JOIN US ON OUR ANNUAL DOG FUN DAY AND SHOW EVERYONE WELCOME

Don't Forget This Sunday.....

We are very proud to of once again been selected as a beneficiary of the world record holding Great North Dog Walk on Sunday the 5th June 2016.

This event is annual and measurable and the last dog walk was the 25th staging. It was held on Sunday 7th June 2015 with 26,423 dogs represented by 185 breeds, starting on The Leas, South Shields, England, United Kingdom, SatNav NE33 2JH. The 3 mile (4.8km) walk follows a coastal route along the cliffs with magnificent sea views. There are four different routes of varying lengths to cater for everyone within the community and over varying surfaces like grass, gravel and concrete. This therefore allows for baby buggies, wheelchairs, the young, the elderly, disabled and also older dogs to support this world record attempt. The event is Internationally recognised and holds the WORLD RECORD as the largest dog walk ever held (22,742 dogs).

So if you'd like to do the walk for us, email joanaustin@shak.org.uk to register and get your entry number and sponsor form. Please note all completed sponsor forms and cheques must be sent to SHAK. Greenwell Road, Alnwick NE66 1HB.

We really are proud to be associated with such a fantastic event, but really need your support with it..... thank you in advance.

Pippa Update.....

Thank you for everyone's kind words and support for little Pippa, she's taking everything in her stride.

I'm delighted to say that it looks like she'll be going to her new home on Monday in a twist to the story that I'll tell at another date!

In the meantime I am pulling together all her vets bills and medication costs before launching an appeal to help her for the rest of her life.....

She really is a wonderful little dog and we will do all we can to support her through this.

The best of breed GSD with shock hocks

� DogWorld TV

While the Kennel Club looks busy with a workshop that is supposed to decide how to tackle "the GSD issue" this bitch went Best of Breed at the Scottish Kennel Club Championship Show last weekend. 

Conbhairean Gabriella (b. 7 March 2012) looks more sound than Cruaghaire Catoria, the GSD that caused all the fuss at Crufts two months ago. But just look at the wobble when she's stacked  - and the droop when she isn't.  She looks like a gust of wind would blow her over. 

And those hocks!

For those interested, here is her pedigree - illustrious in show terms.

A reminder of what the Kennel Club standard demands:

"Seen from rear, the hind legs are straight and parallel to each other. The hocks are strong and firm. The rear pasterns are vertical. Any tendency towards over-angulation of hindquarters, weak hocks, cow hocks or sickle hooks, is to be heavily penalised as this reduces firmness and endurance in movement." 

A final note: this dog passed a vet check after her win.  

One Word..... Why?

Today has left one word hanging in my head..... why?

Pippa was left abandoned when her owner escaped from domestic violence.  Just 4 years old she is a sweetheart, a gorgeous Labrador Staffy cross,  her breeding has gone against us finding her a place. That and the atrocious state of saturation the rescue world finds itself in.

Just yesterday Melissa and David noticed something was quite right with Pip. Her abdomen just didn't look right, and it felt hard to the touch. My first fear was a pyo (a mass infection of the womb) life threatening but operable. I made a vets appointment and took her there first thing this morning. I felt a lump just below her neck as she cuddled into me as we travelled, but when I felt one the same on the other side I presumed it was normal.  How wrong could I of been.

Cat the vet was brilliant and straight away picked up it was worse than I had anticipated.  The lumps I felt were lymph nodes, and as Cat showed me them swollen all over Pippa's body my heart began to sink.

This afternoon blood tests and scans revealed Pippa is suffering from a very aggressive form of  lymphoma. Cancer of the lymph glands. There is not a lot we can do other than treat her with steroids with other medication once we determine her future,  and try and to give her the best we can.

The sad thing is she is so bouncy and happy if Mel and David hadn't noticed her abdominal swelling we would of never known until it was too late. I lost Shak to lymphoma and know exactly what the shock of not expecting it is like.....

I am working on a potential home for Pippa as I write this, more to come on that another time, but at the moment the next 48 hours or so are critical for us to see where she will be that will I turn effect the medication she receives.

So so sad and unfair. I don't think any of us can believe it......

Boys With Balls In The Sun.....

Had to share these pictures of Jenson and Dino enjoying the sunshine at the weekend with Sarah..... put a smile on my face too!

Jenson

Dino

The Kennel Club - still registering puppy farm dogs

Last night, BBC Panorama aired a gruesome expos� of a northern Ireland puppy farmer called Eric Hale. (If you are in the UK, you can watch the whole programme on iPlayer here.)

But it was also an an expos� of the Kennel Club's continued registration of puppy farm dogs.

Despite repeated urging by the Kennel Club to prospective puppy-buyers to avoid puppy-farmed dogs, the organisation continues to register dogs bred by breeders such as Eric Hale. 

Hale is a show-breeder of Beagles - and before that Bearded Collies -  registering the Beagles under his Southistle affix.  He has registered at least 20 litters of Beagles with the Kennel Club - the last that I can find in August 2015, although this litter, from January 2016, was advertised on DoneDeal as also being KC-registered.

Clearly, Mr Hale is also breeding a whole heap of other dogs, as last night's programme revealed. The conditions looked grim - with little bedding and the dogs on sawdust. The programme claimed that the dogs did not routinely get access to the outside.

In its position statement on puppy farming, the KC states:

"Breeders who breed five or more litters a year normally require a breeding licence from their local authority, and in order to continue registering puppies with the Kennel Club, anyone seeking to register five or more litters in a single year is asked to provide a copy of their licence. The Kennel Club will also be entitled to ask for a licence from those individuals who collectively register more than five litters a year from a single address."

So, presumably, the KC has asked Mr Hale for a copy of his breeding license, and this will have shown how many dogs he is licensed to keep.

Here's the public record from 2012 - which shows that Mr and Mrs Hale are licensed to keep over 100 breeding bitches.

The Kennel Club often points out that not all volume breeders are puppy-farmers - citing Guide Dogs for the Blind as a large-scale breeder that is "responsible and caring".  But, of course, this exception does not prove the rule. Assistance dog charities or police-dog breeding programmes may mostly do a good job but, in practice, no volume breeder meets the needs of a really large number of breeding bitches unless they are in the public glare or are blessed with wad of cash from either charity donations or the public purse.

Truly raising, keeping and breeding dogs well is expensive and labour-intensive. 

The KC also maintains that "only two per cent [of breeders who register their dogs with the KC] breed more than five litters per annum". 

This is a weaselly statistic - it may be only 2 per cent of breeders, but it will be a higher percentage of actual puppies - so it is at least several-thousand puppies a year. (KC registrations per annum are about 225k.) 

However, if there are really so few volume breeders registering their dogs with the Kennel Club, how about the KC commits to inspecting any breeder that is licensed for more than, say, 10 breeding bitches - regardless of whether they have been inspected by their local authority (we know this task is often delegated to people who either don't care much or who don't have a clue)?  If the numbers really are so small, surely it is not going to be a huge toll on resources?

The KC constantly maintains that it is obliged to register any dog on its general register, as long as it meets some minimum requirements. Those requirements do not include the conditions in which the pups have been bred. 

Quite frankly, the registration of puppy-farm dogs remains a blot on the KC landscape and it needs to be addressed - to ease both our souls and the KC's reputation.

I have asked the KC for input regarding the continued registration of Mr Hale's puppies and will add here if I get it. 

The problem. Right here. Right now.

This video has had over two million views on Facebook with a whole heap of unthinking "so CUTE!!!" comments.

Here's what happened when someone tried to raise awareness of this dog's breathing issues.

Charlotte West Wilson is the dog's owner...

One person has provided this link to a website which advises on Pug's breathing problems. There is some good info there, but it includes this attempt to normalise noisy breathing and pinched nostrils.

Normal Noises and Wheezes 

The Pug dog will have breathing issues that are considered "normal". Although they may be quite alarming to new, unsuspecting owners, the following are common traits that are to be expected:

Snoring - Many Pugs snore when napping and sleeping through the night. This is not usually indicative of a serious health issue. If it does become excessive, stenotic nares and/or elogated palate may be the cause.


Snorting noises - It it typical for a Pug to make noises like grunting and snorting. This breed will wheeze and gasp a bit. As we look ahead into the details of Pug breathing problems, this will only need to be addressed if it appear to interfere with normal respiratory functions.

Stenotic Nares 

This is not uncommon with brachycephalic, short-nosed dogs. This is a physical condition in which the dog's nostril are too narrow to allow for proper breathing.


This is also referred to as pinched nostrils. It is a congenital trait, which means that it is passed down genetically, however it cannot be bred out of the Pug due to facial structure that gives the Pug his unique appearance.

Thirty years ago, how one brave vet tried to raise the alarm

A Night Of Rock n Roll and Races.....

I'd like to bring to your attention another great night planned at The Northern Football Club in Gosforth on May 27th. Billed as a Race/Rock n Roll night, its bound to be a night not to be missed!

Ample parking space and �3 entry on the door, the fun begins with the first race is at around 7.30.

With a raffle aswell to help raise funds for ourselves, we really need your support to help make this a night to remember!

So mark it in your diaries now..... Race/Rock n Roll night, The Northern Football Club, Gosforth, NE3 2DT on May 27th from 7.30.

 

Online for the first time: the 2012 sequel to Pedigree Dogs Exposed

Well, now seemed like a very good time.... ;-)

There has been further reform since this film. The Kennel Club has beefed up its efforts to educate on genetic diversity and it has given breeders new tools to help them avoid inbreeding.

There's no doubt we've come a long way since 2008.

But there is still such a long way to go - and particularly when it comes to the brachycephalics which feature strongly in this follow-up. Nothing really has changed for them - and if anything, things have got worse.

Hopefully, that is shortly going to change.

Vets call for "urgent action" on flat-faced misery

Four days ago, I published a plea for vets to put their heads above the parapet on the brachycephalic issue, arguing that as a profession they needed to do more to stop the overwhelming tide of flat-faced misery (see here).

I'm over the moon that a petition led by vet Susie Samuels of VetHelpDirect was launched yesterday calling for a working party to help tackle the problem.

Vet Pete Wedderburn has also joined in the demand for change in this blog and a strong piece in the Telegraph (see here).

Now the British Veterinary Association (BVA)and British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) have added their voices to the campaign, stating. 

"We are unequivocal in the need for all those with roles to play � including vets, breeders, breed societies, the pet-buying public as well as others � to take action to combat the health problems that brachycephalic breeds experience due to extreme conformation. "  (See full statement at foot of page here)

Some well-known names have already signed the petition. They include Harvey Locke, a past-president of the BVA; Chris Lawrence MBE, former veterinary director of Dogs Trust  now a Trustee of the Animal Welfare Foundation and Alan Rossiter, representing Veterinary Ireland, the representative body for veterinary surgeons in Ireland. On my blog four days ago, Dr Rossiter wrote powerfully: 

Your anger at the current state of these poor dogs is absolutely justified. It makes me so so so angry that every pug I see coming in to me has to be referred for surgery to allow it to breath properly. It is an absolute disgrace that humans have manufactured such a situation and as vets we feel it is our job to get undone the harm humans have done in this regard. 

Our general policy in the Irish veterinary profession, as represented by Veterinary Ireland, is:
"The veterinary profession should strive to ensure improvement of the genetic makeup of animals so that surgical procedures are not routinely necessary to correct underlying genetic failings of a certain species or breed." 

Specific to pugs Veterinary Ireland has set a goal that within a decade all pugs that are born will be able to breathe without needing surgery. We are working with the Irish SPCA and Dogs Trust Ireland on this. When I lectured on this at our last National Animal Welfare Conference (using photos like yours) our Minister for Agriculture (who was in attendance) voiced his agreement with and support for our position.  

We obviously have to help the ones that come in that cannot breathe - if they need surgery then we have to do it - but we should tell breeders in no uncertain terms that these dogs must not be bred from and that they must not tolerate a situation whereby all of their 'produce' cannot beathe. We also have to make the Kennel Clubs change the breed standards and finally we have to tell the public that they should only buy pugs from breeders that have signed up to the new standards. The breeders and Kennel Club will not like this but frankly we don't care. If they don't come along of their own volition then they are just wrong and will be made come along. 

The last such goal we set was to ban tail docking and to have all cosmetic procedures on animals made illegal and we won. We will win this now.

The petition has attracted over 500 signatories and many moving comments in its first 24hrs hours, from vets, vet nurses and other veterinary professionals from the UK and abroad.

You can find the petition here (NB it is only for veterinary professionals and please make sure to include your qualifications/credentials when you sign to ensure your signature is counted).\

The petition's wording:

We, the undersigned veterinary professionals, call for urgent action to address the increasing number of health problems that we are seeing in our vet clinics as a consequence of the rapid increase in the number of brachycephalic dogs and cats being bred and sold in the UK. As vets we of course provide treatment to affected animals, to relieve their suffering and to improve the quality of life of the individual, but we would far prefer that these health issues did not occur. 

Brachycephaly is a man-made conformational disorder that impacts negatively on many body systems: respiratory, reproductive, thermoregulatory, neurological, ocular and orofacial. The consequences of the condition are often life-limiting and treating affected animals has become a growing part of every small-animal vet�s workload. 

Despite the evident appeal of short-nosed pets to many of our clients, it is our duty as vets to not just treat these animals, but also to lobby for reform in the way they are bred � in particular the �extreme� brachycephalics such as Pugs, Bulldogs, French Bulldogs and flat-faced Persian cats. 

The Advisory Council on the Welfare Issues of Dog Breeding issued recommendations in their 2012 report, under a section titled "Breathing difficulty linked to head conformation" but veterinary clinics across the UK continue to see many patients suffering from problem linked to extreme brachycephaly. We are calling for urgent action to be taken now to deal with the consequential animal suffering. 

We propose that a working party is established with the aim of coming up with concrete proposals to tackle the issues � measures which may include reform of the breed standards to introduce minimum muzzle lengths, functional tests before brachycephalic dogs can be bred and increased efforts as a profession to educate the consumer of the welfare consequences of their puppy-buying choices. 

More to come...

Transportation Department Gets Specific about Service Animal Relief Areas in Airports

On August 5, 2015, the Department of Transportation published a final rule in the Federal Register regarding service animal relief areas (SARAs) in airports, requiring that most airports have one such area for each terminal and generally inside the sterile section of the terminal.  The requirements of the final rules were described here in a prior blog. 

The Department has now issued a draft of an Advisory Circular �designed to assist airports in complying with the laws and regulations regarding individuals with disabilities,� which includes a set of standards for SARAs. The draft Circular, AC 150/5360-14A, which will cancel and replace a prior Circular that was issued on June 30, 1999, adds significant granularity to the relief area requirements. 

Before making the proposed draft final, the Department �invites interested persons, airport operators, guide dog trainers and handlers, consultants, industry representatives, and all other interested parties to review and comment on the draft.�  Comments may be submitted until June 6 on the regulations.gov website. The specific reference to �guide dog trainers and handlers� may not be an atavistic throwback to the days when most service dogs were guide dogs, but may reflect the Department�s express interest in issues of particular importance to individuals who use guide dogs:

The FAA is also aware that it may be difficult for people with visual impairments to navigate within the SARA. To allow these people to familiarize themselves with the SARA�s layout before entering, the AC recommends placing special signs, maps, and other orienting cues at the entrance to the SARA. In addition, this AC defines the airport terminal for the purpose of helping airports decide on the number and locations of required SARA. To enhance SARAs, the FAA is seeking input on new concept cleaning technology; like nano technology as a potential for self-cleaning SARA.

The draft Circular deserves the attention of the service animal community, particularly when an airport wishes to place a SARA outside of the sterile area of a terminal.  The draft states that when this is the case, the airport must obtain the agreement of a service animal training organization.  Also, �the airport must � document and retain a record of this agreement, including when TSA prohibits location of the SARA in a sterile area.� 

Proposed Standards for Service Animal Relief Areas

The draft SARA Standards in the Circular, printed in full in the Appendix at the end of this blog, provide that a relief area �must be located on an accessible route to each terminal.� Although 49 CFR 27.71(2) specifies that there must be �at least one relief area in each airport terminal,� the draft provides that �[o]ne relief area may serve two or more terminals if travel to and from it meets reasonable transit times�,� which means that the �transit time from any gate to a relief area is no more than 15 minutes, based on a walking pace of 200 ft/min,� with �expected time using transportation vehicles and waiting time for an escort, wheelchair, or elevators� being included in total transit time.

Relief areas �must be designed to accommodate a person using a wheelchair handling a service animal on a six-foot leash.�  In 1991, the Department issued Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities that included diagrams indicating such things as turning space needed for wheelchairs, from which the diagram shown here is taken.

The draft provides that in �busier locations, a relief area may be sized to accommodate more than one service animal at one time.�  Presumably in smaller airports, therefore, relief areas may be so small as to only accommodate one animal at a time. Nevertheless that space would have to be large enough for a wheelchair user to enter and turn around.    

Two Surfaces Required in Each Relief Area

A relief area is to have �at least two surfaces.�  The draft elaborates:

One [surface] should be hard and located immediately inside the entrance to allow wheelchair access. This surface should be delineated in a manner to indicate the portion intended to be traversed by people, and the portion intended for animal relief. The other should be an appropriate softer surface, such as gravel or mulch for outdoor areas, and artificial turf specially designed as an animal relief surface, treated to inhibit the spread of disease, for indoor (and outdoor) areas. Other artificial turf is not recommended, as it harbors odors and bacteria. Consider that artificial turf is often perceived as carpet by service animals, making them reluctant to use it. Avoid surfaces such as sand that will stick to paws and be tracked outside the SARA. When using mulch, be sure it is not of a species that can be harmful to animals. Dark colored surfaces should not be used where exposed to the sun, as they can become unbearably hot.

Fencing may be necessary, particularly for SARAs outside of buildings, which will often mean outside of sterile areas. Nevertheless, the draft suggests that outdoor locations are preferred because �some animals are trained not to relieve indoors.�  Also, strong chemicals are often used to clean indoor relief areas, and some dogs may consequently balk at entering them. (Veronica Morris makes the interesting observation that "before 9/11, it was common for individuals with service animals to be allowed to go onto the tarmac from the gate and potty their animals on the tarmac or on nearby patches of grass, which actually worked out pretty well.")

SARAs cannot be co-located with a designated smoking area.  Apparently the Department feared that some airports would try to combine troublesome smells by putting smoke and dog poop near each other.

Water Sources and Fake Fire Hydrants

A SARA �must include a sink and a faucet for hand washing,� with potable water as users can be expected to fill water bowls in the SARA. The SARA must have a separate water source for cleaning and must have adequate drainage so that water used in cleaning can run off.   A SARA must include something like a rock or fake fire hydrant �to encourage urination by male dogs.�  There must also be poop bags and a receptacle for them, and these must be placed so that wheelchair users can get to them. A sign should indicate that users should clean up after their animals (though as already noted the request for comments raised the possibility of self-cleaning SARAs).   

The airport must have signage and maps indicating where SARAs are located. �Braille signing must be installed adjacent to the side of doors and gates opposite the hinges.�  Airports are encouraged �to adopt state-of-the-art technology (e.g., smart phone applications) as it becomes available.� 

Tweaking the Definition of Service Animal

Throughout the Federal Register 2015 release on service animal relief areas no definition of service animals was provided, and I did not think at the time that any definition was particularly needed.  It could be assumed that someone at an airport who would be using a SARA would have a service animal that was going to enter the cabin of an airliner (as an animal going into a pressurized and heated hold would have been checked before the passenger entered the sterile area).  Also, the Department acknowledged that pets and TSA dogs would be using SARAs along with service dogs:

The final rule also offers the benefits of improved convenience to nondisabled persons accompanied by an animal or pet while at the airport. Although these benefits are not encompassed by the rule�s purpose, individuals traveling with pets or security dogs trained to detect security threats may also find it convenient to use service animal relief areas located in the secure area of the airport.

Nevertheless, the draft Circular now provides a definition of service animal:

Service Animal.

Any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, providing emotional support, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items. (49 CFR � 37.3)

One would expect from the parenthetical at the end of the definition that it follows 49 CFR 37.3 word for word.  It does not.  The regulation does not contain the italicized phrase, �providing emotional support.�  The 1999 Circular that is being replaced had used the exact definition from 49 CFR 37.3, i.e., without that phrase. 

The reference to emotional support appears to have been inserted by the drafters of the proposed Circular not from 49 CFR at all but rather the Air Carrier Access Act releases of the Department.  For instance, in policy guidance issued in 2003, a service animal was defined, for purposes of assisting airline employees in determining whether an animal qualifies, as �[a]ny animal that is individually trained or able to provide assistance to a qualified person with a disability; or any animal shown by documentation to be necessary for the emotional well being of a passenger.� (68 Fed. Reg. 24878, May 9, 2003)  In that definition, however, and generally in the Department�s ACAA guidance, there is no presumption that emotional support requires training. 

The phrase is, in any case, inconsistent with the approach of the Department of Justice, which provides in its basic definition in 28 CFR 36.104 that �the provision of emotional support [does] not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.� The definition in 49 CFR 37.3 was not original with the Department of Transportation, which adopted it in September 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 45624, September 6, 1991), but rather was the definition of service animal in the first ADA regulations issued by the Department of Justice in July 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 35544, July 26, 1991), a definition that for DOJ was superseded in 2010.  Thus by adding the emotional support phrase to a now outdated DOJ definition, the draft Circular has created an illogical hybrid that requires training but allows providing emotional support as sufficient to qualify an animal as a service animal. 

Miniature Horses

This effort by the drafters of the proposed Circular to modify the definition of service animal presents another problem, though this one may be temporary.  The problem comes from a footnote to the tweaked definition, which states the following:

A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. (28 CFR � 35.136). 

Thus, the Department would acknowledge, as did the Department of Justice in 2010, that a miniature horse may, much like a dog, fulfill service animal functions, particularly as a guide (28 CFR 36.302(c)(9), as finalized by DOJ in 75 Fed. Reg. 56236, September 15, 2010). 

The Department of Transportation indicated as far back as 2011 that it might have to consider revising its definition of service animal in light of the revisions made by the Department of Justice in 2010, saying that the �Department will consider whether, in the future, to propose changes to part 37 to parallel the new DOJ definitions.  Meanwhile, the existing DOT definitions continue in effect.�  (76 Fed. Reg. 57924, September 19, 2011)  That may be changing, however.

Neither of the Department of Transportation�s definitions of service animal has a species limitation�either the one in the 2003 ACAA guidance or the one in 49 CFR 37.3.  Referring to miniature horses as an exception only makes logical sense if the Department of Transportation has a species limitation on service animals, which it does not.  In issuing its 1991 rule defining service animals, DOT specifically stated that �[o]ther animals (e.g. monkeys) are sometimes used as service animals as well�. the entity must permit the service animal to accompany its user.� The Department accepts that not all service animals need to be admitted to an airplane cabin, however, and stated the following in 2008:

[T]he Department has added language to the final rule specifying that carriers need never permit certain creatures (e.g., rodents or reptiles) to travel as service animals. For others (e.g., miniature horses, pot-bellied pigs, monkeys), a U.S. carrier could make a judgment call about whether any factors (e.g., size and weight of the animal, any direct threat to the health and safety of others, significant disruption of cabin service) would preclude carrying the animal. Absent such factors, the carrier would have to allow the animal to accompany its owner on the flight. (73 Fed. Reg. 27636, May 13, 2008)

The reason any confusion here may be temporary is that the Department of Transportation has begun a process of revising its service animal airplane access rules, and the possibility of conforming its rules to those of the Department of Justice is clearly on the table. The Department of Transportation�s initiative with regard to service animal access has been discussed extensively in several blogs on this site. Thus, as with the Department of Justice, the Department of Transportation may be moving towards recognizing only dogs, and perhaps miniature horses, as service animals and the footnote reference to miniature horses may be an indication of where the Department expects its revision process to go in this regard.   

Meanwhile, however, the occasional monkey, pot-bellied pig, or miniature horse may, if trained to do so, make use of a SARA. 

Conclusions

No specific mechanism is provided for service animal organizations to engage with airports on the design and implementation of service animal relief areas.  The regulations may consider it the responsibility of an airport to find a guide or service dog organization that will be willing to give a perspective on or approve plans the airport is considering. Individuals with vision impairments and individuals who use wheelchairs will have somewhat different needs when it comes to design of relief areas, so it is to be hoped that a range of organizations will be able to participate in relief area designs. 

Since the Department seeks input from interested parties on the Circular, though allowing only a month to submit comments on the regulations.gov website (by entering Docket No. FAA-2016-4716), a guide dog or service animal organization wishing to be involved in the design and creation of relief areas in an airport should consider submitting a comment expressing this interest and thereby put the airport (through the FAA) on notice of its availability. As previously noted, this must be done by June 6.  

It appears the drafters of the Circular inside the Department of Transportation are hedging their bets by massaging the definition of service animal to take into account changes that may be coming to the Department�s longstanding acceptance of a broad range of species as service animals.  At the moment, however, a service animal relief area cannot be presumed to be one that will only be used by dogs, or even just by dogs and miniature horses. (No miniature horse lobbying group put itself forward to participate in the Reg Neg process for revising the ACAA rules on service animals, though a capuchin monkey group did submit a comment. I am told by someone associated with this group that service monkeys generally wear diapers during flights and do not require a service area.)  

Thanks to Brad Morris for careful review and correction of the legal issues.

APPENDIX: STANDARDS FOR SERVICE ANIMAL RELIEF AREAS

A.1 General.

The SARA standards below have been developed in collaboration with nationally recognized service animal training organizations and groups of users of service animals.

A.2 Number.

SARA must be located on an accessible route to each terminal. One relief area may serve two or more terminals if travel to and from it meets reasonable transit times as defined in paragraph A.3.

A.3 Transit time.  

The design transit time from any gate to a relief area is no more than 15 minutes, based on a walking pace of 200 ft/min. Any expected time spent using transportation vehicles and waiting time for an escort, wheelchair, or elevators is included in this total transit time.

A.4 Size and shape.

The SARA may be of any shape, but must be designed to accommodate a person using a wheelchair handling a service animal on a six-foot leash. In busier locations, a relief area may be sized to accommodate more than one service animal at one time.

A.5 Surfaces.

A relief area should have at least two different surfaces. One should be hard and located immediately inside the entrance to allow wheelchair access. This surface should be delineated in a manner to indicate the portion intended to be traversed by people, and the portion intended for animal relief. The other should be an appropriate softer surface, such as gravel or mulch for outdoor areas, and artificial turf specially designed as an animal relief surface, treated to inhibit the spread of disease, for indoor (and outdoor) areas. Other artificial turf is not recommended, as it harbors odors and bacteria. Consider that artificial turf is often perceived as carpet by service animals, making them reluctant to use it. Avoid surfaces such as sand that will stick to paws and  be tracked outside the SARA. When using mulch, be sure it is not of a species that can be harmful to animals. Dark colored surfaces should not be used where exposed to the sun, as they can become unbearably hot.

A.6 Fencing.

Fencing or another suitable barrier, with an accessible gate/entrance, adequate to contain service animals must be provided.

A.7 Plumbing.

The SARA must include a sink with a faucet for hand washing. Water must be potable, as it will often also serve as a drinking water supply to fill bowls supplied by service animal handlers. A separate water supply must be included for use in cleaning the surface. The surface must be constructed with adequate drainage to facilitate regular cleaning.

A.8 Location.

Outdoor locations are preferred, as all service animals are trained to use outdoor relief areas. While some service animals are trained not to relieve indoors, at some terminals it may not be feasible to establish an outdoor relief area within the sterile area. In such cases, the relief area will have to be constructed indoors. SARA must not be co-located with a designated smoking area.  

A.9 Weather protection.

Outdoor SARA must include weather protection from sun and precipitation. If the SARA is close to operating aircraft, protection from jet blast and prop wash must be provided.

A.10 Scent.

The sense of smell is much more acute in animals than in humans. This can be a help or a hindrance in encouraging service animals to use a relief area. Pheromone-scented surfaces or devices can be beneficial, while disinfecting chemicals with strong odors can be detrimental.  

A.11 Accessories.

The SARA, at a minimum, must include:

1. A three-dimensional device (e.g. rock or fake fire hydrant) to encourage urination by male dogs.

2. Animal waste bags.

3. A waste receptacle.

Note: The disposal bags and receptacle must be located just inside the entrance to the SARA on an accessible route and at a height reachable by wheelchair users.

 

A.12 Wayfinding and Signage

A.12.1 Signage Standardization is desirable. 

The sign shown in Figure A-1, with or without accompanying text, may be used with directional arrows to guide users to the SARA. The signage, when used, must be included in airport layout maps and in wayfinding instructions provided throughout the airport. In addition, signing at the SARA should indicate the following:

1. The need for handlers to clean up after animals; 

2. The location of waste disposal bags, and waste receptacles, hand washing facilities, and any other facilities (e.g. automatic flushing controls);

3. Instructions for the operation of any facilities; and

4. Contact information for maintenance and assistance.

A.12.2 Other guidance.

Signage should be supplemented with means, including auditory announcements, to guide people with vision impairments. Braille signing must be installed adjacent to the side of doors and gates opposite the hinges. Airports are encouraged to adopt state-of-the art technology (e.g., smart phone applications) as it becomes available.

The 2016 Great North Dog Walk.....

We are very proud to of once again been selected as a beneficiary of the world record holding Great North Dog Walk on Sunday the 5th June 2016.

This event is annual and measurable and the last dog walk was the 25th staging. It was held on Sunday 7th June 2015 with 26,423 dogs represented by 185 breeds, starting on The Leas, South Shields, England, United Kingdom, SatNav NE33 2JH. The 3 mile (4.8km) walk follows a coastal route along the cliffs with magnificent sea views. There are four different routes of varying lengths to cater for everyone within the community and over varying surfaces like grass, gravel and concrete. This therefore allows for baby buggies, wheelchairs, the young, the elderly, disabled and also older dogs to support this world record attempt. The event is Internationally recognised and holds the WORLD RECORD as the largest dog walk ever held (22,742 dogs).

So if you'd like to do the walk for us, email joanaustin@shak.org.uk to register and get your entry number and sponsor form. Please note all completed sponsor forms and cheques must be sent to SHAK. Greenwell Road, Alnwick NE66 1HB.

We really are proud to be associated with such a fantastic event, but really need your support with it..... thank you in advance.

Open letter to UK vets: stand up and be counted on the brachycephalic issue

There is an epidemic in the UK that is killing dogs and maiming those it doesn't kill.

It is not leptospirosis, nor babesiosis nor Alabama Rot. It's not even parvo.

The disease is called brachycephaly and it causes more suffering than all of the above put together.

Today in the UK (and much of the developed globe), you can barely step out of your front door without tripping over a wheezing Pug, Bulldog or  Frenchie.

� The Kennel Club registered 2,000 Pugs in 2005 and 10,000 last year: a five-fold increase.

� The past 10 years has seen a doubling in the number of Bulldogs (up from 3,000 to 7,000 KC registrations in 2015).

� In 2005 the KC registered just 324 French Bulldogs. Last year? The KC registered 14,607 of them.

That's a more-than 4000% increase!

That's thousands upon thousands of dogs in the UK that:

� spend their lives fighting for air
� are robbed of the delight of walking on a summer's day because they can't cool themselves
� have deformed mouths with almost ubiquitous periodontal disease
� endure chronic skin infections from the wrinkling that invariably accompanies a short face
� suffer painful eye injuries because they don't have the buffer of a muzzle to protect them
� have twisted spines because of the demand for short backs and a screw tail (or no tail)
� often can't mate or be born without assistance

And what are you vets doing about it?

Let me tell you.

You organise CPD days on how to manage the increasing number of creatures that turn up at your practice doors gasping for air.

You refer clients on to soft-tissue specialists who do their best to remedy the deformity that has been bred into them by cutting away the gobs of flesh that block their airways while hoping they don't arrest on the table.

You section that Bulldog and say nothing to the breeder about how wrong it is that the dogs are no longer capable of birthing their own pups.

And you smile ruefully at memes like this on your closed social media groups.

And when a client walks through your  practice door with a Bulldog, Pug or French Bulldog puppy... you coo along with the best of them - because those that don't risk losing a paying customer.

You are of course all too aware of the problems. I know because you tell me - although almost always in confidence because publicly you have to distance yourself from me. That's because you all too often buy the kennel club-and-breeder line that calling for the right for a decent lung-full of air makes me a dangerous radical. 

At the top level of your profession, meanwhile, there is institutional kow-towing to the Kennel Club  and a reluctance to do anything other than accept their platitudes that they have to take things slowly or risk "losing" the breeders.

Did you know that the Pug breed standard specifically states that Pugs should never be "lean or leggy"? That it still states that a double curl in the tail is "highly desirable" (a clear invitation to hemivertebrae further up the the spine)?

Did you know that although the Frenchie standard demands a "well defined muzzle" there are dogs winning in the UK show-ring that look like this?

And that if you put a longer-muzzled Frenchie like this in the ring,  it would never win?

Were you aware that although they're supposed to have "open nostrils" judges routinely reward dogs with nares like this:

Ch Boule and Onuba Zinderella at Sealaw - Top French Bulldog 2013

Did you know that this Bulldog was shown at Crufts this year? 

And this one?

This dog, by the way, is a good example of Bulldog breeders' desire for a good "layback". 

You want to know what that means?

On a "correct" Bulldog, you are supposed to be able to lay a ruler from a Bulldog's forehead to the upper tip of its undershot lower jaw.  Yep, it's a fault if the dog's nose is too proud to prevent it.

Did you know that there still isn't a single health test that a Pug, Bulldog or Frenchie has to pass to be registered by the Kennel Club - not even those bred under the supposedly-elite Assured Breeder Scheme?

If you're asking why I focus so much on the Kennel Club and the show-ring, it is because it's the sole reason that there were Bulldogs in 1906 that looked like this:

1906

And Bulldogs now that look like this...

In particular, I focus on the Kennel Club because it is vulnerable to strong pressure - as we saw after Pedigree Dogs Exposed.

The scientific evidence is overwhelming with paper after paper elucidating the cost to the dogs of being bred to meet some people's dysfunctional need for a dog that looks like a baby. And, incidentally, just like with a baby, they have to wipe these dogs' bottoms as they cannot reach round to clean themselves. 

One German vet who breeds them herself told me she didn't think this was a problem. 

The  Pug-breeding Austrian-born vet who oversees the vet checks at Crufts is on the record saying the short muzzle in and of itself is not the problem.

But other vets are calling time on the brachycephalics - and they are putting most UK vets to shame.

In Sweden last year, over a thousand vets put their name to an open letter demanding urgent action. Last month, the Norwegian Kennel Club came out and said that things had to change for the brachycephalics. (See here)

In consultation with vets, the Dutch KC now insists on functional tests before Bulldogs can be bred.

Here in the UK, though, whenever the issue is mentioned officially by the profession , it is always conflated with the issue of flat-faced puppies being imported legally or illegally from abroad. Sure, this is a problem, but it diverts from the central issue which is that the design is fundamentally flawed and something needs to be done about it.  

I'll say this, too: the overseas-bred puppies may have been bred in poor welfare circumstances, but they often have more moderate features and I bet a pound to a dollar the puppy peddlers aren't forking out for expensive C-sections that cut into their profits.

Let me put it even more bluntly: 

UK vets... in not speaking up, you are failing these dogs. It is not enough to just treat them.

If I thought it would work, I would start an open letter or petition for UK vets to sign. But it would be so much more effective if it came direct from the profession.

I have been lobbying so hard on this now for so long.  I am exhausted and frustrated that there isn't more support from the very people that know first-hand how awful the situation is and how much it needs to change. 

So please.. will one brave vet put his or her head above the parapet and start this?  Now?

Because it is, frankly, time for UK vets to grow a pair. 

Committee Appointed to Consider Amending Definition of �Service Animal� for Flight Access

A previous blog described the decision of the Department of Transportation last December to initiate a negotiated rulemaking (Reg-Neg) process under which stakeholders would advise the Department on a number of access issues for air travelers with disabilities. The Department had received 68 comments by the closing of the extended comment period on January 21, but has continued to post comments submitted after the deadline. There are now 110 comments on the webpage devoted to the proposal. 

The rulemaking process has taken a step forward with the appointment of an ACCESS Advisory Committee that will make recommendations with respect to three issues: (1) whether to require accessible inflight entertainment (IFE) and strengthen accessibility requirements for other in-flight communications; (2) whether to require an accessible lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft over a certain size; and (3) whether to amend the definition of �service animals� that may accompany passengers with a disability on a flight.  The following individuals and organizations have been appointed to the Committee:

1. Michelle Albert, Boeing Commercial Airplanes
2. Zainab Alkebsi, National Association of the Deaf
3. Mary Barnicle, United Airlines
4. Kelly Buckland, National Council on Independent Living
5. Curtis L. Decker, National Disability Rights Network
6. Parnell Diggs, National Federation of the Blind
7. Paul Doell, National Air Carrier Association
8. Geoff Freed, National Center for Accessible Media at WGBH
9. Brian Friedman, JetBlue Airways
10. Laurie A. Gawelko, Service Dog Express, LLC
11. Lise Hamlin, Hearing Loss Association of America
12. Dr. Katherine Hunter-Zaworski, Oregon State University
13. Candace Kolander, Association of Flight Attendants
14. Doug Lavin, International Air Transport Association
15. Russ Lemieux, Airline Passenger Experience Association
16. Lorne Mackenzie, WestJet Airlines
17. David Martin, Delta Air Lines
18. Orit H. Michiel, Motion Picture Association of America
19. Bradley W. Morris, Psychiatric Service Dog Partners
20. Lawrence Mullins, Lufthansa Group
21. Lee Page, Paralyzed Veterans of America
22. Deborah Lynn Price, Frontier Airlines
23. Roser Roca-Toha, Airbus
24. Alicia Smith, National Alliance on Mental Illness
25. Anthony Stevens, American Counsel [sic] of the Blind
26. Jennifer Sunderman, Regional Airline Association
27. Blane A. Workie, U.S. Department of Transportation (Designated Federal Officer)

Thus, two participants are from service dog organizations, though others are from disability rights groups that will undoubtedly have perspectives on the service dog mandate of the Committee. Other service and guide dog groups had put themselves forward as potential participants but were not chosen. 

First Meeting of Committee Announced, Public Invited

The first meeting of the Committee will be held on May 17 and 18 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street NW, Washington DC 20001 (202-234-0700).  Although the meeting is open to the public, the size of the room only allows for 150 attendees, so those wishing to attend are advised to contact Alyssa Battle (Abattle@linkvisum.com; 703-442-4575) or Kyle Illgenfritz (kilgenfritz@linkvisum.com; 703-442-4575, ext. 128) to reserve a space.  The Committee will terminate upon submission of its recommendations or after two years, whichever happens sooner.  The Federal Register release states:

The Committee will dedicate a substantial amount of time at the first meeting to establishing the rules, procedures, and process of the Committee, such as outlining the voting rights of the Committee members and defining the meaning of �consensus.�

Additional tentative dates for Committee meetings are June 14-15, July 11-12, August 16-17, September 22-23, and October 13-14. Notices of future meeting locations, and firm dates, will be announced in the Federal Register at least 15 days prior to each meeting.

Members of the public may submit written comments on the three topics to be considered by the Committee through the regulations.gov website, referencing Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0246. This means that other individuals and organizations interested in being heard on the issues that will be discussed by the Committee have additional time to comment.  Department of Transportation, Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Membership and First Meeting, RIN 2105-AE12, 81 Fed. Reg. 26178, May 2, 2016.