READERS FORUM

Dog/Horse shows under threat from EU ruling.
Dog Food???
Insurance for Show Dogs?
European Convention for Animals, possible new restrictions
Petition for Champions class
Kennel Club enewsletter
China Story and petition
Dog Control Orders by Local Authorities.
RSPCA backed report into dog breeding and KC Response.
Dogs and the Hot Summers
Canine Health & Welfare at Shows
Accredited Breeders Scheme
The Dangers of throwing sticks
Competence Test before you become a Dog Owner
Internet - Friend or Foe

'Hot off the Press' - News from the Canine World

 

Internet - Friend or Foe

The Internet - Friend or Foe -February 2010
Published Tanat Valley Chronicle - written by Sarah Kendall-Taylor

The Internet for central informtion is great, and readily accessible to most people these days. There is a down side though, that my colleagues and I come across time and time again. Some veterinary information is posted from unqualified sources and is inaccurate. People tend to think most veterinary information on the internet is the most up to date, but for veterinary surgeons we rely on veterinary publications and websites only accessible to vets to get up to date information. Additionally, we have contact with specialists in various fields.

Typing in your animals condition can be misleading. For instance, you may look up 'conjunctivitis' and see various treatments. However the key to successful treatment is a detailed examination to determine the cause. I have seen a dog treated with antibacterial cream for conjunctivitis which was caused by a thorn in its' eye. Some types of conjunctivitis are caused by lack of tear production and there are many other causes.

The wrong treatment, delaying a visit to the vet may cause difficulty in curing the condition because it has progressed so far in the human field on some sites. You can type in the symptoms and come up with a possible diagnosis, but without a full examination by a qualified medical of veterinary person, the diagnosis may well be off the mark.

I have seen some non-accredited sources quote there is no treatment for a particular parasitic condition when there is a perfectly good treatment. This site was trying to sell an unrecognised treatment that had no proven record that it worked.

No vet or doctor will diagnose a patient without seeing them. This is because the history of a condition a patient tells them, together with examination will often give you a clue as to the cause. Vets are always willing to discuss any concerns you have about your animals condition. Please think before you Google!!

 

February 2010 - The Mail on Sunday
A leaked document from DEFRA suggests that every dog owner will have to take a 'competence test' to prove they can handle their pets under new government proposals designed to curb dangerous dogs. Owners of all breeds would also have to buy third-party insurance in case their pet attacked someone and pay for the insertion of a microchip recording their name and address. The proposals are apparently among a range of measures to overhaul dog laws in England and Wales being considered by senior Ministers who are expected to announce a publis consultation within weeks. But critics said responsible dog owners would be penalised by yet more red tape and higher bills - one expert has estimated the extra costs at £60 or more- while irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs would just ignore the measures. It states that the RSPCA said it would welcome a review of legislation which has failed to curb the numbers of dangerous dogs that attack children and adults. The Charity did say that they would not support anything which would hit sensible owners while failing to police those who are a danger. A government spokeman has been reported as saying that these proposals are contained in a confidential report drawn up by DEFRA,
It is thought that under the proposls would be dog owners would have to show they have a basic understanding of their dogs before being allowed to keep one. There have been suggestions for a competency test for all or some dog owners akin to the driving theory test. The cost of setting this system up is the problem and would have to be met by either charging for the test or by imposing a dog licence fee..although there were disagreements over what would constitute competence in looking after and controlling a dog. Other proposals quoted in this article were giving the Police and local authorities power to impose ASBOS on the owners of unruly dogs and extending the laws to cover attacks everywhere. At the moment dogs which attack people on private property are allowed to be exempt from the law despite coomplaints from Postmen.

The Kennel Club are quoted as saying that it was in favour of measures to promote responsible dog ownership but that the competence tests sounded impracticable.

 

For Dogs Sake, stick to toys “Meg” the Border Collie was killed when she dived onto a stick that was being thrown for her. The stick went longways into her throat, ripping her oesophagus and breaking her collarbone. Border Collie “Hobby” needed emergency surgery when a stick he picked up in the park went down his throat, shearing off one of his tonsils. “Danny” the Weimaraner dived onto a stick that was being thrown for him. The stick went straight through his tongue, leaving a hole the size of a man's index finger. “Zany”, the German Shepherd cross, came to grief when a tiny stick went up through the roof of her mouth and travelled upwards, looking for an exit. The exit happened to be her left eye. Zany was in great pain and the vet thought she had a tumour behind the eye. It was only during the operation to remove Zany's eye, that the vet discovered the stick.  “Lester” the Border Collie, suffered a nasty injury when a stick that was being thrown for him went down into his throat. He did survive but the shock of the ordeal brought on epilepsy. Now, whenever he has a fit, his owner feels so guilty for throwing a stick when she could easily have thrown a ball instead.

“Tammy”, the Collie Cross, was on a walk in the forest with her owner and her Rottweiller friend “Ben”, who was proudly carrying a long stick. As Tammy ran up behind him, Ben suddenly turned away. The end of the stick swung around, piercing Tammy's eye. Tammy's owner had to carry her several miles back to the car and then rush her to a vet for emergency surgery to remove the eye, but sadly she developed septicaemia and subsequently died of toxic shock.

See here for more shocking stories http://www.colliecorner.com/stick-to-toys/new_page_1.htm


In this weeks issue of "Our Dogs" Sept 28.07, I was interested to read two articles in their factfile section relating to a local authorities dog control orders, which might be interesting to bear in mind or take action on at the consultation stages.The KC DOG, the Kennel Club scheme to help dog owners protect their rights and freedoms, was alerting all dog owners in the Isle of Wight to the consultation that the Isle of Wight Council is currently running on its proposed dog control orders.The proposed dog control order would include making it an offence to not have a dog on a lead in certain areas, and banning them altogether from other areas, including a number of beaches, from April to October inclusive. The Council is also banning dogs within a 10 metre radius around children's play areas. To comply dog owners would have to keep their dogs on a lead in the whole park, an unnecessary restriction as children's play areas are enclosed. Those who exercise dogs and have children will not be able to keep a close eye on their children while they exercise their dogs nearby.For more information go to the information site at Isle of Wight and also email community supportThe consultation of these orders runs until the 12th October after which the consultation will be closed. As this is the only time residents will be asked for their imput affecting the DC orders, the KC DOG encourages residents to have their say while they can.Dog Control orders may include some or all of the following offences:
1. Failing to remove dog faeces from land to which the order applies
2. Not keeping a dog on a lead when on land to which the order applies
3. Not putting and keeping a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer.
4, Permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded.
5. Taking onto land in respect of which the order applies, more than a maximum number of dogs
Local Authorities have had increased power since the new act came into force in April 2006, however when consulting the public councils are only legally obliged to put a small advert in the local paper advertising the consultation period. To join the KC DOG, or for further information please contact KC DOG email - kcdog@thekennelclub.org.uk or telephone 020-7518-1020The paper goes on with another article about a similar situation in Colchester. Unfortunately the consultation period on that has ended on the 30th September.Following this David spotted in the Daily Mail 1 October 2007..the followingA mother and daughter have been warned that they face a £30 fine for walking too many dogs. They apparently walk their five dogs and three others belonging to a disabled friend, everyday.

Council bosses at Kingsclere Parish Council, Hampshire, told them they can take out only three dogs at a time - amid claims that joggers have been bitten. The owner said she had never heard anything so ludicrous in her life. They are are careful dog owners and don't cause any trouble. She was not sure what they expected them to do, walk some dogs, then go out again with the rest......

Insurance for Show dogs

Following a conversation with a dog breeder it turned out that when trying to register a new puppy with the same company used for the last 10 years or so, a different question was asked by the Insurers - ie is this for working or leisure. When told by the owner that the dog was shown the Insurer then refused the registration. Having spoken to the Insurers they do say that they are operating a"pet" insurance service.....and apparently you are only allowed to go to three shows a year, and as a breeder it is classed as a trade or business where profit is made. The poor chap on the phone checked with his under-writers and they implied that we might get rewards at a show....I did explain that we pay to go to shows and if we are lucky enough to get placed we actually get a rosette of card....not any money..... But nevertheless if you have a breeding bitch or show your dog regularly this would not be covered by this particular company.I have rung round to a number of companies and a lot had to check with their underwriters, some were quite happy to accept show dogs, as their interpretation of a working dog was one used for guarding or racing etc.... so that was fine but some said a downright NO to show dogs.When you are insuring your dogs our advice would be to check whether the company you choose does actually cover "show dogs".

-any comments to dogbreedersnet@aol.com

You may be aware that the government is about to sign the European Convention For Pet Animals.
If they sign it will mean the end of certain breeds of dogs, Cat, Poultry, Pigeons, rabbits, and rare breed livestock , which are /may be deemed as Abnormal !
For example in dogs any Short Faced ( Brachycephalic ) breed has to be changed or will be banned. Take the Pekingese as an example, They state that this breed needs to bred with longer straight legs, have a protruding muzzle , small eyes and less coat !( sounds like a tibetan spaniel to me )
Blue breeding in any breed is also a no go area . Blue Merle will be banned as they deem them to have too many " recessive genes " ( correct me here but recessive genes are in ALL forms of life are they not?) In cats , its the hairless, Peke faced Persians , scottish fold etc

In Poultry its Japanese and they have legs that are too short to have a healthy life !!???
Any poultry will feathered legs and feet .( same in pigeons).
I can hear you saying now, "it wont happen here " believe me it will,
There is only The UK and The Germans who blindly follow each and every Law that the EU passes ! Remember that.
In Sweden they have Implemented the 5 studs rule and in some breeds the Bloodlines have been descimated, In gemany they are have not only brought in breed specific Legislation , but have also banned the breeding of Harlequin Great Danes and Blues In breeding programmes
PLEASE take just a few minutes to sign the online petition .
Regards Roy Stott

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EUConvention/


A viewer asked if I would put these links on about the recent publicised events in China as reported in the Daily Mail.
First link is to the report and second link is to a petition to try and stop this terrible treatment of cats and dogs. Pictures are not for the squeamish.......photos Daily Mail

Link to Daily Mail storyLink to petition - Please sign

any comments to collienet2000@aol.com


Link to the petition going round re Champion classes
PETITION

? WHICH DOG FOOD...??Following on from a piece we did in the Bugle sometime ago, I was asked by a viewer to ask the same question to viewers of Collienet...
That being..what type or make of dog food do you use? Tinned, Dry, Natural...?
Are their any particular reasons why you feed this food..?...
Have you found some do not suit your dogs?
Do you use a low protein food? or high?
When one has reason to contact dog food manufacturers because for instance you need a diet which has this in it..or perhaps is gluten free, or low protein..etc whatever the reason. It all gets very confusing as of course the manufacturer is always going to praise their own food....

Email any comments to me at
dogbreedersnet@aol.com
Comments will be added below.

I feed my dogs Burns,which is gluten free,low in protein,very good for over weight and old dogs, I also feed Redmills when bit more weight needed,both foods i recommend having fed both foods for quiet a while, at the moment my youngster is on burns as it easly puts weight on. My 4yr old is on Redmills to gain weight, all 4 dogs have glossy coats and no skin probs,my brothers jrt came to us with very severe skin problems, skin test done at the vets and he couldn't say what the prob was put him straight on Burns and problem cured.
Heather,SkyeBarron,Holly all love their food, Cathy Jessop.


DOG AND HORSE SHOWS UNDER THREAT FROM E.U.RULING.[The last news in the dog papers on this ruling was that the KC had resolved this matter with DEFRA...The following information was published in the Sunday Telegraph on 15th January 2007 by Jasper Copping] Dog breeders, people who exhibit pets at shows and even competing horse riders could fall foul of EU rules on the transporting of animals. Regulations which were drawn up to ensure the welfare of animals also cover all other animals being moved in connection with economic activity.The KC BELIEVES THAT THIS NEW RULING COULD SNARE PEOPLE WHO BREED AND SHOW DOGS FOR A HOBBY.The KC has apparently demanded urgent clarification from DEFRA, before any of its members are unwittingly trapped. These new rules came into force earlier this month and require anyone taking an animal more than 40 miles in the UK in connection with economic activity to apply for authorisation from DEFRAAn MP has tabled question in Parliament demanding answers from Ministers. The MP said the problem is not responsible dog breeders and it would be crazy if this EU regulation penalised owners simply taking their dog to Crufts. DEFRA seems to be unwilling to clarify the situation.The KC has been involved in the consultation process over these new rules, which it is hoped will clamp down on "puppy farmers", people who make large profits by breeding several litters in a year, therefore endangering the health of the bitch. The KC believed it had secured promises from DEFRA that responsible breeders and people taking their animals to shows would not be affected by the rules. However a spkesman said that it would be for the courts to decide what counted as commercial activity.The KC is alarmed by recent comments of a Junior Minister at DEFRA, who appeared to backtrack when he said that the rules would cover professional breeders. A spokesman has said that the KC is seeking assurances from the department that the term "Professional Breeder" does not apply to responsible dog breeders, but to those intentsive volume breeders who transport puppies with little or no regard for thier welfare.

Although DEFRA has provided an exemption the KC fears it could consider people who show and breed dogs for a hobby as "professional" because money changes hands when they sell puppies so that they can cover veterinary bills, DNA and screening tests. In addition some dog shows recieve small cash prizes.