Vets are issuing warnings about a “cruel” and “unnecessary” illegal dog trend that appears to be gaining popularity across the North West region.
Pet owners are being urged not to subject their dogs to the practice of having their ears cropped in light of shocking new statistics, reports Lancashire Live.
A survey carried out by the British Veterinary Association Voice of the Veterinary Profession has revealed that 77% of small animal vets in the North West have seen dogs with cropped ears in the last year.
The region’s figure is also well above the national average of 58%.
The practice of cropping dogs’ ears is illegal in the UK, but a loophole means that dogs with cropped ears can be imported if the procedure has been done outside the country. Many vets believe this may be a contributing factor as to why they’ve seen more dogs with cropped ears in the last twelve months than they have in previous years.
ADVERTISEMENT
Measures to close these loopholes were announced last month, with the government pledging to ban the import of dogs with cropped ears after a petition calling for action passed 100,000 signatures.
The issue was debated in Parliament this week (7 June 2021).
ADVERTISEMENT
Statistics reveal that nationally, the Doberman was the breed most commonly presented to vets with cropped ears.
American Bulldogs and Cane Corsos were the second and third most likely breeds to be seen.
Robin Hargreaves – a veterinarian from Stanley House Vets in Colne – has admitted that he has seen an increase in the “cruel” trend, and believes this may be a result of people lying about where the procedure took place, adding: “I have been in general practice seeing first opinion cases in the community for 35 years [but] until a very few years ago, I had never seen a dog with cropped ears, with the exception of photographs or foreign films.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Maybe three or four years ago, I began to see the odd dog with cropped ears that originated overseas [and] in a very short period of time, my practice began to see young animals with cropped ears.
“Their owners usually said they had acquired the dogs abroad, but we suspect they had done so purely to circumvent the law that prevents ear cropping at home.”
Mr Hargreaves says it’s “critical” that this activity is brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.
“Those involved here must be prosecuted and importation must be scrutinised and discouraged, [and] anyone claiming to be an animal lover should be exposed and shunned If they are propagating this cruel, unnecessary mutilation in the name of vanity,” he added.
This sentiment is also echoed by James Russell – President of the British Veterinary Assossiation (BVA) – who added: “We are deeply concerned that vets have been seeing more dogs with cropped ears in their practices [as] ear cropping is illegal in the UK, so we have to question how it’s possible that so many vets have seen cropped dogs in the past year.
ADVERTISEMENT
“These shocking figures clearly show that urgent action is needed to curb this disturbing rise.
“We were delighted by the commitment made by Government last month to prohibit imports of dogs with cropped ears as well as rooting out illegal practice of this completely unnecessary and intensely painful mutilation in the UK.
“We are now urging them to bring these measures into play at the earliest possible opportunity.”
Featured Image – iStockphoto
UK News
An old clip of Tyson Fury talking about Oleksandr Usyk has come back to haunt him – twice
Danny Jones
This weekend saw Oleksandr Usyk emerge victorious over Tyson Fury for a second time in less than a year as the Ukrainian won the highly-anticipated rematch on points, and now an old clip of the Manc fighter dismissing his opponent has resurfaced online. Again.
Oh, the irony…
After losing following a split decision for what was his first career defeat back in May, Fury lost following a unanimous decision this time around and while some have questioned the scorecards (as tends to happen with these things), there can be no question over Usyk’s dominance now.
However, rewind to a few years ago before the 37-year-old had even won his first fight against Anthony Joshua and Fury’s naive not to mention controversial comments regarding the possibility of ‘giving’ him a fight look pretty silly now:
Tyson Fury a few years ago refusing to fight Usyk
“I want the big fights and that ain’t one of them. He’s a foreigner in a westernised world. The heavyweight champion should be from Britain or America and nowhere else.”
As you can see in the interview from 2020, the now 36-year-old Wythenshawe-born boxer was pretty dismissive about the prospect of fighting Usyk, who ultimately went on to become the first undisputed heavyweight champion since Lennox Lewis in 2000 following the first win over Fury.
Despite already having an Olympic gold, multiple cruiserweight titles and an undefeated record to his name, Usyk had only fought and won two heavyweight bouts at this point, which is perhaps why ‘The Gypsy King’ felt comfortable downplaying his potential back then.
However, although Usyk had a comfortable division debut against Chazz Witherspoon in 2019, he also went on to best Fury’s familiar foe Derek Chisora – a man he’s beaten on three different times but maintains he admires both in terms of personality and ability – so there were signs of what was to come.
Moreover, not only was Tyson clearly foolish enough to underestimate him back then but the divisive and inflammatory nature of his remarks in this clip has been labelled ‘offensive’ and ‘xenophobic’ by many online, both at the time and after reappearing on social media once again.
Regardless, it seems that Usyk was just as unphased by his posturing then as he is now, coming out in the post-fight press conference to shrug off his trash-talking to reiterate his “respect” for someone who ultimately believes is “a good man”.
Nevertheless, Fury has now lost two him twice and still maintains he didn’t get the right decision on both occasions, dubbing this latest defeat “an early Christmas gift” for his opponent.
In the previous clash, the Greater Manchester athlete even claimed that fans and judges unfairly favoured him because of the war in Ukraine – a response which also received plenty of backlash.
You can hear how he believes he was ‘robbed’ along with his full reaction following the fight down below:
Featured Images — iFL TV/Sky Sports (screenshots via YouTube)
UK News
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has increased his stake in Manchester United
Danny Jones
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has increased his investment in Manchester United Football Club, taking his current stake from 27.7% to 28.94%.
The Failsworth-born billionaire officially became a minority shareholder in Man United earlier this year, bringing in the Sports arm of his INEOS petrochemical company and plenty of new personnel with him following an initial £1.25 billion acquisition which saw him buy over a quarter of the club.
While his tenure at Old Trafford has been a somewhat turbulent affair so far – having pleased most fans by taking at least some control away from the family but making a number of less-than-popular decisions of late – he is, at the very least, putting lots of money where his mouth is.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has injected a further $100m into Manchester United and now owns 28.94% of the club. This completes a planned $300m investment pledged at the time of purchase. $200m was paid back then out of Ratcliffe’s personal funds.
As per multiple outlets, the 72-year-old has pumped a further of approximately £79.3m into Man United to increase his overall stake just before the end of the year.
This latest figure payment was actually promised as part of his initial partial takeover which was completed back in February, with a filing listed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) confirming the final payment this week, with Ratcliffe receiving additional shares in return.
It also detailed that the ownership of the shares has transferred from Ratcliffe personally to the INEOS Group as a whole, who also have stakes in French football club OGC Nice, the INEOS Grenaiders cycling team (formerly Team Sky), as well as Formula 1, sailing, rugby and more.
Although supporters will be pleased to hear that Ratcliffe is committed to investing in the club, Keegan’s article details that the money itself won’t be strictly put towards any potential signings in the upcoming transfer window.
Similarly, Press Associates (PA) understand that the funds will be put towards infrastructure rather than player recruitment, as it is also expected that some squad members could be offloaded this January.
News of Ratcliffe increasing his United stake won’t do much for many of his early detractors, however, as the Greater Manchester local has been accused of ‘forgetting his roots’ and ‘betraying the working class’ with some recent internal steps.
Most recently, Sir Jim and his newly rebuilt executive board received immense backlash for increasing ticket prices for remaining games this season to a whopping £66 across the board, with no concessions made for young, old or disabled fans.
With sporting director Dan Ashworth having been dismissed after just five months – a man who spent just as much time on gardening leave at his former club as he did in his actual role at United – it’s fair to say Ratcliffe and co. could have been more economical.