Date with your dog: the best cup of tea, RSPCA weekend activities and rethinking speciesism

Contender for the world's most awesome tea pot is road-tested by my mum. The puppies are the salt and pepper shakers she scored for Christmas.

This has to be in the running for the best-tea-pot-in-the-universe prize. I was not even intending to buy a tea pot but when I walked into the Tea Centre and saw this bull terrier looking at me I envisioned hosting all kinds of world-changing tea parties (none of which have happened thus far I should add, but one has to be prepared, and now I feel ready).

Meanwhile the RSPCA is holding an innovative fund-raising weekend in October called Reigning Cats and Dogs (and let’s hope it won’t be raining cats and dogs as it seems to have done for the last month or so).

Saturday is Rescue Me: Rescue Dog Adoption Day. It’s an opportunity to meet and greet dogs that are up for adoption, and see them in park surroundings engaging with other animals – including your own dog if you have one to bring.

On the Sunday night the International Cat Film Furstival will be held under the stars. As someone who has spent the last countless weekends writing papers and marking assignments, it sounds almost perfect (just add a world-changing tea party and it would be perfect). More info and bookings here.

Rethinking speciesism

Speciesism, or the way we treat different species differently, is a well known topic in animal ethics and worthy of discussion. It raises some interesting, and sometimes quite shocking, contradictions in our belief and value systems.

If you are based in Queensland, Voiceless is hosting a fascinating looking panel discussion on rethinking speciesism at the University of Queensland on October 16.

We love our dogs and cats, yet continue to eat pigs, cows and chickens in their hundreds of thousands. We condemn other nations for hunting whales and dolphins, but happily consume seafood and hunt fish for sport.These contradictions are often justified on the grounds that some animals simply matter more than others. But why? And how do we decide who matters and who doesn’t? Voiceless Rethinking: Speciesism is a seminar which will unpack the concept of “speciesism” – namely, giving preference to some animals, including humans, based solely on their species.
The seminar will feature a panel of renowned speakers who will consider the psychological and ethical underpinnings of speciesism, the laws that regulate our relationship with animals and how these laws facilitate discrimination on the basis of species. 

For more information or to register, click here.

And if you are still stuck for something to do, enter our competition to win tickets to a night talk at the Australian Museum here.

Is this dog a pit bull terrier?

Pit bull, Staffordshire terrier or something else?

If you’re interested in ethics and welfare, a recent paper in the Journalof Applied Animal Welfare Science is certain to spark discussion.

Answering the question “what breed is that” based on assessing a dog’s physical features alone (without meeting the parents/littermates, without DNA testing etc.) can be challenging. But what if the assessment you made about an animal’s breed had life and death consequences?

Assessment of pit bull terriers is controversial due to the existence of restrictions around the breed in certain areas. In some areas – and depending on legislation and shelter policy – the determination that a dog is a pit bull means that the animal is euthanased.

The recent study, published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, found that 41 per cent of shelter workers would knowingly mislabel a dog of a restricted breed, presumably to increase the dog’s adoption chances.

Those in support of breed-specific legislation may argue that such people are being irresponsible. Are they? The researchers found that there was little consensus about what constitutes a pit bull terrier, in both US and UK settings. The precautionary principle, on the one hand, would suggest that if you are making a life and death decision based on breed, you want to be sure. If there is a chance the animal is NOT a pit bull, and the label incurs death for the dog, then it would be dangerous to label it as such.

Another application of the precautionary principle takes a different approach. If there is any chance this COULD be a pit bull, and therefore a potentially (note potentially) dangerous dog to people or indeed other dogs, it should be labelled as such. What if someone were attacked? What if a child were killed? What if those things happened and it was a shelter worker’s assessment that allowed that person or family to adopt that dog? What would be the implications for the shelter?

This paper raises a number of fascinating issues. The application of ethical frameworks and the precautionary principle are not explicitly tackled but certainly apply. There is also the question of just HOW breeds are identified – for example, some based their assessment of breed on the presence of docked tails and cropped ears (fortunately not common in Australia due to legislation), which are changes caused by human intervention and not due to breed. One can appreciate the moral stress that persons making such assessments can be under.

So a question for our readers: you are a shelter worker and you are presented with a dog that has the physical characteristics of a pit bull. A breed assessment of “pit bull terrier” means euthanasia for this dog. How would you assess this dog and what would factors would you take into account?

On another note, we’ve had a few queries lately about separation anxiety in dogs. Some readers might find this post of interest.

Reference

Christy L. Hoffman, Natalie Harrison, London Wolff & Carri Westgarth (2014) Is That Dog a Pit Bull? A Cross-Country Comparison of Perceptions of Shelter Workers Regarding Breed Identification, Journal of AppliedAnimal Welfare Science, 17:4, 322-339, DOI:10.1080/10888705.2014.895904

50 reasons to adopt a cat

Kittens: "You need us in your life". See 50 reasons below.

This week we asked the Cat Protection Society to brainstorm ten reasons to adopt a cat. Naturally that took about ten seconds. But they kept going...and came up with fifty good reasons to adopt a cat. All VERY good reasons. 

Cat Protection's shelter on Enmore Road is always brimming with beautiful cats and kittens. They do a very good job looking after them, but they don't want them to stay permanently. So as you read this, and you are currently without feline OR you are considering adding to the pride, think about paying a visit to CPS.

In no particular order, here are just 50 very good reasons we think you should adopt one (or two) of our fabulous felines.

1.   To experience love

2.   To keep you company

3.   To keep you sane

4.   To keep you entertained

...and to justify your purchase of that fancy glass table.

5.   They are spiritual guardians over your home

6.   To teach you another language

7.   To keep you warm at night

8.   To give you a darn good reason to get out of bed in the morning

9.   To teach you unselfishness

Hero: he gives me a darn good reason to get out of bed in the morning. And a darn good reason to get in it at night!

10.        To enrich their lives

11.        To know that animals have feelings

12.        To experience a uniquely wonderful relationship

13.        To experience joy

Because foster kitties need furever homes.

14.        To experience unconditional acceptance

15.        To strike up conversations with good looking strangers in the pet food aisle

16.        To be reminded to be humble

17.        To be needed and trusted

18.        To make your life more meaningful and purposeful

19.        To be wowed

Geoffery the Burmese performs a somersault and is captured on camera a nanosecond before landing. Definitely a "wow" moment.

20.        To be wooed

21.        To be motivated to do more yoga

22.        They can be very funny

Cats have a great sense of humour.

23.        To give you a reason to come home at night

24.        To make you curious

25.        To teach children about responsibility

26.        To teach children about kindness

Because behind every crazy cat guy is...a crazy cat. Of course.

27.        To make life-saving room at the shelter for a new cat in need

28.        To hear them purr

29.        To improve your non-verbal communication skills

30.        Lower maintenance than dogs

Cats are lower maintence than dogs (although Phil is an honorary cat).

31.        More entertaining than a pet fish

32.        To give your kids a friend who will keep their secrets and help them get through the tough times growing up

33.        Cats don’t often answer back

34.        Nothing makes you more zen than patting a nice kitty

35.        Their calm company will reduce your stress

Even their amazing feats of share-chairing are a site to behold.

36.        Helping with mental illness

37.        To give peace to a person who loved their cat but could no longer care for them

38.        They look super cute!

39.        To keep your dog company

Who's got the remote? Cats can be awesome companions for dogs.

40.        To keep your cat company

41.        To help you assess the worthiness of your new boyfriend/girlfriend

Because they put up with our quirks: The first (and last) time Michael tried the "cats in wigs" trend.

42.        They let you know if someone’s coming near your front door

43.        To cheer you up when you’re sad

44.        To keep you on your toes

45.        To improve your health

46.        To have hundreds of gorgeous photos on your smartphone

It is widely known that cats are the single justification for the smartphone.

47.        To be connected to one of nature’s creatures and understand that the world isn’t just made up of people

48.        To inspire you

49.        To  know that the simple act of adopting one cat changes their world forever, for the better

50.        Because EVERY cat deserves a loving and responsible home

Honestly peeps, do you need more reasons??? Hero and Mike say "Go and check out the Cat Protection society and find the love of your life. And PS two cats are better than one!!!".

Visit  www.catprotection.org.au for more information and more cat awesomeness.

Does your dog love or loathe the bath?

Bosca is a bit too big for the bath but happy to take a shower...if he gets a massage.

Here at SAT we’re major fans of grooming. Not so much the bouffant-shaping kind as the keeping-fur-clean-and-eye-boogers-at-bay kind. And just to be clear I am talking about my dog.

In my experience a lot of clients worry about the prospect of over-grooming their pets, and it is possible – though rare. When my dog is itchy, the first thing I do (apart from look for fleas and flea dirt) is give him a wash. It removes surface allergens, soothes his skin and also allows me to inspect him very carefully.

When it comes to shampoos less is more. I avoid those that are scented or designed to whiten, and chose based on the state of his skin (I’m a fan of Dermcare’s Aloveen as a maintenance shampoo but if Phil has itchy skin I tend to select Malaseb). I don’t wash the inside of his ears. Putting water in ears is playing with fire (or, more literally, tempting otitis externa).

Washing is ONE PART of a multifactorial approach to itching. i.e. depending on the skin, I use adjunctive treatments including conditioner, moisturisers, antibiotics and even steroids. And again, good flea prevention. If you’ve got an itch-prone dog anyway, it just takes one pesky flea to send him over the itch threshold.

It really is worth making sure that giving your dog a bath is a positive experience. Some dogs love a bath but lots of them really loathe it and you can understand why – difficult-to-stand-on, slippery surfaces, cold water, scary noises, being manhandled and scrubbed on bits you don’t normally let people pat etc.

Approaching slowly, placing a non-slip surface, ensuring the water doesn’t run too fast (or loud), avoiding clanking showerheads against the bath, administering praise and treats – all of these can help reduce anxiety in the bath.

Also being less anxious yourself can help – if you dread your dog’s bath time, your dog picks up on that too. On that note, if its really a battle to bath your dog I am not a fan of forcing it. Its worth chatting to an experienced groomer or vet who offers grooming. We have the benefit of purpose-built facilities and extra-hands, both of which can make a difference. 

Life is just better if your dog enjoys bath time. Like this dog here (thanks Rachel for the link):

Should animals be used for cosmetic testing?

Is cosmetic testing on animals based on outdated science? (image Brian Gun, IAAPEA).

When I was in high school I learned about testing cosmetics on animals. Activists like Henry Spira and the advent of companies like The Body Shop did much to increase awareness around the issue and indeed it did appear that cosmetic testing fell out of favour, at least in the eyes of the public.

Guinea pig (image courtesy One Voice).

Many companies moved away from animal testing, at least that which could be avoided, and others used the “not tested on animals” claim to sell their products.

In some cases it was a matter of money, in some cases a matter of red tape, but testing of cosmetics of animals has managed to hang around. In a world where we have a choice, where we have alternatives, it doesn’t seem in line with the 3-Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement), nor does it seem fair: it doesn’t seem reasonable that the desire for me to paint my face or shave my legs could cost another creature its life – nor doom it to thousands of hours in confined housing. 

After what seemed like a major uproar about the practice in the 1980s and 1990s, it seems kind of shocking that cosmetic testing continues.

Humane Research Australia and the Humane Society International is campaigning to have cosmetic testing on animals banned in Australia. It’s received a lot of corporate support, as evidenced by the openletter to the Minister for Health and Sport, Dr Peter Dutton. We decided to find out a bit more about the campaign from coordinator Hannah Stuart.

Humane Research Australia and the Humane Society International are running the Be Cruelty Free Australia campaign to ban cosmetic testing on animals. One of the arguments is that such testing is outdated - why do you think it still occurs?

Humane Society International (HSI) estimates that around 500,000 animals – mainly rabbits and rodents – are used each year around the world in tests of cosmetic ingredients or products.

Testing of chemical raw ingredients may be dictated by a country’s regulatory framework for new chemicals, which often imposes escalating data/testing requirements depending upon the annual production volume for a particular chemical. Longer-term testing may also be triggered or waived depending upon the results of shorter-term tests. Many countries’ regulatory frameworks for new chemicals are out-of-step with more advanced methods of toxicological testing.

Australia’s current chemicals safety assessment regulatory framework requires some animal testing for raw ingredients (including ingredients used in cosmetics).

However, there is an undeniable global shift away from cosmetics animal testing. Both animal testing of cosmetic products and ingredients and the sale of animal tested cosmetics have been banned in the 28 member states of the European Union (the world’s largest cosmetics market), Norway, and Israel. Most recently, India and the Brazilian state of São Paulo have banned cosmetic animal testing, with India expected to implement an additional ban on the sale of animal tested cosmetics soon.

Furthermore, in the United States, the Humane Society of the United States leads Be Cruelty-Free USA and earlier this year welcomed the introduction of the Humane Cosmetics Act, which, if successful, will see animal testing for cosmetics banned in the US. The Bill has already garnered bi-partisan support and 54 additional co-sponsors.

In New Zealand the Be Cruelty-Free NZ campaign is asking for a cosmetics animal testing ban to be included as part of the Animal Welfare Act overhaul. Legislative measures seeking to end the use of animals for cosmetics testing are currently also under discussion in China, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, and beyond.

Rabbit subject to the highly controversial Draize test (image courtesy of PETA).

"Science" is used to justify extensive animal testing, but both HRA and HSI believe animal testing is based on "bad science". Can you elaborate a little?

The campaign to ban animal testing of cosmetics isn’t scientifically motivated, although the scientific case for banning these outdated tests is compelling indeed. We believe that it is morally unjustifiable to cause animals untold pain, suffering and death to test vanity products. We simply don’t need a new shade of lipstick enough to justify testing on animals, especially when hundreds of cruelty-free companies ably demonstrate every day that it is perfectly possible to produce fabulous cosmetics without hurting a single animal.

However, it is important to understand that eliminating these animal tests is good for people and science as well. That’s because most animal toxicity tests were developed in the 1940s at a time when science's understanding of toxicity and how chemicals lead to toxic effects in the human body, was much more basic. Animal based tests have significant scientific limitations that make them less than ideal for assessing potential human health effects.

Different species — even different strains and genders of the same species — can respond differently when exposed to the same chemicals [Ed - as a vet we know this to be true for a range of drugs, i.e. some drugs that are non-toxic to dogs are fatal to cats, for example]. Consequently, results from animal tests can under- or over-estimate real-world hazards to people, as well as highly variable and difficult to interpret. Unreliable and non-predictive animal tests mean consumer safety cannot be guaranteed as long as animal testing is used. Replacing animal testing would mean cosmetics are produced using cutting-edge science rather than out-dated tests on other species. There is a compelling consumer safety benefit in moving away from animal testing.

EpiSkin - image courtesy ECVAM.

Around the world, cosmetics companies can avoid new animal testing by using the thousands of existing cosmetic ingredients available that have long histories of safe use, together with the more than 40 advanced non-animal tests validated for use. Non-animal tests represent the very latest techniques that science has to offer and have a number of advantages over traditional animal tests: they cause no animal suffering, offer test results that are more relevant to people, and often produce cheaper and faster results.

For example, there are a number of skin tests available that use human reconstructed skin, such as EPISKIN, EpiDerm and SkinEthic, as wells as the 3T3 neutral red uptake test for sunlight-induced “phototoxicity”.

Given that much of the industry has turned its back on cosmetic testing on animals already, why is it so important that the practice is banned?

It is often reported and assumed animal testing for cosmetics does not take place in Australia. However, the truth is we don’t know one way or the other because no definitive statistics are published. Animal testing on cosmetics ingredients could be taking place, albeit likely on a small scale. However, for as long as there is no test ban, there is always the possibility of cosmetics cruelty in Australian labs now and in the future. This is particularly the case as more countries globally ban animal testing of cosmetics. Some companies will seek out new territories to shift their animal testing to, so we also want to secure an Australian test ban to ensure that Australia doesn’t become a testing dumping ground in the future.

A sales ban on newly animal-tested cosmetics is also vitally important and this would mirror the dual test/sales ban in the EU. If companies around the world know that lucrative cosmetics markets will be closed to them if they continue to test on animals, that’s a powerful incentive to switch to cruelty-free manufacturing.

If someone wants to buy cosmetics, how can they be really sure that they are cruelty free?

In Australia, consumers can use the ChooseCrueltyFree.org.au and Leaping Bunny guides to buy cosmetics that have not been animal tested.

Your readers may also be interested in learning about the issue of cosmetics animal testing by checking out Be Cruelty-Free’s handy infographic here. They can also pledge to Be Cruelty-Free here.

You and your readers may also be interested in the following opinion poll figures.

Polling conducted in May 2013 by Nexus Research on behalf of Humane

Research Australia found the following:

»  An overwhelming majority of Australians (85%) oppose using animals in the development of cosmetics

»  A large majority (81%) support a national ban on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals

A recent opinion poll by Roy Morgan Research also showed a significant level of consumer concern about animal testing of cosmetics. The data revealed that there is an 'undeniable shift towards cruelty-free beauty products', with 'Not Tested on Animals' being one of the top 3 features that Aussie female consumers look for when buying cosmetics, ranking higher than anti-ageing benefits and sun protection factor.

Thank you Hannah for your time. This is an interesting ethical issue as experiments on animals are typically justified via a utilitarian, cost/benefit analysis. Even from a pure utilitarian perspective its hard to justify animal experiments for cosmetic reasons. But as with many ethical issues, this one raises loads of question. Economics is clearly a major factor. Change is often driven by consumers. Do they care? If so, will they be motivated to act? Do companies always need economic incentive to operate ethically? How much do scientists adhere to the 3 R's in animal experimentation? Are some research techniques performed purely because "this is how it has always been done" and/or "because it has to be done this way" - and what does it take to effect change?  

Do not feed the animals AND free epidemics course

Anton the polar bear in happier days.

This weekend the story about the Great Dane that had 43.5 socks removed from its gastrointestinal tract has gone nuts all over the net, but foreign bodies (or FBs as they are known in the biz – things that get inside animals or people that shouldn’t be there) are not just a dog thing. They’re really common in all kinds of animals and usually spell trouble. Birds swallow objects containing lead and zinc which lead to heavy metal toxicity, cats can eat string which can wreak havoc on the gut, and even animals in zoos will ingest things that fall into their enclosures.

Earlier this year I reported on the death of Anton, a polar bear at Wilhelma Zoo, who died due to complications from an intestinal foreign body. Someone dropped something into the enclosure. It wasn’t the first time. 

Despite major efforts by the zoo, including an electric fence around the enclosure, a number of objects had fallen into the enclosure over the past 20 years. These include, according to the zoo, about 200 children’s shoes, around 50 baby’s dummies per year, hats, cameras, mobile phones and spectacles. The sorts of items one (or one’s offspring) might drop when leaning over to get a better look at an animal.

Just some of the foreign material recovered from Anton's gastrointestinal tract.

But sometime in January, someone dropped a backpack and a jacket in there (you’d think you’d notice your bag was missing at least) and weeks later Anton succumbed to peritonitis secondary to a linear foreign body. When you do visit zoos and wildlife parks, remember the sign “do not feed the animals” also means “don’t drop inanimate objects into the enclosure” as these can be subject to oral investigation.

FREE course on epidemics & infectious diseases

If you’re interested in infectious diseases, zoonoses and public health, Coursera is offering a free course on “Epidemics: the dynamics of infectious diseases” from September 29, taught by academics from the University of Pennsylvania.