Anti BSL organisation DDAWatch requested the figures under the Freedom of Information Act on the 21st June 2010. Part of the request asked for the total cost to the Metropolitan police of kennelling, legal, transport and veterinary fees and any other associated costs related to holding dogs seized under the DDA between 1-1-2010 and 1-6-2010.

DDAWatch, who monitor the legislation and assist owners affected by its enforcement have asked the same question on several occasions over a number of years and until this month it has always been given – so what has changed?

In the response given by Alex Norrie, Information Manager for the Met it states

“While it is accepted that accountability and demonstrating transparency in
the use of public funds is a strong factor favouring disclosure, by
disclosing the requested information, the commercial interests of a third
party may be compromised, along with the relationship the MPS has with
that party, and the MPS’ own commercial interests. This would have a
corresponding effect on the ability of MPS to secure value for money in
the future.

I have therefore determined that greater weight must be given to
protecting the commercial interests of the third party and the MPS in this
instance. As such, it is my decision that the public interest favours
non-disclosure at this time.”

However Alison Green of DDAWatch says

“It’s almost laughable! We are in the middle of a recession, police forces across the country are having their budgets cut and losing police officers as a result yet we are told disclosing the cost to the taxpayer for enforcing this law is not in the public interest?

How can it compromise the interests of the third parties when the identities of those third parties are unknown? We have not asked where dogs are held or who provides the vet care. We have asked how much this legislation, which is failing spectacularly, is costing and they are more worried about protecting their “commercial interests”.

We will be appealing the decision and intend to take it as far as we need to in order that full disclosure on costs is given.”

The refusal will add to the mounting campaign to secure a repeal of the draconian Dangerous Dogs Act. DDAWatch held a very successful Vigil for Victims of Breed Specific Legislation on 24th July 2010 which was broadcast by the national media and have seen their support base steadily rise.

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

Metropolitan Police Refuse to Disclose Costs of Failed Dog Legislation

Related content:

1. Battersea Joins Forces With The Metropolitan Police Force on Dog Legislation
2. Police Chief: Breed Specific Legislation is Stupid
3. More DDA Dogs Die as Taxpayer Picks Up Astonishing £736,760 Bill (in a Credit Crunch)

Andrew Rosindell echoed the aims of the DDASG by calling for the Dangerous Dogs Act to be scrapped and replaced by new laws, highlighting the need for “new laws that address this problem with owners properly held to account”.

The DDASG has lobbied against the inadequacies of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for many years and believes that current legislation has failed to protect the public and instead caused a significant welfare issue whilst creating the problem of so called ‘status’ dogs. Speaking during his Ten-Minute Rule Bill, Mr Rosindell said the freedom to choose to own a dog had to go “hand in hand” with the responsibility that came with it.

A new Dog Control Bill designed to do just that and deal with the other end of the lead, the dog owners themselves, is currently making its way through the House of Lords after successfully passing its second stage this month.

The Bill also looks to remove breed specific legislation to better focus resources on dealing with all dangerous dogs instead of specific ‘types’. Andrew Rosindell’s Bill mirrored this, emphasising the DDASG’s principle of “deed not breed” and stating that banning a handful of breeds would not solve the problem of dangerous dogs.

Caroline Kisko, member of DDASG and Kennel Club Communications Director said “We are grateful to Andrew for continuing to keep this issue on the parliamentary agenda and in the public consciousness. The Dog Control Bill will go a long way towards improving legislation on ‘dangerous dogs’ by focusing on prevention rather than cure, by better protecting the public and emphasising responsible dog ownership”.

For more information on DDASG, Lord Redesdale’s Dog Control Bill and current ‘dangerous dog’ legislation click here.

Bruce was seized under the DDA despite never doing anything aggressive

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

MP’s Urgent Call for Rapid Repeal of Breed Specific Legislation

Related content:

1. Vets Tell Government To Get Rid of Breed Specific Legislation Now
2. Government Minister “Breed Specific Legislation Not Something That Can Easily Be Ditched”
3. Sign The Petition To Repeal Section 1 DDA 1991 – Breed Specific Legislation

At the conclusion of the four-day hearing, Dr Adetunji Ayinla Jolaosho, formerly principal veterinary surgeon at City Vet Clinic in Syston, near Grantham, was found unfit to practise following two convictions for tail docking plus 17 driving and related offences, which also brought the profession into disrepute.

They further found that he failed to obtain consent to remove tissue from Jemma, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by Mrs Hill, and to discuss a reasonable range of treatment options with her, and that this also amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In December 2008, Mrs Hill brought Jemma to Dr Jolaosho to have a lump on her flank drained. Mrs Hill said she made it clear that she had limited finances and nothing other than this treatment should be done without her consent. Dr Jolaosho undertook a biopsy and removed tissue. He told the Committee that he asked his practice manager to contact Mrs Hill and obtain her consent, however, this was not consistent either with the clinical records or a letter sent to Mrs Hill in December 2008.

“The Committee is satisfied that Dr Jolaosho did not seek to obtain consent from Mrs Hill before he decided to carry out exploratory surgery,” said Caroline Freedman, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee “It does not consider that there was any attempt to explore treatment options with Mrs Hill before the surgery other than draining the mass.”

On 16 June 2009, Dr Jolaosho pleaded guilty at Market Harborough Magistrates Court to two offences of docking the tails of Rottweiler and Doberman puppies. He was fined GBP10,000 and ordered to pay court costs of over GBP3,000. During 2003 to 2008, he was also convicted of 15 driving and related offences and twice of obstructing a police officer.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Jolaosho admitted his criminal convictions, telling the Committee of his difficulties following the death of his wife in October 2002 and subsequent sole responsibility for his three teenage children. He also said that the tail docking resulted as an oversight on his part and that as the puppies were docked within five days of birth, there were no welfare issues. He emphasised that he had not carried out tail docking since being visited by the RSPCA in July 2008. He also drew to the Committee’s attention the fact that, until 2003, he had been of good character.

The Committee accepted that for at least part of the period in question he was suffering from emotional problems following his wife’s death, and his continuing financial responsibility for two of his children.

It was however, concerned, that having received a custodial sentence for driving whilst disqualified, he committed further driving offences on release. Nor did they accept that the tail docking was an oversight: in 2006 the RCVS advised Dr Jolaosho to comply with the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and not dock dog’s tails unless for “truly therapeutic or prophylactic reasons.” In view of the seriousness of the charges admitted and proved, the Committee concluded that a period of nine months suspension from the Register would be a proportionate penalty.

“The primary purpose of the sanctions is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct,” said Mrs Freedman.”

“Bearing in mind the financial consequences of the suspension of Mr Jolaosho, the Committee does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a longer period of suspension,” she continued. “However, Mr Jolaosho should be aware that any further convictions or failure to observe the College’s Guidelines are likely to lead to the removal of his name from the Register.”

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

British Vet Deemed ‘Unfit for Practice’ Following Tail Docking Offences

Related content:

1. Complete Ban on Tail Docking Moves Closer
2. Controversial Tail Docking – Whats Your Views?
3. Is Tail Docking Cruel or Necessary? By Bobbi Leder

One of the main issues raised by the programme is the lack of support and supervision for younger and less experienced vets and veterinary nurses, as well as other staff who are not qualified (referred to as “trainees” in the programme). Ultimately it is the veterinary surgeon who must take responsibility for the animals in his/her care. Vets are robustly regulated by the RCVS, as revealed in the case of Kfir Segev who was struck off by the RCVS.

The programme also highlighted a number of concerning incidents of alleged fraud, dishonesty and bad practice that pet owners and the general public will have found very distressing. The BVA, BSAVA and SPVS cannot condone any bad practice. Some of these incidents featured are clearly unacceptable; others will require further investigation and it is vital that the RCVS is given the evidence to take this forward.

The veterinary associations are very concerned that viewers may now have concerns about their own vets. It is vital that the relationship of trust between a client and their vet is maintained. As was made clear in the programme, the vast majority of vets provide a high quality service and have the best interests of their clients and patients at heart.

We would advise pet owners to talk to their vet, as well as the rest of the practice team, if they have any concerns. We are advising our members to spend extra time dealing with clients’ questions and concerns following the programme, as well as offering the opportunity to meet the whole veterinary team and see behind the scenes in the practice.

Professor Bill Reilly, President of the British Veterinary Association, said:

“There will be concern amongst pet owners following the programme, but it is vital to remember that the vast majority of vets enjoy a high level of trust from their clients because they are incredibly hard working and caring.

“It is essential that every member of the veterinary team feels supported and well supervised to ensure they are only asked to carry out tasks that they are qualified, trained and competent to do.”

Grant Petrie, President of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, said:

“We would urge the profession and public alike to continue reporting issues of concern. The BSAVA believes that the inappropriate actions and breach of trust of a few should not tarnish the true endeavours of the majority of veterinary surgeons who provide a dedicated and professional service.”

Jacqui Molyneux, President of the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons, said:

“SPVS would never condone leaving junior staff to sink or swim. In fact we help run a Final Year Seminar for veterinary students each year where we stress over and over again that students should not take jobs where they are not given adequate support. It is imperative that young vets should have the support of more experienced vets to help when things are not going according to plan.”

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

Veterinary Association Responds to BBC Panorama Vet Expose

Related content:

1. British Veterinary Association Responds to Panorama Undercover Reporter
2. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Concerned About Panorama Vet Documentary
3. British Veterinary Association Line Up to Support Puppy Farm Awareness Day

The statement reads:

We are concerned about allegations raised by last night’s Panorama programme, and would like to reassure the public that we will investigate the claims made, says veterinary regulatory body, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, commenting on ‘It Shouldn’t Happen at a Vet’s’ (BBC 1, 9pm 22 July).

“It would be impossible to watch such a programme and not feel concern for the animals featured or sympathy towards their owners, and indeed any member of the public or profession who may have been distressed by what they have seen,” says RCVS President Peter Jinman.

The programme has been in the pipeline for some time. The College first met with Panorama over a year ago but, as has been acknowledged in the programme, last night’s airing was our first opportunity to see it. However, one of the veterinary surgeons featured in the programme – Kfir Segev – was under RCVS investigation well before the Panorama interest began. He has since been ‘struck off’ the RCVS Register for the fraudulent recommendation of unnecessary treatments, meaning he is no longer able to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

“The veterinary profession has a robust regulatory system and allegations have been made which deserve full investigation,” says Mr Jinman. “The BBC has given assurances that they will provide us with the information we need and we will immediately ask for their co-operation. It would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of our investigations by commenting on any specific aspects of the programme at this stage.”

The programme covered many issues, with allegations ranging from inappropriate delegation to unqualified staff members, through to fraud. The RCVS regulates veterinary surgeons and considers charges of serious professional misconduct, which might include, and have in fact included, inappropriate delegation to support staff, such as veterinary nursing assistants.

We have also developed non-statutory systems for the regulation of registered veterinary nurses and the maintenance of practice standards.

Some of the allegations made in the programme were of serious offences and the BBC ought to pass details of those to the relevant authorities, such as the police or Trading Standards. The RCVS has a good track record of working with such authorities.

What can you do? While we understand that the majority of animal owners have great confidence in their veterinary surgeon, where there are concerns, we would encourage people to contact the RCVS.

Any veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who witnesses behaviour that they believe falls below the high standards expected of the profession is encouraged to report this to us. A number of complaints received by the College each year are from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of practice staff.

“We appreciate that ‘whistleblowing’ may not be an easy choice, but belonging to a profession brings responsibilities as well as rights, and it is up to every member to ensure that high educational, ethical and clinical standards are maintained,” says Mr Jinman.

Guidance on whistleblowing is available on RCVSonline and further sources of support are available at http://www.vetlife.org.uk.

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Concerned About Panorama Vet Documentary

Related content:

1. Veterinary Association Responds to BBC Panorama Vet Expose
2. British Veterinary Association Responds to Panorama Undercover Reporter
3. Vets Sell Body Parts of Healthy Dogs to Royal Veterinary College

Christos said: “It is well known that happy people are more likely to emphasise the positive aspects of an ambiguous context, relative to sadder or more anxious people. On the other hand, people in negative emotional states attend more to threats, retrieve negative memories, and make negative judgments about stimuli more than happier people.

Putting it simply, people who are happy tend to ‘look on the bright side’ whereas anyone experiencing a stressful time or feeling ‘down’ will tend to see everything negatively. “We want to find out if this is the same for dogs. To do this we need to devise methods of investigating it scientifically.

” The study seeks to tie together not just the emotions of dogs suffering from a specific behaviour problem commonly known as separation anxiety, but also to monitor it during recovery. “We believe this to be the first time the relationship between clinical recovery from a behaviour problem has been linked to a scientific assessment of biases in perception and thought,” said Christos.

Christos is looking for dogs with separation related problems to take part in the study. He said: “If you find that when you leave your dog for any length of time it howls or whines, or scratches and chews at objects or furniture, it’s very likely that it is suffering from separation anxiety. “During the study, your dog will be treated with an established and effective treatment plan which involves giving it medication on a daily basis, together with a relatively straightforward behaviour modification plan.

The medication has been specially formulated for dogs with separation anxiety problems and is chewable, with a meaty flavour.” The study lasts for 10 weeks. Four visits to the dog behaviour clinic at the Riseholme campus are required for the Lincoln dogs, with London-based participants receiving home visits from Christos. If you are the owner of a dog with separation related problems and you are interested in taking part in this study, you can contact Christos at dogseparation@hotmail.com

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

World First University Study in to Dog Behaviour Problems and Emotions

Related content:

1. New University Study in to Dog Bite Prevention
2. Think You’d Like a Career as a Pro Dog Trainer?
3. Dogs Wanted For New Study Into Treatment Of Arthritis

Charlotte, owner of rescue Staffordshire Bull Terrier Meatball, says ”The law right now is ridiculous and must be changed, all dogs have the potential to be dangerous but also all dogs have a much greater potential to change and fulfil the lives of their owners. Punishing people’s pets that have done nothing wrong on the basis of their appearance is terrible; they are family members who are loved. The truth is dogs bring more joy to people than they bring harm – but that doesn’t make headlines”

The current legislation has come under fire again recently with major organisations demanding the legislation is scrapped and a new bill proceeding through Parliament that removes the emphasis off the type of dog and places it firmly on the owners. The Metropolitan police expect to spend a staggering £10,000,000 of taxpayer’s money on enforcement of the current failed legislation over the next four years with the vast majority of dogs held having never shown any sign of aggression.

Meanwhile dogs can be held for years in almost solitary confinement while cases drag on. Welfare of seized dogs has also caused uproar as more than one hundred dogs have died of illness or unknown reason while in the care of the authorities, while others have been returned cut, bleeding and emaciated.

And Charlotte isn’t all talk and no action. On 24th July Charlotte and Meatball will be joining Anti B.S.L group DDAWatch and members of the public at a Vigil entitled ‘Not Guilty!’ in Richmond Terrace, London. DDAWatch members hope the event will send a strong message to the Government that the current legislation is flawed and must be replaced.

One attendee, Sarah Anderson said “I watched my dogs as they died because I believed I had no choice. They had never hurt anyone and I would never have put them in a position that they felt they would have to. The Vigil will be a time for me to remember my girls and I hope that with Charlottes help, the Government will heed our call and stop punishing the Breed rather than the Deed.”

Charlotte believes now is the time to speak up and protect friendly pet dogs whose only crime is in their appearance.

At 5pm during the vigil Charlotte will accompany representatives of DDAWatch to Downing Street where they will hand in letters from members of the public requesting a repeal of section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act. They will also hand over a scroll in memory of some canine victims of BSL.

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

Multi talented Charlotte Dutton Becomes Voice of the Underdog

Related content:

1. Not Guilty! A Vigil For All Victims Of BSL
2. Dangerous Dogs Act Breakthrough: RSPCA Back Calls For Immediate End to BSL
3. RSPCA Speaks Out Over BSL & Dangerous Dogs Act

Participating families will be asked to use an educational and fun piece of software designed to teach children how to stay safe around dogs.

The Blue Dog CD was developed by an international team of experts to help parents and children under six years understand safe behaviours with dogs. It features a series of animated situations involving a dog and a child. The child can choose to see different situation outcomes, one of which is safe and one of which is not.

The software, which is available in more than a dozen languages, has already been shown to be effective at teaching basic safety principles in an evaluation by Dr Meints and Dr Tiny de Keuster, an internationally-recognised expert on dog bite prevention. Now the research team wants to assess how the interactive lessons are applied in practice in the family home.

To do this they are looking to recruit more than 200 dog-owning families from the East Midlands or East of England with at least one child aged between three and six.

Selected families will receive a free copy of the Blue Dog software on CD to use at home. Parents will be asked to complete a questionnaire and then film their child interacting with their pet dog at a few intervals over the course of a year. Children will only be asked to play with the CD game.

Dr Lakestani, a Research Fellow in the Lincoln School of Psychology, has been studying dog bite prevention for the past seven years.

She said: “The biggest problem is not the very serious injuries you hear about on the news. The biggest problem is children getting relatively minor bites from their pet dog at home. Most of these accidents happen because there is a misunderstanding between the dog and the child. Children under the age of six are most at risk of being bitten. That means we need to teach them early on about how to interact with dogs.”

The issue is not just one of child safety but also animal welfare. Pet dogs which bite children are often taken to animal sanctuaries, abandoned or even put down.

“Some accidents may be more difficult to prevent because they are due to the dog being ill or in pain. However, if people and children can learn how to interact safely with their pet, and how to understand what their pet is trying to communicate to them, then many accidents may be prevented,” added Dr Lakestani.

For more information on the study, or to express an interest in taking part in the study, please visit: www.lincoln.ac.uk/psychology/blue_dog.htm

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

New University Study in to Dog Bite Prevention

Related content:

1. Stay Safe During National Dog Bite Prevention Week
2. National Dog Bite Prevention Week Gets Underway
3. World First University Study in to Dog Behaviour Problems and Emotions

Alex Lee, the Panorama undercover reporter, exposed evidence of highly dubious billing practices and unqualified staff performing medical procedures on pets.

Lee explains:

“I came to the job with neither qualifications nor experience and had not been on any recognised training course.

This assignment came about after a former employee of Medivet approached us to talk about her concerns that untrained staff were being tasked with medical procedures.

After being hired, I did complete three weeks of in-house training at a Medivet branch.

From that I had assumed that my duties would be limited to cleaning, grooming and feeding the animals in my care.

In practice, I was quickly tasked with giving injections and a range of other roles that are widely considered to be medical procedures, as were my fellow “trainees”.

On one occasion, I was asked to insert a catheter – a rod inserted into a vein to allow medication or fluids to be quickly administered – into an Irish Setter named Yogi.

The dog was to undergo an operation on his throat to deal with breathing problems.

The colleague charged with teaching me how to do this was a fellow trainee nurse who had worked for Medivet just a few months longer than I had and who was not enrolled on a formal training course.

Secret filming of Yogi
Undercover footage of Yogi being restrained by the neck

The dog was scared and put up a struggle as the trainee tried to restrain him as well as tell me what I needed to do.

More hands came in to help, restraining Yogi with an arm around his neck while he was pinned against the wall. This, in a dog with breathing problems.

Pet owners have long been questioning the authenticity of some vet’s invoicing policies.

K9 Media Ltd has published an annual report entitled ‘The K9 Magazine Vet Satisfaction Survey’.

In it, we have – for the past decade – shown a growing concern amongst pet owners about the seemingly arbitrary pricing policies of certain vets in various areas of the UK.

The Panorama revelations will surely cause grave concerns to those pet owners who’s trust in the veterinary profession has started to wane.

This is a real shame.

If  pet owners begin to second guess their vet’s recommendations on treatment or mistrust their motives or, dare I say, competence – if handing on highly skilled work to untrained staff,  this would be a disaster.

Vets are a small business. Fact. They are, generally, a for profit enterprise.  The large majority of the public has absolutely no objection to vets making a profit. Problems unfold when profits are put ahead of performance or medical necessity.

British vets are some of the best in the world. We should be very, very grateful to have such a depth of skilled professionals to care for our pets. But British pet owners deserve more transparency and clarity on issues such as care and pricing.

Panorama’s undercover reporter:

In one particularly upsetting incident during my time at Medivet, I witnessed a Shar-pei dog named Stanley being struck on the head just hours after he had undergone major surgery to amputate a leg.

I was asked, along with a kennel assistant, to remove Stanley’s catheter that had been placed for surgery. When the dog began to struggle and howl in distress, a nurse responded by hitting the dog hard over the head and wrestling him into an even tighter grip.

The nurse involved later apologised to us for his actions and Medivet said it was an isolated incident that it did not condone. The nurse has since been promoted to head nurse at a different Medivet branch.

One in four British people own a pet. As there is no such things as an NHS for pets, pet owners place their trust in the hands of private businesses. As there has been, at least over the past 10 years, an increasingly vociferous concern amongst pet owners toward the veterinary profession, this documentary is sure to fan the flames of suspicion.

A Panorama Special: It Shouldn’t Happen at a Vets’, broadcast on BBC One, Thursday, 22 July at 2100BST.

What do you think about veterinary treatment, pricing and professionalism in your area? Have your say below:

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

It Shouldn’t Happen at a Vets: Panorama Exposes Vet Malpractice

Related content:

1. British Veterinary Association Responds to Panorama Undercover Reporter
2. Veterinary Association Responds to BBC Panorama Vet Expose
3. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Concerned About Panorama Vet Documentary

The British Veterinary Association (BVA) is very concerned by some of the issues raised by Alex Lee in the article. The article describes allegations of fraud and bad practice, as well as highlighting concerns about the adequate supervision of nursing staff.

The BVA has not seen the Panorama programme or the footage to which Ms Lee refers so cannot comment in detail about any of the alleged incidents.

However, the BVA would like to reassure pet owners that it does not condone bad practice and that the vast majority of veterinary surgeons provide a very high quality service and have the best interests of their patients at heart. Indeed the article also states that “many of the vets employed by Medivet are, indeed, diligent, skilled and scrupulous” and that Ms Lee “did observe care and kindness”.

The BVA, BSAVA and SPVS will be responding to the Panorama programme after it has been broadcast.

Allegations of fraud and bad practice

The article outlines a few incidents of alleged fraud relating to veterinary bills and charging, as well as incidents of bad clinical practice. The veterinary profession is robustly regulated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). Every veterinary surgeon must follow the Guide to Professional Conduct, which is a detailed rulebook covering all aspects of our work. Failure to comply with these rules can result in serious disciplinary proceedings and ultimately a vet can be “struck off” which means he/she is unable to practise veterinary medicine.

The BVA would encourage any member of the public, veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse to report any concerns they have to more senior members of the veterinary practice or to the RCVS. The majority of vets take pride in their profession and we all want to root out those who are acting in an unacceptable manner.

Supervision of nursing staff and levels of qualification

Qualified and student veterinary nurses are a vital part of the veterinary team, along with the reception team and animal nursing assistants. Each of the members of the team will be trained to perform particular tasks and under the law there are certain things that a listed or registered veterinary nurse (or a student nurse enrolled with the RCVS) can do, that the other members of the nursing team cannot do.

Ultimately the veterinary surgeon has responsibility for the care of the patient and he/she must ensure that the veterinary nurse or other member of staff working on the patient is qualified, trained and competent to carry out those tasks.

It is not clear what is meant by the term “trainee veterinary nurse” used in the Daily Mail article. Although not protected in legislation, the term “veterinary nurse” should only be used to describe a listed or registered veterinary nurse who is qualified. The term “student veterinary nurse” applies to students who are enrolled on an RCVS accredited course.

The BVA has advised its members to introduce all of the members of the veterinary team that will be caring for a pet to the client so that the client can ask questions about the individuals and feel confident about the care their pet will receive

Source: DogMagazine.net – the K9 Magazine blog

British Veterinary Association Responds to Panorama Undercover Reporter

Related content:

1. Veterinary Association Responds to BBC Panorama Vet Expose
2. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Concerned About Panorama Vet Documentary
3. British Veterinary Association Line Up to Support Puppy Farm Awareness Day