Philippa Robinson's presentation on dog health and welfare at BSAVA 2015
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•907 views
Many, if not most, canine health and welfare problems are linked to people, their behaviour and attitudes. And the issues surrounding such problems are far more complex than have been argued in recent years. So said Philippa Robinson at the British Small Animals Veterinary Association’s recent congress, adding that ‘finger pointing’ was no longer helpful and blame counter-productive.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Philippa Robinson's presentation on dog health and welfare at BSAVA 2015
Similar to Philippa Robinson's presentation on dog health and welfare at BSAVA 2015 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (16)
Philippa Robinson's presentation on dog health and welfare at BSAVA 2015
- 1. Dog health and welfare THE DEMAND SIDE OF THE EQUATION PHILIPPA ROBINSON MSc FRSA ASSOC CIPD
- 2. Dog breed health and welfare; my background Who am I? What am I? Why I am here? (2002 – 2006)
- 3. Dog Health and Welfare Controversies
- 4. Dog breed controversies: the context 2008 Pedigree Dogs Exposed 2010 Bateson Inquiry 2010 – 2015 Advisory Council on the welfare issues of dog breeding More complex than that
- 5. Timeline 1854 - 2015
- 6. Milestones Kennel Club Founded 1873 1891 Crufts 1st Dog Show 1897 Stud books began to be closed 1965 Schemes with BVA for hip and eye screening launched 1987 KC, BVA, BSAVA and RSPCA working party on indiscriminate breeding 1987 KC working party looking at hereditary disease 2004 BSAVA Health survey 2014 EBVs launched for 15 breeds Other agents 1824 RSPCA established 1844 RCVS receives royal charter 1882 BVA established 1891 NCDL (now Dogs Trust) established 1942 Vet Education Trust set up (now AHT) 1957 Meeting at BVA to discuss setting up BSAVA
- 7. “System” more complex than first realised; requires systems approach Systems thinking is a broad array of approaches to problem solving that views “problems” as part of a wider dynamic system. Systems thinking involves more than a reaction to present outcomes or events. It demands a deeper understanding of linkages, relationships, interaction and behaviours among the elements that characterise the entire system. ‘Systems thinking for health systems strengthening’ edited by Don de Savigny and Taghreed Adam, World Health Organisation 2009.
- 9. The challenges of pedigree dog health: approaches to combating inherited disease Lindsay L Farrell*, Jeffrey J Schoenebeck, Pamela Wiener, Dylan N Clements and Kim M Summers 2015
- 10. Why is Dime’s skull the shape it is? Because the breed standard has dictated its shape? Because show judges only award rosettes to dogs with that shape? Because people like my brother buy dogs with skulls of that shape?
- 11. How controversial is the health and welfare of this breed?
- 12. Brachycephalic breeds Dog-ED ltd ©2013 OWNERS Low Knowledge High Sense of Duty High Knowledge High Sense of duty Low Knowledge Low S of D High Knowledge Low S of D Breeding strategies Veterinary advice Flat faces present health problems Breathing difficulties Eye problems Dental problems Whelping problems Veterinary treatment Veterinary income Commission Research into health conditions Concerns over health problems Breed standards for flat-faced dogs Advertisers/ organisations use them to sell products and services Strategic approach of welfare organisations Their incomes Breeding Standard Veterinary knowledge and expertise The System that Builds Brachycephalic Dogs Professional pride and self esteem Actions to influence demand Actions to influence supply Achieve their charitable objectives Veterinary reporting Imported Registered Not registered BREEDERS Low Volume High Welfare High Volume High Welfare Low Volume Low Welfare High Volume Low welfare Rescue Competition to secure research funding Research into prevalence and impact of health conditions Fund research Owner education Veterinary education Breeder education Puppy contract Research is published KC Breed watch People find flat-faced dogs adorable
- 15. What has that done for breed popularity 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 2011 2012 2013 French Bulldog KC Registrations 2011 - 13 Colour not recognised Total registered 14% 7% 2.5% 2005: 324 French Bulldogs were registered 2014: 9670 In London currently, 65% of illegally imported dogs recently seized by the authorities were brachycephalic breeds, of which 42% are Frenchies2004 – 2013 Brachycephalic breeds bulldogs, frenchies and pugs increased in popularity fourfold
- 16. Breeds as brands
- 17. Social Media Brand Endorsement of the highest order Robbie Savage Hugh Jackman Lewis Hamilton Jonathan Ross Jessie J Victoria Beckham Lady Gaga 1,500,000 twitter followers 1,600,000 Instagram followers 2,680,000 Twitter followers 4,650,000 Twitter followers 7,000,000 twitter followers 8,280,000 twitter followers 45,300.000 twitter followers and nearly 61,700,000 likes on Facebook
- 18. Celebrity Brand Culture: I want what Robbie has! Robbie Savage’s Watch Robbie Savage’s Dog
- 19. Where can we intervene? Dog-ED ltd ©2013 OWNERS Low Knowledge High Sense of Duty High Knowledge High Sense of duty Low Knowledge Low S of D High Knowledge Low S of D Breeding strategies Veterinary advice Flat faces present health problems Breathing difficulties Eye problems Dental problems Whelping problems Veterinary treatment Veterinary income Commission Research into health conditions Concerns over health problems Breed standards for flat-faced dogs Advertisers/ organisations use them to sell products and services Strategic approach of welfare organisations Their incomes Breeding Standard Veterinary knowledge and expertise The System that Builds Brachycephalic Dogs Professional pride and self esteem Actions to influence demand Actions to influence supply Achieve their charitable objectives Veterinary reporting Imported Registered Not registered BREEDERS Low Volume High Welfare High Volume High Welfare Low Volume Low Welfare High Volume Low welfare Rescue Competition to secure research funding Research into prevalence and impact of health conditions Fund research Owner education Veterinary education Breeder education Puppy contract Research is published KC Breed watch People find flat-faced dogs adorable
- 20. How can we counter this cultural phenomenon? Review the breed standards? Introduce judicious health testing? Remove untested dogs from the breeding programme? Remove affected dogs from the breeding programme? Remove untested dogs from dog showing? Remove untested dogs from the KC system altogether? Ensure that the public are armed with the facts? Issue breeds with “health warnings” like cigarettes?
- 22. How can we counter this cultural phenomenon? Change all mindsets Change the entire context Recognise the people make irrational choices because they are motivated by complex set of drivers – MINDSPACE Address the “communicative abundance” - what conversations are we having with people? Where are we having them? Too daunting? Not if we adopt a few simple rules
- 23. Work together 1. Clarify what the health and welfare messages need to be for each breed/ type, based on evidence and good data 2. Really understand the dynamics of the system that supplies dogs and puppies – again mindful of breed/type 3. Really understand the human behaviour that determines our dog buying/ acquiring decisions 4. Simplify the key messages derived from numbers 1 and 2 to help us shape number 3 5. Deliver those key messages consistently across the board – messages to be delivered by ALL parts of the system
- 24. We are all on that timeline
- 25. How can we contribute? How can you contribute? How will time judge our “actions”? As individuals and as organisations
Editor's Notes
- Who am I? Philippa Robinson, independent campaigner on dog health and welfare, campaigns inspired by personal experience of dog health issues. What am I? Human Resource and change management professional. So now you are all wondering why you are listening to a talk on dog health and welfare being given by someone from HR? I may not be a qualified veterinary nurse, or veterinary surgeon, I may not be a geneticist or pure scientist – but I am extremely well versed in understanding people, what motivates them, what drives them, and I would argue that many if not most of the dog health and welfare problems we face are inextricably linked to people, to their behaviours and their attitudes. Of course the veterinary science is essential to help us improve dog health, but understanding people also has a contribution to make to the debates and actions.
- These are the dogs that have shared my life in the past 10 – 12 years. And I am introducing them to you here because later on in the talk I am going to single out some breeds for attention. But I don’t want to do that without first acknowledging that when it comes to dog health and welfare controversies my family’s own choice of breed/type of dog is not exempt from those controversies, in fact our choices almost run the entire continuum of controversy. Alfie, the GWP exemplifies the controversies surrounding inherited disease and inbreeding. Dime, the Miniature Bull Terrier exemplifies the controversy surrounding exaggerated conformation Ferdy, the Weimaraner cross exemplifies the controversies surrounding deliberate crosses, docked tails, and “hybrid vigour”. He also, but you cannot see this from the picture, suffers from terrible separation anxiety so exemplifies the issues around behaviour and temperament. So if I go on in the talk, to single out a breed you love, for comment, just remember that I am very aware that my own choices of breed implicate me too in the debate around these aspects of dog breeding that have become controversial.
- When people raise the issue of dog health and welfare controversies they very often summarise its recent history as follows: 2008 PDE, then three reports on pedigree dog health including the bateson inquiry, and then DAC being set up. Now, because of my personal experience of poor dog health culminating in the early loss of my beautiful GWP in 2006, I was very keen to join the PDE campaign in 2007 and very supportive of the documentary. I continued to support its arguments after broadcast. Just after the bateson report came out I began a piece of work that I thought would once and for all prove just how inert the KC had been on dog health. I started to work on a timeline of pedigree dog health and welfare. Really quickly into embarking on that piece of work, and I mean really quickly, within a couple of hours or working on that history, the grip of the anti KC rhetoric began to loosen its grip on me. Here’s why – an historical analysis of pedigree dog health reveals that the issues are far more complex than argued in either PDE or any of the three subsequent reports.
- My timeline now goes from 1854 to the present day. It has become a massive spreadsheet outlining the milestones from many of the relevant stakeholders and players. Here is just a tiny section to illustrate what it looks like.
- What does the timeline show? Well, yes, it reveals the long history of the KC. But it does not reveal that the KC was inert. In fact it reveals that along the way there have been many fascinating initiatives relating to health and welfare including some collaborative work with other parties. If you read, as I have done, through the Kennel Gazette of the late 80s for instance you will see reports on some really interesting work on issues such as puppy farming, inherited disease, educating the public etc. Once you learn that the KC was driving initiatives like this your questions begin to change. As it is no longer a question of why has the KC done nothing on health? But more a question of what happened to this type of work? Where did those initiatives take us? What were the outcomes of those projects? In addition to that, the timeline reveals other relevant considerations. It reveals that the other stakeholders also have long and illustrious histories. The RSPCA has existed since 1824 for instance, did it really take until 2008 before the RSPCA thought it should speak out about dog health? Had the chief vet officers of the RSPCA not thought to inquire about dog welfare issues relating to breeding before that? If not, why not? If they did speak out what happened as a consequence? The dogs trust has existed since 1891, so likewise, understanding its long history also changes the questions because is it not legitimate to ask – how come the DT has been around for all this time yet still in 2015 there remain so many controversies surrounding the health and welfare of dogs? What have they been doing all this time to alleviate some of those? In short my historical analysis made me realise that whatever the problems are that dogs face, they are unlikely to have been caused or created by just one single stakeholder. This understanding prompted me to adopt a more systems thinking approach to the complex issues.
- I advocate we use a systems thinking approach to dog health and welfare because it is a fantastic tool that enables us to understand complexity, understand trends, and identify the most fruitful interventions. It is an approach widely used in the realm of human health, it is an approach used in other complex areas, for instance, last year it featured in Professor Elliot’s analysis of the horsemeat scandal. I believe that we are failing to use this approach in dog welfare and that is to the detriment of dogs. We should adopt it.
- A first step to using systems thinking is to draw a systems map of the issue you are trying to solve. Here is my attempt at drawing a very simplified map of the supply and demand for dogs. On the RHS is the supply of dogs, and that supply comes from a range of sources. From breeders some good, some bad, some high welfare some not. Dogs are also supplied through the rescues and rehoming centres, dogs are also supplied through importation, both legal and illegal. On the LHS is demand. Demand comes from people with a variety of motives, with different levels of understanding and sadly with different levels of commitment and sense of duty in the care of those dogs. Please note that on the map I talk about the supply and demand of breed/ type of dogs, rather than just dogs in general. My work on systems thinking has made me realise that this is a very important distinction to make when talking about the health and welfare of dogs. Here’s why
- Our dog population is made up of a vast array of dog breeds and types. This diagram from recent research illustrates that well. A systems analysis of dogs makes you realise very quickly that we are not a nation of dog lovers, we are a nation of dog breed lovers. For whatever, complex, reason, we develop a fondness for specific types of dog. This has resulted in each breed having very specific societal and cultural contexts. The cultural context for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is different from that of the border collie for instance. KC recognises 215 different breeds FCI 360 or so recognised Has the creation of all those different breeds and types of dog been driven by the supply side or the demand side? One or other or a bit of both? The paper from which that diagram comes is The challenges of pedigree dog health: approaches to combating inherited disease Lindsay L Farrell*, Jeffrey J Schoenebeck, Pamela Wiener, Dylan N Clements and Kim M Summers The authors state “The result of dog breeds having been shaped by human preferences and kept in separate and distinct populations is that each breed is a closed breeding population with high levels of phenotypic homogeneity and receiving no further genetic admixture beyond the founding population.” I think they correctly assert that these dog breeds are the result of being “shaped by human preferences”. Not the KC, not the show world, not the elite breeders, but “human preference” in general. The KC, the show world, elite breeders, have all played a part in the shaping of these dogs and dog breeds, for sure, but other influences have also played their part. And if you focus only on the KC or the show world, without considering the influences coming from other elements of the system, then we will never find effective solutions to our dog welfare issues. What is more, I now argue, that to be fixated by only the KC or only the show world is not just an oversimplification of the issues, it is a dangerous oversimplification, because we may well be looking in entirely the wrong place for our solutions.
- Here is just one small illustration of this. The miniature bull terrier, Dime, that I introduced you to earlier is my brother’s dog. I would argue that my brother is not a dog lover. He is a bull terrier lover. Here is a graphic of the changes to the Bull Terrier skull, a graphic much loved by the anti- pedigree dog perspective. But here is the point that those antis often ignore or at least fail to consider. The breed standard, in and of itself, has not been the driver to those changes. Nor has the skull been shaped just by what judges have awarded in the show ring. Those factors may contribute to the changes of shape, undoubtedly, but the real influence I would argue is simply human preference. The KC could change the breed standard to reflect the top shape of skull, judges could begin to only award dogs with the top shape, all of that is perfectly possible. But here is the thing, they could make those changes and it would make no difference to my brother. He will go on choosing and owning dogs with the bottom shaped skull. Why? Because that is what, rightly or wrongly, he prefers. He would also challenge whether there are any legitimate concerns over the welfare issues relating to the shape of his dog’s skull. For his dog is living a happy healthy life, doing all the things pet dogs love to do. So he cannot see the problem with that shape skull.
- Of course the family debates we have in our household about Dime’s conformation are pure anecdote. What of other debates more systematically reported? I want to look now specifically at a breed that has become very popular in recent times.
- Here is the systems map that I have been working on for brachycephalic breeds. I have used it to explore issues surrounding the French Bulldog.
- How do I know there are controversies surrounding this breed of dog. I know, because I have read the reports and attended the Building Better Brachycephalic day at RVC. I know because I check out pages like Breed Watch on the Kennel Club website I know because I work closely with the Breed Clubs I know because I work closely with other health and welfare campaigners I know because I speak to insurance companies. I would argue that any member of the public who had been doing research on French Bulldogs could not have failed to notice that the breed comes with attendant issues. If they went to the French Bulldog Club of England’s website they would get a very good understanding of the health issues.
- Owners with a high sense of duty would know pretty quickly that there Frenchie is going to cost them more to insure. The screen grab here is of a quote I got last week for my fictitious “Frenchie” and a cross breed of exactly the same age, sex, and address. Phoebe is the French bulldog and Ruby Tuesday is the cross. This comparison is a much loved technique of the anti-pedigree dog perspective. It has been frequently used to illustrate the point that purebreds cost more to insure than cross breeds. But a systems thinking analysis would challenge them on this asking them “what is your point?” It is true that by and large a cross breed will cost you less to insure than a pure bred French Bulldog. But these types of comparisons are only meaningful if the key driver for breed preference is the cost of insurance. If that is your key driver then you are undoubtedly going to choose the cross breed over the Frenchie. But of course cost of insurance is in fact way way down on the list of factors that influence our choice of breed.
- There has been so much publicity from PDE, online blogs, articles in the papers, articles in scientific journals, the RSPCA’s own Born to Suffer campaign, so much publicity highlighting the controversies surrounding the health of brachycephalics yet as the registration figures attest, that has had no impact on their popularity. Their popularity has exploded. Either that is because the health messages are still not getting across, or the health messages are not believed, or because what motivates and drives people to choose a Frenchie has nothing whatsoever to do with these health controversies.
- Let’s look at some other possible influences for the popularity of the French Bulldog. It features regularly with its celebrity owners. Here we have Lewis Hamilton and Rosco Jonathan Ross and his 3 frenchies Coco Beckham Asia GaGa Jackson owned by Jessie J Coco owned by Robbie Savage Dali owned by Hugh Jackman
- Those celebrities do not just own those French Bulldogs, they also feature them regularly in their social media timelines. And when I say regularly I mean almost daily in some cases (Lady Gaga) and look to just how many people those messages are reaching. And the messages are all about how cute these dogs are, how funny, how amenable, how loving so on and so forth.
- French Bulldogs are receiving celebrity brand endorsement of the highest order. And one more quick observation I would like to make is this. Recently Robbie Savage facebooked his watch as well as his dog. His watch here is a Rolex Platinum Daytona which would cost to buy in the region of £43,000. His dog can be got for about £2k, or a lot less if you can find one of those illegally imported ones from a very dodgy third party dealer. So if you want to emulate your sporting hero ( or other cultural icon) getting the same breed of dog is one easy way to do it. There is no doubt that in the case of the French Bulldog it has clearly become a cultural, societal, phenomenon. And what drove that exactly?
- The French Bulldog has become a cultural icon. It has been used to sell all sorts of merchandise, services and of course is the current breed of choice for many a celebrity. This breed endorsement has not come from the KC, the show world or the breed club. Even combined, the KC, the show world, the breed club have precious few resources to counter that iconic status. They also have limited spheres of influence to change behaviours and attitudes amongst the wider population. So where, given its status as a cultural phenomenon, can we best intervene in the system to enable us to help improve the health and welfare issues relating to the breed?
- We could do any or all of the suggestions on this list. Many of these suggestions are frequently raised by anti-pedigree campaigners as things that SHOULD be being done. Each or even all may have merit. However a systems thinking approach ensures that the bigger picture is considered, the trends are analysed and the points of intervention that will give us maximum leverage are identified.
- In the context of French Bulldogs much of the work being done to improve their health is invaluable for instance: The FBCE has implemented a Gold, Silver, Bronze health scheme with x number of dogs having being tested through it The ABS scheme helps the public to pinpoint high welfare breeders Breedwatch ensures that through the showing community any concerns over health and welfare are picked up and reported The breed club is participating in many health research programmes that will help to inform future breeding decisions The KC is funding the work of Vet Compass, which helps provide prevalence data on a number of health and welfare indicators The KC offers breeders a programme of breeder education seminars that has included specific session of brachycephalic issues So already much work is being done to support the breed but…………the map reveals that all that work is focused only on one small part of the system. Most French Bulldogs may not be in the KC part of the system, many come from low welfare breeders who do not participate in any of these schemes. Many French bulldogs are imported, most often illegally, to fulfil the demand created through the celebrity culture. Most critics of French Bulldogs and brachycephalic breeds do not acknowledge that the KC and show world only represents a proportion of the dog system. So without wider support of the stakeholder community, without the injection of resources from more than one stakeholder, all the valiant work listed above will struggle to have an impact on the French Bulldog population as a whole.
- To really make a difference to a breed like the French Bulldog we need to explore and act on all of the points listed here.
- The vet profession, the welfare charities, the scientists, academia, breeders, local authorities, the KC, the welfare campaigners, APGAW, industry and the dog loving public need to work together perhaps using my five point plan as listed here.
- One additional observation to make about the work I have done on the pedigree dog health timeline is this: I developed it in the hope it would help me point the finger at the agencies who are to blame for the problems, but as I worked on it I realised that those same agencies are the source of the solutions, and furthermore, if history asks of them what they contributed to the improvement of dog health and welfare, history also asks the same question of me. And you. What are we each contributing to the collaborative work needed, the resources required, the effort that will reduce and even eliminate the health and welfare our dogs experience. We each have a role to play. So finger pointing is no longer helpful. Blame is counterproductive. Meaningful dialogue, courageous and creative action are the things we should be working on jointly. The good news on that is courageous action and creative solutions such as vet compass, such as EBVs, such as genetics, such as breeder education can be really exciting projects in which to get involved. So lets stop sniping and start sharing.
- I finish by asking you to reflect on how we can all play our part.