Spot the fake!
.png)
30 August 2010: by Sandra Pearce
It’s a story that keeps resurfacing – I’m referring, of course, to the vast numbers of fake £1 coins in circulation. And chances are retailers will handle this fake currency every day.
Yet most people realise they have a fake coin only when a vending machine or parking meter spits it back, as these contain devices to monitor whether the metal composition of the coins is correct.
The number is mind-boggling: it is thought that one out of every 36 coins in use today could be a fake, or 41 million coins. Apparently, counterfeiters have turned their attention to pound coins because increased security measures make it easier to spot counterfeit notes.
Yet if you do hand in your counterfeit money to a bank or police station, you are not refunded. Which to me seems to compound the problem because there is no incentive to get these coins off the street, and so they will remain in circulation.
But if you do knowingly trade in fake currency, you could be liable for prosecution. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, by the looks of things!
What you have to do, therefore, is become a bit of a sleuth at detecting these fake coins and refuse to accept them as payment.
But how can you spot a fake one-pound coin? Well, apparently there are five possible ‘tells’.
• The first is that the Queen’s head may be indistinct on a fake coin
• The cross found on the edge of real coins is finely engraved, but potentially less distinct on fakes
• Fake coins are also often thinner, lighter or a different colour
• If you hold the coin so the Queen’s head is upright and facing towards you, when you look at the back, the pattern should also be upright on a real coin
• Finally, the ribbed edge of the coin is less distinct on fakes.
I tried comparing the pound coins in my wallet, and spotted at least one that falls into the counterfeit bracket. But it sure took me a long time to compare and come to that decision – much easier with a £20 note and special pen. I honestly do not see how busy retailers are going to be able to spend the time to check each and every single pound coin that is offered as payment.
My sister-in-law knowledgeably informs me that if a pound coin has been rejected from a parking meter, to wet it and the machine will then accept it the second time round. I think I might just use that counterfeit coin in my wallet and try her method – all in the name of science, you understand.
Yet most people realise they have a fake coin only when a vending machine or parking meter spits it back, as these contain devices to monitor whether the metal composition of the coins is correct.
The number is mind-boggling: it is thought that one out of every 36 coins in use today could be a fake, or 41 million coins. Apparently, counterfeiters have turned their attention to pound coins because increased security measures make it easier to spot counterfeit notes.
Yet if you do hand in your counterfeit money to a bank or police station, you are not refunded. Which to me seems to compound the problem because there is no incentive to get these coins off the street, and so they will remain in circulation.
But if you do knowingly trade in fake currency, you could be liable for prosecution. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, by the looks of things!
What you have to do, therefore, is become a bit of a sleuth at detecting these fake coins and refuse to accept them as payment.
But how can you spot a fake one-pound coin? Well, apparently there are five possible ‘tells’.
• The first is that the Queen’s head may be indistinct on a fake coin
• The cross found on the edge of real coins is finely engraved, but potentially less distinct on fakes
• Fake coins are also often thinner, lighter or a different colour
• If you hold the coin so the Queen’s head is upright and facing towards you, when you look at the back, the pattern should also be upright on a real coin
• Finally, the ribbed edge of the coin is less distinct on fakes.
I tried comparing the pound coins in my wallet, and spotted at least one that falls into the counterfeit bracket. But it sure took me a long time to compare and come to that decision – much easier with a £20 note and special pen. I honestly do not see how busy retailers are going to be able to spend the time to check each and every single pound coin that is offered as payment.
My sister-in-law knowledgeably informs me that if a pound coin has been rejected from a parking meter, to wet it and the machine will then accept it the second time round. I think I might just use that counterfeit coin in my wallet and try her method – all in the name of science, you understand.
27 August 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Oh dear, mini pigs have hit the headlines again, but this time because an ad by a leading breeder was banned by the ASA.
Members of the British Kune Kune Pig Society had complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Little Pig Farm advertisements that claimed the pigs were “easy to care for” and that the pigs were the “smallest in the UK”, measuring up to 16in when fully grown.
The Society had argued that the ad was misleading because no breed could grow only as tall as 16in, and that as the pigs grew larger, they would most certainly not be easy to care for as pets.
Little Pig Farm did admit that some pigs had been returned to them as they had got too big, but attributed this to their being sold some pigs of the wrong breed for their breeding pool. Those pigs have since been removed, they said.
The ASA subsequently banned the ad for misleading consumers, saying the Cambridgeshire-based farm had not substantiated its claim of pigs growing no more than 12in to 16in. However, it dismissed the complaint that the pigs were not “easy to care for”, saying readers “would understand there was a certain amount of work and effort involved in caring for the little pigs, irrespective of their eventual size”.
Would readers really understand the amount of work required for an animal that is not exactly mainstream? Rescue centres across the country bulge with abandoned cats and dogs, many the result of owners who did not realise how much work they were.
I also wonder how many people who bought these pigs did so out of a genuine love for animals, or because they are the ‘in’ pet – Posh and Becks have them, as does Jonathan Ross. Yet this is the same Jonathan Ross who famously a few years ago adopted four ferrets from a ferret rescue charity, then returned the sole survivor to the rescue (the other three apparently escaped) when he decided to buy his pigs.
What will be the fate of all the ‘mini’ pigs being sold now when the novelty wears off? What will happen if Paris Hilton et al decide to keep meerkats, marmosets or sugar gliders?
Something tells me exotic pet refuges are going to be very busy.
Members of the British Kune Kune Pig Society had complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Little Pig Farm advertisements that claimed the pigs were “easy to care for” and that the pigs were the “smallest in the UK”, measuring up to 16in when fully grown.
The Society had argued that the ad was misleading because no breed could grow only as tall as 16in, and that as the pigs grew larger, they would most certainly not be easy to care for as pets.
Little Pig Farm did admit that some pigs had been returned to them as they had got too big, but attributed this to their being sold some pigs of the wrong breed for their breeding pool. Those pigs have since been removed, they said.
The ASA subsequently banned the ad for misleading consumers, saying the Cambridgeshire-based farm had not substantiated its claim of pigs growing no more than 12in to 16in. However, it dismissed the complaint that the pigs were not “easy to care for”, saying readers “would understand there was a certain amount of work and effort involved in caring for the little pigs, irrespective of their eventual size”.
Would readers really understand the amount of work required for an animal that is not exactly mainstream? Rescue centres across the country bulge with abandoned cats and dogs, many the result of owners who did not realise how much work they were.
I also wonder how many people who bought these pigs did so out of a genuine love for animals, or because they are the ‘in’ pet – Posh and Becks have them, as does Jonathan Ross. Yet this is the same Jonathan Ross who famously a few years ago adopted four ferrets from a ferret rescue charity, then returned the sole survivor to the rescue (the other three apparently escaped) when he decided to buy his pigs.
What will be the fate of all the ‘mini’ pigs being sold now when the novelty wears off? What will happen if Paris Hilton et al decide to keep meerkats, marmosets or sugar gliders?
Something tells me exotic pet refuges are going to be very busy.
Jail is too kind for irresponsible dog owner
23 August 2010: by Sandra Pearce
23 August 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Two-year-old Amiee Langdon risks losing her left eye, and all because some irresponsible dog owner (a) did not worm his/her dog and (b) did not clear up after the dog fouled in a playground. To make matters worse, that playground was in a dog exclusion zone, in an order passed by Manchester City Council as part of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.
I have no words to describe what I felt on reading the first reports that came through. As a mum of two young children, I can’t even begin to imagine the anguish that Amiee’s mum is going through.
Needless to say, the blogsphere is full of attacks against the owner, who chances are will never be identified. Some of the more extreme posts call for the cull of all dogs. The Kennel Club has also condemned the action of the dog owner.
Amiee was admitted to the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital after wiping her eye with the mess after tripping and falling into it at Platt Fields Park. She was diagnosed as suffering from toxocariasis, specifically ocular larva migrans, which is the least common but potentially most serious type of toxocariasis.
Toxocariasis is the result of roundworm eggs being excreted with the dog’s faeces. The larvae migrate through the body and, if these parasites arrive in the eye, can cause permanent damage. Aimee had wiped her eye with her hand covered in dog mess before her mother could get to her.
Needless to say, I expect Aimee’s plight will be brought up by quite a number of customers over the next few days, especially when the full extent of Aimee’s condition is revealed and the papers report on it extensively.
And this presents the perfect opportunity to remind customers to keep their pet’s worming schedule up to date – and stock up on poo bags.
Jail is too kind for that dog owner.
Let’s just hope Aimee makes a full recovery. My thoughts are with the toddler and her family.
I have no words to describe what I felt on reading the first reports that came through. As a mum of two young children, I can’t even begin to imagine the anguish that Amiee’s mum is going through.
Needless to say, the blogsphere is full of attacks against the owner, who chances are will never be identified. Some of the more extreme posts call for the cull of all dogs. The Kennel Club has also condemned the action of the dog owner.
Amiee was admitted to the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital after wiping her eye with the mess after tripping and falling into it at Platt Fields Park. She was diagnosed as suffering from toxocariasis, specifically ocular larva migrans, which is the least common but potentially most serious type of toxocariasis.
Toxocariasis is the result of roundworm eggs being excreted with the dog’s faeces. The larvae migrate through the body and, if these parasites arrive in the eye, can cause permanent damage. Aimee had wiped her eye with her hand covered in dog mess before her mother could get to her.
Needless to say, I expect Aimee’s plight will be brought up by quite a number of customers over the next few days, especially when the full extent of Aimee’s condition is revealed and the papers report on it extensively.
And this presents the perfect opportunity to remind customers to keep their pet’s worming schedule up to date – and stock up on poo bags.
Jail is too kind for that dog owner.
Let’s just hope Aimee makes a full recovery. My thoughts are with the toddler and her family.
16 August 2010: by Sandra Pearce
In the wake of the Iams and Eukanuba pet food recall in the States due to a potential salmonella contamination comes an American report that dry pet food may be linked to salmonella bacterial infections among humans, with young children at higher risk.
The report’s authors had studied a 2006-2008 salmonella outbreak in the USA that made 79 Americans in 21 states ill, and apparently tracked it down to dry cat and dog food.
The report was carried in the September issue of Pediatrics, and one of its researchers, Dr Casey Barton Behravesh of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said feeding pets in the kitchen quadrupled the risk of illness.
Yet – and this part completely befuddles me – the researchers also found that children who put pet food in their mouths appeared to have no added risk.
Furthermore, consider this statistic: 79 – OK, let’s be generous and round it up to 80 – people, almost half of them under-twos, fell ill with salmonella.
Yet according to the American Pet Products Association, 45.6 million American homes have a dog, and 38.2 million homes own a cat. There are thought to be 93.6 million cats in the US, and 77.5 million dogs.
Even if we assume that all 80 salmonella cases came from dog-owning households, that’s 80 incidents out of 45.6 million homes. That is 0.0001754 per cent.
The even crazier thing, to my mind, is that now UK papers are picking up on the story with headlines stating: “Pet food can pose salmonella risk to children”.
Honestly. Don’t these papers (I’m loathe to call them ‘news’papers because this just isn’t news!) have anything better to report on? Apart from anything else, this universal-type heading implies all pet food poses a risk, which obviously means wet and raw food as well!
What’s the potential fall-out? I guess there may be the odd owner who might think about re-positioning his/her pet’s bowl (according to the study, feeding the pet away from the kitchen might help reduce the risk). But I do not for one minute think that people will start dumping their pets because of this. Or at any rate I sincerely hope not!
However, retailers might get asked about precautions to take. The most obvious is to wash hands thoroughly after any contact with a pet. And owners should make sure their pet food is stored properly and out of the reach of toddlers and babies.
The report’s authors had studied a 2006-2008 salmonella outbreak in the USA that made 79 Americans in 21 states ill, and apparently tracked it down to dry cat and dog food.
The report was carried in the September issue of Pediatrics, and one of its researchers, Dr Casey Barton Behravesh of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said feeding pets in the kitchen quadrupled the risk of illness.
Yet – and this part completely befuddles me – the researchers also found that children who put pet food in their mouths appeared to have no added risk.
Furthermore, consider this statistic: 79 – OK, let’s be generous and round it up to 80 – people, almost half of them under-twos, fell ill with salmonella.
Yet according to the American Pet Products Association, 45.6 million American homes have a dog, and 38.2 million homes own a cat. There are thought to be 93.6 million cats in the US, and 77.5 million dogs.
Even if we assume that all 80 salmonella cases came from dog-owning households, that’s 80 incidents out of 45.6 million homes. That is 0.0001754 per cent.
The even crazier thing, to my mind, is that now UK papers are picking up on the story with headlines stating: “Pet food can pose salmonella risk to children”.
Honestly. Don’t these papers (I’m loathe to call them ‘news’papers because this just isn’t news!) have anything better to report on? Apart from anything else, this universal-type heading implies all pet food poses a risk, which obviously means wet and raw food as well!
What’s the potential fall-out? I guess there may be the odd owner who might think about re-positioning his/her pet’s bowl (according to the study, feeding the pet away from the kitchen might help reduce the risk). But I do not for one minute think that people will start dumping their pets because of this. Or at any rate I sincerely hope not!
However, retailers might get asked about precautions to take. The most obvious is to wash hands thoroughly after any contact with a pet. And owners should make sure their pet food is stored properly and out of the reach of toddlers and babies.
10 August 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia, Canada, is the latest to unveil a raft of proposed animal controls. Underlying these is a directive to make animal welfare issues a priority.
Now whereas our Animal Welfare Act is phrased in all-encompassing terms, the Victoria proposals are very detailed in some areas, such as prohibiting the abandonment of animals (logical if perhaps a bit over-stated), the keeping of a dog on a traffic island (what?! ) and exercising a dog from a vehicle or bicycle (I can understand vehicle, but bicycle?).
It also wants to impose requirements for the secure transport of pets in vehicles, and limiting the numbers of rabbits and chickens that people can keep.
However, two proposals struck me – it is considering making illegal the sale of unsterilised rabbits and prohibiting the sale of rabbits by pet stores.
Now I disagree with the latter. Pet shops have long been a traditional source for rabbits, and indeed all manner of small animals, and I really think that decision should be left to the individual retailer.
However, what I do think is a good idea is the compulsory sterilisation of all rabbits prior to sale.
At the moment, when someone buys a rabbit, they are advised to get the animal sterilised. And that’s as far as it goes.
But then what happens? Rescue centres are flooded with unwanted litters, in many instances the result of pet owners buying two “females”.
Introducing the compulsory sterilisation of all rabbits before sale would rapidly bring down the number of unwanted and abandoned rabbits in this country. Yes, it would make them more expensive at point of sale, and chances are retailers would not sell as many. However, it immediately implies that rabbits are being bought only by people who seriously want one, and not on a whim or because it’s Easter.
Higher cost invariably means a more considered approach.
Retailers would also stop being blamed for sexing animals incorrectly – it would not matter any more!
And let’s be honest. For retailers, the profit is not in the sale of the animal. It’s in the creature’s food, hay, bedding and housing and other accessories.
Yes, I for one would like to see this become law here in the UK. What do you think?
Now whereas our Animal Welfare Act is phrased in all-encompassing terms, the Victoria proposals are very detailed in some areas, such as prohibiting the abandonment of animals (logical if perhaps a bit over-stated), the keeping of a dog on a traffic island (what?! ) and exercising a dog from a vehicle or bicycle (I can understand vehicle, but bicycle?).
It also wants to impose requirements for the secure transport of pets in vehicles, and limiting the numbers of rabbits and chickens that people can keep.
However, two proposals struck me – it is considering making illegal the sale of unsterilised rabbits and prohibiting the sale of rabbits by pet stores.
Now I disagree with the latter. Pet shops have long been a traditional source for rabbits, and indeed all manner of small animals, and I really think that decision should be left to the individual retailer.
However, what I do think is a good idea is the compulsory sterilisation of all rabbits prior to sale.
At the moment, when someone buys a rabbit, they are advised to get the animal sterilised. And that’s as far as it goes.
But then what happens? Rescue centres are flooded with unwanted litters, in many instances the result of pet owners buying two “females”.
Introducing the compulsory sterilisation of all rabbits before sale would rapidly bring down the number of unwanted and abandoned rabbits in this country. Yes, it would make them more expensive at point of sale, and chances are retailers would not sell as many. However, it immediately implies that rabbits are being bought only by people who seriously want one, and not on a whim or because it’s Easter.
Higher cost invariably means a more considered approach.
Retailers would also stop being blamed for sexing animals incorrectly – it would not matter any more!
And let’s be honest. For retailers, the profit is not in the sale of the animal. It’s in the creature’s food, hay, bedding and housing and other accessories.
Yes, I for one would like to see this become law here in the UK. What do you think?
4 August 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Has the world gone mad? On the one hand is ominous talk about double dip recession, a housing market that is about to crash again and small businesses being unable to get loans from banks, and on the other, banks are expected to announce combined profits of about £11 billion. Billion! Not only that, but they are also apparently setting aside £5bn for bonus payments!
What?!
Lloyds and RBS are banned from paying dividends by the EU because of the £75bn of taxpayer funds they received to stay afloat at the height of the financial crisis, but this restriction does not apply to HSBC, Standard Chartered and Barclays.
Lloyds has reversed a £4bn loss to a £1.6bn profit as its bad debts halved.
HSBC, which is the UK’s biggest bank, is forecast to make profits of around £5.bn. Yet it admitted it had not increased overall lending to firms over the past 12 months, saying demand for credit was weak. It has, however, apparently increased the pay and bonus pool for its workforce by seven per cent to £6.2bn in the first six months of this year.
Needless to say, the profits have triggered a new row over pay, perks and the banks’ inherent failure to lend money.
Yet the British Bankers Association sits high and proud, saying that the banks are “well aware of their responsibility”.
So what is the government doing? Well, it’s launched a commission to study breaking up the big banks and is considering a windfall tax on excessive profits and bonuses. So basically, it’s doing lots of talking at the moment. All of which does not help small businesses that are looking for credit.
The Chancellor has urged the banks over and over again to increase credit to businesses, but he’s just speaking into the wind. The big banks seem to be a law unto themselves, doing what they want, how they want, when they want.
It’s a complete and utter scandal.
What do you think? Have you tried to get credit from your bank and been rejected? We’d like to hear of your experiences with your bank.
What?!
Lloyds and RBS are banned from paying dividends by the EU because of the £75bn of taxpayer funds they received to stay afloat at the height of the financial crisis, but this restriction does not apply to HSBC, Standard Chartered and Barclays.
Lloyds has reversed a £4bn loss to a £1.6bn profit as its bad debts halved.
HSBC, which is the UK’s biggest bank, is forecast to make profits of around £5.bn. Yet it admitted it had not increased overall lending to firms over the past 12 months, saying demand for credit was weak. It has, however, apparently increased the pay and bonus pool for its workforce by seven per cent to £6.2bn in the first six months of this year.
Needless to say, the profits have triggered a new row over pay, perks and the banks’ inherent failure to lend money.
Yet the British Bankers Association sits high and proud, saying that the banks are “well aware of their responsibility”.
So what is the government doing? Well, it’s launched a commission to study breaking up the big banks and is considering a windfall tax on excessive profits and bonuses. So basically, it’s doing lots of talking at the moment. All of which does not help small businesses that are looking for credit.
The Chancellor has urged the banks over and over again to increase credit to businesses, but he’s just speaking into the wind. The big banks seem to be a law unto themselves, doing what they want, how they want, when they want.
It’s a complete and utter scandal.
What do you think? Have you tried to get credit from your bank and been rejected? We’d like to hear of your experiences with your bank.
2 August 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Tonight’s Panorama, Britain’s Unwanted Pets, investigates the increase in stray and unwanted dogs in rescue centres. Many are Staffordshire bull terrier types, the result of Britain’s gang culture and the despicable trend for attack and fighting dogs.
One out of four dogs taken in by the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home last year had to be put down because they were too aggressive and dangerous to be rehomed. That’s 1,931 dogs.
Experts said many dogs had become so aggressive that their owners could not control them any more, and the dogs were simply abandoned. Others swapped their dog for an MP3 player.
Scott Craddock, director of operations at the home, tells the programme: “In 1996 we took 396 Staffordshire bull terriers. Last year we took 3,600. For us that’s a huge problem – we can’t actually kennel these dogs with other dogs in many cases. They have to be given an individual kennel. So that has a huge impact on kennel space at the home.
“Battersea is mopping up a lot of the problems that are happening outside of the home. Big society problems; to such an extent that we feel it is time to say enough is enough,” he added.
This is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs, and the sooner the authorities can get a handle on the problem, the better. A friend who lives in London has already identified certain places as ‘No Go Areas’ for walks with her dog.
Yes, the Government is currently considering a number of measures to curb the rise in irresponsible dog ownership. Microchipping is apparently a high favourite. Will this work? I personally don’t see how. Thugs who breed and train these dogs for aggressive fighting and training are not going to dutifully queue up to get their Staffie microchipped. And it’s not as if all these Staffies are coming from one or two puppy mills that can be closed down overnight.
More manpower on the streets to deal with the situation? That would be nice, but in light of public spending cuts, I don’t see how this is going to happen.
We’ll just have to wait and see. My gut instinct says the situation will improve only when these gangs in the main turn their attention to something else and a new trend materialises. I just hope that in this instance, my gut instinct is proved wrong.
Panorama: Britain’s Unwanted Pets will be broadcast tonight at 8.30pm on BBC One.
One out of four dogs taken in by the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home last year had to be put down because they were too aggressive and dangerous to be rehomed. That’s 1,931 dogs.
Experts said many dogs had become so aggressive that their owners could not control them any more, and the dogs were simply abandoned. Others swapped their dog for an MP3 player.
Scott Craddock, director of operations at the home, tells the programme: “In 1996 we took 396 Staffordshire bull terriers. Last year we took 3,600. For us that’s a huge problem – we can’t actually kennel these dogs with other dogs in many cases. They have to be given an individual kennel. So that has a huge impact on kennel space at the home.
“Battersea is mopping up a lot of the problems that are happening outside of the home. Big society problems; to such an extent that we feel it is time to say enough is enough,” he added.
This is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs, and the sooner the authorities can get a handle on the problem, the better. A friend who lives in London has already identified certain places as ‘No Go Areas’ for walks with her dog.
Yes, the Government is currently considering a number of measures to curb the rise in irresponsible dog ownership. Microchipping is apparently a high favourite. Will this work? I personally don’t see how. Thugs who breed and train these dogs for aggressive fighting and training are not going to dutifully queue up to get their Staffie microchipped. And it’s not as if all these Staffies are coming from one or two puppy mills that can be closed down overnight.
More manpower on the streets to deal with the situation? That would be nice, but in light of public spending cuts, I don’t see how this is going to happen.
We’ll just have to wait and see. My gut instinct says the situation will improve only when these gangs in the main turn their attention to something else and a new trend materialises. I just hope that in this instance, my gut instinct is proved wrong.
Panorama: Britain’s Unwanted Pets will be broadcast tonight at 8.30pm on BBC One.
27 July 2010: by Sandra Pearce
A few days ago I wrote about my reservations over the term “Pet Parents”, as coined by Euromonitor. Well, pet insurance company Petplan has said that more than three-quarters of pet-owning Scots women admitted getting a pet for companionship, and will buy their pets birthday and Christmas presents.
Interestingly enough – and with obvious implications for the pet obesity epidemic – 82 per cent of those surveyed admitted feeding their pets human food such as cheese, crisps and cake.
And three out of four worried or felt guilty at leaving their pets either alone or with pet care providers when they were at work.
The findings were revealed as part of the Petplan Census, in which 10,000 UK pet owners were asked about their attitudes and actions towards their pets.
One psychologist, Dr Deborah Wells at Queens University, Belfast, even said that pets could serve as a ‘child substitute’, “offering an outlet for emotional attachment and nurturing behaviour”.
If the results of this census are to be believed, and Dr Wells’s perception is relevant, the humanisation of pets has reached new levels. It will mean, therefore, that pets are now an integral part of the family unit, and obviously for many, a substitute family member.
But as is always the case, another professional was almost immediately quoted, commenting on the negative aspects of this kind of reliance.
Behavioral psychologist Jo Hemmings warned: “There’s a fine line between welcoming an animal’s unconditional love and companionship and turning it into a freak show because you don’t recognize where to draw the line.”
I’m not going to join the academic repartee. Besides, I know you will all have your own staunch opinion on the matter.
What I will say is that the good thing that could come out of all this is that if owners are buying their pets birthday and Christmas presents, and if they view their pets as substitute children, then chances are they will be buying more toys, treats and other accessories, and possibly upgrading their food purchases to premium and super premium products.
It will be interesting to see what trends develop as a result of this over the next couple of years.
Interestingly enough – and with obvious implications for the pet obesity epidemic – 82 per cent of those surveyed admitted feeding their pets human food such as cheese, crisps and cake.
And three out of four worried or felt guilty at leaving their pets either alone or with pet care providers when they were at work.
The findings were revealed as part of the Petplan Census, in which 10,000 UK pet owners were asked about their attitudes and actions towards their pets.
One psychologist, Dr Deborah Wells at Queens University, Belfast, even said that pets could serve as a ‘child substitute’, “offering an outlet for emotional attachment and nurturing behaviour”.
If the results of this census are to be believed, and Dr Wells’s perception is relevant, the humanisation of pets has reached new levels. It will mean, therefore, that pets are now an integral part of the family unit, and obviously for many, a substitute family member.
But as is always the case, another professional was almost immediately quoted, commenting on the negative aspects of this kind of reliance.
Behavioral psychologist Jo Hemmings warned: “There’s a fine line between welcoming an animal’s unconditional love and companionship and turning it into a freak show because you don’t recognize where to draw the line.”
I’m not going to join the academic repartee. Besides, I know you will all have your own staunch opinion on the matter.
What I will say is that the good thing that could come out of all this is that if owners are buying their pets birthday and Christmas presents, and if they view their pets as substitute children, then chances are they will be buying more toys, treats and other accessories, and possibly upgrading their food purchases to premium and super premium products.
It will be interesting to see what trends develop as a result of this over the next couple of years.
23 July 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Did you watch last night’s Panorama programme, It Shouldn’t Happen at a Vet’s? The undercover investigation looked at what was going on behind closed doors at some of Medivet’s 75 practices. Among the footage screened were trainees administering injections, drawing blood and inserting catheters (which according to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is illegal); a dog being hit hours after major surgery; and a cancer-stricken dog being recommended a jaw-droppingly expensive MRI scan.
Needless to say, the RCVS has since issued a statement saying it was concerned about the allegations and will investigate the claims made.
The programme was disturbing in parts, and on the issue of needless tests and procedures, well, that has been a hot topic for years, and not just in the MediVet arena.
I myself have been at the receiving end of an eager vet trying to suggest unnecessary procedures, and chances are if you talk to pet owners, it won’t be long before you’ll hear of similar tales. Let’s face it, vet’s fees are notoriously high in this country. More than 13 years ago when I was still living in the Far East, my local vet recommended I take out pet insurance the moment I arrived in the UK, warning me of the high prices being charged. It’s really nothing new, then.
However, it was interesting to hear in last night’s programme that the vets were working on commission. I wonder how wide a practice this is? I naively thought commission was the domain of sales staff…you live and learn, as they say.
It also turned out that one of the vets featured in the programme had been under RCVS investigation before Panorama started its investigations and, as revealed in the programme, was eventually struck off.
However, Medivet’s responses in each instance were cringeworthy of the highest order. Nothing short of total exoneration and exculpation. For instance, a number of animals in the programme had been sworn at and called rather derogatory names. I just stared in disbelief at Medivet’s statement: “Medivet disapproves of inappropriate comments about animal patients.”
The problem is obviously not that the animal will take offence, but it is certainly reflective of the attitude that person has towards animals, and really, should that person be working with distressed pets?
So what is the potential fall-out of this programme? Well, at the heart of this is an issue of trust. If a customer has a good relationship with his or her vet, and trusts in that judgment, then chances are it’s business as usual. If there have been niggling doubts, then chances are this will be the impetus to jump.
Needless to say, the RCVS has since issued a statement saying it was concerned about the allegations and will investigate the claims made.
The programme was disturbing in parts, and on the issue of needless tests and procedures, well, that has been a hot topic for years, and not just in the MediVet arena.
I myself have been at the receiving end of an eager vet trying to suggest unnecessary procedures, and chances are if you talk to pet owners, it won’t be long before you’ll hear of similar tales. Let’s face it, vet’s fees are notoriously high in this country. More than 13 years ago when I was still living in the Far East, my local vet recommended I take out pet insurance the moment I arrived in the UK, warning me of the high prices being charged. It’s really nothing new, then.
However, it was interesting to hear in last night’s programme that the vets were working on commission. I wonder how wide a practice this is? I naively thought commission was the domain of sales staff…you live and learn, as they say.
It also turned out that one of the vets featured in the programme had been under RCVS investigation before Panorama started its investigations and, as revealed in the programme, was eventually struck off.
However, Medivet’s responses in each instance were cringeworthy of the highest order. Nothing short of total exoneration and exculpation. For instance, a number of animals in the programme had been sworn at and called rather derogatory names. I just stared in disbelief at Medivet’s statement: “Medivet disapproves of inappropriate comments about animal patients.”
The problem is obviously not that the animal will take offence, but it is certainly reflective of the attitude that person has towards animals, and really, should that person be working with distressed pets?
So what is the potential fall-out of this programme? Well, at the heart of this is an issue of trust. If a customer has a good relationship with his or her vet, and trusts in that judgment, then chances are it’s business as usual. If there have been niggling doubts, then chances are this will be the impetus to jump.
Where next?
19 July 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Yes, we’re all familiar with the term ‘humanisation of pets’, but a recent Euromonitor report has hammered the point that much closer with the phrase ‘Pet Parents’.
The term basically refers to owners who have become more like parents to their pets, and is described as a “relationship of love, a feeling that does not know of crisis and recessions”.
What characterises Pet Parents? Well, says the report, at the heart is their belief that animals have almost the same rights as humans, and are deserving of love, respect and attention.
The trend of pet parents, says Euromonitor, has been around for years now in North America and Canada, but is only just taking off in Latin America.
As a result, the pet food and pet care product markets in Latin America and the Caribbean are experiencing something of a boom. For instance, the pet food market in Latin America is expected to grow 6.7 per cent next year.
And considering that in countries like Chile, up to 70 per cent of all pet food is prepared at home, there is huge potential if these owners can be converted to commercial pet food.
Which is all well and good. Certainly good news for manufacturers that are geared up for exports to these countries. And if not, perhaps this is an area worth investigating a bit more closely.
Reptiles, for instance, are also apparently seeing unprecedented sales in a number of these countries.
Could Latin America be the next Eastern Europe/Russia? Only time will tell.
However, moving on from the issues of potential economic growth and success, and as a quick aside, am I the only person to cringe at the term ‘Pet Parent’? To me, this conjures up all sorts of images, and unfortunately all of them negative.
Yes, I accept and understand the whole argument for the ‘humanisation of pets’. It makes sense and can be argued logically. But ‘Pet Parents’ takes this to all-new levels, and I wonder if it is a step too far down the anthropomorphic route?
Yes, the pet-owner relationship is very personal, and yes, pets do become important fixtures of any family – I’ve heard some women say that their dogs pay them more attention than their husbands! But at the end of the day, a pet is a pet.
Do you remember Mrs Pumphrey from All Creatures Great and Small and her pampered lap dog, Tricky Woo (note that Mrs Pumphrey was based on a real person who lived in Yorkshire – I stood outside her former home just last week!).
In any case, Mrs Pumphrey (not her real name) treated Tricky Woo like her adopted son and lavished every luxury on him. I recall one episode in which she queried vet Herriot about his ‘flop bot’ – in short, Tricky Woo would walk for a short while and then flop to its bottom. The diagnosis? Tricky was over-indulged, obese and unfit!
You could argue that Mrs Pumphrey was the ultimate ‘Pet Parent’. Is this an image we want to bring to the trade? I, for one, hope this term does not catch on.
Add your comment/view comments
Yes, we’re all familiar with the term ‘humanisation of pets’, but a recent Euromonitor report has hammered the point that much closer with the phrase ‘Pet Parents’.
The term basically refers to owners who have become more like parents to their pets, and is described as a “relationship of love, a feeling that does not know of crisis and recessions”.
What characterises Pet Parents? Well, says the report, at the heart is their belief that animals have almost the same rights as humans, and are deserving of love, respect and attention.
The trend of pet parents, says Euromonitor, has been around for years now in North America and Canada, but is only just taking off in Latin America.
As a result, the pet food and pet care product markets in Latin America and the Caribbean are experiencing something of a boom. For instance, the pet food market in Latin America is expected to grow 6.7 per cent next year.
And considering that in countries like Chile, up to 70 per cent of all pet food is prepared at home, there is huge potential if these owners can be converted to commercial pet food.
Which is all well and good. Certainly good news for manufacturers that are geared up for exports to these countries. And if not, perhaps this is an area worth investigating a bit more closely.
Reptiles, for instance, are also apparently seeing unprecedented sales in a number of these countries.
Could Latin America be the next Eastern Europe/Russia? Only time will tell.
However, moving on from the issues of potential economic growth and success, and as a quick aside, am I the only person to cringe at the term ‘Pet Parent’? To me, this conjures up all sorts of images, and unfortunately all of them negative.
Yes, I accept and understand the whole argument for the ‘humanisation of pets’. It makes sense and can be argued logically. But ‘Pet Parents’ takes this to all-new levels, and I wonder if it is a step too far down the anthropomorphic route?
Yes, the pet-owner relationship is very personal, and yes, pets do become important fixtures of any family – I’ve heard some women say that their dogs pay them more attention than their husbands! But at the end of the day, a pet is a pet.
Do you remember Mrs Pumphrey from All Creatures Great and Small and her pampered lap dog, Tricky Woo (note that Mrs Pumphrey was based on a real person who lived in Yorkshire – I stood outside her former home just last week!).
In any case, Mrs Pumphrey (not her real name) treated Tricky Woo like her adopted son and lavished every luxury on him. I recall one episode in which she queried vet Herriot about his ‘flop bot’ – in short, Tricky Woo would walk for a short while and then flop to its bottom. The diagnosis? Tricky was over-indulged, obese and unfit!
You could argue that Mrs Pumphrey was the ultimate ‘Pet Parent’. Is this an image we want to bring to the trade? I, for one, hope this term does not catch on.
Add your comment/view comments
12 July 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Funny how two buses always come at once. Well, not so funny if you’ve been standing at said bus stop for the last 40 minutes, heavy bags in hand and screaming kids underfoot.
And now we have two all-pet consumer shows. Within six months of each year. The first, the LovePets Show (www.lovepets.me.uk), will take place on November 27 and 28 at the East of England Showground in Peterborough. The second, the London Pet Show (www.londonpetshow.co.uk), will be staged at the National Hall, Olympia, next May 7 and 8.
Both will have distinct zones for the relevant pet. LovePets’ offering is divided into dogs; cats; equine; small pets and birds; and fish, exotic pets and reptiles. The London Pet Show has zones branded Discover Dogs; Discover Cats; Discover Reptiles; Discover Small Furries; and Discover Fish.
Both stress animal welfare, care and education as primary aims, and both say entertainment will be high on the agenda, with displays, demonstrations and interactive elements.
The big difference between the two? The LovePets Show is marketing itself largely as a regional show for the Eastern counties – parent company is the Johnston press group and it will throw the might of its stable of local newspapers and websites into a high-profile advertising campaign to get visitors through the door. Its events team has loads of experience organising other large-scale events.
As for the London Pet Show, well, it is London. And along with that come the assumptions, expectations and atmosphere of any major London event. The team behind this show also has the experience of running last year’s Ultimate Pet Show at the NEC in Birmingham.
The organisers are upfront that mistakes were made at that event, but that they have learned from those and can now offer a much better show. And they are certainly having conversations with the right names in the industry. What is confirmed at this stage, for instance, is that their Discover Dogs section is being organised by the Kennel Club and will include a display of 28 breeds and a heat of Scruffts Family Crossbreed/mixed breed of the Year, sponsored by James Wellbeloved.
It’s the battle of the pet shows. I shall be watching developments with interest, and shall certainly visit both.
For exhibitors, it means yet more decisions as to which to attend, and budget juggling to accommodate those decisions.
For owners, it can only be good news – the more shows there are that celebrate pets, the better. And if every owner walks away having learned or discovered something new, that to my mind is success.
Add your comment/view comments
Funny how two buses always come at once. Well, not so funny if you’ve been standing at said bus stop for the last 40 minutes, heavy bags in hand and screaming kids underfoot.
And now we have two all-pet consumer shows. Within six months of each year. The first, the LovePets Show (www.lovepets.me.uk), will take place on November 27 and 28 at the East of England Showground in Peterborough. The second, the London Pet Show (www.londonpetshow.co.uk), will be staged at the National Hall, Olympia, next May 7 and 8.
Both will have distinct zones for the relevant pet. LovePets’ offering is divided into dogs; cats; equine; small pets and birds; and fish, exotic pets and reptiles. The London Pet Show has zones branded Discover Dogs; Discover Cats; Discover Reptiles; Discover Small Furries; and Discover Fish.
Both stress animal welfare, care and education as primary aims, and both say entertainment will be high on the agenda, with displays, demonstrations and interactive elements.
The big difference between the two? The LovePets Show is marketing itself largely as a regional show for the Eastern counties – parent company is the Johnston press group and it will throw the might of its stable of local newspapers and websites into a high-profile advertising campaign to get visitors through the door. Its events team has loads of experience organising other large-scale events.
As for the London Pet Show, well, it is London. And along with that come the assumptions, expectations and atmosphere of any major London event. The team behind this show also has the experience of running last year’s Ultimate Pet Show at the NEC in Birmingham.
The organisers are upfront that mistakes were made at that event, but that they have learned from those and can now offer a much better show. And they are certainly having conversations with the right names in the industry. What is confirmed at this stage, for instance, is that their Discover Dogs section is being organised by the Kennel Club and will include a display of 28 breeds and a heat of Scruffts Family Crossbreed/mixed breed of the Year, sponsored by James Wellbeloved.
It’s the battle of the pet shows. I shall be watching developments with interest, and shall certainly visit both.
For exhibitors, it means yet more decisions as to which to attend, and budget juggling to accommodate those decisions.
For owners, it can only be good news – the more shows there are that celebrate pets, the better. And if every owner walks away having learned or discovered something new, that to my mind is success.
Add your comment/view comments
8 July 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Multi-channel platforms. Now that’s a mouthful. Almost makes you think it’s a new variation to the Hogwarts-meets-King-Cross-Station theme, with perhaps Harry Potter and his gang trooping off on Platform 9¾ to school and Snape and Co zipping off to a summons from Voldemort on Platform 51/2…
Needless to say, it’s not. At its most simplistic, multi-channel platforms (or multi-channel retailing) is marketing-speak for a business that sells via more than one distribution channel, be it mail-order, internet, or bricks and mortar.
It’s interesting that in the pet industry, the clear majority started out as bricks-and-mortar businesses, but with the growth of the internet, a number have added on-line sales into the equation. Multi-channel retailing in action. Part of this was obviously a direct response to the recent phenomenon of purely online pet retailers.
However, this month the pet industry sees a new start-up that is immediately launching two retail streams, and one which is totally new to the industry. I’m talking of animalbargains.com, the new website and TV shopping show aimed purely at pet owners – see the July issue of pbwnews for launch information.
I’m intrigued with this launch and will be watching its development over the next few months closely – its aim is to air five hours of shows a week by December, and if all goes well, animalbargains.com will be launched as its own shopping channel.
I’m curious though as to the actual impact this new launch will have on the pet trade. There are, of course, two angles to consider. One is the internet, and this will have several well-established pet websites to compete against. And we all know the price wars that go on over the internet.
Then of course is the TV shopping angle. Now this is new to the UK, and I like new. “New” tends to shake things up, makes one reassess what one has been doing and whether there is a better way of doing it.
Yes, I know there is a lot of competition and pressure out there on independents, and I know many shops have closed their doors over the last year. But that is why the pet industry has to keep its eye on the ball, and think of new ways of presenting itself and meeting customers’ needs and expectations. It’s a sign of the times, and we all have to move with them.
Which is why I was also intrigued, but not overly surprised, to learn that there is a dedicated animal radio station in America.
Animal Radio is a two-hour weekend programme and involves a host of contributors including a vet, dog trainer, news director, groomer, animal communicator and travel reporter. Different celebrities and their pets are also invited to talk about hot topics or just chat about their pets.
Multi-channel retailing. It’s all about being creative and coming up with new ways and methods of getting a message across to consumers. And inevitably, only the innovative will survive and thrive.
Add your comment/view comments
Multi-channel platforms. Now that’s a mouthful. Almost makes you think it’s a new variation to the Hogwarts-meets-King-Cross-Station theme, with perhaps Harry Potter and his gang trooping off on Platform 9¾ to school and Snape and Co zipping off to a summons from Voldemort on Platform 51/2…
Needless to say, it’s not. At its most simplistic, multi-channel platforms (or multi-channel retailing) is marketing-speak for a business that sells via more than one distribution channel, be it mail-order, internet, or bricks and mortar.
It’s interesting that in the pet industry, the clear majority started out as bricks-and-mortar businesses, but with the growth of the internet, a number have added on-line sales into the equation. Multi-channel retailing in action. Part of this was obviously a direct response to the recent phenomenon of purely online pet retailers.
However, this month the pet industry sees a new start-up that is immediately launching two retail streams, and one which is totally new to the industry. I’m talking of animalbargains.com, the new website and TV shopping show aimed purely at pet owners – see the July issue of pbwnews for launch information.
I’m intrigued with this launch and will be watching its development over the next few months closely – its aim is to air five hours of shows a week by December, and if all goes well, animalbargains.com will be launched as its own shopping channel.
I’m curious though as to the actual impact this new launch will have on the pet trade. There are, of course, two angles to consider. One is the internet, and this will have several well-established pet websites to compete against. And we all know the price wars that go on over the internet.
Then of course is the TV shopping angle. Now this is new to the UK, and I like new. “New” tends to shake things up, makes one reassess what one has been doing and whether there is a better way of doing it.
Yes, I know there is a lot of competition and pressure out there on independents, and I know many shops have closed their doors over the last year. But that is why the pet industry has to keep its eye on the ball, and think of new ways of presenting itself and meeting customers’ needs and expectations. It’s a sign of the times, and we all have to move with them.
Which is why I was also intrigued, but not overly surprised, to learn that there is a dedicated animal radio station in America.
Animal Radio is a two-hour weekend programme and involves a host of contributors including a vet, dog trainer, news director, groomer, animal communicator and travel reporter. Different celebrities and their pets are also invited to talk about hot topics or just chat about their pets.
Multi-channel retailing. It’s all about being creative and coming up with new ways and methods of getting a message across to consumers. And inevitably, only the innovative will survive and thrive.
Add your comment/view comments
6 July 2010: by Sandra Pearce
San Francisco will vote on Thursday on a proposed ban on pet sales in the city. The aim of the ban is to limit the number of dogs, cats and other pets that end up in rescue centres, abandoned and euthanised every year.
The city already bans the sale of rabbits, but the current proposal covers dogs, cats, all small animals, birds and reptiles.
Proponents say that many abandoned pets were originally bought at pet stores and that, with rescue shelters full of abandoned animals, there is no need for pet shops to sell pets. They also argue that such a ban will deal an effective strike against the notorious puppy farms.
Obviously such proposals have divided the community sharply, with loud opposition from the shops that currently sell animals, including nationwide chain Petco. They argue that forcing customers to go out of state to buy their pets will harm local businesses as well as encourage the growth of underground sources. They also say that pet store staff are trained in the care and welfare of animals and are best placed to advise responsible pet keeping.
It’s a tough one, but my gut feeling is that San Francisco will vote for the ban simply because there is such a tidal wave of hostility against puppy mills in the US at the moment.
I shall be watching the events unfold in California with interest. If they do pass the ban, will it open the floodgates and lead to other states pursuing the same? And will such a move eventually filter over to the UK? Watch this space.
Add your comment/view comments
San Francisco will vote on Thursday on a proposed ban on pet sales in the city. The aim of the ban is to limit the number of dogs, cats and other pets that end up in rescue centres, abandoned and euthanised every year.
The city already bans the sale of rabbits, but the current proposal covers dogs, cats, all small animals, birds and reptiles.
Proponents say that many abandoned pets were originally bought at pet stores and that, with rescue shelters full of abandoned animals, there is no need for pet shops to sell pets. They also argue that such a ban will deal an effective strike against the notorious puppy farms.
Obviously such proposals have divided the community sharply, with loud opposition from the shops that currently sell animals, including nationwide chain Petco. They argue that forcing customers to go out of state to buy their pets will harm local businesses as well as encourage the growth of underground sources. They also say that pet store staff are trained in the care and welfare of animals and are best placed to advise responsible pet keeping.
It’s a tough one, but my gut feeling is that San Francisco will vote for the ban simply because there is such a tidal wave of hostility against puppy mills in the US at the moment.
I shall be watching the events unfold in California with interest. If they do pass the ban, will it open the floodgates and lead to other states pursuing the same? And will such a move eventually filter over to the UK? Watch this space.
Add your comment/view comments
29 June 2010: by Sandra Pearce
There have been numerous sightings of mysterious black cats in the Peak District and elsewhere across the country, but can you picture the surprise on the faces of a group of walkers when they spot a red-necked wallaby hopping over a gorse bush? Yet it’s a distinct possibility for there are thought to be about 50 of the marsupials on the loose in the Peak District, Mid Sussex, Yorkshire and Oxfordshire.
Or how about the fact that the UK is home to about 13,000 European yellow-tailed scorpion. These creatures made their way from mainland Europe to the UK in the 1860s, courtesy of merchant ships carrying cargoes of Italian masonry.
In London and the south-east, the population of the ring-necked parakeet, originally from Asia, has reached such proportions that it is now considered a pest and the wildlife agency Natural England allows householders to trap or shoot it. Its population is estimated at about 50,000 and it takes the nesting sites of native birds such as woodpeckers and nuthatches.
There are apparently 1,000 Siberian chipmunks stretching from North Yorkshire to Wiltshire, the result of owners releasing their pets into the wild, and about 10,000 Chinese water deer wander the countryside, the result of a much smaller number originally escaping from Whipsnade and Woburn wildlife parks, according to the Eden Wildlife Report, specially commissioned to celebrate the Eden Channel’s “Great British Wildlife Season”.
That animals can – and do – escape from private collections and zoos is one thing, but for owners to release their pets into the wild is quite another. Yet no matter how much publicity about the threat to native species, if some irresponsible numpty decides to release their corn snake or Hermann’s tortoise into the wild, they will.
Fads cause the most problems: hundreds, if not thousands, of turtles and terrapins were apparently released into the wild when the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle craze died.
Celebrities are in part to blame when they take on an exotic pet. One larger-than-life TV personality famously adopted ferrets from a rescue centre, then handed the sole survivor back (the others apparently escaped) in favour of mini pigs. However, by then loads more ferrets had been taken on by other people, who also thought it was a good idea.
Which is why I give the thumbs up to Kirstie Alley, of Cheers fame, who spends US$40,000 a year on her lemurs and has two full-time zookeepers to take care of her nine primates. She also repeatedly tells people that she does not recommend them as pets as they’re very expensive. Having had them for about 30 years (and recent twin arrivals!), she has written them into her will.
And which is why it is thumbs down to Iraq’s exotic animal market in north west Baghdad, chock-full with every conceivable animal for sale, from monkeys to wolves, porcupines to bear cubs and puppies. According to an AP newswire report, US$8 buys a rabbit and US$6,000 procures a lion cub. All thanks to rich Sheikhs and private zoos.
The lack of government regulation means many animals are illegally imported into the country, and Iraq’s Environment Ministry recognises that an immediate solution is unlikely.
The depressing thing is that what happens in Iraq is not an isolated incident and is repeated in many countries around the world. How many of these animals end up being killed or released into the wild?
There is obviously nothing we can do about this, but we can do is keep our backyard clean, as it were, and maintain awareness about the threat of non-native species establishing a foothold in our countryside. Hopefully this will at some point finally penetrate the thickened skulls of aforesaid numpties…
There have been numerous sightings of mysterious black cats in the Peak District and elsewhere across the country, but can you picture the surprise on the faces of a group of walkers when they spot a red-necked wallaby hopping over a gorse bush? Yet it’s a distinct possibility for there are thought to be about 50 of the marsupials on the loose in the Peak District, Mid Sussex, Yorkshire and Oxfordshire.
Or how about the fact that the UK is home to about 13,000 European yellow-tailed scorpion. These creatures made their way from mainland Europe to the UK in the 1860s, courtesy of merchant ships carrying cargoes of Italian masonry.
In London and the south-east, the population of the ring-necked parakeet, originally from Asia, has reached such proportions that it is now considered a pest and the wildlife agency Natural England allows householders to trap or shoot it. Its population is estimated at about 50,000 and it takes the nesting sites of native birds such as woodpeckers and nuthatches.
There are apparently 1,000 Siberian chipmunks stretching from North Yorkshire to Wiltshire, the result of owners releasing their pets into the wild, and about 10,000 Chinese water deer wander the countryside, the result of a much smaller number originally escaping from Whipsnade and Woburn wildlife parks, according to the Eden Wildlife Report, specially commissioned to celebrate the Eden Channel’s “Great British Wildlife Season”.
That animals can – and do – escape from private collections and zoos is one thing, but for owners to release their pets into the wild is quite another. Yet no matter how much publicity about the threat to native species, if some irresponsible numpty decides to release their corn snake or Hermann’s tortoise into the wild, they will.
Fads cause the most problems: hundreds, if not thousands, of turtles and terrapins were apparently released into the wild when the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle craze died.
Celebrities are in part to blame when they take on an exotic pet. One larger-than-life TV personality famously adopted ferrets from a rescue centre, then handed the sole survivor back (the others apparently escaped) in favour of mini pigs. However, by then loads more ferrets had been taken on by other people, who also thought it was a good idea.
Which is why I give the thumbs up to Kirstie Alley, of Cheers fame, who spends US$40,000 a year on her lemurs and has two full-time zookeepers to take care of her nine primates. She also repeatedly tells people that she does not recommend them as pets as they’re very expensive. Having had them for about 30 years (and recent twin arrivals!), she has written them into her will.
And which is why it is thumbs down to Iraq’s exotic animal market in north west Baghdad, chock-full with every conceivable animal for sale, from monkeys to wolves, porcupines to bear cubs and puppies. According to an AP newswire report, US$8 buys a rabbit and US$6,000 procures a lion cub. All thanks to rich Sheikhs and private zoos.
The lack of government regulation means many animals are illegally imported into the country, and Iraq’s Environment Ministry recognises that an immediate solution is unlikely.
The depressing thing is that what happens in Iraq is not an isolated incident and is repeated in many countries around the world. How many of these animals end up being killed or released into the wild?
There is obviously nothing we can do about this, but we can do is keep our backyard clean, as it were, and maintain awareness about the threat of non-native species establishing a foothold in our countryside. Hopefully this will at some point finally penetrate the thickened skulls of aforesaid numpties…
21 June 2010: by Sandra Pearce
I’ve been a journalist now for close to 18 years, and in those years have met some very special people, people who have touched me in some way, and with whom I hold my all-too-brief encounters very dear.
Like the father of two, sitting paralysed in a wheelchair, dying from motor neurone disease, but who wanted to tell others of his condition to encourage donations to a research organisation so hopefully a cure could be found. Not for himself, it was too late for him, but so other families would not have to go through what his family was going through.
Today I had the good fortune to have a long conversation with Rose Morris. Now retired, she used to work in the kitchen at her local hospital, getting up at 4.30am to start her shift at 6am.
Then when she got home, she would spend hours looking after and caring for abandoned ferrets. Today, she is in her sixties, but she still carries on her rescue work – she’s been taking in ferrets for 23 years now. She and her husband have set up Mercia Ferret Welfare (www.merciaferretwelfare.co.uk), and at the moment are caring for around 90 ferrets – 60 at their home in a specially-constructed shed in Coventry, and 30 at foster homes.
As with all charities, fund-raising is critical for survival. Rose organises some 15 events each year, but this year, for the first time ever, has voluntarily cancelled her events because of a viral outbreak in the north of the country, as she does not want to inadvertently allow the disease to spread throughout the Midlands.
Needless to say, midway through the year things are looking bleak.
A local appeal drew a blank – well, apart from £10 – and she is now using part of her monthly pension to pay for the ferrets’ food, shelter and medical bills.
Yet despite this, she remains totally philosophical – “That’s life”, she says.
No bitterness, no panic, no self-pity. What comes across is this pure love for her ferrets. Yet don’t try and offer any praise – she won’t have it. The fact that she has not had a holiday for 18 years does not bother her one bit, and she derides any suggestion that this act in itself is a form of sacrifice. As she said: “I chose to do this, so why should I complain? I do what I do because I love the ferrets.”
Rose is a unique individual, yet at the core is a love for animals. And this is what makes the pet industry so special.
Every customer who walks into a pet shop to buy something for their pet has a love for their animal. And chances are they will enjoy spending a minute or two talking about the antics their pet has been up to. Savvy indeed is the retailer who creates a database – whether mental or on a computer! – of customers and their pets’ names, and uses this as a form of greeting, establishing and engaging that connection every time the customer comes in.
My local pet shop remembers that I have three guinea pigs, and every time I walk in, someone there asks after their welfare. That attention to detail makes me a more loyal customer.
Whether it is the Roses of this world or the boy with a goldfish, uniting one and all is a special bond between human and pet. And that is what makes this industry unique.
I’ve been a journalist now for close to 18 years, and in those years have met some very special people, people who have touched me in some way, and with whom I hold my all-too-brief encounters very dear.
Like the father of two, sitting paralysed in a wheelchair, dying from motor neurone disease, but who wanted to tell others of his condition to encourage donations to a research organisation so hopefully a cure could be found. Not for himself, it was too late for him, but so other families would not have to go through what his family was going through.
Today I had the good fortune to have a long conversation with Rose Morris. Now retired, she used to work in the kitchen at her local hospital, getting up at 4.30am to start her shift at 6am.
Then when she got home, she would spend hours looking after and caring for abandoned ferrets. Today, she is in her sixties, but she still carries on her rescue work – she’s been taking in ferrets for 23 years now. She and her husband have set up Mercia Ferret Welfare (www.merciaferretwelfare.co.uk), and at the moment are caring for around 90 ferrets – 60 at their home in a specially-constructed shed in Coventry, and 30 at foster homes.
As with all charities, fund-raising is critical for survival. Rose organises some 15 events each year, but this year, for the first time ever, has voluntarily cancelled her events because of a viral outbreak in the north of the country, as she does not want to inadvertently allow the disease to spread throughout the Midlands.
Needless to say, midway through the year things are looking bleak.
A local appeal drew a blank – well, apart from £10 – and she is now using part of her monthly pension to pay for the ferrets’ food, shelter and medical bills.
Yet despite this, she remains totally philosophical – “That’s life”, she says.
No bitterness, no panic, no self-pity. What comes across is this pure love for her ferrets. Yet don’t try and offer any praise – she won’t have it. The fact that she has not had a holiday for 18 years does not bother her one bit, and she derides any suggestion that this act in itself is a form of sacrifice. As she said: “I chose to do this, so why should I complain? I do what I do because I love the ferrets.”
Rose is a unique individual, yet at the core is a love for animals. And this is what makes the pet industry so special.
Every customer who walks into a pet shop to buy something for their pet has a love for their animal. And chances are they will enjoy spending a minute or two talking about the antics their pet has been up to. Savvy indeed is the retailer who creates a database – whether mental or on a computer! – of customers and their pets’ names, and uses this as a form of greeting, establishing and engaging that connection every time the customer comes in.
My local pet shop remembers that I have three guinea pigs, and every time I walk in, someone there asks after their welfare. That attention to detail makes me a more loyal customer.
Whether it is the Roses of this world or the boy with a goldfish, uniting one and all is a special bond between human and pet. And that is what makes this industry unique.
14 June 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Has the world gone completely loopy mad? Dog owners in Tameside, Greater Manchester, who walk their dogs on leads longer than two metres (6ft 5in) in dozens of parks and open spaces can now be fined up to £1,000. Yes, you read right – £1,000! Bear in mind that many retractable leads are between five and eight metres in length.
The rationale? Apparently dog owners who walk their dogs on shorter leashes are more likely to clear up if their dog fouls than those on longer leads.
Talk about non sequitur logic. That’s like saying, football louts are invariably drunk on beer when up to their usual yobbish, destructive behaviour, so we should ban all sales of beer during the World Cup. It just does not work.
Tameside council justified their move, saying the changes will make green spaces ‘more enjoyable’. The measure has been imposed by the council in Ashton-under-Lyne and neighbouring towns under a dog control order.
Needless to say, charities and pressure groups have loudly ridiculed the move, questioning how wardens will police the ban.
Kennel Club spokeswoman Caroline Kisko called the move ‘arbitrary and unnecessary, ineffective and extremely difficult to enforce’.
With more and more local councils jumping on the bandwagon and banning dogs from parks, beaches and open spaces, let’s just hope this latest move doesn’t catch on.
In the meantime, retailers in the Greater Manchester area would be well advised to remind customers buying retractable leads of this latest regulation. And with nationwide complaints of dog fouling on the rise, perhaps more prominent in-store displays of products to help owners pick up after their dogs would be a good idea.
Has the world gone completely loopy mad? Dog owners in Tameside, Greater Manchester, who walk their dogs on leads longer than two metres (6ft 5in) in dozens of parks and open spaces can now be fined up to £1,000. Yes, you read right – £1,000! Bear in mind that many retractable leads are between five and eight metres in length.
The rationale? Apparently dog owners who walk their dogs on shorter leashes are more likely to clear up if their dog fouls than those on longer leads.
Talk about non sequitur logic. That’s like saying, football louts are invariably drunk on beer when up to their usual yobbish, destructive behaviour, so we should ban all sales of beer during the World Cup. It just does not work.
Tameside council justified their move, saying the changes will make green spaces ‘more enjoyable’. The measure has been imposed by the council in Ashton-under-Lyne and neighbouring towns under a dog control order.
Needless to say, charities and pressure groups have loudly ridiculed the move, questioning how wardens will police the ban.
Kennel Club spokeswoman Caroline Kisko called the move ‘arbitrary and unnecessary, ineffective and extremely difficult to enforce’.
With more and more local councils jumping on the bandwagon and banning dogs from parks, beaches and open spaces, let’s just hope this latest move doesn’t catch on.
In the meantime, retailers in the Greater Manchester area would be well advised to remind customers buying retractable leads of this latest regulation. And with nationwide complaints of dog fouling on the rise, perhaps more prominent in-store displays of products to help owners pick up after their dogs would be a good idea.
8 June 2010: by Sandra Pearce
So Julie Walters has won a BAFTA for her portrayal of Mo Mowlam; Spelbound, that talented troupe of acrobatic gymnasts, wowed audiences to win Britain’s Got Talent on Saturday; and Stephen Fry has decreed, “I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water and dirt. Also, not sure where to put it as the winning tweet at the Hay Festival.
Awards and competitions come in every shape and form, are well and truly part and parcel of our lives, intrinisically woven into the fabric of our daily lives. How often have you decided to watch a film, read a book, try a packet of crisps or even (be honest now!) a new soap powder simply because it’s won some award?
Within the pet industry, there is certainly no shortage of awards. Apart from the annual industry awards at PATS and Glee Petindex, the Pet Product Retail Association reveals its winners at PATS, and consumer magazines like Your Cat and Your Dog also host their own very popular and influential awards. And last year, the Pet Industry Awards was launched, a black tie affair that coincided with Glee Petindex.
Are we at risk of suffering from awards overload and voter fatigue? Can our industry actually support this many awards?
I say yes! Credit must especially go to the Pet Industry Awards’ latest categories. Yes, there are the ‘expected’ categories such as Grooming Business of the Year, Supplier of the Year and Employee of the Year, but what I really like about these latest awards is how they have thrown the net far and wide, thinking outside the box, to include Animal Boarding Establishment of the Year and Pet Specialist Service of the Year, the latter of which can include hydrotherapists, dog walkers and sitters, trainers and colleges.
I am even more excited about the categories Service Innovation of the Year and Best Customer Initiative of the Year.
I strongly believe that the pet industry and its legion of independent retailers can survive and thrive only if two conditions are met: product innovation and service.
Whether there has been much true product innovation in recent years or more-of-the-same-only-slightly-different is debated, but there is no denying the fact that new products are coming on to the market seemingly faster than David Cameron can say, “drastic public spending cuts”. And let’s fact it, new products are well catered for in the other awards.
But what of service initiatives? Every retailer I talk to says his/her customer service is second to none, and how this customer service sets them apart from their competitors. Yes, this is how it should be. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, excellent customer service in today’s climate is a given. Retailers – and other business within the pet sector – have to move beyond this and give more. Times have changed, and today’s customer is a more demanding beast. Service today is not just about good advice, people skills and courtesy. And these new awards have captured this new era of retailing, and sets out to reward pioneers.
The new Best Customer Initiative looks at how a business has attracted new customers, retained current clients and helped both new and previous contacts. The Service Innovation of the Year looks at services that have been introduced to the market in the previous year, looking at how such needs were assessed, how the service was developed to meet that need, how it was launched, feedback and its success.
Hopefully these awards will help businesses think more creatively and introspectively about the service they provide. And once winners are announced, it can surely only mean the pet industry moving forward as others study their strategies, adapting them for their own use.
So Julie Walters has won a BAFTA for her portrayal of Mo Mowlam; Spelbound, that talented troupe of acrobatic gymnasts, wowed audiences to win Britain’s Got Talent on Saturday; and Stephen Fry has decreed, “I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water and dirt. Also, not sure where to put it as the winning tweet at the Hay Festival.
Awards and competitions come in every shape and form, are well and truly part and parcel of our lives, intrinisically woven into the fabric of our daily lives. How often have you decided to watch a film, read a book, try a packet of crisps or even (be honest now!) a new soap powder simply because it’s won some award?
Within the pet industry, there is certainly no shortage of awards. Apart from the annual industry awards at PATS and Glee Petindex, the Pet Product Retail Association reveals its winners at PATS, and consumer magazines like Your Cat and Your Dog also host their own very popular and influential awards. And last year, the Pet Industry Awards was launched, a black tie affair that coincided with Glee Petindex.
Are we at risk of suffering from awards overload and voter fatigue? Can our industry actually support this many awards?
I say yes! Credit must especially go to the Pet Industry Awards’ latest categories. Yes, there are the ‘expected’ categories such as Grooming Business of the Year, Supplier of the Year and Employee of the Year, but what I really like about these latest awards is how they have thrown the net far and wide, thinking outside the box, to include Animal Boarding Establishment of the Year and Pet Specialist Service of the Year, the latter of which can include hydrotherapists, dog walkers and sitters, trainers and colleges.
I am even more excited about the categories Service Innovation of the Year and Best Customer Initiative of the Year.
I strongly believe that the pet industry and its legion of independent retailers can survive and thrive only if two conditions are met: product innovation and service.
Whether there has been much true product innovation in recent years or more-of-the-same-only-slightly-different is debated, but there is no denying the fact that new products are coming on to the market seemingly faster than David Cameron can say, “drastic public spending cuts”. And let’s fact it, new products are well catered for in the other awards.
But what of service initiatives? Every retailer I talk to says his/her customer service is second to none, and how this customer service sets them apart from their competitors. Yes, this is how it should be. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, excellent customer service in today’s climate is a given. Retailers – and other business within the pet sector – have to move beyond this and give more. Times have changed, and today’s customer is a more demanding beast. Service today is not just about good advice, people skills and courtesy. And these new awards have captured this new era of retailing, and sets out to reward pioneers.
The new Best Customer Initiative looks at how a business has attracted new customers, retained current clients and helped both new and previous contacts. The Service Innovation of the Year looks at services that have been introduced to the market in the previous year, looking at how such needs were assessed, how the service was developed to meet that need, how it was launched, feedback and its success.
Hopefully these awards will help businesses think more creatively and introspectively about the service they provide. And once winners are announced, it can surely only mean the pet industry moving forward as others study their strategies, adapting them for their own use.
3 June 2010: by Sandra Pearce
That esteemed broadsheet, The New York Times, this week ran an article, “The Truth About Cat and Dog Food”, written by health columnist Jane Brody. My first reaction was to cringe, thinking this was going to be another petfood-bashing article, which papers like the Daily Mail seem so fond of. But then I took a step back and thought to myself sternly, stop being so negative! This is The New York Times, after all.
It started out promising enough with the introduction: “A visit to a local supply store for pets has convinced me that many people’s pets eat better than their two-legged companions, or their companion’s children.
“Whatever you think your pet needs, there is a product ready to meet it: vegetarian, organic, holistic, natural, raw, kosher, all-meat, gluten free, high fibre, high protein, grain free, low fat, ‘lite’ and anti-allergy. There are products for young and old pets and those with sensitive skin, sensitive stomachs and sensitive skin and stomachs, as well as foods enriched with supplements like antioxidants, omega-3 fatty acids, glucosamine and chondroitin, the value of which has yet to be established for people, let alone pets.”
And then she asks the 64,000-dollar question: “I wonder whether people who invest in high-end pet foods are getting their money’s worth. Are their pets really healthier and happier? Do they live longer? And are these foods any better than the generic versions sold in supermarkets and big-box stores?”
She then turns to a book released in mid-May, Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat, written by two scientists who had examined the American pet food industry and the evidence for the value of its products and the claims made for them. The two are Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, and Malden C. Nesheim, emeritus professor of nutrition at Cornell University.
The book looks at, among other things, the origins of commercial pet foods; the ingredients used in wet and dry food; an analysis of the American pet food marketplace; special diets; treats; and supplements and alternatives, including home-cooked food.
They note that premium pet foods cost three to four times more than supermarket brands, and within the premium brands, there is a wide price range, yet the ingredients are strikingly similar since all have to meet certain nutritional standards. The scientists compared 10 premium chicken food for dogs: all started with chicken or chicken broth, followed by grains and vegetables. Non-premium brands used more grains and poultry, meat and fish byproducts.
Their conclusion was that consumers should look for products labelled complete and balanced, as these would meet the nutritional requirements of cats and dogs.
Dr Nestle told Jane: “All pet foods are made from the byproducts of human food production. No matter what the package says, your dog is not getting whole chicken breasts, but what remains after the breasts have been removed for human food.”
The authors said that in seeking evidence for the added value to health and longevity of commercial pet foods, they found almost none with any validity. No agency requires proof of pet food health claims, and no pet food company is willing to invest in decades of research to determine whether its products keep animals healthier and extend their lives, they write.
They went on to state that pet food companies say they do research, but it is rarely done in a scientific fashion, with comparable control and experimental groups.
They did, however, agree that pets were more likely to get all the nutrients they needed from commercial products rather than if owners cooked for their pets themselves. And that the pet food industry serves an important ecological function by using up food that would otherwise be thrown out – if everyone cooked for the 472 million dogs and cats in America, said Dr. Nestle, it would be like feeding an additional 42 million people.
It will be interesting to see whether this book hits the headlines in this country. Currently available via on-line retailer Amazon, it might only be a matter of time. However, I question how important it is that manufacturers address the issue of longevity of a pet. I don’t know of any human food product that says, eating this will extend your life by five years, and whose claim is based on scientific fact and research.
Another concern is that the sample size is remarkably small, especially when you consider the hundreds of products out there. It also seems remarkably simplistic to place both non-premium foods and premium on the same level playing field. The counter arguments against some of these conclusions can run into a major thesis, and this is really not the place for them.
However, when everyone goes on and on about the humanisation of pets, it really was only a matter of time before two human nutritionists interested in food politics wrote a book about pet food.
Ultimately, purchasing decisions are down to the individual consumer and their beliefs, whether these beliefs are influenced by new research and information, or an age-old values. At least books like this provide (excuse the pun) food for thought!
That esteemed broadsheet, The New York Times, this week ran an article, “The Truth About Cat and Dog Food”, written by health columnist Jane Brody. My first reaction was to cringe, thinking this was going to be another petfood-bashing article, which papers like the Daily Mail seem so fond of. But then I took a step back and thought to myself sternly, stop being so negative! This is The New York Times, after all.
It started out promising enough with the introduction: “A visit to a local supply store for pets has convinced me that many people’s pets eat better than their two-legged companions, or their companion’s children.
“Whatever you think your pet needs, there is a product ready to meet it: vegetarian, organic, holistic, natural, raw, kosher, all-meat, gluten free, high fibre, high protein, grain free, low fat, ‘lite’ and anti-allergy. There are products for young and old pets and those with sensitive skin, sensitive stomachs and sensitive skin and stomachs, as well as foods enriched with supplements like antioxidants, omega-3 fatty acids, glucosamine and chondroitin, the value of which has yet to be established for people, let alone pets.”
And then she asks the 64,000-dollar question: “I wonder whether people who invest in high-end pet foods are getting their money’s worth. Are their pets really healthier and happier? Do they live longer? And are these foods any better than the generic versions sold in supermarkets and big-box stores?”
She then turns to a book released in mid-May, Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat, written by two scientists who had examined the American pet food industry and the evidence for the value of its products and the claims made for them. The two are Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, and Malden C. Nesheim, emeritus professor of nutrition at Cornell University.
The book looks at, among other things, the origins of commercial pet foods; the ingredients used in wet and dry food; an analysis of the American pet food marketplace; special diets; treats; and supplements and alternatives, including home-cooked food.
They note that premium pet foods cost three to four times more than supermarket brands, and within the premium brands, there is a wide price range, yet the ingredients are strikingly similar since all have to meet certain nutritional standards. The scientists compared 10 premium chicken food for dogs: all started with chicken or chicken broth, followed by grains and vegetables. Non-premium brands used more grains and poultry, meat and fish byproducts.
Their conclusion was that consumers should look for products labelled complete and balanced, as these would meet the nutritional requirements of cats and dogs.
Dr Nestle told Jane: “All pet foods are made from the byproducts of human food production. No matter what the package says, your dog is not getting whole chicken breasts, but what remains after the breasts have been removed for human food.”
The authors said that in seeking evidence for the added value to health and longevity of commercial pet foods, they found almost none with any validity. No agency requires proof of pet food health claims, and no pet food company is willing to invest in decades of research to determine whether its products keep animals healthier and extend their lives, they write.
They went on to state that pet food companies say they do research, but it is rarely done in a scientific fashion, with comparable control and experimental groups.
They did, however, agree that pets were more likely to get all the nutrients they needed from commercial products rather than if owners cooked for their pets themselves. And that the pet food industry serves an important ecological function by using up food that would otherwise be thrown out – if everyone cooked for the 472 million dogs and cats in America, said Dr. Nestle, it would be like feeding an additional 42 million people.
It will be interesting to see whether this book hits the headlines in this country. Currently available via on-line retailer Amazon, it might only be a matter of time. However, I question how important it is that manufacturers address the issue of longevity of a pet. I don’t know of any human food product that says, eating this will extend your life by five years, and whose claim is based on scientific fact and research.
Another concern is that the sample size is remarkably small, especially when you consider the hundreds of products out there. It also seems remarkably simplistic to place both non-premium foods and premium on the same level playing field. The counter arguments against some of these conclusions can run into a major thesis, and this is really not the place for them.
However, when everyone goes on and on about the humanisation of pets, it really was only a matter of time before two human nutritionists interested in food politics wrote a book about pet food.
Ultimately, purchasing decisions are down to the individual consumer and their beliefs, whether these beliefs are influenced by new research and information, or an age-old values. At least books like this provide (excuse the pun) food for thought!
2 June 2010: by Sandra Pearce
I read an incredibly disturbing story the other day. A number of small mammals, fish and inverts have apparently starved to death after being abandoned in a Californian pet shop after the owners ceased trading.
The owners could now be charged with close to 150 counts of animal neglect for leaving dozens of small animals, fish and inverts to die, charges that are punishable by jail and fines.
Having run the 5,000 sq ft pet store for five years, the couple had apparently fallen behind on their rent and literally abandoned their store one day. Just locked it up and left.
The dead animals were discovered in cages, fish tanks and a skip behind the building when maintenance workers went to drain water from fish tanks and clear out the premises. Some fish had survived and were placed in the care of animal services officers.
Authorities are still investigating and will decide whether to prosecute later this month.
How absolutely awful. Whether the couple are victims of the recession remains to be seen, and who knows what other factors were at play to force them to abandon a store from one day to the next. I suspect all will be revealed if the authorities decide to prosecute and there is a court case.
However, there is no disputing the fact that animals were left to starve to death in most inhumane conditions. And this can only serve to illustrate the responsibilities a retailer who sells livestock has. One cannot just walk out of a store and leave caged animals to their fate. This is just plain wrong.
Could such a situation occur here in the UK? I’d like to think not. No-one wants to face the prospect of losing their business, in much the same way as families do not want to think about the death of a bread-winner. However, if this recession has taught us all something, it’s that we must be prepared. And just as one can buy life insurance for bread-winners to protect against their untimely death, pet retailers do have to have a back-up plan for their livestock.
In the case of having to close a business, will your breeder or stockist take any livestock back? If not, have you any other contingency plan? Should your premises be hit by flooding, or partial fire damage, have you plans for your livestock? Emergency plans will hopefully always remain just that, a plan. But if an emergency does happen, you’ll be glad steps are already in place.
I read an incredibly disturbing story the other day. A number of small mammals, fish and inverts have apparently starved to death after being abandoned in a Californian pet shop after the owners ceased trading.
The owners could now be charged with close to 150 counts of animal neglect for leaving dozens of small animals, fish and inverts to die, charges that are punishable by jail and fines.
Having run the 5,000 sq ft pet store for five years, the couple had apparently fallen behind on their rent and literally abandoned their store one day. Just locked it up and left.
The dead animals were discovered in cages, fish tanks and a skip behind the building when maintenance workers went to drain water from fish tanks and clear out the premises. Some fish had survived and were placed in the care of animal services officers.
Authorities are still investigating and will decide whether to prosecute later this month.
How absolutely awful. Whether the couple are victims of the recession remains to be seen, and who knows what other factors were at play to force them to abandon a store from one day to the next. I suspect all will be revealed if the authorities decide to prosecute and there is a court case.
However, there is no disputing the fact that animals were left to starve to death in most inhumane conditions. And this can only serve to illustrate the responsibilities a retailer who sells livestock has. One cannot just walk out of a store and leave caged animals to their fate. This is just plain wrong.
Could such a situation occur here in the UK? I’d like to think not. No-one wants to face the prospect of losing their business, in much the same way as families do not want to think about the death of a bread-winner. However, if this recession has taught us all something, it’s that we must be prepared. And just as one can buy life insurance for bread-winners to protect against their untimely death, pet retailers do have to have a back-up plan for their livestock.
In the case of having to close a business, will your breeder or stockist take any livestock back? If not, have you any other contingency plan? Should your premises be hit by flooding, or partial fire damage, have you plans for your livestock? Emergency plans will hopefully always remain just that, a plan. But if an emergency does happen, you’ll be glad steps are already in place.
1 June 2010: by Sandra Pearce
The Rabbit Welfare Association and Fund (RWAF) has launched a campaign asking high street retailer Argos to reconsider the sizes of all its hutches.
One of the hutches on sale, the Pent Rabbit Hutch, has an internal length of only 77cm (external measure of 92cm), yet is described as suitable for one rabbit or guinea pig, allowing them to stretch up on hind legs and run freely in the hutch. Argos has also advertised as an on-line exclusive a plastic hutch with an external size of 91cm.
This despite the mounting evidence that rabbits are social animals and are, therefore, ideally kept in pairs. The PDSA and RWAF have also both on numerous occasions said that the minimum recommended size for a rabbit hutch is 6ft (180cm) by 2ft by 2ft.
Up to now, Argos has not taken any of the telephone calls the RWAF has made, although it has responded to individuals who have made complaints. And apparently Argos has contacted the RSPCA for advice.
I, for one, hope that Argos removes these hutches. Apart from the psychological stress and impact of being housed in isolation, such hutches just cannot let a rabbit exercise properly. And this, as we all know, can contribute to obesity and other health issues. These hutches just cannot cater adequately to the welfare needs of rabbits.
It can be truly frustrating for pet retailers who have the best interests of pets at heart, who choose not to sell a number of products because of concerns for animal welfare, yet these products are available for sale elsewhere. Indeed, I know of a number of retailers who will sell only the largest hutches or cages available.
Such practices are damaging for the animals concerned and ultimately the pet trade in general. A trade in which the majority are constantly raising their standards and putting the welfare of the animal uppermost.
If the pet trade were to suddenly decide to sell bicycles, conservatories or even children’s toys, I bet all manner of noise would be made.
There’s a reason the independent pet retailer is considered a specialist, and sometimes it’s best to let the independent trade carry on doing what it does best, without interference from external sources.
The Rabbit Welfare Association and Fund (RWAF) has launched a campaign asking high street retailer Argos to reconsider the sizes of all its hutches.
One of the hutches on sale, the Pent Rabbit Hutch, has an internal length of only 77cm (external measure of 92cm), yet is described as suitable for one rabbit or guinea pig, allowing them to stretch up on hind legs and run freely in the hutch. Argos has also advertised as an on-line exclusive a plastic hutch with an external size of 91cm.
This despite the mounting evidence that rabbits are social animals and are, therefore, ideally kept in pairs. The PDSA and RWAF have also both on numerous occasions said that the minimum recommended size for a rabbit hutch is 6ft (180cm) by 2ft by 2ft.
Up to now, Argos has not taken any of the telephone calls the RWAF has made, although it has responded to individuals who have made complaints. And apparently Argos has contacted the RSPCA for advice.
I, for one, hope that Argos removes these hutches. Apart from the psychological stress and impact of being housed in isolation, such hutches just cannot let a rabbit exercise properly. And this, as we all know, can contribute to obesity and other health issues. These hutches just cannot cater adequately to the welfare needs of rabbits.
It can be truly frustrating for pet retailers who have the best interests of pets at heart, who choose not to sell a number of products because of concerns for animal welfare, yet these products are available for sale elsewhere. Indeed, I know of a number of retailers who will sell only the largest hutches or cages available.
Such practices are damaging for the animals concerned and ultimately the pet trade in general. A trade in which the majority are constantly raising their standards and putting the welfare of the animal uppermost.
If the pet trade were to suddenly decide to sell bicycles, conservatories or even children’s toys, I bet all manner of noise would be made.
There’s a reason the independent pet retailer is considered a specialist, and sometimes it’s best to let the independent trade carry on doing what it does best, without interference from external sources.
24 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Right. Brace yourself. Mrs Victoria Beckham, aka Posh Spice, has jumped on to the Hollywood bandwagon and applied claw caps to the family’s British bulldog’s nails.
20 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
I was reading a news item the other day about a pet parade in the town of Winsted, Connecticut. Dogs on leashes, rabbits and chickens in decorated cages, horses, floats and children on bicycles took part in the 74-year-old Pet Parade, sponsored by the Rotary Club.
13 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
A new pet consumer show is to be launched in November and will include all pets, including horses and fish.
What’s going on in the market?
10 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
There’s been a lot of uncertainty in the country lately – it seems every facet of life is being pressured into not acting in normal patterns. Volcanic ash clouds have closed the air space; weather fluctuations have kept people from the shops; and let’s not neglect the biggest uncertainty, brought about by the General Elections and the subsequent hung parliament.
Read more
10 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
There’s been a lot of uncertainty in the country lately – it seems every facet of life is being pressured into not acting in normal patterns. Volcanic ash clouds have closed the air space; weather fluctuations have kept people from the shops; and let’s not neglect the biggest uncertainty, brought about by the General Elections and the subsequent hung parliament.
Read more
History is in the making
7 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
What a night. What a morning. And there you have it. We have a hung parliament, and as I write this, there is most certainly a fair amount of backroom negotiating going on to try to shape the next government.
7 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
What a night. What a morning. And there you have it. We have a hung parliament, and as I write this, there is most certainly a fair amount of backroom negotiating going on to try to shape the next government.
What’s happened to ‘moderation’?
5 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
The UK has, I believe, one of the longest working weeks in Europe and, as retailers always say, although doors may be closed to the public, there is still a lot of work to do when the last customer leaves.
Read more
5 May 2010: by Sandra Pearce
The UK has, I believe, one of the longest working weeks in Europe and, as retailers always say, although doors may be closed to the public, there is still a lot of work to do when the last customer leaves.
Read more
Tagging was “inappropriate” says judge
29 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
So, Joan Higgins, the pet retailer who was tagged for selling a goldfish to an under 16, has won her appeal and had her sentence quashed.
Read more
29 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
So, Joan Higgins, the pet retailer who was tagged for selling a goldfish to an under 16, has won her appeal and had her sentence quashed.
Read more
Can we save the rabbits?
29 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Rabbit Awareness Week ends on Sunday, a week in which nationwide events were held to help raise awareness about rabbits and their welfare. Formerly called Burgess National Rabbit Week, this year’s event focused on obesity.
Read more
Does a hung Parliament scare you?
26 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Four out of five businesses are worried about the prospect of a hung parliament after the next General Election, says The British Chamber of Commerce.
Read more
The RSPCA is coming
22 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
For over than 180 years, the RSPCA has been taking in abandoned animals.
Read more
Rabbits do what comes naturally
19 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
I had to laugh out loud when I read a report from the Swedish news agency TT.
Read more
The ferrets have landed
14 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
No, not as in a space-craft-arrival-type scenario, but instead being viewed firmly as pets rather than as a working animal.
Read more
The future is now
9 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
When I was a young girl, one of my favourite TV programmes was Buck Rogers in the 25th Century.
Read more
This should never have happened
6 April 2010: by Sandra Pearce
It appears that there is a small but growing demand for monkeys as pets, fuelled (as always) by Hollywood blockbusters and television shows.
Read more
Retailer fined £1,000 for selling a goldfish
31 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
It’s all over the news – a retailer has been fined £1,000 for selling a goldfish to a 14-year-old boy in a sting operation launched by council officials.
Read more
31 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
It’s all over the news – a retailer has been fined £1,000 for selling a goldfish to a 14-year-old boy in a sting operation launched by council officials.
Read more
The plight of our wild birds
29 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Is your wild bird section well stocked? Chances are after today’s news, more people will be popping in to pick up a bag of bird seed or some fat balls.
Read more
29 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Is your wild bird section well stocked? Chances are after today’s news, more people will be popping in to pick up a bag of bird seed or some fat balls.
Read more
Parallel universe
26 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Yes, we have heard it said over and over again that the pet industry is recession proof. And that same sentiment is being expressed over the Pond.
Read more
26 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Yes, we have heard it said over and over again that the pet industry is recession proof. And that same sentiment is being expressed over the Pond.
Read more
What has the Budget done for you?
25 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
If you are a cider-drinking, mansion owner, than you are probably a bit hacked off with the Budget and are busy stockpiling your three-car garage with litres and litres of the apple brew.
Read more
Not out of the woods yet
22 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Two days before this week’s Budget, and industry body CBI has warned of a sluggish economic recovery, with growth projected at one per cent this year, remaining subdued until the middle of next year.
Read more
Headless chickens comes to mind
19 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
You couldn’t get more to-ing and fro-ing at a Wimbledon final. I am, of course, referring to the Government’s proposals on dangerous dogs.
Read more
The power of presence
15 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
It was a victorious DFS Crufts on more than one count.
Read more
England’s extinction event
12 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
It makes depressing reading. Nearly 500 animals and plants have become extinct in England, virtually all within the last two centuries. That’s more than two species every year.
Read more
Can we learn from Elgin, Chicago?
11 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Elgin is one of the fastest growing cities in Illinois, Chicago, with a population of just over 100,000. It is apparently characterized by a large, diverse group of grassroots organizations, and has a strong sense of community pride.
Read more
Who will pay the price?
10 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
I was talking to a London-living dog-owning friend the other day, and she was telling me how her neighbourhood seemed to be awash with nothing but pitbulls and pitbull crosses, invariably owned by youths of a certain age.
Read more
All a-flutter over Twitter!
8 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
More than 10 billion messages have been sent through Twitter since the microblogging site launched in 2006.
Read more
How do you protect your livestock?
5 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
There are some sick people out there. A Canadian pet store is reeling after vandals dumped chemicals into one of the store’s main filtration system, killing 700 marine and freshwater fish, as well as 200 corals.
Read more
David and Goliath?
4 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
It got me thinking. American pet store chain giant (more than 1,000 stores) recently posted positive results, and is expected to grow strongly this year.
Read more
Competency test for dog owners?
1 March 2010: by Sandra Pearce
In a country that has a penchant for legislation, and taking into consideration the almost hysterical reaction every time a tragic story hits the headline about a dog savaging a child, it is perhaps not surprising that a leaked Defra paper shows plans to make dog owners take a competency test.
Read more
You need a tonne of salt
27 February 2010: by Sandra Pearce
You’d think it was the end of the world by these headlines: “Expensive vet bills forcing animal lovers to kill pets” and “Pets put to sleep due to veterinary treatment costs”.
Read more
Can you afford to pay 20 weeks’ of full maternity pay?
25 February 2010: by Sandra Pearce
In a further sign of what many refer to as “EU meddling” and “EU madness” – depending on where you sit on EU involvement – a European Parliament committee has voted on draft legislation to extend fully-paid maternity leave to 20 weeks.
Read more
Prozac for dogs? Surely not!
22 February 2010: by Sandra Pearce
What is the world coming to? A canine version of the anti-depressant Prozac has apparently been approved for sale to British owners.
Read more
Who owns podgy pets?
19 February 2010: by Sandra Pearce
As we are almost bang on the first anniversary of the PFMA’s campaign to cut pet obesity, it is ironic that vet charity PDSA said this week that more than three-and-a-half million UK dogs need to slim down.
Read more
Should dogs and cats be sold in pet stores?
17 February 2010: by Sandra Pearce
Last night, West Hollywood City Council in the US banned the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.
Read more
Pet food under fire – again
11 February 2010: by Sandra Pearce
If there is one thing you can be sure of, it’s that every now and then some newspaper somewhere will bang on about processed pet food killing pets. And this time it’s the turn of the Daily Mail.
Read more
A sting in the tail?
10 February 2010: by Sandra Pearce
So Petindex has reverted to its Sunday opening as a result, say organisers, of feedback from both visitors and exhibitors.
Read more