Milroy Kate Elizabeth, Whiting Martin, Abeyesinghe Siobhan
Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hatfield, UK.
Animal Welfare Science and Ethics, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hatfield, UK.
Vet Rec. 2018 Nov 10;183(18):567. doi: 10.1136/vr.104753. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
Dog fighting became unlawful in the UK in 1835, yet it continues today (as reported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and Crown Prosecution Service), although with an unknown prevalence. We used an online questionnaire to (1) determine the occurrence of dogs suspected of use in fighting in UK veterinary practices; (2) explore relative reporting of incidents to police, RSPCA or equivalent charity by registered veterinary nurses (RVN) and veterinarians; and (3) determine factors influencing reporting. Emails (n=2493) containing the questionnaire were sent to UK veterinary practices: 423 questionnaires (159 by RVNs, 264 by veterinarians) were completed. One or more cases of dog fighting were suspected by 14.4 per cent of respondents in 2015; 182 cases suspected in total. Proportionately more RVNs suspected dog fighting than veterinarians (P=0.0009). Thirty-two respondents (7.6 per cent, n=422) claimed to have reported suspicions to the police, the RSPCA or equivalent charity previously; 59 respondents (14.2 per cent) had previously chosen not to. Reasons not to report included: uncertainty of illegal activity (81.4 per cent), fear of the client not returning to the practice (35.6 per cent) and concerns regarding client confidentiality (22.0 per cent). Further work is required to address under-reporting of dog fighting by veterinary professionals.
1835年,斗狗在英国被认定为非法行为,但如今这种行为仍在继续(据皇家防止虐待动物协会(RSPCA)和皇家检控署报道),尽管其盛行程度未知。我们通过在线问卷来(1)确定在英国兽医诊所中被怀疑用于斗狗的犬只的出现情况;(2)探究注册兽医护士(RVN)和兽医向警方、RSPCA或同等慈善机构报告事件的相对情况;以及(3)确定影响报告的因素。包含问卷的电子邮件(n = 2493)被发送至英国的兽医诊所:共完成了423份问卷(159份由RVN完成,264份由兽医完成)。2015年,14.4%的受访者怀疑存在一起或多起斗狗事件;总计怀疑有182起。怀疑存在斗狗行为的RVN比例高于兽医(P = 0.0009)。32名受访者(7.6%,n = 422)声称此前已将怀疑情况报告给警方、RSPCA或同等慈善机构;59名受访者(14.2%)此前选择不报告。不报告的原因包括:非法活动的不确定性(81.4%)、担心客户不再光顾诊所(35.6%)以及对客户保密的担忧(22.0%)。需要进一步开展工作以解决兽医专业人员对斗狗事件报告不足的问题。