How do you teach ethics, introduce a new baby to companion animals, do fish feel pain and how to avoid mosquito bites

How do you teach ethical decision making?

What is ethics and how can we teach it? They’re some of the questions I was asked by Colin Klupiec, host of the education and social issues podcast series, More to the Point. You can listen to the podcast here or subscribe to More to the Point on iTunes.

(This is about 26 minutes so pour yourself a cuppa first).

In other news, Dr Kate Mornemont, animal behaviourist, shared her tips on preparing companion animals for the arrival of a human baby in the household. Read her post here.

If you’re interested in fish, Professor Victoria Braithwaite is giving a public lecture on whether fish feel pain, and if it matters, at the University of Sydney in November. This is the brief:

Fish, with their lack of facial expressions or recognisable communication, are often overlooked when it comes to welfare. Annually, millions of fish are caught on barbed hooks, or left to die by suffocation on the decks of fishing boats – should we be concerned about this?

Victoria Braithwaite explores the question of fish pain and suffering, and explains what we now understand about fish neurobiology and behavior that helps us appreciate how fish perceive and experience their world. Her work has helped her to interact and work with both fishing related industries and with the angling world to discuss and debate the implications of the scientific evidence. She argues that the science indicates fish should be offered similar kinds of protection currently given to birds and mammals.

Registration for the event is free, but you do need to RSVP here.

Finally, my friends and colleagues at the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie in Italy put together this public health video about mozzies. It sounds a lot more exciting when spoken in Italian, but this will be of interest to anyone seeking to avoid mozzie bites, or if you’re learning Italian.

Should you eat it if you treat it: vets, veganism and Veganuary

Hello, Veganuary: A guinea pig enjoying a parsley and basil salad.

This month, I plan to have a lot more in common with the three herbivores in my household (Osler, Cornflake, and Randy) than I will with the obligate carnivores (Mike and Hero) and the omnivore (Phil). I’m one of many people around the world signing up for Veganuary.

I’ve been vegetarian for a while, but in studying animal welfare over the past year I’ve come to question current animal husbandry practices in a range of contexts. It wasn’t that I was previously comfortable with them – I just honestly did not think about them. I did not have the time. And apart from avoiding meat and trying to eat eggs laid by chickens I’ve met personally (there are quite a few), I didn’t focus too much on where food came from. I assumed, like many others, that animal welfare was something I would think about between meals.Yet eating animal products impacts on their welfare. And most human beings eat at least three times a day. So the scope of that impact is huge.

One question I continue to return to is, as a veterinarian, is there a conflict of interest in consuming animal products? After all, if anyone has detailed knowledge and experience regarding the sentience of animals, it would have to be vets. So we should be reviewing our practices in the light of that knowledge and experience. Years ago in vet school we held a debate on this very topic, entitled “Should you eat it if you treat it?” In Australia that’s not exactly a dilemma for companion animal veterinarians, but it’s a worthwhile question to ask. It’s also an emotive one. People can become staggeringly defensive when questioned about their animal use and consumption. There are livelihoods at stake. Traditions. Habits. Food preferences. I get it.

But isn’t asking whether we are doing the right thing, or whether we are operating on shaky or false premises, our duty as veterinary scientists? My view is that we are morally obliged to question our own behaviour. How is it that we treat some animals as if they were almost our own offspring, and others – with the same level of consciousness, the same complex behaviour – in a way that causes or contributes to their pain and suffering? (see for example, Hal Herzog’s discussion) And do we really need to? In this day and age?

Is it time to change our ways in relation to consumption of animals?

Right now, having researched the topic, my answer to the latter question is, “well, no, we don’t”.

Professor John Webster – a scholar who argues that meat eating is a “fact of life” – wrote: “...we have a moral duty to respect the intrinsic value of any animal in our care, independent of its extrinsic value to us.”

Yet our current systems of animal husbandry, in the main, could not be said to respect the intrinsic value of animals, with many falling well short of meeting the Five Freedoms (and the newer Five Domains). Whilst it would be very neat to argue that intensive or factory-farm systems are associated with poor welfare and extensive or free range systems are ideal, this isn’t the case. There can be welfare problems associated with both and these can cause significant suffering.

Reading best-practice slaughter guidelines – something I’d not really explored until 2015 – has been an eye-opener for me. I’m not sure these would be consistent with many people’s views of what constitutes acceptable welfare, even when “best-practice” is achieved.

One issue that has recently been gleaning far more media and government attention than animal welfare is the environment, and especially climate change. Global consumption of meat and milk is rising at an unsustainable rate – this is acknowledged by organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). In a report released in 2006, the FAO noted that the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions than transport.

A review in this month’s issue of Food Policy noted that livestock production occupies 75 per cent of agricultural land, contributes 14.5 per cent of human-made (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions, and is driving agricultural expansion through the global trade in animal feed. The rapid growth of the sector is driving deforestation and pollution at an alarming and unsustainable rate.  

Then there is the issue of food security. The demand for meat is predicted to increase 60 per cent by 2050. We simply cannot feed the world if people continue to consume meat and milk at the same rate, and in the same way.

Governments are less concerned about animal welfare but the above statistics have them very, very worried. In terms of the environmental impact of livestock farming, proposed solutions include reducing demand (that requires us, the consumers, to commit to reviewing out diets). Another strategy aims to increase efficiency, and given land is running out that means more intensive farming systems. Still there are other strategies like changing animal diets so they are complementary – rather than competing with ours. (There’s an excellent discussion on the use of low-impact animal feed to reduce the land of pork production in the European Union here).

Veganuary addresses strategy one – reducing demand. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger has publicly urged people to eat less meat.

Whoever said Vegans did not have a sense of humour? There's no reason why omnivores can't indulge in a Chilli Non Carne once in a while.

Of course I’m going a step further then Arnie and avoiding the consumption of all animal products this January. (But if you’re wondering whether a body builder can flourish on a vegan diet, check out thisbook of interviews with vegan athletes).

There are a number of other vets doing the same. For many, the question of our treatment of animals, and the welfare of those animals, is the pressing concern. Last year, vet and blogger Dr Pete Wedderburn participated in Veganuary for similar reasons (you can read why here).

Given my culinary skills, I was a bit worried about what I would cook (especially given the kitchen is my least favourite room of the house).  Anyway, I’m pleased to report that remedial help is readily available for Veganuary and beyond.

This is Chilli Non Carne with frills: carrot, tomato and avocado thrown into the mix.

http://www.veganuary.com/

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/eat-vegan-in-January.php

http://vegetaraian.com/

UPDATE
I have had loads of feedback about this post.

There is a Veterinary Vegan Network for veterinarians, nurses and others working with animals.

And here is a satirical look at the "should you eat it if you treat it" question from That Mitchell and Webb Look.

References

Webster J (2005) AnimalWelfare: Limping Towards Eden. UFAW Animal Welfare Series. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

FAO (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM (Accessed Jan 1, 2016)

Ermgassen EKHJ, Phalan B, Green RE and Balmford A (2016) Reducing the land use of EU pork production: where there’s swill, there’s a way. Food Policy 58:35-48.

Is our love for animals blind?

A French bulldog with stenotic nares, one of the components of brachycephalic airway syndrome.

Is our love for animals blind?

In Love Hurts – the Dark Side of Attachment to Companion Animals, bioethicist Peter Sandoe argues that our attachment isn’t always good for the animals we are attached to. The presentation, based on the work Professor Sandoe, Sandra Corr and Clare Palmer, questions the assumption that because we love our pets, they must enjoy good welfare. One, they argue, does not follow from the other.

They cite two examples:

Pet obesity and brachycephalia in dogs. Both conditions impact on an animal’s longevity and quality of life, and both problems are created by humans.

When it comes to obesity, studies have shown that the more an owner humanises a pet (allows it to sleep on their bed, talks to the animal) the more likely the animal is to be overweight. Love can be blind, they argue, and studies have shown that owners are often unable to accurately assess the weight of their pet.

He did make the point that we don’t know how common obesity is in animals, although body condition scoring which is considered the most useful approximation is routinely done in clinics where I have worked.

Either way, he argues persuasively that attachment is part of the equation when discussing the companion animal obesity epidemic.

When it comes to brachycephalia, scientists have argued that the flatter-faced breeds such as English bulldogs are appealing because of their infant like facial features, e.g. round heads and large eyes. Some of their pathology, including loud breathing and snoring, is interpreted as charming. Studies have shown that owners of these dogs tend to underestimate or fail to recognise clinical signs.

Professor Sandoe argues that the problems are in part generated because we are so attached to these animals.

This is a really interesting argument and a fascinating talk. I do agree that some overindulged pets suffer welfare problems, though would also add (and Prof Sandoe might agree) that some neglected (i.e. underindulged) pets suffer similar welfare problems. In the case of overweight animals, it may be the case that owners don’t adjust the caloric intake of their pet when their lifestyle changes, e.g. the owner gets very busy at work and stops walking the dog. In terms of brachycephalic animals, I would think there may be an element of not doing enough research before purchasing animals, and perhaps lack of education about spotting early signs of brachycephalic airway syndrome.

Professor Sandoe also touched on some other topics of ethical debate: should companion animals be routinely neutered (he believes the arguments are strong for neutering cats routinely, but not the same when it comes to dogs) and whether cats should be kept indoors (he does not believe this is ethically justifiable, as a rule).

He argues that ultimately we need to educate everyone (companion animal owners, vets, breeders etc but particularly owners) about the welfare implications of the specific health issues discussed, and their impact on an animal’s quality of life.

You can watch the seminar, via the Animal Welfare Science Centre, online here.

Epidemics and the moral behaviour of animals

Charlie supported his favourite team on the weekend. We won't talk about how it ended, but
at least Charlie had a good time!

In observance of WorldRabies Day (Sept 28^th in case you missed it), we’ve enrolled in Coursera’s MOOC on epidemics to learn more about the spread and detection of epidemics.

The eight-week, entirely online course is free to anyone, and would be particularly useful for vets, vet students and nurses as well as pet owners who want to learn more about infectious diseases.

The worst thing we can do in a real infectious disease outbreak is panic. It is often said that during outbreaks healthcare services like hospitals are flooded by the “worried well”. The best way to control panic is to be informed…you might say it’s a social duty of sorts (and if you want to read more, Nobel Prize Laureate Peter Doherty has written a well-informed book on pandemics - check here).

If you want more info on the course click here.

Jessie, also a mad keen Swannies fan, dressed up for the occasion too.

Meantime I revisited this TED talk by Frans de Waal on whether human morality is actually evolved. We often claim moral superiority, but are we really better than animals when it comes to morality, empathy and compassion? 

Another set of questions this video raises is the ethics of keeping and experimenting on animals for the purposes of testing their morality? And is it scientifically sound – i.e. is something a captive chimpanzee does in a lab indicative of the behaviour of wild chimpanzees?

Check out the video here.

A pit bull as therapy and Rookwood Cemetery open day

Christophe and Dennis on horses. They have participated in funerals before and, as we discovered, are partial to an apple or two (but definitely not three).

On Friday I posed an ethical question about breed identification and received a range of comments, mostly from people who didn’t want to post publicly which is fine. It is, like many animal welfare topics, fairly emotive.

A colleague sent this video (if it isn't showing on your device, click here). In places where pit bulls are banned it seems shocking to see a “dangerous breed” in a therapy role – but it certainly provides food for thought for those consequentialists contemplating the conundrum.

Speaking of pets as therapy, yesterday Phil and I popped over to the Rookwood Cemetery, aka Rookwood Necropolis, the largest Necropolis in the Southern Hemisphere. [There is something about the word Necropolis – its Greek for “city of the dead”, which to me conjures up thoughts of very industrious dead working away at their projects]. Naturally they were selling tea and scones and Phil tried his hardest to perform some quality assurance by taste-testing.

Tongue...doesn't...quite...reach. 

The cemetery was actually pretty stunning.

They had an open day so we got to take a little tour, and we met a remarkable Newfoundland called Mo, who is a trained therapy dog. Not only does Mo visit people in hospitals and nursing homes, he also attends funerals. His owners are funeral directors, hence his personalised Guardian Funerals bib.

Mo. He's big, he's beautiful, and he brings joy to people he visits in hospitals.

There is something very lovely about the idea of a calm dog at a funeral. I think people take great comfort in the presence of animals when grieving. 

This gorgeous cat was just hanging out at the florist, flirting with the customers and making a lot of people smile.

Interestingly there were also horses, which may be requested to lead a funeral march, and also a very friendly little cat at the florist. And on that note, if you missed our post on 50 reasons to adopt a cat, check it out here.

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