Members present: Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP, Dan O’Neill, Clare Rusbridge, Carol Fowler, Harvey Locke. Marisa Heath
Guests: Dr Fiona Cooke (Local Government Survey), Ray Woolmer (Companion Spaniel Project), Rob Flello, MP (Chairman, APGAW Dog Strategy Group)
Apologies: Lisa Richards, James Yeates

1. APGAW Dog Strategy Group Update (Marisa Heath)

The current strategy overview is still in draft form but will be finalised shortly. Its four main issues are:

• Dog control (breed specific legislation, dangerous dogs, dog attacks, stray dogs)
• Dog breeding, dealing and trade (health and welfare of puppies and dogs, backstreet breeders / dealers / puppy farms, importation, online selling)
• Responsible dog guardianship (behaviour and training, care, vet treatment, owners, handlers, etc)
• Dog identification (compulsory microchipping, registration, etc)

Post Pup-Aid debate, Rob Flello, MP, will write to local authorities (LAs) with excerpts from Hansard explaining more clearly the roles, powers and responsibilities of LAs. Current legislation does give LAs considerable powers but issues relate to interpretation and enforcement. LAs often justify lack of action based on funding constraints and non-statutory requirements. The reality is that there is no new Government funding for dog wardens/inspectors and LAs will not use non ring fenced funding for this purpose.

In the current financial and political climate Marisa Heath suggested that the KC Assured Breeders Scheme (ABS) could offer an option for self-regulation in breeding. The ABS has shortcomings but also benefits and opportunities. A plan might be that the KC administers the ABS and feeds the results to LAs. LAs would then charge lower fees for ABS members compared to non ABS licensed breeders. LAs would inspect all licensed breeders but ABS members less frequently. The KC would benefit by more breeders being brought into the ABS. Funding could be sought from a small levy on pet food being directed to a Dog Board who would fund wardens/inspectors in LAs. This is simply an idea that is being aired.

2. Update on Canine and Feline Sector Group (CFSG)

A meeting took place on 24 June, however, Minutes are not yet available. As soon as they are CF will circulate to members of DBR. It is understood that CFSG agreed to invite representatives from the Dog Advisory Council to join its membership, a development which is much welcomed. We were also informed that Marisa Heath has been appointed Secretary of CFSG, which is also welcomed. The appointment will provide an important link with APGAW and also with DBR.

3. DEFRA and Companion Animal Welfare

We note the fact that companion animal welfare is not adequately provided for within DEFRA, nor has any response been given to the various papers and recommendations submitted by the Dog Advisory Council. There seems to be a lack of understanding within DEFRA of the need for independent welfare advice. Instead there is reliance on groups which comprise industry representatives. Farm animals have some protection from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) but there is no functioning equivalent for companion animals. This disparity we feel is something which should be addressed by DEFRA and the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England (AHWBE). Geoffrey Clifton-Brown will be writing to the Chairman of AHWBE to this effect.

4. Local Authorities and Dog Welfare (Dr Fiona Cooke)

Fiona outlined her findings in her PhD study into the role played by local authorities (LAs) in animal welfare. She identified huge disparities in LAs’ understanding and application of the Animal Welfare Act. Animal welfare is spread across 18 departments in LAs. There is a huge variation in fees for licensed dog breeders, often based on historical precedent or differing ways in which the funds are being used. There is often little or no expertise in welfare or specifically companion animal welfare in the persons with responsibility in these areas. The proportion of LAs with an AW inspector rose from 40% in 2009 to 60% in 2011 but these roles may have been nominal and it is not clear that there was an actual increase in the work carried out. Only 11% of inspectors engaged in animal welfare work on a daily basis. However, 70% of AW inspectors reported that the Animal Welfare Act had made the implementation of their tasks easier. LAs often contract out their dog welfare statutory requirements (stray dogs) and the holders of these contracts are not necessarily licensed. The police have responsibilities for dangerous dogs.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown suggested that the approach to effective implementation of dog welfare action by LAs could mirror a recent successful approach taken towards shotgun and firearms licensing by police constabularies.

5. Companion Spaniel Project (Ray Woolmer)

Ray outlined his ideas for a project to breed healthy companion Spaniels suitable as family pets in the 21st century. The long term aim is to breed small Spaniels with the typical temperament of the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel but without the genetic diseases which plague the CKCS breed. He plans to use his working Cocker Spaniel foundation bitch with a Cavalier with a good heart background and without SM (age of the dog and MRI scan to be performed as late as possible). In the coming weeks he will be visiting two other like-minded breeders and hopes that the idea of the project will expand. It is understood that breeding back to a Cavalier in the second generation is not possible and another breed will need to be chosen for the F2 generation. All offspring will need to be carefully monitored, including MRI scanning, using the BVA/KC scheme. Ray is looking for support from individuals and organisations, including the Kennel Club. He intends to work with Tom Lewis at the KC and possibly Sarah Blott, at the University of Nottingham Vet School. Both are canine population geneticists. CR suggested that her PhD student at the University of Surrey, Penny Knowler, may be interested in this project and suggested that Ray speak with Penny. Penny’s study is an investigation into aspects of the inheritance of CM and SM.

6. Updates: Breeding Standard, Puppy Contract, BVA/KC Heart Scheme, CMSM Scheme

• The Puppy Contract has been agreed by all parties. The remaining differences relate to the Puppy Information Pack (PIP). It is likely that the KC will retain its own PIP as part of the Assured Breeders Scheme.
• The CMSM Scheme has screened 354 dogs, 222 of which have been Cavalier King Charles Spaniels at 18 centres nationwide.
• The BVA/KC Heart Scheme is still on the agenda now led by cardiologists Mark Patteson and Anne French. There is still no news on when the Scheme will be finalised and implemented.
• It is understood that the agreed Breeding Standard is nearing completion. The KC ABS group met recently but there is as yet no further information. Chris Lawrence will let us know as soon as there is some definite news.

7. Future role of DBRG and revised Objectives

A discussion took place about the future of DBRG – whether in view of the setting up of the APGAW Dog Strategy Group and the Canine and Feline Sector Group we should continue. It was decided that as the Dog Advisory Council was coming to an end at the end of 2014, we should continue to represent an independent viewpoint (as distinct from the other stakeholder groups). We would also focus on the Breeding issues unlike the other groups which will look at all dog welfare (and control) issues. We will continue to meet four times a year at Portcullis House.

DBRG’s Objectives will need to be revised in the light of recent developments.

We discussed whether others may be invited to join. Harvey Locke suggested Sean Wensley (BVA) and this was unanimously agreed. Harvey will approach Sean. Clare Rusbridge thought some members of the DAC might like to join us. Sheila Crispin will be consulted on this, and it is hoped that Sheila will continue with us, offering advice and attending meetings when she is able.

We were happy to be defined as a campaign group/lobby group.

The list of recipients of the Notes of meetings will be revised and expanded.

8. Date of next meeting

Thursday January 8, 12.00 – 14.00, Portcullis House, Room M

(In future CF will try to arrange meetings to fit in with other meetings at Westminster)

Unfortunately there was no time left to discuss Dan O’Neill’s article, Progress in purebred dog health since the Bateson Report of 2010’ published in Vet Record. Dan has some exciting plans and projects involving VetCompass going forward into 2015. He will outline these at the next meeting in January 2015.

Notes compiled by C Fowler

Aims

To promote and support initiatives and reforms that will effectively improve dog welfare related to a) genetic and breed health; b) breeding, rearing and selling practices.

(Whilst acknowledging the numerous dog welfare issues in the UK, this group will retain a focus on breed and breeding issues (from which many other welfare issues ensue).

Objectives

1. A single accepted Puppy Contract 1
2. A single accepted Standard for Breeding 2
3. A requirement for registration of all dog breeders with their local authorities
4. Reduction of the perceived default local authority licensing requirement for dog breeders to three litters or more in any 12 month period
5. Repeal of the Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973, 1991, 1999 and replacement with new regulations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, that ensure high standards of welfare for dogs; that protect the genetic health of offspring; and that effectively regulate the sale of puppies 3
6. Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act as a statutory duty
7. All advertisements for the sale of dogs/puppies to include a breeder’s registration number provided by the relevant local authority
8. A ban on the sale of puppies by anyone other than the breeder 4
9. Measures by the Kennel Club to improve dog health 5
10. Inclusion of animal welfare as a core part of the national curriculum, in particular with regard to the purchase, lifelong care and welfare of dogs.
11. Establishment of a Government-funded body to provide independent advice on companion animal welfare 6

 

Footnotes:

1. Widely accepted by organisations that also include the Kennel Club, British Veterinary Association – Animal Welfare Foundation, RSPCA, Dogs Trust, PDSA
2. Currently there are three ‘Standards’: Dog Advisory Council Standard for Breeding Dogs; Kennel Club Assured Breeders’ Scheme Standard and Guidance; CIEH Model Licence Conditions for Dog Breeding Establishments
3. As proposed in the Dog Advisory Council’s Advice to Governments ‘Recommendations on regulations and legislation’
4. Or by re-homing organisations affiliated to the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes
5. Measures would  include: banning the mating of second-degree relatives (ie, grandson to granddaughter); maintenance of effective population sizes (EPS)to above 100; outcrossing breeding strategies where the burden of genetic diseases cannot easily be remedied within the existing gene pool; limiting the number of times a ‘popular sire’ is used; requiring genetic/clinical health testing/screening/use of Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs); eliminating exaggerated physical traits which impede a dog’s ability to enjoy a normal active life
6. For example, by setting up a Companion Animal Welfare Committee, comprising  independent experts selected according to Nolan principles

Members

Julia Carr (Canine Action UK)
Stephen and Julia Charlton (Cockapoo Club of GB)
Dr Fiona Cooke (Animal Law Expert, Aberdeen University)
Professor Sheila Crispin (Dog Advisory Council) (DAC)
Mrs Lesley Field (DAC)
Carol Fowler (Cavalier Campaign)
David Grimsell
Marisa Heath (Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare) (APGAW)
Chris Laurence, MBE (DAC)
Dr Dan O’Neill (Royal Veterinary College, VetCompass)
Dr Clare Rusbridge (DAC) (Veterinary Neurologist)
Sean Wensley (Junior Vice President, British Veterinary Association) (JVP, BVA)
Tania Ledger (Cavalier Matters)
Charlotte Mackaness
Margaret Carter (Companion Cavalier Club)

Present: Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP, Dan O’Neill, Sheila Crispin, Carol Fowler
Guests: Dr Rowena Packer (RVC), Chris Laurence (Dog Advisory Council)
Apologies: Lisa Richards, James Yeates, Clare Rusbridge, Harvey Locke, Marisa Heath

1. Matters arising from previous meeting

Item 8: Peter Jinman offered to help to find solutions for companion animal welfare. In an email from Peter, he said he was trying to see if CAWC in some form can be reformed and has made a presentation to AHWBE. People he has consulted agreed that there should be ‘an independent body to advise on best scientific evidence and practical application as to matters that relate to the welfare of companion animals and their position and role in society.’

Key Question: Is there a need for independent advice? If there is, how can we best fulfil that need?

Item 10: Defra Code of Practice. A letter has been received from Defra which states that our suggestion for an addition to the COP for the Welfare of Dogs will be considered when the Code is reviewed. Geoffrey has offered to help with this and the Government’s delay in responding to the DAC’s Recommendations for Regulation and Legislation. He will decide the best way to do this.

Item 13: Mars/Petcare funding for DAC. Regrettably Christopher Dugmore of Mars/Petcare has, after a long delay,responded negatively to the request for funding.

2. Canine and Feline Sector Group Minutes of 8 March Meeting

We were pleased to see that this Group is now up and running and look forward to seeing some action regarding the general welfare of dogs. We noted that the composition of the Group was weighted in favour of rescue organisations and that the Chairmanship and secretariat currently reside with the Kennel Club. We hope that the future programme of the CFSG will include efforts to address the welfare issues associated with breeding, including husbandry, genetic welfare issues, conformation welfare issues and puppy socialisation. We would expect CFSG to support and promote the use of an agreed Puppy Contract and Breeding Standard.

3. APGAW Dog Welfare Sub-Group

Rob Flello, MP, has taken over from Angela Smith, MP as Chairman of the group. There is good cross party representation on the group and shared concerns about irresponsible dog ownership and ‘dangerous dogs’. Breeding issues, puppy socialisation and owner identification will also be addressed. The latter are the areas the DBRG very much hope the new group will tackle and prioritise. Four key areas have been worked out: legislation/policy; education; enforcement; resources. The plan is to devise a short term and long term strategy which will need to be agreed between the political members and core stakeholders. The strategy will then be sent to wider stakeholders for their comment and input. Those views will be taken into account in a Report which sets out the strategy in full in time for the next election and beyond.

DBRG recommends that Professor Sheila Crispin, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding (DAC) be invited to become a member of the APGAW Dog Sub-Group. Her independent status and expertise in the area of dog breeding , health and welfare we feel would be of enormous value to this group.

4. Dog Show Vet Checks (CL)

Best of Breed Winners of Category Three Breeds at General and Group Championship Shows must pass a Veterinary Health Check with the Show Society Vet before they can enter the group competition (Basset Hound, Dogue de Bordeaux, German Shepherd, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Pug, Shar-Pei, St Bernard, Clumber Spaniel, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow). Category 3 breeds must undergo a Vet check before their Champion title is confirmed. Vet checks were introduced by the KC in 2011 to ensure that dogs are free from signs of discomfort or suffering associated with exaggerated conformation. There is a recent example of a dog (St Bernard) which failed a vet check and then passed a check two weeks later under a different vet. That this can happen illustrates the ineffectiveness of the scheme. KC rules stipulate that no diagnostic aids may be used. The examination is a visual one to determine if on the day the dog’s health and welfare is compromised. It is not for the vet to judge the conformation and breed specific characteristics. For example, a dog may be heavily wrinkled but if there is no sign of inflammation on the day, the degree of wrinkling and susceptibility to inflammation and infection is irrelevant. For this reason we feel that the vet checks amount to no more than window dressing in an attempt to convince welfare organisations that the KC is addressing the problem of exaggerated conformation. What judges see as ‘normal’ for a breed is not necessarily normal for a dog.

5. Local Authorities and Dog Welfare

This item was postponed as Fiona Cooke was required to be elsewhere at the last minute. Fiona hopes to be available for our next meeting on 2 October. Some of us were able to read the Dog Rescue Federation’s(DRF) ‘National Survey of Local Authority Dog Wardens’ in advance of the meeting. We acknowledged it as an excellent document giving an overview of local authority provision for dog welfare. It is indeed a very patchy picture as we thought. The Survey makes some excellent recommendations, including a review of existing dog breeding legislation throughout the UK.

6. Brachycephalic Conference follow-up. What needs to happen now? (RP)

A large study on the Welfare Effects of Brachycephaly (short nose, short head) has been carried out by Dr Rowena Packer and colleagues at the Royal Veterinary College (RVC). The study was followed up by a one day conference on 11 November 2013, ‘Building Better Brachycephalics’ to disseminate the research findings. In addition, the researchers sought the opinion of key stakeholders on the impact of breeding on the health and welfare of short-muzzled dogs.

In spite of the findings of the research and efforts by scientists as the RVC to work in collaboration with the Kennel Club and relevant breed clubs, the Kennel Club has so far not responded to correspondence

We urge the breed clubs and Kennel Club to respond positively to this valuable research and make the necessary changes to the breed standards, as well as actively encouraging breeders not to breed for an extreme brachycephalic type. This could be facilitated initially by a Kennel Club conference for the breed clubs involved.

7. VetCompass study, Purebred dog health results (DON)

The RVC VetCompass project continues to carry out a program of research using data from primary-care vet practices to examine the health of dogs in the UK. On the issue of comparative health between purebred and crossbred dogs, VetCompass has identified a significant longevity advantage of 1.2 years for crossbreds compared with purebreds (O’Neill and others 2013). However, evidence from a recently published VetCompass paper on disorder prevalence suggests a more limited health advantage for crossbreds in relation to the most common disorders of dogs (O’Neill and others 2014). The article reported that the most prevalent disorders reported in dogs attending primary-care veterinary practices in England were otitis externa, periodontal disease and anal sac impaction. Purebred dogs had a higher prevalence compared with crossbreds for only three of the twenty most prevalent disorders.

VetCompass studies are increasingly identifying breed status as more strongly associated with health than crossbred status. From a longevity perspective, breeds varied from 5.5 years in the Dogue de Bordeaux to 14.2 years in the Miniature Poodle (O’Neill and others 2013). And despite the relatively small numbers of individuals dogs analysed, breed variation was identified for five of the top 20 disorders reported in dogs (O’Neill and others 2014).

These studies emphasise that inheritance patterns of common disorders in dogs are more heavily influenced by polygenic complex traits than by monogenic simple traits and that reform should focus on improving breed health for such polygenic disorders for maximal impact.

Current VetCompass work aims to explore duration and severity of disorders as additional metrics to prevalence in order to prioritise disorders on welfare impact.

8. Dog-Ed Paper, ‘Dog health and welfare in the UK, 2014: three compelling reasons to review and regroup now.’ Philippa Robinson

Time restrictions did not allow for a proper discussion of this paper, although we agreed with its findings that the ‘demand’ part of dog health and welfare were as important as the ‘supply’ part. Somehow the message has to be communicated to prospective dog owners of the importance of choosing a dog which is healthy, of good temperament, and suitable for the owner’s lifestyle. A nationwide TV campaign and introducing such awareness into the school curriculum has been suggested. However, cost and practicalities always seem to be the stumbling blocks. This is an area in which the Government should become more actively involved. Currently, provision from dog welfare organisations such as RSPCA and Dogs Trust and local authority dog wardens, is insufficient and patchy.

Regarding reviewing and regrouping using a ‘systems thinking’ approach, we would welcome some more practical suggestions as to how this is to be achieved.

9. Effective Population Sizes (EPS) (Ref Jemima Harrison’s blog, ‘Breeds in danger of extinction.’

Concern was expressed that many of our dog breeds have effective population sizes below 50. EPS is the measure of how many individuals are contributing genetically to the population and is a measure of the size of the gene pool in any UK breed. Work being carried out at the Kennel Club’s Genetics Centre at the Animal Health Trust have found that 40% of the breeds analysed so far have effective population sizes below 50, which is the minimum size recommended in order to manage the effects of inbreeding and maintain a viable population.

The figures for individual breeds have yet to be released by the Kennel Club in spite of (or perhaps because of) the alarming nature of the Genetics Centre scientists’ findings. For the breeds concerned, we feel that measures should be taken immediately to raise the EPS. Measures such as, reducing the relatedness of individual dams and sires, limiting the number of offspring contributed by individual sires, making use of overseas bloodlines, outcrossing to a related breed.

10. Institute of Canine Biology (ICB) online group

The ICB exists to promote the importance of genetic diversity within dog breeds. It has recently set up an online group, run by Dr Carol Beuchat, to teach breeders, breed clubs and others, the basics of population genetics and breeding dogs for health.

We felt that the ICB was making a valuable contribution to the ethical breeding debate. We welcomed the application of 21st century population genetics to breeding practices and see it as a way forward for kennel clubs and breed clubs worldwide.

11. Press release / Publication of DBR Notes on Cavalier Campaign website

The Press Release will be sent out after the APGAW meeting on AHWBE and CFSG unless anyone objects.

12. Updates

Breeding Standard: Much of the principle has been agreed between the Assured Breeders Scheme Standard and the DAC Breeding Standard. A key meeting is being scheduled for the working group to finalise matters. However, finding a single set of words will be challenging.

Puppy Contract: Florence Bowman, BVA AWF (British Veterinary Association Animal Welfare Foundation) and Lisa Richards, RSPCA are meeting with Bill Lambert, KC, and legal teams in early July, to discuss the KC’s comments. BL requested the meeting. LR will have more to update following this meeting.

BVA /KC Heart Scheme: the Cardiovascular Society met at the BSAVA Congress to review the research document and have come up with a number of recommendations. These remain confidential at the moment. The ball is now in the court of the KC. CF will write to the KC asking them what their plans are for progressing the scheme with the BVA.

BVA/KC CMSM Scheme: In the Cavalier Club’s recent Health Report, it states, ‘The Club has raised its concerns with the KC regarding the KC/BVA CMSM Scheme in its present format and are awaiting an update. CF will write to the KC for their comments on this.

Welsh Assembly Regulations on Dog Breeding: were laid before the Assembly on June 24 2014

Cavalier King Charles Spaniel DNA Study: Dogs Trust has awarded a grant of £138,500 to Dr Clare Rusbridge and Penny Knowler for the study, ‘Identification of gene(s) predisposing to SM associated withCM-like malformation in CKCS.’

Puppy Farm Debate: date still not set for the parliamentary debate on puppy farming

13. APGAW Meeting 1 July: Animal Health and Welfare Board (AHWBE) and Canine and Feline Sector Group

We will prepare some questions for this meeting.

14. Future dates

Tuesday I July APGAW meeting : Animal health and Welfare Board for England (AHWBE): How can APGAW and other welfare organisation work with AHWBE? The role of the Canine and Feline Sector Group

Tuesday 2 December 2014 APGAW meeting Dog Update

February 2015 (no firm date set) Second EU Conference on Dog and Cat Welfare, Rome.

February 14-15 Second Dog Health Workshop, Dortmund, organised by the German Kennel Club

15. AOB

A Health Strategy for the Kennel Club. This is currently an internal Kennel Club document prepared by Nick Blayney and Aimee Llewellyn. We look forward to its publication.

16. Date of next meeting

Thursday 2 October 2014, Portcullis House, 12.00 – 14.00

Notes written by Carol Fowler

References

O’Neill, D. G., Church, D. B., McGreevy, P. D., Thomson, P. C. & Brodbelt, D. C. (2013) Longevity and mortality of owned dogs in England. The Veterinary Journal 198, 638-643

O’Neill, D. G., Church, D. B., McGreevy, P. D., Thomson, P. C. & Brodbelt, D. C. (2014) Prevalence of disorders recorded in dogs attending primary-care veterinary practices in England. PLoS One 9, 1-16

Present: Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, MP(G CB), Lisa Richards (LR), Harvey Locke (HL), Paula Boyden (PB), Carol Fowler (CF)
Guests:  Jackie Aldridge, Peter Jinman (item 8 only)
Apologies:  Dan O’Neill, Clare Rusbridge, Marisa Health

1. Report back from CF and GC-B’s meeting with Steve Dean at the Kennel Club 30 January.

Some points were agreed verbally but written confirmation not yet received from SD.  It was decided that a reminder should be sent.  Points agreed were:  an agreed Breeding Standard and Puppy Contract were nearing completion;  effective population sizes (EPS) breeds will be displayed on the KC website; action indicated for those breeds whose EPS is below 50 – breed clubs to be informed; the DAC’s recommendations for changes to legislation and regulation of dog breeding will be supported by the CFSG; the BVA/KC MRI scheme is the best way forward for Cavaliers – the KC to fund the resubmission of MRIs from breeders who had scanned before the scheme came into place; CKCS breeders encouraged by the KC to use the scheme – CF’s view to make the scheme a ‘requirement’ of the ABS; KC funding provided to enable Cavaliers owned by pet owners to be scanned to provide more data; EBVs for Cavaliers is continuing (has not been abandoned);  meet with Ray Woolmer to discuss  a Cavalier outcross;  KC has a crucial role in protecting the health and welfare of dogs and that reform should start at the top.

2. KC Dog Health Group Report 2013 / Changes to KC Breed Watch

Good to see the additional DNA tests, estimated breeding values for hip dysplasia for 15 breeds (5 of which also have EBVs for elbow dysplasia), and excellent genetic research being done at the Animal Health Trust.  However, our group is aware that more and more DNA tests and other health tests do not address the cause of the problems, ie inbreeding and closed gene pools. Breeds with low EPS, and perhaps all breeds, should be encouraged to outcross in order to introduce new genetic material. This still seems to be the most difficult message to get across to the KC and breed clubs.

The changes to Breed Watch are also welcome. Category 3 replaces the former ‘high profile’ group with a category 2 added as breeds with ‘points of concern’. For category 3 breeds judges must now complete a form indicating the prevalence of the points of concern by means of a 7 point scale.

It is noted that the French Bulldog has been removed from category 3 as a result of health initiatives by the French Bulldog Club.  However we note that selection for a longer nose/head to eliminate BOAS is not specifically included. This is a cause for concern when KC registrations for Frenchies are increasing annually.

3. Crufts

Photos of some Best of Breeds were looked at and we noted that in several cases: Clumber Spaniel, Dachshund (all types), GSD, Basset, Pekingese, Pug, Bulldog, French Bulldog, exaggerated conformations had not been improved. Concern was also expressed at the tendency to favour longer necks in some breeds, eg, Dalmatian, Great Dane, Doberman, Airedale and others. This can give rise to neck problems and ‘wobblers syndrome.’  Concern was expressed also at the winning Corgi whose legs have got shorter and back longer. Could this breed go the way of the Dachshund?  The KC often argue that the problems lie with dogs which are not KC registered.  Hard evidence is needed. Certainly photographic evidence from Crufts would suggest that this is not the case.

4.  Assured Breeders Scheme (Jackie Aldridge)

Jackie has begun a study to look at the details of the ABS (such as how many and how often members are assessed, how many assessors, whether full time or part time, what criteria is used when inspections are carried out, etc)  See attached summary of aims and parameters.  Jackie would welcome from members any other suggestions for inclusion in her report.  It was noted that Guidance for Assessors and Standard for Breeders are available on the KC website but difficult to find for puppy buyers.

5. Federation Cynologique Internationale (FCI) Instructions to Judges

This document was sent out in advance of the meeting (and has been brought to the attention of Aimee Llewellyn at the KC). We agreed that it was a simple and straightforward document, which applies to all breeds, instructing show judges to award prizes to dogs which are sound and healthy. We think it would be beneficial if all UK judges were issued with similar instructions. We also believe it would be advantageous to all dogs if the UK KC were to become a member of the FCI.

6. BVA/KC CMSM Scheme

The total number of MRI scans submitted to the scheme by mid February 2014 was 282 of which 175    were Cavaliers.  It was felt that the KC needed to be more supportive of the scheme for the benefit of all breeds with CMSM, particularly the CKCS breed which faces extinction because of it.  Registration figures for CKCS have fallen dramatically to 5,145 in 2013. There is an urgent need to break the deadlock which is hampering the success of the scheme.  The KC could offer funding for breeders who wish to resubmit their scans which were done prior to the official scheme implementation.  The KC could make the scheme a condition for the registration of Cavalier puppies or at the very least a ‘required’ test of the ABS.

7. BVA/KC Heart Scheme (HL)

A report by Eva Pavelkova has gathered information about heart testing schemes around the world.  There is much disparity amongst the various schemes although the German scheme is well established.  There will be a meeting of cardiologists to discuss the report’s findings and next steps toward having an official UK heart testing scheme. It is hoped that their report will be available shortly after the BSAVA Congress in April.  To date, discussions about this scheme have taken six years.

8. Defra and Companion Animal Welfare (Peter Jinman)

Peter gave a comprehensive history of the provision for Companion Animal Welfare within Defra and its associated bodies in the last decade or so. Whilst the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) is funded by Defra and well established, the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) is not similarly funded.  CAWC faces an uncertain future with no real political will or resources to get it going again.  We noted as before that companion animals are not well served in this country. They are regarded as luxuries which owners must pay for, not government. How can this mind set be changed?  How can the more enlightened attitudes in some other European countries be adopted here?  The governments of Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, for example, are far ahead of the UK. There does need to be an independent national committee for companion animals, properly recruited, which has an advisory role to Governments.  The case for reviving CAWC is strong. The governance of such a group needs to be right, as is its independence and its right to be critical. It needs to achieve legitimacy. Funding should not come from interested parties to ensure that outcomes are not compromised. What is the Dog Advisory Council’s role? Could it be part of a reinvigorated CAWC?

The Companion Animal Sector Council CASC (Peter Scott) still exists. What is its role now? In view of the sector groups and AHWBE will it be phased out?

It would be true to say that hopes are not high that provision for companion animal welfare in the UK will be improved in the near future. Peter very kindly offered to help to find solutions if at all possible bearing in mind the lack of political will which exists at present.

Reference ‘Prioritisation of companion dog issues using expert consensus’ Buckland, et al. ‘Issues that scored highly for both Welfare Problem and Strategic Priority were: inappropriate husbandry; lack of owner knowledge; undesirable behaviours; inherited disease; inappropriate socialisation and habituation; conformation related disorders.’

9. Canine and Feline Sector Group update (CFSG)

Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January have been distributed to members of DBR. It was noted how large the membership of this new group is and that the area represented most is that of rescue and welfare.  CF commented  that genetic welfare was under represented on the CFSG, however, PB pointed out that Dogs Trust does fund genetic welfare research as does RSPCA.  DBR felt strongly that the DAC should be represented on CFSG.  Paula Boyden thought that the DAC was welcome to join CFSG.

CFSG feeds into the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England (AHWBE) which is represented in CFSG by Tim Morris.

So far a Boarding Establishment Working Group has been set up.  Items discussed were: CFSG terms of reference; feedback from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate regarding antimicrobial resistance; feedback from the review of England Exotic Diseases Contingency Plan; 2014 strategy document; anti-social behaviour; creation of a CFSG website; need for a specialist working group on training and behaviour; development of the APGAW Dog Subgroup.

10. Defra Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs

The lack of any reference to the protection of the offspring of dogs from genetic diseases is an on going concern of this group.  It was agreed that the following wording from the CAWC Report on Breeding and Welfare 2006 should be included as an addition to Section 5 of the Code, ‘The need to be protected from pain, suffering injury and disease’

‘The selection and breeding of dogs (companion animals) can result in or perpetuate characteristics or inherited conditions that seriously affect the quality of animals’ lives. No-one should breed dogs (companion animals) without careful regard to characteristics (anatomical, physiological and behavioural) that may put at risk the health and welfare of the offspring or female parent.’

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown offered to put this as a parliamentary question.  CF to help with wording.  A letter to Lord de Mauley should also be considered.

11. Government response to DAC Recommendations for Regulation and Legislation

As yet no response has been received from Defra to these recommendations.  GCB has written recently to Lord de Mauley and is waiting for the Minister’s reply.

12. RSPCA Plans on Dog Breeding and Welfare Campaign 2014 (Lisa Richards)

No specific plans have been made for a campaign in 2014.

13. Response from Mars/Pedigree regarding funding for DAC

Sheila Crispin has supplied Mars/Pedigree with additional information as requested but so far no response has been received. This is disappointing,

14. Update on working groups

Chartered Institute for Environmental Health (CIEH) has now produced the updated ‘CIEH Model Licence Conditions and Guidance for Dog Breeding Establishments.’  This development is very much welcomed.

An agreed Breeding Standard has not yet been achieved. There are still some outstanding differences between the DAC’s Standard and what the Kennel club will accept.

An agreed Puppy Contract has not yet been achieved for reasons similar to the above. The KC want substantial changes to the BVA AWF/RSPCA Puppy Contract.  Further attempts will be made to reach a compromise but this is unlikely to be resolved before the end of 2014. LR reported that the existing Puppy Contract had more than 30,000 visits and 10,000 down loads.

Pet Advertising Advisory Group (PAAG):  there are at least 26 sites advertising puppies and dogs for sale. So far Gumtree, Preloved, Vivastreet, Friday-Ad, Pets4Homes, Epupz and Loot have agreed to comply with PAAG standards.  For six months a team of volunteers will monitor the above sites for compliance. However, there is nothing on the sites themselves to indicate that they are PAAG compliant.  This makes it difficult for puppy buyers to make good choices unless they had visited the PAAG website first which has some generic advice about how to go about buying a puppy.

15. European Commission

Claire Calder (Eurogroup for Animals) informed us that the EU has funded a study on the welfare of dogs and cats involved in commercial practices which will report in February 2015. Initial results will be presented at the second EU conference on cats and dogs in December 2014 in Rome.

Eurogroup for Animals has started research on national legislation on breeding/trade of dogs and cats in each of the 28 EU member states.

16. Dog Health Workshop 2015

The second International Dog Health Workshop on the enhancement of genetic health in pedigree dogs will be organised by the German Kennel Club to take place in Dortmund February 2015.

17. Brachycephalic syndrome RVC conference update

The RVC team have contacted the KC after the conference last autumn offering to assist or meet again to discuss any initiatives they may wish to implement as a result of the report and conference findings.  So far the KC has declined to comment.

18. APGAW Dog subgroup update

Good progress has been made in the setting up of this new group of MPs. Key stakeholders have been invited to join. More details will be released by APGAW later. Members of DBR feel strongly that the DAC should be represented on this new group. CF has written to Marisa Heath to express this, who will put it to the Chairman of the new group.  DBR is delighted that there will now be a politically focussed group solely responsible for dog welfare.

19. DBR Objectives

No change

20. CARIAD report on Willow Farm Kennels

A very detailed and disturbing report has been produced by CARIAD on the above kennels. LR agreed to check to see if the RSPCA have or will be taking any action to attempt to shut down this breeding establishment.

21. House of Commons debate on Puppy Farms

The date for this debate is still to be decided.  G C-B has agreed to speak in this debate. He will inform us when it will take place and ensure that tickets are provided for us to attend.

22. Publicity for DBR

There was no time to discuss this with all members but CF wondered if we should invite Chrissie Smith, news editor from Dog World to our meeting in June. CF felt it would be good to let the dog breeding world know of our existence and what our Objectives are.

23. AOB Illegal Importation of Dogs (Fixed Penalty)

G C-B informed us of the Motion by Jim Fitzpatrick (Lab) to bring in a Bill to provide a fixed penalty charge for those caught smuggling dogs into the UK, and for connected purposes. It is very much hoped that this Bill will become Labour Party policy and that it will be passed.  CF will write to Jim Fitzpatrick to thank him.

Date of next meeting

Tuesday 24 June 2014, 12.00 – 14.00, Portcullis House

Notes written by Carol Fowler