Welfare
Breeding, buying dogs, rescue dogs...
Are You A Fan Of The Archers?
For those of you that do not follow this “everyday story of country folk “, now in its record breaking 75th year, let me fill you in:
Ambridge village doyenne Linda Snell obtained her Doberman Pinscher Monty from a rescue after her German Shepherd cross Scruff died. Scruff was no stranger to dramatic storylines, including spooking a horse and causing the rider to break a wrist.
After stringing out the storyline for a few weeks, yesterday’s episode dropped the bombshell that Monty has been identified as the dog that harried David Archer’s sheep and he has been seized by the police. 15 sheep were killed and at least four others were badly injured. Of course those that survived were liable to deleterious, and possibly delayed, effects of stress.
Luckily, this is a “radio” dog and “radio” sheep so no animals were harmed in the cause of drama.
Preventably though, an estimated 15,000 sheep are killed by dogs in the UK every year. Single incidents can result in the death of up to 40 sheep. Farmers lose an estimated £1.6 million annually, factoring in veterinary fees and the diminished value of the surviving flock.
The Archer’s Linda Snell cannot believe that her “beautiful, gentle Monty” is responsible. DNA tests have proved otherwise.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025 covers sheep, cattle, goats, pigs, horses and other hoofed farm animals, alpacas and llamas, farmed deer, ostriches, enclosed game birds and poultry.
Courts can fine owners from £1,000 to an unlimited amount. The dog does not need to make physical contact to commit an offence: chasing, barking, or causing fear, panic or miscarriage is counted as an offence. The law applies on public roads, footpaths and rights of way where livestock are present as well as in fields.
The police can seize and detain dogs suspected of involvement in an incident, even if the owner is not present. They can also enter property with a warrant to recover evidence and are permitted to take DNA samples or dental impressions from dogs to match with incident evidence. Courts can order convicted owners to pay the expenses linked to seizing, housing and caring for detained dogs. Additionally, courts can order the control, safe-keeping or destruction of a dog by invoking the Dangerous Dogs Act. Farmers have a legal right to shoot a dog that is attacking or chasing livestock.
All dog owners have a responsibility to ensure that their dogs are kept under control. All dog owners have the ability to prevent their dog becoming another “Monty”. Labradors, cocker spaniels, German Shepherd crosses, lurchers and salukis are commonly reported in convictions, but any dog, regardless of breed, size or temperament can cause devastation in a few short minutes.
Avoid walking where there are livestock that may be pregnant or have young at foot and keep your dog on a lead at other times.
It’s up to you to confine dog attacks on livestock to fiction.
8% Is Not Enough
Royal Mail announced today that the number of injuries to its staff by dogs has decreased by 8% in the last year.
It’s good news but that still means that:
– 2,019 postal workers were bitten
– 3,442 days of sick leave resulted.
Some of those attacks caused permanent, disabling injuries.
The solution is simple and it is in your hands:
- Put a basket behind your door to catch mail
- Keep your dog away from the front door
- Never leave your dog unattended in a front garden.
If your dog reacts aggressively to the door, get help from a qualified professional.
The law mandates that a dog owner (or person in charge of a dog) can be prosecuted if free access is allowed to a letterbox and a delivery worker is injured, even if the owner is not at home.
If liability is proven, a court can impose unlimited fines and a custodial sentence of up to 5 years for a dog attack that causes injury, which increases to a custodial sentence of 14 years for a fatal attack. The court can also order that the dog be euthanised and can ban the person deemed responsible from owning dogs for a specified period or for life. Victims can seek additional compensation through the civil court for physical injuries, psychological trauma and lost earnings.
Don’t let it be your dog. Don’t let it be you.
Is This The End Of The Guide Dog?
Guide Dogs are expensive and breeding and training them is inefficient. A sizeable number of dogs fail and effort needs to be made to re-home them. Those that pass are have to be housed, fed and trained for almost two years before they are capable of working.
There is also a welfare issue to be considered. Being a Guide Dog is hard work and dogs are usually retired at 8 years old after about 6 years of working life. The service user then has to relinquish the dog that they have learned to trust and embark on what can be a long wait, during which independence can be lost, and re-training with a new dog. For someone who has been visually impaired from birth, this can mean several dogs over a lifetime.
So, the news that robot dogs are being developed for visually impaired people has to be one example where redundancy is good. The developments have been welcomed by the RNIB and it means that anyone who is visually impaired can choose to own a dog just as a dog and robot dogs will probably be able to do considerably more than a dog. A win, win all round.
Regulation Must Prevent Dog Deaths
It has been a long wait for governments of all complexions to regulate so-called rescue establishments and there is no sense that anything will get done any time soon.
Meanwhile, yet another horrific case of a fake rescue has resulted in the death of 41 dogs and the suffering of a further 21 dogs and a cat.
Owner of Save A Paw Oaveed Rahman apparently claimed that he was also a trainer and accepted dogs for “specialist” training.
Obviously, people leaving their dogs in his care did not undertake and due diligence and, however much they may regret their decisions, they must assume an element of the responsibility.
Even if a government does eventually regulate “rescues”, it is highly unlikely that there will be sufficient resources available to police it so, whilst politicians pat themselves on the back for having done something, these cases will no doubt continue to come to light.
There is no excuse for not checking credentials and references and that goes way beyond a few e-mails from apparently “satisfied” customers. Qualified behaviourists and trainers need to be recognised in law and owners need to research before they buy and budget for training.
Labour Of Love? No Hate
The Labour government has announced what it calls the “biggest animal welfare reforms in a generation”. In fact they seem be mostly resurrecting legislation from previous Tory governments that fell by default during multiple changes of leadership.
There is good, there is bad and there is downright ugly.
It looks as if there may at last be a ban on shock collars in England although it will be via yet another consultation and there will be a powerful lobby that will oppose it in the erroneous belief that shock collars are an effective way to train dogs not to predate livestock. Legislation was passed in December 2025 strengthening livestock worrying legislation.
The government claims that it will also “reform dog breeding practices to improve health and welfare” and “prevent animals from becoming unwell and end puppy farming”. They also promise to ” promote responsible dog ownership to protect public safety” and to “consider the introduction of new licences for domestic rescue and rehoming organisations to ensure [that] rescues have the right checks in place”. I doubt anyone will be holding their breath unless significant resources are allocated to achieve actual results.
That’s the good.
The bad: there is no move to update the grossly outdated Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 which in and of itself could have a significant effect on animal welfare and no appetite to abolish the utterly ineffective and unfair Dangerous Dogs Act 1992.
The downright ugly: the government plan to abolish trail hunting. Not only will this have a devastating effect on animal welfare, including potentially resulting in the culling of thousands of healthy hounds, it will condemn foxes and hares to an indiscriminate and agonising death from shot gun wounds because it is extremely difficult for guns to kill small and fast moving targets.
What makes this especially ugly is that it flies in the face of accumulating evidence that has been available for more than two decades showing that natural hunting is not only more effective in controlling foxes and hares than any other methods used it is far more humane. There are no doubt individuals who are opposed to hunting on a personal level but what is really driving the ban is inverted snobbery combined with a total disconnection from the countryside. The proposed ban on shooting hares during their breeding season is only required because the legal ban on hunting hares (usually ignored by the media who only ever mention fox hunting) left the field (literally) wide open for lampers and anyone else who chose to use hares as mere target practice. The hare hunting season was always closed during the breeding season and hunts had hare conservation officers who could (again literally) monitor populations on the ground.
Only time will tell whether the good will be effective. Meanwhile, the government had yet again picked a fight that will frankly seem irrelevant to the majority of the population who have far more pressing concerns but have potentially devastating effects on already ravaged countryside communities.
Import and Importance
The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 (c. 30) has been enacted and will restrict the import of dogs, cat and ferrets to those over 6 months of age in an attempt to stamp out puppy smuggling. It is also now illegal to import bitches and queens that are more than 42 days into gestation and dogs or cats that have been mutilated (principally ear cropping in dogs and de-clawing in cats).
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 has also been amended to include new powers enabling police to seize dogs and covering attacks that occur on roads and paths in addition to fields. Fines now have no upper limits upon conviction.
It remains to be seen how effective the updates will be given that there are no new resources supplied and, in any case, criminals are always engaged in an arms race with legislation.
AGPAW Innate Health Test
The All Parliamentary Group on Animal Welfare (AGPAW) has produced a public questionnaire that can be used to check for optimal innate health in dogs.
Users simply input the details of their chosen dog, including breed) and can then make a simple selection between two options for:
- Merle coat colouring
- Skin folds
- Muzzle length
- Eye lid not rolling in to the eye
- Sclera not visible when the dog is looking forward
- No over or under bite
- Relative tail length
- Front and back legs not splayed or bowed
- Good ground clearance
- The dog’s ability to turn and touch the flank, thigh and hip.
It’s a good basic test but I fear that it is too simple to be effective and, without an extensive publicity campaign, may not be used by potential owners of breeds with poor conformation. It seems equally unlikely that breeders producing such dogs will pay it any attention as long as there is a gullible market and, in spite of all their protestations to support welfare, The Kennel Club have not prevented extreme breeding.
A cursory search on the UKKC website for litters of just two severely affected breeds produces breeders (one of whom is a judge and president of the breed club) who have minimal health tests or none, and all of whom display images of puppies that clearly have extreme conformation.
The IHA test is a start but even with a suitable funded information campaign (and there is no sign of that), it is unlikely to have significant impact.
We need to license all breeders of dogs regardless of the numbers of litters produced, with retrospective fines issued where necessary. Nature Watch Foundation produced a report this year which found that there are just over 2,000 licensed breeders in England. Clearly, even if all of these breeders were to be inspected, they represent just tiny fraction of the breeders selling dogs that are pretty much guaranteed to have physical and mental problems because they have been badly bred. They will be subject to the Licensing of Activities Involving Animals (England) Regs 2018 6.6.5 which requires that: “no dog may be kept for breeding if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of its genotype, phenotype or state of health that breeding from it could have a detrimental effect on its health or welfare”. Most breeders will not.
Dogs deserve better.
Intangible Cultural Heritage
Ireland has designated the following breeds as part of their intangible cultural heritage:Irish wolfhound (Cú Faoil), Irish red setter (Sotar rua), Irish red and white setter, Irish water spaniel (An Spáinnéar Uisce), Kerry Blue terrier (An Brocaire Gorm), Irish soft coated wheaten terrier (An Brocaire Buí) [see left], Irish terrier (Brocaire Rua), the Glen of Imaal terrier (Brocaire Uí Mháil) and the Kerry beagle (An Pocadán Ciarraíoch).
Numbers of dogs in all of the breeds are low or very low.
Irish wolfhounds lost their job when the last wolf was killed in County Carlow in 1786. The breed was re-created in the late 19thC by crossing existing wolfhounds and other large breeds, especially Great Danes. Modern dogs have the appearance of the original breed but no genetic link. In 2023, fewer than 200 were registered with the Irish Kennel Club.
The Irish setter and Irish red and white setter and white setters were simply regarded as hunting dogs in Ireland until the advent of conformation showing in the mid-19thC when red setters went out of fashion and red and white setters became more popular. As with many breeds, they were nearly extinct after the First World War and revival attempts did not begin to yield results until the 1970s and 1980s. Despite this, genetic diversity remains extremely low and attempts by the Irish Kennel Club to sanction outcrossing has been met with opposition.
The Irish water spaniel was developed in the 1830s but no records of the foundation breeds are extant.Just 300-350 registrations are recorded annually worldwide.
The Kerry Blue terrier was first described in the late 1840s and became a popular all-rounder for farm work in Ireland. The Irish revolutionary Michael Collins owned a Kerry Blue named Convict 224 and he tried to establish the Kerry Blue as the national dog of Ireland. Just 161 were registered in the UK and Ireland in 2020.
The Irish soft coated wheaten terrier has been bred for 200 years as an all-purpose farm dog and earned the soubriquet “the poor man’s wolfhound” when only the gentry were permitted to own hunting dogs. They were not recognised by the Irish Kennel Club until 1937. Fewer than 300 dogs are registered annually by the UKKC.
The Irish terrier was first described by a Dublin breed club in 1879. The foundations breeds are unknown. UK registrations have called from 457 in 2021 to 244 in 2023.
The Glen of Imaal terrier (also known as the Wicklow terrier) is thought to have been developed from dogs imported by Flemish mercenaries during the incursions by the English crown in the 1500s and was used to hunt vermin and as a turnspit dog. They were virtually extinct until being revived after the First World War nd recognised by the Irish Kennel Club in 1934. Annual registrations in the UK are fewer tan 300 although worldwide is estimated as being approximately 3,000.
Kerry beagles have largely survived due to the efforts of the Masters of a single pack, having been described as being scarce since the 1840s. They were probably a foundation breed for American coonhounds when taken overseas by emigrés.
Given the lack of continuity in breeding since these dogs were created and the extremely limited gene pool, it is questionable to whether they will now attain healthy and viable populations. Even with outcrossing, still opposed by most kennel clubs who insist on closed stud books, it may still not be possible to achieve lasting improvements, not least because outcrossing can introduce even more unwanted train and backcrossing too soon can eliminate any advantages.
Sadly, just adding the label of “intangible cultural heritage” is not a solution either.
Vets And The Market
The Competition and Markets Authority has published a provisional finding following their review into veterinary services which was instigated in September 2023.
The initial Call For Information elicited 45,000 responses from the general public and 11,000 responses from veterinary professionals – approximately 20% of UK vets. The six large veterinary groups, CVS, IVC, Linnaeus, Medivet, Pets at Home and VetPartners also participated.
UK Veterinary services are worth £6.3 billion per annum but operate with potential conflicts of interest when vets need to provide impartial service whilst also needing to make a profit. The consolidation of services into the hands of non-veterinary owners has led to a situation that the CMA has found is not fit for purpose.
They have made 21 recommendations that will be open to further public consultation until November 2025. The major areas of concern include transparency over practice ownership, provision of medications, referral services, cremation services and out of hours cover and provision of advance information regarding pricing. They have also recommended an urgent review and update of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. The final decision is expected to be published by March 2026.
No Grey(hound) Area
Scotland has announced that it will join Wales in implementing a ban on greyhound racing. Anyone who knows anything about canine welfare should be incredulous that those who purport to uphold animal welfare – the Green Party being a prime example – could instigate this legislation.
There are welfare concerns in the racing world – be that dogs, horses or camels but bans are not an answer. There are are child welfare concerns: should be ban procreation? Of course, many of these self-same people would have us all – and our dogs – eating only plants too.
No one is forced to eat animals or participate in sports that they do not like so why should those that do either or both be forced to forego those pleasures? Please do campaign and legislate to improve welfare in the racing world, but do it from a point of knowledge.
It is far better for dogs to be used for purposes for which they have been bred for generations (in the case of sighthounds for millennia) than be confined to a lead and an urban dwelling. We are preached to about sustainability in the food supply: what is more sustainable than eating game? Farming and hunting have made the landscape that so many deem to be “nature” as if it just appeared, changed and unchanging. The demonisation of both hunting and farming threatens the very countryside that so many see only as a their leisure resource to which they have a “right” of access.
Few will bother to breed greyhounds if racing is banned. Just 20 greyhounds were registered as show dogs by the UKKC. If racing is banned, that may be the only available source of dogs that in fact make an excellent choice for novice owners. Hardly a healthy pool.
If the people that push for banning everything that they don’t like without considering the nuances and implications, we could end up with a world without cherished dog breeds and most livestock that would leave a very depleted countryside and town, literally and culturally.