Rodeo in New Zealand

When I was about 7 years old and living in Whitianga (Coromandel Peninsula, North Island of New Zealand), my parents took my brother and I to the local rodeo event. It was a big day out for the (then) small town and the surrounding area. There were food stalls, craft markets, and bulls and stallions were being ridden. Teenagers could ride calves and young children could have a go at riding a ‘wild’ sheep. Rodeo events like this have been going on every year for decades. It is just what you do. The area has sheep and beef farms and rodeo is a natural accompaniment. Everyone got into the spirit of the day – fun and laughter followed. The champion stallion rider was venerated.

I rode a sheep that day. My parents (mostly mum – she is from a farming background) convinced me to give it a go. I remember it being fun. But I also remember asking my mum afterwards if she thought the sheep enjoyed it as well. That was the first and last rodeo event we attended.

Rodeo events are most popular in countries or regions with historical ties to rural agriculture. The USA is well-known for its rodeo – particularly in Southern States such as Texas, and the mid-west; ‘cowboy states’. Australia also has a penchant for rodeo.

In New Zealand, rodeo events are held up and down the country during the summer months. These events are advertised as ‘family friendly’ and an entertaining day out. Most are run by the New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association (NZRCA), which overseas 35 rodeos annually (Report to Accompany the code of welfare: Rodeos).

So, what is the problem?

Rodeo is unacceptable to a growing number of people. Anti-rodeo Facebook groups (e.g. Anti Rodeo Action NZ and New Zealand Anti-Rodeo Coalition) have a large number of followers. These groups host anti-rodeo demonstrations across New Zealand. Many of those who are opposed to rodeo cite animal welfare grounds – rodeo events are seen as “legalised animal cruelty” (SPCA New Zealand). It has been argued that the events at rodeos are unnecessary displays of ‘archaic’ stockperson skills. This includes: calf roping; horse and/or bull bucking; and steer wrestling.

“Is putting animals in a stressful situation like this justified? If you look at the cost benefit analysis, the benefit is sport for the participants and entertainment for a crowd. I don’t see that putting animals through this kind of fear and stress is justified by the benefits.”

(Virginia Williams, animal welfare consultant vet) [1]

Several groups publicly oppose rodeo events or aspects of them: SPCA New Zealand, the New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA), Lions Clubs New Zealand, and The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (to name a few).

Researchers from The University of Queensland’s Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics and School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, along with those from Toulouse University, conducted a study on the effects of calf roping [2]. Their findings conclude that calf roping causes stress to the animals. However, only stress hormones and limited behavioural data were assessed. Detailed behavioural assessments may have been more informative – and potentially indicated extreme negative welfare states experienced by the calves. Interestingly, the study was funded by a rodeo body: the Australian Professional Rodeo Association (APRA).

The other side of rodeo

Other than the obvious entertainment value for people attending the events, and sporting value for the competitors, it could be argued that the animals used would not exist but for rodeo. It is also important to consider the animal’s entire life, not just the time it is performing, or entertaining. When not competing, many of these animals are lavishly fed and allowed to do as they please. If their whole life is ‘better’ in rodeo than it may otherwise be, this may change our assessment [1].

The Code of Welfare for Rodeos

The use of animals for entertainment purposes is ethically divisive. On one side are those who see it as ‘just a bit of fun’ or important to rural agriculture; on the other side are those who maintain that the use of animals for entertainment is abhorrent. Occupying the middle ground are those who support some aspects of rodeo and not others, and those whose issue is not with using animals for entertainment, but with the welfare consequences of this particular entertainment event on the animals involved.

“My contention is that at least some of the rodeo events are unreasonable and unnecessary and cause unreasonable and unnecessary pain and distress.” [1]

Suffice to say, rodeo is a contentious topic. For this reason, the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) received a large number of submissions when conducting their 10-yearly review of the Code of Welfare for Rodeos . The Code has expectations for appropriate treatment of animals used in rodeos and identifies what is inappropriate. NAWAC published a report to accompany The Code, which details the reasoning behind their recommendations and these differences of opinion. It is an interesting read and shows how truly divisive this topic is. I will summarise some of the key issues here:

  • Societal views on the use of animals in rodeos, i.e. is it ethical?
    • Limited relevance to NZ culture, e.g. outdated stockperson skills
    • Not good for NZ’s reputation as animal welfare leader and its ‘clean, green’ image
    • Calf events have been banned in a number of other countries
    • Little economic value to NZ
    • Positive role of rodeo in rural cohesion
  • Stockmanship – how do we assess animal welfare at rodeos?
    • Veterinarian should be present at rodeos – last say in all welfare decisions
    • Animal welfare officer to identify issues and work with veterinarian
  • The use of spurs on bucking animals – it is necessary?
    • Prohibition of spurs called for – their use causes pain to animals
    • Spurs provide a point of contact to remain on bucking animals – removing them would make it difficult for a contestant to remain seated
  • Specific events – calf welfare in rope and tie events
    • This event is believed to be particularly stressful
    • But in the few studies performed (at the date of report), ‘detrimental physiological damage’ was not reported
    • Not all NAWAC members could agree that the event should be discontinued – there was not enough evidence for significant pain and distress
    • The Code has ‘Recommended Best Practice’ to not use calves in rodeo events
  • Children’s events
    • Effect on children exposed to ‘disrespectful’ animal treatment – animal abuse linked to abuse of people
    • Rodeos are family-orientated – children involved as part of family unit
    • Sheep disallowed for this purpose – too small to handle being ridden
  • Health, injury, and disease – should fireworks be used?
    • Add interest to the event
    • Unexpected noise and movement causes fight or flight response in horses and cattle
    • Fireworks, pyrotechnics and gas fired explosions not to be used at rodeos

The Code itself is a longer read (28 pages). It also references the NZ Rodeo Association on page 7:

“The New Zealand Rodeo Association holds a number of training days for new contestants and for those wishing to learn more about rodeo events.”

This makes the reader nervous about the potential for bias and collusion. A legal document has a responsibility to be impartial and exclude vested interests. The Code is seen by some “as a shield to protect a defendant in the face of prosecution”. It may well be less than 10 years before it is updated to reflect ethical concerns.

In summary

Society’s expectations of animal welfare standards are constantly evolving – practices that were once acceptable no longer are or may become unacceptable in the future. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to discuss and debate these issues and respond to public concerns.

References
  1. Flagler, B., Blazing saddles, in VetScript. 2016.
  2. Sinclair, M., et al., Behavioral and Physiological Responses of Calves to Marshalling and Roping in a Simulated Rodeo Event. Animals, 2016. 6(5).
Advertisements

The problem of brachycephalic dogs in New Zealand: Why has Trade Me banned some of them?

As of the 1 March 2018 ‘Trade Me’ New Zealand, our biggest online trading website, will no longer allow three brachycephalic dog breeds to be sold through their platform: Pugs, French Bulldogs, and British Bulldogs. This is a huge win for the welfare of these animals.

What are brachycephalic dogs?

The word brachycephalic literally breaks down to ‘short’ ‘head’. It refers to animals (it’s not just a dog problem!) with short faces/snouts. The classic example is the Pug – with its squishy face and big eyes. The Persian cat is another example. The muzzle, or snout, of these animals has essentially been reduced in length over time via breeding. It has become a desirable characteristic.

post 15 pug
The Pug is a good example of a brachycephalic dog breed

For many people, the attraction of these dogs is in their resemblance to babies or children. A small, round face makes them ‘cute’ and ‘adorable’. This factor is becoming even more important as many people are choosing not to have children, or delaying until later in life. Instead, their pet may play the role of this family member in their life.

What is wrong with these dogs?

The problem with breeding to reduce the length of these dog’s snouts/muzzles is what has happened as a result [1]. The bony structures of the head have reduced in size, but in most cases the soft tissue in the back of the mouth and throat has remained the same. This means these dogs have to breathe around this extra tissue. Other things have happened as a result of the bony changes:

  • The size of their nostrils is reduced – they are tiny! Many of these dogs’ struggle to get enough air through their nose and so resort to ‘open mouth’ breathing;
  • Their trachea, or airway, is too small for them. It is also very weak. They really have to work hard to get air into their lungs – sometimes they work TOO hard and their airway collapses. This is an emergency situation!

Overall, their breathing could be likened to trying to suck air through a thin drinking straw that has cloth over one end. Most of these dogs have to breathe with their mouth open, and snorts or snoring sounds result from the extra soft tissue in their mouth flopping into their airway.

This snoring sound may seem ‘cute’ to many people, but it actually means the dog is struggling to breathe properly! Their small airway and all that soft tissue in their mouth is making it very difficult for them.

These dogs get very hot in Summer and can often over-heat to the point of suffering from heat stroke – another emergency situation. Dogs in general cannot sweat as well as people. This means they rely on open-mouth breathing to cool them down. If a dog is not able to breathe very well, as is the case in these ‘brachy’ dogs, then this can be a problem. And again, if they work too hard breathing, their weak airways can collapse!

Other issues with these dogs include: their eyes bulge out of their skull resulting in dry eyes and sometimes ulcers; skin conditions and/or infections due to excess facial skin – all those rolls and folds are the perfect breeding ground for bacteria; and often these dogs struggle to give birth as puppies’ heads are too big for their mothers’ pelvic bones to pass through. Most British Bulldogs are delivered via caesarean section with the help of a veterinarian.

How has it got to this point?

Because so many people want these dogs, there are a lot of people breeding them. It is big business! One puppy can fetch thousands of dollars. But because dog breeding is unregulated in New Zealand, there are no rules about who can do it and how. As a result, people have kept breeding for what people want – short ‘cute’ snouts. Supply equals demand. The problem has got worse.

Not only this, but oftentimes breeding animals (the parents) are kept in poor conditions and become ‘breeding machines’. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, and voluntary members of organisations, such as Dogs NZ (formerly the New Zealand Kennel Club) are bound by self-imposed breeding regulations. However, many ‘backyard’ breeders of these dogs are less conscientious.

What can we do?

This move by Trade Me to stop these three breeds being sold on their platform has been celebrated by many animal welfare organisations and veterinarians. By stopping a major avenue for the sale of ‘backyard’ bred dogs, there is hope yet! This will stop unwitting puppy buyers from purchasing their pet ‘sight unseen’. Often these puppies are sent to them, or they collect them from a mutual meeting place, so that the breeding area and parents are not seen. These buyers have no idea what conditions the parents are in (what their purchase is supporting), or what the parents are like (a good indication of what their puppy may be like).

However, as the New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) has proposed, there are still things that can be done. Their webpage has a list of additional information and their companion animal spokesperson, Rochelle Ferguson, has written a Spinoff feature with advice. To summarise, before adopting prospective owners should:

  • Consider adopting a dog from a shelter, rather than buying one that may be supporting poor breeding practise;
  • Visit the breeder and meet the parents of the puppy they are considering adopting;
  • Support breeders who screen for inherited diseases and who don’t breed puppies with these extreme features;
  • Ask about the mother’s health and whether a caesarean was needed;
  • Consider whether the mother’s (and other dogs) behavioural needs are being met by the breeder. This all affects the puppy.

In the future:

  • Regulations that require people to have a license to breed and sell puppies would be beneficial;
  • Sales on premises (and not ‘sight unseen’ or online) could be a requirement.

I will conclude by quoting Rochelle’s message:

“The fallout from puppies that have been irresponsibly bred is shouldered, not by the breeders who profit from their sale, but by the families that purchase these animals and the veterinarians that treat them.”

References
  1. Packer, R.M.A., et al., Impact of Facial Conformation on Canine Health: Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome. Plos One, 2015. 10(10).

 

Understanding New Zealand animal welfare legislation: The Animal Welfare Act, Codes of Welfare, and new Regulations

Ngā mihi o te tau hou / Happy New Year! (in te Reo Māori)

This is a post I have been meaning to write for some time. I finally have a moment to sit and reflect on the new(ish) New Zealand Animal Welfare Regulations.

These regulations were proposed in 2015 and many were introduced in 2016 and 2017 – with more to follow in 2018. They are specific to certain species or types of animal, or refer to particular ways we manage animals, e.g. transport regulations.

Background to New Zealand animal welfare legislation

I should probably put some context around these regulations – why do we need them? We already have The Animal Welfare Act 1999 and Codes of Welfare in New Zealand. The Animal Welfare Act is a piece of legislation, whereas the Codes of Welfare are not – this means they are not enforceable as such. I will explain further.

I like to think of The Animal Welfare Act as working to reduce the extreme negative end of the spectrum of animal welfare states. It talks about ‘obligations’, ‘liability’, and that we should ‘attend properly’ to animals, etc. It is a really useful document to refer to when people have done really bad things to or with animals – when there is pain and suffering involved. The Codes of Welfare are at the other end of the spectrum and are ‘Best Practice’ documents. They expand on The Animal Welfare Act by setting minimum standards and recommending guidelines for best practice. They are also more specific. Where The Animal Welfare Act talks about animals in general, The Codes are broken down into specific animals and/or interventions, or things we may do to animals. Examples of Codes include: circuses, dairy cattle, dogs, horses and donkeys, and painful husbandry procedures.

The gap for animal welfare regulations

As we can see, The Act and Codes of Welfare are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. And although Codes do specify minimum standards for animal care, they tend to be used when rebutting complaints, and not as a means of prosecution or enforcement. If an animal cruelty complaint is laid against a person in charge of an animal, then proof of adherence to these minimum standards can be used as a rebuttal of this complaint. In effect, if the basics are provided for an animal, it is hard for anyone to say anything different. In addition, the process of bringing animal carers to prosecution can be difficult and expensive. This, again, only results in extremely bad cases being prosecuted.

This is where The Regulations come in. They essentially use the minimum standards already in place (with minor adjustments) to allow for better enforcement of The Act. To do this they clarify the rules already in place to protect animal welfare. In essence, they specify that if you do this, you will be punished with that. There is less ambiguity surrounding what is required of those caring for, or who are responsible for, animals. The regulations are meant to be an additional tool for animal welfare inspectors, and in most cases do not require evidence of pain and suffering.

What regulations will we have in New Zealand animal welfare law?

In early 2016, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) sought feedback on 91 animal welfare regulations they had proposed. The broad categories for these regulations were: live animal exports; care of, and conduct towards, animals; and surgical and painful procedures. MPI travelled around the country with ‘roadshows’ publicising the regulations. Attendance was widely encouraged and there was a chance for feedback to be given and questions answered. Official written submissions to MPI totalled 1,400.

It was interesting to attend one of these ‘roadshows’ at Massey University in Palmerston North. There were many interested parties with varied views (for/against) the proposed regulations. A particularly heated discussion was had about the ‘dog tail docking’ regulation. It was clearly of high interest to dog breeders and owners. A short history of tail docking in New Zealand is given in this excellent post. Due to the issues proposed, MPI commissioned an independent review of the science and arguments for and against tail docking. The full report is available here. Essentially, the findings suggest that tail docking of dogs is a surgical procedure of major significance – with the potential to cause considerable pain and distress. The costs outweigh any potential benefits making it an unjustifiable act. A policy was approved in July 2017 to restrict tail docking of dogs. The restrictions mean that it can only be performed by a registered veterinarian, using analgesia, for therapeutic purposes, i.e. in response to a significant injury or disease. Therefore, dogs whose tails are damaged in some way may still have them docked – if a veterinarian believes this is the best therapy. Final approval to create the regulation is still pending at the time of writing.

Other regulations are already in place – particularly those relating to bobby (usually young male) calves and the export of live animals. Four regulations covering the welfare of calves were in place for the spring calving season in 2016 and a further three for 2017 calving, while those covering the export of live animals were confirmed in July 2016.

Examples of important regulations include: the mandatory use of pain relief for disbudding cattle, standards for the transportation of lame animals, that calves must be 4 days of age before being transported off farm, a maximum 12-hour journey time for young calves, young calves being prohibited from being sent cross the Cook Strait by sea (i.e. from North to South Island and vice versa), and the prohibition of killing calves by blunt force trauma to the head – other than in an emergency.

The future for animal welfare regulations

A number of regulations will be progressed in 2018. These broadly relate to: tail docking/castration (horses, sheep, llama and alpaca, and roosters), other surgical procedures in production animals and companion animals (e.g. hot branding, velvetting, cropping of ears in dogs, and Caslick’s procedures in horses), and dentistry.

Of particular interest to veterinarians, the stock transport regulation relating to lame animal’s says that “A person in charge of a lame cattle beast, sheep, deer, pig or goat commits an offence if they permit the animal to be transported”. In contrast to current practice, liability has been placed on suppliers presenting lame animals for transport, rather than transporters. Veterinarians may therefore find themselves being called upon for additional certification of lame animals for transport.

Final thoughts

In conclusion, the Animal Welfare Regulations are promising, and although some did not make the final cut (mostly due to issues with wording and meaning), there are plenty of good regulations being progressed that will improve the welfare of animals in New Zealand.

Beyond the regulations, there is still scope for further reforms in animal welfare legislation. In an earlier post, I wrote about the excellent work Dr Rebecca Ledger is doing using the Five Domains Model for forensic animal behaviour analysis in Canada. This is something we could really embrace in New Zealand. In addition, using animal abuse cases to create ‘links’ to domestic violence could lead to improvements in both animal and human welfare. The Veterinary Council of New Zealand has a guidance document relating to this here.

We still have much to do, but this is a great start!

 

Feline Four or Five?

In an earlier blog post, I mentioned the animal welfare science and bioethics Journal Club I am involved in. We meet fortnightly to review articles of relevance to animal welfare, behaviour, and bioethics. The intention is to broaden and disseminate knowledge within the research group and question and improve on our existing ideas and methods.

This week, it was again my turn to select and present an article – and of course I chose one involving cats! (it’s no secret that I am a crazy cat lady)

But I also chose this article because I am interested in behavioural profiling (of humans and animals) and wonder if this will be a requirement of animal-based research in the future. Will we have to declare the temperament of our test subjects in the same way as we record their sex and ages?

The article I chose to review was:

Litchfield, C. A., Quinton, G., Tindle, H., Chiera, B., Kikillus, K. H., & Roetman, P. (2017). The ‘Feline Five’: An exploration of personality in pet cats (Felis catus). Plos One, 12(8), e0183455. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183455

It is published in an open-access online journal here.

A few words on personality profiling in humans

One of the most widely used personality profiling devices in humans is the ‘Big Five’. It is based on ‘common language’ descriptors of personality. Each ‘factor’ consists of related traits and characteristics that fit within them. An individual’s personality is determined by where they sit on the continuum for each of the five factors.

The five factors are commonly known by the acronym ‘OCEAN’:

  • Openness to experience
  • Conscientiousness
  • Extroversion
  • Agreeableness
  • Neuroticism
Who wrote the article and why?

Human psychologists and ecologists in South Australia and New Zealand (Victoria University of Wellington) were involved in the study. It is part of a larger project (Cat Tracker Project) aimed at tracking pet cats in South Australia and New Zealand.

It is interesting that there appears to be no input from animal scientists – behaviour or welfare. A quick perusal of the reference list indicates that a large volume of feline behaviour and temperament literature appears to be overlooked – or at least not referenced. And, as the authors wrote about animal ‘personality’/expressivity, or behaviour profiling, it also seems absurd that Francoise Wemelsfelder’s Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) work was not referenced.

The Journal Club group also discussed the idea of ‘personality’ in animals. Many of us thought ‘person’-ality was the wrong terminology to use when discussing animal traits. The preferred term is ‘temperament’. It was our view that the human-centric approach taken for this study has resulted in this wording. I only wonder at why the article was not instead named ‘An exploration of ‘purr-sonality’ in pet cats…’ – at least this has an adorable human-centric approach.

The authors set-out to “analyse personality in a large sample of pet cats – using personality inventory completed by the owner”. Their research question was “how many reliable and interpretable factors depict personality in pet cats and what traits do they represent?”. They based these questions on previous research which have used: small sample sizes, wild/captive cats or those with behavioural problems – rather than ‘normal’ cats, researchers evaluating cat behaviour – rather than animal carers, and insufficient inter-rater reliability assessments.

Methods used

An online survey in South Australia and New Zealand collected information about 2,802 cats. It used 52 items based on a previous survey of Scottish Wildcats. Cat owners were asked to rate their cat on a Likert scale, according to how far they felt each trait was applicable. The authors used a type of exploratory factor analysis called ‘principle axis factoring’ (a technique similar to Wemelsfelder’s ‘principal component analysis’) to understand the relationship among these reported traits. This enabled them to group traits under common headings/factors.

What did they find? (results)

They found FIVE ‘factors’ (common headings for a group of traits) that explained ~47% of the variance in personalities:

  • Neuroticism
  • Dominance
  • Impulsiveness
  • Agreeableness
  • Extraversion

Interestingly, the authors chose to deal with items that ‘cross-loaded’, or loaded onto multiple factors, by assigning the item ONLY to the highest loading factor.

Why cat personality?

The authors drew our attention to some benefits of this type of research, namely: grouping compatible cats in multi-cat households and providing more hiding places for neurotic cats. A low/high score in an area could also improve the welfare of that cat by encouraging owners to seek advice.

The main issues we had with this article
  • The authors appear to have not considered animal (welfare or behaviour) scientists or a range of feline behaviour references in their article;
  • Reference to Francoise Wemelsfelder is sorely lacking – using 52 items from a Scottish Wildcat study also seemed unusual when the intention was to steer away from references to ‘wild/captive’ cats;
  • No consideration was given to the human-animal bond and how attached an owner was to their cat and/or how well they knew their cat – could this have contributed to a reporting bias for some owners?;
  • The labelling of 4 of the 5 personality factors were reasonably well explained, but the sudden inclusion of the fifth (‘extraversion’) appears contrived. We had to wonder if they were trying to force it to fit ‘Feline Five’ – it was too similar to the human list (see above);
  • Assigning items that cross-loaded ONLY to the highest loading factor ignores the complexities inherent in ‘personality’/temperament profiling.

Overall, this study is a great example of the importance of research collaboration. Think outside the (litter) box. 

    Reflecting on ANZCVS Science Week 2017

    I have already written a blog post about the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists (ANZCVS) Membership exams. The oral examinations (membership & fellowship) are sat by candidates each year on the Gold Coast in Australia. After the exams, there is a conference to complete the veterinary ‘Science Week’. Each chapter within the college has its own stream of presentations. Veterinarians and scientists are invited to attend and present.

    I was fortunate enough to be asked to present to the welfare chapter this year. The theme was ‘One Welfare – key drivers and new technologies’. The One Welfare concept is like that of One Health; interdisciplinary collaboration and solutions are important. #OneWelfare recognises the interconnections between animal and human wellbeing and the environment. Here I will summarise the presentations in the animal welfare chapter.

    My lanyard

    The first two speakers were asked to provide updates after attending conferences. Amy Little from the Australian Government spoke to us about the OIE global conference in Mexico, while Anne Fawcett of Small Animal Talk regaled us with stories of different coloured glitter in the faeces of polar bears in Canada – something she saw while attending the inaugural international One Welfare conference. Anne also emphasised the need to remember the conservation focus of One Welfare. For them to be truly interdisciplinary, ecologists and geographers should be invited to speak at these conferences. She also reminded us of the One Welfare portal and showed us how the Chatterbox tool can be used in teaching: to explore ethical questions.

    My presentation was on the first day within the ‘companion animal’ section. It was based on my PhD project that explores end-of-life decision-making in owners of older and chronically ill cats and their vets. I was excited to present my research and preliminary findings to vets, animal welfare scientists, and others in attendance. Mags Awad (of PetSure, formerly with RSPCA Australia) also gave an excellent presentation on shelter welfare assessment and how it relates to One Welfare. Mags spoke about the ‘No Kill’ shelter movement and what it means for animals. There is the potential for animals to be kept alive when their welfare is compromised (e.g. with severe behavioural/anxiety issues). She spoke about the ‘Drives for Lives’ project, where animals are moved from an area in a state where there is an oversupply of animals to one where more are needed for adoption. Mags reminded us that the shelter environment is novel for many animals and that there is a need to remove fear and anxiety. Improving cat housing in shelters has the greatest impact on their wellbeing.

    In the afternoon, Nat Waran from EIT in the Hawkes Bay told us what One Welfare means to her. If the people in developing countries are not enjoying good welfare, then how can we/they focus on companion animal welfare? She emphasised the need to make animal welfare relevant to people that may not be thinking about it. Becky Murphy from Dogs NZ (formerly The New Zealand Kennel Club) completed the companion animal section by talking about ethical breeding standards. Becky has the difficult task of working as the canine health and welfare officer for an organisation in the spotlight for (un)ethical breeding standards. The 2008 ‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’ exposé and the 2010 Bateson Report rocked the pedigree dog world by emphasising how selective breeding has changed the shape of breeds: features are exaggerated to the point of threatening health and welfare. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC)’s report on animal welfare issues associated with selective breeding has also drawn attention to issues with breeding standards. Unfortunately, brachycephalic dog ownership is still on the rise in New Zealand. And a brachycephalic breed sold online will fetch three to four times as much as a Labrador puppy. But Becky wants us to be clear with our terminology. A ‘pedigree’ dog is one with a three-generation pedigree from the Kennel Club, while ‘purebred’ can mean the same thing, but is often used to refer to ‘backyard’ bred unregistered dogs with no pedigree. The problem is that referring to issues in ‘purebred dogs’, without being specific about which animals we are talking about, results in purebred breeding problems becoming pedigree problems. The blame is then lumped onto organisations such as the Kennel Club who have no control over unregistered breeders. This then results in extreme defensiveness and backlash from these groups who feel like they are being vilified. Becky admits that breed standards need to be updated to discourage extremes and the good news is that the bulldog breed standard is currently being reviewed in New Zealand.

    Virginia Williams, representing MPI, spoke about the regulatory framework for animals in research and how it has been progressed. The definition of ‘manipulation’ has been broadened to include killing an animal for research, testing, and teaching. Genetically modified animals have also been incorporated.

    Day 2 – Production & Food animal species

    Day two began with the pork industry – Kirsty Chidgey from Massey University gave an overview of the New Zealand perspective with a focus on farrowing systems. While gestation stalls have been phased out, crates are still being used for parturition and lactation. Farrowing crates are in the best interests of piglet welfare as they reduce crushing injuries, but are detrimental to the sow’s behavioural wellbeing. Kirsty investigated alternative systems for her doctoral studies and gave us a run-down of the use of pens at different stages of parturition and lactation. Kate Plush from SunPork Solutions summarised the two periods of compromised welfare for sows in farrowing crates: during nest-building and parturition, and in late lactation when no respite from piglets is provided. The dairy industry was next, with presentations from Jess Spatz Shelgren of Fonterra, Suzanne Dowling of AgResearch, and Cameron Clark from The University of Sydney. Andrew Fisher from The University of Melbourne Animal Welfare Science Centre concluded with an overview of welfare assessment toolkits. Paul Hardy-Smith from Panaquatic Health Solutions took us through quality and welfare aspects of how we kill fish. The poultry industry was represented by talks from Kate Hartcher from RSPCA Australia and Kerry Mulqueen who provides technical advice to the NZ poultry industry.

    Day 3 – A busy day of welfare

    Day three was jam-packed with talks ranging from ‘What’s really happening down on the farm?’ by Nita Harding from DairyNZ, to hoarding issues presented by Rosemary Elliott from Sentient. Nita spoke about farm monitoring; why it is necessary, how it is done, what is being found out, and how the information is being used. Kate Blaszak from WAP spoke about advocacy in animal welfare driving change. Virginia Williams spoke again for MPI about the factors underlying animal welfare offending. She gave a candid account of the types of offenders presented to MPI with some case studies. Nat Waran from Napier spoke again about One Welfare and Veterinary Education. There is a reluctance to get rid of old topics in veterinary curricula and replace them with new topics – particularly animal welfare. It takes a passion for subjects to drive them into the curriculum. There is very little integration and applied relevance with animal welfare teaching. She spoke about the difference between welfare and ethics and the need to take the ethical part ‘out of it’. “Welfare is about the subjective experience of the animal, while ethics is about what we think about the animal’s situation based on our own morals/viewpoint”. Jen Jamieson from MPI concluded the talks for the animal welfare chapter with a brilliant discussion of her PhD research. She looked at how human behaviour changes starts with schools – by exploring adolescent views of farm animal welfare. They are the next generation of animal consumers and so their views matter. I highly recommend you check out the YouTube recording of her talk given at the First International Conference on Human Behaviour Change for Animal Welfare here.

    What did I learn from Science Week?

    Too much to mention! I thoroughly enjoyed my time and having the chance to learn from so many interesting people. The awards dinner on the final night was truly inspiring. I enjoyed hearing about peoples’ achievements and everything they were doing in their various fields of veterinary science. The most important take-home is a reconfirmation that animal welfare is what drives me. I am re-invigorated to study for the membership examination next year.

    ***I would like to thank Massey University’s Institute of Veterinary, Animal, and Biomedical Sciences (Postgraduate) for generously sponsoring my attendance at Science Week this year***

    Dr Rebecca Ledger uses the Five Domains Model for forensic animal behaviour analysis

    {this post was co-authored by David Mellor}

    How can we prosecute cases of animal cruelty when there is no physical evidence? Dr Rebecca Ledger told us. She uses the Five Domains Model, developed here in New Zealand, to explain the mental experiences of animals for cruelty prosecutions mounted in Canada.

    The background

    Retained as an expert witness by the British Columbia SPCA, Dr Ledger uses animal behaviour to demonstrate suffering. In a recent visit to New Zealand, jointly hosted by the Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre at Massey University, the SPCA, MPI, NZVA, VCNZ and VPIS, she gave a series of talks of particular relevance to those who may be called upon to be expert witnesses in animal cruelty cases.

    Historically, prosecutions for animal cruelty relied on proving an animal suffered because of physical harm (e.g. injury, disease, malnourishment). But Dr Ledger has been able to demonstrate emotional suffering using behavioural evidence. She emphasised that welfare assessment using behaviour is not ‘fluffy science’ just because there is no physical evidence. However, there is a need to educate prosecutors and courts about the ways supportable inferences can be made about the emotional experiences of animals. This helps the legal system see cruelty cases through the same ‘lens’ as animal welfare and behaviour experts.

    Dr Ledger explained how she writes her Expert Opinions and then described some case studies. Her Opinions begin with a brief summary of how scientific understanding of animal behaviour has developed and now allows the experiences animals can have to be cautiously inferred. Scientific references supporting these inferences are particularly important for this section. She also references the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment [1] and then goes on to use the Model to retrospectively assess the welfare of the animal(s) in question.

    How is it done

    Dr Ledger outlined eight questions we should ask and then answer for the courts. First, whether the animal can suffer i.e. is it sentient? This is where Rebecca shows judges that animals have the ability to suffer both physically and mentally. She has had better results when her Opinions started with these details. Here, the New Zealand Animal Welfare Amendment Act (No. 2) 2015, which recognises animals as sentient, should be immensely beneficial.

    Question two asks if New Zealand legislation recognises suffering in animals – clearly it does. The definitions of ‘suffering’ all include mental states or experiences. The third and fourth questions ask if conditions are present that would cause the animal to suffer and which negative experiences (affective states) the animal would likely have. By using the Five Domains Model, she shows that her Opinion is science-based and this enhances the judges’ confidence in what is being concluded. The Model also encourages judges to think about the psychological impacts of specific impositions on the animal.

    Questions five and six are to provide insight into the animal’s experiences at the time of the mistreatment. By focusing on the physical and/or behavioural evidence of suffering and how severe and/or protracted the suffering is, these questions help the court appreciate the importance of behavioural evidence. Emphasised here is that behaviours and their associated mental experiences have a function (e.g. fear enables an animal to respond to a perceived threat; aggression creates distance from what it is afraid of).

    The seventh question asks if the suffering was necessary – could it have been avoided? For example, dog trainer claims that shock collars are the only way for dogs to learn. An expert witness here would need to be prepared with humane alternatives as examples. The final question focuses on intent – was the suffering inflicted wilfully?

    An important caveat

    Dr Ledger made it clear that there is a need to ‘choose our battles’. Losing a case may set a precedent that condones the cruelty that has occurred. Rebecca recommends starting with ‘easy wins’ and gradually moving forward from there. She purposely chose dogs because, as companion animals, they are often better understood and more people are sympathetic towards them.

    References
    1. Mellor, D.J. and N.J. Beausoleil, Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, 2015. 24(3): p. 241-253.

     

    Positive affective engagement: the link between animal welfare science and training for rewards

    What better way to celebrate my tenth blog post (it’s still early days for Kat Welfare Matters!) than by taking part in a blog party organised by the wonderful Zazie of Companion Animal Psychology?

    The blog party theme is something I wholeheartedly support: ‘training for rewards’. Reward-based training, or positive reinforcement as it is also known, is a form of ‘operant conditioning’[1]. This is just a fancy way of saying it is a training method that involves an animal learning to do something because of the consequences its behaviour has. When animals behave in a certain way they are ‘operating on’ their environment. The positive or negative consequences of that behaviour affects the frequency with which the animal will perform that behaviour in the future. In other words, if the animal does something (e.g. the cat sits) and the consequence of this is positive (e.g. a yummy treat that the cat loves) it results in them doing that more in the future. We can add commands as well, but the basic idea is that the animal does something and we provide the ‘consequence’ of their behaviour.

    There is a lot of great evidence for the benefits of reward-based training. I strongly suggest you check out the list of reasons to go positive at Companion Animal Psychology. It makes sense that rewarding animals for a behaviour is more likely to result in better trained animals than punishing them. The escape/avoidance approach to training that was developed in the 1940s relies on negative reinforcement and punishment; animals escape the aversive consequence by changing behaviour. In contrast, positive reinforcement is a ‘modern’ approach to learning and training, as it provides specific information to the animal about the exact behaviour that is required. In doing so, it enhances the human-animal bond.

    Linking reward-based training and animal welfare science using the concept of positive affective engagement

    Training for rewards emphasises the idea of giving an animal something they find rewarding or enjoyable. These rewards may be different for different animals, but should result in the animal experiencing positives emotions. This links directly with the concept of positive experiences, or affects, that is being increasingly emphasised in animal welfare science.

    While animal welfare scientists used to concentrate their efforts on the negative experiences of animals, we are looking more and more at the potential for positive experiences. Back when animal welfare science began, people were worried about how badly animals were being treated and their potential negative experiences – especially animals confined in intensive production systems. But now that we have learnt more about how to keep animals and what they might need to minimise their negative experiences, we are able to look at providing them with opportunities for positive experiences e.g. play and/or exploration. Ensuring animals are receiving good nutrition (food and water), that their environment is suitable, and that they are healthy typically only moves them from negative/poor welfare towards neutral. None of these ‘survival-related’ provisions [2] are enough to result in overall positive welfare. However, when we start to look at how animals are behaving and provide them with opportunities to behave in ways they find rewarding, we can start to move them towards an overall positive welfare state.

    Rewarding animals for a behaviour that we want them to do and that they enjoy could result in heightened states of positive welfare. Hence asking a dog to ‘sit’ becomes ‘playing sit’; the dog starts to associate the command and their response with a positive reward (e.g. food and/or your happy voice). We know that play is a positive experience for most animals, so why would we not want to make training positive for them?

    ‘Positive affective engagement’ is the experience animals may have when they respond to motivations to engage in rewarding behaviours. The concept includes all experiences that are positive [3]. In reward-based training, the concept could include the state of engagement that results from an animal’s goal-directed, energised performance of a learned task that it enjoys. The enjoyment may result from the task itself and/or be due to the associated reward. A 2015 review by Mellor [4] emphasises the scientific support (via ‘affective neuroscience’) for the existence of positive experiences and their assessment using behaviours we observe in animals. In other words, training for rewards is not only a very effective training method, but there is good evidence to suggest that it could improve the lives (or welfare) of our animals.

    fullsizeoutput_1590
    My Jäger cat sits for a food treat

    References

    1. Stafford, K., ed. The welfare of dogs. Animal Welfare, ed. C. Phillips. Vol. 4. 2006, Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
    2. Mellor, D.J. and N.J. Beausoleil, Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, 2015. 24(3): p. 241-253.
    3. Mellor, D.J., Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for positive affective engagement. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 2015. 63(1): p. 3-8.
    4. Mellor, D.J., Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 2015. 63(1): p. 9-16.