Author: Jasmine Kleine

Animal welfare charity Naturewatch Foundation launches ‘Hotline 4 Puppies’

Animal welfare charity, Naturewatch Foundation, is extending their dog welfare campaign work into reporting illegal puppy farming. The ‘Hotline 4 Puppies’ project will include reporting of named individuals suspected of being involved in puppy farming and covert online investigation undertaken by undercover specialists. The model will be based on Naturewatch Foundation’s successful work in reporting illegal badger persecution.

Sadly, puppy farming is rife in the UK. A puppy farm is an intensive dog breeding facility where the welfare of dogs is often disregarded in order to maximise profits and exploit dog loving families. The terrible numbers show that up to 400,000 farmed puppies are sold to the British public every year and increasingly online. A lot of the young puppies are bred in cold and draughty breeding sheds hidden from view. They often carry unknown disease and are under-socialised, leading to high vet bills and behavioural issues, unforeseen by their new owners. As for the unsold puppies and exhausted breeding dogs, we may never learn the full scale of the brutality.

In 2018, Naturewatch Foundation started undercover investigations into illegal badger persecution, passing high-quality information packs to law enforcement agencies. The agencies have used the information to initiate further investigations, gather intelligence, and take enforcement action. Naturewatch Foundation investigators have not only uncovered information on badger baiting, snaring, poisoning and sett interference, but also other forms of serious crime, including illegal firearms, possession and sale of drugs, dog fighting and fox hunting. They also exposed the sale of puppies abroad to be trained for badger baiting. As a result of this success, the charity has decided to extend their resources into reporting illegal puppy farming in the UK, supported by similar undercover investigations.
Naturewatch Foundation Campaign Manager, Sarah Carr, explains:

“In extending our work and launching our ‘Hotline 4 Puppies’, we’re asking members of the public to tell our Animal Crime Manager about anyone they suspect is either involved in illegal puppy farming or breaching animal welfare standards in the breeding of dogs. The Animal Crime Manager can be contacted, in strictest confidence, at andrew@naturewatch.org or 07392 185 373.

Utilising additional covert investigations, we also intend to provide high-quality information packs to law enforcement agencies resulting in the rescue of the animals, prosecution and supporting the demise of the puppy farming sector. Our team has extensive experience of working with law enforcement agencies on animal related crime. For security reasons, the identity of some team members is confidential.”

Sadly, some criminals and those only interested in making quick money at the expense of animals, will continue to flout the new laws, often using the internet to advertise their puppies. Naturewatch Foundation hopes their reporting line will complement the work of other animal welfare campaigners, the updated dog breeding regulations and support the work of law enforcement agencies stamping out cruel puppy farming.

In their campaigning, Naturewatch Foundation also hope to promote the ‘adopt, don’t shop’ message to encourage potential dog owners to first think about visiting animal rescue shelters when searching for a puppy or dog to bring into their families.

Dublin is a very special basset hound. This unusual service dog never misses a seizure and alerts Olivia so that she can prepare and get to a safe place. With him by her side, Olivia has been able to get her life back.

Diagnosed with epileptic seizures after high school, Olivia, now in her mid-twenties, saw her life completely changed. “I had lost my freedom,” she explains. “I couldn’t drive anymore or even cook. My mom was scared that I would burn myself of set the house on fire.” Patients with epileptic seizures often loose independence and must limit their activities. They might confine themselves to their home and must always make sure someone is nearby. As a seizure could happen anytime, they’re in constant danger of an injury. They might fall down the stairs, knock their head on the floor or on the corner of a table, or bang themselves on a sharp object. Driving becomes dangerous since they might lose consciousness at any time.

There are different types of seizures. From absence seizures, where the person might have a temporary loss of consciousness to a grand mall seizure that could last several seconds or several minutes and involves convulsions and jerky movements. Olivia has almost every type of seizure. Dublin alerts to all of them. “He’s 100% accurate and no matter what type of seizure I’m about to have, he lets me know so that I can stop what I’m doing and lay down.”

Fully trained service dogs can be expensive and often require waiting 1-3 years. Olivia and her mother decided to get Dublin as a puppy and learn how to train him themselves. With the help of Medical Mutts, a service dog organization specialized in the training of seizure alert dogs, Olivia taught her dog all the behaviours that he would need to become her seizure alert dog. They joined the group classes, and after a little over a year, Dublin had learned the 30+ behaviours required.

“I found it very rewarding to learn how to train him,” shares Olivia. “Scent training was amazing to do. Watching him find my seizure samples was incredible. I taught Dublin to poke me with his nose to alert me. He will press a button or go get another person when I need assistance. Sometimes he’ll also bark.” Medical Mutts is the first organization to prove that there is a smell that is released when someone has a seizure. In collaboration with a French research team, they published a peer review study that showed that this could be done. They teach the dogs to react to that smell and that’s how they get them to alert. Their training methods are now taught to other service dog organizations, all the way to Europe.

In addition to the behaviours meant to help with Olivia’s seizures, Dublin had to learned how to be well behaved out in public. Under the guidance of Medical Mutts’ trainers, Olivia taught him to walk without pulling on the leash and lie down under a table, amongst many other obedience behaviours required for service dogs. They have learned how to go through a public space safely and without causing any problems to others.

Training one’s own service dog isn’t for everyone however. It takes time and consistency. Dogs need regular practice of each behaviour before they become automatic. They also need to learn how to work in a variety of situations. It’s one thing to perform in the living room, it’s very different to do so in a busy mall. When a person is able to learn these skills however, it can be a real advantage. They are much more familiar with their dogs’ needs and will be able to problem solve if something unexpected occurs. For Olivia, training her own service dog allowed her to pick the dog that she wanted and develop the handling skills she needed as a service dog handler. Dublin and her have learned how to become a working team together and at their own pace.

“Dublin has given me my life back. I have a lot more freedom thanks to him. I have gained back my independence and have even been able to get a job. Dublin is with me everywhere and keeps a close eye on me. He keeps me safe.”

Following the six month suspension of vet, Dr Zahra Tahaneem Rafiq, who admitted serious professional misconduct in the case of removing two puppies from a litter belonging to a client, Vets Now, the national chain of veterinary practices has issued a statement clarifying their own position on the case.

Dr Laura Playforth, Head of Veterinary Standards at Vets Now said:

“In December 2017, a dog was brought into our out-of-hours vet clinic in Liverpool to have an emergency Caesarean section. The pet owner took home four puppies. It was subsequently brought to our attention by one of the members of staff on shift that a further two puppies from the litter were taken from the clinic by our staff. One of these puppies was later returned; the other sadly died.

“We are extremely sorry about what happened, especially to our client and their pets.

“As soon as we were made aware of the allegations, we acted immediately. We carried out a thorough investigation to establish the cause of the incident; all staff members directly involved were suspended pending investigation, and the two found responsible were subsequently dismissed. We also reported the matter to the police and referred the veterinary surgeons involved to our regulatory body, the RCVS.

“We have a duty of care to every animal we look after, and the most important thing to us is the welfare of the pets in our care. What I can guarantee is, we will do everything in our power to prevent this from ever happening again.

“I want to reassure pet owners that this is an isolated incident. We have almost 600 vets and vet nurses working for us up and down the country, working tirelessly to help animals in their greatest time of need. In my 20 years as a vet, I’ve never seen anything like this case.”

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Disciplinary Committee has suspended a London-based veterinary surgeon for six months while finding no misconduct against another in a hearing regarding the taking of two newborn puppies from their owner.

The hearing for the two respondents – Dr Zahra Tahaneem Rafiq and Mr Oscar Perez Maillo – took place between Monday 29 April to Wednesday 8 May and concerned an incident that took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first charge was that, on 2 or 3 December 2017 shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare. Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.

French Bulldog (File Photo)

The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.

There was one charge against Mr Perez which stated that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to just four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge further stated that, in relation to the above, Mr Perez was dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest.

The Committee was not satisfied, on the basis of the evidence presented to it, that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and, furthermore, also considered that there was insufficient evidence to the required standard that he subsequently became aware of their removal. As a result, the Committee also did not find that he, could have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. The Committee did however find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies. The Committee also found proved against Dr Rafiq, all the charges against her.

Having considered the facts, the Committee then moved on to consider whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct. In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record accurately this number. However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.

In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and it noted her expression of remorse. The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues. The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then went on to consider the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage. Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.

In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future. However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.

“It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.

“The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction.”

The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.

A collaborative study between a French research team of the University of Rennes and an Indiana-based service dog organization, Medical Mutts, showed that dogs are able to detect an odour collected from patients during an epileptic seizure.

These results will open a large field of research on the odour signature of seizures with potential for significant improvements of seizure detection systems. This will also allow for service dogs to be trained to alert to the onset of seizures, thus better assisting people living with the condition.

Epilepsy is a neurological disorder that affects over 3 million Americans of all ages. Every year, close to 150,000 new people are diagnosed with epilepsy. Most patients with epilepsy control their seizures with drug therapy and surgery. 30-40% of people, however, are resistant to the treatment and continue to have seizures. The risk of sudden death for epileptic patients is 24 times greater than in the general population. This is a scary and difficult condition to live with as seizures can occur unexpectedly, and can severely impact a person’s life.

Up until now, service dogs helping patients with epileptic seizures were mostly trained to respond to a seizure. The seizure itself is the cue for the dog to perform a prescribed task and assist the person. Some dogs, however, have shown a natural ability to react before a seizure. They might start licking the person frantically, pacing or whining. These dogs alert a person to the fact that a seizure is coming, so they can lie down in order to be safe during an episode. But what the dogs detected was unclear and without that information, it’s impossible for a trainer to replicate the situation and teach dogs to alert before a seizure.

What has made seizure detection so difficult is that there are several types of seizures and several factors that can cause them. It has therefore been unclear whether different people, with different types of seizures, would release the same smell if indeed there is a smell associated with the condition at all.

5 dogs trained by Medical Mutts in their facility in Indianapolis, IN, were presented samples collected from 5 patients in a French hospital. The patients suffered different types of seizures. For each patient, one sample was collected during a seizure, 2 were collected right after physical exercise and 4 samples were collected at different times while the person was resting.

All the dogs tested came from rescues and shelters and were in the process of being trained as service dogs for either diabetes alert, seizure alert or psychiatric conditions.

The results show that these dogs were clearly able to discriminate the seizure samples from the same patient outside seizures and for all patients tested. This demonstrates for the first time that there is indeed a seizure-specific odour across individuals and types of seizures. Such results make an important contribution to the field of epileptic research with the potential of a specific odour signature that could be detected prior to a seizure.