3. small
Anim. Pract. (1975) 16, v-vi.
Editorial A PLEA F O R P R O P O R T I O N
For a good many decades the dog has had it all his own way. He could do little wrong; the tale of his virtues was without end; he was extolled in prose and in verse; and not to be counted among his admirers was to be outside the pale. All this has changed quite suddenly, dramatically even. The dog is dangerous, dirty, a menace to public health, you name it, he is it. Newspapers, some of which ought to know better, have published anti-dog articles indulging in almost hysterical exaggeration, and statisticians have calculated by some esoteric exercises in mathematics the tonnage of excrement said to be deposited month by month by these monsters. I t seems reasonable to call for some sense of proportion. As Lord Houghton wrote in his introduction to the recent report, ‘Dogs in the United Kingdom’, ‘We may as well make up our minds to it, dogs are here to stay in large numbers.’ What has to be done, therefore, is to work towards a state of things-if necessary through legislation, in part-when the careless, feckless or lazy owner, together with the abandoned sentimentalist can be made subject to reasonable disciplines, and enable the dog to take its traditional, valued place in human society. The BSAVA has already declared a campaign in favour of responsible ownership and continues to use its best endeavour, to this end. Without doubt, education of public opinion, beginning in schools, is indispensable; and the breeding industry has its part to play as have the newspapers and the broadcasting systems. Interest in animals has never been greater than it is now-the vast success of M r James Herriot’s books are testimony enough-and it should not be difficult to harness this interest to sound basic principles of ownership. Apart from the peril of rabies, which dwarfs every other danger for which dogs may be responsible, the deposition of Toxocara canis in canine faeces has received a good deal of attention recently, and the findings of E. J. Pegg published in The Veterinary Record underline the reality of this danger. Owners of dogs, especially in cities, are deplorably lax or indifferent, and allow defaecation on pavements, in public parks and elsewhere, where it is both disgusting and insanitary. Legal penalties need to be more severe, and there would seem to be a possible case for the recruitment of dog wardens, paid for by an increase in the licence fee. T h e formation of such a corps has already come under discussion, and little as most people would V
vi
EDITORIAL
welcome any addition to the army of officials of every kind, it is difficult to see how public health and amenities can be protected otherwise. The problem of the stray shows no sign of solution, and is common to every country where dogs are kept as companions. Identification needs to be much more strictly enforced, I n theory every adult dog has its owner’s name and address attached to the collar; but the police cannot be expected to look at the collar of every dog on the beat and other means must be devised. The government is, apparently, looking into this, and the practices of other countries, where dog identification is much more strictly enforced than in Britain, could be looked at with advantage. Nor is the speying of bitches as widespread as it might be. Public opinion has long since taken the castration of male cats for granted, and it should not prove difficult to achieve the same tolerance for general speying where there is no intention to breed. The animal welfare societies could do much both practically and educationally in this. Individual freedom grows less every year, and any fresh curtailment of it needs to be considered with anxious care. But is there not a case for seeking to limit the number of animals in any one household ? T o feed an animal properly is expensive, yet families who, by ordinary criteria cannot possibly afford to do so, think nothing of keeping several animals. I t can hardly be doubted that this ends, all to often, in animals being turned astray; a proceeding not only callous in itself but a nuisance, and a danger to public health. I t could hardly be considered a grossviolation of the sanctity of the British home to specify one animal per household. But perhaps the most bizarre among the dog’s alleged shortcomings was described not long ago in The Times. It quoted the findings of Dr Athol Gallifent of Kensington and other learned authorities to the effect that the urination of dogs is dkstroying our lamp posts. The doctor, states The Times, has seen ‘one modern street lamp standard crash down in a London street’, while several others were ‘distinctly wobbly’. And these observations were borne out, apparently, by the deputy borough engineer of Lambeth, and ‘a foreman in charge of a street lighting maintenance team? Here, ready made, is a subject for a doctoral thesis! ‘Dietary modifications in the Canine Species for the Preservation of the Nation’s Lamp Posts’. Ambitious dieticians go to it. Yet when all is said and done, do not the dog’s assets infinitely outweigh his liabilities as a member ofour society? Is he not, ifwe are sufficientlyobjective, to be preferred to some, a t least, of our contemporaries? He does not talk to much; he is not a bore; his manners are pleasing and his demands moderate. Of him it may be said as Macaulay said of his reading, ‘Plato is never sullen; Cervantes is never petulant; Demosthenes never comes unseasonably; Dante never stays too long.’ No price or value can be placed on companionship, and that above all is the obligation our dogs lay us under. They have, as who has not, their deficiencies; but, weighed in the balance, how poor we should be without them.
Anim. Pract. (1975) 16, v-vi.
Editorial A PLEA F O R P R O P O R T I O N
For a good many decades the dog has had it all his own way. He could do little wrong; the tale of his virtues was without end; he was extolled in prose and in verse; and not to be counted among his admirers was to be outside the pale. All this has changed quite suddenly, dramatically even. The dog is dangerous, dirty, a menace to public health, you name it, he is it. Newspapers, some of which ought to know better, have published anti-dog articles indulging in almost hysterical exaggeration, and statisticians have calculated by some esoteric exercises in mathematics the tonnage of excrement said to be deposited month by month by these monsters. I t seems reasonable to call for some sense of proportion. As Lord Houghton wrote in his introduction to the recent report, ‘Dogs in the United Kingdom’, ‘We may as well make up our minds to it, dogs are here to stay in large numbers.’ What has to be done, therefore, is to work towards a state of things-if necessary through legislation, in part-when the careless, feckless or lazy owner, together with the abandoned sentimentalist can be made subject to reasonable disciplines, and enable the dog to take its traditional, valued place in human society. The BSAVA has already declared a campaign in favour of responsible ownership and continues to use its best endeavour, to this end. Without doubt, education of public opinion, beginning in schools, is indispensable; and the breeding industry has its part to play as have the newspapers and the broadcasting systems. Interest in animals has never been greater than it is now-the vast success of M r James Herriot’s books are testimony enough-and it should not be difficult to harness this interest to sound basic principles of ownership. Apart from the peril of rabies, which dwarfs every other danger for which dogs may be responsible, the deposition of Toxocara canis in canine faeces has received a good deal of attention recently, and the findings of E. J. Pegg published in The Veterinary Record underline the reality of this danger. Owners of dogs, especially in cities, are deplorably lax or indifferent, and allow defaecation on pavements, in public parks and elsewhere, where it is both disgusting and insanitary. Legal penalties need to be more severe, and there would seem to be a possible case for the recruitment of dog wardens, paid for by an increase in the licence fee. T h e formation of such a corps has already come under discussion, and little as most people would V
vi
EDITORIAL
welcome any addition to the army of officials of every kind, it is difficult to see how public health and amenities can be protected otherwise. The problem of the stray shows no sign of solution, and is common to every country where dogs are kept as companions. Identification needs to be much more strictly enforced, I n theory every adult dog has its owner’s name and address attached to the collar; but the police cannot be expected to look at the collar of every dog on the beat and other means must be devised. The government is, apparently, looking into this, and the practices of other countries, where dog identification is much more strictly enforced than in Britain, could be looked at with advantage. Nor is the speying of bitches as widespread as it might be. Public opinion has long since taken the castration of male cats for granted, and it should not prove difficult to achieve the same tolerance for general speying where there is no intention to breed. The animal welfare societies could do much both practically and educationally in this. Individual freedom grows less every year, and any fresh curtailment of it needs to be considered with anxious care. But is there not a case for seeking to limit the number of animals in any one household ? T o feed an animal properly is expensive, yet families who, by ordinary criteria cannot possibly afford to do so, think nothing of keeping several animals. I t can hardly be doubted that this ends, all to often, in animals being turned astray; a proceeding not only callous in itself but a nuisance, and a danger to public health. I t could hardly be considered a grossviolation of the sanctity of the British home to specify one animal per household. But perhaps the most bizarre among the dog’s alleged shortcomings was described not long ago in The Times. It quoted the findings of Dr Athol Gallifent of Kensington and other learned authorities to the effect that the urination of dogs is dkstroying our lamp posts. The doctor, states The Times, has seen ‘one modern street lamp standard crash down in a London street’, while several others were ‘distinctly wobbly’. And these observations were borne out, apparently, by the deputy borough engineer of Lambeth, and ‘a foreman in charge of a street lighting maintenance team? Here, ready made, is a subject for a doctoral thesis! ‘Dietary modifications in the Canine Species for the Preservation of the Nation’s Lamp Posts’. Ambitious dieticians go to it. Yet when all is said and done, do not the dog’s assets infinitely outweigh his liabilities as a member ofour society? Is he not, ifwe are sufficientlyobjective, to be preferred to some, a t least, of our contemporaries? He does not talk to much; he is not a bore; his manners are pleasing and his demands moderate. Of him it may be said as Macaulay said of his reading, ‘Plato is never sullen; Cervantes is never petulant; Demosthenes never comes unseasonably; Dante never stays too long.’ No price or value can be placed on companionship, and that above all is the obligation our dogs lay us under. They have, as who has not, their deficiencies; but, weighed in the balance, how poor we should be without them.
