THE WELFARE OF DOGS:

Quick Links to Page Contents:

• Dogs & the Law
• Breeding Practices & Genetic Health
• Cruelty & Abuse
• Abandonment
• Street & Stray Dogs

DOGS & THE LAW:

Laws pertaining to the welfare of dogs and the legal responsibility of their keepers vary greatly from country to country. While some countries, such as the UK, Austria, New Zealand, and Switzerland subscribe to the concept of the ‘five freedoms’ and have them enshrined in law, other countries take a far more laissez-faire approach to dog welfare and owner responsibility.

In those countries that have adopted these five freedoms, owners, breeders, and shelters need to consider: 

• The environment in which the dog is housed: Is it a safe environment?  Does it provide adequate warmth and shelter from the elements?  Is there a separate space for the dog to toilet?  Is the environment clean, and does it provide adequate mental and physical stimulation? 

• The diet that the dog is provided: Is it well-balanced and non-toxic to dogs?  Is the appropriate amount of food being given for that breed/type of dog?  Are there special dietary requirements for that dog?  Is clean water accessible and is it frequently changed? 
• Provisions for a dog to perform normal behaviour (excepting when it involves nuisance to the public or livestock): Is adequate training provided for the dog, and is that training non-aversive?  Is there adequate socialisation and opportunity for interaction with other dogs?  Is there regular opportunity for both exercise and rest? 
• Housing with (or without) other animals (and people): Does the dog have opportunities to spend sufficient time with people and other friendly dogs so that it is not lonely or bored?  Does the dog express fear or aggression toward others, and if so not to place it in situations that lead to this behaviour?  Is the dog safe with children and never left unattended with a minor even if they are deemed to be child-friendly? 
• Keeping a dog healthy and protecting them from pain, suffering, injury, and disease: Is the dog microchipped, and is that information up to date?  Does the person in charge of a dog know the signs of pain, injury, or illness in a dog?  Are sensible precautions being taken to keep the dog safe and are routine preventative healthcare measures in place?  Does the dog have a collar and identification when in public? 

While many would see such welfare legislation as progressive, certainly when compared to many other countries around the world, other laws have come to pass that have been deemed to be either overly prohibitive or poorly designed, as is the case in the UK with the Dangerous Dog Act, which seeks to ban certain breeds outright.  These include dogs that fit a particular ‘type’, which can lead to room for interpretation. 

For instance, the Act will classify a particular dog as a PBT (Pit Bull Terrier) type were it to exhibit a ‘substantial number of characteristics’ that are also attributed to the American Pit Bull Terrier according to the American Dog Breeders Association standard of conformation from 1977.  This is regardless of the dog’s parentage.  The dog’s attitude and behaviour will also be taken into consideration when a determination is made, although the primary focus would be on the dog’s build and morphology.  The exact wording smacks a bit of relativism, in that the dog being assessed should be ‘considered more PBT than any other type of dog’.  The evaluation is carried out using a points system, in which 10 percent is regarding attitude and behaviour, while the remainder deals with the ‘look’ of the dog.  A dog needs to score more than 60 percent in order to be determined to be a Pit Bull Terrier type. 

This legislation is deeply flawed for a number of reasons.  While the saying ‘there are no bad dogs, only bad owners’ is a bit overplayed, there is still a great deal of truth in it.  No dog is born vicious, but every dog has the capacity for aggression, if not properly socialised, cared for, and exercised.  The problem for the Pit Bull Terrier is that it has a greater potential to cause maximal damage compared to many other breeds, and that aggression has been deliberately selected for in certain breed-lines.  But in these instances, the legislation is designed to punish a dog for its potential to cause harm, regardless of its actual behaviour. 

Another problem arises when a dog that is deemed potentially harmful is placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs register.  The IED list may well help to save those that can be proven to be friendly and amicable, but to then restrict that dog to a lead (as the law requires) when it needs to expend energy, to isolate it from other dogs (as the law requires) when it needs to socialise and play, can cause pent up energy and frustration in that animal, which may ultimately lead to the very behaviour this Act is designed to legislate against.  Does that not then make this law just as culpable as any bad owner that doesn’t adequately exercise or socialise their dog, leading it to act out through its frustration? 

The UK, Austria, New Zealand, and Switzerland have certainly led the way by enshrining the five freedoms into law, under the Animal Welfare Act, and while the European Union has passed similar legislation, it is unfortunate that other individual governments within the EU have not followed through on this important legislation.  Similarly, while the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has adopted these five freedoms, there is currently no such law passed on a national level within the USA. 

This would be an important step forward for the improved welfare of dogs.  Equally important would be a stronger educational drive to raise awareness among pet owners of their responsibilities, and tighter controls and regulations on the breeding and importing of puppies and dogs, especially of those breeds deemed to be high risk, in order to ensure that breeding pairs are selected for sociability and calmness whilst ensuring that all puppies are raised in a safe environment that supports the principles of the five freedoms. 

BREEDING PRACTICES & GENETIC HEALTH: 

A broad range of welfare issues stem from poor breeding practices, resulting in both physical and psychological problems, which in turn can lead to ill-health and poor behaviour, and potentially a dog being euthanised prematurely as a result. 

The genetic health of a lot of the pure breeds has been severely depressed over the years due to constant inbreeding, so much so that genetic health screenings and inherited disease testing services for dogs has become widespread in recent years.  In fact, it has been estimated that for some breeds the amount of genetic variation to be found in a 50,000 sample of that breed population would equate to the same amount of genetic variation to be found in only 50 people! 

The result has been an explosion of hereditary disorders that range from painful to life-threatening.  Just some of the more prevalent disorders include: Hip dysplasia, increased risk of cataracts and deafness, proneness to urinary tract infections, and idiopathic epilepsy.  The situation has become so acute for the English Bulldog – which, as a result of head-shape and pelvic abnormalities, cannot even give birth naturally so that Caesarean sections are required – that outbreeding is seen as the only means by which to rescue this breed from the brink, which in effect is to say that this breed of dog, as it is, has no future. 

The sad truth is that not all of these hereditary disorders are accidental but many have in fact been deliberately selected for in an effort to accentuate certain anatomical features.  This is not entirely the fault of the breeders, as a portion of the blame can also be laid at the feet of those prospective owners who desire these abnormal anatomical features and do not prioritise welfare when selecting a dog.  They instead favour ‘form over function’, or in other words perceive short, or flattened, faces, eyes that extrude, and curled tails as ‘cute’, without considering the health ramifications of those traits in their dog. 

Those breed associations and clubs that prescribe breed standards, or conformation, have also much to answer for, as it is they who have dictated the idealised version of each breed of dog, a standard by which breeders will then attempt to match or better their offspring in terms of their appearance.  An example of how this has been taken to the extreme can be seen in the German Shepherd. 

The risk of inbreeding is especially prevalent in areas where there is a low breed population, and hence a smaller gene pool to select from.  This is especially true in smaller countries or where a particular breed is not well represented, as breeders may choose not to incur the cost of importing a dog from another country in order to infuse new blood into an already intensively bred, localised population. 

It is not only in the area of genetic health that breeders are able to influence the welfare of a dog for better or worse, but they also have enormous influence over psychological development and socialisation.  Because a dog reaches puberty at quite a young age – 6 to 9 months – bad breeders are able to breed from a bitch that has yet to reach physical and behavioural maturity, or that has yet to be adequately assessed for hereditary issues.  All of these factors will have a cumulative effect on her ability to adequately rear her pups, which may in turn be used as breeding dogs at too young an age or be homed without adequate opportunity to learn from its mother and litter-mates. 

Puppy mills are, of course, the biggest culprits of these abusive practices, and it is incumbent on each and every prospective owner to ensure they only take home a puppy from a reputable breeder. 

The best way to ensure that breeding practices are maintained to the highest standards for the welfare of dogs is for stronger regulations to come into force to ensure that all breeding dogs are properly screened for inheritable diseases and that puppies are given sufficient time with their mother and litter-mates before being homed, while at the same time breed standards should be relaxed to allow for outbreeding and improved genetic health.  It is incumbent on all prospective owners to properly research the type of dog they intend to adopt, to understand its needs and natural behaviour, rather than simply be taken in by its ‘look’. 

The age of the pure breed as defined by a dog’s physical appearance should really be consigned to the dustbin of history before the loss of genetic diversity and resulting onset of hereditary disorders does this for us anyway. 

CRUELTY & ABUSE:

When it comes to animal cruelty and abuse, one tends to think of extreme and shocking cases in which a dog has been chained, starved, beaten, or kicked.  Sadly, this level of abuse is still quite common, and the law takes a justifiably dim view of anyone caught mistreating a dog in this way. 

There are, however, other forms of abuse that are less overt but more commonplace, and overtime can lead to a breakdown in the human-dog relationship.  Homing a dog without giving proper thought or preparation to its arrival can easily lead to frustration, neglect, and eventually to abandonment of that pet.  Simply by providing a large home and a garden is insufficient to fulfilling a dog’s needs for both mental and physical stimulation.  Human companionship and the ability to explore new scents – by not only examining but also adding to them – are vital to a dog’s wellbeing. 

Many dogs are bred for a purpose, especially those that are from a working line.  These dogs are not necessarily suited to an urban environment or to the laidback lifestyle of a companion animal.  Many of these dogs become bored or frustrated, leading to problem behaviours that in turn may result in abandonment or further confinement.  It is important, therefore, when a prospective owner selects a dog that they enquiry as to whether it has come from a working, show, or companion breed-line. 

Too much love can be just as cruel to a dog as too little.  Animal hoarding – in which a person takes on too many pets to be able to provide adequate housing, nutrition, or attention to each individual – is an example of this, but so too is the pet obesity problem that is on the rise in the developed world.  In fact, it has been estimated that up to 50% of dogs in developed countries are clinically overweight.  In a recent UK study, it was discovered that only 52% of owners knew the current weight of their pet compared to the optimal weight for that particular breed.  This lack of knowledge, coupled with reduced exercise and an increasingly energy-rich diet has led to a situation where dogs are not only physically unfit but have a greater tendency to overheat and to suffer limb and joint complaints later in life (compounded in those breeds that are already prone to suffer such issues based on their heredity). 

While we have already covered abuse in breeding practices – where breeders deliberately select for traits that are detrimental to a dog’s wellbeing and genetic health – another form of cruelty can be found in cosmetic procedures being performed after birth, all in an effort to achieve a certain ‘look’ or to remove a ‘problematic’ yet natural function. 

Thankfully, many of these barbaric practices have been banned or severely restricted in certain countries, however there are far too many places where these procedures are still allowed to be carried out.  France and Portugal, for instance, opted out of the rule regarding docking when it ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals.  In other countries, such as Egypt, India, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United States, both ear cropping and tail docking is unrestricted. 

Some have argued that neutering a dog is also akin to performing a non-essential ‘cosmetic’ procedure on an animal, but when one weighs up the very real issues of welfare and the desperate plight of so many unwanted litters (many of whom will be euthanised), then it can be equally argued that such procedures are undertaken with the welfare of the dog population in mind. 

ABANDONMENT:

In a recent survey of dog owners as to their reason for acquiring a dog, the top five that were listed were: 

• For love, 
• For affection 
• For their children 
• For protection, 
• For sport or show. 

It is interesting to note that there was not a single mention of acquiring a dog in order to fulfil any its needs.  While it is quite understandable that we will decide to adopt a dog for our own personal reasons, it is too all easy to forget that the animal has its own species-specific requirements that need to be met in order for there to be harmonious co-habitation. 

Too many prospective owners still make the mistake of choosing the wrong dog for their lifestyle, activity level, or circumstance.  Too many are still swayed by the look of a dog, instead of considering the need of the breed.  All too often, this will lead to a lack of appreciation for the dog’s energy requirements.  Couple this with a lack of training, and this invariably leads to the development of problem behaviours, such as aggression, destructive behaviour, hyperactivity, and inappropriate toileting. 

Problem behaviours can also occur where owners are naturally anxious or are overly anthropomorphic toward their pet, treating it more like a human than a dog.  It is often reported how owning a dog can be therapeutic for the owner, instilling a measure of calm and relaxation in an otherwise hectic and stressful work life.  What is not always said is that just as much as a dog may alter the mood and behaviour of its owner, so too can an owner affect the mood and behaviour of their canine companion, inadvertently creating an unbalanced animal that will then display aggressive tendencies, separation anxiety, or over excitability. 

The cost of owning a dog is also consistently underestimated by new or first-time owners.  In fact, in another study it was discovered that 98% of owners had underestimated the cost of owning a dog.  All too often, when a medical issue is discovered and if the owner had opted against insuring their pet, that dog will be abandoned, placed in a shelter, or prematurely euthanised. 

An abandoned dog will invariably become a street dog or wind up in a shelter, and will be lucky if it finds itself in one with a no-kill policy, or face euthenasia within 72 hours if it is not collected or adopted.  Those that remain in the shelter for a length of time may develop additional behavioural problems, such as fearfulness, overactivity, and separation issues, which may make adoption even more problematic for them. 

It has been generally accepted that those dogs kept in groups within a shelter, or that at least have frequent access or visual contact with other dogs, suffer less problematic or abnormal behaviours than those dogs that are housed separately or given insufficient access to others.  Ideally, each cage should include a stepped platform to give the dog a different vantage point or a lower roof to hide beneath, and any bars to the cage should be horizontal instead of vertical in order to provide an unobstructed view outside. 

STRAY & STREET DOGS:

In many areas of the world, ranging from Africa to Europe and the Americas to Australasia, there are feral dogs, sometimes referred to as ‘village’ dogs, eking out an existence on the margins of human communities.  Many of these dogs will have been born into this life on the fringes, but often their numbers will be supplemented by abandoned pets not fortunate enough to have found refuge in a dog shelter. 

Life on the fringes can be both brutal and short, with the estimated average lifespan of these dogs being as little as one to two years.  While in some communities these dog populations are respected and catered for, in many others they are reviled, as they are seen as unclean or as pests, and will be either poisoned or shot. 

The issue of stray and street dogs is important, for in many parts they have a detrimental effect on other species – not only on livestock but also on a number of endangered or vulnerable wildlife population groups.  This is not only through predation and disease transmission but also through disruption or competition  for resources.  With specific regard to other canids, the risk posed by feral dogs includes that of hybridisation, in which a vulnerable group is decimated through cross-breeding, as has recently been the case with a number of European wolf populations. 

It is in the best interest of not only humans, livestock, and our native fauna, but also in the best interest of dogs themselves that we curb unwanted litters and provide a stable and secure environment for those that we call our best friend.  There is no perfect solution, but surely the best, safest, most human option is to ensure that all dogs – be they male or female – are neutered at an appropriate age, and that only the fittest are allowed to breed.  A return to valuing the function of a dog and how their requirements match an owner’s lifestyle, rather than focussing purely on its form or ‘look’, would also help to put a stop to the ever increasing genetic issues and hereditary conditions we are finding due to inbreeding and overbreeding. 

Contributors, References, & Further Reading >>

Share Your Knowledge >>