MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE WELFARE ISSUES OF DOG
BREEDING
Minutes of meeting No 9 held at the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Horseferry
Road, London on Tuesday 27 March 2012
Present:
Sheila Crispin (Chairman)
Lesley Bloomfield
Rachel Casey
Chris Laurence
Cathryn Mellersh
Mike Radford
Clare Rusbridge
David Sargan
Also attending:
Heather Peck (Secretary)
Agenda Item 1
1. Apologies for absence had been received from Lisa Collins and Lisa McCaulder. The
Chairman welcomed all members to the meeting and expressed the gratitude of the
Council to the Royal College for their kind hospitality.
Agenda Item 2 – Declarations of Interest
2. There were no new declarations of interest.
Agenda Item 3 – Minutes of the previous meeting
3. The minutes of the previous meeting were formally approved, subject to noting that the
research project was for three years not one.
Agenda Item 4 – matters arising from the minutes
4. Most matters arising from the previous meeting were to be followed up elsewhere on the
agenda. Additional points which were raised included:
a. The Chairman reported that she and the Secretary had met Lord Taylor on 27
February. The meeting had been very positive and had explored, amongst
various issues, the ways in which Lord Taylor might be able to assist the
translation of advice into action by supporting the Council in its discussions with
stakeholders, and the potential for improving the legislative position by removing
two out-of-date Acts of Parliament and replacing them with modern regulations
under the Animal Welfare Act. It had been agreed that the Council should contact
Lord Taylor again following the joint meeting with the Review Board. ACTION
SECRETARY
b. Members were reminded to supply photos of themselves (with their dogs where
appropriate) to CR for the website. CR undertook to follow up progress on the
website with Henny van den Berg and the provision, if possible, of a revised
template for the advice on how to buy a dog.
ACTION MEMBERS & CR
c. The surge in Council website hits following the screening of Pedigree Dogs
Exposed – 3 years on, and the number of requests for advice were noted. It was
agreed that a set of FAQs should be drafted for the website. ACTION
SECRETARY
d. CL circulated two draft standard operating procedures (SOPs). Members were
asked to provide additional comments by 3 April. ACTION ALL
e. RC undertook to draft an SOP for socialisation BY 3 April.
ACTION RC
f. The Council agreed unanimously to endorse the BVA / RSPCA puppy contract
and informed BVA immediately.
g. Draft guidance on carrying out a puppy veterinary health check was circulated.
The following suggestions were made:
i. Make it clear that specialist veterinary expertise was not required;
ii. Examine also the axial skeleton, the colour of mucous membranes, body
condition, eyelids and eyes, mental state, and response to sounds;
iii. Specify that the check should be carried out between 7 and 10 weeks.
iv. Insert reference (similar to that in the eye certificate) making it clear that
the inspection related only to what could be seen on the day;
v. Seek BVA, BSAVA and VDS endorsement. ACTION CL TO CONTACT
THE VDS AT THE BSAVA CONGRESS
vi. Members were asked to provide any further comments by 3 April.
ACTION ALL
h. DS reported that the bid for research funding had been submitted to Dogs Trust.
LB undertook to set up a meeting with another potential co-funder, using the draft
supplied to Dogs Trust. ACTION DS AND LB
i. It was noted that the Kennel Club had provided a helpful response to the query
about their approach to outcrossing. It was also noted, in discussion, that past
resistance had largely come from breed clubs or breeders, and that this was an
area requiring further action on education.
j. A draft template for a breed health survey was circulated by CR and LC and
discussed further under agenda item 7.
Agenda Item 5 – Chairman’s Report
5. The Chairman drew attention to her written report (AC 61). She expressed concern that
in some instances of reportage she had been quoted highly inaccurately. She stated that
in future she would supply only written responses or would insist on seeing the final
version before publication.
6. There was a discussion about Crufts. The Council noted the issues and debate that had
arisen as a result of the Kennel Club’s decision to introduce veterinary inspections and
applauded the Kennel Club’s focus on health and welfare.
Agenda Item 6 –Annual Report 2010-11 and current year expenditure report
7. The Annual Report was formally approved by the Council and signed by the Chairman. It
was agreed that bound copies would be sent to Patrons and it would also be made
available on the Council website. ACTION SECRETARY
8. Members noted the year to date expenditure report submitted by the Secretary. She
reported that the Council had recently received a generous donation of £100 by an
individual donor, who had enquired about regular giving. It was agreed that the
information necessary for individuals to make regular donations by standing order would
be placed on the website.
ACTION SECRETARY
Agenda Item 7 - update on projects
9. CL had circulated a revised version of the standard for dog breeding, complete with
introduction, prior to the meeting. It was agreed that any final comments should be made
by 3 April.
ACTION ALL. The final version should then be translated into a
locked pdf file and would be presented at the joint meeting with the Review Board on 24
April. The endorsement of stakeholders would be sought, and CL undertook to provide
an options paper for the meeting, setting out possible routes to implementation.
ACTION CL
10. The issue of whether the standard should propose limitations on how many times a stud
dog should be used was discussed. It was agreed that it was an issue on which the
Council might wish to make recommendations, but it was not an appropriate issue for the
standard.
11. The draft outline for a breed health questionnaire was discussed in the context of the
proposed joint seminar for breed health coordinators. The Chairman explained that she
had been discussing the seminar with Ian Seath who was undertaking relevant work for
the Kennel Club. It was agreed that CR and LB would meet with Mr Seath (preferably
before the joint meeting with the Review Board) to discuss the outline draft seminar and
the possibilities of a coordinated approach. ACTION CR AND LB
12. It was also suggested that the presentation on inherited factors should be a joint effort
between DS and possibly Sarah Blott form the Animal Health Trust. CM undertook to ask
SB to liaise with DS.
13. Apropos the guidance on buying a dog, it was agreed that this should also be presented
at the joint meeting, either on a blank template or with the revised background being
developed by Henny van den Berg.
Agenda Item 8 - preparation for the joint meeting with the Review Board
14. The draft agenda and discussion paper for the joint meeting with the Review Board were
agreed in principle subject to:
a. Adding the names of the organisations who originally committed to providing a
lead on specific subject areas (as recorded in the Review Board paper);
b. Adding as background papers for agenda item 3 the standard in pdf form, CL’s
options paper on implementing the standard, the advice on how to choose a dog,
the final copy of the 8 welfare priorities paper, the draft seminar programme and
the summary of the research proposal currently with Dogs Trust and another
potential funder. ACTION SMC TO REDRAFT 8 PRIORITIES PAPER, AND
SECRETARY TO AMEND PAPERS FOR THE REVIEW BOARD AND
CIRCULATE.
Agenda Item 10 – review of legislation
15. MR introduced his discussion paper on dog breeding and the law which set out the
essentials of the existing legislation and the key justifications for reform. The Council
agreed that there was a need for specific provisions to address the current problems and
to replace the outdated legislation. Options discussed included:
a. an express duty on dog breeders to take all reasonable steps to ensure the
welfare of the puppies they breed;
b. provisions which would enable the UK to ratify the Council of Europe Convention
for the Protection of Pet Animals;
c. the relationship between various elements of voluntary, informal and formal
regulation;
d. the key importance of permanent identification and traceability;
e. the potential for use of the power of judicial review in some instances.
16. MR undertook to draft an options paper to circulate by 14 May for discussion at the May
meeting of the Council. ACTION MR
Agenda item 11 – strategy and action plan for the Council for 2012/13
17. Following a discussion of the paper tabled, the Council agreed the following should form
the key elements of its action plan for the next year; ie
a. The review of regulation;
b. Formulating and promulgating advice for veterinarians on the reporting of the
surgical correction of conformation problems, and on the completion of puppy
health checks;
c. Preparing advice on the translation of the standard for dog breeding into action;
d. The transformation of the statements relating to each of the first eight welfare
priorities into clear recommendations for action, beginning with ocular problems;
e. The potential for a research project on the heritability of temperament.
18. These would be, in addition to the completion of the guidance for the public on how to
buy a dog, the proposed joint seminar for breed health coordinators and the research
project on data analysis.
19. It was agreed that these elements should be put into a programme plan for the year
ahead and circulated at the joint meeting with the Review Board for comments. ACTION
SECRETARY
Any Other Business
20. There being no other business the meeting closed at 1520
Date of next Meeting – 15 May 2012, location tbc