Living With Dogs (13 page)

Building on the early Serpell and Anderson work there have been many further studies on the influence of pet ownership on human health. These are summarised in the PIAS National People and Pets 2006 Report titled ‘Living Well Together’. More specific information is included in the following reports: ‘Is dog ownership or dog walking associated with weight status in children and their parents?’, ‘The pet connection: pets as a conduit to social capital’ and ‘Does getting a dog increase recreational walking?’ which can all be found on the Anthrozoology website.

The close bond between animal and human is at the heart of the mental and emotional benefits enjoyed by dog owners. The bond changes through all the different stages of life. Children will see a dog on equal terms and view it as a friend, and also as a buffer zone against adults. Young adults no longer treat the dog as an equal, but it becomes enormously important as a companion: it’s often a case of ‘me and the dog versus the world’.

For young married couples the dog is a shared bond, and it can reach high levels of intensity if the animal takes on the role of a child substitute. In couples with children, the dog becomes an essential ingredient of the family unit. As the children grow up, the family dog is often seen by the husband as his personal mate. Where the mother stays at home, an equally intense relationship may develop, and the unit becomes ‘Mum, the kids, and the dog’.

When the children leave home, and particularly after the death of a spouse, the remaining partner often turns to the dog for companionship, and it becomes the only remaining link between the surviving person and the marriage. Euthanasia is always traumatic, but it is most distressing when I’m asked to put down a dog that was the last link with a marriage partner, or if the dog is the only animal a child has ever known.

Malcolm McHarg, the manager of the People and Pets survey, had conducted previous research in 1976. He concluded from the new study that dog owners had become more responsible in the intervening 20 years, particularly over the issues of getting dogs vaccinated, exercising them, and picking up their dog’s faeces. The 1995 survey found that most owners kept their animals on a lead during exercise, and troublesome barking or destructive behaviour by the dog was relatively uncommon.

It reported that the great majority of pet owners were responsible and considerate carers. While this kind of owner certainly exists, I have frequently encountered arrogant dog owners who are only interested in themselves and their dogs. I have found in life that there are three pointers to human behaviour: one is the way people ride their bike, another is the way they drive their car, and the third is the way they own dogs. Owners often take the attitude that it’s their dog, and it’s their business what they do with it. They show little consideration for humans or other dogs.

Most of the difficulties experienced with uncontrolled dogs are due to irresponsible owners. This has led to a growing belief among those involved with animal welfare that owners should be licensed by local councils as fit and proper people to own a dog.

Consideration will be required from all sides to resolve two of the most controversial dog ownership issues currently facing local municipalities in Australia. The first is the exercise of dogs in public parks, and the second is defecation by dogs in public areas. There is growing conflict between dog owners and the anti-dog lobby over whether animals should be allowed free running areas in public parks. Attempts by municipalities to impose regulations that dogs should always be kept on a leash have provoked a strong reaction from dog owners, who are often the highest users of the parks.

The municipalities of Boroondara, in Melbourne, and Rockingham, outside Perth, have both experienced a fierce backlash from dog owners suddenly threatened with having to walk their dogs on a leash at all times. There was a similar reaction in Santa Monica, in California, when dogs were banned from public parks. The dog lobby exerted pressure on the local authorities and dogs were eventually provided with two parks where they were allowed off the leash in the early morning and late afternoon.

RSPCA policy states that dogs should be kept on a leash in public places, but it also recommends that where such a requirement exists, the local municipality must provide a series of spaces where dogs are permitted to exercise off-leash. These spaces should be signposted to advise anyone entering them that they may meet with unleashed dogs.

In the People and Pets survey 60 per cent of owners said they always kept their dog on a leash when exercising in public places, which suggests to me that some respondents were giving the politically correct reply rather than the true answer. I think it would be closer to the mark to say that 80 per cent of owners had a dog lead on their person, but not necessarily on the dog. The most contentious dog ownership issue has been animals not being kept on leads, and if 60 per cent of owners kept their dog on a lead, as the survey states, we would not have had so much community unrest stemming from dog bite incidents which are virtually reported daily.

The survey stated 50 per cent of owners said they walked their dog once or twice a day; 26 per cent said they walked it most days, but not every day; and 20 per cent said they walked their dog once or twice a week. Only 2 per cent admitted to walking the animal less than once a week. One of the most common causes of complaint to the RSPCA from members of the public is that they see neighbours’ dogs which are never let off a chain. In many cases there is no doubt that unless the dog is being walked at 2 am, it is getting no exercise at all.

The survey reported that women were twice as likely to walk the dog than men, which does not surprise me. It is in the nature of women to be more planned and consistent, and in child-rearing they are more often the ones who see that things happen, and that the children go to the doctor and the dentist. There is no doubt the male gets a great deal out of the relationship with a dog, but it’s often a one-way relationship. That doesn’t mean men don’t have a great attachment to the dog, but they allocate their time elsewhere, and it’s usually the woman who brings the dog for its vaccination or takes it for its daily walk. The only finding in the survey that confirmed the male’s much-vaunted special relationship with dogs was that where dogs were exercised several times a day, it was more likely that a man would be the walker.

The most common places for exercise and walking were local streets (54 per cent), and parks or other public places, excluding beaches and the banks of rivers or creeks (48 per cent). Dogs get far more interest and excitement by having their walks varied, because they have a wonderful sense of smell, which is stimulated by venturing into new territory. Going through busy, familiar places can also appeal to dogs, because other dogs may have marked the territory since the last walk, and other things may have happened.

Dog control laws are necessary for the safety and wellbeing of dogs, as well as humans. But dog owners will only support the laws if they see that municipalities adopt a balanced approach, taking into account the needs of dog owners and non-dog owners. Each time a privilege like freedom for dogs in all public places is removed it must be replaced with a new privilege, namely freedom for dogs in designated areas.

Dogs need exercise for exactly the same reasons humans do, namely to keep fit and healthy, and this can be achieved on the leash, provided the owner ensures the dog covers adequate distance, and varies the pace of the exercise. Off-leash exercise ensures the dog will cover the required distance, and establish its own pace. If dogs don’t get the right sort of exercise, they will end up like 80 per cent of the dogs who come to my surgery, unfit and overweight.

The issue of exercise for dogs in public spaces will become increasingly important for local municipalities, and it is important that they develop constructive policies which take into account the needs of both sides. The Petcare Information and Advisory Service published a report titled ‘Public Open Space and Dogs’ which gives local municipalities strategic guidelines on how to develop free running areas for dogs within public parks. Written by Virginia Jackson, an urban planner, with the assistance of Professor Judith Blackshaw, from the veterinary science department of the University of Queensland, and Jane Marriott, a landscape designer, it gives detailed suggestions about how these free exercise spaces should be planned, so that they avoid children’s playgrounds and other sensitive areas.

The report attempts to move away from the ‘us and them’ conflict over dogs which has recently split municipalities like Boroondara and Rockingham, and instead of presenting dog owners as a problem (which is how they tend to have been seen in the past), they are seen as a legitimate and sizable community group. The benefit for the community is that if dogs are allowed free running areas where they can use up their energy, they are less likely to become bored at home, and therefore less likely to bark and indulge in other anti-social behaviour.

Defecation by dogs is closely linked to the issue of off-leash exercise, and is the reason why so many ratepayers oppose dogs in public parks. Australia has lagged behind other countries such as England, France, and the US, which have introduced regulations ensuring that faeces are picked up by dog owners and, in some cases, placed in special bins provided by the local municipality. Councils on Sydney’s North Shore have led the way in legislating for the removal of faeces, and the People and Pets survey found that 48 per cent of Sydney dog owners said they always picked up their dog’s droppings, compared with 36 per cent in other Australian cities; 42 per cent of owners said they never picked up their dog’s faeces. There are new local municipal anti-fouling laws in all urban areas of Australia.

Anti-fouling laws may at least assist in making people aware of the fact that they should be considerate to others, but if municipalities introduce regulations, they must make it easy for owners to dispose of their dog’s faeces, through the provision of bins, or pooper scoopers. Who is going to pick up their dog’s droppings, put it in a plastic bag, and keep it in their pocket for the rest of the walk? But if two or three bins are provided in the park, people’s social consciences will be pricked.

It’s a hygiene issue rather than a health or animal welfare issue, and medical people greatly exaggerate the health risk from dog faeces containing roundworm eggs. If these eggs are swallowed by humans, it can cause liver, eye, or brain problems due to dog roundworm larvae migrating through the human bowel wall and the larvae being spread to these organs via the bloodstream.

The major threat is children playing with the faecal material, or touching the dog around its rear end, and not washing their hands. The real problem is the owner not worming the dog, rather than allowing the dog to defecate in the park — however unhygienic that might appear. It should be remembered that healthy dogs can also catch whipworm, hookworm and parvovirus by sniffing or licking the area where infected dogs have defecated.

The People and Pets survey confirmed that pet ownership tends to be a lifetime habit, begun in childhood and continued through the various stages of life. Often the only reason people break the habit is because they move house, and there is insufficient space for the dog to exercise. Of those currently owning a dog, 76 per cent intend replacing it when it dies. The other 24 per cent give the following two reasons for non-replacement: ‘I expect to be too upset’ or ‘I do not want the responsibility’.

I have found that a third reason for non-replacement is that old people fear that if they buy a new dog they will die before the dog, leaving it homeless. But often the owners live much longer than they think, and they spend years of unnecessary misery, when they could be sharing their life with a pet. They should also remember that, in many cases, five years is half a dog’s life. In my long experience I have rarely put down a dog because ‘no-one would take it’. Owners also have the added reassurance of knowing that they may join the RSPCA’s bequest foster programme, which provides them with the certainty that their dog will be given a home should it outlast the owner.

The two great truths of dog ownership are that, if you do it properly, the care of the dog will be a constant, ongoing responsibility. You will also form a close emotional attachment, which may be very painful to sever. I have often found that it’s only when I come to put a dog down, and see the distress it causes the owner, that the full extent of the bond between the two becomes clear.

The temporary distress of losing the dog is far outweighed by the rewards of ownership: you will be fitter and happier, and you’ll have a friend for life.

As a young veterinary student in Brisbane, I remember being told by John Sprent, Professor of Veterinary Parasitology, that more harm was done to animals by parasites than any other factor. I was startled by this statement at the time, thinking viruses and bacteria probably did more damage, but the 45 years that I have spent in practice have confirmed that parasites have a profound influence on the health of animals. Perhaps the veterinary profession hasn’t emphasised this enough in the past in the case of companion animals. Production animals like sheep and dairy cattle have always received plenty of attention because parasite infections reduce the output of the animals, but there was never quite the same economic imperative in getting the message across for dogs and cats kept as household pets.