Do you remember the story of Kilo, a tabby employed as ship’s mascot on the Royal Navy museum ship HMS Belfast, moored on the River Thames near London Bridge. He was a rescue from Battersea Dogs and Cats Home.

Kilo was killed by mindless thugs, about two months ago. The killers were a young man and two young women who seized Kilo as he ambled up the gangplank on his way to his berth and threw him in the River Thames. He could not survive the strong currents and bitterly cold water.

However the three killers were filmed on CCTV.

Now PetStreet´s Natalija Harbinson has let me know that a 16-year-old girl will appear in court charged with animal cruelty on suspicion of throwing Kilo into the Thames. She will appear before Camberwell Youth Court next Wednesday.

Thanks Natalija and please let us know what transpires.

Its Pets Smile month and its not just about giving us an idea for the new Pet idol competition. In the UK thousands of cats and dogs and other pets too are suffering needlessly with dental related disease. Pet Smile Month, running this month aims to reduce their suffering by working with hundreds of veterinary practices across the UK to provide free dental checks for pets.

If your pet has gone off its food, seems to lack energy or has bad breath, a dental check up may reveal the cause of the problem. Dental disease not only causes bad breath, pain, discomfort, and bleeding gums and infected teeth but can affect the whole body, particularly the heart valves and the kidneys, as bacteria spread from the mouth into the pet’s bloodstream. It is estimated that 80 per cent of pets over three years of age need some form of dental treatment.

Pet Smile Month is the largest veterinary run pet health campaign in the world. Pet owners will be able to take their dogs and cats for a free check up with participating practices in September. The veterinary practice will provide an oral assessment and offer guidance on both prevention and treatment of dental disease.

To find a participating local veterinary practice simply use the ‘Find-a-PSM-Vet’ button at www.petsmile.uk.com and enter your post code. Along with some toothy facts and figures, more information can be found on this site on dental care and treatment including advice on diet and tooth brushing techniques.

As prices rise everywhere some people are finding it impossible to pay their vet´s bills and may choose to have their pet put-to-sleep as a consequence.

In the most recent Petplan Pet Census, an annual study of pet ownership in the UK, 97% of vets reported that a lack of funds had led to owners choosing euthanasia over treatment.

As many households start to feel the financial pinch, there is greater concern than ever that pets with treatable conditions are at risk. Whilst some cases are the result of one-off ´emergency´ treatment, manageable long-term conditions are often at the root of much unnecessary euthanasia because owners simply cannot afford the cost of ongoing treatment. Reported increases in pet obesity and diabetes, arthritis and behavioural problems have all been cited in the Pet Census as common causes of increased and ongoing vet bills.

Vet Brian Faulkner said: "I think it is a common misconception that the predicament forcing pet owners to euthanase their pet is the out-of-the-blue, one-off vet fees for emergencies. But in fact we are noticing that owners whose pets have on-going illnesses such as diabetes and even behavioural problems that are very manageable are being faced with the dreadful decision to have to euthanase than face the ongoing financial burden.

It´s even more devastating when the owners have actually taken out an insurance policy but the nature of the policy only covers treatment of any one condition for up to one year. I always advise people to make sure their policies do not cap the time period over which any one condition is covered to avoid this very problem as more comprehensive insurers are then unable to offer cover on a pre-existing condition."

Simon Wheeler, Head of Marketing at Petplan, believes the report makes depressing reading.

"We receive over 8,700 claims per week and of the top ten claims, six could be recurrent manageable conditions, such as diabetes or arthritis - the very animals that are currently most at risk of being euthanased."

The vet industry itself, suspicious that companion animals with manageable long-term conditions, such as diabetes, are being euthanased due to owners underestimating the cost of treatment, has launched a study through the Royal Veterinary College to understand the situation better.

Today was the launch of the Campaign for Real Pet Food by various high profile individuals in the pet world, including Joe Inglis.

The Campaign is primarily concerned with the lack of openness and honesty in pet food labelling, as the increasingly common behavioural issues in children, associated with the various additives found in food, are equally as prevalent in the nation’s pets.

I have asked Joe for an interview and hope we will hear from all sides of this important debate.

This is what his Campaign has been saying:-

They say some pet food manufacturers are reluctant to come clean about their foods because their ingredients include:-

• Meat and animal derivatives – a generic term for animal proteins which avoids having to specify where the meat comes from – it can be any part of the animal. This enables the pet food company to use whatever meat is the cheapest when they make their food – and there’s no way you can tell what it is.

• Derivatives of vegetable origin – sounds unpleasant, is unpleasant! Another loose terms used to disguise all manner of hidden ingredients such as vegetable residues and even charcoal!

• EC permitted additives – this term hides a list of over 4000 chemicals, many of which have been banned from human foods due to health concerns, including E110 (sunset yellow) and E102 (tartrazine).

• Low quality proteins – cheap protein sources such as soya are used instead of meat in many pet foods. They are heard to digest and much less suitable than real meat proteins.

The Campaign aims to:-

• Educate pet owners about what really goes into pet food

• Encourage pet food companies to be honest about their ingredients

• Promote foods that use good quality ingredients

• Campaign for change in pet food labelling to remove terms such as ‘meat and animal derivatives’ and ‘EC permitted additives’

In order to achieve these aims, they are setting out a publicity campaign to raise awareness of the issues, educate pet owners and apply pressure to governing bodies such as the Pet Food Manufacturers Association and Trading Standards.

They are also encouraging pet food companies who support the campaign to display Campaign for Real Pet Food stickers on their products, so it’s easy to identify real food when making a choice in store. They hope to achieve real change, improving the quality of pet foods and the ability of pet owners to make informed choices about what they feed their pets.

Vets are frequently linking bad behaviour in pets, to an additive-heavy diet. Food allergies and intolerances are also increasingly common.

This debate is going to go on. I read on the UK pets site that "the CRPF is the creation of a group of independent pet food companies which is promoting, in its words, pet food made from good quality, natural ingredients, free from artificial colours, preservatives and flavours, and whose ingredients are openly labelled.

The statement, and a proposed package labelling scheme threaten to drive a wedge between CRPF manufacturers and all other pet foods manufactured from what it calls ´poorer quality ingredients´ or which include artificial preservatives (and so on), and which, says CRPF, ´hide´ behind minimum EU ingredient labelling requirements."

The Pet Food Manufacturers Association, (PFMA) represents over 50 pet food companies, (all the big boys - around 90% of the UK pet food market). It says it has been concerned about possible misinformation releating to the CRPF and has tried and so far failed to arrange meetings with Joe Inglis. . .

Hope he´ll talk to us!

Why a bumblebee sniffer dog? Well, bumblebee nests are very hard to find as they are small and often hidden away underground or in dense vegetation. Toby sniffs them out for the Bumblebee Conservation Trust. He is the latest weapon in an effort to try to understand what is happening to Britain´s bumblebees.

By finding the nests they can estimate local population sizes, and learn more about previously elusive aspects of bumblebee ecology.

Like honeybees, the British bumblebee is under threat. There used to be 25 different species of bumblebee in the UK. Three are extinct and up to seven more are close to extinction. Habitat loss is the biggest threat. Intensive farming means fewer areas where the bees can flourish, such as hay meadows and clover leys.

"If we are going to conserve them, we need to know more about them, where they live, what causes the nests to die," says Professor Dave Goulson of the university´s school of biological and environmental sciences. "The last few years have been really bad for bumblebees. We think it´s probably the weather, but we don´t know. We need to know how many nests there are. We need to find the nests to know how long they live and what destroys them."

The trouble with bumblebees is that their nests are smaller than a honeybee hive and are often hidden underground. As few as 50 bees can live in one nest. One of the bees´ main predators is the badger, and it occurred to the Stirling team that if badgers could sniff out bee nests, then so could a dog. They approached the army and provided the funds to train Toby, who had been rescued from an animal pound in the Midlands and now lives on a farm with his handler, PhD student Steph O´ Connor.

It is absolutely crucial work, says Goulson. "Bumblebees are very important to the environment as pollinators of crops and flowers, but sadly they are struggling to survive in the modern world of habitat loss, pesticides and intensive agriculture," he said. "Further decline in bumblebees could result in a downward cycle of poorer harvests and sweeping changes to the countryside, as wild flowers set less seed and disappear, which, in turn, could have catastrophic effects for other wildlife."

The university team works alongside the Stirling-based Bumblebee Conservation Trust, which, with the help of the RSPB, recently set up the world´s first bumblebee sanctuary in Fife, a large wildflower meadow, which is attracting a wide variety of bees.

Siobhan wants to remind everyone that its wrong to feed grass cuttings to equines or feeding horses without permission.

Because:-
Cut grass starts to ferment really quickly, especially when it is in clumps, it then continues to ferment in the horse or ponys stomach causing a build up in gas. this can quickly lead to colic which in many cases can prove fatal.

Lawnmowers have oil on the blades which then transfers to the grass. again not good for horses.

Some horses are on restricted grazing due to being prone to laminitis, the owners will be supplementing with hay, if a horse doesn´t have a lot of grass, it doesn´t mean that it is being badly looked after.It could mean that they are managing this condition. laminitis can also end in fatality.

In fact nobody should feed anyones elses horses without the consent of the owner. it may have specific dietary requirements and if it is given the wrong thing then it could result in causing a major health problem resulting in high vet bills or worse.

If anyone has any concerns about the care of an equine, instead of feeding it themselves they should report it to the relevant authorities.

Thanks Siobhan.

With the summer weather being so miserable, Fred the tortoise decided it was time to pack it in for the year.

Although it was a little early for hibernation - he usually waits until October - the 30-year-old pet searched around his back garden and found the perfect spot in a dark, warm bin bag.

There was just one flaw to his plan - he didn´t tell his owner. The Mail reported that when Jane Deslandes, picked up the refuse sack he had chosen, and left it out for the bin men, Fred began a journey his family would never forget.

The sack was taken by council workers and thrown in a dust cart at their home in Margate, Kent. Then it was transported to a landfill site 20 miles away in Canterbury, where it was due to be buried. However, Mrs Deslandes, 55, quickly realised the tortoise was missing.

´ I knew what had happened straight away because we put the bags out in the garden before collection day. And it´s the time of year when he´s looking for nice warm places to hibernate,´ she said. ´But we panicked because we didn´t know where the rubbish goes.´

The mother of six, who works as a carer, phoned the council to find out where the waste was sent, and begged for permission to trawl through garbage at the landfill site.

Workers gave her a high-visibility jacket, and she began a three-hour search - but with no luck. ´We tried for ages but just couldn´t find him. Eventually we had to give up and go home - I cried all the way back.´

Luckily for Fred, however, workers at the site took pity on him - and kept on looking. And just minutes before the waste was due to be buried last week, they unearthed him from a mountain of rubbish.

When the family found out the good news, they were overjoyed. ´Words can´t describe how happy we were,´ added Mrs Deslandes. ´We arranged straight away to go and pick him up. ´He was a bit dishevelled-looking and had a couple of chips on his shell. But otherwise he was okay.´

The reason I am keeping this on the front page is because this generated our biggest response ever and I want you to suggest questions for me to ask Caroline Kisko from the Kennel Club when I interview her.

This was all about the BBC that said many pedigree dogs have congenital abnormalities thanks to arbitrary breed standards and breeders inbreeding their dogs to try to achieve these standards. . . .

See the picture of what a bull dog used to be 100 years ago, and what the breeders have turned it into - this applies to many other breeds too.

Its been reported that Crufts is in crisis as the BBC admitted it may axe its coverage after 42 years over fears for the health of pedigree dogs. BBC chiefs are in talks with organisers The Kennel Club about pulling the plug on the famous show. (I am not sure if that is true).

Yet we know that many pedigrees are suffering from many serious health problems due to interbreeding to exaggerate certain features of dogs and their physiques have changed dramatically over the years.

The film had examples such as:-
PUGS often struggle to breathe because they have been bred to have flat faces and small noses.

BULLDOGS are now such an unnatural shape most can’t even mate, while females can’t give birth unassisted.

CAVALIER King Charles Spaniels suffer from brain disorder syringomyelia because their heads are so small. The lightest touch causes agony.

Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College London, said the problem is in part due to mating mothers and sons and brothers and sisters. He said: “It’s insane from the point of view of the health of the animals. In some breeds they are paying a terrible, terrible price in genetic disease.”

If breeders continue, dogs will get so inbred they won’t be able to reproduce and die out.

RSPCA chief vet Mark Evans blamed the suffering of pedigree dogs on breeding for appearance and to meet dog show rules and requirements. "The show world is about an obsession, about beauty, and there is a ridiculous concept that that is how we should judge dogs. It takes no account of your temperament, your fitness for purpose potentially as a pet animal - and that to me makes no sense at all. It is a parade of mutants - a freakish, garish, beauty pageant."

Meanwhile, a report out yesterday told how “handbag dogs” like Chihuahuas fashionable with celebs like Paris Hilton are prone to heart attacks due to inbreeding.

Consumer Direct is the government-funded telephone and online service offering information and advice on consumer issues. It is funded by the Office of Fair Trading and delivered in partnership with Local Authority Trading Standards Services.

Carol Brady, Operations Manager from Consumer Direct has said that "since the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act in England and Wales this year, and the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act last year, pet owners are now legally obliged to care for their pet by providing a proper diet, suitable living conditions and veterinary care when necessary. However, in addition to obligations, pet buyers also have statutory rights. Consumer Direct has received more than 2700 complaints from dissatisfied pet buyers last year, many of whom were unaware of their rights under the Sale of Goods Act".

As an update another spokesperson for Consumer Direct told me today: Pet buyers have statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Any pet purchased from a business seller must be of satisfactory quality, as described, and fit for the purpose made known. If the seller is a private individual, the animal only has to be as described and the seller´s to sell.

If you buy an animal which does not meet these criteria, you may be able to make a claim against the retailer and if unsuccessful through the county courts, but it´s important to note that these are civil rather than criminal law provisions so you would not be able to pursue a criminal prosecution under this legislation. Possible remedies may include a refund or damages.


I would also like to quote something written by Chris Fairfax - a Barrister, lawyer and director of Animal Friends Pet Insurance. He says:- " If you go and buy a fridge, a car, or whatever from a dealer in the UK you have certain legal rights. Some rights are enshrined in a written contract but others are implied by the law by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The two major implied rights are that the “goods” you buy must be of “satisfactory quality” and they must be “fit for the purpose”. These rights are found at section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. They are rights that a dealer cannot contract out of where you are a private buyer; so remember that if a dealer tries to tell you a fault falls outside a contractual warranty! But you only get the benefit of these implied rights where you have bought goods from someone who was acting “in the course of business”. It doesn’t apply where you buy a car from a private individual or a kitten from Auntie Maud. In those cases the good old caveat emptor rule applies (“let the buyer beware”)."

Most of the breeders we are concerned about are running businesses so maybe we are on the right track here?

At PetStreet we know pets are not commodities like toasters - they are living being that we care about immensely. Yet we believe some breeders have been behaving in a totally irresponsible manner. If we can find a way that might in the future prevent someone buying a dog that will develop a disease that is the result of bad breeding, then what difference does it make what legislation was used to help change the breeding practices? (If the animal welfare legislation was working well we wouldn´t need to be making an alternative proposal). And we are not prosecution-mad - we just know that self-regulation has not worked in this area.

That is why PetStreet wants a serious debate into:-
1. Whether the Sale of Goods legislation might work to prevent breeders selling dogs to unknowing customers that will develop inherited conditions.
2. Whether the Kennel Club might help us develop a simple and clear contract of sale which might state:- the problems of that particular breed; what tests have been used to investigate the health of this particular dog and its parents; and the likelyhood of the dog subsequently developing problems. A contract could be reassuring to both buyers and reputable sellers.

There has been a torrent of reaction to the BBC´s PEDIGREE DOGS EXPOSED. But what next? There have already been some interesting suggestions such as Ryan O’Meara’s idea that the UK signs up to the European Convention for the rotection of Pet Animals and Beverley Cuddy suggesting a new breed of healthy Cavalier Spaniel is created. These ideas will take time, but do pet owners like Carol Fowler, who brought the sickening actions of some Cavalier King Charles breeders to light, have any action they can take right now?

I´m currently looking into the idea that any breeder who knowingly creates and sells on puppies with a high risk of genetic abnormalities has contravened the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and can be sued. We want to investigate this idea further and even see if we might mount a test case that sets a precedent.

The Sale of Goods Act is of course a piece of legislation brought into force to protect the public from being sold faulty goods, rather than animal welfare law. However, if we live in a society where animals are treated like designer commodities, then perhaps using property legislation is an effective way to ensure there are real consequences for bad breeders?

At PetStreet we know many people at the Kennel Club are passionate dog lovers, but we fail to see how anyone can support breeders who use first generation inbreeding, or a breed standard for Rhodesian Ridgebacks where healthy puppies are put to sleep, or for the King Charles spaniel - breeders who not only seem indifferent to the fact their dogs will develop syringomyelia, but pass these dogs on to innocent buyers.

At Petstreet we don´t want to see the Kennel Club targeted in place of the real villains: the breeders and breed societies whose actions have caused so much suffering to dogs and their unfortunate owners. We do recognise how much of the key research and development of genetic testing has been done by the Kennel Club. We would like to empower the Kennel Club to do what many members already know is right: put in place and enforce new rules about dog breeding and showing.

I´m planning to approach any organisations and individuals who might be able to advise on the feasibility of using Sale of Goods Act legislation in this way, including owners whose pedigree pets have been affected by genetic disorders (this could include cats as well as dogs, although the speech given by Julia May of the Cat Fancy on Vets TV indicates the cat breeding world may be further along in dealing with these issues).

In the meantime, I´d welcome comments from all PetStreet members.

My hope is that if bad breeders knew there were likely to be legal consequences, they´d clean up their act. Meanwhile, good breeders, who scan animals for genetic problems before breeding from them, would be able to restore public trust. This proposal is not intended as an attack on the Kennel Club, or good and responsible breeders, or people who want to own pedigree animals - it is just an idea for bringing callous and irresponsible breeders to heel.

PS Maybe the Kennel Club should prepare a contract that all their breeders have to sign and all the purchasers have to sign, when a dog is sold. It will provide a space where illness and disease are mentioned. Then if it is not correctly filled in by the breeder, then the customer will have a recourse.