authority Dog Wardens across Wales, acting under the auspices of the Welsh Heads of Environmental Health Group and the Directors of Public Protection Wales. Local Authority Dog Wardens across Wales deal with thousands of complaints each year arising from irresponsible dog ownership, ranging from dogs straying and fouling through to out of control dogs acting aggressively and even attacking people and other animals. The effects of irresponsible dog ownership are of major concern to Welsh residents. Indeed, when asked what matters to them, many Welsh communities rank the prevention of dog fouling and other dog related problems higher than other crime prevention issues affecting the places that they live and work. Unfortunately, the resources available to local authorities to respond to these concerns are under increasing pressure, with the numbers of dog wardens able to advise and enforce decreasing as the bite on local authority funding takes hold. There is strong anecdotal evidence that reports of irresponsible dog ownership are commonly linked to poorer homes, and particularly to social housing on council or housing association estates. There are a number of reasons for this, including that There is evidence that dog ownership is higher in poorer households, and this would give a more visible level of dog ownership on larger social housing estates. There appears to be a propensity towards staffie cross breed dogs in these areas, often seen as a problem dog by those who do not know the breed and therefore more likely to be reported to the authorities There is likely to be a higher proportion of households experiencing issues that render them less able to care or take responsibility for their dogs. It should also be recognised that strong reporting mechanisms for social housing tenants are likely to increase the number of complaints made, and this may distort the picture we have of irresponsible dog ownership in these areas. Given the current funding pressures impacting on enforcement bodies, charities and others involved in dog welfare and dog control, it is clear that we will not be able to do everything that we want in order to promote responsible dog ownership. We therefore hope that this review will be able to achieve three things, namely To identify the issues of greatest importance that need to be tackled first To identify a wider community able to play a part in tackling these issues, and To identify ways in which we can all work together to share resources and information, and to make information available to professionals working in this field and to the public. In terms of solutions, we would view the following steps as being practicable and achievable. Tackling irresponsible dog breeding whilst the Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014 will help tackle larger scale dog breeding, there is strong anecdotal evidence that accidental and small scale breeding helps to make puppies cheaply available or even free in many social housing areas. This means that households can easily acquire one or more dogs at minimal up front cost, and without thinking about and/or understanding their care needs or the associated costs. The availability of free or cheap puppies can impact heavily on the ability of local authorities and the third sector to deal with straying and out of control dogs, and can lead to a cycle where seized and re homed dogs are simply replaced with another puppy. Furthermore, dogs often change hands within families, at the pub or at other social venues, with no records of who owns that dog, and this is unlikely to be fully resolved by the introduction of a legal requirement to micro chip dogs.

3 Staffie crosses in particular are widely and cheaply available. These dogs can make lovely family pets, but the charity dog re homing system often clogs up with abandoned staffies that can t find a new home. Local authorities are increasingly being called upon to put down healthy staffies that re homing charities are unable to take into their care. Suggested Solutions Continued support for the Dogs Trust neutering programme, which is vital in tackling accidental breeding and the availability of free or cheap puppies. Encouragement for social housing landlords to prohibit dog breeding at or from their premises (based on the Community Animal Welfare Footprint (CAWF) awards or similar) A recommendation that any Dog Micro chipping regulations make the existing owner responsible for updating details when dog changes hands, to prevent the current situation where the last known owner claims to have no information on the new owner. A more proactive involvement by benefits and income tax investigators in terms of stud dog fees and puppy sales, to help minimise the perceived economic benefits of these activities. Tackling inappropriate dog ownership many problems reported to local authorities arise from inappropriate dog ownership, either because a household have a dog that they unable to take responsibility and care for, or because they have chosen a breed of dog based on what is fashionable or what is available, rather than choosing the right dog for that household. For individuals and families recognised as having complex needs and/or leading chaotic lifestyles, pet ownership may be seen as having a positive role. However, the easy availability of puppies and dogs mean that they are often acquired without any checks being made whether that dog is suitable for the household and/or lifestyle. Local Authority Dog Wardens can come under pressure to re home dogs in these cases, although socialisation and other issues may make these dogs difficult or inappropriate for re homing. Suggested solutions An all Wales source of information for potential dog owners explaining the factors to be taken into account when choosing a dog. Encouragement for social housing landlords to limit the number of dogs each household can have, to promote good dog welfare and to require their tenants to act responsibly, based on the Community Animal Welfare Footprint (CAWF) awards or similar Encouragement for Social Services and others interacting with families to consider whether dog ownership and/or the breed of dog is appropriate as part of their wider remit of caring for the family. Tackling inappropriate dog welfare many of the complaints received by local authority dog wardens and other local authority departments arise from poor dog welfare, with dogs left to roam or given too little exercise etc. As well as issues with straying and fouling, poor dog welfare can lead to dogs becoming stressed and frustrated, and these dogs can become aggressive and dangerous as a result Suggested solutions The Code of Practice on the Welfare of Dogs should be reviewed and re publicised, so that dog owners understand what is expected of them when caring for their pet. Social landlords should be encouraged to promote dog welfare as part of their responsible dog ownership message. Other professions and groups interacting with local residents should be encouraged to recognise and report dog welfare and dog control issues, so that they can be dealt with before they escalate. Social Services and initiatives such as Communities First should be encouraged to view dog welfare as part of their wider role, particularly given the impact that dogs can have on the safety of the family and the wider community. Protecting children a number of the complaints received by local authority dog wardens each year relate to child safety, either perceived or actual. One of the most common complaints is that children are

4 afraid to play in parks or other areas where dogs are present. Many of the dog attacks resulting in fatalities or serious injury involve children, and we would therefore regard this as a clear priority for action Suggested Solutions Placing dog welfare and dealing with dogs on the school curriculum, so that children are taught how to care for dogs, how to safely interact with dogs and how to recognise when dogs are becoming aggressive. There are a variety of teaching resources already in place to support this. The use of anti natal and other maternity services to educate parents on the need to teach dogs and children safe ways to be together, and on the need to ensure that young children are not left alone with any dog even family pets Providing information to Social Services, Communities First and other community based initiatives on dog welfare and dog control, and on the importance of including these as part of their wider remit to protect children and families. Many of these solutions use existing resources and can therefore be delivered at minimal cost. However, they will necessitate a change in the political and professional landscape of Wales, so that dog welfare and dog control is seen as part of the wider remit to protect families and communities and not just the job of local authority Dog Wardens and the RSPCA.

5 Animal Behaviour Training Council This website describes the work, aims and standards of the Council. with irresponsible dog ownership practitioners man ual This document has several references to ABTC in relation to dealing with irresponsible dog ownership. Our main concern is that only properly qualified and experienced behaviourists and trainers are referred to when such remedial intervention is required. Many organisations claim such status but the ABTC is the only organisation that independently monitors such activities and can offer some degree of quality assurance over such organisations and the standards they operate to. Inadequately or inappropriately qualified practitioners can easily aggravate a situation that requires attention. In addition, education prior to or on acquisition of a dog is essential. ABTC can assist in the preparation of such information where training and behaviour is involved.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 BASC British Association for Shooting & Conservation BASC would like to direct you to its own code of practice on gundogs. BASC as the UK's largest shooting organisation, has for many years worked to set and promote high standards of working dog ownership, training and use. BASC is concerned that the interests of those owning these well behaved and highly trained working dogs should be properly considered in any review of responsible dog ownership in Wales.

14 Battersea The following sets out Battersea's key policy messages keypolicymessages Battersea Dogs and Cats Home: Responsible Ownership For over 155 years, Battersea has taken in any dog regardless of its age, breed, behaviour or medical history. We aim never to turn away a dog or cat in need of help. We reunite lost dogs and cats with their owners; when we can t do this we care for them until new owners can be found for them. There is no time limit on how long an animal stays with us until the perfect new owner is found. In 2014 we cared for over 5,000 dogs and 3,000 cats across our three sites. Central to Battersea s work with rehomers, the community and in the media is the promotion of messages around responsible ownership. Our non-selective intake policy means we see the results of irresponsible ownership at the sharp end every day, and is why we aim to share our experience with politicians and the Government. We believe that promoting responsible pet ownership not only benefits dogs and cats, but benefits society as a whole. Becoming a pet owner brings with it many responsibilities and it is important that potential owners are aware of the time and commitment involved in owning an animal. There are legal responsibilities on owners to provide for and protect their pets, which they need to understand. However, a lot of it is common sense. Leave your pet tied up outside a shop and it could be stolen, leave your front door open and you could lose your dog, fail to pick up your dog s mess and you could be fined. Battersea believes that central Government can do more to promote responsible pet ownership. We want to see an end to breed specific legislation. In the wrong hands, any breed of dog can be trained to be dangerous and a threat to other dogs as well as people. Too many of the dogs coming into our care have physical or mental scars from owners who have mistreated them or even trained them for illegal fighting. We also want to see existing UK dog laws consolidated into one, to end confusion and help support responsible ownership, safeguard public safety and protect canine welfare. Battersea believes education is crucial in creating better informed pet owners who are aware of their legal responsibilities and their duty of care towards their pet animals. Better awareness will lead to fewer dog attacks and fewer cases of cruelty towards dogs and cats. Battersea works to educate future pet owners about their responsibilities, in schools, youth centres, Young Offenders Institutions and Community Centres in London and the South East. More specific points on responsible ownership we would make include:

15 Responsible ownership is more than just feeding our dog properly and taking them to the vet if they are sick or injured. It is also about making sure a dog wears a collar and ID tag, is microchipped with contact details kept up to date, and is vaccinated annually. Crucial to responsible ownership is respect for the five freedoms enshrined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which sets out clearly the conditions animals are entitled to expect. Dogs and cats need regular human and canine/feline contact every day, regular socialisation and have individual behavioural needs which differ from animal to animal. When rehoming, Battersea explains to new owners how they can respect these freedoms. When considering what to do, owners can be advised as a general rule of thumb to put themselves in their pet s position and think what would I want my owner to do? Dogs need to be exercised regularly, usually twice a day, in all weathers unless detrimental to the health and safety of the dog and/or owner, not the convenience of the owner. Owners should carry poo bags with them to clean up after their dog. Bothy tinned and dried pet food can provide a balanced and nutritious diet. Owners should make sure to provide extra water if feeding dried food. Water must always be clean and fresh. Feeding human food is not recommended. For example, chocolate is poisonous to dogs and can have fatal consequences. Dog beds should be cleaned and hovered regularly to avoid smells and to prevent a breeding ground for fleas. Animals need vaccinations, and a trip to the vet to get boosters done also offers a good opportunity for a complete health check. Pet health insurance is an extremely important consideration for all dog owners. It will help guard against unexpected veterinary bills and allow owners to provide the best health care for their dog. Battersea guards against choosing insurance solely on price because there is often a limit to what you can claim with the cheapest policies. In urban areas, dogs should be kept on a lead at all times as they could be easily startled by a noise and run off and injure themselves or something else. Before letting a dog off the lead for the first time in a safe area, owners should be confident that they will come back when they want them to. Dogs should not be let out on their own as they may be classed as a stray and could be picked up by a council dog warden or a member of the public. Dogs should never be tied up outside a shop alone as they may be mistaken for a lost dog or could even be stolen. When going on holiday, dogs should be left with people who they know in an environment that is safe. You should only leave dogs with someone you are confident will be willing and able to look after them properly, which includes boarding kennels. Microchip providers should be informed if you are planning on travelling with your dog.

16 Dogs in cars for transport should be comfortable and secure. They should never be left in cars on hot days, even with water and open windows. The same applies to conservatories.

17 Blue Cross Blue Cross Manifesto for Pets which details our position on both responsible pet ownership and education Blue Cross Education information resources.html Blue Cross Our Education Programme Our Education Team gives free talks across the UK promoting responsible pet ownership from hamsters to horses. In 2014 we reached over 65,000 children in schools, as well as talking to youth groups, prisons and individual families. Our talks can range from how to look after your pet, animal welfare, keeping safe around dogs, to our RespectaBULL status dog campaign ABOUT OUR EDUCTION TALKS Blue Cross provides free talks and workshops on a variety of subjects and to a variety of audiences. Schools : We deliver talks in both primary and secondary schools. The subjects can range from staying safe around dogs to the needs of pets or information about the work we do as a charity. Youth Groups : We talk to a range of youth groups including Scouts, Guides, police cadets, youth clubs, St Johns Ambulance badgers and cadets, afterschool clubs, Pony Club, Prince s Trust programmes Colleges : We work with colleges to provide talks for students taking a variety of courses including animal management, horse management, public services and health care courses. Bespoke sessions : We deliver bespoke education sessions to probationers, young offenders and prisoners. Families: We run sessions on family dog safety for parents and parents-to-be. OUR CURRENT EDUCATION PROJECTS RespectaBULL: Our RespectaBULL workshop engages young people in the issues surrounding dogs and antisocial behaviour, the law and the consequences. Through video discussion and activities we aim to empower young people to make good decisions, care for dogs properly and help to keep their communities safe. These talks are aimed at young people between the ages of and we deliver them to a range of groups including years 5 and 6, secondary schools, pupil referral units, youth clubs, prisons, youth offending teams and probation groups. The talks are targeted in a number of key areas currently including; Birmingham, Coventry, Swindon, Oxford, Manchester, London, Milton Keynes and Luton. We do offer the talks across the country where we have an education officer or trained volunteer available. One of these volunteers is a young person called Jordan. Jordan owns an exempted Section 1 dog Ty. Jordan

18 has been working with us to complete his RespectaBULL training and has now started to shadow our education officer in Coventry. Later this summer he will begin to give talks on his own in pupil referral units, youth offending teams and with the supported care team. Jordan is a great example of someone who has turned his life around, he is now very keen to engage with status dog owners and inform them on how to be a responsible owner. 181 TALKS REACHING 5472 YOUNG PEOPLE (Stats up to June 2015) Partnership Working: Our education team understand the value of partnership working especially when dealing with hard to reach audiences. We are currently engaged in a number of partnerships across the country. We are working with Staffordshire police force to train PCSO s on dog safety as well as information on our work with dealing with status dog issues. So far we have trained 58 PCSO s and are hoping to train a further 200 from September. In the long term this will allow the PCSO s to go out into their community and deliver dog safety talks in schools. We are also hopeful that PCSO s will be able to deliver RespectaBULL talks in their areas to deal with the problems around status dog ownership. We are currently in the process of developing a similar partnership with West Midlands Police which we hope to roll out later this year. We are working in partnership with the Supported Care Team in Coventry. This team provide housing and support to young people who have been in care. Often these young people will acquire dogs straight away for companionship, but we find that they don t always know how to care for them or use them in the right way. We are working on 1-1 with these vulnerable people in the hope they will feel comfortable to attend arranged RespectaBULL workshops with others in the future and become better dog owners. We also have a range of partnerships with local authorities across the UK working to support them in tackling dog issues in their local area. Equine Education: We are part of a multi-agency approach to tackle the problems around the horse crisis. We work with a number of other organisations including the British Horse Society, World Horse Welfare and the RSPCA. We take part in Equine link days which take place in priority areas of need. Horse owners are able to have their horses passported and microchipped for a discounted rate. We assist with horse handling and passporting and also engage with the owners to provide advice on horse care and welfare. We also attend Castration days organised by the British Horse Society, again we use these days to engage with owners on horse welfare advice. Each year we also attend the Appleby Horse Fair alongside other charities. We have worked hard to make sure we have a good relationship with those attending the fair which ensures we are able to get the message across about the importance of horse welfare and care. Further Information: For further information please visit our website ( or get in touch with Becky Thwaites ( / ).

19 Briefing ahead of meeting to discuss responsible dog ownership in Wales. Welsh Government Offices (Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ) 27 th August am Questions What does responsible dog ownership mean to your organisation? Responsible dog ownership centres on two key principles, first providing for the welfare needs of dogs to ensure that they are a happy, healthy pets and secondly ensuring that owners are accountable for their dogs behaviour and assure that its behaviour does not negatively impact on the community. Examples of responsible ownership include but are not limited to Picking up after your dog Keeping your dog under control both on and off lead Taking your dog to training classes when necessary Socialising your dog Providing the correct diet and exercise for the breed of dog What formal education (school related) programmes are you aware off? Many of the leading charities across the UK offer formal education programmes which aim to educate school children about dog welfare and responsible ownership. At Blue Cross we have a number of different programmes that we run within schools across the UK including in Wales. These vary from dog safety talks to more general animal welfare talks. We also offer our RespectaBULL programme to secondary schools in areas we have identified as having a specific need to tackle status dog issues, for example in cities like Birmingham and Coventry. So far this year we have given 200 RespectaBULL talks reaching 6000 young people. Blue Cross is a member of the Education Alliance and is aware of the similar programmes offered by other charities across the UK. We believe education at an early age is essential; children are the pet owners of the future and it is important to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to be responsible

20 owners. Evaluating the success of this type of formal education work is difficult, we know that the talks we provide are well received and often we are asked back to same schools each year. This year we will have spoken to 65,000 young people which in itself is a sign of the success of the programme. Measuring the direct impact on behaviour change is however much more difficult, we survey children before and after workshops to see if their views have changed but this is clearly not the most accurate way to measure impact. Measuring their long term behavioural change and the impact on their communities is much more difficult, it would involve a significant piece of research. We do believe this could be a worthwhile exercise if carried out jointly as a sector. The more we know about the impact of the education programmes and the methods that work best the more we are able to tailor the programmes to ensure the responsible dog ownership message is really getting through. What informal education (out of school and across all ages) and awareness programmes are you aware of? A number of animal welfare charities operating in the UK have started to introduce a range of innovative education programmes designed primarily to target those harder to reach audiences. Over the last four years Blue Cross has developed a number of programmes like this to try and address the problems of responsible dog ownership. Our flagship RepectaBULL programme aims to work with young status dog owners to try and ensure they know how to be responsible and are aware of the laws regarding dog ownership. This programme runs in areas we have identified as having a particular need for this type of programme, for example in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Luton and Coventry. We are also continually looking for new areas of need to expand the programme into. As well as this flagship programme we also offer a number of smaller more bespoke programmes in different areas of the country. These are designed very specifically around a particular problem and we aim to work in partnership with other local organisations to try and implement change. Examples of this kind of work includes our work with prisoners in HMP Brinsford. This involves working with prisoners who are due to be released in the coming months and explaining to them about the responsibilities of dog ownership and the considerations they need to make before taking on that kind of commitment. We have also partnered with a number of police forces including Staffordshire Police and West Midlands Police. This involved training PCSO s on our dog safety and RespectaBULL programmes, they can then go out and give these talks to young people in their local area. We have so far trained 200 officers in Staffordshire and hope to start the programme running fully in the West Midlands later this year. What legislative changes, if any, are needed? (Specifically Welsh legislation)

21 Blue Cross is supportive of the steps the Welsh Government has taken on issues like shock collars, microchipping and improved breeding legislation. Although not the remit of the Welsh Government, we were pleased to see the action taken to introduce early preventative measures through the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act, however we still have concerns about how successful it can be without a properly resourced and co-ordinated enforcement system. The availability of poorly bred and poorly socialised puppies is a real concern, although we were pleased to see action taken recently to improve the outdated breeding laws in Wales. We still believe much more needs to be done to ensure that the health and welfare of dogs bred in Wales is prioritised over profit. Enforcement of the legislation is patchy at best and we d like to see more done to tackle this problem. We believe responsible dog ownership is not only about dog owners it also has to be about breeders. Although we would like to see people choose rescue dogs we are realistic and know many people like to buy puppies, we believe that breeders have a responsibility to provide potential pet owners with well bred, and well socialised puppies which can go on to become loving pets. A stricter and more robust regulatory system in Wales would help to encourage and ensure better bred dogs were being sold in the first place. We would also like to see animal welfare and safety around dogs included on the national curriculum in order to ensure that all young people have a basic level of understanding when it comes to responsible dog ownership. We also believe that there is an opportunity for Wales to take action on the issue of sanctuary regulation. We know this is an issue that Animal Welfare Network Wales has looked at in the past and we would support calls for mandatory regulation. Many sanctuaries are operating a great service for local communities, there are however a number of sanctuaries that are not meeting the welfare needs of the animals in their care and a system of regulation would make these establishments more visible to the authorities. What would solve the problems your organisation deals with? Blue Cross is an advocate of partnership working; we believe that the best way to tackle irresponsible dog ownership is through education, prevention and early intervention. In order to do this, charities need to ensure that they are working with the right audiences in the areas where the need is highest. In order to ensure this is successful we need to work in partnership with other organisations both those in the local area who have the knowledge about the needs and problems within the community. We also believe it is important that charities work together and share information so that efforts are evenly spread and we are not repeating similar programmes again and again in the same area. Over the last five years we have seen a 24% increase in the number of unwanted and abandoned animals needing our help. We would like to see a review of existing breeding legislation to tackle the irresponsible breeding as a first step.

22 It is however also important that we look more closely at the reasons people are choosing to give up their pets in the first place, we need to ensure that help and support is available to owners so that they are able to keep their pets. Stepping in at the first sign of a problem, and providing clear and coordinated advice on responsible pet ownership are both important. These are roles charities can play but we feel in order to be most effective some sort of centralised system needs to be in place to co-ordinate. What solutions would you like to have if you could? Education is the key to tackling irresponsible dog ownership. Although all charities already do a great deal in this area, there seems to be little if any co-ordination or information sharing to ensure that we have the desired impact. The suggestion of a centralised website/database seems like a sensible idea. (Expanded on in later question) We believe that all the different education programmes offered by various charities would be more impactful if there was some centralised communication which meant that we were ensuring we weren t repeating similar programmes in the same areas. Alignment of messaging is also important, obviously all organisations say things in their own style the content however should be the same, members of the public can find it confusing if we give out mixed messages on what we all perceive to be responsible dog ownership. As well as education we believe early intervention is key, although not the responsibility of the Welsh Government we were pleased to see the introduction of the new ASB measures. They didn t go as far as we would have liked but they were certainly a step in the right direction. Time will tell how successful they have been at behaviour change however we feel the level of impact they are likely to have across the UK has been seriously diminished by the constraints local authorities are under. We would like to see local authorities provided with the resources necessary to enable them to use these new orders effectively. Training and information/resource sharing within Wales is vital to ensuring enforcement is successful. The sharing of best practice and information amongst partner organisations is key, we believe this is something organisations like the Animal Welfare Network Wales are already working on and we feel this kind of model could be expanded further. What can your organisation do in terms of delivery of this solution? Blue Cross has recently recruited more education volunteers within Wales and is hoping to increase the numbers of talks we are able to offer. We are also keen to be involved in any partnership work to help provide a more coordinated and streamlined approach to responsible dog ownership. This is something we have been doing in England as part of the Dog Strategy Group and feel it could work well in Wales. As well as our education programme, we have plans to expand our geographic footprint in Wales over the next five years to provide a rehoming/clinical element. If the solutions have costs involved, how should this be funded realistically?

23 In all likelihood any realistic solution to these problems is going to incur some sort of cost. In our experience investment is needed to make real long lasting impact on the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. As member of the Dog Strategy Group which is operating in Westminster we have looked at the issue of funding, although contentious the group have considered the introduction of a dog licence or levy which if the funding could be ring-fenced would fund a lot of the early intervention and prevention work which is needed. It is of course very difficult, if not impossible to secure ring-fencing in the current economic climate and therefore this solution needs much more consideration and research before it would be a viable and workable funding stream. In the short term we believe that investment would have to come from centrally from the Welsh Government and charities themselves. As a charity we are willing to fund programmes to increase responsible ownership in Wales however we would need more information on what was being proposed before we could put a specific figure on this. It seems to us that there are some solutions that will require much less funding yet still have a significant impact across Wales for example better co-ordination and information sharing on responsible dog ownership messaging. As well as the cost implications it is also important to consider, the resource, time and people requirement needed both from government and the charities to make any solution workable in the long term. Does your organisation interact with human welfare agencies? (e.g. social services, health sector, etc.) and if so what form does this take and could it help with the solutions we collectively seek? As an organisation we do have some crossover with human welfare agencies both in terms of the clients we treat at our veterinary hospitals and the education work we do. Our education team have worked with social services teams in Coventry to run workshops for young people who have been in care. These one on one workshops are designed to enable these young people to become responsible dog owners if they choose to take on a dog directly after leaving care. In our hospitals we work in conjunction with a number of human welfare agencies. When we are dealing with homeless clients or clients with mental health problems, we sometimes will refer onto agencies such as social services, NHS, mental health practitioners and charity partners so that we can ensure that the client is receiving the treatment they require not just for their pet but for themselves. We feel that the involvement of human welfare agencies is essential, in our experience it is often the case that irresponsible dog owners are actually experiencing issues in other areas of their lives which may benefit from help and assistance from other non-animal welfare agencies.

24 Solving the problem of irresponsible dog ownership has to be about information sharing between agencies, this will enable them to come up with comprehensive solutions which go to the root of the problem and can make a real lasting impact. Who else should be involved in terms of key stakeholders (in this process) and in terms of the solution? We believe the list of stakeholders the group has already gone out to is comprehensive and covers all relevant areas. We believe that at a later date once agreed actions have been decided upon it may be useful to holder a wider public consultation so that dog owners have an opportunity to share their views. Although the core group does not wish to predetermine this Review or exclude any alternative solutions we have been discussing a shared online portal, with Welsh Government approval/status, for all levels of users - including agencies (statutory and third sectors), dog owners, general public, etc. to be able to access agreed and unified information on all aspects of dog welfare, the law and responsibilities. Clearly such an entity could have other resources within it too. We mention this now because we are keen to hear your views on this possible recommendation when we meet. Blue Cross feels the idea of a shared online portal is a good one. Information and resource sharing is essential in the current economic climate where local authorities and government departments are being asked to do more and more with less and less. It does seem to us that creating one portal that can be used by a range of different audiences is a good idea, however we would point out that this could be a huge undertaking in terms of workload and resource. The information required for different audiences is likely to be vastly different and therefore require a lot of initial work to draft. We feel that the coordination of messaging is vitally important, other partnership work in the past has shown that speaking together as a sector achieves much more then all saying slightly different things on the same issues. Below are a list of things we feel would be useful to include in an online portal and the type of audience it would be useful for Information about free vet care availability and eligibility in the local area (Enforcers and the public) Advice on all aspects of responsible pet ownership with links to further info (Public) Education programmes on offer (Enforcers and schools) Advice on the law (Enforcers and public) Best practice guides on early intervention (Enforcers) Shared map of education and intervention work underway (Charities and enforcers) Examples of local programmes that are working (Charities and enforcers)

25 We would also be keen to point out that any online portal would need to be regularly updated and managed to ensure it was a useful tool. For more information please contact Becky Thwaites Public Affairs Officer

26 British Horse Society This is the British Horse Society's dedicated website for anybody to report accidents or near misses involving horses. One of the categories upon which we collect data is dog attacks. There is also useful advice on our website available here: and accidents/common incidents/dog attacks Additionally we produce an information leaflet for both riders and dog owners which was produced in conjunction with ACPO and the Blue Cross. I have answered that we would like to meet with the core group and we would be very happy to do so indeed. However I should point out that we are probably only likely to be of use on the issues of dog attacks and horses although we have done some more general work on puppy socialisation. We have excellent contacts including the police national lead on dogs and are happy to contact him for more information and case studies if that would be helpful. Under separate cover I will copies of the total numbers of dog attack reports we have received by month for the whole of Britain and also those that took place in Wales.

27 BVA Welsh Branch Hereditary defects For the past 40 years BVA has been working to improve the health and welfare of pedigree dogs by identifying signs of hereditary defects through its Canine Health Schemes which are run jointly with The Kennel Club. Currently the schemes examine hips, elbows, eyes and screen for syringomyelia BVA believes that companion animal owners and farmers should speak with their veterinary surgeon about hereditary defects before breeding from their animals BVA believes that out breeding programmes should be considered in breeds with small gene pools that have major health and welfare problems associated with hereditary diseases, namely, those unable to mate or give birth naturally. BVA actively promotes forms and advice for reporting any caesarean operation and/or any operative procedure carried out by a vet on a Kennel Club registered dog which alters the natural conformation BVA promotes the AWF/RSPCA Puppy Contract and Puppy Information Pack to enable to the public to make informed choices when buying a puppy (whether pedigree or not). Both the contract and PIP have been endorsed by the Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding, CAWC, Dogs Trust, PDSA, UFAW We recently developed and promoted a webinar on pedigree dog welfare via the Webinar Vet Puppy Farming BVA believes that irresponsible dog breeding and the practice of puppy farming must be tackled as quickly as possible. Puppy farming has a detrimental effect on the health and welfare of bitches and their litters, and too often veterinary surgeons see the devastating consequences of poor breeding practices which can lead to suffering for both the animals and their owners. Bitches are often kept in small pens without natural light or contact with other dogs, and produce multiple litters in a year. This practice facilitates the spread of infectious diseases and frequently results in behavioural problems, both in the bitches and in their pups. The veterinary profession plays an important role in promoting responsible pet ownership and providing advice to prospective dog owners on what to look for when buying a puppy. The BVA Animal Welfare Foundation and RSPCA have produced a puppy contract and information pack to empower a member of the public to make an informed choice about the individual puppy they are considering buying. We encourage veterinary practices to make the contract and information pack available to clients. They recommend that prospective buyers should always see any puppy with its mother and ensure records are available of the puppy s vaccinations, worming and flea treatment as well as other veterinary treatment. BVA has called on governments and local authorities to conduct a broad review of existing breeding licensing legislation to ensure it is fit for purpose. The BVA supported the conclusion of Professor Bateson s report on dog breeding that current legislation could be reviewed and re presented as regulations under the Animal

28 Welfare Acts, and that Better Regulation should not be used as an excuse to indefinitely delay such a review. The BVA was represented on the Welsh Government s Task and Finish group which reviewed existing legislation and reported in July The Welsh Government then consulted on a new set of proposed regulations based on this report, and the Department for Rural Development in Northern Ireland has done the same. The BVA continues to lobby for the English and Scottish governments to review their legislation on dog breeding and recently urged the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland to review its dog breeding legislation. Neutering BVA strongly supports the practice of neutering cats (castration of tom cats and spaying of queens) and dogs (castration of dogs and spaying of bitches) for preventing the birth of unwanted kittens and puppies and the perpetuation of genetic defects. Such surgical intervention removes the problems associated with finding homes or increasing the stray population. BVA acknowledges that neutering is not a trivial procedure but the welfare implications of neutering are outweighed by the benefits. In addition, BVA believes that neutering should be performed with adequate anaesthesia and that pain relief should be given to an animal pre emptively and post operatively. In line with the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), BVA recommends that pet cats are neutered from 16 weeks. In the case of feral and rescue kittens it may be necessary to neuter earlier than 16 weeks (due to the age of trapping). In these circumstances, neutering at eight to 12 weeks is considered safe and appropriate compared with the harm for non neutering. The policy statement of the Cat Group, on early neutering is supported by the BVA. The Cat Group is made up of the BSAVA and various cat organisations including Cats Protection, which has a number of resources regarding early neutering advice for veterinary practices (see further information below). BVA believes that there is no current scientific evidence to support the view that the spaying of bitches should take place after the first season. However, at the current time there is insufficient scientific data available to form a position on the early neutering of dogs and bitches. Tail docking The BVA is opposed to the docking of puppies tails. BVA believes that puppies suffer unnecessary pain as a result of docking, and are deprived of a vital form of canine expression. Chronic pain can arise from poorly performed docking. Surgical operations should not be undertaken unless necessary for therapeutic purposes and that docking should be banned as a procedure, other than for veterinary medical reasons, for all breeds of dog. BVA has supported tail docking guidance through the BVA Animal Welfare Foundation which includes practical and legal advice for veterinary practices on tail docking BVA has issued advice on client confidentiality should members be presented with a docked litter or puppy

29 Microchipping BVA has long supported compulsory microchipping. Permanent identification of dogs through microchipping has many benefits. It can help reunite strays with their owners, help tackle puppy farming, and encourage responsible ownership. In pedigree dogs it facilitates the reporting of hereditary health problems. BVA is a founding member of the Microchipping Alliance BVA recently responded to the Welsh Government Dangerous Dogs BVA believes that the manner in which a dog behaves is partly a result of its inherited characteristics but more importantly the rearing and training provided by the owner. BVA is opposed in principle to any proposal or legislation that singles out particular breeds of dogs rather than targeting individual aggressive dogs. The problems caused by dangerous dogs will never be solved until dog owners appreciate that they are responsible for the actions of their animals. This is known as the "deed not breed" principle. BVA has called for preventative measures, such as the introduction of Dog Control Notices (already available in Northern Ireland and Scotland) and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (an initiative by the National Dog Wardens Association), which support an approach to increase responsible dog ownership and reduce the likelihood of dog attacks. Aversive training methods BVA supports the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) position statement on the use of aversive training methods (electronic and other aversive collars) in companion animals, namely: The British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) recommends against the use of electronic shock collars and other aversive methods for the training and containment of animals. Shocks and other aversive stimuli received during training may not only be acutely stressful, painful and frightening for the animals, but may also produce long term adverse effects on behavioural and emotional responses. The Association recognises that all electronic devices that employ shock as a form of punishing or controlling behaviour and other means that rely on aversive stimuli are open to potential abuse and that incorrect use of such training aids has the potential to cause welfare problems. Apart from the potentially detrimental effect on the animal receiving shocks there is also anecdotal evidence that there is a risk to public safety from the use of shock systems, as they evoke aggression in dogs under certain circumstances. The BSAVA strongly recommends the use of positive reinforcement training methods that could replace those using aversive stimuli.

30 August 2012 JOINT BVA BSAVA BVA WELSH BRANCH RESPONSE TO THE WELSH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON COMPULSORY MICROCHIPPING 1. The British Veterinary Association (BVA), the British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and BVA Welsh Branch welcome the opportunity to comment on these proposals. 2. The BVA is the national representative body for the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom and has over 13,000 members. Its primary aim is to protect and promote the interests of the veterinary profession in this country, and it therefore takes a keen interest in all issues affecting the veterinary profession, be they animal health, animal welfare, public health, regulatory issues or employment concerns. 3. The BVA s Welsh Branch brings together representatives of the BVA s territorial and specialist divisions, government, academic institutions and research organisations in Wales. The Branch advises BVA on the consensus view of the Welsh members on Welsh and United Kingdom issues. 4. The BSAVA is the largest specialist division of the BVA and of the veterinary profession. It represents approximately 7,500 members, the majority of whom are in general practice and have an interest in the health and welfare of small animals, namely dogs and cats. 5. The BVA and BSAVA are both members of the Microchipping Alliance. 1. Do you think that all dogs in Wales should have to be microchipped? Why? 6. We have long called for the microchipping of all dogs to be made compulsory. Compulsory microchipping is beneficial for animal welfare and responsible pet ownership for the reasons given below: a. Microchipping is a permanent form of identification; b. It enables pets and owners to be reunited in cases of straying, accident or theft; c. It could help reduce the numbers of stray dogs; d. As the owner/breeder of the animal can be identified, it can promote responsible pet ownership and responsible breeding practices; e. It allows for the identification of individual animals for certification, test results and medical history;

31 f. It enables veterinary surgeons to contact owners more easily in case of an emergency e.g. with an animal brought in after a road traffic accident 7. It is important to stress, however, that compulsory microchipping will be ineffective without a robust registration system that needs to be well regulated in any legislation along with a requirement for the owner/registered keeper to be responsible for keeping the details up to date. A central reunification mechanism for databases will need to be established to facilitate access through a single point of entry. 2. If compulsory microchipping was introduced in Wales, should the legislation require: only puppies born after the legislation is made be microchipped? all dogs be microchipped within 1 year of the legislation being made? microchipping only be required for new puppies and upon change of ownership? microchipping be required for new puppies and all dogs on change of ownership and the remainder microchipped within an agreed timescale, for example five years? there be a phased approach, by microchipping puppies at time of sale? Please comment. 8. We support the microchipping of all dogs after a certain period (e.g. a year from the introduction of the legislation) as this is likely to make enforcement easier. We therefore support the second consultation option. We further advise that puppies should be microchipped and registered before the first change of ownership such that the breeder is the first registered owner. This will provide transparency regarding a pup s origin. 9. We believe that requiring all dogs to be microchipping within a year of the legislation will be the most effective option as: a. Only microchipping puppies will mean that it will be years before the legislation is fully effective meaning that the full welfare benefits will not be realised until this time. It will also be difficult to enforce as it is hard to accurately estimate the age of an adult dog and therefore whether or not it should have been microchipped. b. Requiring microchipping on change of ownership will be difficult to enforce as it will be difficult to ascertain whether or not an animal had a previous owner. 10. It will of course be vital to ensure that all microchip implanters are adequately trained. 3. When a microchipped animal changes ownership, the registration details on the database would need to be updated. With whom should this responsibility lie: the seller, the buyer, or both? 11. We believe that responsibility should lie with the seller, as they will be the only party authorised to change the details on the database. Although there will need to be procedures in place for strays etc, so that they can have their details re allocated. The seller should register that their dog has been sold (with as much detail as they can

32 provide) and it may be appropriate for the buyer to contact the database to provide their full contact details and ideally their local vet s details. We suggest something along the lines of a Car Registration Certificate, where both buyer and seller have parts to complete. The buyer s part could then include all relevant contact details. 12. The seller should register that their dog has been sold (with as much detail as they can provide) and it may be appropriate for the buyer to contact the database to provide their full contact details and ideally their local vet s details. 13. Owners should be issued with a certificate to show the details registered on the database. The format of the certificate should include a tear off section to notify changes of ownership to the database. 14. It should be noted that not every transfer of ownership will involve a buyer and seller and this should be considered when drafting new legislation. 15. As any database is only as good as the information it contains, there should be a penalty for not updating details within a reasonable time frame 4. We propose to require microchip registration details to be stored on approved commercial databases do you agree? 16. We agree that registration should be stored on approved databases and, as mentioned above, a central reunification mechanism put in place to facilitate access through a single point of entry. Databases should be required to sign up to a code of practice. With the increased number of animals travelling in Europe, it would also be sensible for them to 1 be required to register/share data with the Europenet database. 5. The compulsory microchipping of dogs would require owners to pay to microchip their pet. What are your thoughts on this issue? 17. The cost of microchipping is very small, especially compared with the other costs associated with dog ownership. The cost of microchipping should therefore be met by the owner. For genuine hardship cases, many charities offer discounted or free microchipping and veterinary practices may also include microchipping as part of a wider package of healthcare measures. Most vets will charge between 10 and 30 for microchipping, which is the equivalent to about 3 weeks worth of dog food (based on 80 pence per day). 6. We have set out what we think are the benefits to microchipping your animal. We would like to know your views on compulsory microchipping. 18. Please see our answer to question At present, the owner of the animal, the microchip implanter and some animal welfare organisations are able to access current records, but only enforcement authorities are able to see previous records. Do you think this should remain the same? If not, please explain. 1

33 19. In general yes, although it may be appropriate to allow others e.g. approved researchers, access to the data for research reasons. 8. Should there be any exemptions from compulsory microchipping? 20. The only exemption from compulsory microchipping should be for animals where microchipping would present a risk to their health, although such cases would be extremely rare. Exemptions should be certified by a veterinary surgeon. 9 We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them: 21. We have no comment.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46 C.A.R.I.A.D Although we are primarily devoted to issues of puppy farming, responsible dog ownership is intrinsically linked to this. When people buy puppies that have started life in these establishments they invariably inherit problems of a health and behaviour nature that few owners anticipate. This results in the relinquishment of many of these dogs before the age of 3 to rescue. There is a pervasive attitude by large numbers of the public that dog ownership is something you can dip in and out of at will, rather than a responsibility for life. Many are completely unprepared/uneducated about what having a dog really means which leads to many inappropriate and irresponsible actions including neglect, abandonment and lack of training of both the owner and dog to be sociable and well controlled.

47 Cats Protection Cats Protection knows that most dog owners are responsible. Where they are not we are supportive of measures to encourage responsible dog ownership and prevent tragedies where dogs attack other animals ( other dogs, cats) and may even go on to attack people. An attack by a dog on a cat or other animal can be an indicator of a dangerous dog that may go own to attack a person. There are sadly precedents of this happening. We'd refer you to the guidance document issued under the ASBCP Act. regarding responsible dog ownership. ownership pr actitioners manual pdf We'd direct you to CPN test 4 page 17 We are keen that these measures(cpns) are used to the full by the police/dog wardens where the thresholds in the guidance for issuing a community protection notice are met. Ideally we'd like their use to be logged and monitored so that the effectiveness of these measures can be assessed. Our position regarding dangerous dogs is one of the priority issues summarised in our Manifesto for cats presented to the Westminster government We have also called for a new offence to be created within legislation on dangerous dogs where a dog attacks a cat or other animal. We shall be contacting the Welsh Assembly with similar policy priorities for cat welfare ahead of the 2016 elections. We would also like to welcome the fact that dogs are to be compulsory microchipped in Wales as we feel that this will play a part towards encouraging responsible dog ownership and in some circumstances may help identify the dog owner where a dog is not controlled and threatens to or does attacks an animal or person.

48 Countryside Alliance 1. What does responsible dog ownership mean to your organisation? The freedom and ability to enjoy the companionship of your dog(s) whilst ensuring the wellbeing of your dogs and others as well as the general public. Responsible dog ownership also means: Picking up after your dog and disposing of it correctly Control of your dog acting responsibly Dogs on leads around livestock and heavily populated areas particularly where there are children Microchipping your dog(s) Neutering when necessary Responsible dog breeding 2. What formal education (school related) programmes are you aware of? I am not aware of any formal education set in stone only aware of organisations and charities giving school talks. The Countryside Alliance Foundation has a programme where gundogs are taken in to school to do demonstrations and during these sessions as well as demonstrating obedience and play, pupils also get to hear about the importance of good dog welfare, providing the right environment, food and exercise. 3. What informal education (out of school but also across all ages) and awareness programmes are you aware of? I am not aware of many specific other than individual dog training sessions and I think Blue Cross, ACPO and the NFU run courses. The NFU I think is a puppy socialisation day introducing your dog to livestock. The Countryside Alliance has teamed up with a dog trainer to provide free lessons and discounted lessons on dog training. A video of a display can be forwarded if required which demonstrates and unruly dog entering a field where a family are having a picnic and then after a few lessons the same dog entering in a much more calmer manner and totally ignoring the picnic. All breeds are catered for.

49 4. What legislative changes, if any, are needed? (It is important to reiterate that we are specifically discussing legislation within Wales' purview and not the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 or the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014) I don t think there is a need for legislative change. Laws are already in place such as community protection notices under Section 48 of the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act The new dog breeding regulations in Wales should ensure better socialisation of puppies. The Microchipping regulations due in 2016 should also help somewhat as long as they are enforced. I believe it is about enforcement of the law already in existence rather than creating new legislation. 5. What would solve the problems your organisation deals with? Better education about controlling dogs around livestock / rural areas / open spaces Education and enforcement of dog fouling incidents 6. What solutions would you like to have if you could? Enforcement as mentioned above. Better education introducing this at school age 7. What can your organisation do in terms of delivery of the solution? The Countryside Alliance are always happy and eager to promote responsible dog ownership however, we often find that our members are the victims of irresponsible dog ownership rather than the cause. 8. If the solutions have costs involved, how should this be funded realistically? Not via the pet owner. Their resource should be focussed on the health and wellbeing of the dog. However, larger fines for dog fouling for example could create some revenue for local authorities I suppose. 9. Does your organisation interact with the human welfare agencies (e.g. social services, health sector, etc) and if so what form does this take and could it help with the solutions we collectively seek? No we don t. Not directly.

50 10.Who else should be involved in terms of key stakeholders (in this process and) in the solution? Social workers Charities Housing Associations Education departments of local authorities Drug intervention team Shelter Cymru 11.Although the core group does not wish to predetermine this Review or exclude any alternative solutions we have been discussing a shared online portal, with Welsh Government approval/status, for all levels of users including agencies (statutory and third sectors), dog owners, general public, etc to be able to access agreed and unified information on all aspects of dog welfare, the law and responsibilities. Clearly such an entity could have other resources within it too. We mention this now because we are keen to hear your views on this possible recommendation when we meet. A shared portal offering advice and guidance for dog welfare, the law relating to dog welfare and responsibilities of dog owners would be welcomed. You may have difficulty on unified information being shared as some charities conflict with some dog breeding organisations for example.

51 Communication Workers Union, Julie Morgan AM & Cllr Dilwar Ali

52

53

54

55

56 Dr Carri Westgarth & Dr Fiona Cooke Written evidence about Responsible Dog Ownership Dr Carri Westgarth and Dr Fiona Cooke A variety of policy and campaigning messages in the field of pet ownership and animal welfare centre upon the fundamental concept of responsible ownership, in particular concerning dogs [1 7]. This concept is embedded in discussion of alarming increases in dog attacks [8], unacceptable rises in animal cruelty [9] and abandoned strays [10], and disgust over dog fouling and the zoonotic disease risk posed [11]. Due to the perception of an increasingly out of control societal dog problem, there has been much recent political consultation regarding tackling irresponsible dog ownership and dangerous dogs. Of particular concern is the historical link between companion animals and social status in western culture [12]. Although originally used to refer to small dogs owned by the rich and famous, the term status dogs is now used to describe a worrying rise in bull breeds that look tough, aggressive and may be illegal, or used for illegal activities by mainly young men [13, 14]. The dogs demeanour is often perceived as associated with the way in which they are treated, being encouraged to display aggressive behaviour, suffering violence at the hands of their owners [15]. This illustrates the widely held view that the key to tackling the problem [of status dogs] is updating the Dangerous Dogs Act and being a responsible owner [16]. But who exactly is a responsible owner? Why are many dog owners perceived to behave in an irresponsible manner? There is no clear definition of the desired behaviours associated with Responsible Dog Ownership (RDO), nor do we understand how dog owners perceive and negotiate their responsibilities. Without this knowledge it is unlikely that problems seen to be due to irresponsible dog ownership can be addressed. Whist much used by stakeholders, the term Responsible Dog Ownership is rarely further defined. Characteristics associated with a being a responsible dog owner may include; control over the dog, exercise levels, exercise type, feeding, dog training class attendance, removing dog waste, vaccinating, castrating, micro chipping, treating for parasites, keeping the dog indoors or outdoors, breeding, allowing dogs to stray, or elements of the quality of the interaction that occurs between the human and the animal [1 7, 17, 18]. While the term at first appears to have considerable merit, its lack of clarity may limit its use as a campaigning message. Furthermore, as the term has come into use and developed its meaning may have changed.. The concept of RDO can be viewed as a social construct; a concept or perception of something based on the collective views developed and maintained within a society or social group; a social phenomenon or convention originating within and cultivated by society or a particular social group, as opposed to existing inherently or naturally [19]. Approximately half of UK households own a pet, with an estimated 1 in 4 owning a dog [20, 21], so the subject of dog ownership is relevant to much of society. However, there has been little research (especially from the UK) exploring the perspective and experiences of pet dog owners, or societal views of pet dogs and their management [22].

57 Previous work does suggest that a dog s behaviour is often viewed as the responsibility of the owner, or with external factors that are not the fault of the animal [23 25]. For example, a study of problematic encounters experienced by veterinary surgeons demonstrated that blame was sometimes attributed to the pet owner on the grounds that the human had the ability to exercise choice and control over the animal, while the animal s behaviour was most often excused due to the situation (e.g. in pain) or the relationship with their owner (as ignorant or incapable of exercising appropriate control over the animal) [23]. This also led to clients being defined as good if they attempted to control their animal or give prior warning [23]. Bad behaviour by a dog is granted more excuse than similar behaviour by a child [24] and good behaviour of a dog is more likely to be attributed by humans to inherent dispositional factors, in contrast to bad behaviour which is more attributed to external factors [25]. This raises questions about how animals and particularly dogs are viewed in society and the expectations that humans have of them, and their owners. The limited research suggests that the behaviour of a pet dog (particularly bad behaviour) is perceived as the responsibility of its owner. It also suggests that even when the owner is not involved in the context of the interaction, they are in some way responsible via their previous actions or inactions. In contrast with the aforementioned studies, research exploring how dog owners perceive and deal with their dog s bad behaviour suggests that owners may attempt to distance themselves from their personal responsibility for their animal when an animal exhibits anti social behaviour [12, 26]. Seven different types of excusing tactics have been identified as used by owners when justifying and reasoning as to their dog s behaviour in public, for example during puppy socialisation classes: situating (as not normal); justifying (as not her fault); redefining (as positive e.g. friendly); behavioural quasi theorising (as natural and justifiable, e.g. dogs are dogs); processual emphasis (still in training); demonstrative disciplining (overt, harsh correction); and unlinking (confession that the animal is out of control, nothing is working, and I don t know what to do ). Some interesting parallels with parents and child disciplining behaviour may also be drawn [26]. The issue of dog fouling is particularly pertinent to the societal view of dog owners. Justifiers (as they justified their behaviour largely on the grounds that they don t know what to do, and that everyone else is doing it) are more likely to be male than female but are found across all ages groups and social classes [27]. This illustrates the importance of how dog owners view the social norm in regards to their behaviour. The false consensus effect [28] may be relevant to issues such as fouling; whilst people are aware of the consensus information around them, they tend to see their own behaviour as typical and assume that under similar circumstances others would behave in the same way [29]. This is found to be particularly prevalent for beliefs that people feel strongly about [30], which may be the case for some dog owner behaviours, but may also suggest that where behaviours have a weaker basis, demonstrating that others do not believe the same, may be an effective method to change behaviours. Research with dog owners and land managers has identified confusion over what is regarded as appropriate behaviour in terms of issues such as off leash walking, the need to pick up after the dog in different landscapes, and the use of ambiguous terms in policy and signage such as under proper control and be responsible [31]. There is a view that [dog owner] behaviours regarded as irresponsible are almost always the result of a person s beliefs and motivations, rather than an intention to maliciously cause problems [31]. This leads to a call

58 for messages and management [to be] clear, consistent and credible and differentiate between behaviours that are never acceptable (e.g. chasing livestock) and those where acceptability is dependent on where, when and how they occur (e.g. dogs off leads) [31]. This illustrates the current complexity and varying expectations of owner comprehension and subsequent behaviour desired by authorities and policy makers in terms of the RDO message. It also demonstrates that a clearer understanding of how these expectations compare to the interpretation of RDO by individuals within the lay public will have significant practical implications for those affected by dog owner behaviour. As most dog owners are non experts, and their behaviour affects the communities around them, it is critical to better understand how dog ownership is perceived by the lay public. It is clear that views of what is acceptable dog owner behaviour are not clear cut and views of the dog owner may conflict with views of an outsider. It may be convenient to distance the self from the deviant, and therefore reduce the risk of any of the self s behaviour becoming identified as deviant. Thus, although dog owners may in one aspect manage their dog in the same way as someone whom they consider to be an irresponsible dog owner, perhaps they perform other behaviours which they believe mitigate this so that they do consider themselves as behaving responsibly. In conclusion, far more research is required if we are to understand what Responsible Dog Ownership actually means, to stakeholders and the lay public; and more importantly what behaviours we want to change and how best to do this. Without this, throwing around these words in legislation and consultations will achieve little. References 1. DogsTrust. Responsible Dog Ownership [cited Sept]; Available from: 2. BatterseaDogsAndCatsHome. Responsible Dog Ownership [cited Sept]; Available from: 3. TheKennelClub. Responsible dog ownership [cited Sept]; Available from: 4. IslingtonBoroughCouncil. Responsible Dog Ownership [cited Sept]; Available from: recycling/rubbish/streetcleansing/pages/responsible_dog _ownership.aspx. 5. NorthNorfolkDistrictCouncil. Responsible Dog Ownership Campaign [cited Sept]; Available from: 6. DEFRA. Dangerous Dogs [cited Sept]; Available from: pets/pets/dangerous/. 7. ThamesValleyPolice. Reinforcing responsible dog ownership Royal Borough July 2011 [cited Sept]; Available from: tvp pol area/yournh tvp pol area nh newsitem?id= BBC, More people admitted to hospital after dog injuries, in BBC News Ward, V. Rise in animal cruelty pushes RSPCA to limit. Telegraph April [cited Dec]; Available from: in animal cruelty pushes RSPCA to limit.html. 10. Knowles, R. Number of stray dogs is on the rise, says Dogs Trust. BBC Newsbeat Sept [cited Dec]; Available from: Keeble, A. Dog fouling offences lead to more penalties. North Devon Gazette 2012 [cited Dec]; Available from:

59 12. Sanders, C.R., The animal 'other': self defenition, social identity and companion animals. Advances in Consumer Research, : p Maher, J. and H. Pierpoint, Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Crime Law and Social Change, (5): p Harding, S., Unleashed: The phenomona of status dogs and weapon dogs. 2012, Bristol: The Policy Press. 15. RSPCA. Status dogs [cited Sept]; Available from: BBCNewsbeat. Dangerous 'status dogs' on the rise [cited Sept]; Available from: BBCNews. Dangerous dogs laws inadequate August 2010 [cited Sept]; Available from: TheKennelClub. Good Citizen Dog Training Scheme, the UK's largest dog training programme [cited September]; Available from: OED, Social Construct, in Oxford English Dictionary. 2012, Oxford University Press: Oxford. 20. Westgarth, C., et al., Factors associated with dog ownership and contact with dogs in a UK community. BMC Veterinary Research, (5). 21. Murray, J.K., et al., Number and ownership profiles of cats and dogs in the UK. Veterinary Record, (6): p Sanders, C., Understanding Dogs: Living and Working with Canine Companions. 1999, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 23. Sanders, C.R., Biting the Hand that Heals You: Encounters with problematic patients in a General Veterinary Practice. Society and Animals, (1): p Rajecki, D.W., et al., Dog bites boy: Judgments of blame and shame. Anthrozoos, (2): p Rajecki, D.W., et al., Good Dog: Aspects of Humans' Causal Attributions for a Companion Animal's Social Behaviour. Society and Animals, (1): p Ben Michael, J., Dog owner in problematic dog rearing situations: Techniques of disciplining behavior. 2005: Print Partners Ipskamp. 27. ENCAMS. Dog Fouling and the Law: A Guide for the Public. Unknown year; Available from: Ross, L., D. Greene, and P. House, The 'false consensus effect': An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes.. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology., : p Hogg, M.A. and M.G. Vaughan, Social Psychology. 4th ed. 2005, Essex, UK.: Pearson Education Ltd. 30. Granberg, D., Candidate preference, membership group, and estimates of voting behaviour. Social Cognition, : p Jenkinson, S., People and Dogs in the Outdoors, 2011, Cairngorms National Park Authority.

60 Farmers Union of Wales FARMERS UNION OF WALES UNDEB AMAETHWYR CYMRU Llys Amaeth, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3BT Ffôn/Tel: Ffacs/Fax: E bost/ Ein Cyf/Our ref: AG/GD/V/38 Dyddiad/Date: 28 May 2009 Rhyngrwyd/Internet: Ms Sian Smith Animal Welfare and By Products Branch Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer Welsh Assembly Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ Dear Ms Smith CONSULTATION ON THE ANIMAL WELFARE (ELECTRONIC DEVICES) (WALES) REGULATIONS 2009 Thank you for inviting the Union s views on the Animal Welfare (Electronic Devices) (Wales) Regulations. Following an internal consultation with its membership, the Union submits the following views for your consideration. In its response to the previous consultation on the Use of Electronic Training Aids, the Union expressed its firm opposition to the introduction of a ban on the use of 2 28 May 2009 Ms Sian Smith shock collars for working dogs. The Union is therefore disappointed to note that the Welsh Assembly Government is going ahead with its proposals to introduce this ban without any distinction being made between domestic pets and working animals. Whilst the use of some electronic training aids may well create welfare problems in the hands of inexperienced handlers, the FUW firmly believes that these aids can be a valuable tool of last resort for experienced trainers when dealing with working dogs.

61 Whilst the Union is not concerned with the use of electronic aids for minor anti social problems of barking and/or keeping animals in one place within the home, the use of collars, as a last resort, is considered a vital tool in the case of training sheepdogs where over enthusiastic young dogs need to be deterred from biting sheep during the training process. Members were clear that the use of an electronic device is not required for every dog, but that its occasional use has provided an effective means of controlling adverse behaviour. The Union would argue that the provision in section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 prohibiting unnecessary suffering is sufficient to protect animals wearing shock or static pulse collars, as their use by experienced trainers, as a tool of last resort, will not fail the unnecessary suffering element of the Act. A sheep dog biting sheep is, in itself, a cause of unnecessary suffering to the sheep. Banning the use of shock/pulse collars would inevitably result in that dog having to be destroyed out of consideration to both the welfare of the sheep and the economic costs to farmers of the subsequent loss of value due to damaged carcases. The Union is also concerned at the implication that boundary electric fences could potentially be considered to be an animal welfare problem. The use of electric fences is an established method of containment for farm animals and horses, and is becoming increasingly popular for dogs. Animals quickly learn that an electric fence is something to be avoided, and the suggestion that this can compromise the 3 28 May 2009 Ms Sian Smith welfare of any animal is of great concern to the Union in terms of where the Assembly will go with this issue once it has dealt with domestic pets. Whilst the FUW fully supports the use of existing laws to prosecute anyone who causes unnecessary suffering to animals, it does not believe that the introduction of additional Regulations will improve the welfare of working animals. I trust due regard will be given to the preceding comments. Yours sincerely ANDREW GURNEY Policy Officer

62 UNDEB AMAETHWYR CYMRU FARMERS UNION OF WALES P R I F S W Y D D F A * H E A D O F F I C E Llys Amaeth, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3BT E bost/ Ffôn/Tel: Ffacs/Fax: Rhyngrwyd/Internet: Ein Cyf/Our ref: AG/MS/V/10 Dyddiad/Date: 14 th October 2013 Ms Irene Allen Head of Animal Welfare Branch Animal Welfare Branch Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer Welsh Government Cathays Park CARDIFF CF10 3NQ Dear Ms Allen CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT ANIMAL WELFARE (BREEDING OF DOGS) (WALES) REGULATIONS 2013 Thank you for inviting the Union s views on the Draft Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations Following an internal consultation with its membership and consideration by the Union s Standing Committee on Land Use and Parliamentary issues, the following comments are submitted for your consideration. The FUW fully supports the promotion of good practice and high animal welfare standards for breeding dogs. Given the historic problems associated with the proliferation of illegal puppy farming in Wales and the poor standards of welfare and animal husbandry 2 14 th October 2013 associated with some of these establishments, the Union also supports the aspirations of the Welsh Government to introduce legislation on Dog Breeding. However, the Union believes that the Regulations do not recognise the role of working dogs and remains concerned that they continue to be covered by the Regulations. It believes that there needs to be a distinction between those premises keeping working dogs and those who breed puppies commercially. Breeding of working dogs in the context of farming, and

63 similarly for hunt kennels, is generally undertaken to improve bloodlines and it is only the surplus that are sold on as puppies or drafted to other hunt packs. Farmers and hunt kennels are already subject to a range of inspections and so increasing the costs and bureaucracy for these businesses, for whom dog breeding is not a primary enterprise, would be a retrograde step. Unless working dogs are exempted from the Regulations, there will be a greater level of bureaucracy and paperwork on those who do not breed as a commercial enterprise and more local authority resources being utilised to police a large number of new licensed premises which would leave less time to seek out the illegal establishments who should be the focus of these proposals. Without prejudice to the proceeding comments, the Union s response to the questions outlined in the consultation are given below: Question 1 Based on the information above we are proposing all licensed breeders maintain a minimum staff: adult dog ratio of 1 attendant to 20 adult dogs or 1 part time attendant to 10 adult dogs. Are you content with this proposal? If not, why not? In its responses to the previous consultations on the breeding of dogs, the FUW expressed concerns that the setting of a prescriptive figure for a minimum staff to dog ratio did not take into account the needs of different breeds or the size or temperament of the dogs in question. For example, it could be argued that large, long haired breeds would require more attention than smaller, short haired low activity breeds. The Union would argue that there needs to be some flexibility in the requirements to ensure that unscrupulous breeders are not able to exploit the Regulations at the expense of the welfare of those dogs which they are purported to be protecting. Question th October 2013 With regards to the ratio proposed in question 1, do you agree that the local authority should consider critical factors such as breed, size of premises, number of dogs to be kept on the premises and the potential litter sizes when deciding whether a higher staff to adult dog ratio is suitable for a particular licensed dog breeding premises? If not why not? The inclusion of specific powers for Local Authorities to impose such licensing conditions as it is felt are necessary, including the ability to impose a higher staff to dog ratio, are welcomed by the Union as a step in the right direction to address the concerns raised above. The FUW would suggest that, in addition to the factors outlined in the question, Local Authorities should also consider the competence of the owner and staff employed at the licensed premises, any past dealings the Authority has had with the business and any future plans for the business, for example expansion plans, when assessing whether a licensing condition specifying a higher staff to dog ratio needs to be imposed.

64 In conclusion, the Farmers Union of Wales continues to support the Welsh Government s aspirations to improve the welfare of dog breeding establishments. However, it is concerned that the setting of a prescriptive staff to dog ratio will reduce the flexibility of the proposed Regulations which may create problems in the future. I trust due regard will be given to the preceding comments. Yours sincerely ANDREW GURNEY Policy Officer (Land Use)

65 Siân Jennifer Smith Animal Welfare Branch Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ 10 th May 2015 Dear Ms Smith, PROPOSALS TO INTRODUCE COMPULSORY MICROCHIPPING OF DOGS IN WALES Thank you for inviting the Farmers Union of Wales to contribute to the above consultation. Following an internal consultation with its membership, the following comments are submitted for your consideration. General Comments Members generally agreed with the principle of microchipping and believed it to be a positive tool for responsible dog owners wishing to identify lost or stolen dogs. However, members queried whether the introduction of a statutory system would function to significantly increase the number of microchipped dogs residing in Wales. Indeed several members commented that there would be no mechanism by which to identify or trace the owners of dogs which had not been microchipped. Several members expressed concern that the costs of maintaining the database to the required standards could be passed on from operators or enforcers to the wider community. The FUW is aware that Defra is consulting on similar proposals in England and the Union would query how issues such as enforcement and are to be undertaken if different systems are adopted in the differing 1 administrations. Specific Consultation Questions Without prejudice to the preceding views, the Union provides the following comments on the specific questions provided within the present consultation:

66 Question 1. It is proposed that to enforce the microchipping regulations, enforcers will need to take possession of a dog for scanning and, if the dog is not microchipped, require the keeper of the dog to take appropriate action. It is proposed that Local Authorities will be the primary enforcers, with the power to authorise persons to enforce the legislation on their behalf. Police and Community Support Officers will be able to enforce the Regulations without written authorisation required, and the Welsh Ministers will have the power to enforce or authorise persons to enforce. Do you agree with this approach? : The FUW would reiterate its response to the 2012 Welsh Government consultation on the introduction of compulsory microchipping of dogs in Wales. In this response, the Union argued that the introduction of compulsory legislation would be unlikely to alter the compliance of irresponsible dog owners as such owners would either fail to comply, or would supply false information at registration. In such circumstances, compulsory legislation would therefore not lead to better behaviour or improved animal welfare. Notwithstanding the above, the Union would query whether sufficient resources would be provided to regulate and enforce the compulsory microchipping of dogs; especially given the significant budget cuts experienced by Local Authorities. From an operational standpoint, the FUW agrees that the Local Authorities and the police including Community Support Officers are the most logical choice as enforcers of this legislation. However the Union would question whether such bodies have the time or resources to prioritise this matter. Members queried whether regulators and enforcers would seek to recover costs through additional charges on households. Question 2. It is proposed that database operators will be required to record the following information as a minimum, to allow for traceability. Do you agree that this is acceptable as a minimum? Is there any other information that should be recorded as a minimum requirement? (a) the full name, address and contact telephone number of the keeper, and to record if they are also the breeder (b) the name, sex, breed, colour and date of birth of the dog (c) the unique number of the microchip implanted in the dog. : The information listed above provides a good basic minimum dataset to allow the traceability of missing 2 dogs. However, the addition of some extra data fields to the database would not proportionally increase costs. The inclusion of additional data, such as information on replacement microchips if the first implant becomes unreadable, should therefore be considered for inclusion in the database. In order to dissuade irresponsible dog owners from tampering or removing implanted microchips, consideration should be offered to the inclusion of digital photographs of the dog taken from both sides and the front. This would benefit traceability by providing added identification that would link the microchip to the dog in most cases. The transfer of digitally recorded photographs from person to person is a relatively low cost option. As part of the registration process, the International Sheepdog Society now accepts photographs of puppies at registration time and has also introduced the compulsory microchipping of pups.

67 The FUW believes that either a joint Welsh English database, or appropriate and timely data exchange between both countries, should be the preferred option. This would facilitate policing of the legislation at the border and would also function to regulate tourists holidaying with their dogs. As stated in the Union s previous consultation pertaining to this issue, should Welsh Government impose compulsory microchipping then it is incumbent on Government to ensure that there is a national database which is fit for this purpose. It cannot be assumed that current commercial databases will solve canine traceability issues. Question 3. It is proposed that database operators will be required to meet minimum standards in the following areas to ensure that they are providing a service that is fit for purpose, to allow traceability and the proper reunification of dogs and their keepers. Do you agree? a) Sufficient storage and back up of data b) Provision of information to a keeper of a dog or authorised enforcer c) Record keeping d) Monitoring and handling of telephone and online requests, including transfers. : The FUW agrees that operators should meet pre set minimum standards for points a d above, if a fit for purpose service is to be created. It is unclear from the consultation document how many databases would operate within Wales to record the 690,000 dogs kept by keepers. Records of the 460,000 microchipped dogs in Wales are currently held by four privately owned organisations in Wales. An increased number of organisations could create logistical problems when attempting to reunite dogs with keepers in an efficient and cost effective way. As with the above, database maintenance is also currently the responsibility of four private organisations and the Union would query which body would possess legal ownership of the data. Having several organisations involved could present problems if one of these private organisations was to cease trading as this could jeopardise database continuity. In such cases, Local Authorities should have the responsibility for record keeping and public interfacing. 3 As regards point c above, it is imperative that the Welsh Government enforce common standards across all organisations through the introduction of a Quality Assured scheme incorporating Standard Operating Procedures for data recording, storage, security and validation; with a supporting auditing system. Question 4. It is proposed that persons that were not qualified to implant microchips prior to the legislation coming into force will need to achieve a qualification accredited by the Welsh Ministers. Existing implanters will be able to continue implanting without undergoing additional training unless deemed necessary by an enforcer. The requirement to report on adverse reactions (see Q5 below) would apply. Do you agree? : The Union strongly believes that no dogs should suffer unnecessary pain or discomfort through the implanting of microchips. To help achieve this, the FUW agrees that training and accreditation of new implanters is necessary, and that existing implanters receive additional training when required to do so by the enforcers.

68 Question 5 : It is proposed to place a formal duty on all persons to report any adverse reactions to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Until recently such data has been collected on a voluntary basis by the British Small Animals Veterinary Association (BSAVA). Do you agree with this? : The FUW agrees that a formal duty should be placed on all persons to report adverse reactions; both at implantation and thereafter. The latter is an important consideration as some reactions may develop over a lengthier period. This would also present an opportunity for implanters to check that the implant continues to be readable. Question 6 : The proposed legislation may have a cost impact on pet owners, enforcers, implanters and microchip databases: do you have any evidence that could be used by the Welsh Government to assist in the quantification of this cost? : The FUW does not have evidentiary support for the potential cost impact of the above proposals on pet owners, enforcers, implanters and microchip databases. However, it stands to reason that achieving a very high level of traceability, by undertaking compulsory microchipping, recording, enforcement, database maintenance and the like, will pass some not insignificant costs to those involved. In order to establish the potential costs of maintaining such databases, the Union wold suggest that the Welsh Government make contact with the International Sheepdog Society and the Kennel Club as both organisations either engage in the micro chipping of dogs or record details similar to those outlined in question 2. The Union believes that, at least for the first years, a whole or part Government contribution to the cost of microchipping would foster pet keeper engagement and would serve to facilitate a much higher level of 4 voluntary compliance. Question 7. We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them. : The FUW believes that all working dogs in Wales should be exempt from compulsory microchipping and that exemptions currently contained in the Control of Dogs Order 1992, should apply. I trust that due regard will be given to the preceding comments. Yours sincerely Bernard Griffiths (FUW Land Use Policy Officer)

69 UNDEB AMAETHWYR CYMRU FARMERS UNION OF WALES P R I F S W Y D D F A * H E A D O F F I C E Llys Amaeth, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3BT E bost/ rhian.nowell Ffôn/Tel: Ffacs/Fax: Rhyngrwyd/Internet: Ein Cyf/Our ref: RNP/MS/V/38A Dyddiad/Date: 27 th February 2013 Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer Department for Environment and Sustainable Development Welsh Government Cathays Park CARDIFF CF10 3NQ Dear Sir/Madam PROPOSALS FOR A DRAFT CONTROL OF DOGS (WALES) BILL Thank you for inviting the Union s views on proposals for a Welsh Control of Dogs Bill. Following an internal consultation with its membership and consideration by the Union s Standing Committee on Land Use and Parliamentary issues, the following comments are submitted for your consideration. Whilst acknowledging that dogs classed as being out of control or dangerously out of control can pose a risk to the general public, the Union is concerned that the proposed Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill will be overly bureaucratic, unwieldy and likely to impact on conscientious dog owners unless extreme care is taken in the wording of any potential legislation. Proposals to extend the legislation to private property could result in miscarriages of justice as will the protection of other species th February 2013 The Union is also concerned that the document fails to address the distinction between domestic pets and working animals and given that the tests for determining whether dogs are out of control are subjective a farmer could suffer significant economic repercussions to his business should action be taken against a working dog.

70 Consideration also needs to be given to how the relevant authorities will determine whether a complaint against a dog is genuinely based on whether a dog is out of control or subject to a vindictive complainant. This proposed legislation has a huge potential to be abused and the Welsh Government need to be well aware of the potential pitfalls of over regulation to combat out of control dogs. Without prejudice to the preceding comments, the Union s response to the questions highlighted in the consultation is given below. Question 1 Do you agree with the three stage test set out in paragraph 3 above? If not, why not? The Union is concerned that stages 2 and 3 are extremely subjective and difficult to assess. Most people, even experienced dog owners may feel apprehensive on meeting a dog for the first time and there are some breeds which can engender such a response based on looks alone and certainly not used as a basis for a potential DCN. Adoption of the three stage test is likely to create a great deal of anxiety and stress for contentious dog owners whose dog might chase a neighbour s cat through its own garden for example. Although the Union recognises the problems associated with aggressive dogs and postmen for example, it does believe that the current subjective test is open to significant abuse. Question 2 Do you agree with the types of individuals on whom a DCN might be served? If not, why not? The Union has no views on the type of individual a DCN might be served on; it is the process it is concerned about. Question th February 2013 Should training be a requirement in a DCN? If not, why not? This will of course depend on why a DCN was served in the first place. Question 4 Do you agree that all of the requirements in sections 5 to 8 should be mandatory? If not, why not? The Union is concerned that the Welsh Government s urge to micromanage all aspects of peoples lives in Wales is demonstrated in the list of requirements outlined in this paper. As the proposed Bill extends to private property, it could mean by default that dogs that have been served a DCN can not be left in their own home alone! The Welsh Government has the responsibility to ensure that if it is going to introduce legislation it is proportionate and fair and certainly not open to abuse by either over zealous animal rights interests or vindictive individuals.

71 Question 5 We have set out examples of options that a DCN can contain and this list is not exhaustive. Are you content with such an approach? Do you consider that other optional requirements could be included? If so, please provide details. The Union is concerned that allowing a non exhaustive list of options a DCN can contain could result in unnecessary requirements being placed on the owner of a dog, which have no bearing to the reasons why the dog was served with one in the first place. Any options considered should be identified and discussed to ensure that they are proportionate and fair. Question 6 Do you agree that the appropriate mechanism to appeal against a DCN is through a Magistrates Court? If not, why not? There should be a mechanism to appeal against a DCN, whether a Magistrates Court is the best place for this is debatable. There is concern that should the Magistrate Court be the relevant mechanism to determine whether to confirm, vary or discharge a notice; it should also have the power to discharge all elements of the DCN. The current wording suggests that even if the Court discharges the DCN the mandatory requirements such as training cannot be discharged! Any appeals process must be transparent and available at no cost to the dog owner th February 2013 Question 7 Do you agree that the provision for a local authority to discharge a DCN is appropriate? If not, why not? The FUW supports this proposal. Question 8 Do you agree that failure to comply with a DCN should constitute an offence and be liable to prosecution? If not, why not? As the Union has grave concerns about the three tests proposed to determine whether to serve a DCN and the extent to which they can be served on people on their own property, it cannot support the proposal that failure to comply should be treated as a prosecutable offence. The Union does support the need for mechanisms to control dangerous dogs, but believes that this Bill has the potential to create as many problems for law abiding dog owners as it solves. Question 9 Do you agree with the proposed court orders? If not, why not? Whilst there are legitimate arguments to support this proposal, where the dog was a danger to the public and or the owner was unable to control the dog in public, there is concern that requiring the dog to be destroyed for chasing a cat a danger to protected animals may be over zealous. Care will need to be taken when drafting the legislation to ensure that the dog s welfare is not compromised by bad legislation.

72 Question 10 Do you agree that a period of at least one year should pass before any application can be made to discharge a disqualification order or where a further application can be made to discharge an order following an earlier unsuccessful appeal? If not, why not? As above Question 11 A level 3 fine is one where a court may impose a fine of up to a 1,000. Are you content with this approach? If not, why not? As above Question 12 To enable effective sharing of DCNs between enforcement authorities, is it right 5 27 th February 2013 that some form of database should be set up? Any central database needs to be set up and funded by Welsh Government to ensure that it is kept up to date and relevant. Question 13 Do you agree with this approach about who will serve DCNs? If not, why not? Any person authorised to serve DCN needs to be suitably qualified and experienced to make objective decisions on whether a dog is genuinely out of control under the meaning of the Act. Question 14 Do you agree with this approach? We would be grateful for your views of extending the 1991 Act to include private places and making it an aggravated offence (with higher penalties) to attack another animal. The proposal to extend the 1991 Act to include private places will have a significant impact on farmers, whose private property includes farmhouses, agricultural buildings and farmland. The FUW believes that working dogs are generally well behaved and farmers are generally responsible dog owners. Working dogs on a farm are not normally on a lead but this does not mean they are dangerously out of control. The FUW is concerned that members of the public seeing working dogs not on a lead, or even out of immediate sight of the farmer (sheep dogs are used to get sheep out from inaccessible places) could report farmers to the authorities, when no offence has in fact been committed. The Union has a great deal of sympathy with postal workers who are generally the most affected by out of control dogs on private property, but believes that any legislation needs to be carefully worded to ensure that it covers legitimately out of control or aggressive dogs and not working animals. The Union welcomes the fact that the Welsh Assembly cannot extend any changes it makes to the 1991 Act where a dog is used for hunting and would hope that there will be an element of common sense used to judge whether a pet dog killing a pet mouse (a protected animal under the proposals) would require legal intervention!

73 The Union is also concerned that; 'A person who enters private property where they have no lawful right to be either by implied licence or by invitation should not be able to prosecute under those circumstances. Account also needs to be taken of the situation where a dog defends itself or its owner against attack whether from a person or another animal. There is 6 27 th February 2013 no reason, however, why the authorities should not be able to take action if they consider that in all the circumstances the dog has acted in such a way as to suggest that it may pose a threat to public safety. However, this should require some evidence that it has shown dangerous behaviour in ordinary circumstances and not only when confronted by an attacker or intruder. Question 15 The Welsh Government takes the view that these proposals will lead to greater responsible dog ownership, enhanced animal welfare and provide for better prevention of injury to adults and children. Do you agree? If not, why not? Whilst the FUW agrees that the problem of genuinely out of control dogs needs to be addressed, it remains unconvinced that the current proposals will address the issue without creating a significant number of problems for generally responsible dog owners. The Union believes that the proposals need to be revisited to ensure that any potential legislation does not become a vehicle for petty misdemeanours due to the definitions of out of control and protected animals Question 16 The draft Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) provides an estimate of the costs and benefits associated with the proposed legislation. Do you agree with the assessment? If not, why not? The assessment has not taken into consideration the effects of the legislation on those who rely on working dogs as part of their business. The Union is concerned that the proposals as they currently stand could have implications for working dogs and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues before the proposals become enshrined in law. I trust due regard will be given to the preceding comments. Yours faithfully RHIAN NOWELL PHILLIPS (Ms) Deputy Director Agricultural Policy

74 Kendal Shepherd My website for comments on dangerous dogs, current state of affairs, how to proceed etc services/viewpoints/ Also ASAB website for my educational resource for children, also on TES website I have very little time right now to add more. I am presenting on Sunday 7th June at Nat Dog Bite Prevention conference at Lincoln Uni. I will also send you the PDF of my presentation Human and Canine Welfare implications of DDA a proposal for a One Health approach to dog bite investigation and prevention. Within this presentation you will see that in passing I question the validity of laying all doggy ills at irresponsible owners' door. We need to collect data on dog bites from all sections of the dog owning public before we can be sure of the proportion of owners who are typically thought to be 'irresponsible'.

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94 Great Dane Care dane care.org Having spent 24 years in adult education in Animal care, I am very willing to help and running a rehoming rescue, responsibility of pet ownership is the main object of our home checks and interviews before taking on such a big dog breed. GREAT DANE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST Charity Reg. No In consideration of you today handing into my care and transferring to me the ownership of the Great Dane dog/bitch known as I hereby accept ownership of said Great Dane and hereby agree to full liability for the same as owner and keeper as from I intend to keep the dog/bitch in the house and only in exceptional circumstances in heated outside kennels. I fully understand that periodic check may be made at any time and if in the opinion of Great Dane Care it would be in the best interest of the said dog / bitch to remove it from our care; they reserve the right to do so. I will not take the Great Dane out of the UK without permission of Great Dane Care. Should I be unable to keep the said Great Dane for any reason whatsoever, I will contact Great Dane Care to arrange for the Great Dane to be returned. Great Dane Care will pass on all information on the known health of the dog/bitch but cannot be responsible for any pre-existing or developing conditions that do not become evident at a normal veterinary health check. Donations: Great Dane Care is funded entirely by donations. This is expected at the time of rehoming except in the case of exceptional difficulties. I/We have read the Advice on taking in a rescue dog leaflet and understand the contents If the agreed donation is not received by the agreed date of I/We will return the said Great Dane to Great Dane Care immediately after this date, at no expense to the charity. Dated this Signature of adoptee: day of Printed name: Address: Telephone No.: Address: Witness signature: Address: Gift aid form completed if applicable yes/ no

95 GREAT DANE CARE CHARITABLE TRUST Charity Reg. No ADVICE ON TAKING IN A RESCUE DOG PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Thank you for taking in this dog, here are a few tips to ensure that the dog causes as few problems as possible and is less distressed by its home change. You are advised to insure your dog on the day you sign it out and register the Great Dane with your vet as you are now the legal owner of the dog or bitch. Remember that the dog cannot be told why he is being rehomed and can be confused as why we are leaving him/her with you. Please ensure that visitors are kept to an absolute minimum for 2 days especially children. You will use different words to his/her former owner but we will try and tell you as much as we know about his background and his reactions whilst in our kennels Remember that all dogs still have the instincts that allowed them to live happily in a wild pack, under the strict commands and order laid down by the dominant male and dominant female. All the family must understand this and the people around this dog come FIRST and the dog is bottom of the pile. Never leave children unattended with any dog. Always greet the family members first and the dog last. This is hard to master when he/she comes bounding up to you when you come home but PLEASE TRY. They soon accept this as normal and feel happier when they know their place. Feed people before dogs, the pack leaders always feed first, and don t feed from the table or you are making the dog equal to you. If you find the dog cannot be shut away at meal times then use a child gate so they can see you but not get at the table. Table scraps can be added to the dog s bowl but not too many, as most human food contains too much salt for most dogs. The dog must earn its food and told to sit before being allowed to eat. It s not a good idea to try and take food away from the dog as it can lead to confrontation. They should be left to eat in peace but any left over food removed after 10 minutes. During the settling in period of about 2 3 weeks, please keep visitors to a minimum and allow the dog at least 24 hours if at all possible to get to know the house and gardens. If you need to take it out or after 24 hours make sure it is restrained properly with a slip lead, halti or dogmatic on. DO NOT LET THE DOG OFF THE LEAD for 2 3 days and then only in a quiet secure place and until you are certain the dog will come back to you and recognises your commands. Often dogs are encouraged to bark when people come to the door and rush up to welcome them. This needs to be discouraged. For the first few weeks, they should be restrained either shut away or put on a lead and asked to sit or lie down. If the dog does something you cannot accept, ignore it, turn a cold shoulder, this gets the quickest response.

96 If the dog comes up for fuss do not always give it, especially if you are busy. Tell them to lie down and when you re ready call the dog to you and praise it. When playing games, you need to give the first and last commands and collect toys up and use them as rewards. Petting and treats need to we earned. Don t allow the dog on the furniture or bed especially; as you are again saying to the dog that it is an equal. This is IMPORTANT in the first few weeks and only if you are sure that you can get the dog from the furniture with a word of command, should this be allowed at all. It is good practice to use a word of command when you want the dog to relieve itself. A made up word like peewee is better than one you use every day or you may forget and use the word in conversation only to find a large puddle or worse! on the floor. Make sure the Dane has done the necessary before going to bed especially in the first few weeks so somebody will have to go outside with a torch if needed to be sure. The change of home and routine can often upset toilet training so be patient. Finally set aside a short time each day for training and only when you have the basic commands obeyed, should you go to training classes with an adult dog. Remember manners are learnt at home. Great Danes enjoy obedience and agility classes and it re enforces the dog s place in the community. If you find that your dog gets upset by being left, is frightened by fireworks, distressed in the car, then try the DAP range of products. The plug in is suitable for when the dog is in a room, the collar will help to settle a dog down and back up the plug in around the house or in the car and the spray can be used in the car or a kennel, useful if the dog is going to the vet!! NEVER put a great dane on a chain as it causes distress and can cause neck and back injuries resulting in arthritis and spinal problems by middle age. A properly constructed outside heated kennel with a run is a much kinder and safer restraint. If we hear that the dog is kept on a chain we will take it back immediately. Hopefully the move from rescue to the new home will be stress free for both you and the dog. If for any reason you think that the dog is not settling in as well as expected, then please contact us as soon as possible. This charity is funded by donations and your Great Dane has been passed to you in return for a donation, you have NOT bought the dog. We are sure that you would agree it is therefore reasonable, ONLY in exceptional hardship cases, can we consider the return of the donation. Each application will be considered at the next meeting of the trustees. The returned donation will be less the transport costs of collecting the dog from your home.

97 Greyhound Rescue Wales content/uploads/2013/02/welcome and Adoption Pack pdf Handed to all our new owners, describing our approach to responsible dog ownership We always neuter the dogs we rehome again as an aspect of responsible ownership

98 Guide Dogs Cymru There have been 2 successful prosecutions in North Wales for dog attacks on guide dogs. The results were: Case fine 100 compensation to GDO costs for Vet bill The money will be recovered by an attachment to benefits notice. Dog contingency destruction order (the dangerous dog must now be muzzled and on a lead when out). If the order is breached, subject to a further court appearance, it is likely that the dangerous dog will be destroyed. Case fine 500 compensation to GDO costs to Guide Dogs Cymru for aftercare visit and assessment 85 prosecution costs The money will be recovered at a rate of 40 per month Dog contingency destruction order (the dangerous dog must now be muzzled and on a lead when out) and must not be left alone in the front garden. If the order is breached, subject to a further court appearance, it is likely that the dangerous dog will be destroyed. Press release: for immediate release Thursday, 6 November, 2014 Guide Dogs forges new guidance for police officers to help guide dog owners Agreement means guide dogs and their owners who face the trauma of an attack will be dealt with effectively and compassionately, in accordance with new legislation Guide dog owners whose dogs have been attacked will get support that is tailored to their needs thanks to new guidelines agreed between Guide Dogs and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

99 The Service Level Agreement (SLA) recognises the devastating impact that an attack on an assistance dog has on their owner s life and will ensure that incidents are treated much more seriously than a dog on dog attack. From today, when a guide dog owner reports an attack, police forces in England and Wales have committed to taking steps such as assigning a named officer to their case and recording the victim as vulnerable, so investigations are tailored around their needs. The full impact of the attack on their guide dog will also be taken into account. Guide dog owner Jemma Brown, whose dog Gus was attacked so many times he had to be retired, has welcomed the Service Level Agreement. Jemma, from Southampton, said: The attacks on Gus were horrible for both of us, but I count myself as relatively lucky as my local police force have been pretty good at helping me. It s nice to know that guide dog owners everywhere will get the same level of attention and support from their local police force at what can be a traumatic time. On average, 10 guide dogs are attacked by other dogs every month in the UK, often with devastating consequences for the animal and its owner. If their guide dog cannot work, the owner is left unable to get around on their own, robbing them of their independence. In several cases guide dogs have had to be retired early, which is

100 extremely distressing for both dog and owner and wastes Guide Dogs donors money. Chief executive of Guide Dogs, Richard Leaman, said: We re grateful to North Wales and Northamptonshire police forces for listening to us and working with us to put this Service Level Agreement in place, and we re delighted that every force in England and Wales are keen to adopt it. When a guide or assistance dog is attacked, the consequences for its owner are devastating. Our guide dog owners rely on their guide dogs to get around and if a dog can t work, their owner can be left housebound. But once the physical wounds have healed, a dog attack can also have a dramatic effect on both a guide dog and its owner s confidence. The SLA follows the creation in May of a new offence, under the Anti Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, of allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog. This offence attracts a maximum sentence of up to three years in prison. During the consultation period before the Act was passed, Deputy Chief Constable Gareth Pritchard of North Wales Police and National Policing Lead for Dangerous Dogs, together with Mr Leaman, gave evidence at the House of Commons. DCC Pritchard said: We recognise the devastating effect of attacks on guide dogs. This new offence gives police forces a great opportunity to strengthen how we support victims and improve how we deal with such traumatic incidents. Ends For more information about Guide Dogs, please contact Annabel Williams on or

101 Notes for Editors About The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (known as Guide Dogs): Guide Dogs is a UK wide charitable organisation founded in Guide Dogs provides independence and freedom to thousands of people who are blind or partially sighted through the provision of guide dogs, mobility and other rehabilitation services. It also campaigns passionately for the rights of people with sight loss. Guide Dogs is working towards a society in which people with vision impairments enjoy the same freedom of movement as everyone else. A review of the reports from dog attacks on guide dogs between 2011 and 2013 Moxon, R. Guide Dogs National Breeding Centre, Guide Dogs, UK. Executive summary A review of the reports from dog attacks on guide dogs between 2011 and 2013 In this 2013 report statistics are provided on recently reported dog attacks on guide dogs and how these figures differ from the report in 2012 is described. Information provided includes details on victim characteristics, aggressor characteristics, attack details and potential attack motivations as well as the effects on the victims and their handlers. The regions of the UK where the attacks took place were investigated in more detail compared to previous reports due to a need for easily accessible information for local media coverage and to allow the attacks to be allocated to a

102 particular MP. There were 240 dog attacks that occurred during the 24 month period between 01 March 2011 and 28 February 2013 (average 10 attacks per month), with an average of 7.8 attacks per month reported in Year 1 and 11.8 attacks per month reported in Year 2. Nearly a quarter of victims had been attacked previously and of these 26.3% had previously been attacked by the same aggressor. Attacks occurred in public areas on 97.9% of occasions. These areas were commonly town centres and shopping areas (28.3%), public exercise areas (21.3%) and public highways (21.7%). Witness details were only obtained on 24.6% of occasions despite witnesses being present at 75.8% of attacks. The largest proportion of aggressors were from the Bull breeds group (35.3%) and aggressors were reported to be with their owner but off the lead on 41.7% of occasions and alarmingly not with their owner on 22.1% of occasions. The majority of Rachel Moxon Page 1 12/11/15 victims were qualified guide dogs (69.5%) and 58.8% of victims were working in harness at the time of the attack. There was no difference in the proportion of male and female victims, contrary to the results of previous reports. More Labradors and fewer golden retrievers and golden retriever x Labradors were attacked than would be expected based on the overall proportion of these breeds within Guide Dogs stock. The dog attacks resulted in injuries to people on 11.3% of occasions although in 16 of these cases the attacks were not reported to the police. The emotional

103 wellbeing of the handlers was reported to have been affected after 71.3% of attacks and being shaken and upset were the most commonly reported affects. Seventy five percent of victim s handlers thought that the attacks could have been prevented. Victim dogs were injured in 46.4% of incidents and required veterinary attention after 77.9% of these incidents, at an estimated cost to Guide Dogs of over 12,000. There was no significant difference between the number of males and females that received injuries (Chi Squared = 0.709, 3df, p=0.871). Injuries to Guide Dogs stock were mainly to the head and neck. Bull breed aggressors caused 42.3% of the injuries that were reported. The victims working performance and/or behaviour were reported to have been affected after 40.0% of incidents. Five dogs were permanently withdrawn from working as a result of the attacks at an estimated cost to Guide Dogs of 171, This information should be used for campaigning and education, both within and external to Guide Dogs, and also could be considered when placing dogs in high risk areas. The recording of dog attacks information is a useful tool for Guide Dogs and should continue to enable up to date information to be available when required. Rachel Moxon Page 2 12/11/15 1. Introduction

104 Since 2010 the number of dog attacks on Guide Dogs stock that are being reported to Guide Dogs has increased from an average of three reports each month to 8 per month (Brooks and Moxon, 2010; Moxon, 2011 and Moxon and Whiteside, 2012). In both the initial study and the further reviews of data, the majority of victims were male, nearly all of the attacks (>95%) took place in public areas and more than half of the victims were working in harness when they were attacked. The attacks were also responsible for affecting the emotional wellbeing of the victims handlers as well as injuries to the victim dogs and the victims handlers. In addition, while the actual costs to Guide Dogs resulting from dog attacks remain unclear, costs are potentially large with dogs requiring veterinary treatment for injuries, retraining and in some cases withdrawal from working life. The information collected in the dog attack reports has been reviewed annually and the Campaigns and Communications teams use the updated information to evidence campaigns for responsible dog ownership, training and compulsory microchipping. The data from the reports has been used to support a parliamentary reception at the House of Commons, to provide evidence for an Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee discussion and to provide evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee regarding proposed amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act.

105 This annual review of the dog attacks data has been prepared for Campaigns and Communications to satisfy a need for up to date dog attack information for The Rachel Moxon Page 3 12/11/15 document will report the current data, provide a comparison to previous reports and for the first time contain 11 small sub sections wherein the UK data will be broken down and presented regionally. 2. Materials and methods Data was collated from all incident and dog attack report forms submitted to Canine Research and Health & Safety for incidents that occurred in the 24 month period between 01 March 2011 and 28 February Data was examined to determine the following: the average number of attacks per month the location of the incident, the geographical areas in which the attacks occurred and the Guide Dogs areas responsible for the dogs when they were attacked the aggressor(s): breed, sex, age, colour and activity prior to the attack

106 the guide dog s victim: breed, sex, age, colour, stage of training or working (qualified or breeding stock), activity and behaviour prior to the incident and history of being attacked the incident: the suspected cause as reported by the victim s handler, whether there were other people present, whether witness details were obtained, whether or not there was contact between the victim and aggressor dogs; whether any physical injuries occurred to guide dogs or people, the position of injuries on guide dogs (muzzle, face, neck, thorax, abdomen, fore legs, hind legs and/or tail) and whether veterinary or medical attention was required after the incident: whether the incident was reported to the police, any changes Rachel Moxon Page 4 12/11/15 to the victims character and working performance after the attack, costs incurred such as veterinary expenses and transport costs, time impacts including aftercare hours, refresher training hours, re training hours and loss of working life and effects on the emotional and physical well being of the victim s handler 3. Results

107 A total of 240 dog attacks on Guide Dogs stock occurred between 01 March 2011 and 28 February 2013 inclusive (mean 10.0 attacks per month reported). The mean number of attacks reported to have occurred each month in Year 1 was 7.8 and in Year 2 was There was an increase in the number of attacks reported to have occurred from May 2012 to October 2012 (Figure 1) corresponding to the period when Guide Dogs launched a large campaign on dog attacks on guide dogs. In total there were 219 different victims and in 11 attacks there was more than one attacking dog, therefore results for aggressors were based on data from 252 dogs. Figure 1. The number of dog attacks each month in Year 1 and Year 2. Rachel Moxon Page 5 12/11/ Location type, time of attack and witnesses Attacks occurred in public areas on 97.9% (96.7% in 2010 to 2012) of occasions. Locations of attacks were commonly in town centres and shopping areas (28.3%), public parks and exercise areas (21.3%) or public highways (21.7%) (Figure 2a; Appendix 1), similar to findings from the 2012 report (Figure 2b). Figure 2a. The proportion of attacks that occurred in each type of location between 2011 and Figure 2b. The proportion of attacks that occurred in each type of location between 2010 and 2012.

108 There were other people present at 75.8% of attacks (n=182). There were one or two Rachel Moxon Page 6 12/11/15 other people present at 30.4% of attacks (29.5% in 2012 report) and more than two other people at 45.4% of attacks (46.4% in 2012 report). Details of witnesses to the attacks were only obtained on 24.6% of occasions (24.0% in 2012 report). 3.2 Geographical location and the corresponding Guide Dogs areas responsible for the victims of attacks Dog attacks were recorded to have occurred in England (77.5%), Scotland (11.3%), Wales (7.5%) and Northern Ireland (0.4%). Geographical areas were not reported for 3.3% of attacks. When grouped into regions the highest proportion of attacks occurred in the North West and South West (Figure 3). Detailed results for each of these regions is presented as an appendix to this report (Appendix 2). Figure 3. The number of reported dog attacks on Guide Dogs stock that occurred between 2011 and 2013 in each region of the UK. The largest proportion of dog attack reports was received for dogs supervised by Wales and West (34.2%, Table 1). The percentage of dog attacks reported for dogs Rachel Moxon Page 7 12/11/15 from each area have changed from those reported in 2012 and 2011 with a higher percentage of the attacks occurring in dogs that are supervised in Scotland and NI

109 and the South and East. This has resulted in percentages that are more representative of the proportion of dogs that were in each area based on the total GD population (Table1). Table 1. The number and percentage of dogs attacked in each Guide Dogs area. Area 2013 Number 2013 Percentage 2012 Percentage 2011 Percentage 2010 Percentage Proportion of Guide Dogs stock in the area Breeding % 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% North % 27.9% 28.0% 26.0% 27.5% Scotland & NI % 13.7% 13.1% 22.0% 19.1% South & East % 13.7% 12.1% 24.0% 22.9% Wales & West % 42.6% 43.0% 28.0% 25.9% Unknown % 2.7% 0.0% N/A Exeter MT reported the highest percentage of attacks of any Guide Dogs team (10.4%, n=25, 11.5% in 2012 report) and these results were influenced by the large number of attacks reported in Paignton (n=10). Other towns with high numbers of attacks were Leicester (n=6) and Edinburgh (n=4), London (n=4) and Liverpool (n=4). A further eight areas had three attacks reported and 23 areas had two attacks reported. Suggested causes of the attacks

110 Many causes were suggested for the dog attacks (Table 2). Most frequently the aggressor dogs not being under proper control, including being able to escape from houses and gardens and being off lead were reported as the cause (21.3%), or being aggressive and not under proper control (8.3%). 17.5% of attacks were reported as Rachel Moxon Page 8 12/11/15 Unprovoked (17.5%). In 17 cases (7.1%) the victim was suggested to have caused the attack, commonly by approaching the aggressor. Many individuals that submitted reports of dog attacks may not have had the ability or expertise to interpret the nature of the attack or may not have observed the behaviour of the victim or attacking dog prior to the incident occurring. Table 2. The main responses when asked for opinions on the cause of the attack and the percentage of attacks that each cause was suggested for. Cause Number of reports which included the suggested cause Percentage of reports which included the suggested cause Aggressor not under control and/or not with owner Attacking dog aggressive or showing aggressive behaviour Attacking dog both aggressive and not under control Aggressor protective, territorial, possessive, guarding resource % % % % Aggressor dog's owner / encouragement 5 2.1% Aggressor dog for other / not reported reasons % Aggressor reaction to seeing victim 3 1.3%

111 Aggressor left tied up / unattended 9 3.8% Victim dog caused the attack % Unprovoked % Unknown / not reported % Other 1 0.4% Aggressors The 252 aggressors were reported to be a variety of breeds and breed types which were then classified into six breed groups (Figure 4; Appendix 1). The breed group with the largest proportion of aggressors was the Bull breeds group, 35.3% (n=89, 37.1% in 2012 report) of the aggressors were from this group. Rachel Moxon Page 9 12/11/15 Figure 4. The percentage of aggressors that were from each breed group. When the aggressors gender was known (30.4% of incidents) 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. The age of the aggressor was only reported for 7.5% of incidents and ranged from 1 to 12 years of age. Aggressors were a variety of colours, however if colours were classified in to dark, light, mixed and other/unknown colours, 22.2%, 18.7%, 24.2%, 34.9% fitted in to these groups respectively. Aggressors were reported to be with their owner but off the lead on 41.7% of occasions, on the lead and with their owner on 32.9% of occasions, on a lead but not

112 with their owner on 1.7% of occasions and not on a lead and not with their owner on 20.4% of occasions. Of the dogs that were attacked while working in harness (n=141), 34.3% were attacked by aggressors that were with their owner but not on a lead (38.5% in 2012 report). Compared to the 2012 report, more guide dogs working in harness have been attacked by aggressors that were not with their owner (Table 3). Table 3. The percentage of aggressors that were under different levels of control immediately prior to the attacks on guide dogs working in harness in the periods 2011 to 2013, and 2010 to Level of control over aggressor prior to Percentage of Percentage of Rachel Moxon Page 10 12/11/15 it attacking the guide dog working in harness aggressors 2011 to 2013 aggressors 2010 to 2012 Not on a lead and not with the owner 24.3% 15.4% Not on a lead but with the owner 34.3% 38.5% On a lead but not with the owner 2.2% 2.9% On a lead with the owner 36.4% 36.5% Unknown 3.6% 6.7% Victims Victims were qualified guide dogs in 69.5% of attacks (67.6% in 2012 report), dogs in puppy walk in 20.5% of attacks (23.1% in 2012 report), dogs in training in 7.5% of attacks (7.1% in 2012 report), breeding stock in 1.3% of attacks (0.5% in 2012 report) or retired guide dogs in 1.3% of attacks. When the attacks occurred, 58.8% of

113 victims were working in harness (56.8% in 2012 report), 22.1% were on a lead (20.8% in 2012 report) and 17.9% were free running (21.3% in 2012 report). More Labradors and fewer golden retrievers and golden retriever x Labradors were attacked than would be expected based on the overall proportion of these breeds within Guide Dogs stock (Table 4). This reflects the findings in all previous Guide Dogs reports. Table 4. The percentage of each breed that were the victim of an attack in 2013, 2012 and 2011 reports and the percentage of each breed as a proportion of the total Guide Dogs population (correct as of April 2013). Victim breed Proportion of breed within the Guide Dog stock (2013) 2013 Percentage of total attacked 2012 Percentage of total attacked 2011 Percentage of total attacked Collie 0.02% 0.4% 1.1% 1.9% Collie x golden retriever 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% Curly coat retriever x golden retriever 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% 0.0% Rachel Moxon Page 11 12/11/15 Flat coat retriever x golden retriever 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% Golden retriever 8.8% 7.5% 5.5% 5.6% Victim breed Proportion of breed within the Guide Dog stock (2013) 2013 Percentage of total attacked 2012 Percentage of total attacked 2011 Percentage of total attacked Golden retriever x flat coat retriever 1.8% 2.5% 3.3% 0.9% Golden retriever x Labrador 33.4% 30.8% 28.4% 27.1%

114 Golden retriever x German shepherd 3.5% 5.8% 3.3% 0.9% German shepherd 4.2% 3.8% 2.7% 1.9% Irish water spaniel x Labrador 0.1% 0.4% 1.1% 0.9% Victim breed Proportion of breed within the Guide Dog stock (2013) 2013 Percentage of total attacked 2012 Percentage of total attacked 2011 Percentage of total attacked Labrador 26.5% 28.3% 30.0% 31.8% Labrador x curly coated retriever 0.3% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% Labrador x golden retriever 8.1% 6.3% 9.3% 11.2% Labrador x golden retriever* 9.1% 10.0% 10.4% 12.1% Labrador x Labrador* 1.6% 1.7% 1.1% 0.9% Poodle x Labrador 0.8% 0.9% 0.5% 0.9% There were 107 male (48.9%) and 112 female (51.1%) victims (50.0% of each sex in the Guide Dogs population). The proportion of male victims was lower in this report than in previous reports (52.5% in 2012, 56.1% in 2011 and 62.0% in 2010). Victims were aged between 0.2 and 11.3 years (mean age 3.5 ± 2.5 years). Victims of attacks were mainly black (47.0%) or yellow (40.0%) in colour, consistent with the two most common colours within Guide Dogs stock based on dogs in 2013 (Table 5). Table 5. The percentage of each colour of dog that were the victim of an attack between 2011 and 2013, and between 2010 and 2012 and the percentage of each colour as a proportion of the total Guide Dogs population (correct as of April 2013). Rachel Moxon Page 12 12/11/15

115 Guide dog colour Proportion of colour within the Guide Dog stock (2013) Percentage of total attacked between 2011 and 2013 Percentage of total attacked between 2010 and 2012 Yellow 44.6% 40.0% 42.1% Black 41.2% 47.0% 50.8% Golden 8.5% 6.7% 1.6% Others 2.1% 1.7% 1.7% Black and Tan 3.6% 5.8% 3.8% At the time of the attack, the person reported to be in charge of the victim was the guide dog owner on 67.0% of occasions, a puppy walker on 18.8% of occasions, a Guide Dogs staff member on 8.3% of occasions, other volunteers on 4.2% of occasions and a relative of a guide dog owner on 1.7% of occasions. Most commonly victims were reportedly unaware of the aggressor (20.0%) or showed no reaction to it (15.0%) (Figure 5). Figure 5. The words used to describe the victim dogs reaction to the other dog prior to the attack. History of attacks There were 57 victims in this study that had previously been attacked (23.8%, 23.7% in Rachel Moxon Page 13 12/11/15

116 2012 report) and of these, 26.3% (n=15) had previously been attacked by the same dog (17.5% in 2012 report). Seventeen dogs had two attacks reported in this dataset and two dogs had three dog attacks reported in this dataset. Five of the 17 dogs reported to have been attacked twice in this dataset had also been attacked at least one more time prior to the start of this data collection period meaning that the number of attacks for each of these dogs was actually three or more. Injuries to people The dog attacks resulted in injuries to people on 11.3% (n=27; 13.3% in 2012 report) of occasions of which 44.4% (n=12) required medical attention and 40.7% (n=11) were reported to the police. Injuries included scratches, bruising and dog bites (Table 6). There were 16 cases of people being injured as a result of dog attacks that did not appear to have been reported to the police (59.3% compared to 41.7% in 2012 report). Table 6. The number of people that suffered each type of injury as a result of a dog attack. The total number of types of injury reported is greater than the number of people that reported an injury due to some people reporting more than one injury. Type of injury Number of people affected Bite 10 Broken toe and ribs 1 Bruising 7 Hurt or sore 5

117 Cuts, grazes, scratches and broken skin 7 Pulled muscle 1 Burn 2 Twisted knee 1 Twisted back and hip 1 Unknown 1 Rachel Moxon Page 14 12/11/15 Effects on guide dogs physical injuries During the dogs attacks that were reported, there was physical contact of some kind between the victim dog and the aggressor in 151 incidents (62.9%) and there may have been contact in a further 73 incidents (30.4%). It was reported that there was not contact between the two dogs in 6.7% of incidents (n=16). The following data on dogs injured was based on the 224 incidents during which dogs could have been injured and excluded the 16 incidents in which there was no physical contact between the dogs. Guide Dogs stock were injured in 46.4% (43.7% in 2012 report) of incidents (n=104) and required veterinary attention after 77.9% of these incidents (76.3% in 2012 report). Over sixty per cent of the dogs that were attacked when not in harness received injuries compared to 35.4% of the dogs that were attacked when working in harness (Figure 6). Forty percent of male dogs that were attacked

118 received injuries compared to 45.8% of female dogs. There was no significant difference between the number of males and females that received injuries (Chi Squared = 0.709, 3df, p=0.871). Figure 6. Proportion of victims working in harness and not working in harness that received or did not receive injuries Rachel Moxon Page 15 12/11/15 Location of injuries to dogs The locations of the injuries were reported for 92 of the 104 injured dogs. Injuries were mainly to the muzzle, head and ears and to the neck (65.3%). The injuries were to similar places on the body in male and female dogs, however a higher percentage of males received injuries to the head and ears, thorax and armpit and abdomen, and a higher percentage of bitches received injuries to the neck (Figure 7). Dogs that were not working received more injuries to the head and neck than dogs that were working in harness (Figure 8). There were no other differences in injury location between dogs that were working and not working when they were attacked. Figure 7. The percentage of male and female dogs that received injuries to each area of the body as a result of a dog attack. Rachel Moxon Page 16 12/11/15

119 Figure 8. The percentage of dogs that received injuries to each area of the body as a result of a dog attack when they were working and not working. Of the 104 dogs that were injured in attacks, 42.3% were injured by bull breed aggressors (45% in 2012 report). In comparison the remaining breed groups each caused between 4.8% and 11.5% of the injuries to the victims. When injury locations were reported, all of the gun dog breeds that caused injuries to victims injured their victims muzzles, heads and or ears. Each breed group of aggressors were most likely to injure the victim s head and ears, with the exception of the bull breeds group; dogs in this group were equally as likely to injure the victims necks (Figure 9). Considering injury locations which had more than 10 dogs that received an injury to that part of the body, the area of the body that was injured did not affect whether or not the dogs required veterinary treatment (Figure 10). Rachel Moxon Page 17 12/11/15 Figure 9. The proportion of each breed that caused injury to each area on their victims. Figure 10. The areas of the body that received injuries and whether or not the dogs required veterinary attention. Effects on guide dogs working performance, character and behaviour The victims working performance and/or behaviour were reported to have been affected after 40.0% (n=96 dogs) of incidents (43.2% in 2012 report) and after 19.2% Rachel Moxon Page 18 12/11/15

120 of incidents dogs required time off from work or training (18.6% in 2012 report). The length of time was not recorded for six incidents, but for the remainder it ranged from half a day to four weeks. The most common effects reported were those concerning the dogs confidence (46.9%) and their behaviour around other dogs (45.0%). Seventeen dogs were reported to have had their working performance directly affected including being reluctant or unwilling to work (n=5), reluctant to work past other dogs (n=2), barking at dogs when in harness (n=2), backing away from the harness (n=2) and being unable to work safely. In 12 cases the victims behaviour in the area of the attack was reported to have been negatively affected. It was reported in the data that six dogs had been withdrawn as a direct result of the dog attacks. One of these dogs was only temporarily withdrawn at the time of preparing this report but had been working as a guide dog at the time of the attack. Five dogs were permanently withdrawn from working as a result of the attacks; three were working guide dogs, one was withdrawn from advanced training one week before being matched and one was withdrawn from early training. Additionally, two dogs were also permanently withdrawn in early training for dog distraction but had been the victim of a dog attack during puppy walk. These two dogs were not

121 included in the financial analysis as is was not possible to determine whether the dog attack affected their level of dog distraction. After the attack Rachel Moxon Page 19 12/11/15 The victims handler was offered help after the attack on 43.3% (43.2% in 2012 report) of occasions. Dog attacks were reported to the police after 35.4% (32.2% in 2012 and 28.0% in 2011 reports) of attacks and to the dog warden after 10.8% (7.1% in 2012 report) of attacks. Of the attacks on guide dogs working in harness, 40.4% (n=57 out of 141) were reported to the police (38.5% in 2012 report). The emotional wellbeing of the handlers was reported to have been affected after 71.3% (68.3% in 2012 report) of attacks. Of those handlers that were affected emotionally, the most commonly reported reactions included being upset (30.4%); shaken (29.8%); worried (12.3%) and concerned (12.3%). Others reported feeling intimidated, guilty, ashamed and having difficulty sleeping and doing normal daily tasks (Figure 11). Figure 11. The words used by victims handlers to describe how they were emotionally following an attack.

122 It was reported by 75.0% of people that the attacks could have been prevented (72.7% in 2012 report). Suggestions for prevention were provided in 111 out of these 180 cases, but most commonly reported, simply having had the aggressor dog on a lead Rachel Moxon Page 20 12/11/15 may have prevented the attack on 47 occasions and the aggressor owner having control of the dog would have prevented a further 17. After the incidents, 53.3% of aggressor s owners were reported to have spoken to the handlers of the victims (59.0% in 2012 report) and apologised after 18.8% of attacks (5.5% in 2012 report). In three incidents the aggressors owners laughed at the victim s handler during or after the attack, two owners were verbally abusive, two were aggressive and one reportedly made unpleasant comments about blind people. One owner said that they would have the aggressor dog put down. It was reported that the police did not respond to the reporting of ten attacks and the police handling of the attacks was reported to be excellent after two incidents. Financial costs of dog attacks

123 The financial costs for veterinary treatment, medical treatment and transport were not reported for all incidents. Veterinary costs were reported for just 36.1% of attacks where veterinary attention was required (n=30) and amounted to a total of 4, Therefore the average veterinary cost for each of these 30 dogs was (range from to per dog). The total veterinary costs to Guide Dogs resulting from dog attacks could be estimated by multiplying the average cost per dog ( ) by the number of dogs which required veterinary attention (n=83), resulting in an estimated figure of 12, for veterinary costs over 24 months. Six respondents reported costs for transport ( ). Rachel Moxon Page 21 12/11/15 Financial costs to Guide Dogs in terms of staff time to provide additional aftercare support, refresher training or retraining were also not reported reliably. Despite this there were 185 hours of aftercare, 23.5 hours of refresher training and at least 240 hours of retraining reportedly required resulting from the attacks. Eight dogs had answers recorded for loss of working life (one dog had 6 years reported and six dogs had temporary periods away from work 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days, 10 days, and one had one year? reported). These dogs will all result in costs to Guide Dogs in terms of staff time to assist the partnership in dealing

124 with the attack and returning to work. Additionally dogs that have had time off in training as a result of attacks have not had financial costs calculated in this report. Four of the six dogs withdrawn did not have loss of working life information recorded. The cost to Guide Dogs for the five dogs permanently withdrawn based on the Guide Dogs The cost of a guide dog document are conservatively estimated at 171, (Table 7). Table 7. A conservative estimate of costs to Guide Dogs from dogs being permanently withdrawn as a result of a dog attack, based on Guide Dogs The cost of a guide dog 2012 document. Details of dog lost Included in cost Estimated cost to Guide Dogs One dog permanently withdrawn from early training (based on 10 weeks spent in early training) 1,900 for breeding 5,100 for puppy walking 9,625 for 10 weeks in early training 1,900 for breeding a replacement 5,100 for puppy walking a replacement 9,625 for a replacement in early training to the same stage 33,250 One dog permanently withdrawn from advanced training after 15 weeks in advanced training 1,900 for breeding 5,100 for puppy walking 15,400 for early training Rachel Moxon Page 22 12/11/15 68, ,950 for 15 weeks in advanced training 1,900 for breeding a replacement 5,100 for puppy walking a replacement 15,400 for a replacement in early training 9,300 for a replacement in advanced training

125 One dog permanently withdrawn from working as a guide dog at three years of age 5.85 years loss of return on investment in terms of guide dog owner mobility 41, One dog permanently withdrawn from working as a guide dog at 8 years of age with a suggested one year loss of working life Loss of one years mobility 7, One dog permanently withdrawn from working as a guide dog after four years of working Three years loss of return on investment in terms of guide dog owner mobility 21, Total costs 171, Calculating the cost of early retirement is difficult but the authors have assumed a working guide dog provides 7 years of mobility for a guide dog owner, and that the cost of the mobility is the total cost of a guide dog. Therefore the cost of a working guide dog being withdrawn one year early is 50,000 / 7 years. The cost for being withdrawn two years early would be ( 50,000 / 7 years)* 2 years. No costs are allocated for breeding and training a replacement dog because the authors assume that this cost would be likely to occur when the partnership was replaced at the end of the dog s natural working life. Discussion The current review of data gathered for dog attacks on Guide Dogs stock suggests that more attacks occurred per month in Year 2 than in Year 1. The monthly averages for Year 2 as well as the overall monthly average for the two year period were also higher than any of the monthly averages reported previously. However there was a noticeable increase in attack reports coinciding with a very large and wide scale media and political campaign by Guide Dogs which began in May 2012 which was likely to have increased awareness of dog attack reporting. Therefore it is probable that the number Rachel Moxon Page 23 12/11/15

126 of attacks has not increased, rather its the likelihood of an attack being reported that has risen. The one attack reported for Northern Ireland in the last two years provides further evidence for the under reporting of dog attacks because it is unlikely that there has only been one attack in Northern Ireland in the timeframe. Additionally, since the preparation of the data for this report it has been found that one mobility team has not reported five dog attacks in the last 8 months, one of which involved a dog being permanently withdrawn as a result of the attack and one which resulted in an 1,100 vet bill. Additionally, a separate study into the early withdrawal of guide dogs has potentially identified seven dogs which have had a dog attack recorded in their health notes or CAS but which have not had a dog attack report form completed. In support of data previously reported by Guide Dogs, there are still high numbers of attacks being reported for the Exeter MT and particularly for the Paignton area. The reason for this remains unclear but again indicates a specific location of the country for which targeted campaigning to reduce the incidence of attacks may be beneficial. There was still a larger proportion of dog attacks reported for dogs supervised in Wales and West than in other areas and than would be expected based on the proportion of Guide Dogs stock that are supervised by Wales and West. However the difference was less than reported in previous years and it is possible that this is

127 due to the increase in dog attacks being reported in other areas, corresponding to an increase in the percentage of attacks reported per month. Regular communication of the requirement and process for reporting dog attacks to Guide Dogs staff, volunteers and guide dog owners will be instrumental in ensuring more accurate numbers are reported, as demonstrated by the increase in reports coinciding with the large public and media Rachel Moxon Page 24 12/11/15 campaign into dog attacks. The locations in which attacks took place indicate the need for the public to ensure that their dogs are under control in public places. Excluding when dogs were in exercise areas 62% of attacks could have been prevented if aggressor dogs were under control in town centres, on pavements and footpaths, on roads and highways and in public transport areas. Additional support for the control of aggressors is evident when the level of aggressor restraint is examined; 22.1% of attacks were by aggressors that were not with their owner and 41.7% but aggressors that were not on a lead but with their owners. Additionally more than 30 per cent of the victims attacked while working in harness were attacked by aggressors that were not on a lead. If all of these aggressor dogs were under proper control then it is possible that around 60% of attacks could be prevented.

128 Comparisons of victim data between this report and reports from previous years revealed that a higher proportion of the victims were qualified guide dogs, less victims were free running and more were working in harness or on a lead at the time that the attack took place than in In this report as well as previous reports the same breed bias was observed both in the victims, with more Labradors and less golden retrievers and golden retriever x Labradors being attacked than would be expected, and in the aggressors, with Bull breeds being the largest aggressor group. In contrast to previous reports there was no difference in the number of male and female dogs that were the victim of attacks. Rachel Moxon Page 25 12/11/15 Fifteen dogs in this study had a history of agonistic encounters/interactions with their aggressor previous to the attack, which was lower than the 31.0% of dogs reported by Roll & Unshelm (1997) but similar to the findings within Guide Dogs (Brooks et al., 2010 and Moxon, 2011, Moxon and Whiteside, 2012). This suggests that the aggressor s owners may not be taking action to prevent their dog attacking again. If these dogs had been controlled then it is possible that 6 per cent of the attacks may not have occurred. For the fourth year, the data suggests that dark dogs may be more likely to be the victim of attacks. Guide Dogs may want to consider the findings

129 for the breed and colour of victims when placing dogs in high risk areas such as Paignton. In 67% of the attacks the guide dog owner was the person handling the victim dog when they were attacked. This study further highlights the vulnerability of the guide dog owner and the importance of the guide dog not just as an animal, but as part of a working partnership that the guide dog owner is dependent upon. Guide dogs can become so traumatised that they are unable to work and guide dog owners so affected that they may not retrain with another guide dog, which has repercussions for the guide dog owner and Guide Dogs as an organisation. More than 70% of the victim s handlers in this dataset reported that their emotional wellbeing had been affected as a result of dog attacks and after 40 per cent of attacks the victim dogs working performance or behaviour was reported to be affected. Further work into the emotional effects of dog attacks and the impact on guide dog owner wellbeing is currently underway and will provide valuable information in support of this work. Support for both the victim handler and members of Guide Dogs staff that assist handlers after an attack is important to help them cope with and move on from the traumatic experience of the attack (Godley Rachel Moxon Page 26 12/11/15

130 and Gillard, 2011). It could be inferred from the relatively low proportion of attacks that had staff time associated with them after the event that victim handlers may not always receive a visit from Guide Dogs staff following an attack. Guide Dogs might want to make certain that there is a support process in place following an attack for any member of staff, volunteer or guide dog owner whose dog is the victim of an attack to ensure the recovery of the partnership and that future work is not affected. In addition to the emotional cost of dog attacks to guide dog owners, the financial costs of dog attacks to Guide Dogs are considerable and worthy of note. This report suggests that a conservative estimate of costs to Guide Dogs for the five dogs permanently withdrawn as a result of dog attacks, combined with the estimated veterinary costs for all dogs that saw a vet, is in excess of 180,000. These costs do not include any additional costs for staff to support dogs and guide dog owners after a dog attack or for time lost when dogs are attacked while they are in training. Consequently the estimated cost of dog attacks to Guide Dogs is likely to be approximately 100,000 each year. The possible cost of physical injuries or psychiatric damage to people was not included in this report because these would not be direct costs to Guide Dogs. One person had a broken toe and ribs as a result of a dog attack and many people expressed loss of confidence. It could be beneficial to Guide Dogs campaigns to investigate the financial settlements that could be

131 claimed for these impacts on people to determine how damages might be apportioned. More than half of the victims were working in harness when they were attacked and of those only 26.5% were attacked by aggressors that were not with their owner. If Rachel Moxon Page 27 12/11/15 aggressor dog owners had realised that there was a working guide dog and controlled their dog appropriately, nearly 75% of attacks might have been prevented. The working harness should make it clear to the attacking dogs owners and any members of the public that witnessed the attack that this was a working guide dog. All attacks on guide dogs working in harness are now being reported to their local forces dog liaison officer and it is important that witness details are obtained where possible and that assistance is offered to guide dog owners following an attack. Witness details were obtained in almost a quarter of cases however there were other people present at three quarters of the incidents. It is suggested that the information in this report be used to appeal to members of the public that witness a dog attack to provide their details or at the very least provide some information to the guide dog owner to enable them to make an accurate report of the aggressor and aggressors owner to the police by ensuring the correct details have been observed. A positive

132 finding was that three times more aggressors owners were reported to have apologised to the victim s handlers following the attack. For the second year, it was found that when dogs were injured the most common location of injuries were to the muzzle, head and ears, and neck. In contrast to the 2012 report, there was no significant difference in the number of males or females that received injuries. Female victims were more likely to receive injuries to the neck while males were more likely to receive injuries to the head and ears. Bull breeds were responsible for 42.3% of the attacks which resulted in injuries to dogs. Whilst dogs appear to be more likely to be attacked if they are working in harness, it is interesting that the dogs that were attacked while wearing a harness were less likely to receive Rachel Moxon Page 28 12/11/15 injuries. It is possible that the harness offers some mechanical protection, but it is more likely that some other factor causes this difference due to the fact that the most common injury sites were the head, ears and neck, where the harness would offer no protection. This finding was the same in the 2012 report. There was also a slight increase in the proportion of injured dogs that required veterinary attention and the proportion of dogs that required time off from work following an attack when compared with the 2012 report. If these factors are considered as markers of attack

133 severity, these findings should be monitored in future reports to examine whether the severity of attacks could be increasing. Increasing attack severity has been reported by Guide Dogs for the Blind (Godley and Gillard, 2011). Novel information collected for this report revealed that not all of the incidents reported between 2011 and 2013 were actual dog attacks subject to the definition of a dog attack. The definition defines a dog attack as 'When a dog sets upon another dog in a forceful, violent, hostile or aggressive way, involving physical contact'. Sixteen incidents reported out of the 240 did not involve any physical contact between the dogs and were aggressive displays rather than actual attacks. The majority of reports did involve dogs being attacked but there were 30.4% of incidents for which physical contact could not be determined. In all future incidents, whether or not there was physical contact will be established and therefore future reports on dog attacks will consider aggressive displays and actual dog attacks separately. It is alarming that not all of the attacks which resulted in injuries to people were reported to the police, in fact in 16 of the 27 cases no police reports were made. Additionally Rachel Moxon Page 29 12/11/15

134 nearly 65 per cent of 240 dog attacks were not reported to the police. Close to 60 per cent of the attacks on guide dogs that were working in harness at the time of the attack and therefore acting as someone s mobility aid were not reported to the police. It is important that we encourage all dog attacks to be reported and instruct guide dog owners on how to do this effectively. Since December 2012 all dog attack reports for guide dogs working in harness that have not been reported to the police are being forwarded to the Service Delivery Managers. All Guide Dogs staff, volunteers and guide dog owners should be clear as to the procedure to follow after a dog attack, which should include calling for assistance, checking the dog for injuries including difficult to detect puncture wounds, gathering as much information as possible from sighted witnesses regarding the nature of the attack, the victim s behaviour, injuries to the victim, details of the aggressor and people involved and reporting the attack to Guide Dogs. It is important that the handlers of victims contact Guide Dogs following any attack and that they receive ongoing guidance and support. The need for this is highlighted by the large proportions of handlers reporting they felt upset, shaken, worried or concerned, angry and shocked following dog attacks. It is recommended that the current method of data collection should continue as it is worthwhile to have an organisation wide database collecting specific consistent data.

135 Conclusion The results presented in the current report offer similar findings in some cases to those in previous reports. Again a large proportion of the attacks were on dogs working in harness and the Bull breeds group had the largest number of aggressors and also Rachel Moxon Page 30 12/11/15 caused a large proportion of the injuries. There is interesting data which shows that despite being more likely to be attacked, dogs wearing a harness were less likely to be injured, which mirrors findings in the 2012 report. Dog attacks on guide dogs are estimated to cost Guide Dogs in the region of 100,000 annually although it is likely that this estimate is low and would be increased by including a financial evaluation of the cost of staff time associated with dealing with dog attacks. It is important for Guide Dogs to consider the emotional impact of dog attacks on the victims handlers with nearly three quarters of handlers reporting being emotionally affected and the research due to be complete later in 2013 will provide a useful insight into this subject. The large scale media, political and public campaign in 2012 has resulted in a positive Government response as well as increased levels of reporting incidents. The continuing collection of dog attacks data will provide current and representative

136 dog attacks information for the future, but reminders about the need to report all attacks will be instrumental in ensuring the data is available. Financial analysis Hours worked by the Technical Canine Research Worker were approximately 65. References Brooks, A, Moxon, R and England, GCW Incidence and impact of dog attacks on guide dogs in the UK. The Veterinary Record, 166, Godley, CA and Gillard, MA Assisting handlers following attacks on guide dogs: implications for dog guide teams. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. 105, Rachel Moxon Page 31 12/11/ Moxon, R A review of the dog attacks data at Guide Dogs in Guide Dogs internal report.

137 Moxon, R and Whiteside, H A review of the data on dog attacks on Guide Dogs in Guide Dogs internal report. Roll, A and Unshelm, J Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors affecting them. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 52, The cost of a Guide Dog. Guide Dogs document. Accessed 13 April Available at: ost_of_a_guide_dogfinal.pdf Appendix 1 Detailed question responses for locations where attacks took place and breeds that initiated the attack. Type of location where attacks took place Rachel Moxon Page 32 12/11/15 Public area (n=235) included: 33 shopping precinct / area; 17 high street; 19 town / city centre; 9 bus or train station; 2 bus; 47 street / road / lane; 37 park; 6 field; 3 playing fields; 2 beach; 1 farm; 1 golf course; 8 pavement; 21 housing estate, residential area or communal flat area; 3 outside house; 2 outside aggressor s house; 1 canal bank; 2 pub garden; 4

138 woods; 8 path, 1 country lane; 2 car parks; 1 reception at RNIB; 2 outside school; 2 unreported locations and 1 communal garden area. There were also five locations that were on private property (four houses and one garden). Breeds of aggressor Bull breeds N = Crossbree ds N= Guarding breeds N= Gun dog breeds N= Terrier breeds N= Other breeds N= American bull dog 2 Border Collie Cross 1 Alsatian x Rottweiler 1 Cocker spaniel 1 Airedale 1 Bearded collie 2 Bull dog 1 Bull mastiff x 2 Belgian Shepherd 1 Curly coated retriever 1 Jack Russell 7 Border Collie 2 Bull dog type 2 Collie cross 2 Doberman 1 G.Ret x Lab 1 Jack Russell/terri er 1 Border collie type 1 Bull mastiff 2 Crossbree d 7 GSD 14 Golden retriever 4 Terrier 3 Boxer 6 Bull terrier 1 GSD/Grey hound 1 GSD type 1 Labrador 5 Terrier type 3 Collie 5 Bull terrier type 1 German shepherd cross 1 Rottweiller 5 Labrador cross 1 West highland white 1 Collie type 1 English bull terrier 5 Labrador cross 1 Spaniel 1 Yorkshire terrier 2 Great Dane 1 Large staffie or pit bull type 1 Mastiff cross 1 Spaniel type 2 Greyhound 1 Pit bull terrier 1 Mongrel 5 Springer spaniel 1 Husky 2 Pit bull terrier (possibly) 1 Pit bull 1 Staffordshi re bull terrier cross 4 Weimaraner 2 Husky type 3 Old English Sheep Dog 2 Pit bull cross 1 Ridgeback 1 Staff and staff x pit bull 1 St Bernard 1

139 Stafford bull terrier or similar 1 Mastiff or french bordeaus 1 Staffordshi re bull terrier 4 3 Pit bull / boxer type 1 Staffordshi re bull terrier cross 2 Rachel Moxon Page 33 12/11/15 Whippet type 1 Staffordshi re bull terrier type 1 9 Staffordshi re x pit bull type 1 Staffordshi re/pit bull type 1 Staffy type 2 Unknown breed (n=47) Appendix 2 Regional data for the dog attacks that occurred between 01 March 2011 and 28 February 2013 in 13 UK regions for Communications and Campaigns East Midlands There were 11 dog attacks in the East Midlands. Ten were on qualified guide dogs, 6 of which were working in harness, 1 of which was free running and 3 of which were on a lead when the attack happened. All but one of the qualified guide dogs was attacked whilst with the guide dog owner. One puppy at walk was also attacked and was on a lead at the time of the attack. Six dogs were injured, 3 of which needed veterinary attention, 5 of these were qualified guide dogs. Two guide dogs had to have time off of work as a result of the attack, one for 2 days and one for 10 days. Both of these dogs had received injuries.

140 The puppy s handler was injured in the attack on their puppy, and reported a cut knee. No other people were injured. Eight guide dog owners reported that they had been emotionally affected by the attack. The puppy and 5 of the qualified guide dogs had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. No dogs were withdrawn as a result of the attacks. Three of the attacks on qualified guide dogs were reported to the police and another attack on a guide dog was reported to the dog warden. Rachel Moxon Page 34 12/11/15 The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner in 7 attacks, not on a lead and not with its owner in 1 attack and on a lead with the owner in 2 attacks, therefore 8 of the attacks could have been prevented had the aggressor been under control and on a lead. East of England There were 11 dog attacks in the East of England. Nine were qualified guide dogs, 7 of which were working in harness and 2 of which were on a lead when the attack happened. All of the qualified guide dogs were with the guide dog owner when they were attacked. Two puppies at walk were also attacked, one was on a lead with the puppy walker and one was free running with a boarder. Three dogs were injured and all required veterinary attention; 2 guide dogs and one puppy. Four guide dogs had time off of work as a result of the attack, one for 1 day, one for a few days and two for 4 days. Two of these 4 dogs were injured. No people were injured in these attacks. Seven of the 9 guide dog owners reported that they had been emotionally affected by the attack. Five of the 9 qualified guide dogs and one of the puppies had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. No dogs were withdrawn as a result of the attacks. Four of the 9 attacks on guide dogs and one of the attacks on a puppy were reported to the police and the other attack on a puppy was reported to the dog warden. The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner in 7 attacks, not on a lead and not with its owner in 1 attack and on a lead with the owner in 3 attacks, therefore 8 of the attacks could have been prevented had the aggressor been under control and on a lead.

141 London There were 17 dog attacks in the London area. Eleven were qualified guide dogs, 10 of Rachel Moxon Page 35 12/11/15 which were working in harness and one of which was free running when the attack happened. All of the qualified guide dogs were with the guide dog owner when they were attacked. Two dogs in advanced training were attacked, one was free running with the boarder and one was working in harness with the guide dog owner. One dog in early training was attacked and was working in harness with the trainer at the time and 3 puppies at walk were also attacked, two were on a lead with the puppy walker and one was free running with the puppy walker. Twelve dogs were injured (6 guide dogs, 2 advanced training dogs, 1 early training dog and 3 puppies) and 10 required veterinary attention; 6 guide dogs, 1 advanced training dog and 3 puppies. Seven dogs had time off from work as a result of the attack, one for one day, one for 3 days, two for 10 days and one for 2 weeks. All of these 7 dogs were injured. Two guide dog owners were injured in the attacks, one had a bite to the finger and a puncture to the wrist and one had bruising and a sore back, leg and neck. Ten guide dog owners, one guide dog trainer and two puppy walkers reported that they had been emotionally affected by the attack. Ten dogs were reported to have had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. These were 8 qualified guide dogs, one advanced training dog and one early training dog. One dog was temporarily withdrawn as a result of the attacks. Twelve of the 17 attacks were reported to the police. These were 9 of the 11 attacks on qualified guide dogs and an attack on an advanced training dog, early training dog and puppy at walk. Three attacks were reported to the dog warden, 2 of these were on qualified guide dogs and one on an advanced training dog. The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner in 6 attacks, not on a lead and not with its owner in 4 attacks and on a lead with the owner in 7 attacks, therefore 10 of the attacks could have been prevented had the aggressor been under control and on a lead. Rachel Moxon Page 36 12/11/15 Northern Ireland

142 There was only one dog attack reported to have occurred in Northern Ireland. The attack was on a qualified guide dog which was working in harness with its guide dog owner when it was attacked. The dog received a puncture would to the face and needed veterinary attention although no time off work was reported for the dog. No people were injured in the attack but the guide dog owner did report being emotionally affected as a result of the attack. The guide dogs character or working performance was not affected as a result of the attack. The attack was not reported to the police but was reported to the dog warden. The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner therefore the attack could have been prevented had the aggressor been under control and on a lead. North East There were 22 dog attacks in the North East. Sixteen were qualified guide dogs, 9 of which were working in harness and 5 of which were on a lead when the attack happened. Fourteen of the 16 qualified guide dogs were with the guide dog owner when they were attacked and two were with a relative of the guide dog owner. Two dogs in advanced training were attacked, one was free running with the boarder and one was working in harness with a GDMI. Four puppies at walk were also attacked, all were free running with their puppy walkers. Eight dogs were injured (5 guide dogs and 3 puppies) and 7 required veterinary attention; 5 guide dogs and 2 puppies. Three dogs had time off from work as a result of the attack, one for half a day and two for 2 days. All of these 3 dogs were injured. One guide dog owner and one guide dog owners relative were injured in the attacks. Ten guide dog owners, two relatives of guide dog owners and one puppy walker reported that they had been emotionally affected by the attack. Seven dogs were reported to have had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. These were 5 qualified guide dogs and two puppies at walk. Rachel Moxon Page 37 12/11/15 No dog was withdrawn as a result of the attacks but one of the puppies that was attacked was later withdrawn in early training for dog distraction. Seven of the 22 attacks were reported to the police. These were 6 of the 16 attacks on qualified guide dogs and an attack on an advanced training dog. One attack on a qualified guide dog was also reported to the dog warden.

143 The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner in 13 incidents, not on a lead and not with the owner in 3 incidents and on a lead and with the owner in 6 incidents. Therefore 16 of the attacks could have been prevented had the aggressor been under control and on a lead. North West There were 33 dog attacks in the North West. Twenty two were qualified guide dogs, 19 of which were working in harness, one of which was on a lead and one of which was free running when the attack happened. One report did not note the guide dog activity at the time of the attack. All of the qualified guide dogs were with the guide dog owner when they were attacked. Eleven puppies at walk were also attacked, 7 were on a lead with the puppy walker and 4 were free running with the puppy walker. Fourteen dogs were injured (8 guide dogs and 6 puppies) and 11 required veterinary attention; 7 guide dogs and 4 puppies. Five dogs had time off from work as a result of the attack, two for 1 day, one for 5 days, one for 17 days and one did not report the amount of time off required. Four of these 5 dogs were injured. Four guide dog owners were injured in the attacks and 19 guide dog owners, and 8 puppy walkers reported that they had been emotionally affected by the attack. Eight dogs were reported to have had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. These were 4 qualified guide dogs and 4 puppies at walk. One dog was temporarily withdrawn as a result of the attacks. Fourteen of the 33 attacks were reported to the police. These were 12 of the 22 attacks on qualified guide dogs and 2 attacks on puppies at walk. Seven attacks were reported Rachel Moxon Page 38 12/11/15 to the dog warden, 5 of these were on qualified guide dogs and 2 were puppies at walk. The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner in 12 incidents, not on a lead and not with the owner in 7 incidents, on a lead but not with the owner in one incident and on a lead and with the owner in 12 incidents. Therefore 20 of the attacks could have been prevented had the aggressor been under control and on a lead. Scotland

144 There were 27 dog attacks in Scotland. Fifteen were qualified guide dogs, 10 of which were working in harness, 4 of which were on a lead and one of which was free running when the attack happened. All of the qualified guide dogs were with the guide dog owner when they were attacked. Two dogs in advanced training were attacked and both were working in harness with a GDMI / GDMA when they were attacked. One dog in early training was attacked whilst it was working in harness with a guide dog trainer. Nine puppies at walk were also attacked, 2 were on a lead with the puppy walker and 6 were free running with the puppy walker. One report did not note the puppy activity at the time of the attack. Thirteen dogs were injured (6 guide dogs and 7 puppies) and 9 required veterinary attention; 3 guide dogs and 6 puppies. Four dogs had time off from work as a result of the attack, one for half a day, two for 2 days and one for 5 days. Three of these 4 dogs were injured. Seven people were injured in the attacks, 5 guide dog owners, 1 GDMI and 1 puppy walker. Two of these people were bitten by the aggressor. Seventeen people reported that they were emotionally affected by the attack, these were 12 guide dog owners, one GDMI, one guide dog trainer and three puppy walkers. Seventeen dogs were reported to have had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. These were 11 qualified guide dogs, one early training dog and 5 puppies at walk. One dog was permanently withdrawn as a result of the attacks. Rachel Moxon Page 39 12/11/15 Eight of the 27 attacks were reported to the police. These were 7 of the 15 attacks on qualified guide dogs and 1 attack on an advanced training dog. One attack on a qualified guide dog was reported to the dog warden. The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner in 12 incidents, not on a lead and not with the owner in 4 incidents and on a lead and with the owner in 10 incidents. Therefore 16 of the attacks could have been prevented had the aggressor been under control and on a lead. South Central There were 10 dog attacks in South Central England. Nine were qualified guide dogs, 6 of which were working in harness and 3 of which were free running when the attack happened. All of the qualified guide dogs were with the guide dog owner when they were attacked. One retired guide dog was also attacked and was on a lead with an ex guide dog owner when it was attacked.

145 Four dogs were injured (3 guide dogs and 1 retired guide dog) and 3 required veterinary attention; 3 guide dogs. Two dogs had time off of work as a result of the attack, one for 1 day and one for 2 days. Two of these 3 dogs were injured. No people were injured in the attacks. Eight people reported that they were emotionally affected by the attack, these were 7 guide dog owners and one ex guide dog owner. Four dogs were reported to have had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. These were all qualified guide dogs. None of the dogs were permanently withdrawn as a result of the attacks. Six of the 10 attacks were reported to the police. These were 5 of the 9 attacks on qualified guide dogs and the attack on the retired guide dog. Two attacks on qualified guide dogs were reported to the dog warden. The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner in 3 incidents, not on a lead and not with the owner in 4 incidents, on a lead but not with the owner in 1 incident and on a lead and with the owner in 2 incidents. Therefore 8 of the 10 attacks could have Rachel Moxon Page 40 12/11/15 been prevented had the aggressor been under control and on a lead or not been left unsupervised. South East There were 17 dog attacks in the South East. Ten were qualified guide dogs, 6 of which were working in harness, one of which was on a lead and 2 of which were free running when the attack happened. The activity of one dog was not reported. All of the qualified guide dogs were with the guide dog owner when they were attacked. One dog in advanced training was attacked while it was working in harness with a GDMI, two dogs in early training were attacked while working in harness with their trainers and one retired guide dog was also attacked and was on a lead with a free runner. Three puppy walkers were also attacked, 2 while they were on a lead and one while it was free running. Twelve dogs were injured (8 guide dogs, 1 dog in early training, 2 puppies at walk and 1 retired guide dog) and 9 required veterinary attention; 6 guide dogs, one early training dog, one puppy at walk and one retired guide dog. Seven dogs had time off of work as a result of the attack, one for 1 day, one for 2 days, one for 5 days and one for 2 weeks. Time was not reported for 3 dogs. Six of these 7 dogs were injured.

146 One person was injured and received grazes to the knees and knuckles. Eleven people reported that they were emotionally affected by the attack, these were 8 guide dog owners, two puppy walkers and one GDMI. Six dogs were reported to have had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. These were 5 qualified guide dogs and one dog in early training. None of the dogs were permanently withdrawn as a result of the attacks. Five of the 17 attacks were reported to the police. These were all attacks on qualified guide dogs. One attack on a qualified guide dog was also reported to the dog warden. The aggressor dog was not on a lead but with its owner in 6 incidents, not on a lead and not with the owner in 3 incidents and on a lead and with the owner in 7 incidents. Therefore 9 of the 17 attacks could have been prevented had the aggressor been under Rachel Moxon Page 41 12/11/15 control and on a lead or not been left unsupervised. South West There were 34 dog attacks in the South West. Twenty eight were qualified guide dogs, 23 of which were working in harness, one of which was on a lead and 3 of which were free running when the attack happened. The activity of one dog was not reported. Twenty seven of the qualified guide dogs were with the guide dog owner when they were attacked and one was with a GDMI. Three dogs in advanced training were attacked while they were working in harness with a GDMI/GDMA and three puppies were also attacked, 2 while they were with a puppy walker on a lead and one while it was with a puppy walking mentor on a lead. Eight dogs were injured (4 guide dogs, 2 advanced training dogs and 2 puppies) and 5 required veterinary attention; 2 guide dogs, one advanced training dog and 2 puppies. Three dogs had time off of work as a result of the attack, one for 1 day, one for a long weekend and one dog had 4 weeks out of training. Two of these three dogs were injured. The dog that required four weeks off from training was not injured. People were injured in 5 incidents, one received a bite from the aggressor dog to the leg an one received a broken toe and two broken ribs. Twenty four people reported that they were emotionally affected by the attack, these were 19 guide dog owners, two puppy walkers, one puppy walking mentor and 2 GDMI/GDMA.

147 Twelve dogs were reported to have had their character or working performance affected as a result of the attack. These were 8 qualified guide dogs, 3 advanced training dogs and one puppy at walk. Two dogs were permanently withdrawn as a result of the attacks. Five of the 34 attacks were reported to the police. These were 3 attacks on qualified guide dogs, one attack on an advanced training dog and one attack on a puppy at walk. Two attacks on a qualified guide dog were also reported to the dog warden. Police Response When notified of a crime relating to an attack on an assistance dog we will record the victim of the crime as vulnerable in line with the National Victims code of practise (VCOP). This will ensure that the victim receives an enhanced level of care, in terms of contact and updates, and that the investigation is tailored around the specific victims needs. We will always assign a named and contactable officer in charge (OIC) of the case and allocate a crime or incident number. The OIC will always be supported by a Dogs Legislation Officer (DLO), We will ensure that the investigation is timely, effective, and maximises all opportunities to bring an offender to justice (where appropriate). If the crime is classified as a hate crime then the officer in the case will also be supported by an officer who is a specialist in hate crime investigation. We will always take a victim impact statement so that the full impact on the victim can be assessed. We will ask for feedback on how we perform, so that we can be sure that we stood in the victims shoes and did all that we could. We will share our learning with other forces through the ACPO National lead and working group, so that other forces can learn and raise standards nationally. We will educate our staff, to ensure they are aware of the issues around attacks on assistance dogs and investigate from a position of knowledge and awareness. Where appropriate we will use our knowledge to contribute to legislative change, and be represented on the Dangerous Dogs National Working Group.

148 1 Service Level Agreement Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (Guide Dogs) - Attacks on Assistance Dogs A balance between victim and police responses. Victims Response An attack on an assistance dog is NOT regarded by the police the same as a dog on dog attack; it is much more serious than that. With the consent of the victim, we will work closely with Guide dogs Service delivery Managers to ensure the investigation opportunities are maximised and the path back to normality after being a victim of crime is as smooth as possible in terms of support and help offered. The victim must ensure they tell the police that they are blind or partially sighted, disabled or are vulnerable and the full impact of the crime or incident. The victim must report if an attack has been made on their assistance dog. The resulting impact of the attack on the dog may be regarded as an assault upon the victim. The victim must tell the police if they have been subject to a disablist or hate crime. The victim should, where possible, obtain photographic/video evidence of the incident and/or any injuries sustained by the dog. Be mindful that the device holding such images may have to be seized by police for a short time so that the images/footage can be captured and used in evidence. The victim must tell the police if the incident or crime has left the victim stranded or without the use of their assistance dog. Always ensure the police know it is an incident or crime in progress, or that the offender is still in the area.

149 Ensure that a Victim Impact Statement is completed by the victim, via the officer in charge, in the event that the case is taken to court. 2 Service Level Agreement Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (Guide Dogs) - Attacks on Assistance Dogs A balance between victim and police responses.

150 Hope Rescue The site the Dogs of Torfaen is a local dog lovers community site on Facebook. For us, it provides a fascinating insight in to the thoughts and actions of "average" dog owners. Of particular interest: *A general lack of understanding of basic dog behavior and health care, and belief in Caesar Milan type approaches which could lead to bites or worse *Lack of knowledge of the stray dog system and what your legal obligations are if you find a stray dog *Urban back yard breeding as big a problem as puppy farming? Whilst not in terms of welfare perhaps it is interesting to see the motivation for breeding their family pets *Views on rescues and the perception that we (as a collective) make it so hard for anyone to adopt a rescue dog *Views on neutering pets (including advice being given by local vets) *Irresponsible private rehoming of pets Key aspects from a grass roots level include: *The impact of continuing budget reductions for Local Authority stray dog services *Increasing problem of dogs with expensive medical conditions ending up in the pounds and surrendered to vets by owners who cannot afford to pay *Private rehoming and acquisition of dogs and how best to advise owners/purchasers to ensure proper safeguards are put in place BACKGROUND Hope Rescue is a South Wales based dog rescue charity. Whilst we do rehome ourselves through a network of foster homes, our main role is to act as a co-ordinating rescue and seek rescue placements. We commit to two Local Authority pounds to take all their stray dogs after completion of their statutory 7 days. Merthyr County Council contract out their stray dog kennelling to a private boarding kennels. Newport City Council operate their own stray kennels and also rehome the occasional dog direct. We also take in local owner surrenders. We do not have our own Centre. If we cannot place a dog in a foster home or rescue we use private boarding kennels; our boarding fees for 2012/13 were 49k. Last year we helped a total of 603 dogs; 147 we rehomed ourselves, 384 moved to rescue and the remainder remaining in kennels or foster care. Hope Rescue is in a unique position. We are large enough to have a voice in respect of animal welfare policy through our membership of the Association of Dogs and Cats Home and Animal Welfare Network for Wales. We are also small enough that we can evidence what is happening on the frontline, particularly in respect of dealing with stray dogs. This discussion paper has been prompted from some recent first hand experiences and concern about the lack of accountability, and in some instances competency, for rescue organisations and specifically those dealing with stray dogs. The role of the larger rescue organisations is considered and in particular how they could help to improve standards of care and rehoming for stray dogs in the U.K. STRAY DOG POUNDS IN THE U.K.

151 As far as we are aware there is no reliable information as to how each Local Authority deals with its stray dogs, and which Rescues (if any) help them. Stray dog pounds are either contracted out to private boarding kennels/rescues or are provided in-house by Local Authorities. On completion of their 7 days the strays are either: rehomed to the public direct by the kennels/rescue/local Authority moved to rescue organisations for rehoming destroyed a combination of the above Rehoming Direct Standards vary considerably depending on the pound. Some will assess, home check and offer vaccinations and neutering (often via Dogs Trust neutering vouchers). This in the main tends to be the Local Authority pounds, larger city pounds and rescues, often supported by Friends groups. Other pounds do not adhere to any identifiable standards and are operated more as a business rather than an animal welfare service; in the main this tends to be contracted out pounds. Moving to Rescue Organisations This tends to comprise of two methods; Direct to Rescue Some rescues will have a relationship with their local pound, although from our experience it is rare they will commit to take all the strays but will instead cherry pick the easiest dogs. Other rescues will have relationships with pounds out of their area and will take direct, again often cherry picking. The remainder will then either be destroyed or picked up by a pound pulling group (see below). Pound Pulling groups/individuals Often a pound will work with a group or individual that act as the middle man. They will get all the details of the strays and seek rescue placements. Some groups, as with Hope Rescue, will commit to take all the strays; others only deal with the dogs left after other rescues have chosen their dogs and/or the dogs not rehomed direct by the pound. Many will work across several pounds, often in different geographical locations. The majority will also use private boarding kennels for those strays they cannot place direct from the pound into rescue. Standards vary considerably; the reasons why and the issues will be discussed in more detail below as it is a major area of concern. THE ISSUES Welfare Concerns There have been a number of recent cases where rescues have been served Improvement Notices or had dogs removed due to issues with overcrowding and lack of proper welfare facilities. The

152 pictures below have been taken from a recent case that Hope Rescue was personally involved with. The ex-trustees contacted us for help to reduce numbers and comply with an Improvement Notice (note: we had no previous connection with this rescue). We took 4 dogs, all exhibited behaviour associated with prolonged confinement and/or injuries including tail amputations. At one stage a total of 18 dogs were crated/kept in stables in these conditions as the Rescue only had 6 kennels. Another breed rescue recently had 30 dogs removed; we have first-hand volunteer witness statements confirming similar conditions to the rescue above with dogs crated continuously. We are aware of several other similar cases locally that are currently under investigation. For example, the dogs shown below were taken in with several others by Hope Rescue from a local dog trainer a couple of years ago: they were dogs she had saved and her own personal dogs she had bred from that came in severely matted and in poor health including untreated and obvious mammary tumours. This individual has now set up her own local rescue and has through Facebook built up a significant and dedicated following. A common theme running through these case studies is that the rescues concerned all took stray dogs through the various pound pulling groups. The issue appears to be one of over-commitment rather than deliberate cruelty. Even though Hope Rescue is a co-ordinating group we still receive several s a day from other groups asking for help. The language used in some of these is tantamount to blackmail with phrases such as Red Alert: These dogs will die unless YOU take them common. The pressure put on to rescues by the pound pulling groups, especially the smaller ones is significant. Whilst it is not an excuse for neglect, it is easy to see how they can over commit. The Significant Rise of the Facebook Rescue and Pound Pulling groups There is no regulation of rescues in the U.K. Anyone can start a rescue, and Facebook now gives them an outlet to create an online presence and persona without any scrutiny as to their ability to operate. A significant number of new rescues and pound pulling groups have popped up recently, and also a large number of Facebook groups dedicated to crossposting and promoting dogs in U.K. pounds needing rescue placements. There are also specific Facebook Groups organising rescue transport and home checks. Whilst some of these Facebook rescues and Groups are reputable, the majority do not have the proper experience, funding or facilities to operate: Rescues The Facebook Rescue is often managed by an individual or team that has met through one of the existing Facebook rescue groups. It will be home based and use foster homes. There will be no structure, governance or sustainability. The majority of their dogs will be sourced through the Facebook pound pulling groups; stray dogs advertised on their pages as needing rescue spaces.

153 In the main these will be unassessed dogs that require experienced rescues. They are transported direct to often inexperienced foster homes by volunteer transporters who are not checked. Issues we have witnessed include: Dogs placed in to foster homes that are not checked or not suitable e.g. purely off the back of a Facebook foster offer Dogs being rehomed unassessed and direct from the pound to home offers received through the Facebook rescue page Dogs arriving in the foster home and attacking the resident dogs then being dumped back with the transporter with no back up Transporters stealing dogs Issues during the transport run due to inappropriate handling/restraining; dogs biting and escaping Dogs being denied medical care until the funds are raised first as there are no funds in place (including basic vaccinations and neutering) The Facebook Rescues will often offer to take the more difficult dogs to help increase their kudos as Facebook enables them to build up a supporter base very quickly. In reality though they are not experienced to deal with these dogs. They do not have the facilities to deal with behavioural issues, nor the funding to pay for behavioural support. Dogs are rehomed without proper assessment or back up in place. Pound Pulling Groups As mentioned above, very few pounds are fortunate to have a Rescue that will work with them to take all their strays. Often they will willingly take any help offered without checking out who the organisation is and where they are sending the dogs. As with the Facebook Rescues, a significant number of pound pulling Groups have popped up. They either work with specific pounds or will post up dogs onto their pages from a number of pounds. Many of these Groups have never met or assessed the dogs they are placing. As we know from experience, it is incredibly difficult to build up relationships with reputable rescues willing to take strays. These Groups simply do not have the contacts to properly place their dogs. Instead they accept offers from anyone who offers notably the Facebook Rescues outlined above, or worst case direct into home/foster homes that have been offered through their Facebook page. The focus is on quantity rather than quality the pressure is on to save a life at any cost and this is fuelled by their Facebook supporters. There are no checks as to the facilities these Rescues have. They often exert an extraordinary amount of pressure on the Rescues, backed by pleas from their Facebook supporters not to let the dogs die. This pressure can then manifest itself in the situations outlined above and welfare becomes compromised due to the sheer numbers of dogs taken in. In many situations these Groups are dealing with bull breeds and harder to place dogs. This may be because the pound works with a Rescue that has already cherry picked the easy dogs or they have been rehomed by the pound direct. For example, an English rescue comes in on a weekly

154 basis to Swansea pound and takes the easy dogs and a local (and fortunately good) pound pulling group is left to place the bull breeds and larger breeds. However, these dogs are often the very dogs that require experienced rescues to assess and rehome them. A further worrying issue is the number of dogs with behavioural issues that are being moved by these Groups. In their quest to save every dog we have witnessed dogs with what appear to be serious aggression issues being described as poor souls and needing a little work. Many of these pound pulling Groups will only send to non-destruct Rescues (see below). This means that they are excluding the majority of reputable and experienced rescues, and instead send to the inexperienced Facebook Rescues who do not have the facilities to deal with difficult dogs and end up crating them as has been witnessed recently. Financial Concerns Hope Rescue s outgoings amounted to 147k for 2012/13. This is an incredible figure for a small, mainly volunteer based rescue. Due to cuts in local government funding we are being put under increased financial pressure by the two Local Authorities we commit to. Merthyr County Council for example has asked us to cover the costs of vaccinations in future and pay for kennelling from Day 8 (they currently pay until Day 10). Local Authorities throughout the U.K are increasingly seeing animal welfare as a potential area to make efficiency savings. Whilst we as a well-established rescue are struggling, smaller pound pulling Groups do not have half the resources we do and it is easy for welfare issues to creep in e.g. lack of checks as to where their strays are going and poor emergency boarding facilities. We would seriously question whether the use of pound pulling Groups is the most cost effective way to deal with stray dogs at source, aside from the welfare concerns. An extra layer of rescue has emerged and the dogs are effectively being double handled which means double the costs. The majority of reputable Groups dealing with stray dogs do not have their own Centres and are paying for private boarding at a cost of between 5 and 15 per night. Many of them, including Hope Rescue, will vaccinate and neuter the dogs in boarding. We also work with a behaviourist at a significant cost (albeit reduced) for those dogs needing additional input. The majority of these dogs will then go on to other rescues at little cost to them usually national Rescues with far greater resources than us. Our transport costs alone for example amounted to 24k last year. The reputable rescues and groups dealing with stray dogs are seriously struggling to stay afloat, let alone the less reputable. Non-destruct Rescues Hope Rescue is NOT a non-destruct Rescue. Our personal belief is that it is impossible for any rescue dealing with stray dogs at source to remain non-destruct as some dogs simply are not safe to rehome, particularly when you are dealing with bull breeds and larger breeds from city pounds such as Newport. This may be a reason why many of the larger, national rescues will not deal with

155 stray dogs and pounds direct as they could not maintain their non-destruct policy or it would affect their euthanasia figures and subsequently their public support and donations. We have personal experience of: taking our dogs back from non-destruct rescues that have been assessed as un-rehomable and having to euthanise ourselves and: initial assessments taking place at non-destruct rescues on delivery of dogs (many of whom have come straight from the pound and endured a long journey) and having to take back any that fail there and then Is it fair that we as a small rescue lose public support and potential donations due to our euthanasia polices which we are very open and honest about? Or should all Rescues be responsible for opening the public s eyes to the harsh realities of rescue rather than passing the buck through either selective intake or returning dogs? The majority of pound pulling Groups will only send to rescues with a non-destruct policy in addition to having to adhere to other strict criteria such as homechecking. Many reputable rescues are therefore excluded. The irony is that in reality they end up sending to less reputable rescues that do not have the facilities or experience to deal with difficult dogs. Aside from the welfare issues these dogs do end up being destroyed eventually, where as if they had gone to a reputable destruct Rescue with proper facilities and experience they may have been rehabilitated. An example we encountered recently was a Group who turned down a space at The Mayhew as they did not have a non-destruct policy, but regularly sent to the Rescue photographed above and then had to remove their dogs when the conditions were exposed. This quote from a rescuer in the wake of the Spindletop Pitbull Rescue scandal in the USA sums up the quest from some pound pulling groups for non-destruct rescues at the expense of welfare: We are so invested in the misunderstood idea of no kill that we will do anything to postpone the death of the animals we care for. And so the dogs and cats get shipped out across the country or driven across the state, packed with their paperwork and all of our hopes that there really is a happy ending out there for every single animal. And then they wait. In kennels and cages for months, then years. 23 to 24 hours a day in their kennels. No family to call their own. Warehoused and tucked away from the world. Alive. But not living. The glory of pulling a dog from the to be killed list isn t the end zone. See it through, even if in the end, there is no glory. THE SOLUTIONS This is the difficult part. How can we best deal with stray dogs in the U.K. in the most cost effective way without compromising their welfare? We don t have the solution, only some suggestions based on our own experiences. Regulation of Rescues This applies to all rescues and not just those dealing with strays although they do seem to feature in many of the recent welfare cases. The AWNW has produced a report on The Case for the

156 Regulation of Animal Welfare Establishments in Wales. Hope Rescue was part of the Working Group set up to draft the report and gave evidence to the enquiry. A system of licensing rather than registration or self-regulation was proposed to ensure access, enforcement of penalties and accountability. Self-regulation will not have prevented the welfare issues occurring in the case studies detailed above. The definition of animal welfare establishment ensured that pounds and pound pulling groups using boarding kennels were included. The aim of the proposal for regulation was not necessarily to close down smaller rescues (although inevitably there would some casualties) but to improve standards and support those rescues that needed help with policies, good practice etc. We feel strongly that self-regulation will do little to address the serious and increasing issue of rescues setting up and operating without regard to proper welfare and good practice, especially given the dramatic increase in Facebook Rescues and the ease with which support can be gained. The Role of the National/Larger Rescues Hope Rescue sends dogs to the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, RSPCA and NAWT together with a number of smaller independent rescues and breed rescues. As mentioned above, this often involves double handling of the dogs at significant expense to ourselves. The larger rescues, particularly the Dogs Trust, undertake vital work to tackle the root causes of the stray dog problem through their education, neutering and microchipping campaigns. However, we would also like to see this coupled with an increased drive to deal with stray dogs at source from an operational perspective. For example, Wales is a Dogs Trust campaign area. However, we do not have a Blue Cross branch, only a small Dogs Trust centre and our local RSPCA branches only deal with case dogs. This puts a significant strain on the smaller rescues. Options could include the following or a combination: Each national rescue branch committing to take ALL the strays from their nearest pound(s), assessing them and rehoming those that are suitable and euthanising those that are not Establishing regional intake only centres to deal with ALL the strays from nominated pounds in their area. The dogs would be quarantined, assessed, vaccinated and neutered prior to moving the rehomable ones into branches for rehoming. This could even be done on a collaborative basis with joint facilities established Encouraging branches to take on their own stray contracts direct following the Wood Green model Supporting the reputable rescues and pound pulling groups through affiliation schemes to enable them to commit to additional pounds Making Local Authorities more accountable for where their stray dogs go CONCLUSION The lack of regulation for rescues leaves the door wide open for well-meaning but inexperienced individuals and groups to easily set up. The popularity and use of Facebook by rescuers has seen

157 an unprecedented increase in the numbers of new rescues setting up and provides an outlet to gain support and often misplaced credibility. Stray dogs in particular are often targeted due to both the lack of reputable rescues prepared to deal with stray dogs and the emotional kudos of saving a death row dog. This can lead at best to the inappropriate placing of dogs and at worst serious welfare issues as a result of taking too many dogs in and not providing proper facilities. In our opinion regulation of rescues through licensing is long overdue. The larger and national rescues should also play a greater role in dealing with stray dogs at source, even if ultimately this leads to increased euthanasia.

158 IPS Dog Services and The Good Dog Partnership This is a new initiative based on the behaviour change model of a speed awareness course for dog owners. It seeks in a 4 hour session to change the behaviour of irresponsible owners and equip those who do not understand the needs of their dog, or the effect it is having on their community, with the knowledge that they lack. It is a cost effective speedy alterative to prosecution that could be used across Wales. I would like to thank RSPCA Cymru and the Welsh Government for the opportunity to comment upon their plans. I have been involved in the prosecution of dog matters for 30 years, including having founded and been in charge of the Metropolitan Police Status Dogs Unit. More recently I have worked for the last four years as a forensic canine behaviourist, appearing on behalf of both defence and prosecution in English and Welsh Courts. This gives me an almost unique perspective of having seen the problem from both a prosecution / legislative viewpoint and from a defendants view. I also lecture widely on canine legislation to English and Welsh authorities and Police. The Anti social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 is intended to deal with dog related nuisance as well as a host of other areas of anti social behaviour. Because of this across the board approach, it fails to properly address the particular problems of dog control. The guidance drafted by Defra and its implementation could in a large number of cases lead to an increase in aggression from dogs, rather than preventing it. Defra suggest that police Dog Legislation Officers (DLO s) and local authority dog wardens would be able to give guidance in matters of behaviour modification. To my knowledge there are few DLO s in Wales (or England) academically qualified to give such advice, whilst many may be experienced police dog handlers and trainers, this

159 does not mean they will have the knowledge to undertake complex behavioural assessments and draft behaviour modification plans. It is likely therefore that rather than a behaviour modification plan being put in place they will use their powers and introduce orders such as to muzzle, neuter or make a requirement for training. This is an enormously complex area but as examples: Whilst an aggressive dog will be physically controlled by muzzling, it will not deal with the underlying reason for the aggression, leaving it almost literally to come back and bite if the muzzle comes off, is forgotten or deliberately not used. Muzzling will also decrease the likelihood of the dog being properly socialised, it is common to see people cross the road to avoid a muzzled dog. This order can be made by a person with absolutely no dog knowledge and could effectively be for the life of a dog. Training: There is little control over the methods used by trainers, whilst Wales has the enormous advantage of having banned electronic training aids, there still exists a cohort of trainers that will use alternative aversive methods such as pinch (prong) collars. Peer reviewed research has shown that the use of aversive methods on aggressive dogs can exacerbate the situation. Again it may hide the behaviour but not deal with the cause. There is a need for all DLO s and local authorities to have an up to date list of trainers who use positive reward methods, and only these should be recommended. Such a list does not currently exist other than on the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) website. Many DLOs are unaware of this list and there is a problem that the numbers are few. In Wales the ABTC lists 8 dog trainers nationally; these use positive training methods but are not recognised as behaviourists. There are absolutely no

160 Accredited Animal Behaviourists (AAB) or Veterinary Behaviourists and just one Certified Clinical Animal Behaviourist (CCAB). The Welsh government will need to identify people to whom those with problem dogs can be referred. There is a need for training of all DLO s and dog wardens in basic canine behaviour. This should cover: How dogs learn Canine communication; stress signs, appeasement signals, distance increasing signals etc. Canine aggression; why dogs use aggression, how to prevent escalation. Dogs have become a disposable commodity, they are commonly disposed of when they become a problem and a new dog obtained. Often I find when engaged by the prosecution or defence, that the bite or incident have not been caused deliberately, but because of a lack of knowledge. Because of this there is a need to train/ engage with / educate or change the behaviour of the owner. Simply put if I could have had the defendant for half a day three months before many of the incidents would not have occurred. It is for that reason that The Good Dog Partnership was initiated and we would be pleased to talk to the Welsh Government about how that may be taken forward. Defra along with some welfare organisations appear to see microchipping as a panacea for all dog ills. I do not believe it will be as effective as is believed. It will not assist authorities in tracing a dog that has bitten (unless it is captured at the scene which is rare). To do so would require the victim to scan the dog as it is biting them to acquire the microchip number. Microchipping is an excellent idea but there are new technologies which could enhance this further.

161 The creation of a dog DNA database could be easily achieved, for a once in a lifetime cost of less than 30 a head all dogs could be DNA registered. Then if a dog bites and has left samples behind (blood, saliva etc.) it could be traced. It would also be possible for analysis of excrement to be made (cost is around 65, which could be recovered by fixed penalty notice) and the dog and owner easily traced. In America where this is used dog fouling has fallen up to 90%. ( uk.html ) It can also be used in cases of livestock worrying etc. In my opinion Wales should introduce a dog licence allied to a microchip and DNA database.

162 Kennel Club Our website which gives information regarding the Kennel Club and with particular reference to our code of ethics from your dog/kennel club code of ethics/ In terms of what is being considered, it would be good to include the following: 1) a review of how data on dog bite incidents is collected at the moment there is no formal requirement for institutions to record what we would consider to be necessary information about dog attacks, in order that analysis can take place to aid prevention. 2) A review on the nature of Public Space Protection Orders from how they are consulted on which is very often inadequate (e.g. vague online questionnaire's with a yes/no answer) to measures that are introduced on the premise of promoting responsible dog ownership, but in fact making it harder for dog owners to exercise their dogs (for example blanket orders for dogs to be kept on leads). We will go into further detail on both when we submit our written information. Rationale Central Database of Serious Dog Bite Incidents Despite current legislation banning dangerous breeds/types of dog and making it an offence for a dog to be dangerously out of control, incidents of dog aggression continue to increase. According to statistics cited in the recent consultation issued by the Sentencing Council: In England and Wales in the last 10 years, at least eight adults and 13 children have died from dog attacks. In the 12 months to January 2014, some 6,740 people required hospital treatment as a result of dog bites, an increase of six per cent from the previous 12 months. Dangerous dog prosecutions have risen in the courts in recent years. In England and Wales in 2013, 636 adults were sentenced for having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place, or a private place where the dog was not permitted to be, which caused injury, compared to 333 adults in 2003 for the same offence. Legislation is likely to have been ineffective for a number of reasons. Currently the law on dangerous dogs refers to specific breeds /types of dogs as dangerous. To date, no scientific criteria has been identified by which it can be determined that a dog is dangerous by appearance alone. Breed-specific legislation perpetuates a false and dangerous perception that breeds not included on a list will not show aggression. Aggression is a normal behaviour and can be shown by any dog of any breed, type or mixed breed. Hence the vast majority of dog bite incidents involve dogs not on the dangerous dogs list. A 2008 study published in the journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science, involving researchers from the University of Pennsylvania

163 questioning 6,000 dog owners showed breeds not on the dangerous dogs list to be the most aggressive the top three aggressive being Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russell terriers (Breed Differences in Canine Aggression - Deborah Duffy, Yuying Hsu, James Serpell, April ). Banned breeds have been made fashionable and attractive to people who want to flout the law and use dogs to be aggressive and intimidating. This contributes to the problem of creating so called status dogs. Most dog bite incidents involve children - however there is no formal education in schools about how to understand dog behaviour (even though many educational tools are readily available). Similarly there is no formal support offered to victims of dog aggression in order that they can understand how this can be prevented in the future by either doctors or vets providing medical attention to the dogs or victims. In the majority of cases there is a social context to dog biting incidents a dog showing aggression in a set of specific and identifiable set of circumstances which are confusing for a dog, (i.e. where they witness human aggression or where they experience something that makes them fearful), does not mean that dog is dangerous or necessarily even aggressive however the law as it stands treats them as such. Given this it is highly likely that the increased sentences proposed by the Sentencing Council alone, will have little impact on the number of dog bite incidents without measures taken to aid prevention and educate dog owners and children about how to train and behave around dogs. At the moment there is no connection between how a punishment will deter a future crime involving dog aggression. Prevention Currently in the UK there is much focus on the punishment of dogs and their owners in instances of serious dog bite incidents but little focus on prevention. This is mainly due to the reverse burden of proof (guilty until proven innocent) embodied in the Dangerous Dogs Act whereby the onus is on the defendant to prove their dog is not dangerous, rather than on the prosecution to prove danger. At the moment, it is difficult to aid prevention because there is a lack of understanding regarding why a dog may have attacked or bitten in a particular case. There is no incentive for prosecutors to look into this and no streamlined means in which evidence can be recorded by vets or hospitals. Most hospitals log all bite and strike injuries and all too frequently these are grouped together and referred to as incidents of dog attacks when in reality many will not be. Currently there is no bite register or central database in order to log information regarding bite incidents and most hospitals log all bite incidents in the same category and take very little detail of circumstances surrounding the incident, making it difficult to collate information which could effectively help provide advice on prevention.

164 In addition to this, when a serious dog bite incident occurs, the dog involved is often either seized or immediately put to sleep. As a result very little research is able to be done into the cause of such incidents as investigation is done by police authorities but access by independent defence experts, veterinarians and behaviourists to either the dogs or people involved, is usually hugely delayed owing to the legal process. Little, if any data is kept of outside influences such as the weather, the housing of the dogs concerned, reports of loud or unusual noises etc, that could have caused the dog to panic such as children screaming or shrieking in excitement. Criminal profilers and psychologists are used to determine motives for crimes committed by humans yet investigating authorities are usually unqualified to determine the cause of an incident based on the behaviour of a dog. Rarely is the advice or support of a qualified person sought, and there is no incentive to do so. Given this it is our view that a system of central reporting and data collection of dog bite incidents is fundamental to understanding why these tragic events occur, and to form the foundation from which to structure appropriate prevention strategies. Why a central reporting system is necessary Dogs bite for a number of reasons and it is important that these reasons are properly understood in order to aid prevention. Some reasons are detailed below: Poorly advised training, socialisation and maintenance of the dog - dogs need to learn positively how to live with us. Dogs need to be taught that we can take things from them. Many children are bitten when trying to take away a toy or when approaching an eating dog. Dogs are often possessive of things. They need to learn to accept us being near when they are eating or chewing on a toy. This is all part of good training and socialising. Fear - dogs react to threatening events by either running (flight) or trying to repel or stop it (fight). Dogs who are scared or anxious are more likely to bite. They do not have words to express what they are feeling and humans often do not understand dog body language. Often children want to hug a scared dog to try and comfort it yet this is dangerous. The dog may become even more afraid and bite in order to try and stop the fearful event. The tragic case of the fatal attack on Ellie Lawrenson in the early hours of New Year s Day 2007, by her uncle s Pit Bull Terrier took place after the dog, banished from the house after a previous biting incident on a family member, had spent the whole evening outside during the New Year s firework celebrations. Ellie s Grandmother stated to police that the attack might have been sparked by a firework as he was whimpering and crying outside and she had taken pity on him and let him in. She also admitted to being under the influence of drink and drugs at the time which could also have had an effect on the dog s demeanour as well as impairing her perception or judgement of the situation.

165 No behaviour assessment was ever carried out on the dog that attacked Ellie Lawrenson or any other dog involved in a child fatality. Insufficient tolerance - we need to build tolerance in our dogs to everyday events like noises, not chasing fast moving objects, having their body handled (tail grabbed, ears touched, mouths opened, etc.). A dog who will not tolerate things is more likely to bite. Feeling ill or hurt - a dog who is not feeling well or having a bad day will have a lower tolerance to things. Older dogs often have more aches and pains that can go along with aging. A very tolerant young dog may lose tolerance as he ages due to discomfort. Dogs have no words and humans often ignore or do not understand dog body language. Dogs with lower tolerances to things are more likely to bite. Not all dogs will display aggressive behaviour when they are ill but a sudden loss of tolerance should be brought to the attention of a vet as there could be a medical reason for it. Post mortems carried out on dogs involved in fatalities have never found a pathological reason for why a dog has killed. Over excitement - many bites occur when play has gone too far. Over excitement and "hyper" behaviour not only stems from poor training and socialising but also confusion and a dog not getting enough stimulation both physically and mentally. General welfare issues as a result of poor breeding and ownership if a dog is bred badly i.e. not properly socialised, or, does not have its welfare needs met e.g. get an appropriate amount of exercise then these are factors that could contribute to aggressive behaviours. This is why it is important that dogs are well bred and well looked after. A central reporting system in practice In 2011 the European Society for Clinical Veterinary Ethology looked at current and best practices in providing risk assessments of dogs in European countries including Belgium, France, Portugal, Germany, Switzerland and the UK. At that point it became evidence that contrary to elsewhere in Europe, and most notably in Germany, it is not required or routine in the UK to have access to all the information required to risk assess dogs adequately in order to comply with ESCV. However it is our view that this could be achieved through establishing a central reporting system, provided there was a mandatory requirement for police, hospitals, behaviourists and veterinarians to input the data. The database would not necessarily have to be run by Government but would require a degree of Government support in order to ensure it was used. Information which would be of use would include: the circumstances surrounding the dog bite signs of provocation adequacy of child supervision

166 breed of dog sex of animal spay/neuter status behavioural and veterinary history of the dog, including incidents of prior aggression whether the dog was restrained time of event, and how patients previous histories of dog bites length of dog ownership by dog s handler location where dog bite injury occurred disposition of dog afterwards physical factors environmental factors These circumstances should be taken in to account as well as the behavioural assessment and be interpreted accordingly. The role of education in aiding dog bite prevention Dangerous dogs cases are often compared to cases of motoring offences. The Sentencing Council draws on the similarities of the two in that the irresponsible/negligent actions of both a driver and the keeper of an out of control dog can cause harm that is accidental but nonetheless, serious for the victim. The marked difference between the two types of offences is the level of formal education and training prior to the offence being caused. For example, before a motorist is legally allowed to drive a car, they must have undertaken a practical and theoretical driving test. If they had previously committed a lower level offence, they also may have been offered the opportunity of attending a course, organised with the aim of preventing a more serious accident in the future. Whilst it would be impractical for all those who come into contact with dogs or keep dogs to undertake such formal testing, given the high proportion of incidents of dog aggression involving children, it is our view that some form of education with regards to dog behaviour should be on the national curriculum. Further, for lower-middle level offences, keepers of the dog concerned should be offered the opportunity to attend a course on dog behaviour/training in order to prevent a more serious incident occurring in the future. Most dog bite incidents are preventable and most dogs have a reason for biting, however without any kind of formal public education, tragedies will continue to occur. Education of children There are many sources of education for children, put together by an array of animal welfare organisations and charities. Other more formal education schemes include the Safe and Sound Scheme which focuses on staying safe around dogs. The programme plans canine accompanied school visits, background information and free resources for teachers. Teachers' notes and downloadable material are available free of charge. The website also includes a series of educational factsheets, outlining the Safe and Sound code, including some key 'safety positions'

167 and why these should be adopted. The scheme is approved for the purposes of the national curriculum and it is our view that it should be taken up in every school. Other such schemes also exist that are suitable for inclusion on the national curriculum but there is no requirement for schools to make use of these. Similarly in professional qualifications for example to become a doctor, a teacher, a social worker or even a vet, it is not a requirement for those in practice to have any knowledge of dog training or behaviour, even though many will either have contact with dogs first hand, or be in a position where they are able to offer advice to those who do own dogs. Awareness courses for dog owners and keepers Similar to speed awareness courses and driver awareness courses, designed to help motorists who have committed a low level offence prevent causing a more serious accident in the future, it is our view that consideration should be given to developing standardised courses on dog behaviour and training. This is a measure that is permitted under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act if somebody is issued with a Community Protection Notice but there is little evidence to suggest this is taking place or whether the law allows for a variety of courses to be developed to deal with a range of offences (for example on responsible dog ownership (at a lower level of offence) and on dog training and dealing with dog aggression (when the offence is slightly more serious). The aim of the course would be to educate the owner/keeper of the dog who behaved aggressively about how to spot signs of aggression, how to train and socialise a dog properly, and of factors that can cause aggression in order to prevent more serious incidents occurring in the future. Just as motoring courses are offered by the police via organisations such as the AA, similar courses could be run by professional dog trainers and behaviourists and could be coordinated by the various animal welfare organisations and charities working on this issue. Concluding remarks It is our intention to reduce the number of incidents of dog bites. Whilst the law focusses on sentencing and prosecution, it is our view that more emphasis should be placed on prevention and education. Given the vast array of information already publically available on dog behaviour, and that some schemes are already suitable for the national curriculum, we would hope that a formalised approach to education will be put in place in the future. Coupled with courses available for adults who may be guilty of a lower to medium level offence involving a dangerous dog, education should go some way in reducing the number and the severity of dog bite incidents. In order that we can gain a better understanding of why more serious and fatal incidents of dog aggression occur, we believe that a central reporting system should be established for police, hospitals, behaviourists and veterinarians to input into in order that further analysis can take place in order to aid prevention in the future and allow for analysis on where authorities should channel resources. Currently there is no incentive to consider this since the focus of legislation is solely on

168 prosecution and incidents of dog aggression are categorised on a purely numerical basis instead of being considered a public health issue on which doctors or health care workers can offer advice. Dog Control Orders/Public Space Protection Orders Case Studies Unpopular Dog Control Orders/Public Space Protection Orders These can normally be characterised by: Lack of publicity aimed at dog owners about the consultation Lack of engagement with KC Dog it states in PSPO guidance issued by Government that local authorities should consult local dog owners groups and lists KC Dog as a specific example Lack of evidence base for the introduction of Orders Disproportionate to the issue the local authority is trying to resolve A lack of consistency with local authority staff being either dishonest or vague in their conversations with dog owners about the order being introduced Having little regard for how dog owners could comply with the order in practice Examples of where PSPOs have gone wrong Coventry City Council recently consulted on introducing PSPOs which would have seen dog walker access restricted across the city, with dogs having to be kept on leads in all fields and parks in Coventry. Coventry City Council did not actively consult with KC Dog (the Kennel Club dog owners group) and the consultation was not well publicised to dog owners. Given the unreasonable nature of the proposals a local action group, Dogs in Coventry, was quickly formed to oppose the orders. Almost 5,000 people signed a petition asking the council to readdress the issue and through constructive debate with the council and local dog owners contacting other campaign groups, such as KC Dog, the Dogs in Coventry Group successfully encouraged the council to revisit their proposals and have secured fairer access for dogs and their owners in Coventry. As a result dogs will now continue to be allowed to be exercised off lead in as many green areas as they have been, except on sports grounds when games are being played. However there is now a large degree of distrust from the Dogs in Coventry Group, which continues to grow, towards the Council

169 The City of London Corporation recently introduced off-lead bans at Burnham Beeches in Buckinghamshire. This was despite strong opposition from local dog owners, KC Dog and even the Government's own wildlife advisers, Natural England, who have said they "cannot find sufficient evidence to support dog control orders" at Burnham Beeches. As a result the City of London has received negative publicity from both dog owners and KC Dog. Dog owners set up a facebook page and the Kennel Club terminated an agreement on responsible dog walking it signed with the City of London Corporation in 2011 the first time any such agreement has been terminated. Within the agreement, the City of London agreed to strive for local consistency, balance and proportionality in the management of dog walkers by working in partnership with local authorities. It was the Kennel Club s view that there was a substantial and intentional departure from this principle at Burnham Beeches by the Corporation, as it completely dismissed the objections of the Kennel Club as well as the primary authority for DCOs, South Bucks District Council, and the statutory access authority, Buckinghamshire County Council, by imposing a year-round ban on dogs being walked off lead across 59 per cent of the site. Reasonable Dog Control Orders/Public Space Protection Orders These can normally be characterised by: Consideration of alternatives to PSPO s such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts of Community Protection Notices Broad consultation with dog owners about dog related problems Early consultation with KC Dog (i.e. before consultations are published) Being based on an understanding of a) dog walkers behaviour and b) the need (and legal requirement) for dogs to be properly exercised (Animal Welfare Act 2006) Addressing an issue that could not be resolved via other means Ensuring compliance with the orders is possible (for example if dogs are banned from a sports pitch ensure that this is clear with signage and barriers Holding responsible dog ownership days so that dog owners can be made aware of their responsibilities and any proposed orders. Examples of positive engagement

170 Wandsworth Council promotes responsible dog ownership through a combination of school visits and setting up roadshows to address dog related issues. These are supported by the Met Police Safer Neighbourhoods Team, Parks Police and the Housing Department. Falkirk Council run a Green Dog Walkers initiative whereby volunteers wear an armband signifying they have pledged to clean up after their dog, carry extra waste bags, are happy to be approached to give a dog bag to those without, and are a friendly reminder to others to clean up after their dogs. There are over 400 volunteers and 9 community group partners. Chesterfield Borough Council ran a week long roadshow to promote responsible dog ownership to raise awareness of dog owners obligations to clean up after their dogs. Residents were offered a range of attractions including dog training sessions, dog waste bags and reduced cost microchipping services. Hampshire County Council held a Barking Beach Bonanza as a fun day out for families allowing people to take part in dog agility events. It also provided an opportunity to talk about responsible dog ownership and cost under 500. Alternatives to PSPOs The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act provides councils with greater flexibility in tackling irresponsible dog owners and incidents involving dogs such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts or Community Protection Notices. This allows for individual dog owners to be targeted instead of all dog owners who may consider themselves punished for the irresponsible actions of a minority. Alternatives to blanket PSPOs may be helpful for local authorities where a minority of dog walkers are the cause of a particular problem and where blanket restrictions may be less attractive due to the area being a tourist destination where people visit with dogs, since tourism can hugely benefit the local economy. Alternatives to PSPOs can also be more cost effective since the consultation, implementation and enforcement of PSPOs can run into tens of thousands. Cost of PSPOs PSPOs are relatively new, but information on the costs associated with Dog Control Orders, gained through FOI responses and based on figures supplied by 61 councils show that they are clearly high: Costs of Dog Control Orders (DCOs) Over 16,800 average cost on consulting, implementing and enforcing DCOs 2,500 average revenue generated from DCO fixed penalty notices (with 30 per cent of councils generating less than 1000 of revenue from fixed penalty notices 313,174 spent by East Lindsey District Council on the consultation, implementation and enforcement of DCO s 1,610 gained in revenue from fixed penalty notices issues by East Lindsey District Council

171 38,777 spent by Huntingdonshire District Council on bringing in DCOs 50 gained in revenue from fixed penalty notices issues by Huntingdonshire District Council We would recommend such sums of money be spent instead on public information events, responsible dog ownership days (costs of which range from ) and engagement with dog owners groups and dog walkers. If PSPOs are pursued we would recommend that their success is monitored. Of 113 local authorities that pursued DCOs, only one third (32.7 percent) indicated they have monitoring systems in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the Orders. Out of Control or Dangerous Dogs We would not advise generic PSPOs as a means of dealing with cases of out of control, potentially dangerous dogs. In instances where a dog has come to the attention of a local authority regarding its behaviour, we would advise the local authority make use of their new powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act to consider issuing owners of such dogs with Acceptable Behaviour Contracts or Community Protection Notices. We would also encourage local authorities to take part in the LEAD initiative in order to aid dangerous dog prevention. Sutton Country Council The LEAD Initiative The LEAD initiative focusses on first incident engagement where contact is made with the dog owner or keeper if they come to the attention of the police or council regardless of whether an offence has been committed. All cases are recorded by police and it starts a process where tailor-made letters are sent out to address the issue - providing a case file for reference for further incidents. All information is passed onto housing providers to ensure tenancy agreements are met. LEAD - Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs - was launched in Sutton at the beginning of 2011 following a fatal dog attack in Wallington in December As well as encouraging responsible dog ownership of all breeds of dog, it provides advice to the public on dog safety and welfare as well as assists police in dealing with inconsiderate behaviour by individuals with dogs. It is supported by Sutton Council and registered social landlords like Sutton Housing Partnership and Roundshaw Homes. It has been recognised as providing best practice by other London boroughs and other police forces, including Merseyside Police. Surrey County Council and Surrey Police are adopting the

172 initiative. It has also gained the support of major charities including the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs Home as well as the local Riverside Animal Centre based in Beddington Park. General tips from KC Dog Many DCOs were introduced sensibly and with little opposition and we hope that this will remain to be the case with PSPOs. When considering introducing Orders it may be worth bearing in mind the following: Dog fouling Orders relating to people picking up after the dogs they are walking are normally non contentious and are unlikely to be opposed by KC Dog given that we promote responsible dog ownership. However, sometimes compliance is difficult because of a lack of poo bins and because of the misconception that dog faeces cannot be bagged and thrown away in regular bins. Therefore we would always advise that local authorities communicate to dog owners that they are able to dispose of dog waste in ordinary rubbish bins if poo bins are not available Dogs on leads by direction Orders relating to nuisance dogs or irresponsible dog owners being required to keep their dogs on leads when directed to do so are generally non-contentious and are unlikely to be opposed by KC Dog providing they are enforced properly and as intended i.e. to target the minority of irresponsible dog owners. NB: Orders should not be introduced to address the issues associated with aggressive dogs or status dogs as this is best addressed through other measures contained within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act and the Dangerous Dogs Act. Restricting the number of dogs a person can walk Orders introduced to restrict the number of dogs a person can walk can sometimes be contentious. Local authorities introducing Orders to this effect normally have an upper limit of 6 dogs. Given that the vast majority of ordinary dog owners will have less than 6 dogs this would not impact very many people. However, it may cause concern for professional dog walkers or dog owners/handlers who are capable of dealing with a greater number of dogs. How easy it is for a large number of dogs to be controlled is dependent on many factors including: the size of the dog; the age of the dog; the nature of the dog and so dealing with restrictions based on numbers alone can be difficult. Dogs on leads Orders introduced for dogs to be kept on leads will normally be viewed as contentious by KC Dog unless the local authority a) specifies exactly which locations will be deemed as on lead only and b) restricts the on lead provision to relatively small areas (such as cemeteries or enclosed Rose/Flower Gardens for example, so that the majority of the open green space in the area is still deemed suitable for off lead exercise. This is because dog owners require access to open green space to exercise their dogs. Proper exercise is a requirement of dog owners under the Animal Welfare Act Dogs on leads Orders are unlikely to be controversial if they apply to highways or roadsides given our advice for dogs to be kept on a lead by roads. Dog exclusions Orders introduced to exclude dogs from certain areas are generally unpopular unless they apply only to areas where it would not be appropriate for dogs to be

173 e.g. a children s playing area. This is because dogs are required by law to be exercised and dog walkers should be able to exercise them near to where they live, and preferably walking distance for environmental reasons. Also, for areas such as sports pitches or particular parts of a park, if there is no marked boundary/fence then it would not be possible for dogs to be walked near to the exclusion one as they would not be able to differentiate between a sports pitch and another area. Educational sources Collation of Information and Resources on Dangerous Dogs Pre-school children and parents The Blue Dog The Dogs Trust Learn with Dogs Kendal Shepherd Canine Commandments Primary school children and parents The Blue Dog The Blue Cross Be Safe with Dogs and Safety Around Dogs Quiz The Blue Cross Family Pet Advice Do s and Don ts UT College of Veterinary Medicine - Dog Bite Prevention Website Kennel Club Safe and Sound - programme which plans canine accompanied school visits and includes free resources for teachers including teachers notes and educational factsheets. Dogs Trust Learn with Dogs Kendal Shepherd Keeping ourselves safe near dogs - set of comprehensive teacher s notes, suggested activities and a pack of sixteen worksheets World Society for the Protection of Animals Dog Bite Prevention leaflet Secondary school children and parents The Blue Cross Be Safe with Dogs The Blue Dog UT College of Veterinary Medicine Dog Bite Prevention Website Teenagers Dr Sophia Yin Dog Behaviour and Training Issues The Blue Cross Inspiring Teenagers to Train their Dogs Dogs Helping Kids positive dog training course resulting in a certificate to show commitment and the ability to undertake hands on training with dogs Teachers Pet Education Resources The Kennel Club Safe and Sound Scheme includes teachers notes and educational factsheets

174 Battersea Dogs and Cats Home Free Education Packs The Dogs Trust Learn with Dogs for Teachers The Blue Dog Teacher s Toolbox UT College of Veterinary Medicine Dog Bite Prevention Website The Blue Cross Be Safe with Dogs The Blue Cross - Community Dog Problem Lesson Plan RSPCA leaflets and posters about growing up with and staying safe around dogs RSPCA Caring for Pets lesson pack APTC - Speak Dog and Stay Safe - CAPJ campaign designed to teach young children about how to behave around dogs and recognise when dogs are unhappy. Dog behaviourists and dog rehoming charity workers have come together to devise the information Child Accident Prevention - campaign to be rolled out to primary school year 1 students across Jersey through a lesson plan World Society for the Protection of Animals - Doggy Speak lesson pack about dog behaviour PDSA lesson pack on how to look after animals Wood Green Animal Shelter Stay Safe Around Dogs Assembly Guide Veterinary Nurses The Blue Dog Pet Education Resources Royal Mail, Local Authority and Delivery Staff National Dog Wardens Association - a useful guide to identifying instances in which a dog may be aggressive and why, and how to respond Dog owners The Good Dog Partnership - based on the model of the driver awareness course can be offered by local authorities who have served a Community Protection Notice on an irresponsible owner requiring them to undergo training with a nominated training provider The Kennel Club Good Citizenship Scheme - a dog training programme open to all dogs which provides a quality standard of training for dogs and owners Events/Conferences National Dog Bite Prevention Week June Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors - March Blue Cross around 200 Respectabull workshops which are aimed at young people aged 10 to 25 about how the law can affect dog ownership, dog bites and dog fights Dogs Helping Kids - family educational workshops are aimed at families with both dogs and children living together Academic study Current PhD projects Rachel Orritt: Dog Bites: Assessing the Risk

175 Mie Kikuchi: An investigation of cultural perceptual factors affecting the description of human directed aggressive behaviour in order to propose and evaluate a framework that will allow its more objective description by scientists and the public Fernanda Fadel: the genetics of impulsive aggression in dogs

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183 League Against Cruel Sports The Dog Fighting section of the League's website: campaigns/dog fighting The Racing Aninals section of the League's website: campaigns/racing animals and in particular, our recent report on greyhound racing: campaigns/racing animals/new report the state of greyound racing in grea t britain a mandate for change The Terrier Work section of the League's website: campaigns/hunting/what is hunting/terrier work a hidden shame of hunting Other online sources of information on the harm to dogs caused by their use in terrier work include: The League will be publishing a major report on dog fighting later in Investigative work is currently underway and we may be able to share early findings with the core group in the summer. We are available to meet with the core group on 26th or 27th August.

184 National Sheep Association NSA is particularly interested in the very serious problems surrounding sheep worrying by dogs. We run a continuous public awareness campaign and have an area of our website dedicated to this see owners. Included within this area of the website are two sets of survey results, which are particularly enlightening in terms of dog walker behaviour, the role of the police and farmers' perceptions of this. I will provide these survey results to the address provided. NSA is very pleased that this review is happening and is very keen to be involved in whatever way we can. We are interested in the incoming rules surrounding micro chipping and have been approached by several people and groups interested in DNA samples being taken from dogs at the same time as the microchipping, so any dog that attacks people or livestock can be identified. This is another angle within the dog debate that we would be interested in discussing.

185

186

187 Information on sheep worrying by dogs 2 There are now 9m dogs in the UK, which is nearly double the 4.7m dogs owned in This has undoubtedly led to an increase in the number of attacks on sheep, but it is impossible to know the level of the problem as the data available has a number of flaws. 3 The data available shows the number of recorded attacks in the UK as:- o 691 in in 2012 o 1,074 in ,002 in 2014 NSA considers this data to only be the tip of iceberg, due to a number of problems with the data collection:- o Not all police forces provide their data so the figures are only for some police forces. o Different police forces record dog attacks on sheep in different ways and this data will only pick up attacks that were given a crime reference number, and not an incident number o Many farmers do not report attacks, due to a o perception that the police will not help. Farmers who live in areas where attacks are a regular occurrence do not report every attack, due to how regularly they occur. For information, the increase in the number of dogs is not a farm-only problem. The NHS reports a 55% increase in the number of attacks on humans since and a 6% increase in the 12 months to May Due to problems with the official data available, NSA has been collecting the experiences of farmers affected by sheep worrying since April This has been in the form of:- o Reports collected of individual dog attacks between April 2012 to April 2013 and the information collated into statistical information for the full statistical analysis see f. o A snap-shot survey in March 2014 of farmer experiences for the full statistical analysis see o Case study information collected from March 2015 to present find these at under the Case Studies tab. This is a summary of what NSA has found:- 2 From Clamping Down on Dangerous Dogs: Protecting the Public and Promoting More Responsible Pet Ownership, a Public Policy Exchange Symposium 17/06/ From information gathered under the Freedom of Information Act by Farmers Guardian. 4 From Clamping Down on Dangerous Dogs: Protecting the Public and Promoting More Responsible Pet Ownership, a Public Policy Exchange Symposium 17/06/2015.

188 5 o Just over half of attacks occur in private, enclosed fields with no footpath. This is ground that walkers do not have permission to use and shows the lack of understanding about responsible use of the countryside. 6 o The problem is not packs of dogs attacking sheep but individual dogs or pairs. o The NSA 2013 survey asked how many sheep were injured or killed in each attack; the range was 0-72 for injuries and 0-30 for mortalities; the average was 3.2 sheep injured and four sheep killed. o The most common problems reported via the 2013 survey were abortion in early pregnancy, prolapses in later pregnancy, injuries causing lambing difficulties, mis-mothering of young lambs, broken fences caused by fleeing sheep, blood causing flystrike, lambs suffering a check to daily liveweight gain, and injuries preventing finished lambs being sent to market. o In the 2014 survey, 35% of attacks led to the death of at least one sheep and 96% of attacks led to at least one sheep being stressed/injured; 14% resulted in 10 or more sheep being injured/stressed; there was one report of up to 200 sheep being injured/stressed in a single attacked. 63% of attacks resulted in invisible injuries (47% stress and 15% known abortion); 40% of attacks resulted in dog bite(s) requiring a vet. o The problem of dog worrying rarely a one-off. In % of survey respondents said they had experienced more than one attack on their farm; the range was 1-30 with an average of 3.8 previous attacks. In % of respondents described sheep worrying as a persistent problem ; 32% had experienced five or more attacks in the previous five years; 12% had 10 or more; 1% had 100 or more; three people had 200 or more. o In the 2013 survey, where a farmer was aware of what happened to the dog(s) afterwards, 29% were reported as destroyed and 62% of those were legally and regrettably shot by the farmer. This was lower in 2014 with 15% of dogs destroyed. o The most frequent associated cost of a single attack (24% of respondents in 2014) was , but 21% of single cases cost more than 1,000 and NSA received one report of a 10,000 incident. NSA s suggestions for the future:- o NSA believes there needs to be greater acknowledgement that the number of dogs owned in the UK is growing fast without any vetting of the people who own, train or breed these dogs. Irresponsible dog ownership is a threat to human safety as well as farming businesses, but is also not fair on dogs. By this we do not mean the risk of a dog being shot during a sheep attack, as the chance of this is very slim. However, for dogs to be raised in an environment without sufficient training or responsible ownership is a welfare issue for the dogs. o Sheep worrying by dogs is undoubtedly a welfare problem for the sheep too, as well as creating a great deal of stress and having financial implication for farmers. o Welfare of dogs and sheep should be a priority for all involved in policing dog behaviour, e.g. local authorities, dog wardens, police forces, dog charities and welfare organisations. Education is the most effective way of highlighting this and NSA is doing what it can to provide a responsible dog ownership 5 NSA 2013 survey = 57% of attacks were not in an area with public access. NSA 2014 survey = 60%. 6 NSA 2013 survey = 52% of attacks involved one dog. NSA 2014 survey = 63%.

189 o o o o message at as well as encouraging farmers to play their part too. NSA would like to see a more consistent approach to owners of dogs who attack sheep, mainly from the police but also local authorities and dog wardens. There are excellent examples of good practice at but NSA believes the approach of e.g. North Wales Police on sheep worrying, and the Sutton Borough of the Metropolitan Police on responsible dog ownership, should be rolled out nationwide. While education of dog owners is the right approach is the NSA would also like to see more prosecutions under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, as currently there is little deterrent. NSA believes the majority of dog owners are responsible but more could be down to protect the welfare of dogs and sheep by targeting the irresponsible minority.

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

Neighbourhood Manager, Neighbourhoods Business Manager, Neighbourhoods Services Manager, Care and Support Business Manager, Care and Support

Neighbourhood Manager, Neighbourhoods Business Manager, Neighbourhoods Services Manager, Care and Support Business Manager, Care and Support Pets Policy Summary: Version: 1.5 This policy sets out Genesis approach to dealing with pets. It applies to all customers that live in properties owned or managed by Genesis. Effective from: 31 March 2016

More information

Keeping Pets in Your Home

Keeping Pets in Your Home Keeping Pets in Your Home A Guide for A1 Tenants Introduction A1 Housing recognises that keeping pets can offer significant benefits to their owners, and we are happy for you to keep certain types of animals,

More information

Information Guide. Do you know dog law?

Information Guide. Do you know dog law? Information Guide Do you know dog law? www.thekennelclub.org.uk www.thekennelclub.org.uk Animal Welfare Why do I need to know about dog law? As a responsible dog owner, you need to know about dog laws

More information

XII. LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENTS

XII. LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENTS XII. LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENTS LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Legislative Policy Statements... 12:1 Breed Specific Legislation (Dangerous and/or Vicious Dogs)... 12:3 Responsible

More information

How to register your dog with the Kennel Club

How to register your dog with the Kennel Club Information Guide How to register your dog with the Kennel Club www.thekennelclub.org.uk Kennel Club registration and other services The Kennel Club registers over 300,000 pedigree dogs every year of over

More information

Number: WG Welsh Government. Consultation Document. Breeding of Dogs. The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2012

Number: WG Welsh Government. Consultation Document. Breeding of Dogs. The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2012 Number: WG14379 Welsh Government Consultation Document Breeding of Dogs The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2012 Date of issue: 20th December 2011 Action required: Responses by 27th

More information

International Declaration of Responsibilities to Cats

International Declaration of Responsibilities to Cats International Declaration of Responsibilities to Cats Cat welfare is a complex subject and the responsibility for implementation of good welfare for cats falls to a number of organisations as well as to

More information

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKING OF WORKING DOGS TAILS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS No. [XXXX]

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKING OF WORKING DOGS TAILS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS No. [XXXX] EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKING OF WORKING DOGS TAILS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2007 2007 No. [XXXX] 1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural

More information

Moving house and travelling with dogs

Moving house and travelling with dogs DOG 22 Moving house and travelling with dogs The charity dedicated to helping sick, injured and homeless pets since 1897. Moving house and travelling with dogs New situations and experiences can be stressful

More information

International Declaration of Responsibilities to Cats

International Declaration of Responsibilities to Cats International Declaration of Responsibilities to Cats Cat welfare is a complex subject and the responsibility for implementation of good welfare for cats falls to a number of organisations as well as to

More information

Adopting a rescue dog

Adopting a rescue dog Adopting a rescue dog There are a variety of reasons why a dog may end up in a rescue centre, these may include, a change of circumstances e.g. change in job or home, a partnership splitting up, starting

More information

Microchipping where it matters most One year on

Microchipping where it matters most One year on Battersea Dogs & Cats Home 2017 Microchipping where it matters most One year on Battersea Dogs & Cats Home 2017 1 Foreword When microchipping became compulsory for dogs in England, Scotland and Wales in

More information

Breeding from your dogs

Breeding from your dogs Information Guide Breeding from your dogs www.thekennelclub.org.uk www.thekennelclub.org.uk Introduction Welcome to the incredibly rewarding journey of responsibly breeding from your dog. As any good breeder

More information

Joint Committee on Health and Children Meeting 19 th November Opening Statement by Ms Jennifer Dowler, CEO Irish Dogs for the Disabled

Joint Committee on Health and Children Meeting 19 th November Opening Statement by Ms Jennifer Dowler, CEO Irish Dogs for the Disabled Joint Committee on Health and Children Meeting 19 th November 2015 Opening Statement by Ms Jennifer Dowler, CEO Irish Dogs for the Disabled 1.1 Origin of Irish Assistance Dogs Umbrella Group This umbrella

More information

Higher National Unit specification: general information. Veterinary Nursing: Companion Animal Health and Welfare

Higher National Unit specification: general information. Veterinary Nursing: Companion Animal Health and Welfare Higher National Unit specification: general information Unit code: H0YB 34 Superclass: SP Publication date: March 2012 Source: Scottish Qualifications Authority Version: 01 Unit purpose This Unit is designed

More information

Choosing and bringing home the right dog for you

Choosing and bringing home the right dog for you Information Guide Choosing and bringing home the right dog for you www.thekennelclub.org.uk www.findarescuedog.org.uk Considering buying or adopting a dog? Before buying or adopting a dog, you must ask

More information

Dog Ownership. Barking. Health. Fouling. * Provide your dog with safe and. * Walk your dog at least twice a day * Keep your dog inside when you are

Dog Ownership. Barking. Health. Fouling. * Provide your dog with safe and. * Walk your dog at least twice a day * Keep your dog inside when you are Dog Ownership Dog Ownership Community Gateway Association (CGA) has a Responsible Pet Ownership Frame work which advises our tenants of the conditions that must be met in order to keep an animal at their

More information

Mission. a compassionate community where animals and people are cared for and valued. Private nonprofit

Mission. a compassionate community where animals and people are cared for and valued. Private nonprofit Mission a compassionate community where animals and people are cared for and valued Private nonprofit Pueblo Animal Services is a division of Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region, a private, nonprofit

More information

SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA) OF NORTH BREVARD May 26, 2009 POSITION STATEMENT

SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA) OF NORTH BREVARD May 26, 2009 POSITION STATEMENT SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA) OF NORTH BREVARD May 26, 2009 POSITION STATEMENT PURPOSE: -- Prevention of cruelty to animals -- Provide for humane education to the community --

More information

Academy. Empower Through Training

Academy. Empower Through Training Academy Empower Through Foreword John McHugh working together to deliver professional solutions that empower individuals and organisations to act and respond to security challenges. Welcome to IEDS Ltd

More information

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions 1. What is UKAS? UKAS is the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, and is the sole national Accreditation Body recognised by government to assess against internationally agreed

More information

What the Kennel Club does for dog health

What the Kennel Club does for dog health What the Kennel Club does for dog health 2017/2018 www.thekennelclub.org.uk/health Contents Top topic of 2017: What is being done to improve education about canine health? 3 4 6 7 8 10 Top topic of 2017

More information

A1 Control of dangerous and menacing dogs (reviewed 04/01/15)

A1 Control of dangerous and menacing dogs (reviewed 04/01/15) A1 Control of dangerous and menacing dogs (reviewed 04/01/15) 1 Introduction 1.1 For as long as human beings continue to interact with dogs, there will be incidents of dog bites. However, the frequency

More information

Why should I Microchip my pet?

Why should I Microchip my pet? Information Guide Why should I Microchip my pet? - Including information about compulsory microchipping for dog owners My pet is microchipped www.thekennelclub.org.uk www.thekennelclub.org.uk Why should

More information

Veterinary Statutory Bodies: Their roles and importance in the good governance of Veterinary Services

Veterinary Statutory Bodies: Their roles and importance in the good governance of Veterinary Services Veterinary Statutory Bodies: Their roles and importance in the good governance of Veterinary Services Regional Seminar on Veterinary Statutory Bodies in the Eastern European countries context 12-13 December

More information

Thomas J. O Connor Animal Control & Adoption Center: Spay or Pay

Thomas J. O Connor Animal Control & Adoption Center: Spay or Pay Thomas J. O Connor Animal Control & Adoption Center: Spay or Pay Compiled by ASPCA and distributed to the field, September 2008. Visit the ASPCA National Outreach website for animal welfare professionals:

More information

Virtual Shelter Project You Can Save Your Pet s Life Without A Shelter.

Virtual Shelter Project You Can Save Your Pet s Life Without A Shelter. Virtual Shelter Project You Can Save Your Pet s Life Without A Shelter. Thank you! You re reading this because you may not be able to keep your animal and are committed to finding your animal a loving

More information

Department of Code Compliance

Department of Code Compliance Department of Code Compliance Animal Shelter Advisory Commission s Recommended Changes to Chapter 7 Animals of the Dallas City Code Presented to the Quality of Life and Government Services Committee April

More information

Guide Dog Development Program Puppy Raising Volunteer

Guide Dog Development Program Puppy Raising Volunteer Guide Dog Development Program Puppy Raising Volunteer Guide Dogs SA/NT is a premium service provider in the disability sector. We use our expertise with dogs and in sensory service provision to enhance

More information

Terms and Conditions (from February 2016)

Terms and Conditions (from February 2016) Terms and Conditions (from February 2016) General to all Four Paws Services 1. By attending doggie daycare, kennels or using any of Four Paws Pet Services you agree to all terms and conditions detailed

More information

AMERICAN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIEL CLUB, INC.

AMERICAN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIEL CLUB, INC. AMERICAN CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIEL CLUB, INC. ethics: 1. The discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong or with moral duty and obligation. 2. A group of moral principles or set

More information

PET OWNERSHIP GUIDE. It will also be helpful for residents who are having problems with a neighbour s pet.

PET OWNERSHIP GUIDE. It will also be helpful for residents who are having problems with a neighbour s pet. PET OWNERSHIP GUIDE We recognise the benefits that responsible pet ownership can bring. However, we need to have measures in place to prevent irresponsible pet ownership which can cause suffering to animals

More information

Canine bull types breed-specific UK legislation

Canine bull types breed-specific UK legislation Vet Times The website for the veterinary profession https://www.vettimes.co.uk Canine bull types breed-specific UK legislation Author : Shakira Miles Categories : Comment, Practical, RVNs Date : June 10,

More information

Dogs. Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. Roger Caras (photographer and writer)

Dogs. Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. Roger Caras (photographer and writer) Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. Roger Caras (photographer and writer) Dogs The 2011 PAW Report highlighted areas of concern across all five welfare needs within our canine nation

More information

ruma Cattle Responsible use of antimicrobials in Cattle production GUIDELINES

ruma Cattle Responsible use of antimicrobials in Cattle production GUIDELINES ruma RESPONSIBLE USE OF MEDICINES IN AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE GUIDELINES Cattle Responsible use of antimicrobials in Cattle production RUMA guidelines for the responsible use of antimicrobials by cattle farmers

More information

CATS PROTECTION ESSENTIAL GUIDES

CATS PROTECTION ESSENTIAL GUIDES Cats and the law CATS PROTECTION ESSENTIAL GUIDES Much of the law in relation to animals has now been consolidated in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which applies in England and Wales and in the Animal Health

More information

To protect animal welfare and public health and safety

To protect animal welfare and public health and safety To protect animal welfare and public health and safety The Dog Meat Trade in Indonesia: A Cruel and Dangerous Trade Every year, millions of dogs are captured and stolen to be transported throughout Indonesia

More information

Understanding the UK Dog Population

Understanding the UK Dog Population Understanding the UK Dog Population Background: The breeding, ownership and welfare of dogs in the UK is a complex social area. Although there has been research into the size of the dog population, nobody

More information

Fostering Q&A. Indy Homes for Huskies

Fostering Q&A. Indy Homes for Huskies Fostering Q&A Indy Homes for Huskies www.indyhomesforhuskies.org Thanks for your interest in becoming a foster home for Indy Homes for Huskies. Your compassion could mean the difference between life and

More information

Stray Dog Population Control

Stray Dog Population Control Stray Dog Population Control Terrestrial Animal Health Code Chapter 7.7. Tikiri Wijayathilaka, Regional Project Coordinator OIE RRAP, Tokyo, Japan AWFP Training, August 27, 2013, Seoul, RO Korea Presentation

More information

STRAY DOGS SURVEY 2014 SUMMARY REPORT

STRAY DOGS SURVEY 2014 SUMMARY REPORT STRAY DOGS SURVEY 2014 SUMMARY REPORT A report prepared for Dogs Trust Prepared by: Your contacts: GfK NOP Social Research Elisabeth Booth / Rachel Feechan 020 7890 (9761 / 9789) elisabeth.booth@gfk.com

More information

Working as a vet in the UK; a guide for overseas vets

Working as a vet in the UK; a guide for overseas vets Working as a vet in the UK; a guide for overseas vets Welcome The British Veterinary Association (BVA) would like to offer a very warm welcome to all overseas vets starting or considering a career in the

More information

Should you need any further information or require any veterinary advice please do not hesitate to contact a member of staff.

Should you need any further information or require any veterinary advice please do not hesitate to contact a member of staff. Thank you for your interest in Blackheath Veterinary Surgery and the opportunity to provide healthcare for your pets. We are happy to provide your local veterinary service and any advice and support you

More information

Council of Docked Breeds Brief to MP s on Tail Docking

Council of Docked Breeds Brief to MP s on Tail Docking Council of Docked Breeds Brief to MP s on Tail Docking Reasons for docking There are 4 main reasons why dogs are docked: 1. Prophylactic docking - to prevent tail injuries in both working dogs & other

More information

HAYWOOD SPAY/NEUTER 2014 ANNUAL REPORT. IT S RAINING CATS and DOGS! ...it describes the crisis in our community!

HAYWOOD SPAY/NEUTER 2014 ANNUAL REPORT. IT S RAINING CATS and DOGS! ...it describes the crisis in our community! IT S RAINING CATS and DOGS! is more than a cute saying about soggy conditions... HAYWOOD SPAY/NEUTER 2014 ANNUAL REPORT...it describes the crisis in our community! Unplanned and unwanted litters are expensive

More information

Everybody needs good neighbours Steps you can take to tackle nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB)

Everybody needs good neighbours Steps you can take to tackle nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) Everybody needs good neighbours Steps you can take to tackle nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB) www.metropolitan.org.uk Are your neighbours actions, pets, noise or rubbish causing a nuisance? If

More information

Q: How does Petland ensure it purchases the best/healthiest puppies?

Q: How does Petland ensure it purchases the best/healthiest puppies? Q: How does Petland ensure it purchases the best/healthiest puppies? A: Petland stores are independently owned and operated, and each franchisee is responsible for choosing healthy pets offered to Petland

More information

Microchipping where it matters most

Microchipping where it matters most Battersea Dogs & Cats Home 2016 Microchipping where it matters most Battersea Dogs & Cats Home 2016 1 Foreword As one of Britain s best-loved dog rescue charities, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has called

More information

3. Cabinet approval is required prior to public consultation. A Cabinet paper and two public consultation documents are attached for your review.

3. Cabinet approval is required prior to public consultation. A Cabinet paper and two public consultation documents are attached for your review. Key Messages 1. The suite of regulatory proposals developed following passage of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act (No 2) 2015 (the Amendment Act) in May 2015 are now ready for public consultation. 2. The

More information

Males $ 1,950 Females $ 1,650

Males $ 1,950 Females $ 1,650 Rosehall Shepherds Information Pages: (last update 2/28/17) How much do Rosehall puppies cost? All puppies are sold with Limited AKC Registration. Males $ 1,950 Females $ 1,650 There will be an occasional

More information

Recruitment Pack Cattery Team Leader (Part-time) Battersea Dogs & Cats Home

Recruitment Pack Cattery Team Leader (Part-time) Battersea Dogs & Cats Home Recruitment Pack Cattery Team Leader (Part-time) Battersea Dogs & Cats Home Dear Applicant, Thank you for requesting further information for our Cattery Team Leader (Part-time) vacancy (Ref BOW323). Please

More information

Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016

Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 Background The Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 (Bill) introduces a range of amendments to the Domestic

More information

Reflection paper on promotion of pharmacovigilance reporting

Reflection paper on promotion of pharmacovigilance reporting 13 July 2017 EMA/CVMP/PhVWP/390033/2014-Rev.1 Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) Reflection paper on promotion of pharmacovigilance reporting Draft agreed by CVMP Pharmacovigilance

More information

NATIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE

NATIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE NATIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE Version 3 February 2017 Table of Contents PREFACE... 3 INTRODUCTION... 3 VISION... 4 MEMBER CODE OF ETHICS... 5 WHAT DO PET INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA MEMBERS BELIEVE?...

More information

The role of veterinarians in animal welfare and intersectoral collaboration

The role of veterinarians in animal welfare and intersectoral collaboration The role of veterinarians in animal welfare and intersectoral collaboration Dr María Nelly Cajiao Councillor for Latin America Region World Veterinary Association Content Introduction of the WVA WVA Activities

More information

Dealing with suspected dog fight injuries

Dealing with suspected dog fight injuries Vet Times The website for the veterinary profession https://www.vettimes.co.uk Dealing with suspected dog fight injuries Author : Shakira Miles Categories : Practical, RVNs Date : February 6, 2017 Since

More information

Information Guide. Moving house with your dog

Information Guide. Moving house with your dog Information Guide Moving house with your dog www.thekennelclub.org.uk Moving house with your dog Preparation Try to keep your dog s usual routine as normal as possible leading up to the move. The Control

More information

the first place redundant.

the first place redundant. Ref Response 0017 Yes 0018 Yes. Reasons stated here/in this document. It will help with strays, disease tracing. I am less convinced about arguments for fouling. 0019 Yes. For traceability of owner AND

More information

Upcoming ASPCApro Webinars

Upcoming ASPCApro Webinars Upcoming ASPCApro Webinars aspcapro.org/webinars Daily Rounds: How to Decrease Length of Stay July 31 3-4pm ET Promoting Your Grant to Attract More Funding August 14 3-4pm ET Funding Your Spay/Neuter Program

More information

Somerset Regional Animal Shelter. Volunteer Information

Somerset Regional Animal Shelter. Volunteer Information Somerset Regional Animal Shelter 100 Commons Way Bridgewater, NJ 08807 Phone: (908) 725-0308 Fax: (908)725-5403 Volunteer Information History of SRAS General Operations About Adoptions Volunteer Positions

More information

Course Pack Introduction to Canine Anatomy and Physiology

Course Pack Introduction to Canine Anatomy and Physiology Course Pack Introduction to Canine Anatomy and Physiology This information pack explains all that you ll need to know about the Introduction to Canine Anatomy and Physiology course. We have tried to include

More information

National Action Plan development support tools

National Action Plan development support tools National Action Plan development support tools Sample Checklist This checklist was developed to be used by multidisciplinary teams in countries to assist with the development of their national action plan

More information

CAT 16 FIV. The charity dedicated to helping sick, injured and homeless pets since 1897.

CAT 16 FIV. The charity dedicated to helping sick, injured and homeless pets since 1897. CAT 16 FIV The charity dedicated to helping sick, injured and homeless pets since 1897. FIV FIV is a condition similar to the virus that causes AIDS in people, although there is no risk of people catching

More information

Do you know how to look after your dog in its senior years?

Do you know how to look after your dog in its senior years? Information Guide Do you know how to look after your dog in its senior years? www.thekennelclub.org.uk www.thekennelclub.org.uk Do you know how to look after your dog in its senior years? Health Ensure

More information

RCVS Performance Protocol

RCVS Performance Protocol RCVS Performance Protocol Additional Guidance Professional Conduct Department March 2013 RCVS Performance Protocol Additional Guidance Background The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has a duty

More information

German Shepherd Puppy Contract

German Shepherd Puppy Contract German Shepherd Puppy Contract Emerald Wolf K9 Puppy Purchase Contract & Bill of Sale This agreement is made, and hereby entered into, on this day of, 201 by and between Emerald Wolf K9 (hereafter referred

More information

STANDING ORDERS OF THE FCI

STANDING ORDERS OF THE FCI FEDERATION CYNOLOGIQUE INTERNATIONALE (AISBL) 13, Place Albert 1er, B - 6530 Thuin (Belgique), tel : ++32.759.12.38, fax :++32.759.22.29, internet : http://www.fci.be STANDING ORDERS OF THE FCI January

More information

German Shepherd Dog. Vulnerable Breed. Length of coat. Supposedly sheds? Town or Country. Minimum garden size

German Shepherd Dog. Vulnerable Breed. Length of coat. Supposedly sheds? Town or Country. Minimum garden size German Shepherd Dog The first breed club was formed in 1881 after Max von Stephanitz and his followers developed and promoted the breed as a herding dog, and later as a working dog used by the police and

More information

Information Guide. Breeding for Health.

Information Guide. Breeding for Health. Information Guide Breeding for Health www.thekennelclub.org.uk www.thekennelclub.org.uk Breeding for Health Dog breeders today have a number of different considerations to make when choosing which dogs

More information

I am writing on behalf of the NSW Division of the Australian Veterinary Association and the Centre for Companion Animals in Community (CCAC).

I am writing on behalf of the NSW Division of the Australian Veterinary Association and the Centre for Companion Animals in Community (CCAC). Dear Member of the NSW Legislative Assembly, Re: Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2007 I am writing on behalf of the NSW Division of the Australian Veterinary Association and the Centre for Companion

More information

Stud Service Agreement

Stud Service Agreement Stud Service Agreement Name of Stud Dog: Name of Bitch: I. Definitions. Bitch means the female dog described above. Delivery means the date bitch is delivered to owner of stud dog for mating. Live birth

More information

Assistance dogs. A guide for all businesses

Assistance dogs. A guide for all businesses 1 Assistance dogs A guide for all businesses 2 The Equality and Human Rights Commission We have a statutory remit to promote and monitor human rights; and to protect, enforce and promote equality. We are

More information

Having. a home. from Cats Protection

Having. a home. from Cats Protection Having a home from Cats Protection? Thinking about offering a home to a CP cat or kitten? That s great! There is a lot to think about, but we are here to make the process as smooth as possible and hopefully

More information

DOG 24. Indoor kennel. The charity dedicated to helping sick, injured and homeless pets since 1897.

DOG 24. Indoor kennel. The charity dedicated to helping sick, injured and homeless pets since 1897. DOG 24 Indoor kennel The charity dedicated to helping sick, injured and homeless pets since 1897. Indoor kennel The most popular and convenient indoor kennel is the fold down weld mesh type. These rectangular

More information

GOLDEN RETRIEVER RESCUE OF HOUSTON, INC. (GRRH) P.O. Box Houston, Texas Phone: goldens&grrh.org Website:

GOLDEN RETRIEVER RESCUE OF HOUSTON, INC. (GRRH) P.O. Box Houston, Texas Phone: goldens&grrh.org Website: GOLDEN RETRIEVER RESCUE OF HOUSTON, INC. (GRRH) P.O. Box 19594 Houston, Texas 77224 Phone: 713 521 9019 Email: goldens&grrh.org Website: www.grrh.org This agreement is made this day of in the year of,

More information

Vet volunteer information pack.

Vet volunteer information pack. Vet volunteer information pack. Vet volunteers. Thank you for your interest in volunteering at Lanta Animal Welfare. This document provides a basic outline of our vet volunteer programme. Any additional

More information

BABIES & PETS. Your dog and your baby

BABIES & PETS. Your dog and your baby Your dog and your baby TODDLERS Pet owners should be aware that their baby will soon start crawling and toddling, and that it is important for them to remain vigilant once the child starts to move about

More information

CUTEODYSSEY Small Dog Rescue San Diego, California ADOPTION CONTRACT

CUTEODYSSEY Small Dog Rescue San Diego, California ADOPTION CONTRACT Cuteodyssey Maternal Shih Tzu Rescue and Small Breed Rescue Adoption Contract. Page 1 CUTEODYSSEY Small Dog Rescue San Diego, California ADOPTION CONTRACT Cuteodyssey Maternal Shih Tzu and small breed

More information

Travelling abroad with your dog

Travelling abroad with your dog Information Guide Travelling abroad with your dog Visa Apr 15 2006 Arrival July 21 2005 www.thekennelclub.org.uk www.thekennelclub.org.uk Travelling abroad with your dog Taking your dog on holiday takes

More information

LABRADOR RETRIEVER CLUB of Qld Inc. RESCUE & RE-HOME SERVICE

LABRADOR RETRIEVER CLUB of Qld Inc. RESCUE & RE-HOME SERVICE LABRADOR RETRIEVER CLUB of Qld Inc. RESCUE & RE-HOME SERVICE Policies, Guidelines and Standards The LRCQ Inc. is affiliated with (and operates under the Rules and Code of Ethics of) the Canine Control

More information

Welsh Springer Spaniel Club of America, Inc. Rescue Committee Guidelines. What constitutes a Rescue Animal?

Welsh Springer Spaniel Club of America, Inc. Rescue Committee Guidelines. What constitutes a Rescue Animal? What constitutes a Rescue Animal? Welsh springer spaniels in the following situations: 1. Immediate peril 2. Strays 3. Relinquished to shelters 4. When breeders refuse to take the dog back or give strong

More information

PUPPY CARE SHEET VACCINATIONS

PUPPY CARE SHEET VACCINATIONS PUPPY CARE SHEET This leaflet is designed to give you information about routine care for your new puppy/dog for now and the future. Please don t hesitate to ask any of our staff for further information

More information

ANTIOCH ANIMAL SERVICES

ANTIOCH ANIMAL SERVICES ANTIOCH ANIMAL SERVICES STRATEGIC PLAN July 2009 June 2012 Antioch Animal Services is a bureau of the Antioch Police Department and is responsible for public safety, enforcing local and state laws, as

More information

Hello! Sincerely, Cari Bishop Program Assistant

Hello! Sincerely, Cari Bishop Program Assistant Hello! Thank you for your interest in applying for a Seizure Response Dog from Can Do Canines. We train assistance dogs to help clients maintain and increase their independence. Training is provided free

More information

Guide Dogs Puppy Development and Advice Leaflet. No.6 Recall and Free Running

Guide Dogs Puppy Development and Advice Leaflet. No.6 Recall and Free Running Guide Dogs Puppy Development and Advice Leaflet No.6 Recall and Free Running 1 Table of Contents 3 Teaching relief behaviour and routines to guide dog puppies 3 How to introduce recall 6 The free run procedure

More information

DOUGLAS COUNTY CANINE RESCUE FOSTER AGREEMENT

DOUGLAS COUNTY CANINE RESCUE FOSTER AGREEMENT DOUGLAS COUNTY CANINE RESCUE FOSTER AGREEMENT NAME: DATE: D.C.C.R s first and foremost concern is for each and every animal s wellbeing. We must insure every animal s individual needs are met and will

More information

Animal Rights IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR INSIDE. Municipal Laws Provincial Laws Criminal Law Questions and Answers Adoption and Rescue Centres

Animal Rights IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR INSIDE. Municipal Laws Provincial Laws Criminal Law Questions and Answers Adoption and Rescue Centres Animal Rights IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR The Public Legal Information Association of NL (PLIAN) is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public throughout Newfoundland and Labrador about

More information

New Zealand National Cat Management Strategy Implementation Summary Consultation Draft Document

New Zealand National Cat Management Strategy Implementation Summary Consultation Draft Document New Zealand National Cat Management Strategy Implementation Summary Consultation Draft Document 21 st September 2016 Contents Purpose... 1 Strategic vision... 1 Strategic goals and outcomes... 2 Table

More information

Stray dog: means any dog not under direct control by a person or not prevented from roaming.

Stray dog: means any dog not under direct control by a person or not prevented from roaming. Definitions of stray dogs Stray dog: means any dog not under direct control by a person or not prevented from roaming. Types of stray dog in Bulgaria: 1. feral dog: domestic dog that has reverted to the

More information

Windy River Rottweilers Lynda & Gary LaVine

Windy River Rottweilers Lynda & Gary LaVine Buyer s Information: Windy River Rottweilers Lynda & Gary LaVine 8233 Hwy 14 Lyle WA 98635 (509-767-1539 http://www.windyriverrottweilers.com ROTTWEILER PUPPY SALES CONTRACT Name: Address: City: State:

More information

An Argument against Breed Specific Legislation

An Argument against Breed Specific Legislation An Argument against Breed Specific Legislation Kasey Reynolds Writing 231 April 23, 2011 Most dog owners would agree that pets are like family; each with their own personality, responses, and personal

More information

alternatives to intake

alternatives to intake Q+A with Dr. Kate Hurley, DVM, MPVM In late 2014, Dr. Kate Hurley, program director of the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program which is housed within the CCAH challenged shelters across North America

More information

Adoption

Adoption 5 www.whiteshepherds.co.za Adoption New Owner New Owner acting third party that he is The New Owner agrees to take good care of this dog, feed and house the dog properly {indoors}, maintain shots, control

More information

Just saying no isn t a solution. The problems with dog walking. Dogs in greenspaces: managing the demand Stephen Jenkinson Access Advisor

Just saying no isn t a solution. The problems with dog walking. Dogs in greenspaces: managing the demand Stephen Jenkinson Access Advisor The problems with dog walking Dogs in greenspaces: managing the demand Stephen Jenkinson Access Advisor Disturbed local wildlife Jumped up at me Raided our picnic The Kennel Club stephen.jenkinson@ thekennelclub.org.uk

More information

Owner/Co-Owner Information. Puppy information

Owner/Co-Owner Information. Puppy information www.foxhuntwhiteshepherds.com Tim & Scarlett Sanders 3758 Foxhunt Rd. Phone: 850-773-2899 Chipley, FL. 32428 foxhuntshepherds@earthlink.net Owner/Co-Owner Information NAME OF NEW OWNER: NAME OF NEW Co-OWNER:

More information

ISSUES IN FOCUS 2014

ISSUES IN FOCUS 2014 ISSUES IN FOCUS 2014 CONTENTS PDSA s history dates back to 1917. During that time the charity has had a huge impact on animal health and welfare across the UK, providing around 100 million free treatments

More information

Information Guide. Asthma and your dog.

Information Guide. Asthma and your dog. Information Guide Asthma and your dog www.thekennelclub.org.uk www.thekennelclub.org.uk Asthma and your dog How do dogs and other animals trigger asthma symptoms? A trigger is anything that irritates the

More information

Cat Adoption Criteria

Cat Adoption Criteria Cat Adoption Criteria In order to be considered for adoption, you must: Be 21 years old or older Live within 100 miles of Franklin, PA (zipcode: 16323) Have identification showing your current address

More information

LOOKING FOR A CANINE COMPANION? 12 GOOD REASONS FOR CHOOSING A DOG FROM WAGGY TAILS RESCUE

LOOKING FOR A CANINE COMPANION? 12 GOOD REASONS FOR CHOOSING A DOG FROM WAGGY TAILS RESCUE LOOKING FOR A CANINE COMPANION? 12 GOOD REASONS FOR CHOOSING A DOG FROM WAGGY TAILS RESCUE 1. We always have a wide range of dogs looking for homes. Large and small, young and mature, named breeds and

More information

JUDGES COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK AN EYE FOR A DOG ASSESSMENT CODE OF BEST PRACTICE

JUDGES COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK AN EYE FOR A DOG ASSESSMENT CODE OF BEST PRACTICE JUDGES COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK AN EYE FOR A DOG ASSESSMENT CODE OF BEST PRACTICE Kennel Club Training Board Setting standards through education *Assessments organised by the Kennel Club* *This document is

More information