All the latest info on caring for your pet

Looking for something in particular? Check our categories!

Is the government serious about tackling irresponsible dog ownership?

The government has fudged the dog laws again. A written ministerial statement from the Department For Environment, Food And Rural Affairs was released today, with the promising title "Tackling Irresponsible Dog Ownership".

A statement had been widely anticipated but its content had only been guessed at. In the Daily Telegraph over the weekend, Germaine Greer called for stricter controls on dog ownership, including a licence for humans to have dogs. I wrote a counter-piece, suggesting that such a radical change was not needed. My own choice would be to follow the suggestions of the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club, who have suggested simple measures such as universal microchipping of all dogs, along with new legal instruments such as Dog Control Orders which could be used to force irresponsible dog owners to smarten up.

So what did the government say? You can read the full statement for yourself, but it seems to me to come down to three main actions:

1) The extension of the Dangerous Dogs Act to include private property. While this will bring some relief to postmen and other casual visitors to doggy households, intruders should be aware that this specifically excludes "trespassers". It seems that dogs can continue to bite burglars' bums without fear of being sued.

2) The police will no longer automatically seize and kennel dogs that are accused of being "dangerous" pending the outcome of court proceedings. This will be a great relief to owners of Pitbull-look-alikes that ran the risk of being impounded because of a mischievous complaint from a neighbour. The civil servants in charge of police budgets will be relieved that they no longer will need to pay for months of boarding for dogs "awaiting trial".

3) The government has announced its intention to "introduce regulations under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on microchipping to promote animal welfare by making it easier for local authorities and rescue centres to quickly re-unite stray dogs with their owners." And this is where the fudge comes in: a decision has not been made on how to do this. The government is going to have "a further consultation to give the public an opportunity to give their views".

Four possible methods of introducing microchipping are listed:

(i) requiring all dogs to be microchipped on transfer of ownership,

(ii) requiring all dogs to be microchipped from a certain date,

(iii) implementing a phased-in process, such as starting with compulsory microchipping on transfer of ownership and after five years moving to mandatory microchipping of all dogs, (iv) making breeders responsible for microchipping newly-born dogs before sale.

The government has said that this last option is "preferred" but as a way of dealing with the problem of irresponsible dog owners, it's surely the least effective choice.

Most of those working in this field (including the RSPCA, veterinary organisations, Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club) have made it clear that they believe that compulsory microchipping would make a significant difference to both animal welfare and human safety. Why not just bite the bullet, and go for option (ii) with all dogs being microchipped from a given date?

And as for the other sensible suggestions of Dog Control Orders, why has nothing been mentioned?

It seems that the government has chosen to ignore the sensible advice of those working with dogs on the ground, and instead has decided to kick the "dogs" issue further down the road for someone else to tackle.

No Comments

Looking after the Older Horse

When I was training as a vet, a 20 year old horse was considered really quite old. Now, however, I regularly find myself working with healthy horses in their late twenties and thirties - even a few that go on into their forties! That said, horses don't age uniformly - one may be sprightly and fit at 30, while her paddock mate is really feeling his age at 20, so there's a lot of variation. The challenge is maintaining them at the best quality of life for as long as possible. To do so, we need to consider three things: • Work and exercise • Preventative health (worming, dental care etc) • Disease management and medication I'll deal with these in sequence, although really they are of course all interconnected. Work and Exercise PerryI'd like to introduce Perry, a horse I've known for many, many years. Born in 1986, by 2002 Perry was a successful Eventer, competing on the Affiliated circuit, and usually well up in the places. However, by then he was starting to slow up a bit, and his then-owner decided it was time to reduce his workload. He was struggling in particular with the dressage and show jumping, so they sold him on to a friend of mine as a Pony Club horse for Tetrathlon. All he had to do was carry his (fairly novice) rider round a cross country course - the phase he enjoyed the most anyway. Relieved of the need to work in an outline, or in collection, he flourished at Tetrathlon, going on to compete at the National Championships. Of course, in time, his low-grade arthritis (which I'll talk about more later) meant that he was struggling with the cross country requirements, and he moved into a semi-retirement as a hack. He'd seen it all, done it all, and was as close to 100% in traffic, tractors and low flying aircraft as any horse could be. For most horses, as long as they can work, they want to - generally (and there are always exceptions!), it isn't in a horse's best interests to take him out of work one day and retire him to a field. A gradual wind-down over several years is kinder, and helps to keep him interested and alert. So, by changing career, Perry had an extra five years of competition, and then many more years of useful work - simply because his various owners were wise enough not to over face him, but to play to his strengths. Preventative Health I've talked before about the importance of regular dental work - in the older horse, it is doubly important. As the horse ages, his teeth undergo a number of changes. Although it appears that teeth grow constantly, that is in fact an illusion - the adult teeth are pretty much a fixed length, but most of the tooth is hidden away within the gums (the reserve crown). As the tooth is worn down by chewing, more of this reserve is extruded (which is, by the way, the basis of ageing horses by dentition). However, sooner or later, this reserve is expended, and the teeth "cup out", becoming small, loosely held, concave structures, of limited use for chewing. Good, regular dental care can help delay the onset, and can help the horse to manage as the teeth cup out. Remember, as long as there are a few pairs of teeth in occlusion (i.e. Facing each other), the horse can still chew, he'll just be very slow about it! In my experience, teeth generally start to cup out about 30-35 years of age, but it depends on their dental history - more use and wear and tear means the teeth are ground down faster. Worming is also inceasingly important in the older horse, simply because although they may have higher immunity to worms (this is still debated, but does seem likely), they also have less reserves to cope if they have a heavy infestation. The spring is a particularly risky time, as sometimes large numbers of small redworms can emerge all at once, causing massive gut wall damage. It is important to make sure that at some point over the winter, you use a wormer that is active against hibernating (hypobiotic) worm larvae - currently, the only wormers on the market that have this activity are a full 5 day course of Panacur, and (reportedly) Equest. Foot care is always important, as older horses can suffer some terrible hoof capsule problems if left untreated. I always recommend that people keep up vaccinating their horses, even if they're not competing or going out. Equine influenza probably isn't essential in a stay-at-home horse or pony (although they can still contract it if they're in contact with a younger friend who does go out and do), but Tetanus vaccination is essential. Just because a horse is old doesn't mean you can stop vaccinating, because tetanus kills horses of any age just as easily. It's also a really useful opportunity to have a general "MOT" and get your vet to check the horse over thoroughly, to detect and problems before they become too serious. Disease Management Although many horses lead a long and healthy life, the probability is that as they enter old age, they will suffer from one or more "chronic diseases". These are generally low-level conditions, and in the older horse are usually manageable rather than curable. Probably the most common are arthritis and Cushing's disease, but malabsorbtion diseases and some tumours aren't that uncommon either. The key factor is managing the disease in such a way that the horse doesn't suffer from the symptoms, and is able to keep up as much work as possible, for as long as possible. Arthritis is perhaps the commonest condition of older horses, and those that aren't so old. In most cases, it is due to simple wear and tear on the joint surfaces. The harder a horse has worked, the more rapid the onset of arthritic changes. It's often the case that, initially, a horse will have trouble working in an outline, and perhaps with show jumps, but hacking and cross country, with it's more open jumping style, is less of a problem. This of course was exactly the case with Perry. Managing arthritis is a lot more than just monitoring exercise, however - nowadays, we no longer need to just accept "a bit of stiffness" in the older horse. It's often best to use several different strategies. I generally recommend a combination of joint supplementation (feed supplements such as Cosequin and Newmarket Joint Supplement are the most popular, while injectables like Adequan are more expensive but possibly more effective) with analgesics (bute and/or Danilon, usually) as required. Although painkillers like bute don't address the underlying disease, they reduce the inflammation and associated pain. Although there can be side effects, it really isn't fair to put a horse through the pain and discomfort of arthritis without some pain relief; if side effects are a particular concern, Danilon has a much lower risk, although it seems to be a little less effective. Its usually best to start out using bute only as required, and then build up the dose as necessary. Perry, for example, started using bute about 10 years ago, but just a sachet or so immediately after a competition. As he's got older, he uses more, and at the moment he's on an average of 4-5 sachets a week - enough to keep him comfortable (and galloping round his paddock like a yearling!). Cushing's disease (hyperadrenocorticism) is most common in older horses, and is caused by a micro-tumour in the pituitary gland. This results in an excess of circulating cortisol (a stress hormone), that causes the characteristic symptoms of abnormal fat pads (typically over the eyes and as saddle-packs), excessive drinking and urination, and increasing susceptibility to minor infections and laminitis. Ironically, the "classic" shaggy coat of the Cushingoid horse isn't entirely due to cortisol - the presence of a tumour in the pituitary causes a malfunction in the part of the brain that controls body temperature, causing retention of a winter coat for longer. Cushing's isn't curable in horses, but symptoms can be partially controlled by management (regular clipping, diet and exercise control and remedial shoeing), or largely eliminated with some medications - Cyproheptadine (Periactin) may be of some use; however, Pergolide (Prascend) is highly effective, and is licensed for the treatment of Cushing's. Gut problems of one sort or another are also more common in older horses - these may be malabsorbtion issues, caused by thickening of the gut wall, or an increased susceptibility to colic. This may be due to a diffuse Lymphoma (a cancer of the white blood cells) which is the commonest tumour of older horses. In these cases, the key is to feed a highly digestible, high feed value ration, possibly with a probiotic to enhance digestion. Tooth loss is also a problem in the older horse - as I discussed earlier, eventually the teeth "cup out", at which point there's little more that can be done, dentally. The next phase is that the tooth falls out, leaving naked gums. I remember once doing a regular tooth rasping on a 38 year old mare - I put a hand in to have a feel around, and four teeth fell out in my palm... (she actually did better once the teeth were out than she had in months!). An edentulous (toothless) horse needs a soft, ultra-high fibre diet; typically a mash made from fibre pellets or pencils. Horses can live healthily for quite some time on such a diet - however, once your horse has reached this stage, it is probably time to consider how long you can fairly keep him going. If you can stay on top of all these points, you have every chance of keeping your older horse going for a long, healthy life - as Perry has had, and indeed continues to have. If you are worried about any symptoms your horse or pony is showing, please talk to your vet or check how urgent the problem may be by using our Interactive Equine Symptom Guide written by expert equine vets.
4 Comments

Could Carprodyl Kill your Dog?

The headline in today's Daily Mail is typically attention-grabbing: "Could the drug that cost this beloved pet its life
kill YOUR dog too?" The article tells the sad story of a thirteen year old Labrador who died after taking pain-relieving
medication prescribed by her vet. There's no doubt that many owners of elderly, arthritis-ridden dogs will be rushing to
their vets this week to find out if their own pets are at risk of the same fate.
So what is this drug? Why do vets prescribe medicine which may risk such a severe reaction? And when they do use it,
why don't they tell owners about the potential dangers?
First, the medication was Carprodyl, a generic form of a chemical called carprofen, which is part of a group of drugs
known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS). Carprofen has become perhaps the most widely used pain
relieving medication used in veterinary medicine since it was launched as "Rimadyl" by Pfizer, around fifteen years
ago. The patent on the chemical has now lapsed, so a wide range of cheaper generic alternatives have become available.
Most vet clinics in the UK are likely to sell some version of the product.
Second, why do vets prescribe it? Simply put, because it's the most effective way of treating arthritis in dogs. Many
millions of older animals have been given extra, pain-free life thanks to this type of medication. Three years ago, a
major review was published in the Vet Record, comparing the wide range of treatments available to help dogs with
the common, painful, debilitating problem of arthritis. The review gathered together the results of research papers
published between 1985 and 2007, attempting to derive the best science-based opinion of the best treatment method.
The conclusion? There was strong evidence that carprofen and two other commonly used drugs from the same group
were "effective in moderating the clinical signs of osteoarthritis". There was only weak or moderate evidence that other
treatments were effective. The conclusion for any vet reading this paper was clear: carprofen and other similar drugs are
the most effective way of helping animals with arthritis.
Obviously, an effective drug needs to be safe, so what about those risks? While it's true that all drugs in this group can
have undesirable and potentially life threatening consequences, the incidence is very low. The most common side effect
is gastric irritation: affected dogs suffer from gastroenteritis which usually resolves when the medication is stopped.
Much more rarely, there's a very low risk of kidney failure associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The
cause of this is complicated: it's more common in geriatric patients suffering from underlying heart, kidney or liver
disease, but it can seem to happen in a random fashion. To minimise this risk, vets may suggest blood or urine tests
before starting a dog onto anti-arthritis medication. Such tests don't completely remove the small risk, and they add
significantly to the cost of treatment for a pet, so they aren't always done.
So finally, why don't vets always tell owners about the potential dangers of such medication? There's a lot of variation
in what happens here: some vets do take the time to tell owners about every possible side effect of every drug that's
used. The problem with this approach is that it's time consuming, leading to longer (and more expensive) consultations
for owners. Most owners don't particularly want to hear a long list of potential side effects that are unlikely to happen,
and they're happy to trust that the vet, on balance, feels that the medication is most appropriate having taken all the risks
and benefits into account.
Vets may also feel that detailed listings of potential adverse reactions may lead to unnecessary worrying for an owner,
so they just mention the most common side effects ("stop the tablets and let me know if she gets an upset stomach").
Sometimes a compromise may be to hand out the package insert with the tablets: the owner can then read the full list of
possible complications if they so wish (and if they have a magnifying glass).
I feel very sorry for the owners of any animal that suffers the consequences of a serious adverse reaction to medication.
There's no easy answer here, but there's a simple message: if you want to know about potential side effects of any drug,
ask your vet. We're happy to tell you if you're happy to listen. It's likely that the same treatment decision will still
be made, but at least, in the rare instance of a severe reaction, you won't have that awful sense of unfairness that you
weren't told about the risk.

The headline in today's Daily Mail is typically attention-grabbing: "Could the drug that cost this beloved pet its life kill YOUR dog too?" The article tells the sad story of a thirteen year old Labrador who died after taking pain-relieving medication prescribed by her vet. There's no doubt that many owners of elderly, arthritis-ridden dogs will be rushing to their vets this week to find out if their own pets are at risk of the same fate.

So what is this drug? Why do vets prescribe medicine which may risk such a severe reaction? And when they do use it, why don't they tell owners about the potential dangers?

First, the medication was Carprodyl, a generic form of a chemical called carprofen, which is part of a group of drugs known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS). Carprofen has become perhaps the most widely used pain relieving medication used in veterinary medicine since it was launched as "Rimadyl" by Pfizer, around fifteen years ago. The patent on the chemical has now lapsed, so a wide range of cheaper generic alternatives have become available. Most vet clinics in the UK are likely to sell some version of the product.

Second, why do vets prescribe it? Simply put, because it's the most effective way of treating arthritis in dogs. Many millions of older animals have been given extra, pain-free life thanks to this type of medication. Three years ago, a major review was published in the Vet Record, comparing the wide range of treatments available to help dogs with the common, painful, debilitating problem of arthritis. The review gathered together the results of research papers published between 1985 and 2007, attempting to derive the best science-based opinion of the best treatment method. The conclusion? There was strong evidence that carprofen and two other commonly used drugs from the same group were "effective in moderating the clinical signs of osteoarthritis". There was only weak or moderate evidence that other treatments were effective. The conclusion for any vet reading this paper was clear: carprofen and other similar drugs are the most effective way of helping animals with arthritis.

Obviously, an effective drug needs to be safe, so what about those risks? While it's true that all drugs in this group can have undesirable and potentially life threatening consequences, the incidence is very low. The most common side effect is gastric irritation: affected dogs suffer from gastroenteritis which usually resolves when the medication is stopped. Much more rarely, there's a very low risk of kidney failure associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The cause of this is complicated: it's more common in geriatric patients suffering from underlying heart, kidney or liver disease, but it can seem to happen in a random fashion. To minimise this risk, vets may suggest blood or urine tests before starting a dog onto anti-arthritis medication. Such tests don't completely remove the small risk, and they add significantly to the cost of treatment for a pet, so they aren't always done.

So finally, why don't vets always tell owners about the potential dangers of such medication? There's a lot of variation in what happens here: some vets do take the time to tell owners about every possible side effect of every drug that's used. The problem with this approach is that it's time consuming, leading to longer (and more expensive) consultations for owners. Most owners don't particularly want to hear a long list of potential side effects that are unlikely to happen, and they're happy to trust that the vet, on balance, feels that the medication is most appropriate having taken all the risks and benefits into account.

Vets may also feel that detailed listings of potential adverse reactions may lead to unnecessary worrying for an owner, so they just mention the most common side effects ("stop the tablets and let me know if she gets an upset stomach").

Sometimes a compromise may be to hand out the package insert with the tablets: the owner can then read the full list of possible complications if they so wish (and if they have a magnifying glass).

I  feel very sorry for the owners of any animal that suffers the consequences of a serious adverse reaction to medication. There's no easy answer here, but there's a simple message: if you want to know about potential side effects of any drug, ask your vet.  We're happy to tell you if you're happy to listen. It's likely that the same treatment decision will still be made, but at least, in the rare instance of a severe reaction, you won't have that awful sense of unfairness that you weren't told about the risk.

If you are concerned that your dog is ill or sick please use our interactive dog symptom guide to find out what you should do

8 Comments