Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding

AC 89

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE WELFARE ISSUES OF DOG BREEDING

Minutes of Meeting Number 13 held at Dogs Trust, Wakley Street, Islington, London

on 27November 2012

Present:

Sheila Crispin (Chairman)

Lesley Bloomfield (LB)

Rachel Casey (RC)

Chris Laurence (CL)

Cathryn Mellersh (CM)

David Sargan (DS)

Also attending:

Heather Peck (Secretary)

Clarissa Baldwin

Hazel Benthall

Sally Everitt

Carol Fowler

Richard Hooker

Christine Hunt

Ron James

Joy Venturi Rose

Agenda Item 1

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked Dogs Trust for their kind hospitality. She explained that this was a meeting held in public, not a public meeting. However, the timetable had been arranged to ensure that there was plenty of time for questions from the floor and discussion of issues raised.
Apologies for absence had been received from Lisa Collins, Lisa McCaulder and Mike Radford.

Agenda Item 2 – declarations of interest

The Secretary informed the Council that the log of interests had been revised with respect to the Council. DS notified a further change and undertook to send it to the Secretary for the record. It was agreed that any further changes should be notified to the Secretary by email prior to the meeting in February.

Agenda Item 3 – minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes were accepted and signed as a correct record.

Agenda Item 4 - matters arising from the minutes

Most actions arising from the previous meeting had been completed. One was outstanding (ACTION LC to comment on current population models). With regard to the possibilities of the Council setting up a Coefficient of Inbreeding (COI) calculator website, CL reported that he had discussed the issue with Tom Lewis who was involved with Mate Select. The Council had been minded to establish a site as a service to breeders and as an alternative had explored the possibilities of working with the Kennel Club to extend the range of their approach. It appeared that would not be an option. There was some discussion on why an additional site was necessary. It was pointed out that while Mate Select was a good system it was uneven for different dogs because it had varying depths of data available to it. Moreover, there were large numbers of breeding dogs not registered with the Kennel Club eg Labradoodles.It was noted that there was a perception that these breeders tended to assume they were not susceptible to inbreeding effects. However, the Council concluded that such breeders should have available to them a tool to establish how inbred their dogs were or were becoming. It would also enable breeders to fulfil that requirement in the Standard for Breeding. The Council agreed to pursue the development of a CoI calculation website available to all.

Agenda Item 5 – Report on Income and Expenditure

The Secretary presented paper AC 87, explaining that the Council’s financial year ran from January to December. Council running costs had been kept as low as possible and much work, for example the redesign of the website, had been done on a voluntary basis. The Council also expressed its appreciation to those organisations who had allowed the use of their meeting rooms without raising a charge.

Agenda Item 7 - Progress report on Council projects

Members of Council provided progress reports on Council projects as follows:

DS explainedthe basis of the Council’s proposed research project addressing the need for improvements in data collection. (See also the summary note attached). He reported that on approaching Dogs Trust for funding for the project, there had been criticism of the “lack of a lead epidemiologist”, notwithstanding the close involvement of Nottingham University and the Royal Veterinary College as well as Cambridge University. Since the involvement ofepidemiologists had apparently been unclear, the project had been reframed noting the specific involvement of David Brodbelt as the lead. There was a need to check the timing of possible further consideration with Dogs Trust. The Chairman added that when she had seen Lord de Mauley they had discussed the possibilities of access to insurance data.
CM updated the Council with regard to the Priority Welfare Problemsproject, noting that the Council’s report on the first 8 priorities had been published on the website in May 2012. This had covered ocular and breathing problems (both linked to head conformation), epilepsy, syringomyelia, heart disease with a known or suspected inherited basis, skin problems, limb defects and separation related behaviours. Eight experts had been approached to contribute to the report; four of the sections had been written by Council members and four by external experts. Following publication of the report the next 4 priorities had been identified; ie glaucoma, breed specific cancers, hypothyroidism and other breed-related auto immune disorders. It was hoped that the work would spin off further research and work with breed health coordinators.
In following up the work on the priorities it was noted that data collection was important. However, if the advice was to be translated into actionthenbreed health coordinators were key contacts. The Council had originally thought of arranging a seminar for breed health coordinators. The Kennel Club had kindly invited Council members to attenda seminar that they had organised which the Council had found helpful. Two Council members were also speakers at this event. However, it had also helped to crystallise thinking on how best to engage with breed health coordinators on the Council’s recommendations. It had therefore been decided that the Council would work with breed health coordinators in smaller workshops to develop means of generating data and on the implementation of advice.
Introducing the report on the project to develop a standard for breeding dogs, CLreminded everyone that the need for a robust standard that applied to all dogs (not just pedigree dogs) was a clear recommendation in the Bateson Report. Fewer than40% of dogs were registered with the Kennel Club compared withmore than 60% that were not, and arguably the worst problems were in those not registered. The standard had gone through 6 iterations, including consultations with stakeholders, before it was published in September 2012. There had been a varietyof reactions, some positive others less so.
It was clear that there was little point in having twostandards. The Kennel Club had carried out a gap analysis and had made moves to close some of the gaps. In order to make the next step to resolve the differences between the two standards constructively, the Council had asked Professor Sir Patrick Bateson to chair a working group to look at the differences and resolve them. The working group would have available to it bothveterinaryand extensive breeding knowledge (the list of members is annexed to the minutes).
Introducing the paper on proposals to review the regulation of dog breeding, the Secretary acknowledged that this was a key issue in the Bateson Report and also for all stakeholders. The Council had discussed the issue on several occasions, led by Mike Radford who unfortunately was indisposed and therefore unable to be present. The Secretary had therefore produced a discussion paper (tabled on the day) which discussed the principles underpinning an approach to regulation, summarised the key points which had been made in discussions within the Council to date, and listed emerging proposals. It was stressed that the proposals were very much a work in progress.
The link between the approach to regulation and the Standard for Breeding Dogs was also stressed. The helpful precedent established in the regulation of greyhounds was alluded to, and the point made that if a UKAS accredited scheme could be established which inspected to an agreed and robust standard then those who were inspected and found to meet the standard could be designated low priority for Local Authority enforcement, thus allowing the enforcement authorities tofocus their attention on those who presented a higher welfare risk.
It was also noted that the Council was not happy that the welfare needs of puppies were adequately met when sold under current conditions from pet shops. Any amendment to regulation needed to address this area and set stringent standards. It was noted that it was possible that meeting such standards might make such sales uneconomic.
DS summarised progress with the Council’s web-based tool on how to buy a dog.He noted that there had been much positive feedback but others had said that the tool was quite lengthy. He was therefore proposing to add a short summary document. He added that the Council appreciated the links to other stakeholder sites and he was currently looking for a grant from Google to advertise the site as he had already used all the devicesavailable to raise the site up the Google listing short of paying for it. He also pointed out that to date the site had not cost the Council anything, as it had been prepared largely by him with the assistance of Council members. The site was kept under continuous review and would be adapted over time.
CL provided an update on the veterinary health checks for puppies, which were intended to complement the BVA/RSPCA puppy pack. The base assumption was that most purchasers would appreciate having a puppy which had been health checked. There had been extensive negotiations with the BVA, BSAVA and theVeterinary Defence Society and the pilot had been launched 6 weeks previously. It was considered that the check should take a veterinary surgeon only a few minutes per puppy. Such a check would give breeders a measure of protection from purchasers who made unreasonable claims regarding problems which occurred in their own care sometime after the sale of the puppy, whilst also protecting the purchaser from problems which did genuinely arise at birth or immediately after. It was pointed out that there needed to be a check to indicate that all elements had been looked at. There was also still a need for greater clarity over some terms such as a “rounded chest”.
Regarding the proposed research project on theheritability of temperament, RC tabled and introduced a draft proposal, pointing out that the Council’s remit extended overall dogs not just pedigree dogs, and that while there were a lot of reasons for the relationship between dogs and humans breaking down, they were often due to behavioural problems. Although pedigree dogs were selected for their appearance, most did in fact have to live as companions and behaviour was therefore paramount. Behaviour could be seen as a secondary characteristic. For example, there appeared to be genetically determined characteristics which determined how an animal made a decision about what happened to it. It was that inherited characteristic combined within the environment within which the individual dog had been brought up and lived which determined how an individual dog behaved. The model of behaviour selected for this proposal was separation related problems, both because they were important and also because they tended to be demonstrated early in life. The proposal was for a Post-graduate student to work on the project over 4 years and involved collaboration between Bristol and the AHT.
RC further explained that the project made use of the fact that a test for measuring the degree of optimism or pessimism in dogs had been developed. The detail was contained in a summary paper (attached). CL asked if there could be a lower cost version of the project involving testing the breeding stock, then testing the puppies, and seeing whether that trait was inherited. RC advised that it would not save much cost as it would save only one visit. DS pointed out thatthe Council’s interest was separation anxiety, not the level of optimism or pessimism which might be interesting but not welfare issue. CR added that an additional benefit for the Council would be theimpact on the information and advice given to owners, particularly if it were possible to link clearly the advice to minimising separation anxiety. It was considered helpful to identify and characterise the interaction between inheritance and environment.

Agenda Item 7 – the Future of the Council

The Chairman pointed out that we had arrived at the time of year when she updated the summary of activities carried out by external stakeholders. She gave notice that she would be contacting contributors to seek updates by the end of December.
On the Council itself, the Chairman pointed out that it had originally been set up for threeyears. 2013 would be the last of the three. Council members had, during the meeting, already listed projects which were close to completion or underway.
Priorities for future work included:
The completion of work already underway, of which top priorities were the funding of the two identified research projects, on-going work on the standard as already discussed, the provision of advice on the review of legislation to governments, and work on the second set of priority welfare conditions.
Priorities for new work included :
The development of a generic set of terms for use in breed standards
facilitation / encouragement of a major public education campaign by the welfare bodies jointly
advice on the extent and nature of the problem of increased imports from Eastern Europe
a strategy to help retain dogs in families (addressing the issue of people who abandon a dog for behavioural reasons and then get a replacement)
On the question of funding, the Council was sensitive to the funding issues within patron’s organisations. It was confident that the Council represented good value for money and aimed tospread the load wider by pursuing options for funding from governments.
In the Council’s view, the identified priorities constituted a major programme of work for 2013. The proposal was that the Council and its patrons/stakeholders should review the position regarding the Council's future towards the end of next year.
DSraised the issue of what was said on public websites, eg those engaged in advertising puppies for sale, and discussed thepossibility of influencing such websites to include information such as “buy your puppy only when you can see the mother”.
It was noted that a large public awareness campaign was not affordable by the Council but welfare bodies working together could have an impact. Nonetheless the Council was pleased to see that Gumtree had made some moves in the right direction and could suggest other changes that would be advantageous.

Questions/Points from the Floor

CB pointed out that the welfare bodies had been working together through the Pet advertising advisory group and that it had been talking to Gumtree, and had persuaded them to take down some of the unethical or illegal advertising, and would be seeking additional changes such as a reference to seeing the mother.
On the dangers linked to importing puppies, a workshop was plannedfor January 2013, of which some members ofCouncil might not be aware, so it was important to avoid duplication. DS agreed that there was a need to improve engagement between the Council and the scientific sections of stakeholders.
It was pointed out that purchases from pet shops tended to be lookalikes or mixed breeds and often cost around £1000. A major problem was impulse buys - people went to buy patio chairs and came back with a puppy. The Council was encouraged to engage with theSociety of Practising VeterinarySurgeons. HB asked if there was potential for a survey on how someone procured a puppy from whom and how, then perhaps a poster campaign to address the problems identified. CH was working on a survey for dog owners but it was very small scale. She was encouraged to publish her results when available.
The point was also made that the challenge was not just about the educationof potential purchasers but also about the vendor being careful to select suitable purchasers for their puppies.
Richard Hooker supported the Council’s approach to solving problems in a tangible way. He argued that the importance of the Council was to carry out gap analyses, identify where the problems lay and how they should be addressed. Once a need for action had been identified, the Council should hand the issue over to a patron for implementation, rather than tryto do it themselves. It would be a better use of theCouncil’s time to focus on problem solving and the making of recommendations rather than the implementation phase.
It was pointed out that was also the Council’s view, but unless advice was acted on then it was a waste of time generating it. The Council had been forced into initiating the first stages of implementation because stakeholders had not yet acted on the advice given. The joint meeting of the Council and stakeholders early in 2012 had agreed that lead patrons should take forward joint working groups to implement Council recommendations as previously agreed before the Council was established. However, although the Secretary had circulated the draft terms of reference for the Groups nothing further had happened. The question was asked, what could the Council do to ensure that when it produced advice and made recommendations thesewere picked up by others to implement?
Clarissa Baldwinsaid that in her view the Council had been established because of bad breeding and there was still a need to find out what the prevalence of particular problems was so that the extent of the problem could be established. She felt that this step was still missing. DSpointed out that had been the reason for the proposed epidemiological research project but the Council had not been able to obtain thefunding to do it. The Liverpool University/BSAVA SAVSNETand VetCompass projects were discussed and DS explained the differences between the two.
Carol Fowlerasked if seeking further data wasgetting in the way of taking action. Could not something simply be done when the problems were apparent? It was pointed out that the Council’s report on the first eight prioritieshad sought to do just that. Action on the recommendations however demanded action from breeders – and when people were unwilling to concede that there wasa problem they demanded proof. Joy Venturi Rosestated thatpeer pressure, more data and tools and the refusal of breeders from abroad to use dogs unless they have the results of tests, was effecting change. Even inLabradoodles, peer pressure and public education was starting to work. There were now fewer places to hide. Carol Fowleralso mentioned a Cockapoo club which had very stringent health standards, including a requirement that only F1 hybrids were used and they had adopted the puppy contract.
DS wondered whether there might be a subset of,for example,pugs who had clinically adequate airways throughout life and could therefore be used for breeding a better pug.
There was a discussion on how and who should work together to increase public awareness of welfare issues and improve education. The question of the national curriculum was raised. The view was expressed that the Council could usefully concentrate on considering which bits of advice were missing from, for example, the curriculum or awareness advertising and provide advice on what was missing or required correction. The undertaking of campaigns should be left to other stakeholders.
Joy Venturi Roseasked about the puppy health check body condition score, saying that she was not sure it could be applied toall puppies as breeds differed, for example,Whippets would be different fromLabradors. She also had some concerns regarding the proposed behavioural research as she would not want any “placebo” group to be denied the advantages of the best available advice on how to bring up a puppy. She was assured that any control group would benefit from the best currently available techniques/advice. The point of the research was to see if it could be improved.
The Council asked stakeholders to specify what they wanted advice on. Clarissa Baldwin immediately requested advice on prevalence.
Hazel Benthallcommented that there was a possibility of obtaining funding for the Council through a voluntary levy on pet food. Harvey Locke was said to have spoken to the PFMA and obtained a favourable response. Finding independent funding for the Council might therefore not be impossible. Hazel Benthall also promised details for a contact from the insurers.

The meeting closed at 1545.